BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is a Christian Nation

Here are my main reasons for believing that the United States is not a Christian nation or founded on Christian values.1. The Constitution does not mention any god or religionTo be clear, the third amendment on the Bill of Rights is the one that excludes the government from making any laws restricting/about religion. Here's the third amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " (. http://www.archives.gov...)2. Treaty of TripoliTo be more specific, Article XI (11) of the Treaty of Tripoli, which states:"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. " (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)The Treaty of Tripoli was an offering of peace between the United States and Tripolitania. It was written by John Adams, approved by Congress, and signed in Algeria for a third party witness. 3. The United States has no official religionObviously, if the USA was founded on Christian values, its official religion would be Christianity. I feel that this is enough evidence to safely say that the USA is not a Christian nation. I hand the debate over to my opponent.
America is a Christian Nation

Presuming your country is the United States of America. For the sense of simplicity in this debate we will group both Catholics, Mormons and Protestants as Christians. Spain, France and England, AND the native Americans, were all heavily culturally Influenced by Religion we can believe this because of the popes power over Europe. We can also observe the influence of Christianity in the judicial department, and executive department, buy both the president and witnesses in court rooms are tradationally sworn in on a Bible. Though there is no law forcing this. When Alexis de Tocqueville writes his book, "Democracy in America" he frequently mentions the impressive amount of religious Christian devotion which if dis-owning in public can result in onstrasation in a society, or if a witneess in a court room, (Democracy of America) can risk the Jury already deciding the witnesses credability. My First point is- We can presume that because of the bias of early America that was publicly help and maintained that USA was infact found on Christian Valuves.
Animal Rights

To be clear to anyone reading this, I am not against the rights of animals as the title and my Con position would imply, I am against my opponent's resolution, the idea that people who mistreat animals should be tortured, raped, and killed. I have a few reasons why this is an unreasonable and over the top punishment. ----It'd be Contradictory---- The punishment for child abuse, no matter how extensive, is not torture or rape[1]. Why should abuse of an animal result in a worse punishment? Is it because we value the safety, comfort, and life of animals more than people? ----Eye for an Eye---- Some people might say that it's simply an eye for an eye, so in that way the punishment is fair. However, wouldn't making the punishment equal to the crime make the punishers just as bad? The actions my opponent suggests are extremely sadistic, and clearly motivated by revenge. We cannot allow society and our justice system to let such primitive and animal feelings have free roam. ----A Line Must be Drawn---- My opponent might say that these actions would be necessary to prevent these things from occurring. The first thing to keep in mind if such a notion is put forth, is to realize that this would be a statement without data to back it up. The second thing to think about is our humanity. If a person treats children or animals inhumanely, they are separated from society, put in jail. What my opponent wants would rob a consenting society of its humanity, even it these heinous actions were done with prevention in mind. There's no point in a slightly more orderly society if that society has to lose its humanity through allowing rape and torture simply for reasons of retribution or justice, both of which are completely subjective terms, and can be easily seen as the same thing. ----Exceptions?---- My opponent wants people who mistreat animals to be raped, tortured, or killed. Since no exceptions to this rule are listed, we can assume this is a blanket punishment. So I would have to discredit this stance somewhat by pointing out that there are circumstances in which a person may have had no ill intention toward the animal that was abused. The definition for animal cruelty can include neglect[2]. So under my opponent's line of thinking, and following the correct definition of animal abuse/cruelty, a person who has many cats, for instance, and can't properly feed them all, but keeps them all through a mixture of affection and denial, could be raped or slowly and painfully tortured. Or a mentally sick person who isn't responsible for harmful actions towards animals could be raped and painfully tortured for actions beyond his/her control. Thanks for reading. Sources: [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

The US health care system is modeled so that people thaw choose more don't pay more. If you want to go down that road them why not tax diabetics our people born with diseases as they will cost more money. The system that you propose just isn't viable and unrealistic. The government will need to have an indeed for every petty tax that is proposed. Your idea is stupid and you obviously didn't think it through. I enjoyed the debate and the questions that you have me. Made me think. Have fun voters!
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

cars and beds are not something that can be considered 'culpable'. tobacco is a bad habit, the other things are a part of life. though, i wouldn't be opposed to a gas tax to recuperate the losses there. the hobby lobby case is irrelevant to this issue. and, besides, the ruling of that case could have been different and it'd have been a slippery slope in the direction of no religoius rights. it was best to take that case as an example case of something traditional that was permitted on the side of religion, and not read too much into it as far as sippery slopes go.
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

