BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal immigration

I'd just like to preface my argument by saying that I don't participate on any debate teams. I don't know all of the nuanced rules. I simply want to state my opinion and have someone attempt to prove me wrong. I am for prosecuting Illegal aliens. I believe that we are a nation that abides by our own laws. I think that this extends to illegal aliens. I define Illegal aliens as 1. Someone who crosses the border illegally. 2. Someone who intentionally misleads people in order to enter this country 3. Someone who avoids updates and inspections with authority. Illegal immigrants have a right to a speedy trial in the United states. If immigrants are seeking asylum they need to see a judge to determine the validity of their claims. If Illegal immigrants are minors under 7 years old their parents should be held liable. If they are 8 to 18 they should go to a juvenile court after the parents are tried. If the state doesn't accept the case a federal delinquency proceeding should take place. If the minor immigrants are without parents they should be tried in a juvenile court. If asylum is not granted and the youth has no legal guardians the state should hold custody until their native country can take custody of the minor.
Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

Summary: Con has given some reason as to why utilitarianism is a backwards ethical theory, and provided the alternatives that our laws and human rights are built on. If you are utilitarian, then vote con because it would be more profitable or beneficial to con than to pro. If you are not utilitarian, vote for con because pro did not prove utilitarianism is the best. Thanks for the debate, Fuzz! I enjoyed it and I would love another go as well... To be continued!?
A Bill requiring all public school employees to submit to drug testing

org. First, I will respond to my opponent's arguments; then, I will present my own. 1. My opponent's first argument lies in hidden assumptions, that the drug testing of students is warranted and beneficial and that students and teachers should be treated equally. The second assumption is false and thus the sequence is negated. Teachers are less rebellious than [1] and therefore are less likely to recreationally use drugs. Further, the argument contradicts the advocacy. To have all teachers submit to drug testing would not make them equal to that of the student because not all students are exposed to drug testing. Student drug testing is random. 2. His second argument lies in the assumption that there is some rampant drug problem for teachers in public schools, and this cannot be proven. There is no current drug problem in the teaching staff. Further, if a teacher were to use drugs to the point where their teaching ability were to be harmed, this would be noticed and reported. No test is needed. 3. This argument also lies in the assumption that there is some rampant drug problem in our teaching staff. There is not. Drug-using teachers are fired with or without a test for ALL teachers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CON's advocacy I advocate not for an expensive mandatory test, but a testing system that only applies to reported cases. -This is cheaper, and much less wasteful, because not every public school teacher in the United States has to be tested consistently. -This limits the testing process to the reported and accused, rather than the general population. =================================================== So, the resolution must be negated because the resolution is expensive and beyond what is necessary to keep our education system pure. A better system has been proposed, and so the resolution is negated. [1] . http://www.straightahead.org...
A Bill requiring all public school employees to submit to drug testing

Well as this seems to be my first debate ever online (which I didn't even know was a possibility until my friend mentioned it to me.) I am starting my First debate... Now. ~ Arguments ~ 1. A number of students & adults are both under the influence of drugs. Since most adults have jobs it makes drugs more accessible to them than it is to the majority of students without jobs. Yet school employees don't have to be drug tested, for some unknown reason and only Students are to be drug tested. 2. School employees such as teachers, principles, and counselors have the job not only to be our educators but to be our "second set" of role models (beside family members and friends). A teacher under the effects of drugs may impair their teaching ability and their attitude, possibly leaving students baffled. 3.If school employees were to submit to drug testing, not only will our schools be cleaner for fear of being fired, it would also discourage drug dealers to continue selling drugs because of the lack buyers slowly and possibly ending all drug usage within the schools. --------------------------------------------------------- As I said before this is my first debate and I would like everyone to be as strict towards my speech as possible I would like all the help I could get. Please and thank you.
The Universe was created by God

Well, I've read through your arguments... I know that the Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth. However, according to https://answersingenesis.org... it states that... "Let"s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth"s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today. Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). So a simple calculation is: 5 days + ~2,000 years + ~4,000 years ~6,000 years " By this, the flaw of the Creationism is confirmed. Also, humans and dinosaurs can't have lived at the same time since mammals were very tiny at the time when dinosaurs ruled, and these mammals evolved into nowadays creatures after a long time of evolving. This will certainly prove my point, I believe.
The Universe was created by God

