BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Progressive Tax is better than Flat Tax

Bhakun, This is a disappointment that such a great topic must go to waste. But I give one argument to secure my win in this debate, even though I deserve to win by default. 1. Unequal taxation is fundamentally unjust. When you go to the grocery store, the mechanic garage, or even the theatre, don't the poor and rich alike pay equally? What if a vendor one day charged the rich more than the poor? Imagine the outrage that would ensue; the rich would probably not but from that vendor anymore. Why is that unjust? Well, simply put, any product can only have one price. A gallon of milk is $2.50, an automobile repair is $50, and a movie ticket is $12. Now, how can the same, singular object be charged according to the buyer's ability? That doesn't make sense. When a gallon of milk becomes 0.5% of one's net income, a repair becomes 5%, and a movie ticket becomes 2%, the object is valueless because it lacks a definitive price which is subject to market rules and impulses. Now imagine that the product is government. This makes sense because taxes are paid in return for security, namely the protection of our rights. But aren't all humans equal? Do we not all have the same rights? So why should one group pay more for its protection than any other group? Therein lies the injustice. Thanks for reading.
Should we plant more tress

Though everyone will not agree with me, yet, I want to present the idea that we should plant more trees due to the following reason, it will help global warming, animals will not get extinct and reduce the cost of air-conditioning cost. I have several reasons for thinking this concept. My first reason is that, planting more trees will help in the global warming. These trees take in carbon dioxide (CO2) and store it away in the process of photosynthesis. Photo means light and synthesis means, putting together. In this process, the plant takes sunlight (light energy), water and carbon dioxide (CO2) to synthesise the nutrients. Photosynthesis involves the green pigment (chlorophyll) and generates oxygen as a by-product. In the process of photosynthesis, the plant makes food for itself which is known as glucose (sugar). Chlorophyll absorbs light energy and the pigment that gives a plant its green colour which is found in the chloroplast. The chloroplast is where photosynthesis takes place. The equation for photosynthesis is, (water (H2O) + carbon dioxide (CO2) + sunlight (light energy) = glucose (sugar) + oxygen (O) + water (H2O). Much of the problem of global warming is caused by cutting down millions of acres of forest. To fix this issue, we need to stop cutting down the trees and the plants to resolve the problem of global warming. Another reason is that, that animal will not get extinct. By animal not getting extinct this would help the world to be healthier. If cut down trees and plants, bees would be the first ones to suffer and when they suffer they cannot collect nectar from the plant and tree. So, they will not be able to make honey for us. The honey which the bees make is full of energy (carbohydrate). When we plant trees, the native animal will also return where there originate from. When native animal return where they originate from, this would befit the animal and us for everyone"s protection. The advantage of planting trees is that when we plant trees in the right place around the building, it can reduce the air-conditioning cost. This will mean there will be less Freon (it is an inflammable and odourless chemical emitted from the air-conditioner). The chemical is considered to damage the ozone layer (Ozone is one of the five-atmosphere layers which is positioned third in the atmosphere. The Ozone layer is in the Mesosphere layer .It is about twenty to fifty kilometre above Earth). So, it will better to plant more tree to protect the Earth"s atmosphere. As discussed above, I have realised that we should plant more trees due to the following reasons, to prevent global warming, the animal will not get extinct and reduce the cost of air-conditioning cost.
Should we plant more tress

I negate. I defer to my opponent to provide more details, so I can argue something more specific. What kind of trees should be planted? Where? Just outside houses? What ecosystems? Not Antarctica, I presume. Who pays for the trees? Why plant trees rather than save the ones we already have (like the rainforest)? Why are new trees better than old trees. That's ageist. Explain please how trees affect the ozone layer. And prove global warming is real. President Trump said it's not. And his worth has the force of authority.
God"s existence

