BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

"Principle of Charity-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator. aka Honesty:Where in round 1 does it state a "Condition of Acceptence" I have violated??The Fool: You tell me, I am the Fool here. I don't see lions and tiger, or clown bears. But something cannot come nothing, so any argument from nothing would be false. And thus it is proved UNSOUND. QED":Okay, nowhere! Good to hear, I am choosing not to argue from nothing.":Rather, I see this as an ad hominem attempt to avoid confuting the given argument because you are unable to.The Fool: Well show me where you see this? I want to see too.":I will never show you where I see it because I am too lazy to!!My next argument: The attributes of nature are too complex to have arose by chance These attribute show the distinctive characteristic of a fashionable design This design suggest that there is in fact a fashion designer Therefore nature is a product of an intelligent fashion designer Therefore B'obo A completely sound argument.
The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

Principle of Charity-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator. aka Honesty:Where in round 1 does it state a "Condition of Acceptence" I have violated??The Fool: You tell me, I am the Fool here. I don't see lions and tiger, or clown bears. But something cannot come nothing, so any argument from nothing would be false. And thus it is proved UNSOUND. QED:Rather, I see this as an ad hominem attempt to avoid confuting the given argument because you are unable to.The Fool: Well show me where you see this? I want to see too.
The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic.1. Arguments must be intellegentally defended by the Debators. 2. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.3. Principle of Charity=Conduct4. The Debate is for Intellectual truth value rather then debate value.Principle of Charity-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.-Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent.-Vague language is to be avoided.No Loop whole wins:-sementic Games.-playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the reality of what the debate is about. Definitions rules!The Most informative, precise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.A contradiction, is a FATAL blow. No believes, or convincings, or seems like, or shouldness Votes about it.My claim that there has never been a sound argument for the existence of God. So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God.
Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

My argument is relevant the United States hasn't cut the amount of nuclear weapons they have just relocated and Obama has failed to disarm any nuclear weapons. My point was that the NPT the United States has broken the laws. As well as Iran and if the United States tries to stop Iran from there making nuclear weapons by force they will have broken the peace article. The reason I used other sources I forgot to add them to my first argument so I just added them to show the viewers that I'm not making up anything from the past rounds. The United States should allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon for three reasons First, it would stop the United States from going to another war. Second, it would give more balance with the nuclear program around the world Lastly, they are no threat to the United States of America only the terrorist organizations that are in the are which the United States could defend against them better if they are in the United States and not in there homeland. Sources http://www.reuters.com... http://www.aljazeera.com...
Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

Pro's argument is a "non-sequitur", meaning it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if America is supposed to disarm all their nukes or not, that doesn't mean Iran should start producing nukes when they've agreed not to. This debate is on Iran's nuclear program, not America's. Either way, what pro says is wrong. The U.S. has cut the amount of nuclear weapons it has had down to 1/3 of what it was in the 60's [1]. Also, President Obama intends on further disarmament [2]. Pro used a lot of sources last round, but he only needed one and the rest are just articles in favor of his position that he makes no reference to. He seems to be trying to artificially fluff up his source base. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

What Con doesn't seem to mention in the NPT the Second pillar: disarmament states that the countries have to give up and disarm themselves, yet the United States hasn't made any stride to with still 5,200 warheads. If Iran does make a nuclear weapon they would break the NPT, but the United States would also break it if they o war against them. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.policymic.com... http://topics.nytimes.com... http://www.fas.org... https://www.armscontrol.org...
Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

One thing Pro doesn't seem to know is that Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which makes it illegal under international law for Iran to produce nuclear weapons [1]. America has also signed this treaty and therefore has the right to oversee and assist in Iran's nuclear program, which would allow the U.S. to ensure that Iran does not produce nukes without having to resort to war. In other words, America allowing Iran to produce nuclear weapons would be a violation of the NPT, a treaty with both countries have agreed to. As such, America should not allow Iran to produce nukes, but war isn't the only means of doing so. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

