BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion after the baby becomes sentient is immoral and wrong

My argument is a rather short and simple one so here it goes, - Killing sentient beings is wrong - Normally baby's become sentient around the 3 month period and 3 months to make a decision of what to do with the baby is long enough. - In today's society where we have birth control and condoms, Having an unwanted pregnancy is very uncommon and most of the time it only happens due to birth control failing, Condoms breaking, Or rape. On that note 3 months is long enough for the unwanted pregnancy to be aborted.
The Language that Everyone Will Know

"Language is the system of words and signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings toward each other [1]. It is part of a culture and part of who you are. Some people speak English while others speak Russian. There many languages and to substitute that with only one language takes away a HUGE piece of your culture and your uniqueness." Well, the language that everyone would know could be a secondary language, just because everyone knows it, it doesn't need to be a primary language. For example if you go to India, many Indians know Hindi as well as English, this preserves the cultural identity, yet allows them to speak to tourists. "Come to think of it, it is probably impossible to make 1 new language that everyone will know. It"s not because of the words, grammar, pronunciation, etc., but because of the people who will actually speak the language. Seriously, who will actually give up their own language just for a new one? Leaving your own distinct language would leave so much history and culture behind." As I said earlier, the language does not need to be a primary language, it can be secondary. I would like to come back to my point about Indians who speak Hindi and English. These two languages have extremely different grammar rules and pronunciation. I speak them both, and they are extremely different, but I am fluent enough in Hindi to speak with Indians when I visit India. Also I would like to point out we don't have to make a new language for everyone, people can learn one of the major languages of the world such as English. "Let"s just say that somehow the language is accepted and eventually becomes the language that everyone knows. With the new language, many jobs can be lost. Businesses and websites that focus on one language (ex. Spanish) and teach it will shut down. Why you ask? Well, because Spanish is a dead language now like all the others so no one speaks it. Remember there is only one language that everyone knows. Language teachers that focus on one language will also lose their jobs. Also every single interpreter would lose their job. This actually would be major ingredient in the increasing unemployment rate." Again you are assuming that no one would want to learn there original language. Most foreign language teachers wouldn't lose their jobs. Also interpreters could still be useful for people who don't want to speak with locals. Many people don't hire interpreters anyway. When I go to foreign countries, I don't see interpreters waiting to be hired, in fact many people won't visit a foreign country if they don't know the language there. Also interpreters could be hired more instead as more people are willing to go to counties that they never wanted to before, knowing that they could communicate with people. Some of them would likely want an interpreter who could help conversations flow more smoothly, it is impossible for all the locals to speak fluently in secondary languages.
The Language that Everyone Will Know

As I said before: Language is the system of words and signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings toward each other [1]. It is part of a culture and part of who you are. Some people speak English while others speak Russian. There many languages and to substitute that with only one language takes away a HUGE piece of your culture and your uniqueness. Come to think of it, it is probably impossible to make 1 new language that everyone will know. It’s not because of the words, grammar, pronunciation, etc., but because of the people who will actually speak the language. Seriously, who will actually give up their own language just for a new one? Leaving your own distinct language would leave so much history and culture behind. Let’s just say that somehow the language is accepted and eventually becomes the language that everyone knows. With the new language, many jobs can be lost. Businesses and websites that focus on one language (ex. Spanish) and teach it will shut down. Why you ask? Well, because Spanish is a dead language now like all the others so no one speaks it. Remember there is only one language that everyone knows. Language teachers that focus on one language will also lose their jobs. Also every single interpreter would lose their job. This actually would be major ingredient in the increasing unemployment rate. [1]-http://www.merriam-webster.com......
The Language that Everyone Will Know

Having a language that everyone will know would be a good idea. A language that everyone would know could help tourists and businesses. When a tourist goes to a foreign country, he or she wouldn't need a translator. Instead they could get the information from a local. Also a standardized language can help business. For example if a foreign customer came into a shop it would be useful if the customer and employee could speak in the same language so the employ can help the customer.
Pokemon is the best ages 10-15 ages game series ever

Pokemon, to me, is currently the best 10-15 years old game series of all time. It has a very engaging gameplay and it has a better demographic than games like minecraft. It is a lot less violent and also takes the things kids love and puts all together in a fun journey. The latest additions to the series, Pokemon X and Y have great graphics since it is in 3D. Take that up with the large fanbase, there is a never ending adventure to this. Competitive battling is a part of the never ending experience. Also, there remains the oh, 718 Pokemon you can capture? Take that Super Mario. I look forward to whoever accepts my debate and hope to have a great debate
God does not exist.