First off, I enjoyed reading your side of the argument and everything you said made a good logical point, not that I believe everything, your point was made. I want to quote one thing from the Bible: " On the sixth day God commanded the earth to bring forth all kinds of living creatures and he saw that it was good. God then said " Let us make man in our own image". So God created man and woman in his own likeness and gave them authority over all living things. " As a Christian, faith and God's word is what we have, so everything in the Bible we believe. I've never actually heard that the Bible exactly says that the universe is 6,000 years old, but I know that it's not Billions of years old either. Most of the time when you carbon date, the results come back different than the first time you tried, thus resulting in never knowing the correct year of what something is, and in your case Dinosaurs. Since I would like to quote this one line from Genesis it says; "On the sixth day God commanded the earth to bring forth all kinds of living creatures and he saw that it was good. " Which means that God commanded all living creatures to the Earth, INCLUDING Dinosaurs. So to answer another one of your "Flaws" that you believe, I can say for myself, that I believe humans and Dinosaurs lived in the same time according to God's word. And If you have ever read the story of Noah, God flooded the Earth to wipe out creation because of how evil it was, but he chose Noah because he was a firm believer. So my theory is that when the flood came, that's when the Dinosaurs were wiped out. And briefly, you said that if God hovered over the waters there must have been some shape to Earth? Well, since we believe God exists today, and he has no shape, so there must have been no shape to him back then either. And now, to link your belief of the Big Bang in, I actually believe that what the Big Bang is, is linked to God, When God Spoke, "Let there be light!" The Universe exploded resulting in the Big Bang and since the Big Bang happened so quickly, and since God created it all in one day, they can link together. And back to your thought about the Bible being biased considering the Disciples being close to Jesus. That is even better because we believe God keeps his word, so if the Disciples were closer to God, they know even more about him, thus we can learn and know more as well.
The Universe was created by God

All right... So I'll begin my arguments.. So, since my opponent is a Christian, I believe that I should go with the Christian version of the superstition... "At first the earth was shapeless and covered in darkness, and God's spirit hovered over the waters. God said, "Let there be light". And there was light. God divided the day from the night, naming them ' day' and 'night'. This was the first day and God saw that it was good. On the second day God made the heavens to separate the water from the earth and on the third day he raised the dry land up from the waters below the heavens and commanded the earth to bring forth all plants. God saw that it was good. God then made the greater light for the day and the lesser light for the night, and he saw hat it was good. This was the fourth day. On the fifth day God commanded the waters to fill with living creatures and the air to fill with birds. And he was pleased with what he saw. On the sixth day God commanded the earth to bring forth all kinds of living creatures and he saw that it was good. God then said " Let us make man in our own image". So God created man and woman in his own likeness and gave them authority over all living things. God looked at everything he had made and was very pleased. On the seventh day, God rested." (http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk...) I believe that this is it. However, no one can exactly prove that god has created the universe in this way. Like, there is no proof except for perhaps, the Bible. However, the Bible isn't what we can call unbiased.. No offense, but it was written by people connected to god, or so they say, so, it isn't a very reliable source. However, there are more scientific and realistic theories other than God's creation theory like the big bang theory. The big bang theory is the theory that a great explosion happened, blasting the space dust around, and gradually, these dust came together by the forces of gravity, gradually getting larger and larger, until they finally made planets, stars, comets, etc. However, there are some flaws to the creation of the universe according to Christianity- First, it only seems to be centered on Earth. There are many other planet in the universe, but it doesn't seem to explain about their creation. And also, it seems to be a bit vague on terms such as shapeless, since if God hovered over the waters, then it must have had some kind of shape. Also, it doesn't explain dinosaurs, since according to the story, creation only took a week, with humans appearing on the sixth day. We already know by concrete scientific analogies that humans and dinosaurs lived in a separate era, many thousands, no millions of years apart. How could this be? Also, according to the Genesis books, the Earth only seems to be about 6000 years old. This is completely wrong, since even the last dinosaurs died out at about 65 million years ago.
The Universe was created by God

