BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god is deliberate genocide

I really hate smug teeny bopper religious folk who think they have the answers for shape-shifting hour glass figurines of chocolaty goodness wind up toys in that silvery window like you of glittery prize rainbows. Um no farm boy that's up to you, all the time, no exceptions, none, for YOU to prove YOUR god because after all how can YOU test and demonstrate something, namely YOUR god that's never been tested nor demonstrated ---ever--- in all of human history? Twiddling your lips and thumbs will not help you either in your exploits of "I don't know" which is what ALL good scientists and atheists will say because nobody knows. And oh yes, YOUR religion most certainly does portray YOUR god as a mass murderer. I even gave you the verses for your cherry blossom glass bottom feeder to look up. Nah but see, you like the rest of them, cannot---even---read---your---torah---if---it---killed---you, just like christians cannot read their bible's if it killed them. So get to work!!!
god is deliberate genocide

Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, all serial killers, all rapists, all tortures, all pedophiles, all sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them according to the bible which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, disgusting, repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all which included the torturing and killing of babies still suckling on their mothers nipples, children, pregnant mothers (which would be abortions so christians cannot be against abortions because that would be a contradiction)... the great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count there was according to the malignant bible? 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? Nope. Oh and btw, there"s no such a thing as "love" within any genocide. RULES: Prove that god is NOT a homicidal genocidal maniac and that he does care and is filled with mushy love. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister then Theresa May.

Firstly I would like to say I am a Labour Party member, so both of these politicians to me are extremely toxic. However it is my opinion that Teresa May is a marginally better Prime Minister than Boris Johnson would be. My opponent claims Boris Johnson is an extremely intelligent man, true of most leading politicians so not really something that could carry the debate. My main problem with Boris Johnson is simply that the man has no ability to deal with foreign affairs. For instance he was recently caught on camera reciting a pro colonial poem about British soldiers in Burma by Kipling in front of a Burmese delegation. As a Prime Minister he would offend many countries. He once accused the President of the United States of being anti British because of his Kenyan Heritage. He said the President of Russia looks like Dobby the House Elf and accused the current U. S president of having stupefying ignorance. He would not only diminish Britain's standing on the international stage but ruin chances of good relationships with other countries in post Brexit Britain. When editor of the Spectator he referred to black people as, Piccaninies with watermelon smiles. He has also said the families of the Hillsborough victims had nothing to complain about. In short, not someone we want as Prime Minister. . https://www.cnbc.com...
Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister then Theresa May.

It may have occurred to the more observant users of this website that the UK is withdrawing from the EU. Quite frankly, when the tory party elected May to lead us through this difficult time no one could have foreseen that the "new iron lady" would have made such a hash of the whole thing. Instead of uniting the country under one banner she has consistently divided us over issue after issue to the point where the only issue the average brit can agree on is that she needs to go! Meanwhile, Boris Johnson waits in the wings. This man is charismatic, charming and most importantly a very intelligent man. Lets look at his qualifications. Scholarship to Eton, then a second in Classics whilst at Oxford, champion debater and President of the Oxford Union. Most importantly, Mr Johnson is a popular, twice elected mayor of London who, no matter how eccentric has been a uniting force in British politics time and again. In short, at this difficult time in Britain's life, it is important that we, the Great British public not feel like we live on a different isle to our government. I sincerely believe that Mr Johnson is one of the few politicians who can provide unity in a time where the only certainty is that Theresa May must go!
Abortion

