BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Privacy is undervalued

Privacy is a topic of hot debate in the US. With new drones and whatnot people are asking the question "Is our privacy valued?" To that I must reply yes! What is Privacy? Privacy is the freedom from free intrusion. Its value is important as it helps us live our separate lives and helps us keep some things secret. These secrets though can be detrimental to the safety of citizens and has been proven time and time again. The government values our personal lives while at the same time using its power to provide saftey to us, and this is what im going to prove. Our privacy is valued very high and only violated in protecting the country. Contention 1: Privacy is upheld throughout the nation. This nation was built upon the idea that privacy should be upheld. So much so that it was written in the Constituion. The constituion's 4th amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"Privacy was a leading effort in our country so much so that it has been written into our contsitution. THe government today still abides by this which allows innocent people to maintain their privacy while only criminals are violated.Contention 2: Privacy is only violated to protect safety. I will not say that privacy is never violated. It however is only violated for the greater good. Government survalliance is in place because people wanted it there. We live in a democracy. The people have elected the ones running this country and the purpose of a government is to "Protect" Its citezens. Privacy is only violated to protect one another. Which would you rather have? Massive bombinbs weekly or for someone to read your emails once a while. The government makes sure that any violation of privacy is for the greater good and safety of all.Contention 3: Privacy is highly valued in our country. If privacy isnt valued then why does the government have investiagtive teams and why must the government have police make patrols. The reason is that the governent does not know everything that is happening. Why dont they know this? Because our privacy is valued. We are a democracy that values privacy as one of our freedoms. The government sees this and values it greatly. One such example is minors. Their information is never given out to maintain their privacy. Medical records are private and so is whatever every american does in their own home. Privacy is highly valued!
Privacy is undervalued

This should be fairly straightforward. I must prove that privacy is undervalued. Con must prove that privacy is not undervalued. Rules Round 1: Acceptance and definitions. Round 2: Constructives Rounds 3, 4, and 5: Rebuttals Definitions Privacy - "Freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Undervalued - "to regard or esteem too lightly; to value, rate, or estimate below the real worth." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)
Flash VS Superman

Since you are being too vague and this round is simply accepting the challenge, then I will assume I can choose whichever super-hero I wish to side with. If you chose to support a hero that I chose without realizing you chose it, then I must apologize in advance, but the debate must still continue and go on. Sorry for any inconveniences or disappointments it may bring to you upon reading my argument. Either Flash or Super-Man for this debate? I guess I will choose Flash because Super-Man is too overrated, overpowered, and overused to be any good for this debate. In order to make things more challenging and fun, I will be choosing the Flash for this debate and prove to you why the Flash can defeat Super-Man in an actual battle. Before we begin discussing about how the fight would turn out, let us analyze both heroes. Because you are being too vague and you seem to be simplistic, then I won't go too deep as I am not familiar with the Flash myself. Super-Man can be analyzed as the following below: -Super strength, super speed, super hearing, etc -Heat Vision, X-Ray Vision, Micro-Vision -Freezing Breath, Hurricane Breath -Flying at hyper-sonic speeds through air and space -Basic martial arts/fighting skills -Manipulate molecules to become invisible or intangible -Resist through forces up to a super-nova -Bio molecular dense structure as an indestructible shield -Gaining power from the Sun -Super intelligence than a human -Kryptonian martial arts that increase mental strength -Weak to magic, kryptonite, and helping people too much -Telekinesis and other mental powers Of course, he has more abilities that I cannot remember, so opponent will have the responsibility of listing the rest. Now, as for the Flash, he is pretty basic but as follows; -Super speed reaching beyond time and space -Speaking, reading, and getting info very fast -Super Endurance -Fighting at fast speeds -Slowed Down Aging -Increased/Heightened Sense -Manipulate molecules to become intangible -Faster brain to process information faster -Manipulating the Speed Force -Creating vortexes Again, not all powers are listed and the opponent or responsible for correcting or adding any more powers to both heroes. The discussion of a hypothetical battle between Super-Man and the Flash begins after my rebuttal.
Islamic debate!