The country of Iran is in the works to have the ability to become nuclear able and this is most likely going to cause Ian to have a nuclear weapon. The United States should allow Iran to obtain the weapon instead of the going to war with them. The United States fought and still is fighting a ten year war against Iraq over the same idea of weapons of mass destruction. The problem in going and trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will indeed put the United States national security in risk of terrorist attacks. History has proven that when the United States is occupying and putting sanctions on Middle Eastern Countries like Iraq and soon to be Iran. Thousands of people die from these causing out roar in these countries from Terrorist organizations when the United States put sanctions on the country of Iraq half a million children died as well has thousands of others from bomb attacks. This would certainly happen again if the United States attacks Iran. Iran is no threat to the United States they don't have a strong enough air force or a navy capable of attacking the United States te only country that would be in danger would be the State of Israel such is speculated to have at lest 300 nuclear weapons. In conclusion don't let the United States go into another war which would cost trillions of dollars, kill thousands of innocents, and let Israel fight its own fights.
Abortion Should Be Legal

The fetus's right to live is above the womans right over her body, the fetus isn't getting more rights! Certain rights are above others though, the womans right to live is exactly equal to the fetus's right to live, just as liberty, and property, but the right to life is above liberty, therefor the use of one right should not be allowed ifthe impications are the infringemenmt of someone elses. he fetus is not the womans body either, she can do whatever she wants with HER body, not whatever she wants with someone elses body.
Abortion Should Be Legal

Well first off, depending on whether you consider a fetus a human, it is not a death penalty. In the constitution Americans are given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By denying a woman an abortion, you are taking away her rights. Why is it that the baby has more rights than the woman? In the constitution it says all men are equal. To give more rights to the baby would be unjust. Further on, abortion is not immoral. Why should it be illegal.
Who would win in a fight? Crab People or Lobster people? I say Crab people!

org and i found this amazing info. The Japanese spider crab, Macrocheira kaempferi, is the largest living arthropod; fully grown it can reach a leg span of almost 4 m (13 ft), a body size of up to 37 cm (15 inches) and a weight of up to 20 kg (44 lb). The crab's natural habitat is on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean (some 300 to 400 m deep) around Japan, where it feeds on dead animals and shellfish. It is believed to have a life expectancy of up to 100 years. [1] Because it is a particularly old species of crab, it is often referred to as a living fossil. Currently, this is the only species of the genus Macrocheira, but there have been two reports of other fossil specimens. That's a huge Crab, i think it'll win in any fight against the Lobster people. In the Red corner, weighing in at 44 lbs, standing at 13 ft with an arm reach of 6.5 ft, it's claws are sharp and can pack-a-punch, "The Japanese Spider Crab" and in the Blue corner, weighing in at 44.4 lbs, standing at about 3 ft and doesn't have as long a reach, but can pack a huge punch. "the Lobster" It usually matters on how the experience goes in people world, but in natures world, size is everything!
Who would win in a fight? Crab People or Lobster people? I say Crab people!

My opponent advocates that the crab people would win in a battle against the Lobster people, but I advocate otherwise. First, we know nothing of crab or lobster people due to the fact that neither exist, so the exact physical characteristics are completely left up to assumption. Without a way of observing them, we must compare normal lobsters and crabs. Thus, it would be best if I compared a Lobster of my choice to the Crab of my opponent's choice. Description from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Fighting: American lobsters are solitary animals. The only time they peacefully share a burrow or other enclosed area is for mating. At other times, when two lobsters meet, they will size each other up. If one is clearly bigger or stronger, the weaker one will retreat. A well matched pair will move through a ritualized series of aggressive displays until one gives up. These start with whipping antennae at each other, then shoving each other around with their claws, then a claw crushing show of strength called claw lock, and lastly flipping the opponent and trying to kill it. However, at any point before the end a lobster can back-off, admitting defeat, and the victor will usually not progress further. After this the loser lobster will be able to recognize the victor for up to about a week and will immediately back out of a fight." American Lobsters are usually 20-60 cm and .5 - 4 kg in weight. Not to mention that they hunt codfish, haddock, flounder, and other Lobsters if necessary. Lets compare this to what my opponent cites as the best of the Crabs (Boxing Crab). http://www.saltwaterfish.com... The boxing crab is merely one inch in size and doesn't even come close to eating the kind of meals an American Lobster may eat. I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal. Clearly, the crab which my opponent implies as being the Crab people's best defense would be vanquished in one blow if it attempted to take on an American Lobster (even an average sized one at that).
Who would win in a fight? Crab People or Lobster people? I say Crab people!

