BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not enough debates are started on this site

Yeah since my opponent stated nothing again, I will restate my argument "I go to debates in the challenge period and what do I see? Two measly debates! I want hundereds!" There are actually one hundred debates it's just that they get taken so quickly, that when a person looks for one then there is only two or four. Also there is always at least one debate that is there so you can choose that one. " I want a variety! I want to choose! I want honour! I want pride! WHos with me?" There is a variety considering that there are a couple of debates there. Also if you wanted so much variety then make a debate your self. About the honor and pride I can't help you with that but there is always a way to make more debates which is to make your own. Now to my points You always can make debates which people always accept within 1 and 1/2 days. There is always at least one debate posted And you can always encourage friends to start one to. There are 4,000 debate in this side so there must be a lot started. Thank you,
Not enough debates are started on this site

Since my opponent didn't post anything I will restate all my points and add a couple. "I go to debates in the challenge period and what do I see? Two measly debates! I want hundereds!" There are actually one hundred debates it's just that they get taken so quickly, that when a person looks for one then there is only two or four. Also there is always at least one debate that is there so you can choose that one. " I want a variety! I want to choose! I want honour! I want pride! WHos with me?" There is a variety considering that there are a couple of debates there. Also if you wanted so much variety then make a debate your self. About the honor and pride I can't help you with that but there is always a way to make more debates which is to make your own. Now to my points You always can make debates which people always accept within 1 and 1/2 days. There is always at least one debate posted And you can always encourage friends to start one to. There are 4,000 debate in this side so there must be a lot started. Thank you,
Not enough debates are started on this site

Thanks for holding this debate, First I will rebutt my opponents points and then move on to mine. "I go to debates in the challenge period and what do I see? Two measly debates! I want hundereds!" There are actually one hundred debates it's just that they get taken so quickly, that when a person looks for one then there is only two or four. Also there is always at least one debate that is there so you can choose that one. " I want a variety! I want to choose! I want honour! I want pride! WHos with me?" There is a variety considering that there are a couple of debates there. Also if you wanted so much variety then make a debate your self. About the honor and pride I can't help you with that but there is always a way to make more debates which is to make your own. Now to my points You always can make debates which people always accept within 1 and 1/2 days. There is always at least one debate posted And you can always encourage friends to start one to. Thank you,,
Notre Dame High School (Sherman Oaks, California) has one of the best football teams in California.

My opponent has yet to answer my arguments, thus They conceed that to be one of the best football teams in California, the NDHS football team must be within the top five teams in the state. My opponent has not proven that this is the case. So essentially, vote for me, there are many football teams in California that are better than the NDHS football team.
Notre Dame High School (Sherman Oaks, California) has one of the best football teams in California.

Notre Dame High School does not have one of the best football teams in California. San Diego (the Chargers), San Francisco (49ers), Oakland (the Raiders), USC (Trojans), UCLA (Bruins), Cal (Bears), and Stanford football teams could all easily defeat Notre Dame High School in a football game. The NDHS football team should not be considered one of the best football teams in California unless it can be considered in the top 5 teams in California. That means that the NDHS team would need to be able to defeat two of the seven teams above, as well as any of the other teams in California. The affirmative must prove that the NDHS football team can defeat the football teams of colleges and professional teams in California. Otherwise, the affirmative has lost the round.
Notre Dame High School (Sherman Oaks, California) has one of the best football teams in California.

NDHS has some of the best star players in the entire country, including 3 top ten players(Wes horton;Defensive End,Anthony Mcdonald;Middle Linebacker, and Dayne Crist; Quarterback).Wes Horton is the #8 ranked DE in the country, the #1 DE in California. Anthjony Mcdonald is the #5 MLB in the country, the #1 MLB in California, and Dayne Crist is the #2 Quarterback in the country, the #1 Quarterback in California. NDHS won 3 consecutive CIF championship, in 2002,2003,and 2004. Notre Dame also had a 36 game winning streak and when NDHS moved to the Serra League from the Mission League, they won every league championship except one.
God is real

I accept your challenge. I thank the Pro for proposing such a polemic subject, and want to be clear that I respect any individual that practices or not a religion. Therefore, I ask the Pro not to take this debate in a personal harmful way, as what I say here is my view about religion, and that I hope this conversation will be healthy and beneficial for our knowledge. In this debate, I shall prove with arguments and facts that God is not real, but an illusion, and how this is easily noticeable if seen from a neutral point of view, specially in this era of communications and technology.
The story of Noah's Ark is impossible