According to science, There are seven things that determine life. -Responding to their environment -Growth and change -Reproduction (this means that a being is able to reproduce one time in their life. Saying a fetus is not a life because of this is like saying a young child is not life because they cannot reproduce. ) -Having a metabolism and breathing. (A fetus can breathe, Just not on its own power. ) -Being made of cells -Expelling waste -The passing of traits to offspring This may vary based on what source you use, But all of the sources I found all said things that a fetus does or has. As for the Bible, I believe you are referring to Genesis 2:7 when it talks about God breathing in the breath of life into Adam and how he became alive when that was breathed into him. Since Adam was the first human, He could obviously not have been born the way people are born. God did not just breathe life into Adam though, He breathed the breath of life, God's own breath. God did not breathe the breath of life into other animals, Just Adam. Eve also had the breath of life in her from Adam. This is only referring to Adam and nobody else. Genesis 7:15 is not a counter to what I just previously said. It talks about when animals got on the ark, They were filled with the breath of life. The word breath in 7:15 and 2:7 are used in different words in the Greek. 2:7 means more doing with the soul that 7:15 does. Since 7:15 was about the animals going onto the ark, God directed them to the ark not by their own power, But his. This dies not refer to the breath of life Adam received in 2:7. Abortion is debunked both by science and by the Bible. I believe women should have the same rights as men, But I do not believe a woman should have the right to do this. I know you are probably thinking I am a hypocrite, But I encourage you, Myself, And everyone reading this to still do more research on this controversial topic. We cannot rely on sources we do not look into ourselves.
Abortion

Just because I believe in a smaller, Government does not mean tat I do not think they can make important decisions that affect peoples' lives. What I mean is that I do not want a government that dictates what a person will be when they are an adult, What religion they should follow, If they have free speech, Or anything like that. A good example would be slavery. Slavery destroyed African Americans' life, Liberty, And their pursuit of happiness. A decision had to be made that would affect America forever. In this situation, The government had to step in. This relates to abortion because abortion violates the unborn baby's life, Liberty, And their pursuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence promised all people should have. If the government did not make any important decisions on immigration, Gun rights, Gay marriage, Taxes, Or freedom of speech, There would be no point in having a government. Thomas Jefferson said that he wanted the American people to barely remember that there is an American government. I partially agree with him. I do not believe America's government should be extremely powerless, But I do believe the power should be limited. Abortion is just as controversial today as slavery was in 1861. Slavery, An important part to many of the Southern Americans, Was fixed. Slavery abused human rights. Since abortion also abuses human rights, Why can that not be fixed?
Abortion

Reproduction is the most personal issue, How hypocritical can one be if one says they want the government out of peoples lives but insist on sticking a big police floodlight up a womens snatch? I embrace big government since you brought it up, I would be in favor of a liberal sort of socialism or social democracy like in western europe where the market is preserved private in dustry dominates but a welfare state taxes care of people, Regualtions protect the environment and workers, Adn taxation redistributes wealth. I 'd love to abolish the Second amendment it is absurd to think a bunch of over weight drunken civilians could take on the us government which has the best rained and equaoped soldiers with some semi automatic ar 15s. . All that the gun culture does is create chaoes and death, And yet as much as i love to interfere, As much as i embrace the nanny state EVEN I would not dare to think the government has any business in the bed room or regualting human reproduction in any way
Abortion

I both agree and disagree with your statement. I am not in favor of having the government controlling much of peoples' lives. I believe that the 2nd amendment should not be repealed. Also, Communism or socialism would be terrible for our nation. Both of these things show the government limiting the peoples' power and their say. The people should have as much of a say as possible. This is the part where I disagree. You mentioned heroin and alcoholism. Heroin is illegal to protect people and the place they are living in. Public intoxication is illegal for the same exact thing, Protection for both the person and the community. That is exactly why I believe abortion should be illegal. I believe that abortion is murder and there is science to back it up. If heroin never harmed anyone, Why should it be illegal? If public intoxication was safe, Why there be any need to make it a crime? The sad reality is that people do these things and get harmed by them. Abortion does harm just like heroin and alcoholism do. Hope to hear back from you soon.
Abortion

This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pubmed/4078859he author advocates a brain-life theory of humanness, Which asserts that the fetus is biologically a human being at the point at which its brain begins to function. Human life is thus viewed as a continous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero at 8 weeks' gestation and the occurrence of brain death Fetal viability, The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the uterus I am loath to force a women to bear a child i AM LOATH TO impose my values on others, That is the difference between me and your catholic tyranny, Or evangelical protestant tyranny which is actually worse, At least cathlics like to have a good time now and then, Protestants are so boring
Challenger's choice