i m not furrther thinking abt pro's #1 and 2 #3: god created people so that we could think what is right and wrong for ourselves. He gives options, we choose. He knows that believing in Him is necessary for us but He does not force us to do so. He does want us to believe. but not forcefully, He wants us to want to believe in Him and He doesn't WANT to make us want sth we don't want without force. In short, God doesn't want us to go against our will. #4: i still claim that god exists. except hearing His voice, people in times of old testament have seen him and bible was written in that time, so if it was a fake story, people would have claimed that those stories were fake and they didn't, which is enough proof that those stories were true. thus, god has an A component and thus both the others as well.
God does not exist.

ok let's take a look at what pro has said. his argument #1 i have no objection his #2: evil should not exist if there was god. that's not true. don't we all know that to appreciate the good, we need to know the bad? God wanted man to live as he wished (he, ie, man) it is because of man that all evils have come into existence. God has nth to do with this. #3 god knows everything. Well, He does. As I mentioned before, God wants man to have his own desire. He wants him to believe in him but He does not run after it the way some men run after money. #4 before you tell that to me, you should learn who god is. There is an A component in god. People have heard His voice, and a person who doesn"t exist should not have a voice. Thus, both B and C are also present in God now for my arguments: #all things exist: it is understood. #someone must have created them: almost everything we use today except for people animals and natural resources, almost everything we have is man-made. these also must have been created by SOMEONE. and that someone is god. #if god was not there nothing would have been in this universe.
God does not exist.

ok...i accp not bcoz i thnk ill win...bt bcoz i love my lord. He accps me wen no one else does. And as i said in my previous debate.....no one who does not exist will be able to answer prayers. i claim my belief in him through few incidents: my sis ws born premature with some disease called septisemia. she ws a high risk child n that time due to some problems in the hospital, she ws nt evn very well cared for. i had been pleading my parents for a baby sis for some yrs now n ws shoked that wen they finally gave me my wish, she might be dead without evn once seeing me. i prayed hard bt aftr 15 ays she had to be discharged even though she was nt completely well; prayers of family nd church saved her. well, i knw tht u will use scientific thngs for ur support. well, let me tell u this, science doz nt prove His existence it doz nt evn prove that He doz nt exist. another thing, i've seen lame people walk and blind people see by prayers in front of my eyes. i have even seen the dead come alive. more to come, but let me 1st clarify that i dnt understand gr8 eng words, so plz use simple language
9/11...inside job

I would first like to began that every "fact" or observation put forth by 9/11 conspirators saying that 9/11 was an inside job has been thoroughly debunked by experts in the fields of demolition, aviation, government, and any thing else involved.. First off the thing you say about the only building falling from fire, the WTC were built around and supported by specially made metal that would quickly melt at a certain heat. hence, when the buildings reached that heat, they collapsed. Osama Bin Laden through indirect communication warned the Clinton administration that the United states would be attacked, which Clinton abruptly disregarded. I am probably the biggest advocate on this site in regards to Oil being the drive behind U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. You argue Iraq, but Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, and yes we did go into Iraq simply for oil. anybody who reads anything important about current affairs knows that. I am also Syrian, and two years before 9/11, I was in Syria and my family was talking about how the radicalist conversation over there was full blown anti-American, and distinctly remember my aunt telling my mother that soon America would be forced to deal with the radicalism that my family in Syria deals with on a daily basis, and my mother (7 generation American) said that would never happen in disbelief and what today can be viewed as naivness. You are undermining the Intelligence of our government to say that they need an inside job like 9/11 to re-enter the middle east (even though we have had troops stationed over there for over 35 years). all they had to do was ignore the radicalist threats on American soil, and allow it to happen once. The government will never go that far out of the way to get what it wants, politics is manipulation, not conspiration.
It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks

