BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gravity Does Not Exist

Okay, I will be putting forth that Gravity does not exist. Pro will have to offer proof of Gravity and examples, While I will offer proof of gravity not being the reason things stay down and examples. First Rounds will just be confirmation of our stances like I have done so. Second Round is where we will offer our Debate with our evidence. Third Round we will refute and attempt to debunk the other. Fourth Round will be Extra Evidence, can just be thoughts, logic, questions ect. Fifth will be conclusions where we try to answer the final questions and give our final line. :)
Taking in thousands of refugees from middle eastern countries puts American citizens in danger.

Opening ArgumentsBefore I actually start with my points let me state, nearly all of these YouTube source provided by my opponent are independent channels with their own personal bias in this subject form. I seriously question the validity of the 'sources' my opponent has provided and urge the voters to look at the videos and their parent channels. Counter Arguments and RebuttalsThe first argument of my opponent is vague and his source not synonymous with his claim. The United States is far below its acceptance goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees [1] and is well within the capacity to run background checks considering the US has strict immigration policies [2] [3]. The next arguments of my opponents do not align with the American national standard of asylum acceptance. These nations in Europe are in the geographical proximity of an Exodus from these war torn nations that closely border them [4]. These nations don't have the capacity to deport them at the number they are receiving these immigrants [5]. Unlike the United States, the Middle East is not within a geographical proximity to create a conceptual invasion of their immigration borders. The US has the power to manipulate and are within full control to accept a certain few amount of refugees that they wish to accept and time is not a problem [6]. The continuing argument of my opponent regarding immigrants and Sharia Law are the product of a channel with extreme right-wing ideals and nationalistic videos. I question the validity of the source of the YouTube link. As for the final argument of my opponent regarding the rise in crime from the European nations that took in these refugees, they are not in control of the situation (Understandably) considering their large open borders are powerless to stop an influx of migration that continues showing up at their doorstep. The US, on the other hand, is in full control of all Middle Eastern immigrants. Sources[1] . http://www.nbcnews.com...[2] . https://www.rt.com...[3] . https://www.hrw.org...[4]http://www.economist.com... [5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.state.gov...
Taking in thousands of refugees from middle eastern countries puts American citizens in danger.

1. The Obama administration has adamantly stated that they are performing background checks on every person that seeks refuge in America but Director Comey has stated that we cannot possibly vet every person. 2. While Syrian refugees may not be solely responsible for the recent terror attacks they have been responsible for massive chaos and unrest in many European countries. Such as riots and destruction of cities. 3. Many refugees seek to implement Sharia Law as the primary law in every country they settle in. 4. Countries that have take in mass numbers of refugees have seen an increase in rape http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org... http://www.wnd.com...
The commandment to rest on the Sabbath was changed by the Christian Bible

Definitions -Christian Bible is the standard 66 books. -Sabbath Day is the Jewish Sabbath observed from sundown on Friday (the 6th day of the week) until sundown on Saturday (the 7th day of the week). -Sunday is the first day of the week and begins Saturday at sundown. BoP Pro: BoP to show that the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work (Exodus 20 - The Ten Commandments) was either changed to Sunday or completely abolished. Con: BoP to show plausible deniability that the command to rest on the Sabbath was changed by what is written in the Christian Bible. The definition of work is not what is being debated. Because Yeshua Jesus kept the Law of Moses, it is assumed that He kept Sabbath the way in which it is to be kept.
school should start later

Lets say that it is review day for a test the next day, and you get to school at 7 am. You are so tired in first period that you just have fallen asleep and you miss out on useful information. This can lead to you failing a test in a class that you need to do better in. Some of my friends try and pay attention but just end up falling asleep. IMAGINE THIS: 1am you are suer confused on your math homework and you don't realize what time it is you text your teacher. student: hey mrs.something. mrs.something: why are you texting me at 1 in the morning. you can only text me if you need math help on homework. student: oh.........sorry are you sleeping? mrs.something: yes aren't you? student: nope still doing the math homework you gave us. In this you may think that it does not relate to this argument, but what is this person has sports, then they have less time to do their homework. Therefore they stay up later at night, and they are more tired, and then they fall asleep in class, destined to fail. School should start later, it is not fair for the teachers or the students. -----boom
should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools

I strongly believe that wearing a school uniform is crucial to the way children behave and also affects them academically. Most importantly, wearing a school uniform shows respect for the school, and gives children a sense of belonging. We wear school uniforms to show pride in our school. Taking our identity away would mean that we could come from any school, any state, and in any country, making school uniforms an important and crucial part of our school life. Additionally, being identifiable from a particular school reduces the opportunity for students to skip school or get into trouble on the way to and from school. If students wore normal clothes they may be mistaken for adults and could do things they shouldn't, such as smoking or taking the day off.
should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools

The wealthier people would tend to look down and shun the poorer people as it gives them a chance to flaunt their wealth. When students wear school uniforms, it shows the similarities between them, and not the differences. Each school has their own rule of law and based on that, students need to obey on that law and respect. When a student wears a uniform, it shows a sign of dignity and it means that student has confirmed the school expectations and that student feels that he/she belongs to that school.
should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools

P1. School uniforms won't help change discrimination P2. School uniforms cost more for the average household C. School uniforms are an impractical idea in modern society No matter what you do people will still form cliques and pass judgement on others. If they aren't judging people for the clothes they are wearing then they will do it on many other factors such as weight, height, or hair color. Also one of your main arguments was that financially disadvantaged people would finally fit in with the general populace. But school uniforms would cost more then average clothes therefore not making the financially disadvantaged equal but rather making them repugnant to their classmates. http://www.angelfire.com... I look forward to your rebutle.
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

Ok, because of misunderstanding, I thought that you wanted to ban all guns. so now let me change my thesis to the fact that guns should remain being sold in America. Also, a study done by a Chicago crime lab shows that out of 70 inmates at a prison, only 2 of them bought a firearm legally. That means that 2.9 percent of criminals actually use legal guns. This proves my point that even if gun stores closed, crime would not go down much if any. pro also mentioned that a person could run away, however, if there are still guns to criminal disposal through the black market, statistics will not change, and criminals will continue to use guns therefore not allowing you to run. As for the suicide statistic, the person is likely to commit suicide in a different way if they can't buy a gun. Another thing pro has said is that "just because we are restricting the sale of guns does not mean we can't sell it to hunters." my question is, doesn't that mean that America would still sell guns like regular? most guns sold are sold for hunters. Now finally I will emphasize the fact that as I said before, the decrease of guns will cause prohibition all over again as people will be rioting in the streets. people will be very mad that they have lost some of their rights even though the crime rate will not decrease as the statistics I put said. Based on what you have read, I would highly recommend you vote for me (con) because it is the right of people to carry weapons, and that right should not be limited or depleted. Thank you for reading and I hope you vote for me! P.S. An ax is pretty intimidating.
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

First, I would like to address this statement by my opponent:"I believe guns should continue to be sold in America, except perhaps not in big and busy cities."This is Con conceding the debate, as this advocates a restriction on guns not currently in the status quo. You don't even have to read the rest of the debate to vote in my favor, but not to be a bad sport I will go over all the other arguments as to why we shouldn't be restricting guns.I am only advocating a restriction on in sales here, so holding a gun is not a crime. This defeats my opponents argument about holding guns being crimes. Also, if someone is planning to carry out a crime with a gun, they could be stopped if someone catches them with a gun which actually makes this a good thing.As for the economy and hunters argument, there are two reasons why that argument fails. First, just because we are restricting the sale of guns does not mean we can't sell to hunters. Second, I established that the government should value safety and equality above all else. That means that if we can maintain those values by implementing gun restrictions, the economy doesn't matter because equality and safety are much more important for the government than the economy.People who have guns might want their guns back but you haven't explained why the government should care. I'm arguing for maintaining equality and safety. A few mad people is unimportant with that in mind. Con mentioned that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes, but guns are the easiest weapons to threaten and kill someone with. Imagine a criminal threating you with a knife or an axe. The same intimidation factor isn't their because there is a lot you can do to respond, like run, or something else if the victim is athletic enough. Guns are just pull the trigger and your seriously wounded, if not dead. It makes a lot of sence to restrict guns over those other things.The rest of Con's argument goes over why we need guns to defend ourselves if a criminal gets their hands on a gun illegally, which consists of a confusing and out of context anecdote where someone committed a felony. Guns are in fact not a very good weapon to defend yourself with. Guns are used as self defense in less than 4% of shootings, and people who are carrying a gun in an encounter are 4.5x as likely to be shot[1]. Guns in the home are statistically more likely to be used for suicide than for self defence, which makes owning one making you actually less safe than people without one.[1]Thanks for the good debate :) Vote Pro.1. http://theweek.com...
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