Okay, I understand. To summarize as simply as possible, concerning the laws of logic:1.) They are immaterial and universal; 2.) The universe has to obey them; 3.) They existed before humans (we did not create them, rather discovered them); 4.) They cannot exist in a materialstic worldview (which states only material nature exists). Therefore, this is one example of evidence for a logical Lawgiver who made his universe in a logical and orderly way - the Creator.And as a Christian, I must address my purpose is not to win an argument with you, rather, lead you to consider the existence of God, and lead you to his Son. For we are sinners. And yet, God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to save us from our sins, and was resurrected three days later - making salvation possible to all men. Therefore, if we put our faith in Christ and his saving work for us - confessing him to be Lord - we will be saved and receive the free gift of God. For we are saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And I believe that, as John Piper puts it, 'God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him'. Ultimate satisfaction and supreme happiness are only found in God alone through Christ. Forever, we can enjoy God and bring glory to him - all because of the Christ. I most definitely appreciate the debate. It was enjoyable speaking with you, and thank you for the respectful discussion.
God"s existence

I. We observe the universe obeying them - subject to them. We cannot physically see the laws of logic. II. You seem to be missing the point. Are they part of the material world? Sure, the entire universe follows these laws. This still doesn"t explain why the universe acts in such a way, and why the universe is "bound" to them (i.e. they can"t be broken). III. I ask where did such laws come from. Where did they originate. Why must the universe obey them? Why does the universe *have* to always work in a logical, orderly way. When it came into existence, why does it function so properly in accordance with these laws? IV. Science doesn"t always close gaps - it often opens them. The immaterial laws of logic are not compatible in a universe where *everything must be physical, material. This logical, orderly universe points to a logical, orderly Creator. V. Science will never discover logic. Logic is presumed for anything (e.g. we must presume we are logical from the start of the debate). VI. But to shut out God for everything is pointless - lest, naturalistic processes become our "god of the gaps" (I.e. we don"t know but it HAS to have come about naturally [Darwin said this about the origin of life]). VII. The question of where the laws of logic care about is quite important, indeed. Otherwise, we are totally missing a foundation for logic. The laws of logic is evidence for a logical Lawgiver who made his universe in an orderly way. To shut the door on God and claim "it"ll be explained one day -naturally!" Is far from scientific. On top of that, they can"t be explained naturally. They are not composed of anything. They were "in place" when the universe began. VIII. I would also like to ask where DNA information came from - for it is immaterial. The immaterial information is what makes you you rather than a cabbage. Where did such information come about that makes the variety of organisms we see today possible? IX. No, a coyote will never return to its ancestor - it lost genetic information. We"ve never observed an increase in beneficial, genetic information. The coyote can "evolve" and adapt to its environment, but it will not be able to return to its "previous form". As for DNA, we can expect similarity if we have a common Designer (e.g. a "blueprint", so to speak, for his organisms that would live on the same earth). An argument for DNA similarity is based on preexisting presuppositions that will lead to different conclusions. X. What is your personal explanation for the lack of transitional fossils?
God"s existence

I agree that the laws of logic exist, yet I disagree that they are intangible. The laws of nature and logic can be observed through the scientific method as these laws govern over that which is observable. For example, in an experiment, a scientist places an apple and a pair on an elevated position within a vacuum. He has a tracking device in the fruit to document their speed. He lets the fruit fall to the ground, and calculates their accelerations. He finds their acceleration to be the same! Another scientist in a far-off country performs a similar experiment and they find the same result. This is a law of nature: gravity. Although these scientists are observing objects, they can observe this law of nature and its effect on the material world because it is equally a part of the material world. Upon further thought, I am unable to fathom how laws of nature or logic could be "immaterial" as you say. What are you imagining the alternative to be? How could a law of nature be material, when it is the force governing that which is material? If you are trying to say that since it is only observable through other means (i.e. seeing the laws through experimentation), then yes, they are "immaterial". Yet what does that prove? You seem to think because these laws exist outside of humankind, then it must be proof of God. This is not the case. Just because we did not make the laws of nature, doesn"t mean a God did. They existed before us, and will for all of time after. You ask why do these laws exist, why do they govern the universe, if not for God? Well these questions are incredibly pointless. Asking why the sky is blue isn"t a meaningful question. Science can tell us how the sky is blue, but to ask why is pointless! What point does this serve? I don"t understand why everything needs to have a meaning. The universe is as it is, and why is a question for philosophers but in the end these questions mean nothing. The only real questions are those that ask how. Just because science doesn"t have all the answers, doesn"t mean God is the next best explanation. Sometimes saying "we don"t know" is the correct response (and most commonly it is). Back to evolution, you clearly didn"t read the articles I provided. Macro evolution is observable through fossils, and countless other means (such as DNA). Transitional fossils don"t exist for a reason! That"s not how evolution works. I"ll provide an easy to understand youtube video that will hopefully lead you to exploring more. Your coyote and wolf example make no sense, a coyote CAN turn back into a wolf if its environment demanded such adaptations that resemble its ancestor.
God"s existence