We cannot overlook the danger posed by allowing Red Indians and Europeans to freely interact with one another. My opponent attempts to downplay this, saying that it was only cowboys that caused all of the problems with the Indians. However, in doing so he neglects decades of wars fought between the very government of the United States and the indigenous peoples thereof. The fact of the matter is, there has been too much enmity between these two races to risk antagonizing them further. In addition to this major risk, we have to address the significant flaws in my opponent's argument. First, we must look again to my refutation of his first argument. Indians come from all parts of the country, from varying environments and even drastically different lifestyles. Displacing them from their native homelands and setting them up in national parks that may or may not bear any resemblance to what they are used to would set them at odds with their surroundings, rather then allowing them to live in harmony. My opponent's point about drawing tourism to parks, while valid, only serves to reinforce my own case, as increased contact with each other would only result in increased chances for outbreaks of violence. Finally, his economic sustainability point really isn't realistic. I already pointed out that the goods he suggest Indians produce would not be able to be produced in many areas of the U.S. He countered with the assertion that they could simply buy cigarettes and cranberry sauce from stores and repackage them. To this I have several issues to raise. For one thing, repackaging and selling under a different label is illegal. Indians could be prosecuted for doing so. For another, how exactly would Indians get the money to buy these products, hmm? Ultimately, what we have to ask is whether or not these Indians would be better off left alone. The way things stand today, Indians lead successful lives on their reservations. To quote The Gorillaz, they are "innocent of the litany of excess and violence" that plagues the world around them. They are able to support themselves on the meager revenue gained from gambling institutions and the sale of traditional crafts. Transplanting them from their homelands to National Parks would be unfair to them, and dangerous for all parties involved. Except Hispanics. I don't think they have anything against Hispanics. If we weigh the best interests of the Native Americans and of ourselves, we can only come to the conclusion that this resolution must be negated. And remember, a vote for the Con is a vote for Sarah Palin jokes. Heh heh heh...pitbulls.
It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks

Whilst it is true that there were some minor local difficulties between the Indians and the white folks, my opponent ignore the fact that most European settlers were peaceful, everyday people who lived quiet, ordinary lives. After all, schoolboys don't play Shopkeepers and Indians or Bank Clerks and Indians do they? No, it's always Cowboys and Indians, isn't it? Yes, it's the cowboys who cause all the trouble so all we need to do to prevent inter-ethnic violence erupting in the National Parks is to put signs up at the entrances reading: "NO COWBOYS". There! Problem solved. Regarding my opponent's second contention that importing Red Indians from all over the Americas would be untenable, I agree. My suggestion is merely to introduce sustainable breeding populations into the parks and allow them to grow in numbers organically, according to the amount of natural resources available to sustain them. This will involve hunting wild animals which, as my opponent pointed out, would normally be considered illegal but the Indians could do what wealthy country landowners do and call hunting "wildlife management" instead and get round the law that way. Finally, it is true that the Red Indians may not be able to grow tobacco or cranberries in every park in the US due to regional climatic differences but this need not prevent them from trading in these products. They could buy in cheap cigarettes from China and jars of cranberry sauce from Costco and just repackage them, selling them on as "Big Chief Sitting Bull's Filter-Tipped Prairie Cigarettes" or "Little Craw Squaw's Genuine Wigwam-Made Cranberry Sauce – heap big tasty with um turkey" . Think about this. If my plan is enacted, the next time you visit a National Park, you could be chased by Red Indian warriors on horseback who are all shooting arrows at your car! How much fun would that be? A lot more fun that looking some dusty old photographs in the visitors center, that's for sure! So come on folks - Vote Pro – you know it makes sense. Thank you.
It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks

In terms of human habitation, the US National Parks are practically sterile. Of course, they never used to be like that - they used to be home to the Red Indians, but they were evicted when the parks were created. Of course, nobody wants to see the development of ugly, modern homes and businesses within the boundaries of the National Parks but the Red Indians are native to the American countryside and are as much a part of the landscape as the buffalo, wolves and bears (1). Furthermore, Red Indians live in harmony with nature – they hunt only what they need to eat and their wigwams do no damage to the environment. In addition, they would attract tourists to the National Parks who would no doubt be extremely keen to see real, live Red Indians in their natural habitat. I mean, who wouldn't want to see a tribe of redskins in their headdresses dancing around their totem pole, whooping and waving their tomahawks about? (2) Finally, in terms of economic sustainability, the Indians can trade animal skins, tobacco and jars of cranberry sauce for what they call ‘thunder-sticks' and ‘firewater' or any other goods they require from ‘um pale faces'. In conclusion, by reintroducing Red Indians into US National Parks, not only will we be restoring the natural fabric of the American wilderness but more tourists will be attracted to the parks as well. In light of these undoubted benefits, I would urge you to vote Pro. Thank you. (1) http://www.nps.gov... (2) http://davelandweb.com...
Actual Fun