1. Uniforms' deterrence"A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education suggests that school uniforms can help reduce theft, violence, and the negative effects of peer pressure caused when some students come to school wearing designer clothing and expensive sneakers. A uniform code also prevents gang members from wearing colors and insignia that could cause trouble and helps school officials recognize intruders who do not belong on campus." [http://0-files.eric.ed.gov.opac.msmc.edu...]It seems that uniforms can deter violence and gangs (and inevitably, drug abuse). Besides, even with school uniforms we still work hard to prevent my opponent's problems proposed. Just because we have a deterrence to violence, crime, and gang does not mean we will stop continuing to prevent it. My opponent offers no studies to support that if school uniforms were required, then we wouldn't work just as hard to solve my opponent's problems. In fact, we would work just as hard, it's just that with the deterrence, stopping these problems are easier than ever! Thus, we should require uniforms to help us prevent these problems and minimize bullying, violence, and theft.2. Constitutional rightsThe "Classic" argument as always. But have you thought--these students can still express themselves through jewelry and extra accessories, such as that black armband, or different shoes. People still have the right to express even with uniforms.3. Entire clothing needs of childrenStill, buying uniforms are cheaper overall than just buying clothing. Study finds that "the average American family is encountering a figure approaching, and in some cases surpassing, $300 per child for back-to-school clothing. Contrast that figure with the cost of a year's worth of school uniforms. The cost of a year's worth (Five tops and five bottoms) of school uniform or standardized dress code clothing is $150 (http://www.frenchtoast.com...)."-- cited from http://www.examiner.com...Along with its other positive benefits already stated above, school uniforms are definitely worth it.4. Formal dress codesHere my opponent contradicts himself against the "disregarding the freedom of expression" school uniforms supposedly brings. He states himself, "It is simply impossible to prevent the students from displaying their personal taste even in uniforms." We see here, with the stylized uniforms, my opponent's "Contriction of freedom of expression" argument, the core argument against school uniforms and possibly the most important one, is defeated.As for the need to implement dress code, these little stylizations are nothing compared to v-neck t-shirts or revealing dresses. It is better to have the students customize their uniform than be able to customize any type of clothing they want. Hang in there my opponent! Only two rounds to go.Back to you.
Challenger's choice

Thanks my opponent for his quick reply and not falling to the School Uniform FF curse.My opponent tries talking about the clothing of students and how they are bullied. It is exactly this problem that school uniforms cure. You see, bullies have less things to bully if they all look to wear the same thing. Furthermore, economic differences are separated. Instead of someone wearing epic designer jeans in contrast to normal jeans, we have everyone wearing similar uniforms. "Educational psychologist and TODAY contributor Michele Borba thinks uniforms are a good idea because they create “emotional safety at a school, which is pivotal to learning. Having kids wear uniforms will reduce bullying because kids won’t pick on each other for how they’re dressed, she said, and in urban settings, gang affiliation through dress will go down as well. The uniforms also reduce distractions, Borba said." http://www.today.com...This psychologist is totally right. Pure logic proves that uniforms will help hinder bullying.My round one points are not refuted. Back to you sir, and I hope you become the second user to ever avoid the School Uniform FF curse!
Challenger's choice

Okay let us get started! I have never been a big fan of school uniform – some argue that it levels the social playing field for poorer students, but I don't find that very convincing. If people are all in the same faded red jumper and ill-fitting grey trousers, it is reasoned, there is less room for judgment than if Lizzie fails to own the same Armani jeans as Beth. But publicly humiliating boys for having cheaper, non-leather versions of the generally accepted black school shoe, potentially takes some of the power out of that argument. The state sixth-form college I attended had a nonexistent clothing policy – many of us took our A-levels in pyjamas without a teacher batting an eyelid – and a track record in results that rivalled the nearby private schools. At one of those private schools, my friend was being harassed, repeatedly, about his haircut by a cohort of adults. At one point, the headmaster of this prestigious institution was left with his head in his hands by the very idea of a (clever, well behaved) young boy whose naturally curly hair went slightly past his ears. Suspension from school was seriously discussed – even expulsion. He was a straight-A student. It was utterly absurd. While both boys and girls can find themselves on the wrong side of the school uniform law, there is a difference in how they are treated. What counts as "smart" for girls all too often hinges on how revealing their outfit is deemed to be: in schools such as Ryde Academy, for instance, clothes must not be "provocative". But which teacher is it who goes around making the judgment call on whether teenage girls' trousers are excitingly tight, rather than just straining a bit after an ambitious lunch? . http://www.ehow.com...
Obama should run again.