Many people are familiar with the story of Noah's Ark: A man named Noah who foresees an oncoming flood that will surely wipe out all life. However, he wishes to save all animal species. He does so by constructing a large ship; and Ark, and loads two of every animal species aboard. But how can one man build a vessel of such titanic proportions in just a matter of DAYS, let alone coax all those animals to board without being killed in the process? Because of this, I believe that the story of Noah's Ark is false. A ship of a size to house two of every species of animal in the world would be as big as the American state of Rhode Island! In addition, Noah would have to first gather a sufficient supply of resources (lumber, lashing, etc.) and then still have to BUILD the actual thing in a week at most. The ship would have to have strong structural integrity, gates/ramps that open and close to let the animals in and out, food for the animals to eat, and no holes/gaps in the ship's hull, for it may sink. How would Noah get all the animals aboard? He couldn't just simply tell them to. In the story, they knew. But many animals fear human contact, and most likely do not speak English, contrary to the tale. He would need to travel all over the world, capture the animals, and load said creatures into the Ark. He would undoubtedly be attacked by undomesticated/wild animals (i.e. lions, tigers, wolves) who have no desire to be caged. Noah would receive severe bites, lacerations, poison, blindness, and loss of limbs during his expedition. In addition, Noah would require to feed each and every animal, whether it's deer, grass, or fish, which he'll also have to gather. ONE MAN had to do all this, which would take him several decades to build, harvest, hunt, travel, and capture. It would take an entire civilization to do all this in approximately 10-15 years, covering gathering, travel, and build time. And that is if they do this with HASTE! It's simply not possible to complete such a difficult, laborious, and time-consuming task. Based on my analysis of Noah's Ark, the story, should it repeat itself, would not be deemed possible. ONE MAN had to do so many great tasks and build an enormous vessel on top of all that, plan its construction, all in a week. Even for the strongest, fastest man on Earth would not be capable to accomplish this. Therefore, the matter of it is, the famed tale of Noah's Ark, is impossible to accomplish.
God as a Biblical Figure is Evil

God, as a figure in the Bible, is clearly an evil figure by any reasonable form of morality. This is a figure that genocides entire people, a figure that created man knowing they would sin and setting it up so they would fail, supports slavery and supports the killing of people for minor offenses that aren't even wrong like gay sex. This is a figure who is clearly evil. To begin, he is a mass murderer. Many a time, God has wiped out entire people. The whole world during the time of Noah, the first-borns of Egypt during the time of Moses and many more. He has killed countless undeserving innocents, and for this, he is an evil figure. Secondly, he has enforced horrible laws. He allows slavery and supports the branding of slaves and having people born into slavery, he supported the stoning of adulterers, the killing of gays and the death of those who refuse to follow him. The laws he had enforced are cruel and sadistic, and for this he is an evil figure. Third, God is a sadistic torturer. God is so cruel, he has deemed every single human being deserving of being horribly tortured in hell. He has sentenced scores of people to this unimaginably evil torment for crimes as small as not believing in him. This is a despicable and evil thing to do, and he is an evil character for doing so.
God as a Biblical Figure is Evil

Alright, so my opponent fails to address the killing of the first-borns of Egypt, which I would strongly like him to address. Secondly, when God flooded the world, we have to deal with two prime issues. One, what about everything else on Earth? The vast majority of animals were drowned, as well as all the innocent children that were around at the time. Why would God conndemn these people to drowning? Why didn't he just turn all the sinners to salt so he wouldn't have to do this? Why did he kill indiscriminately? As well as this, the bible claims that God was sorry that he had made man. In other words, he regretted it. An all-knowing, or omniscient being cannot feel regret, seeing as it would know every single consequence of its action. So for God to have wiped out man, he must have had it planned from the start. As well as this, we have many other examples. Numbers 31:17 has the killing of innocents, as does Hosea 13:16 that involves murdering pregnant women and children, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, Judges 11:30-40 and many more examples have the same killing of innocent children. Care to explain these? Secondly, to cite a few sources as requested, I'll focus on slavery, and toss out Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21L7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5 and Timothey 6:1-2 all show times where God gives rules and promotes slavery. This is not something happening, this is the word of God enforcing it, this is God giving command to allow it. In Leviticus 20:10, God says that adulterers should be killed. This is not a history lesson of things that were occurring: these are the rules of God. "Leviticus 21:9 is for fornicating priest daughters to be burnt alive, These are just a few examples of not historic rules, but rules given by God. Thirdly, we have my opponent claiming that God gave man everything he could want. No, that's simply not true. God gave this to two people. Two single people, and for their failure, we are punished. Can you imagine if I were to blame all black people because one black person mugged me? That would be despicable. No, God is still sentencing all men to awful, terrible afterlives. Great, loving men who did loads to help their fellow man are in Gods eyes deserving of burning alive, forever, and if they didn't accept him, that's what they got. How is that fair? Great, loving people sentenced to be burnt forever simply because they believed in a different God, or none at all. To say that they're deserving to be burnt alive is cruel and sadistic. As well as this, I'd like to further bring up God's omniscience. Man is a curious creature. If scripture is to be believed, this curious nature, or proud nature, led to them eating the apple. When God was designing man, he gave them these features. He made man proud, knowing that if he made them this way they would eat the apple. God designed a faulty product, and blamed it for being faulty. How is that fair?
God as a Biblical Figure is Evil