What is morality? We see it as something regular and accept it as a given. The concept usually seems un-curious. But let's look at it on a very basic level. The concept is based on the idea of opposites at its root. It orbits the idea that some things are good, while others are bad. And, in fact, morality does not really go any deeper than this shallow concept. "Good" and "bad" don't really have any meaning that isn't completely superficial and imagined. All "good" is, is the opposite of "bad" and vice versa. But what IS good…what IS bad? ... Not only do good and bad only have meaning in being the opposite of each other, there is really no fundamental difference in their concepts, since each concept is essentially being the opposite of the other. This assertion may seem odd to some, who will without a doubt in their mind lay out to me what is "good" and what is "bad". But how are these defined? A man might tell me that consuming the flesh of a gorilla is wrong, but also tell me that recreational sex is wrong. But what fundamental connection is their between monkey-eating and birth control? …NONE. The only thing that defines what the rules of morality are, is a bunch of things called Homo sapiens, that live on a inconceivably small dot of existence called "earth". A visiting alien that might come would be perplexed by the way these monkeys are irrationally opposed to certain ideas. And since all morality is, is a superficial perception of humans, it is therefore an illusion. For morality to have substance in any form exempt the human thoughts there must be some sort of universal, unseen entity such as a god which would decide what is moral and immoral. This is referred to as a god, and this concept does not have any sort of steady ground or basis. Therefore, it would be best to exclude this concept from the debate. The other way for morality to exist is if there was such a thing as a goal. There are no goals beyond animal minds, however, and therefore could be defined as an illusion. If there were some sort of fundamental goal or purpose to the dead physical matter of the world, than morality could exist, but this would imply a god, and should therefore be dismissed. -Harlan
Actual Fun

Thank you for the challenge. I would like apologize that in our previous debate I was not punctual. Here are my suggested topics (I would be PRO for all of these, but you can rephrase them so that I would be CON, if you see fit): - Free will does not exist - Death as a form of punishment by government is wrong - 9/11 was a govt. inside job - Morality is an illusion - Censorship is a poison to society - For a god to not accept all souls into heaven would be cruel - Speech should not be regulated by government at all - Schools should not make students to acknowledge the pledge of allegiance in any form -Generally speaking, the best way to improve the educational system is not to force a teaching style on the teacher, but to hire a new teacher who will naturally follow that teaching style. (might need to shorten that one)
SHould voting be mandatory for all US citizens

Ok first of all I will fix your opening argument. "NO ALL CHiLDREN IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND MOST PPL WHO DO NOT VOTE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS." "The answer to the question is no voting should not be mandatory. Not all children are mature enough to cast a vote, and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process. There we go much better, first of all I will point out I personally am 100% opposed to mandatory voting. In fact I think that we should issue a IQ test before voting but that would make it way to hard for Obama or Hillary or liberal nominees in general. Ok first thing is first "not all children are mature enough to cast a vote" according to the laws in this country in order to vote you must be 18 years of age. Eighteen is the point in time when a child is now legally and adult so your point about children not being mature enough is moronic children do not vote. "and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process." Well, that in fact may be a true statement but that is the point of high school, generally speaking by the age eighteen you should be old enough to know where you stand as far as politics are concerned.
Affirmative Action

My opponent brings up how Affirmative Action has helped bring together everyone, but he doesn't explain how Affirmative Action has done that. He makes Causality Fallacy, just because we have made progress and affirmative action, does not mean it's due to affirmative action. He brings up college and affirmative action, which is a funny one. Blake V California Regents, saw California use Affirmative Action to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, the Supreme Court found the case in favor of Blake [1]. I would go further, but there isn't anything else to refute.Thank you and please vote Con!Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Affirmative Action

In a civilized society, we as humans must live together peacefully. " That isn't going to happen if we don't take affirmative action. So without affirmative action, there will be no Kingdom of Ends. If we want everyone to be treated equally, the first thing we have to do is to make sure that the ones who are treated badly get benefits. Even if a small portion of people who get help from affirmative action are actually helped, it does not mean that we should stop it. Besides, money here is wasted anyway, but spending it on affirmative action is a good idea. Please forgive me for such short arguments as I am in a hurry and do not have much time.