BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Blue Violets

Today, I will be debating the very miscellaneous debate of Resolved: Roses are red, that is much true, but Violets are violet, not fudging blue -Wise Man on reddit. If I can prove that violets are NOT BLUE, And ARE Violet, I will have won today's debate. I will prove this in 2 ways: 1, Viola's are named after their color. 2: through Genetics, Colors and hue, And probability. My opponent can only win assuming that they can prove that a Violet is not Violet, And can prove that it is blue at the same time, Which I will explain later in my speech. Let us begin with contention one. Contention 1: Violets were named for their color. Violets were named after their color. When Violets were discovered, They were named after their color, Violet. If the entire naming of a Violet was for the name of it to be after its color, Then there is no point to even opposing the argument. I have already won. However, I will continue with Contention 2: Contention 2: Genetics, Color hues, And probability lean toward Pro (Affirmative) Today: Subpoint A: Genetics already prove that a Viola will be Violet. My opponent might try to attack that not all Viola's are violet, Some are Yellow. However, Viola's also very large amounts of Violet, And very few are at all Yellow or white, Or mixed in between these colors. Violaceae (the correct scientific term for the genus Viola, Or Violet) is one of the largest genus's for plants, Containing over twenty different species of Violet's, Including Violaceae odorata, Violaceae arvensis, And Violaceae canina, All of which are not random letters, Or typing errors, But scientific specifications for Violet's. Subpoint B: A Violet's probability of becoming anything but Violet is extremely Small. Of the 31 popular species of Violet, Only 10 of which are arguably not violet (information from the American Violet Society). If less than 1/3 of the population of popular Viola's are not arguably violet, My Subpoint stays true to the Resolution. Subpoint C: My opponent may say that because not all types of Violet are Violet, Then the Resolution will lean toward the Con (Negation) today. However, This is just not true. Keep in mind, Judges and voters, That the debated resolution also distinguishes one major flaw for the negation, It is "Not fudging blue". This means that the Negation has no longer any attack, As they can not prove that the Violet is not violet, But also prove that it is blue at the same time. Because of this resolution, My opponent can not attack my case, Can not have any affective rebuttals, Or prove that Violet's aren't violet and also blue at the same time. For this voters, I suggest a strong ballot towards the Affirmation of todays debate Resolved: Roses are red, that is much true, but Violets are violet, not fudging blue -Wise Man on reddit.
We dont need Justin Bieber If we bring the Beatles BACK!!

Rather upsettingly my opponent has forfeited. I shall endeavour to keep a stiff upper lip and perservere through these trying times. Despite my opponent having the burden of proof and not having made arguments to support the assertion that we would not Mr Bieber if the Beatles were to be brought back, I shall procede with my arguments. 1. We do not need Bieber at all This picture shows that opinion[1], (and music taste is of course all about opinion) is vastly against him. "But what about his many fans?", I hear you cry. Well, let them speak for themselves. How often do you hear support for him in any public forum? Virtually never. But these fans surely do exist, as I am skeptical about the assertion that so many albums could be bought ironically. Thus I offer the most plausible hypothesis; that all of his fans are mouth-breathing, droopy eyed, armless children, who are so mentally deficient they are not capable of defending their idol, as they can not even read or write. They are probably deaf too. They shall hence forth be reffered to as Murlocs.[2] These Murlocks do not provide any significant benefit to anyone other than the queen of murlocs, Justin Bieber. Their happiness is not contigent to societies benefit as they act uniformly and detrimentally to society. 2. The difficulties in bringing the beatles back Necromancy is a difficult art, and in the words of a very wise genie, it tends to end up "very bad". However, I do concede that pro was making her statement conditionally on basis that if we were to bring the beatles back sucessfully it would replace the need for Justin Bieber. 3. Murlocs are not equivilent to people who listen to the Beatles Even if we believe that anything which benefits murlocs could possibly benefit society, pro has not shown that the murlocs would accept the beatles if they were to return. In fact on this esteemed website; www.dailymail.co.uk, you can find many examples of our esteemed wise generous and caring leader, David Cameron, slagging the Murlocs off as lazy, feckless and generally as a waste of space. Such things would never accept the goodness that is the beatles. Ergo, bringing back the beatles would not negate the need for her ladyship Bieber. I hope that pro will be able to respond to this round. Sources [1] & [2] These pictures will be uploaded in the comments as I can't do this at work.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

