BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

RulesDuring rounds 1-3 Con must ask Pro 10 questions.Pro must answer each question in some way.If Pro answers with an answer that does not give an opinion (like "I don't know") than Con may ask an extra question next round.If Con can show that any statements Pro has made in rounds 2-4 are contradictory than Con wins.If not than Pro wins.==============Here's to a great debate!
communism doesnt work

Well this is probably the fastest debate I've ever had. I must repeat my arguments from above. 1.The law of value is persistent in capitalism. Socialism is the transitional period of revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat in which the workers own the means of production. The soviet union was never communist, the Democratic people's republic of Korea is not communist. 2. Communism has never been achieved (except in a handful of communes). The sucess of all of those small communes testify to the greatness of communism. I'm sorry, but your arguments just don't do. I'm afraid I must repeat my arguments from round 1.
communism doesnt work

OH GROW UP AND GROW A PAIR! Youre just a little whiny kid in your mom's basement! Ooooh, stalin was awesome, ooooh, communism is awesome! OH YEAH!? WELL TELL IT TO THE BILLIONS WHO LOST THEIR LIFES!!!! Communism makes everyone equal?! Look at the soviet union! EVERYONE WAS POOR! look at north korea! EVERYBODYS POOR!I WONT LET A LITTLE KID LIKE YOU MESS WITH MY FREEDOM! SO I SUGGEST YOU GROW A PAIR AND KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT! Communism doesnt mean that the state goes away! LOOK AT THE SOVIET UNION! Youre a statist!youre a statist and tyrant!
communism doesnt work

Thats stupid! Of course you make the same thing! IF THE GOVERNMENT OWNS EVERYTHING! Socialism and communism are both EVIL AND ARE BEING DONE BY OBAMA! I know a lot about this!!!! I READ LOTS OF BOOKS ABOUT IT!!!! You do make the same money! Thats what communism is! You're nothing bud red scum! YOU got the north korean flag on your photo????!!!? SHAME ON YOU! RED COMMIE FILTH!
the statement that describes the natural human perfectly ends all evil

RebuttalsOkay, right now Pro is basically trolling and making weird argumentsI will write the rebuttals1. First of all, in Pro's first round, it is totally different from the topic. He starts with statements of nature responding to joy and pain. How is that evil? Joy is something people are confident on and pain is something they should improve. I see no reason why that os evil. Okay, now I will go on my actual argumentsThe statement was... A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or childFirst of all, how is this evil? There is nothing bad in this statement. Also people have joy, sadness, disgust, fear, and angry. This is not evil and very good. Joy is being happy which is the opposite of evil. Sadness is there at lonely times. Disgust is there when something smelly happens or something unusual. Fear is at when you are scared. Angry is when you are mad and you want something.To me and everyone, this is not evil.
the statement that describes the natural human perfectly ends all evil

I accept this challengeThe statement that describes humans: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or childOkay, this is the statement that defines humans. How is this evil?Okay, first of all, Homo Sapiens are a race of people. How is this evil? Right now Pro has mistaken that the statement of humans is evil.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
the statement that describes the natural human perfectly ends all evil

i will try the natural human only responds to joy, pain and memory of it, and spends at least 60 percent of his life in nature, has never experienced love and hate for himself, is unpredictable but only in good ways, is independent of others and always aware, sharp senses, always logical, telling the truth, makes progress rather then preserve belief is alien bull.. a tail of the unknown the dream, and the nightmare ends, once both have been seen... being in a nightmare, its like a dream to realize its false, and so i wake up
Native American Culture is way better than the Europeans