This is my first debate, so here it goes. To start off, we both must argue from the Christian viewpoint. It is important to distinguish the attitude of God between the old and new testament. In the old testament, everyone was under "the law" The law was a particular set of impossible rules that was meant to show the Jews' need of God. It is impossible to follow to the letter. The first instance you bring up is the time of Noah. Genesis 6:5-6 says "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." The people on the earth at this point were not good. There were terrible people. God is a loving, merciful God. He is also just. Evil can only reign for so long. Imaging how grieved God was when he saw his creation utterly evil and against their intended purpose. He decreed that the only way was to wipe the Earth clean. Why didn't he snap his fingers and make everyone good again? God does not forcefully convert people. Second, you say he enforced horrible laws. For future reference, I would like you to cite sources from the Bible if you will. To clarify, God did not send Jesus to fix the world, but to offer salvation. Yes, sin still reigned and reigns as God is sovereign. If God stopped one type of sin, who would decide which ones he would and would not stop? Notice the difference between civil and moral laws as well. It was a civil law that stoning adulterers was required. The Bible is as much of a history book as well as a moral compass. Just because something happens does not mean God enforces it. This is known as moral vs royal decree. You third point is based on the fact that you believe God sentenced man. God gave man everything he could want. Man did not worry about what to eat, what to wear, or where to live. Man lived in perfect harmony with the world and with God. That is until Adam and Eve wanted to be equal to God. Their pride caused their downfall. God is loving. he provides redemption for all who would ask. Romans 6:23 says " For the wages of sin is death." God is also a just God. Sin cannot and will not go unpunished. There must be death to atone for sin. That can either be your death or that of Jesus's sacrifice so that we are released from the bonds of sin.
Demonitesation in india

Sorry for that 2nd round 1) Only 6% of the whole money was in the form of black money , remaining 94% is in the form of Gold , Land and the stock market . Even out of that 6% most of the money was exchanged by corrupt bankers . 2) For building my house I'd first give it a foundation , but this move is a building whiteout any foundation , it may collapse anytime. 3) If you circulate a 100 rupee note 1000 times its value remains 100. But if you circulate a 100 rupees through e-wallets such as paytm and mobikwik for 1000 times, for each transaction charges 2% , the value becomes 1000*2.5=2500rupees . In that amount we only get 100 rupees , the remaining 2400 rupees go to the e-wallet companies. 3)Even fully developed countries like USA , have 60% of their economy in cash. 4) Due to this step , even the GDP rate has decreased .
Demonitesation in india

I think demonitesation is a very bad move . Because:- 1) If the 1000 rupee note was the villain , how could the 2000 note be the hero _P.chidambaram 2) More than 125 people have died due to demonitesation . 3) You can't just make a cash flourished economy into a chasless one , it takes time . 4)The decision was taken whitout the consultation of The finance minister .
Demonitesation in india

1. The 1000 rupee was never the villain in the first place and the 2000 rupee not wasn't a hero either, these notes are just different values of money 2. the 125 people dieing could have been prevented by preparation by the government, these people dieing wasn't actually demonetisation's fault but by the lack of preparation of the government. 3. I don't know what you meant by that i think demonetisation was a good thing because it pretty much eliminated all black money.
Demonitesation in india

I think demonitesation is a very bad move . Because:- 1) If the 1000 rupee note was the villain , how could the 2000 note be the hero _P.chidambaram 2) More than 125 people have died due to demonitesation . 3) You can't just make a cash flourished economy into a chasless one , it takes time .
Alcoholism is actually not a disease!

Aren't you trying to disprove that definition though. If you deem that definition inadequate it shouldn't be the established definition of the debate. Anyway, it shouldn't matter because I have already provided evidence verifying that definition so I have already won the debate. By the way NA does recognize Alcoholism as a disease. I know this because: 1. You said they think it causes addiction and addiction is a chronic disease. 2. They say it is a disease Sources: http://www.na.org... [ at the bottom of the quiz] http://en.wikipedia.org... [NA program; the nature of addiction]
Alcoholism is actually not a disease!

No, you will debate using the definition I provide not your own. This debate is mean't to be debated against the widely accepted Alcoholism, separate from addiction. The "allergy". Argument 1 Again, Alcoholism is not real. But, you can have an addiction to alcohol. At the time when AA was started back in the 30's it contained a doctor's OPINION. Fast forward to 1953 and NA was formed. More research had been done into the topic of addictive substances and so on. What separates NA from AA as a whole is that NA recognizes alcohol as a drug and an addictive substance that can cause addiction and dependence not a disease of its own. If there was a person with a 25-I NBOMe addiction, they would not be recognized in today's society as a 25-I NBOMeoholic nor will they be diagnosed with the disease of 25-I NBOMe-lism. If someone actually said that though, first we would think they are crazy and that they are trying to seem unique. It is important to keep in mind as a person that the disease theory is in fact just a theory.
Alcoholism is actually not a disease!