First, thank you for your vote in my front page debate. I really can't understand how people can twist the simple logic that an Atheist cannot win in any way in Pascal's Wager. Ok, for the current debate...........Binding Contract:I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.Sign here ____________________________________to enter into agreement with God and receive His guarantee of pardon and eternal life in Jesus Christ.If you signed this agreement and received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, gettting baptized is the next step showing you are now identified in His death, burial, (shown by submersion under water) and resurrection (shown by being raised up out of water), and share the good news!The Gospel according to John is a good place to start reading, and of course use only the King James Bible. Then read the Letter to the Romans. And pray and talk to God every day and ask Him to show Himself to you through His Word, the Bible, and thank God and praise the LORD forever!
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

what if someone just acknowledges they are a sinner and he is their savior? you like to talk a lot about hell fire. or what if they turned over a new leaf ie born again and rely on him? or what if they say he is lord of their life, master of their life, and rely on him? your requirements still seem too specific and listy and exclusive. you admit the bible says 'confess with your lips..." etc, but then go on to give different more listy criteria. you admit verses as 'vague' as 'call on the name.... shall be saved' but then go on to give different more listy criteria. you also seem to sort of admit that it is not set in stone, but varies on the situation, as if it is holistic.... but that's what i'm arguing. but then while you do that you go on to give specific criteria again. it seems you are all over the board on this.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Ok, I'll try to spell it out in different ways. It's not a magic formula. If it were a magic formula, it would be like witchcraft; you doing something in an attempt to cause something to happen. Salvation is a gift from God. It is not something we can make happen. God makes it happen when we admit that we are separated from Him by our sin and we believe the gospel and in Jesus' name call on God the Father to save us. There is no reason to believe God is unable to do this when we are in agreement with Him regarding our sin and are trusting in His mercy that He executed the punishment for our sin on His Son, and that in His Son's resurrection we can receive forgiveness and full pardon. Since He took my death, I am crucified with Him. Since he rose from the grave, my sin is buried and left behind Him. Since I received Him as my Saviour, He is my life and His life is eternal. I received Him by believing on Him and entering into agreement with God so that God could save me and He did. He promises eternal life now, "for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". It's not a magic formula, To be born again is an act of God which God makes happen when He sees we are in agreement with Him regarding our sin and His right to execute us in Hell for it, and believing on Jesus can calling on Him to save us. We can take God at His Word. He wants us to know that we have eternal life when we are saved, He wants us to have confidence with Him like a child has toward it's father. It's so simple a child can understand. Why not believe God and quit trying to earn His favor? Why not simply believe God is willing to forgive you and keep you safe from Hell now, and preserved for eternal life forever? Is God unable or unwilling to do this? He wants to show His mercy and goodness through us who He died to save.I guess if there is a threshold of faith, it would be your breaking point......when you finally swallow your pride and admit that you deserve to die and burn in Hell for your sin, and admit that you are lost and need to be saved. Until you reach that point and believe on Jesus in His resurrection and receive Him alive in person as your Saviour, you won't be saved. If you will come to that point in agreement with God, He will save you if you call on Him in faith in Jesus' name to save you. How can He save you if you won't believe He can save you? He will give you a new life, a new hope, a lively hope, He will be in you a well of water springing up to eternal life, living waters flowing out of you. He will make you a new creation and the sure hope of heaven and the joy of knowing you are saved will take you through the trials of life.It's only a matter of the light of the gospel shining through and the Light coming on for you. Jesus is the Light, your candle is burning out in time. He will be your Light and your candle will never go out if you will receive Him. He wants to be your Light. He wants you to shave in His eternal life now and know you are saved from hell.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

the bible disagees with you. according to the bible, there is a simpler way to be saved. Romans 10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." but that's not the real point. that's just one established way to be saved. the issues is that anything listed is either too listy and dogmatic and exclusive, or too vague. con's points are too listy, as demonstrated by the bible itself.
Authority