If you want to go down the path of taxing people for things that will hurt them than we will have to tax things like cars and beds. A car can crash and make you rely on the health care system and a bed, you can fall out of and break both your legs and arms. You cannot go down the path of taxing for injuries that could happen farther down the road. Very similar to the Hobby Lobby case, the verdict would later apply to more and more things.
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

it may be a lot more cost prohibittive, but that'st just life. it will help deter some from smoking so much. it is merely recouping what they cost in health care. im sure if you ask any of them, they would all say theyd like health care in their last days or for illnesses brought on by cigarettes. so, the gov is just recouping, and if it has to fall on someone why should it fall on general tax payers to pay it?
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

The cigarette tax should not be brought up to ay or a government program. First: Do you realize how high the cigarette tax would need to be? The tax would be over 10 dollars per pack making it more than a 1000 % increase. Also, the government is then punishing those who use cigarettes. With this policy the government would need to tax beer as well? Second: With the fluctuating cost of the healthcare system the tax would not be a flat tax. It would need to be changed accordingly with the amount of money that the healthcare system would be requiring. The government has no right to raise the tax on something just because it causes cancer and can be fatal. Your argument is a slippery slope that would eventually raise taxes on anything that is deadly
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care cost

the idea, that cancer and other bad health effects from smoking causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in cigarette taxes. my understanding is right now the costs of tobacco to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for smokers, so they would't smoke as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends due to the product.
The Lego Movie is the Best Movie Ever

I argue first of all that overall The Lego Movie has received nearly unanimous reviews, having a "96% certified fresh" from rotten tomatoes, and a high score of 82 on meta critic. it is true--the movie has a heart-warming solution, and I am not talking about the lame "Believe in yourself"--no, I am talking about the movie's very climax, the point in which The "Special", Emmet, is almost defeated by Lord Business, the villain. The solution actually make sense, because they reveal it's actually father vs son all along, and this creates a special relationship between Emmet and Lord Business, making the villain not really a villain but just an antagonist. This is the main reason why I love The Lego Movie: it has a great solution and lesson that teach the little kids bad people don't have to be bad people--and The Father, or, "Man Upstairs", really isn't evil. He's just an adult who likes perfection and looks down upon his son's crazy inventions. But when he really looks into it, and his son is brave enough to speak up, he really has a change of heart. In conclusion to this round--the climax/solution is awesome, making The Lego Movie have a deeper level of lesson than any average PG movie. You have not yet stated what movie you think is the best, so I cannot make the contradiction against yours. Nevertheless it will be hard to come up with a movie better than The Lego Movie. Good luck to you.
The Lego Movie is the Best Movie Ever

The Lego Movie, my favorite movie, is the best movie ever because it is funny, has lots of action, suspense, romance, and the best cliff-hanger ending ever! Also, it has a funny catchy song "Everything is Awesome". However, it should be noted that it Barely beat my previous favorite, Frozen. Mainly because Let it Go is so catchy along with the other songs. SPECIAL PRIZE FOR WINNER (If con wins): I will watch the movie con says.
The Lego Movie is the Best Movie Ever

I. My opponent fails to understand the ramifications of making an absolute claim. For the purpose of clarification, I will share what I mean by using the term 'absolute claim'. Absolute claims are unqualified claims that often include words such as: best, pure, vital, essential, every and all. These claims must always be accurate. If the claim is not always accurate, the claim will be misleading. [1]When my opponent made the absolute claim that The Lego Movie is the best movie ever, he took on the burden of proof to show that his statement must be accurate no matter what. By simply admitting that some people didn't like the movie himself, he immediately made his claim inaccurate. Furthermore, by sharing evidence that the movie is not considered the best movie of all time by several critics (who all favored other movies), ratings, reviews and sales I have shown that my opponents statement is inaccurate. [1] . http://www.lexology.com...II. "Generally positive reviews" does not qualify something as the best movie of all time. As I said before, if something is to be considered the best movie of all time, it would logically need to be paired with the best reviews of all time. You cannot take something that is considered to have "generally positive reviews" and imply that is the best movie of all time. The term "generally" is defined as: usually;commonly;ordinarily. [2] Therefore, something of an "ordinary" sense could never be considered the "best" which is the term relevant to our discussion and one that I have defined earlier. Also, even IF generally positive reviews imply that it is better than other movies - it does not qualify it as the best movie of all time. The best movie of all time would have to have the best reviews a movie has ever received throughout the history of film. [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...In Conclusion, I have already pointed out that in sales it was not the highest earning animated film in the history of film, even when opening box office sales are considered. My opponent made the ultimate mistake of claiming something was the best of all time without having adequate proof to prove the accuracy of such a statement. I, in turn, have presented evidence that proves that my opponent's statement was inaccurate on several different levels.
The Lego Movie is the Best Movie Ever