I do not disagree with the idea that Christians and Muslims can coexist, though I've yet to see an example of this outside of the Western World. Therefore, I will be arguing that a the Christian and Muslim religions are not the same, and that Christians and Muslims do not "serve the same God." 1. Muslims do not believe in the Triune God, while Christians do believe in the Triune God, also known as the Trinity. 2. Muslims do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or even that he was crucified. Christians do, and this is a vital part of the Christian religion. 3. Muslims believe that the Jews corrupted the Bible. Christians do not believe this, and the verses in dispute cause irreconcilability. 4. According to the Qur'an, the Muslim message came to the Arabs from a man, Muhammad (pbuh), who received the Qur'an from a revelation of Heaven. After the first century AD ended, there were no revelations from God that are considered Canon. Simply put, after the Book of Revelation the Bible stopped being written. Also, there was no mention of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. 5. Polygamy is at odds with the original marriage idea introduced in Polygamy. While there were godly polygamists in the Bible (such as Abraham), I have not heard of a case in the Bible where God said He is okay with polygamy. Meanwhile, Muhammad (pbuh) received a revelation from Allah telling him he could have many wives. Another incompatibility. P.S. I apologize for my lack of sources. I am using a Kindle Fire and there's a lot I don't know about how to use it.
Islamic debate!

I thank Con for choosing the topic, 'Christianity and Islam are compatible', I will show that Muslims, and Christians can live together in peace, but first we need to ignore all of which happened from the past(Saladin and lionheart/crusades), and I will establish that Muslims and Christians can live together in peace, if they follow the Qur'an and the Bible.Definitions:Compatible: "capable of existing together in harmony"[1]Harmony: ": a pleasing combination or arrangement of different things"(Could also means peace, because one of the antonyms of the word Harmony is violence, therefore Harmony can be considered peace.)[2][1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Following the Qur'an and the Bible:First we can understand that conflicts and violence happens between different religions because:1)one or both religions promote violence, which both Islam and Christianity do not do, therefore we eliminate this condition.2)Pride and boasting of the people, the people themselves, but following the Qur'an and the Bible, people won't be like that.Now we see these following conditions or reasons, people will get into conflict, but to prevent that we can know that if true Christians and true Muslims live together, then Harmony will established, let us see what the Qur'an and the Bible says:Qur'an 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion;" Quote from the Prophet of Islam(pbuh) said in his last sermon "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."[3]Therefore pride is forbidden in Islam, now I will show that is the same thing for Christianity.Proverbs 16:5 "Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. "(ESV)Romans 12:18 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. " (ESV)Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "Same with Christianity(& Judaism) pride and arrogance is forbidden, and an abomination to the Lord, and also promotes peace.As we can see both religions say that you should not attack anyone and live peacefully, therefore true Christians and Muslims can live in peace, and with no conflict.[3]https://www.islamicity.com...
Song Debate - Greatest Rock Songs of all time

So much I could have put up, It makes me second guess some of my choices. There definitely are harder rockers out there. It's hard to just boil it down to 5... But my choice for number 1 is indeed legendary. If you don't feel the rock in it, you've gotta be dead. Song- Won't Get Fooled Again Artist- The Who My fellow apostle of the rock neglected to give his opinions of the songs I put up, so my last words to everyone are.. If it sounds and/or feels rockin' to you, it is! http://www.youtube.com...
Song Debate - Greatest Rock Songs of all time

A list of the greatest rock songs would not be complete without Jimi Hendrix. It was hard to pick something by him... I could have picked something obvious.. My first choice was "Power of Soul" off of band of gypsies for the intro alone, which is completely ball shattering, but went with this instead due to it being a better song overall in my opinion. This is a pretty underrated track off of "Electric Ladyland" Song- Come (Let The Good Times Roll) Artist- Jimi Hendrix
Song Debate - Greatest Rock Songs of all time

It's hard to get greasier than a song that involves being covered in sugar, peaches, and love. Here is an epic by Frank Zappa that is even less subtle. It's a song about Terry Bozzio(the drummer at the time.. He's actually singing and drumming at the same time) falling in love with a photograph of the very effeminate looking guitarist of another rock group. Lyrics are borderline obscene, and the musicianship is amazing, more so when you realize that this is a live recording... Song- Punky's Whips Artist- Frank Zappa http://www.youtube.com...
Song Debate - Greatest Rock Songs of all time

In this debate we post Rock songs... Rock songs that in our own opinion are the greatest of all time. Voters will decide which opponent posted the best songs. - Terms - Round 1 will just be the general acceptance of the debate and the posting of your first Rock song choice. Rounds 2-4 will be a posting of 1 song each round. A description of any reasoning behind picking the song will be permitted, but not required. Round 5 will be the posting of your favorite Rock song choice, followed by your opinion of all Rock song choices that were posted by your opponent. Let the show begin!!! My first choice for best Rock song of all time will have to be.... Song name - Simpleman Artist Name - Shinedown Link to the song's video - http://youtu.be...
Most cases of bullying in schols help a person to deal with conflict in the future.

