BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house would ban beauty contests.

I will argue that beauty contests for adults should not be banned.If consenting adults want to participate in the beauty contest, they should be free to do so. The only reasons I can think of that would justify taking away these rights is, if people got harmed or if the organizers of the beauty contests would force people to take part in them.But no-one is forced to participate or watch beauty contests.If you don't like beauty contests, then you are free not to take part in them.If you object to the criteria used in beauty contests, then do not watch it.Contestants are willing adult participants, and are generally not harmed. I think my opponents argument completely misses the point. The criteria in beauty contests may be hypocritical, but that does not mean it should be banned. Clearly, beauty contests are about beauty. Decades ago, beauty contests were only about beauty. Intelligence and talent did not play a role at all. Over time,because of the women's right movement, public opinion changed and beauty contests just judging beauty were no longer politically correct. So beauty contests introduced "intelligence tests" where beauty queens had to answer questions, or talent portions where contestants could show off their talents.For example, in Miss America, the talent portion has become more important over the years:"Artistic performance, position statement, and talent categories have been added to the contest through the years. Today, the Swimwear category makes up less than 30% of the scoring. "http://en.wikipedia.org... Watson, Ellwood; Martin (2000). "The Miss America Pageant: Pluralism, Femininity, and". Journal of Popular Culture 1 (34): 105–126. But let's not kid ourselves, the main criterion is still beauty! But even if one disapproves of beauty contests, it should not be a reason to ban it. After all, noone is forced to participate or forced to watch it. Individual freedom is a good reason not to ban pageants.My opponent has not yet given a good reason to ban the pageants.
This house would ban beauty contests.

Beauty contests have started for a long time. Picking out the most beautiful and intelligent men and women in the world or a particular region has long been a tradition. But as time passes, we can see that there is a need for banning beauty contests. Because the target, goal for holding beauty contests has changed. For a lot of years, the associations of holding beauty contests tell us that they pick out the most beautiful and intelligent men and women in the world or a particular region by how beautiful and intelligent are the competitors. However, what we see today is that now people watch the beauty contests are only concerned about the beauty of the people. Just a slight reminder, the beauty means something likes the beauty shape, not about their intelligence or their quality and the heart. Take Miss Asia as an example, there are prizes like the winner, 1st runner-up, 2nd runner up. These are prizes that should be included. But Miss Photogenic Award, Miss Perfect Skin Award, Miss the most Appeal Award are also the main prizes of Miss Asia. Only one prize about intelligence - Miss Great Intelligence Award. Beauty contests have lost their true meanings, picking out the most beautiful and intelligent men and women in a particular region or country, most intelligent, kidding!
Bob Ewell Hunting Out of Seaon

Argument 1: When Bob hunts, he kills an innocent life form. When Bob hunts, he kills an animal. An animal is a life form [1] that has done no wrong to Bob, it has not provoked him. The animal is innocent. Yet, Bob still sets out with his gun and sheds innocent blood. Is this not wrong? The law is in place to prevent the mass shedding of innocent blood. Thats why there are hunting licenses[2], to restrict the mass shedding of innocent blood. Bob should not kill animals illegally. Argument 2: While Bob may not be able to feed his family, that does not mean that others cannot do it for him. Just because Bob cannot feed his family does not mean his neighbors cannot provide for his family during his absence. Or, he can get government welfare to help provide for his families needs. Or, he can go to the grocery store. There are many other methods of feeding ones family than hunting. Argument 3: When someone breaks the law, the law must be enforced. Again, following the logic that the law must be in place and must be enforced when broken. The current law does not even demand that Bob would have to go to jail for his crimes, merely pay a fee. [3] Bob should pay his fees and stop hunting illegally. In conclusion, Bob should not hunt illegally for 3 reasons. First, the illegal shedding of innocent blood. Second, he can still get food for his family using other methods than hunting. Third, he is not even required to go to jail, merely pay a fine. He should pay his fine, get a hunting license, and feed his family that way if need be. Thank you, I look forward to the remaining portions of our debate. Sources:[1]. https://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]https://www.dgif.virginia.gov...[3]http://www.kscourts.org...
Bob Ewell Hunting Out of Seaon