Well, this debate is about the creation of the universe. I want to firstly define the specifics of this debate... Round 1 is acceptance, Round 2 is arguments Round 3 is arguments and rebuttals, Round 4 is conclusion I will be on the side that God didn't create the Universe. And, to define a few terms, God is the being whom, according to some religions, created the universe. The universe is the place all around Earth, including the creatures on Earth. This is an open debate... I hope that my opponent has fun, and good luck ^^
there is no afterlife

Thank you for accepting me in this exciting debate. Before we begin, let us clarify the word 'afterlife'. Based on Wikipedia's information, afterlife refers to a realm,in which an essential part of an individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body in the individual's lifetime. Other than that, I would also like to take the oppurnity to analyse my opponent's speech. First of all, my opponent said phrases like 'I think', 'in my view' and more. It is fairly to say that my opponent is merely giving his own personal view and his own assumptions. Besides that, my opponent gave no solid evidence or whatsoever to support his first and second point. Therefore, his first and second point can only be considered as assumptions and nothing more. Moreover, my opponent have stated that other living creatures are somewhat similar to human genes. However, by proving this particular fact does not determine the existence of an afterlife. It merely proves that humans are similar to *some* animals, but not the *same*. Therefore, my opponent have made an interesting but useless point to today's debate. Now, let us begin today's debate by asking ourselves a question: "Is there an afterlife?" Based on Professor Robert Lanza from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, he has proved the existence of an afterlife using quantum physics. To prove my point, http://www.dailymail.co.uk.... Secondly, Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton, did a research on patients who had near-death experiences. Dr Parnia"s study involved 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, and has been published in the journal Resuscitation. Most of those who have near-death experiences, said they're minds still have conscious awareness even though they were already dead. This proves that an afterlife exists. To prove my point, http://www.independent.co.uk.... In conclusion, many evidences have proved the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, an afterlife exists.
there is no afterlife

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there an afterlife? We must all admit we don't know that's because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to an honest assumption on the issue. Now to my arguments I will present throughout the debate. I think it is obvious that the concept of an afterlife is a man made idea constructed for a number of reason I shall discuss. The first being consolation and wishful thinking; it's obviously comforting if your child just died but your are told not to worry because he/she is going to a better place, which in my view is a slightly immoral idea because it's to say any thing that makes you feel better is fine, drugs can also make you feel 'better'. The other is control and power as for centuries the afterlife has represented a claim by humans to be able to interpret the divine thus give themselves power by doing so. Now on to the point of eternity the afterlife represents, sure the first 100 years or so may be enjoyable in heaven/ other religious equivalent, maybe even the first few hundred but what about after 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1000 000 and ad infinitum things would surely start to seem repetitive and mundane and would start to look a lot like hell. We all know the party of life is going to end, eventually you will be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave; the party is going on without you but you must leave. This is where the afterlife comes in, you are told you go to another party where someone comes and tapes you on the shoulder but this time tells you you can never leave and what's more demands you have a good time. This cannot be believed by a thinking person. Also who determines what beings gain access to the afterlife is it just the human species, how does one determine this; via DNA? Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (1). So apes to maybe then you must go down the gene pool to squirrels, rats, fish and bacteria, and if animals are not allowed in the afterlife what happens to them? Closing point I think It is fairly obvious that the state/ non state after death is parallel to what you experienced before conception/birth. source: 1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
Australia should welcome all refugees

Then I will say that the issue is not the people that cost your government money - the issue is how we built our countries as a whole. The governments of all countries focus more on security and power over sensibility and personality. We have in this world a Catch 22 - the people are stupid because of the media in every country "protecting the country's image", like food businesses cannot tell you that there is an "infestation", so you wonder why there's a rat on your table. It's not because the rat is at fault - it's because of our rulers lying to us for their own image instead of protecting the image of the country they are ruling. It's a much greater issue than a mere country, I assure you. This stems deeper into the foundation of all.
Rap Battle Part 3