I argue that all movies have flaws, as quoted by CinemaSins. Even a "100% fresh" on rotten tomatoes--One example, "The Rocket", has a "72" on Metacritic. This shows that both sites are fluctuated--a movie might seem better than The Lego Movie by the standards of the audience from Rotten Tomatoes, but this same exact movie might receive a much lower score on Metacritic. However, everywhere I see, The Lego Movie has generally positive reviews that make it better than other movies. Every movie has better things than other movies, however, The Lego Movie is so good in every possible way that in general, it is better than every other movie--with nail-biting tension every second after the problem is posed, and great action-adventure combined with the perfect click of comedy within the movie, make the movie better than others that might have higher ratings. In addition, while the lego movie might have only earned $372,532,000 as said by wikipedia by far, its box office opening is incredible, earning a massive $69.1 million, surpassing Disney's impressive Frozen's box office opening, and the second highest weekend debut in February as well!! Other movies might have better animation, but is its plot better? Is its characters as developed and/or as well-liked as the ones in The Lego Movie? I doubt it. As of the Last Round, I make my overall conclusion: The Lego Movie, being well-liked by not only the critics but as well as the audience and suitable for all ages, is truly the best movie ever. Good debate. If I lose this debate, congrats to you, opponent. You are awesome! (Along with everything else. Because everything is awesome!!)
The Lego Movie is the Best Movie Ever

Money means nothing. avatar (2010) is the most "successful" movie based on your opinion, but this is not true. avatar has only earned so much because of ticket inflation prices. therefore you cannot base a movie on how much money it has made. furthermore, you have yet to prove the point of which one movie truly IS the best. You have no ONE movie in particular to prove it better in plot, suspense, romance, comedy, and other genres of The Lego Movie. the Lego Movie only had one flaw as far as I could read from the audience reviews--some people did not like the animation. However, the animation does not really affect the movie overall. Its nice storyline and likable characters are really what makes the movie likable. Hating the Lego movie just because of its animation is saying not liking any animated movies at all because they are "kid-like" and not manly enough for the adults watching the movie. The movie is meant for kids but apparently all ages of audience like it, showing that the movie is truly popular! I would love to see what you think the best movie is and compare it to the Lego Movie. if there are really so much movies better than the Lego Movie, then please pick one and go with it!
Abortion is morally wrong

My opponents approach lacks depth. It is not always immoral to knowingly kill, like for instance self defense. However, if someone were in a position where she had to go through nine months of carrying, followed by a painful pregnancy to give birth to a child she knows she can't properly care for, it may be immoral to try and stop her from aborting. Whether it was her fault to get pregnant or not, forcing her to go through with it only exacerbates a bad situation. Not to mention the cases when the women are raped! Instead of appealing to religion or philosophy, my opponent uses an interesting approach by appealing to science in his opening thesis (which included a graphic description of fluid exchange that almost made me pass out). However, I remain unconvinced because as long as the baby is in the mothers womb, it is a part of her body. It gets all its nutrients from the mother. From a sterile, uncompashionate, scientific standpoint, the baby is nothing more than a passenger (parasite) and the mother is the host. So I don't think this approach is really gonna shed much light on an unexposed aspect of this topic, because it lacks compassion. Forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy lacks compassion, and a scientific analysis can't begin to show the anguish the woman might be in. What if the woman was too young to properly care for the child financially? The father gave into to his sexual desire just as readily as she did, but it is her body that's going to be punished with 9 months of carrying and the pregnancy, not his, so I think the choice belongs to her. How morally sound is it to bring a child into this world when you know it won't be properly cared for? The foster care system is ripe with abuse and neglect, and if all women are forced to go through with their pregnancy, most of those babies will end up either in a family that can't properly care for them, or in the foster care system. How many of those forced births do you think will have a tough life? If I were a betting man, I'd say most of them! Thank You!
Abortion is morally wrong