I accept Pro"s definition. A lot of people in America really, really hate President Obama. Hate groups have risen by over 700% since President Obama took office. "According to the SPLC, the number of radical "anti-government" militia groups increased from 150 to 1,274 during the years of the Obama presidency. There have been more homegrown domestic terrorism attacks by right-wing groups than by international terrorists during his presidency as well, Potok noted." [5]. Despite President Obama being born in Hawaii two years after it became a state and despite President Obama attending a Christian church with his mother since he was a baby, these radicals believe President Obama is not American and a secret Muslim. These radicals want to get rid of him [6]. I, personally, do not want to see our siting President to get injured by radicals that live among us, nor would him being injured by radicals be in his best interest. For this reason, President Obama should not run again for his own well being. Sources: [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://www.infinitelooper.com...
We should save the bees by banning neonicotinoids

The Pro has the burden of proof. I have the burden of clash (prove the Pro wrong). I win if I prove we don't need to save the bees, if the harms of saving the bees outweigh the pros, or if I prove banning neonicotinoids will not save the bees. My opponent wins if he successfully proves and defends all three areas and then wins the cost benefit analysis. (If you do not agree with these burdens just say so). Good luck!
We should save the bees by banning neonicotinoids

The second round is constructive speeches, no rebutting shall occur. The third round will the rebuttals. You may only respond to your opponent's argument and extend your case in these speeches. The fourth round will be the closing statements. Each side can: Respond to opponent's arguments, point out arguments that were either dropped completely or handled incorrectly; and summarize the debate as a whole and give the reason(s) why they think they should win the debate. Evidence use is encouraged, and evidence will almost always trump an analytical response--the exception being if the opponent can point out why the evidence is bad or should not be taken into account. You must give a link or source for each piece of evidence at the end of your speech. That's about all I have to say, message me if you have any questions. Good luck and have fun! :)
Some Men Say Why

This is my first debate on the site so we'll see how things go! Before I begin my real arguments, I'd like to present some contextual analysis of the word "why", especially in the terms of my opponent. He seems to look at "why" as a depressing, lackadaisical statement that is uttered when one is looking for reasons to do something. "Jimmy, clean up your room! " "*sigh* But why? !" Because he looks at the word with such a limited perspective, he fails to understand the true impact of such an inspirational and important question. On face value, the "why" of something is the explanation of it. Why is the sky blue? Because the air molecules refract certain spectrums of light, especially blue light. Why is the moon so beautiful? Because we have imagination and wonder, and when we look at such shining pinnacles of light and perfection we cannot help but feel emotion. Why am I crying when I've never been so happy in my life? Why are Polar Bears dying out? Why aren't we doing enough to help the victims of genocide in Darfur? Inherently, when we ask why we are looking for an explanation, we want to go deeper, we want to pursue curiosity. By asking why we accept that we do not know everything, but we also accept that we can make ourselves better. We are open to the explanation, we are eager to learn. Imagine a math classroom; the professor is lecturing on a chalkboard about the Pythagorean Theorem. The students can react in two ways: they can take notes, stay silent, and memorize the theorem, or they can raise their hand and ask why it works that way. In the first scenario, the students might know the Pythagorean Theorem, but they don't understand it. In the second, not only do they know they theorem, they can also apply it. Even in the context of my opponent's limited view of "why", it is an important question. For instance: Why do I have to go to work today? You know what? I don't know! I don't know why I have to go to work, why I have to subject myself to the misery of the daily grind! My job isn't even right for me, it's keeping me from pursuing my dreams, from doing what I'm good at, from doing what I love. Why is a beautiful question, and I shudder to imagine a world without its curiosity, its urgency, and its grace. Hoosier has taken a very narrow view of the true scope and magnificence of the question. I hope that he reconsiders his opinion, and I hope that you, the good frequenters of debate. org, choose to vote Con. Thank you very much for your time! ~Aietius