1[ definition thing]-.Do you not understand anything, we were debating that definition and I provided evidence that verified it was true. I never disregarded it. If someone defines cat as an animal and their contender says a cat is a 4 legged animal, the contender isn't "not going" with the supplied definition. 2.[lack of evidence/ fallacy] Yes I do have evidence look at my sources! They are there for a reason. In a true Petito Principii the evidence is the past argument in the "circle of reason" whereas in my argument I sited other sources. 3.[typo]- I admit that this was a mistake on my part, but you can clearly see that was a typo and I meant alcoholism. Just goes to show how desperate this guy is for a win. 4. Your entire second argument was a straw man argument and had no evidence 5. I cannot put the allergy-addiction thing into sense but both allergies and addictions are considered diseases.If you are referring to Alcohol intolerance you are misguiding me because Alcohol intolerance and Alcoholism are 2 distinct conditions and Alcohol intolerance is not an allergy. I did not understand what you were saying and just assumed you were talking about the definition you already had. 6. He had no acceptable rebuttal of my argument and I had sufficient evidence to take care of the burden of proof. conclusion: The only half decent point he made was the typo thing which I have already clarified. he has no evidence to support his claim that the Google definition was invalid and I had evidence that it was valid so, I win. VOTE CON!!!!!! Sources: https://www.google.ca... [allergy is disease] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [ alcohol intolerance is not an allergy]
Alcoholism is actually not a disease!

Con made three fatal mistakes in his/her opening statement. They did not go by the definition I provided from Google. Second, they committed a fallacy, Petitio Principii to be exact by saying, "Alcoholism is the compulsive addiction to alcohol. Addiction is a form of Chronic Disease. Therefore Alcohol is a disease. " He had no evidence to prove this. Also he referred to Alcohol as a disease. Not Alcoholism like he's trying make an argument with. And I can definitely prove alcohol is not a disease. The definition of Alcohol: Alcohol is an intoxicating ingredient found in beer, wine, and liquor. Source: . http://www.drugabuse.gov... I should win by default.
Teens aged 14+ should be tried as adults

We have the insanity defense for adults, but that is for adults who cannot understand completely what they are doing. What about adults who partially understand what they are doing but don't have the complete ability to predict the consequences for their actions."When moving kids in adult court rooms, you are not only inviting them to adult court rooms, but an adult convicted criminal has the same chance as a 15 year old kid. Therefore it lowers the bar for adults."Nope. It raises the bar for that 15 year old.
Teens aged 14+ should be tried as adults

1. Issuing a "not guilty due to immaturity" court decision seems to contradict your initial assertion that the juvenile justice system is a "free pass." This proposed idea says that if someone convicted and claims "they are too immature" then the court will be overruled. "Not guilty due to immaturity" is for under 14s and immature over 14s. 2. Juvenile courts already factor this into their decisions anyway, so make it a "get out easy" card seems illogical. Juveniles have fewer protections. They don't have a right to a public trial by jury, Rules about the admissibility of evidence are more lenient. They do not have the right to bail. http://www.legalmatch.com... http://criminal.findlaw.com... 3. When moving kids in adult court rooms, you are not only inviting them to adult court rooms, but an adult convicted criminal has the same chance as a 15 year old kid. Therefore it lowers the bar for adults. All punishments are the same unless due to a brain impairment someone is less mature and as a result, could not fully predict the consequences of their actions. If some
Teens aged 14+ should be tried as adults

The juvenile system should be abolished. Instead we can have: Not guilty due to immaturity (no punishment, the crime does not go on the record) Juvenile guilty (modified punishment, the crime does go on juvenile record) Guilty (adult punishment, the crime does go on the record and can be seen by everyone, for those aged 14+) Once you are 14 your maturity will be taken into account. At 14 you should be able to predict the consequences of your actions. The juvenile system is a free pass.
Gay adoption

It's not as simple as "Oh there's a trial period." Things may go fine during the short trial period, and the child may be happy to be adopted by same-sex parents, though over time that may change, and the effects of not having a mother/father figure are long term rather than short term. Not to mention, if the parents are adopting the child as a baby, then the child can't have much of a say in the matter. As for same-sex parents not proven to have negative impacts on children they adopt, there actually is research that suggests that not growing up without either of these genders can have long-term psychological effects. According to Daily Mail, growing up without a father can have permanent impacts on the brain. Here's their article on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Growing up without a mother can also have negative psychological effects. According to the New York Times, "Children Without Mothers Are At Special Risk". That article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com...