....Alright then.... Since I have nothing to argue against, I will add on to my argument with Native vs Europeans with hygiene. Firstly, Europeans came to the new world, and concluded that since the natives are almost naked, they are savages. But they did not leave any open-mindedness to discover that they are wrong. True, Natives wore next to nothing during the summer months of the year. But they wore heavier clothes in the fall and winter months while still being respectful to the ecosystem. Secondly, For Europeans, bathing was a upper-status luxury. Even the super rich couldn't have the frequency of bathing because the most they bathed was two to three times a year (and that was lucky). The poor and not so rich probably never bathed. For Natives however, bathing was for everyone because the endless flow of river and stream water was for everyone. The Natives probably bathed everyday, not only bathed to get clean, but swam care free. Meanwhile, Europeans rarely swam for pleasure. Another interesting fact, is that when women had their monthly course, or in the child birth process, Natives built a separate hut away from the rest of the village, by the stream or river (for frequent access to the water). This gives respective space for women to go through what men were not permitted to participate. What royal Europeans did, was enclose the woman in a room blocking out any light, and this prevented air circulation. What they did not know, is that constant encasement caused bacteria to grow and a lot of women died for childbirth. Now there is no evidence on the Natives side if expecting mothers died often or not. But comparatively speaking, Natives were aware of cleanliness and hygiene, while Europeans never connected bacteria to lack of hygiene, so I'm guessing that not as many Native women died from bacterial infection.
Native American Culture is way better than the Europeans

When the European explorers came to the new world, they found the Native Americans. After trading with these group of people, they concluded that they were savages. My argument is that the Native's way of life was better than the Europeans. (Ex: the Native Americans had better hygiene, way of agriculture, etc.) Con has to present an argument that supports that Europeans have a better way of life. Round one is acceptance only. Good Luck!
Abortion is morally wrong.

Firstly I would like to say you never pointed out what you base your morals on and morality is subjective to the culture and ideals of different people. I said abortion for no reason other then birth control is wrong. However their are instances where the morality of abortion is for it. I'll give an instance. If doctors found a virus that could wipe out an entire city or even the world and the virus was only kept alive inside the living fetus, would you abort the baby and save billions of people? Or would it be moral to kill every body including the baby? In certain instances it is moral to abort the baby which goes against what you said. https://coelsblog.wordpress.com... Again on the subject of morality it is clearly subjective and based on an individual. You say killing a baby with a handicap is wrong yet a handicap that will make the baby suffer all it's life to me is more wrong then killing the baby early before it suffers the pain. Which shows that abortion is not objectively immoral. Even with that one in two thousand chance it still happens and mothers die everywhere from giving birth to children. In those instance if the mothers and baby life was at a great risk it would be moral to me to abort the baby early. In conclusion.. Since Pro never stated how he knows whether something is immoral or not, and for the instances when I have proven morality is subjective, it is clear that all instances of abortion are not wrong. For this reason vote con. For I have told you why all said instances of abortion are not morally wrong. My name is Brian N. Johnson and thank you for reading.
Abortion is morally wrong.

I will begin my case by pointing out that an unborn childs life is just as valuable as that of one who has already been born. It would be absurd to say that a twelve inch journey down a birth canal somehow turns a just a "mass of cells" into a human being. This is something my opponent agrees with. In his eyes as well as mine, abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. As for the extending reasons which my opponent provided, It is fairly obvious that killing somebody just because they have a handicap is evil. As for the circumstances of rape or incest, the child is not guilty of any crime; he didn't get to control how he came into this world. It would still be morally wrong to kill a child on the basis of how they came into this world or because they are deformed. We can't know for certain if a mother would die in childbirth, and the situations where we could know we could circumvent it with a c-section. This is not the middle ages; deaths by childbirth are extremely rare objectively speaking. Statistically speaking you have a 0.02% chance of dying in childbirth. [1][1]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Abortion is morally wrong.

I accept. This debate resolution is simple. I will supply definition since you haven't. Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. https://www.google.ca... Immoral: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will begin with a simple question. How do you define what is moral and what is not? I believe firmly that abortion with no justifiable reason is wrong. However reasons such as rape or a deformed baby that could kill the mother or a terribly handicapped baby are reason why abortion is moral and this is based on the long term view of the future. http://www.bbc.co.uk... From this we see that for moral reasons some instances of abortion are morally correct and this goes against your resolution that all forms of abortion are just wrong. In conclusion... I wish to see your side although I will not permit your changing of the resolution in the future to accommodate said instances when abortion may be moral. Since of course you state all forms (none specified) of abortion are wrong. I look forward to your response.
Mormonism is as valid a Christian form as any other Christian sect.