I cannot accept your resolution. I imagine that's important, seeing how this is a debate and all. What you propose is that authority is necessary to keep the peace. You however conceited to your knowledge of authorities corruption and lack of ethics. This is a house of cards. The glue is an illusion that you cannot do anything about it! You have to accept it. That is the fundamental relationship between us and the people we ALLOW have power! Where is the carrot? We are very familiar with the stick: 1. Inflation increases 600% while minimum wage increases by 30% 2. Health care system and Education systems are neglected 3. Welfare increases while people who work feel slighted. 4. Corporations take over every facet of society. 5. Disintegration of the Middle Class! That last one really hurts the whole idea of a class system if you ask me. We continue to allow the upper class to flourish while greatly increasing the lower classes population! That is what you get when you allow "Authority" to LEAD us! It is poisonous.. Do not expect your safety to last long.. Do you know how to prosper as a nation? Everyone work there asses of at pointless jobs? Or a leader points us in a direction that does not become stagnant and easily exploited! Shame on all of us.. especially the majority of us watch as they eat cake... Promising that one day we may have a taste while laughing at us and buying up low income housing to put up high end condos! The police. The justice system. Politicians!! Pointless without leaders! Most of what happens under the guise of capitalism and free market is akin to fraud and a scam on the Billions of us who blindly take it! Honestly we could go on for the rest of our lives and point out the obvious need for 4 Billion people to rebel. This is global. Its even ancient! It has always been this way! Time to stop Rome's from falling and a new dark age from spreading! So why is it important for a new "Authority" to take charge? For the well being of everyone. Not just a privileged few. America is not even the worst offender. Russia can eat a bag of taints! Anyways! The idea is that we are all confused! We are always afraid of something even in our "safe" lives. That fear is what's painted in the sky.. Its the wound left unhealed and the shadows left un checked! It is all of our responsibilities! Not just a select few of power hungry idiots that are leading us off a cliff!
Authority

Good to see you too. Now I'm pumped for this debate so let's do this, and yeah I think we can definitely make a great debate out of this. Now let's begin. Good luck my friend. Someone having authority is someone who has control and power. Someone who sits at the top and manages everything. You will hear people complaining about people at the top, cops, dictators, leaders and the list goes on. I'm not gonna deny that the people in authority cause issues, that would be a lie. But imagine a world where we rebel and overthrow authority. Riots in the streets destroying homes and businesses. Peoples hopes and dreams of a peaceful life will be torn to shreds in the rebellion. Resistance of authority will only cause the authority to become more aggressive and violent in a desperate effort to remain in control. Millions, if not billions will die. Ever try to fight against the government rolling tanks down your street? Now let's say that after years of fighting the dream will come true and authority will be destroyed. Civilizations will be in ruins. The homes families and children have lived in their whole lives, destroyed. Times of peace will just be a sad story of a non existent life. The survivors of war will be left salvaging for scraps so they can survive, but let's look at the bright side we will be free. But was it really worth it? I think not. In a world where no one is in control I promise you people will band together to seize control. Whether they are benevolent, charismatic leaders or malevolent, violent gang leaders that rule by fear they will all try to seize control because they will become hungry for power. Gangs will fight and no one will be safe when the streets are absorbed in the violence. In a world with no authority and no cops the world will be run by gangs and drug lords fighting for nothing, but their own selfish greed. Is that a world you want to live in? Because I know it's not a world I want to live in. So then there's the question, how do we avoid living in a world like that. Well here's what you do: You put up with authority. You may hate them with your whole heart, but whether you like it or not you need them. Because they stay at the top and keep everyone in check. By keeping the rebellions down they keep the peace, and that is why we need authority. I want to live in a peaceful world where we can fall in love, have children, and be happy without constant threat of danger, and because of that I believe our society needs authority so we can live in a world like that. You say we can replace authority with leaders, heroes and martyrs. Well I wish we could, but the leaders that want to do someone good will always be overthrown by those who have no ethics, because they will stop at nothing to seize power. Sure we should do our best to be leaders and heroes, but we should not rebel against authority and try to"take back this world from "authority"". I rest my case, good luck.
Authority