I never conceded, i gave you credit. Yes that was the largest lobster to be recorded ever, EVER! But thats an average size for the Massive Japanese spider Crab. Plus it being part human, doesn't stop it for going to the surface of the earth. also you stated the lobsters over powered the crabs with thier supperior numbers, actually the crabs have much more species than the lobsters. One of the species has a carry on gun. It slams it's claws so fast, causing a super loud noise, louder than 4 Jets combined, stunning it's pray, it is in the Animal Planets Most Extreme for loudest animals and placed number one. All the Crabs different species and different abilities causes them to have the best advantage. First the King Crabs will go into hand to hand combat, then the Noise Crabs will come in and fire thier super loud claws, stunning them and putting them into a confusion, that's when all the other crabs come in and fight to the death, Plus the crabs have a much more narrow claw, enabling them into impailing thier shell easier than any wide claw can. and who says the Japanese Spider Crabs are low in numbers, They also have a mighty army, march in to the destruction of the labster people. The Lobster fast swimming, isn't going to help them, because this battle takes place on dry land, right on the beach. Booya!
Who would win in a fight? Crab People or Lobster people? I say Crab people!

Alright, first, my opponent drops/concedes my round one arguments, so you can extend them. Second, my opponent cites the Japanese Spider Crab, but this is where his argument falls apart. What he has overlooked is the fact that these crabs are limited to being on the bottom of the specific ocean and that their weight and body proportion give them inferior mobility when it comes to a comparison with a Lobster. Not to mention that Lobsters have been recorded at being able to move at an incredible speed of 5 meters per second. The Japanese Spider Crab won't be much help to the crab people since it needs to remain in deep waters for survival. On the other hand, Lobsters can thrive on the seal floor and shallow waters, so Team Lobster clearly has the advantage. And since there are far more American Lobsters than there are Japanese Spider Crabs, the Lobsters could gang up on the Spider crabs if necessary. It's just like the film "A Bugs Life" where all the ants overpowered the grasshoppers in the end. One more thing from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... (which was cited): They can thus reach impressive sizes. According to the Guinness World Records, the largest lobster was caught in Nova Scotia, Canada, and weighed 20.14 kg (44.4 lb).tage. Now matter how you look at it, the Crab's would be defeated by the superior might of the Lobsters.
Comedy battle.

This truck driver goes into a Bordello and slaps $300 on the counter. Then he says to the madam, "I want the fattest and ugliest girl in the place and a ham sandwich. " The madam of the house looks at the big wad of money in front of her and says to him, "You know, For $500 you could have the most beautiful girl in here. " The truck driver looks at her and says, "Listen, I'm not horny, I'm home sick. " A lawyer named Strange died, And his friend asked the tombstone maker to inscribe on his tombstone, "Here lies Strange, An honest man, And a lawyer. " The inscriber insisted that such an inscription would be confusing, For passersby would tend to think that three men were buried under the stone. However he suggested an alternative: He would inscribe, "Here lies a man who was both honest and a lawyer. "That way, Whenever anyone walked by the tombstone and read it, They would be certain to remark: "That's Strange! "
Comedy battle.

Teacher: I'm going to say a number of quotes and whoever tells me who said them gets to go home early Teacher: I have a dream. Little Timmy put up his hand but the teacher chose Little Susie instead Susie: Martin Luther King Teacher: Correct! You can go home Susie Timmy: Suck my dick! Teacher: WHO SAID THAT! ? ! ? ! Timmy: Harvey Weinstein. See ya tomorrow Teach
Comedy battle.