Ok so first of all, I believe guns should continue to be sold in America, except perhaps not in big and busy cities. I think guns should continue to be sold however because shooting someone is a crime, so if owning a gun is a crime, it won't matter because they will be committing a crime anyways if they plan on hurting anyone. Secondly, the economy would be damaged because a lot of hunters would lose their job/ hobby and thousands of gun stores will o out of business. Another reason I have is because banning guns will cause events similar to prohibition or perhaps worse. If you take something away from someone, they are going to want it back. Also, people will probably illegally use guns to prove their point just as bootleggers did. Also if a person is going to kill someone, and they can't use a gun, that they will just kill them with something else like a bow or a knife or an ax or even run over them with a car. My final reason is because guns are used for defense. If a criminal gets a gun illegally, how are you going to defend yourself? Here is an example: Smith was in the front of the store when Price and the other man entered just before 5 p.m. wearing women's stockings over their heads. Judy Moore was in the office in the back. Price pointed a gun at Smith and pushed him. Smith pretended to have a heart attack and fell to the floor. Then Price went into the office and confronted Judy Moore. Price's accomplice stayed near the cash register. Terrified, Judy Moore began screaming. "I thought I was going to die, I really did," she said. Price seemed to be looking for something in the office. When he didn't find it, he went back to the front of the store. He found Smith waiting. Price again pointed a gun at Smith who by then had pulled out his own weapon. Smith fired at both men, hitting Price in the head and his accomplice in the left shoulder, Lehn said. Price fell to the floor, and his partner fled. Seconds later, Jerry Moore, who had heard the ruckus from outside, rushed in. While police responded to a 911 call from Judy Moore, the fleeing suspect showed up at Winona Memorial Hospital, according to police. He arrived at 6:10 p.m., was briefly treated for his wound and left at 6:25 p.m. -- before police, summoned by hospital staff, could arrive. Police intend to charge him with attempted robbery -- and also felony murder because of the death of Price during the commission of a felony. (Indianapolis Star) From Those are my reasons why I believe guns should not be taken away. Thank you for reading
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

I hope you will be able to finish this debate! First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease. 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu......, primarily the philosophy of John Locke
Given the available data, denying the theory of evolution is completely unreasonable

This debate should be impossible to accept, comment if you want to debate. Some clarifications: - I will have most (if not all) of the BoP, but my opponent should feel free to present any arguments he/she deems useful, either against evolution or in favor of an alternate theory. - The first round is for acceptance and I would like my opponent to present his/her position very quickly. - My first argument will be mostly copy pasted from one of my earlier debate, so don't be surprised if you find it somewhere else. - I am arguing that evolution is EXTREMELY well supported by science (to a point where denying it is unreasonable), not that science PROVES evolution (science does not PROVE anything). (EDIT) By proof I mean 100% certainty, like in mathematics. "EXTREMELY well supported by science" can be understood as "demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt". And I am referring to the biological theory of evolution via natural selection (descent with modifications and all those things).
Dogs vs. Cats

Dogs vs. cats? Dogs get my vote 100%. They are loyal and obedient, and always there for you. Cats, meanwhile, walk out the door and you don't see them for the rest of the day. Sure, you could say that dogs take more work. But isn't it worth it to have a companion, protector, and friend? Plus, taking dogs on walks are good for you, too. Studies show that dog owners are much healthier than cat owners. Anyway, cats can't even walk along side you for more than two minutes! Danger comes? They run away and leave you. But dogs? They're always there for you; whether you need a guardian or a companion.
Dogs vs. Cats