For Presidence, I'm bringing war If his men roll, I'm washing ten (Washingon) Get me mad, A son (Madison) brought more shells You sell bush? (Bush) Well if it's true man (Truman) then that haze got a poor smell You getting pairs, But you'll feel more (Philmore) pokes than a door bell Your girl well, She hop on my pole (poll) Lewinsky My bars Trump yours so give it up Your theme: school
Rap Battle Part 3

You say you're not a joke, But you know you're super goofyYour catchphrase is "hot dog, " and your hair is super poofyYou got a pet named Pluto, Kicked from the planet listI guess he's the real joke, He won't be missedIf I'm a chicken, Then you are a turkeyFire up the burner, Cause you'll make some nice jerkyWhat else are you good for? Certainly not rappingPlease surrender, Before this becomes a kidnappingI'll take your children too, The ones that you bred (bread)Make sure they don't whine (wine), Or I'll eat them insteadYou think you can stop me, But get out of my way (whey)I've got lots of time (thyme), But you only have daysI am obviously superior, You're a little slowI've got good rounds in a pair (pear), While your ratings are too lowIf anything, Your raps are like a snail, Not a crowI can have my cake and eat it too, You cannot thoughSince you're here, Get me a #1 comboYou're a lowly servant, I just won the lottoSo as you try to recover from what is quite the disasterJust remember, Like Gordon Ramsay, I'll always be theMASTER
Rap Battle Part 3

For you coming with that bull, I'll show you that Kvng's the goat This cat'll (cattle) die here from my gun tucked in my over coat I bare (bear) arms and get the doe once I reach the toast So if you dare (dear) snake my dogs might as well go for broke You take me as a to joke? This theme will break you But since you washed up, We'll travel the seas, I'll take you My bars are too ill (eel), That's a bad trick Fish for thought, I'd brag about my bars but I'll keep my lips sealed (Seal) My rhymes rip you like a shark, You'll need a doc to heal That's land and that's sea, Let's leave out the lair To show how fly I am, I'll take you to the air You're just a chicken. Shut up, Go eat a cock or two While I'm sippin' Hen' Ima have my pigeons hawking you You better duck if them two cans (toucans) squawk at you Two techs, I'll (owl) pair it (parrot) and watch it talk to you You want people raving (raven) like you go hard You'll see hawks cause being foul can (falcon) get your throat scarred Start robbin' (Robin) snatch ya canaries when I bougard Sick flow, I just hit you with some crow bars (Environmental theme so I just used animals since they are in the environment)
Rap Battle Part 3

You come at me thinking you can do the deed I’m a lion, Dude, I’ll roar until I succeed I’m powerful, So my warning, Heed Keep going and you’ll be a horse on my lead I’ll be nice and lead to the river for some water You’ll need it because my raps are getting much hotter You better run, Don’t wanna be in this slaughter My raps are smooth, Like a bird or an otter I’m on the cover of NatGeo, At the top of the chain Keep going and you’ll get a world of pain I will tower over you, I’ll make the fire rain You don’t stand a chance, There’s nothing for you to gain I’m glorious, With my paws, Teeth, And mane You’re small, Like a bat, Is your last name Wayne? I understand that you’re trying to do the best At least that’s what you say, Like all the rest Turn around, You’re a mouse on a quest Leave the adventures to predators, They’re not for a pest I’ll keep it short, And hand it to you You small little thing, You won’t survive past round 2 You might try it all, But you can’t get the chicken dinner Even if I do nothing, I'll still be theWINNER
Rap Battle Part 3

This is an acceptance round, I'll actually start this time >:PWe're doing something different this time. You have to still diss me, But every time we finish, You have to give me a theme to make the rap about. Nothing vulgar or weird. It can be something like "environmental" or something like that lol. If you don't like someone's theme, Send me a message and we can negotiate on something else. Make you sure you give me your first theme when you accept. Have fun! :)
The Ku Klux Klan was better than the Nazis

You title says, KKK was better than the Nazis but your description says they are not. Which is it? In my opinion, neither were good. The Nazis were sick. And the KKK are sick too. But the Nazis are a bit worse because they killed millions of Jews. Bottom line, they are both awful groups that should...well....cease to exist. But we cannot get rid of the KKK or else that would be breaking the 1st Amendment. In which that is true.