Greg good to see you! This should be an interesting discussion. I want to make it clear why I am tackling this issue. First off. I'm well aware that my problem with authority may seem like a personal issue. It may appear that I am just rebelling.. In a sense that is true. I want to make it clear why I feel that is justified! Authority. A nasty word if you ask me. To me it means assumed power. It means entitlement instead of integrity. It means the consistent corruption of power. Nothing scares me more than an authority demanding my respect. Did you notice that learning history just meant understanding the atrocities done by authorities.. Hitler. Stalin. The catholic church. abusive fathers. corrupt cops politicians judges and lawmakers! That is what authority means to me! Now I'm going to keep this short so my opponent can soak in the direction I'm hoping for. I will however offer up a solution in this round. Leadership, Hero's, Martyr's, perpetual Revolution. All of us take back this world from "authority" Do you think we can do something with this? I know you stand on the same side as me with a lot of issues.. Think you can defend authority? Maybe I am just a stubborn jackass that wont line up like a good citizen lol
Authority

I would like to use this opportunity to illuminate an important misstep in the progression and stability of, well I would say society, but I have a much broader image. Global respect and preservation should be at the heart of my conviction. My responsibility in this debate is not so much a burden of proof but a step in a different direction. A solution to avoid said misstep! My opponent must clarify the necessity and importance of authority. Defending its place in the well being of all who must live under such confines! Round one is for acceptance only! I will not use any arguments in this round and my opponent must submit to the same. Otherwise be penalized with forfeiture. This is to prevent my opponent from leading this debate away from the premise I would like to discuss! This is the definition of Authority I would like to address. Authority: the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. a power or right delegated or given a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency
Abortion

Being as that's your opening statement are you saying that eggs fertilize eggs because sex ed shows that you need an egg and a sperm. That means both men and females are responsible. Most people that get pregnant get pregnant by "accident." In these terms this means that the pregnancy was not planned. Regardless of whether those that are raped or victims of incest being minorities, in your opinion, they are still very relevant to the topic. It's easy for you to say if you don't want a baby don't get pregnant but there's also human nature that has played a huge part since the beginning of time. We are here to examine all aspects. That's the point of the debate. You don't pick and choose what you think is more relevant if both points are relevant. Taking responsibility for your actions could be, especially if you can't afford to keep a baby, to have the pregnancy aborted. When it comes to the economy those who had children during the Great Depression are a huge part of the reason why when we retire social security probably won't exist. That's why Financial Planning/Financial Well Being classes are offered in high schools as well as colleges now because we need to learn to save our own money for retirement as well as to invest in the right investments to live comfortably in our old age. We can't rely on adding more people to a depleting fund to support us for the rest of our lives. You should definitely gain exposure to the proper statistics because back in the time that you were talking about people still had children even if they couldn't afford them but they also lived off the land. Most people don't have that option now. It's your choice to make a change in your life as well as the fact that you have the option to endure certain hardships. As with every thing that happens in our life you have a decision to choose what is best for you. you may not want to be on welfare all of your life because it's hard to get off once you get on plus there are many stipulations. There's nothing wrong with wanting kids at a different time along with the ability to give them something that you didn't have. Most ideal parents only want to be able to give their child the best. If they know they can't and there's a possibility that the child could die from starvation, not have a place to sleep, and etc they have a right to say no to the pregnancy, get an abortion, and therefore decide what is in the best interest of their child(ren).
Abortion

The majority of women who become pregnant, do so willingly. Yes, there are those who are raped, or are victims of incest, but they are a minority. If you don't want to have a baby, don't become pregnant. Period. And if you do happen to become pregnant by the ways of incest or rape, then that's a different story. But if you willingly become pregnant, then you should have to take responsibility of the baby you created. As for the economy, aborting babies will not solve anything. Even during the great depression, people still had several children, and survived on a single income, which was far less than what people make today (even when you take inflation into consideration). And if they couldn't afford a child, they didn't get pregnant. So to say that having people get pregnant and get an abortion will help the economy isn't true. It only benefits the abortion clinics. And it isn't like there haven't been poor children before. There are lots of people who grew up poor, and turned out to be great people. To say that aborting them would be for their better good is very hypocritical. Two presidents come to mind, Bill Clinton and Abraham Lincoln. Both grew up poor, and both became the President. Everyone has to endure hardships at some point in their lifes, maybe early on, maybe when they're older. If that's the case, why even have kids? There are plenty of bad things that could happen. They could get cancer, they could grow up and become jobless and homeless, etc. So, once again, to say that aborting them would be for their better good is very hypocritical, because you never know who they could become. In the end, your general person should not be allowed to have an abortion. There are extreme circumstances where one may be permitable, but it should otherwise be illegal.