I want someone to challenge me. I'll make my first arguement sweet and simple: Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ Mormons profess the teachings of Jesus Christ, so they must be Christians. Remember, the debate is to discredit Mormon faith on Mormon grounds. Otherwise, this debate means nothing. Secondly, only debate if you actually know a decent amount about Mormonism. I want a real debate, not a debate with an ignorent anti-Mormon who dosen't know a thing they're talking about. If you are opposed to a religon, at least know a decent amount about it.
Mormonism is as valid a Christian form as any other Christian sect.

Due to family obligations, my time to post a rebuttal argument to Pro in this round will inevitably expire, as I will simply not have the time to compose it and post it in the next two hours. I hope that Pro and those who read this debate will understand and allow me some leeway in this area. As the next round will be the last, however, and, seeing how Pro's last posted argument will likely be his last during this debate, I understand completely if Pro wishes to add a few more things to his last argument in the next round. I apologize for the delay and hope that Pro will cooperate with my time schedule.
weed

My opponent says I have lack of sense, but he spelled wikipedia wrong and instead of dot org, he put not org. Second, I did not use wikipedia, I used debatepedia. He has not refuted any of my arguments and that is why you should vote Con. I am sorry for what happened at the beginning of the debate; please vote for me despite of what happened.I have presented better arguments and he has not refuted any of mine and that is why I should win.
weed

Off Debate Topic I did apologize for saying that statement in the comments. I just realized that, but this is coming from a 20 year old man that can't spell if his life depended on it. I have did research on you before I entered this debate. Your spelling has been so bad that people couldn't even understand what you were saying. I am only 14 years old turning 15 this Friday. It was a simple mistake. In one of your debates, you stated that you were religious. When I think of religious, I hope that means according to Christianity. Anyways, the Bible says "Don't talk about the speck of dust in someone's eye when there is a large plank in yours. First you must remove the plank from your eye, then you can talk about the speck of dust in someone else's eye. " Fix your spelling before you talk about my reading comprehension skills. Back On Debate Topic My opponent hasn't refuted any of my argument or baked up any of his arguments.
weed

I am sorry but you cant read worht a crap I thanked you for you help and some how you gite me bing rude to you? how do you gite *How rude of me to negleckt my side of the agument, What you assumed is right tho so thank you for picking up where I left are pears hanging.* that as bing rude? it a thank you. I am done with you, unless you can show some reading comprehension.
weed

First, my opponent says that I neglected his argument but where is the argument in round one? I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better.legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin.I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.This is his round one. It has no argument. Also legal legalize the plant makes no sense.I didn't post an argument because he is pro and I usually allow Pro to go first. How am I rude? He is showing rudeness and aggression by saying I am aggressive. I am going to do something different today. I will post my refutations and then my argument. Youtube video- for some reason youtube doesn't work on my computer, so I can't watch it. More or less, you can't post a video, expect people to watch and use it as evidence. You must type out your evidence.My opponent says that it make many people happy, but less use some deductive logic. If money can't bring you happiness and you use money to buy weed, then weed can't bring happiness. Weed only kills brain cells and makes people less reactant to their emotions. Also happy is an opinionated word, and can't be proven by facts. Also just because it makes people happy doesn't mean it should be legal. Killing people makes some people happy but it's illegal. Bigamy makes people happy, but it is illegal.My opponent says that this will keep jails free for the rapist murderers and robbers, but murderers, rapists, and robbers go to prison, not jail. My argument Weed causes health problems- weed can cause many problems, hindering the ability to learn, causes lung problems, and brain damage, making them unable to be productive in society. It also can make people get sick by lowering their immune health.http://www.theantidrug.com... Weed impairs motor usage- when marijuana users drive cars, they lose reaction ability. This could endanger the user and people around. By the way, if you do hit somebody, you could get a manslaughter charge, and that might send you to jail. Weed can cause cancer, birth defects, and hormone problems. These reasons and more are reasons why weed should be kept illegal. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
weed