Bob Ewell hunts illegally out of season. Atticus says that it is ok because Bob breaks the law so often it ends up taking more of societies resources to charge them than it does to leave them alone and suffer the consequences. Putting Bob in jail would mean he wouldn't be able to hunt or feed his family. Is it ok for Bob Ewell to hunt illegally out of season? Defend your answer.
should rich people pay higher taxes

so what they worked harder it is a contribution to our economy but rich people are greedy who think every one else that is poor should stay poor so they can keep being rich. with richness comes corruptness it is only fair their are people out their starving why? not because they don't work hard but because their is no work. if you take the usa top businessmen and richest of the rich who all have over 20 billion dollars and make them pay 1 billion a year while they are still making money it would take 19 years what is the point of living if your not going to get back Proverbs 17:16 Of what use is money in the hand of a fool, since he has no desire to get wisdom? money will be of no use to people when their dead. and right now the richest people in America are getting right up their
should rich people pay higher taxes

1. Rich people have more money because the vast majority of them worked hard for that money. Bill Gates built Microsoft and made billions. He should not be punished for being successful. Rich people already pay most of the income taxes in america today. http://money.cnn.com... 2. Our debt problem will not be solved by over taxing the job creators. If we make the rich pay even more in taxes than they already do, they will just lay some employees off because they wont be able to make as much money. The way to solve the debt problem is by cutting spending and taxes. If we abolish all foreign aide and pull all our troops out of every other country in the world we wouldnt have to spend as much on military so we could cut the military spending. If we abolish the FED, they could finally stop devaluing the dollar. We could repeal the 16th amendment so that no body would have to pay an income tax because you worked for that money you should be able to keep it. Then we should abolish the IRS and cut the funding to the EPA. If we legalize all drugs and let all prisoners who were convicted on NON VIOLENT drug charges out of prisons, we would be able to drastically lower our prison population because we have the highest prison population in the world. Lowering the prison population would mean spending less on prisons so the government could use that money saved for something like road repair. Once we get a balanced budget we could begin paying off our debt.
should rich people pay higher taxes

I'm fighting for lower taxes for all Americans. Which is why I say repeal the 16th amendment. Nobody should have to give a portion of their paycheck to the government. You make these claims about the rich paying next to nothing, yet you provide zero sources to support your claims. I understand the flexibility but I do not believe that a successful businessman needs to pay a higher percentage of their income to the government than the average american. Yes Bill Gates can make due with 71 billion instead of 72 billion but there is no reason he should have to give up a billion dollars to the federal government just because he is successful. What you are advocating is socialism, spreading weath around. Taking from the right and giving to the poor. Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money.
should rich people pay higher taxes

people are selfishly fighting for taxes on the richer class be lowered. throughout history the top class has paid next to nothing while the lower and middle class has to be burdened with taxes so yes our top class should pay a little more and if they are not going to do it from the kindness of their hearts maybe we should force it out of them from the darkness of their souls. hmm it seems as if you don't fully understand the flexibility of mankind if a person can live with making 200 bucks a month then I pretty sure bill gates can make due with 71 billion instead of 72 billion so what you are defending is the corruptness of society's upper class don't let that happen again for so many years it has happened under our nose monopolising and destroying government after government don't let it destroy our government
should rich people pay higher taxes

They are already contributing to our economy by owning a business. Your argument pretty much says that if you work hard and build a company or somehow become rich, then you need to give more money to the government which the government will waste on things like this. http://blog.heritage.org... You are right in the sense that there is no work but how would rich people giving more to government bring work to the poor? It wont if anything it will mean there will be less jobs or the businesses will raise the prices on their goods in order to make more money.
Modern Feminism is dead

Thank you for responding, I will refute what you have said in two ways. 1: You offer no source for your definition, and you never said in your first speech, meaning that my definition of dead was the first one, as well as the only one with an actual source. This means that my definition beats yours.2: Even still, with the definition of "dead" being essentially none, all I have to do is prov that there was 1 legitimate act of feminism recently (so, let's say in the past 6 months). With that in mind, let's look at the "One Billion Rising Revolution". In the past four years, this organization has helped feminism in huge ways. In 2016, "activists in 200 countries rose up to demand an end to violence against women and girls as part of the global One Billion Rising movement. Using dance as a form of protest – events, rallies, flash mobs, artistic uprisings, panel discussions, and concerts took place in locations where women felt safe or deserve to feel safe, in community with other activists or alone, with people of all abilities, demanding justice and systematic changes, or reclaiming their bodies, their lands or their narratives. " This quote was taken straight from their website, where they describe what they are doing this year. Here is the specific link:. http://www.onebillionrising.org...;So now I have proven that there is at least 1 actual feminist movement. This means that even real feminism is not "dead". I win even on your definition.
Modern Feminism is dead

When i say that Modern Feminism is dead, i mean that there's no actual "feminists" who stand up for equal rights. The only feminists we get today is radical feminists (aka Feminazis). Feminism has no significance or use in the modern day society. radical feminists is different from Feminists. Radical feminists want women to be more powerful than men, and feminists actually want to help women oppressed in other countries and fight for gender equality. But you don't really see feminism now days, because it's dead
Modern Feminism is dead