Is humor time. . . Lets crack some clean Jokes. Who haves a sense of humor? This debate ain't about Winning Loosing Or Drawing. Is about having a good laugh. Who is willing, Able and available? *** 3 Jokes per round. Remember Clean jokes! Here is a joke for you all. . . . A boy was riding in a car with his grandpa. Oh no, " the grandfather said. "I just made an illegal right turn". 'That"s O. K. , Grandpa. The cop behind us just did the same thing! "
green lantern vs superman

One thing for sure is that there aren"t any superheroes bad looking or ugly. I actually think that they all are special and cute in their own way, each one of them has a special talent. I think Green lantern is the best, not only in our planet but in the whole universe. He is a guardian of the Universe, they are immortal founders and leaders of the Green Lantern Corps, which they administer from their homeworld Oa at the center of the universe. Their job is to keep peace in the universe. I think that him being part of this makes him part of a whole new level of superheroes.
green lantern vs superman

Superman abilities: Invulnerability, Flight, Super Strength, Super Speed, Super Breath, X"Ray Vision, Super Hearing, Accelerated Healing, Heat Vision, Mental Powers (learning languages quickly), Ice Breath, Super Hypnotism (apparently to hypnotize himself into not having powers, and keep his identity secret), Super Ventriloquism, Microscopic Vision, Telescopic vision, Energy Absorbing (yellow sun) that's why i think superman is better
Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in a controlled environment

My opponent states, "If anything the school should have armed guards trained by the U.S. government." but to have a group of people trained by the government of any country and then have them just protect the school, that would cost millions of dollars that would be less effective than just keeping trained teachers have the gun. Also, my opponent states that having a lock is not going to help effect the safety of the keeping of the gun, however, having two locks, which I stated, would be more effective because first, the student would have to find the key to the desk that only has one other copy, and second, that he would be able to find out what the combination to the second lock would be, therefor, he would not be able to break in, making the locks effective. He claims that the teacher would not have enough time to take the gun out however, there would be well over 15 teachers with the fire arm, making enough time for the teacher to take out the firearm. It would most likely only take the teacher 5 minutes to take the gun out, and it would most likely take the substitute teacher 10 minutes to take out the firearm, that would be more than enough time for the teacher to prepare themselves for the danger. Even if the teacher has a firearm the school would still have to follow the standard procedure for a lock down. Therefor, the teacher would have enough time to get ready for the danger that is taking place at the moment. He claims that having a firearm would still keep the same fear in the school, however, he doesn't elaborate, making that argument irrelevant. He does claim that stopping it before it happens is the goal, but I would like to ask him. How would we be able to stop the threat before it happened? Without knowing where, and when the threat will take place there is no way of stopping it before it happens. I would like to thank my friend for arguing with me again. Knowing that this is one of your first arguments I will tell you that in this round you are supposed to argue against my opening argument, like I did yours.
Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in a controlled environment

To stop war you must not make more war. To stop war you must make peace. A teacher having a gun in class wil increase the chances of a school shooting. In no way would it make the school safer. If anything the school should have armed guards trained by the U.S. government. The money that this would cost to train the teacher would raise taxes enormously. Also the cost of the guns and ammo will cost a great amount. The school will have the same amount of fear as a they would have before. Knowing that there is a gun in every classroom. Having a lock would not change the effect. If an intruder come into the school and starts shooting the teacher will not have enough time to take out the gun and shoot. The goal should be to keep intruders out, not stop them when there in the school. Stopping the problem before it happens that is the goal, not stopping it while its happening. That is the goal.
Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in a controlled environment

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e.g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school.
It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals, without consent, for their meat

Hi, kbub. 5 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to argue and 8k characters. Standard debate rules (first round acceptance and last round is not for new arguments). I understand that you're busy at the moment, but if you find some time, I'll be ready for you. If you want anything changed, feel free to ask me.