To wrap up my argument, even though my opponent has not argued and has practically forfeited almost every round, we cannot let this ideology be taught to our children. Bullying can ruin people's lives and bring them to waste their lives away. Teaching this bullies is practically giving them the free card to go bully someone and ruin their lives. We cannot have this horrible ideology be taught to our children. We cannot allow innocent victims suffer and we cannot condone bullying!
Most cases of bullying in schols help a person to deal with conflict in the future.

Many people have made the claim, "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger," but this ideal is just false. While scars may fade, they last forever and this concept applies to emotional scars as well. Those who are the victims of bullying no matter if it is emotional, physical, or spiritual, have to deal with those scars no matter what. Many victims of bullying after going through practical Hell, end up giving up. Some will slip into a depressive state or some may even kill themselves to stop the pain. They have to deal with the pain as they grow up and many kids will now see themselves in an ugly light of believing the horrible words. Now having a horrible view of themselves and their lives, they will continue on to do nothing and practically waste away. Continuing on those who bully, stating that bullying someone will help them in their future life only gives them an excuse to bully! By stating this, you are practically giving them the okay to go hurt someone. Is that really what we would want our children to think when considering bullying; that is helps you later on in life? That is practically saying, "Go bully someone! It will help you!" This is a horrible ideal to think! We cannot not teach these horrible ideals to our children!
Most cases of bullying in schols help a person to deal with conflict in the future.

This is my first time doing this online, but I am a seasoned debater from NFL; I will try not to go over the top. I will be arguing on that the fact that, that is just not true; that bullying can be detrimental to the victims and can ruin their lives. I will also be arguing on the fact that by saying it could help them in their future lives, that this ideal would give bullies the okay to hurt someone and would only cause more pain for innocent victims of the present and the future.
atheism is disbelief

So I'm assuming the argument is atheism is not... a belief, thing, or... really good at all. I believe it is. I mean, by definition, it is one view of how all of reality was created and exists, and why everything happens. That is undeniably, a belief, at least by one definition. I am atheist, so of course i think this, and I do struggle a little understanding how it is not a belief. My assumption is that according to religious people, there is nothing to believe in atheism compared to something like Christianity. I could not disagree more. There is plenty to believe. You can believe the scientific evidence and reason for the creation of the universe and solar system and earth and everything. You can believe all the scientifically proven explanations that are alternatives to explanations. Even if, for example, the Christian story of creation is true and more... interesting, for lack of a better word, I refuse to believe it. It contradicts all logic. Even if there is no hard evidence of, for example, the big bang theory, there is some reason to believe it all, which is more than in the book of Genesis. There is absolutely 0%, no reason to believe it. This is one of the reason I am atheist. I was born into a Christian family, however I see no reason to believe anything in the Bible. Essentially, all that every major religion is, is an old, outdated group of explanations for everything that happened. However, all of the things religion explained without any actual proof, can be explained by science now. With proof.
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Thank you for writing this debate. I am honored that you created a debate especially for me.I. Contention I: It is interesting that of all the writers of the Gospels, only Mark and Luke mention the "virgin birth".More over, this conflicts with:Galations 4: 4But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, Romans 1: 13concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,Both of these do not mention Christ's "virgin birth", which is, at itself, interesting. If the Bible was to truthfuly recount the life of the founder of its own sect, why would it exclude such a remarkable deatil of his life that would surely presage his divine nature (and that of the religion)?II. Contention II: The date of Jesus' birthNow after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, (Matthew 2:1)Whereas, it is stated that:And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (Luke 2.1-2.4) There appears to be great confusion over the historical setting of Jesus' birth. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is depicted as being born in the time of Quintillus (220 – April 270), compared to Herod (73 or 74 BCE, died 4 BCE) (both dates are given from Wikipeda). These are two of the argumets that I will give. The fact that these contradictions revolve around the nature of Jesus Chist, the founder of the Christin faith, should prove that the resolution is false. (Note: In no way, am I suggesting that the Bible is not holy or wrong. I am merely responding to the Pro's resolution).
Would the Gulf States Work More Efficiently as a Separate Nation