Before I start my speech, let me just say a definition that will hold a major part in this debate - dead. See, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that dead means "no longer having interest, relevance, or significance". This basically means that the resolution is saying that modern feminism doesn't have an impact on our world anymore. Therefore, if I can find even one example of modern feminism being "alive" (impacting the world in some way), I win this debate. Also, keep in mind that this does not mean that feminism has to be doing good. Even if feminism is bad for us, it is still considered "alive". So now I am going to refute what my opponent has said in their speech. In my opponent's speech, they talk about the negative effects of feminism on society, pointing out the hateful posts, the stupid trends, etc. However, this only proves my point. Feminism is "alive", feminists are doing things (whether or not they are good) that have an impact on the world, meaning that feminism is not dead. I would actually like to point out one specific thing my opponent said - "modern feminism is stupid and shouldn't exist". Even my opponent says that modern feminism exists and is having an impact on the world, as he is saying that it shouldn't exist (implying that it does now). So, I am not going to make a case for this debate. Pro has burden of proof, meaning all I have to do is properly refute what my opponent has said to win. I thank my opponent for their case. Good luck!
Modern Feminism is dead

Feminism is he belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men, however, there are feminists out there who use "the power of feminism" to try and make women more superior than men. Modern Feminists are women who love to ban harmless words and tell men how to live their life, and that doesn't sound like equality to me. Feminists are the type of females who love to go around assaulting men knowing that if a man was to get her back he'd be sent straight to the big house. If you find pages that support feminism on social media, you'd see posts with hateful/negative posts towards men. Modern Feminism is stupid and shouldn't exist because they aren't really doing anything to equal rights with men, if they were, they'd be helping out women in Saudi Arabia who are actually being oppressed but no, they're still living a free life trying to force men how to live their lives, if anything men are being oppressed now days. Feminists are known to start stupid trends such as, #BanFathersday, #KillAllMen, The Slut Walk, and the most disgusting of all, #FreeThePits. There was also a time where feminists made a video with little girls making them curse about stupid things. Feminism is pathetic and it should be stopped. https://twitter.com... https://twitter.com... https://feministfreq.com...
THB: God does not exist.

Con offers no more refutation than "that"s just your opinion", which is remarkable- A mathematical proof by contradiction is one of the least opinion-based series of statements one could conceive of- it uses deductive reasoning to demonstrate that the claim being proven is OBJECTIVELY true as its negation is objectively false. This is as far from an opinion as you can get. I invite my opponent to re-read my R2 argument, and to actually address the matter of God"s existence being impossible due to omnimaxinality"s internal inconsistency. They should also address the problem of evil- how can bad things happen if God both wants to stop them (oknibenevolence) and is able to (omnipotence)? Most of Con"s statements are completely irrelevant to the motion, and I will not insult the reader"s intelligence by rigorously pointing out that these are irrelevant. Instead, I will simply address the relevant statements only. Con said that there is no evidence that God does not exist. This is false- the problem of evil and the inconsistency of omnimaxinality are both evidence that God does not exist. Con said that the Bible makes testable predictions which have come true (the implication being that as the Bible also predicts the existence of God, it must be so). It is worth noting: 1: The Bible is guilty of a phenomenon similar to the Barnum effect (see source 2) in that it makes large numbers of vague statements- in doing so, it makes it likely that something will be interpreted as a correct prediction, while false claims are dismissed as metaphorical, or otherwise "brushed under the carpet". 2: Many of the Bible"s factual claims are demonstrably false. For example, consider Genesis 30:39: "they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted." (See source 3) If this is ambiguous, read adjacent verses for context- the author of this verse clearly has no understanding of genetics, as they suggest that goats reproducing will cause the patterns of their environment to be reflected on the skins of their young. This is nonsense. So, the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific fact- it makes large numbers of false statements, and those statements which do apparently come true are explained by their vagueness and the sheer number of statements made. So, to summarise my case: 1) Omnimaximality is inconsistent, and therefore God cannot exist. 2) If God exists, bad things would not. Bad things exist, and so God does not. 3) The Bible is not a credible source of factual information, as it makes many false predictions and it"s true predictions only appear true as they are vague and numerous. Sources: [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://biblehub.com...
THB: God does not exist.