You may dislike cats but it's time to understand why. They can't help it. Scientists believe that they have Asperger Syndrome which is very likely. Asperger is Autism. We need to support them and reach out more to them. This condition makes cats more mature and they don't mess the house like dogs. They can walk themselves and is more cheaper to keep. The ignore you because they are shy. The thing that cats need is LOVE. They are also cuddly and cute. Okay, maybe dogs can also kill mice but cats don't disgust owners and leave dead body lying around the floor. If you are scared of cats, REMEMBER: They are more afraid of you then you are of them.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

In conclusion, this is how the debate went. My opponent issued the challenge. I issued six points. He ruled them out with his unnecessary limitations. I focused on my one point about the catholic teaching of "one god only". He refutes that point by citing the bible, even though he said that the bible was irrelevant to this discussion. That's right, he excludes my arguments because they cite the bible, and then cites the bible to refute my one point. Go figure.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

i do give credit to con for focusing on actual papal writing, instead of cultures practices etc. but he is being too literal in it. the pope said "it is not too much to say" almost as if it's a sort of figure of speech. Jesus referenced us all as being gods at one point, i could also reference teh old testament where he reference... but referencing Jesus himself seems to be sufficient. Id have assumed a bible quote like that was pretty common knowledge, perhaps I was wrong in thinking so. it almost seems like con is expecting the lack of citation to win the debate, as if were i able to cite it, then i'd have won? anyways... John 10: 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"? 35"If he called you gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

I apologize for biblical quotes when I shouldn't have (why did you even limit it like you did in the first place). Also, you never limited it against practice. I completely consider practice a part of Catholic doctrine. Anyway, if I have to pay attention to your ridiculous limit and further limitations you enacted last round, here is the one point that still stands. The Catholic Church teaches that there is only on real god, however. .. "Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods. " -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36It explicitly states in the Catholic Encyclopedia that there is only one god. Then, in a pope's doctrines, he says that priests are also gods. My opponent refutes this by saying that Jesus said in the bible that the bible says "ye are gods". If Jesus said this is in the bible, my opponent should also quote the bible, not what Jesus said. Also, he has provided no source for this quotation, and since there is a spelling error, we can assume he did not copy paste it but paraphrased it.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

first much of what you arguei s based on the bible, which i prohibited from the get go. we are to compare church teaching itself. second nothing that you talk about involves church doctrine, mostly just dicipline or culture of catholics. i gues you aren't teh first and won't be the last getting hung on on this stuff, not able or conversant enough on papal writings and councils. priestly marriage is one of practice not doctrine anyway. plus priests were allowed to marry, and then the church forbad it, so that the priest would be able to dedicate himself to the people, and to the churchs political world. anyway, it's not a contradiction to say we're gonig to not allow marriage so that we can improve the insittution of the priesthood. it's just trying to improve it, like urging people to praying more often. did the fact that they weren't being urged and now they are, a contradiction? no its just different approach. approach v contradiction. you are being too literal with the prohibition on "father". first, that is a practice, not a doctrine. and second, we have to look at it as less literal. Jesus meant not to call people father as if they are God etc. here are some father son verses from the New Testametn. "But Timothy"s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul"s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them. "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13"14). masses are often desired to be in one language, that one it is more universal. of course it's in many languages as the side won out that wanted it to be in people's native language. practice too not doctrine. the church doesn't teach only priests understand the bible. they recommend not reading it unless you have guidance of someone like a priest though. they are more equipped than the lay person in understanding it. culture, not even practice per se, not docxtrine. Jesus when confronted about being a God among men said "doesn't teh bible itself say "ye are gods"? in reference to everyone. you are taking that quote too far. being too literal. as for the biblical protrayals, you are taking vague references against vague references. a person could be said to be peaceful, but if you push anyone too far, there's bound to be war. not church doctrine... in terms of being from the church's own extra biblical wirtings.