It seems as if ever since the the Civil War there has been talk about individual states or regions and how they would be able to fair on their own. I have heard a similar argument with California which currently comprises 13% of Americas GDP [1]. I have also heard that if California seceded it would be one of the 10 most powerful countries in the world (I am sure this would be similar with Texas as well). I think it is important to recognize that even though it may seem like California or the Southeast is not being treated fairly given the enormous role they play in our nation, there are many benefits to being part of America. Just because the global spotlight has turned away from the Gulf does not mean that the U. S. will stop cleaning it up (although more donations may be headed towards Japan). Let us look at the benefits of remaining in the U. S. : - Interstate commerce - Federal grants for interstate highways, railways, etc. - Military benefits - Would the citizens of said country move to the U. S. or be happy with an unstable, new government? - Drafting a new constitution - Maybe silly but tourism. A majority of North-easterners (many Americans in general) travel to Florida for vacation. Would they still do so if they had to travel internationally/ not stay in the U. S. ? - The fine print of the American constitution. The way our constitution is structured is to keep us dependent on one another and keep us united. I am sure there would be benefits to making the Southeastern states a new country. I simply think they do not outweigh the costs. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Would the Gulf States Work More Efficiently as a Separate Nation

With recent developments, such as the oil spill, it's a wonder there hasn't been one word about the gulf states(Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) from succeeding from the U.S.. Texas even has the legal right to do so. It's obvious that the rest of the nation has anything but completely forgotten the spill. It was not even mentioned in President Obama's State of the Union. It is clearly evident that the oil is not gone. When you make something smaller and disperse it over a larger area it does not go away. Hence the term "dispersant". The oil is now at a molecular level working it's way up the food chain and most locals have stopped eating fish caught in our area. Meanwhile the process of snatching a claim from BPs iron clasp has made it impossible for many people to get a fraction of what they are owed. To top it off the U.S. government decided to hand it's air tanker contracts to a company well known for fraud instead of sending it to the hard working and honest Northrop-Grumman facilities in Alabama, a state which most northerners few as primitive and mostly agricultural. Alabama in fact has well balanced agricultural and industrial settings. Don't get me started on how idiotic Obama's response was either. Instead of consulting any of the gulf states he decided to put a huge halt on off shore drilling which is a major workforce for the coast. The United States may have finally gotten to big and divided to function as a whole. Why should the gulf be able to act only slowly through it's senators which are generally looked down upon by other states. Southern states are viewed much the same way many Americans view Islam. The public singles out the extremes and broadcasts them all over the world. We are much more intelligent than the rednecks you see on TV and the sleazy slow talking politicians that couldn't succeed as lawyers or in Bentley's case doctors. The latter is mainly due to the fact that the intellectuals in southern states know the prejudice faced by politicians from our state and as such stay well away from the title governor and senator
Convert Me

Though the instigator normally bears the burden of proof by taking this debate my opponent accepts the burden of proof. The Rules. 1: My opponent as Pro is to make a case for the truth of their religion. 2: I as Con am to critically examine this case and attempt to test it to destruction. 3: Pro's case must consist of one or more of the following. An argument of logic/science, a test or experiment that can be recreated or performed by a non-believer or actual physical evidence (scientific data, archeology, footage, direct manifestation of the divine). 4: Unless Pro's argument fulfills one of the the criteria in point 3, he/she shall be assumed to have forfeited the debate. 5: Should I feel that I have lost the argument I will concede it and convert to the religion in question. 6: Should I remain unconvinced, but lose the vote, I will 'convert' for a period of no less than one month, during which time I will study the religion in question and attempt to live by it's tenets insofar as this is compatible with my life. 7: The standard of evidence shall be upon probabilities. My opponent must simply show that his/her religion is more probable than improbable. 8: To reiterate the burden of proof is upon my opponent. I thank the person who takes this debate, and look forward to their opening argument. Thank you!
Men Have It Worse Than Women In Modern America.

I would like to start this by saying that I believe that all people should have equality and that female rights also still serves a purpose, however I believe that the public pursuant to the idea that men have always and therefore will always have it better than women has become unable to properly recognize problems surrounding men. I believe the single greatest proof that it is worse for men than women is the following statistic from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: "Men die by suicide 3.5x more often than women." (http://afsp.org...). I believe the number of red flags that should raise regarding the way we treat men are numerable. Another example is out of all sole custodial parents following a divorce, 93% are women (http://www.newsweek.com...) . I believe if nothing is done in order to somehow improve the situation of men then as other groups actively increase the rights of the populations they represent, the comparative decline of men will have disastrous results.