How rude of me to negleckt my side of the agument, What you assumend is right tho so thank you for picking up where I left are pears hanging. http://www.youtube.com...#! most of this is about drugs pearide but near the end I find it okay um I think in the 10 Minuit margin if you like you can watch the whole thing. It make many people happy if it where legal two, keeping most of are jails free for the rapist, murderers and robbers.
weed

I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better. legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin. I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.
Baha'i Fulfills "Father" of the New Testament

So let us consider the Biblical warning of false prophets, quoted above, and see how this applies to Baha'u'llah. There are three reasons why these warnings do not apply to Baha'u'llah and His claim: 1. Jesus warns of false prophets, but Baha'u'llah never claimed to be a "prophet". Yes, the word "prophet" is used to describe Baha'u'llah in general Baha'i marketing material and introductory books and websites. BUT, Baha'u'llah never used the word "prophet" (nabi in Arabic) to describe Himself. Baha'u'llah never Himself claimed to be a prophet, so He cannot be a false prophet if He isn't a prophet in the first place. So what does Baha'u'llah actually claim? He claims to be the "Sender of Prophets". 2. Jesus warns that people to say the "time is near" are not to be believed. Baha'u'llah does not claim the time is near, but actually that the time has already passed. See His Book "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf" where He says this. 3. Jesus warned that people will claim to be the Messiah but they should not be believed. Baha'u'llah in fact states that Jesus is the Messiah and claims the title of "Father" for Himself, not "Messiah". So again this warning does not apply to Baha'u'llah either. Baha'u'llah goes on to say that the promises of Jesus were fulfilled to the extent that Jesus Himself rejoiced when Baha'u'llah appeared. This statement of Baha'u'llah also demonstrated that Baha'u'llah claimed that He and Jesus are two different individuals but are "one" in the sense that Father and Son are "one".
Baha'i Fulfills "Father" of the New Testament

“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”He (Jesus) replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. -Luke 21:7-8At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. -Matthew 24:23-28 Jesus only came once as a regular man, and explicitly warned that others would come claiming to be him. Baha'u'llah fits this description perfectly. Any claims by Baha'u'llah to divinity are to be taken as heretical by Christians, and should be recognized as a contridiction between Baha'u'llah's claims and Jesus claims by non-believers.Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah or Father in the New Testament.
Baha'i Fulfills "Father" of the New Testament

The New Testament mentions the "Father" as an example in the following verses: The Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) " that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45) Go, instead, to my brothers and tell them: "I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17) Then the righteous will shine like the Sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:43) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, Who is unseen. Then your Father, Who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:6) Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:8) Your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:32-33) In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16) Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1) This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father, Who is in heaven, hallowed be your name." (Matthew 6:9) For if you forgive people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14) Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:36) Baha'u'llah claims to be the appearance of the Father mentioned in the New Testament. Here are some examples: "Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, **is come** unto the nations in His most great majesty. " ""Lo! The Father **is come**, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom **is fulfilled!**"" " "He Who is the Father **is come**, and the Son (Jesus), in the holy vale, crieth out: 'Here am I, here am I, O Lord, My God!', whilst Sinai circleth round the House, and the Burning Bush calleth aloud: 'The All-Bounteous is come mounted upon the clouds! Blessed is he that draweth nigh unto Him, and woe betide them that are far away.' " "Trembling hath seized all the kindreds of the earth, and He Who is the Everlasting Father **calleth aloud** (refering here to Himself) between earth and heaven."
Resolved:On Balance, Students in the United States should be guaranteed Free College.

Hi, so for today's debate, we will have 5 rounds. 1)Acceptance2) Opening Statements3)Rebuttals4)Rehabs/Second Rebuttals5)Closing StatementsSources can be linked in Case or in the comments, though in case would be preferableRULES:1) No Counter Planning. Opportunity costs are ok.2)Forfeiting a round is NOT an automatic loss, but voters should note that it as an example of misconduct3)Nothing New sources or arguments may be produced in the final round4) Have Fun