To prove that Abortion is morally wrong, I put forth the syllogism: The intentional killing of human beings is morally wrong, Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being, Therefore Abortion is morally wrong. In order to to prove this syllogism correct, the only thing I have to defend/prove is the fact that the unborn are not human. First, instead of appealing to philosophy or religion, I will appeal to the science of determining when life begins: Embryology. Any embryologist will tell you that the human development begins at fertilization with the one celled zygote. ("The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]) Second, the woman has a right to do with her body what she wants up until she violates the rights of the unborn. Most will say that the woman should have a right to control her body but the baby is not a body part. The unborn have their own DNA and since every single cell in the mother's body has the exact same DNA except that of the unborn. Third, some might say that because the unborn are not self conscious, they are not human. This argument fails because self consciousness is not intrinsic to being human. In fact, every night when you go to sleep, you are not in a state of self consciousness but it does not change your "humanness". In conclusion, to simply say the unborn are not human because they haven't traveled 7 inches down the Fallopian tube is incredibly wrong.
god is a unicorn

Thank you for your response, however, it may seem that your arguments lack enough evidence.I would like to propose my rebuttal according to the For's side logics (who believes one's personal believe can act as evidence/truth)1) If a believe alone can act as "truth", more believers means more "truth"2) There are far more believe as God is not a unicorn than God is a unicorn (Christians:2,100,000,000 adherents Muslims:1,500,000,000 persons Baha'is:7,400,000 adherents)To conclude, as the supporting side lacks sufficient evidence & the number of believes that "God is not a unicorn" brings a greater "truth"Therfore, this motion shall not stand
god is a unicorn

Before i state my arguments, let us define such motion. The supporting side - that is the side Affirmative must do the Two following things to prove that god is an unicorn. Otherwise, since there is not enough solid evidence (or arguments) we can not conclude for certainly that god is a unicorn. And hence the argument shall not stand. Firstly, the supporting side must give arguments and evidence to why god is a unicorn Secondly, the supporting side must define why god cannot be any other creature (know or unknown to man) If the supporting side failed to do one of the two above requirements, we can no longer conclude that god is Solely a unicorn. Thus the argument shall not stand. (P.S. sorry for the bad english @@ )
Little Mac (Pro) vs Rocky Balboa (Con)

Pro is correct that Mac can beat people bigger than himself etc.What Pro forgets is that Rocky Balboa beat guys twice his size too.So take Mac, who is smaller and weaker than Rocky and Rocky who is bigger and can beat even bigger guys than the 'big guys' Mac can beat and we realize a simple fact; Mac loses no matter what. Pro concedes that Rocky has more experience and is also probably more intelligent at coming up with strategies fast.Pro's only point he is relying on is that Mac can thwart enemies larger than himself but anyone who watched Rocky IV (which is when he is on the older end of the spectrum and most definitely not at his peak) saw Rocky take down a beast of a gigantic Russian (in the video) and still have the energy to give a passionate speech.I conclude that Pro defeated his own case and gave a very poor attempt at combating it.
Little Mac (Pro) vs Rocky Balboa (Con)

Both Fighters are in their prime, as you've assumed. Little Mac 1. Size- Little Mac stands at around 5'7, perfect size to be ducking and dodging all over the ring. His height will make it much harder for Rocky to get his hits in. 2. Power- Little Mac isn't exactly known for his overt strength, except for one move, The KO Punch (AKA Star Punch) which is capable of KO'ing Mike Tyson if utilized correctly. 3. Youth- Little Mac is only 17 and is defeating many older opponents with a lot of experience, making the Rocky has more time in the ring point relatively invalid. 4. Technique- Little Mac is well known for his ability to predict moves and memorize the fighting style of his opponents, making his compensating for his size and strength. He has defeated many opponents arguably stronger and overall better than Rocky himself (i.e. Mike Tyson, Mr. Sandman, Donkey Kong, etc) and I believe that his sheer willpower alone could get him the win.