Sadly, opinions exists in the Billions. NONE are FACTS nor proof of anything but self importance and self thought! The Topic states God does not exist ... that is of course complete opinion. You submit opinion as fact, that is illogical as fact implies TRUTH in some facet. You of course have none, in opinion! Therefore let us review and if you can ... you can"t but, you can try, to despute actual evidence, and not opinion. No evidence exists, scientific or otherwise which disproves Gods existence. FACT! No scientific evidence exists which explains existence of human life or animal life in a tangible environment. FACT!No scientific experiment has produced tangible (able to be held in human hands) Living life, from nothing in any experiment to date! FACT!This simple FACT proves that Science is incorrect in their unscientific presumption of life beginning by crawling out of primordial ooze, since no such proof exists, of tangible life COMING FROM nothing, bacteria or microbe. FACT!Living animal life of every sort REMAINS PRODUCED ONLY BY EGG. FACT!Evidence of human souls exists in the millions on photographic and video media. This preponderance of evidence suggest that 100% of them cannot be proven false. Therefore if even ONE IS true it IS evidence of an afterlife. FACT!Heaven, Hell. There is scientific and lie detector test which prove that people HAVE experienced going to either place when they where in fact legally dead. Both religious and nonreligious humans. All remain lifelong impacted by the experience. Proof of potentiality of existence! FACT!The same Bible which ACCURATELY described future events also bears witness to the existence of Heaven and Hell. Describes who IS and who isn"t going to each place and for how long. FACT!True events, described in the Bible. Destruction of Jerusalem ... all 3 times, reign of Alexander the Great, the Generals Alexander would leave the empire too! Israel becoming a Nation in a single Day. The alignment of stars 2000 years BEFORE the alignment was to happen with such clarity that it was monitored by World News media years and months in advance of September 23rd 2017! FACT! The 6 day War in Jerusalem .. future destructions of earth leaving only 2.5 billion alive of the current population. Still to occur obviously ... but, it WILL BE A FACT! These are evidence! You have shown no evidence to the contrary! Merely closed minded opinions which are not evidence. Fact: IF bacteria and microbes CANNOT BECOME a visible touchable Living Creature ... how could it CRAWL out of ANYTHING? To of course BECOME something that HAS TO PRODUCE AN EGG ... to reproduce?
THB: God does not exist.

I will use a proof by contradiction (see source 1) to prove the claim "God does not exist". I.e., I will assume the opposite to be true (that God DOES exist) and then show that this leads to an impossible situation, and therefore that "God does exist" cannot be true, and therefore that "God does not exist" must be true. If God exists, then there exists some being which is both omnipotent and omniscient. If a being is omniscient, then that being cannot also be omnipotent, as there is something it cannot to- gain knowledge. Something which has infinite knowledge cannot conceivably experience learning, as it has nothing to learn. Therefore, there is something it cannot do, and it is not omnipotent. Likewise, if God exists, then there exists some being which is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If a being is omnibenevolent, then it cannot also be omnipotent, as there is something it cannot do- it cannot perform evil. If God can choose to be evil, he is not omnibenevolent. If God cannot choose to be evil, he is not omnipotent. Similarly, omnipotence contradicts itself- can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that the being itself cannot lift the object? If so, then the being is not omnipotent as it cannot lift such an object, and if not then the being is not omnipotent as it cannot create such an object. The three above examples demonstrate my first point: 1) God cannot exist, as omnipotence contradicts itself, and a being cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient, and nor can it be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My second point is on the existence of evil. It rests on the idea that there are bad things in the world- cancer, famine, rape, bloodshed, hurricanes, to name a few. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to stop bad things from happening. If God is omnipotent, he is capable of stopping bad things from happening. However, bad things happen, which indicates that God does not exist- if he did, he would have stopped the bad things. So, my second point: 2) If God exists, bad things would not. Bad things do exist, therefore, God does not. Sources: [1]:
THB: God does not exist.

Challengers should note the 4000 character limit. Definitions: "God": An omnimaximal entity which created the universe and rules over it. "Omnimaximal": perfect in every way- perfectly good (omnibenevolence), perfectly powerful (omnipotence), perfectly knowledgeable (omniscience) etc. Equal BOP on both parties. Con may argue in R1, or may choose to just accept the debate. If Con does present an argument in R1, they must wave R3 and give me the last word.
We Need a Border Wall

Yes, we need a border wall, but not on Mexico, but on Canada. I realize that there are a lot of illegals coming from there, but the Can-Am border is even easier to infiltrate (i remember reading something about it). As of now, there haven't been any reports of terrorists choosing to enter through Mexico, but with the heightened sense of security, it'd be wiser to come through Canada. I also believe that the Illegals stimulate the economy. It helps small businesses prosper, because they don't have to pay them as much, and ultimately, that's a good thing, because small businesses seem to be more personable than bigger corporations.