Hello. I. Concerning the burden of proof: Indeed, it does lie on me for making the positive claim (I.e. "God does exist). And I would, just for example, point to such things that are impossible in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview; such things as the laws of logic, laws of nature, uniformity in the universe, etc. (And we could also fit in the fine-tuned universe, as well.) For example, the laws of logic - they cannot exist in a universe apart from God, as they are universal and immaterial - which contradicts the naturalistic/materialistic worldview which asserts only material nature exists. So the burden of proof concerning the laws of logic actually lie on the naturalist, for they must demonstrate they do, which they can"t because they are immaterial (you can"t bump your head on the "law of non-contradiction" for example). II. Concerning evolution: How in the world is this evidence against? It appears this is more of a baseless assertion. Sure, bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance, and sure organisms change to adapt to their surrounding environment. I am curious as to how this is evidence against a logical, orderly Creator who made his universe in such a way. And I"m curious as to why organisms must* follow these laws (concerning adaptation, evolution, etc.) in a naturalistic worldview. (And note: I believe in the evolution you speak of [such as on the micro level]; I believe species change, for example [e.g. galapogos finches that Darwin observed]. I do not believe in common ancestry, however [i.e. I believe animals were ultimately fashioned by the Creator directly "de novo"]).
God"s existence

So since you are claiming something, you are subject to the rule of debate known as "The Burden of Proof". This means YOU need to provide evidence for your claim because YOU are the one making the claim. For example: If I said the world was flat - I'd need some evidence to provide in order to be taken seriously. Likewise you need to be the one to give the evidence of god's existence. Secondly, I might as well use the biggest piece of evidence against god, which is evolution. If you can agree that evolution is fact (which you should - you can literally see bacteria evolving in real time in petri dishes), then how does your religion still hold any weight provided evolution's existence? Please answer these two points in your rebuttal.
Africa will develop only to the extent that her(Africa's) development benefits the West

Africa is endowed with immense natural and human resources, yet the continent continues to overdevelop. The core nations(the West)have heard a lot of interest in Africa, but such interests are not really to benefit Africa, but to continue with the exploitation of resources and implementation of policies that further their(West's )interest. The west thus supports developments that are in their favor while hindering whatever else that isn't in their interest.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

My Opponent: "Well what if the parents buy weed for themselves, but don't let the kids have it? Then the exact same thing can happen with the weed instead of the alcohol. Oh. Oh snap." What's the problem then? I mean, parents don't have a say in what their children consume? My parents can legally deny me anything not necessary to my survival, like marijuana. So, my opponent proved nothing...oh snap. === Conclusion === My opponent is confused, vote for me. He was probably high when he did this...
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

Well what if the parents buy weed for themselves, but don't let the kids have it? Then the exact same thing can happen with the weed instead of the alcohol. Oh. Oh snap. You see? I'm untouchable. And you just kept repeating the same thing over again. And so I win. Accept it. It's over. Sure, a bunch of people here will vote-bomb you because I'm a troll, but you know what? I won.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

My opponent claims that alcohol is much more available to drugs in today's soceity. This is true, but it is still illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to consumer an alcoholic beverage. To the scenario about the kid home by himself after school, this is strictly the parent/legal gaurdian's fault. The little kid didn't purhcase the beverage. Of course, this has nothing to do with marijuana use by children. If children were able to purchase marijuana, then it would worse because a child could use it without the legal gaurdian having any knowledge of it. With the alcohol scenario, the parent (by purchasing the alcohol) has taken into account the possibility that his or her child might consume it, and they will have to be extra careful. At least they know that the aclohol is there! Unlike the marijuana...
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

Wasn't it totally available in like, the 20's? And alcohol is much more available, I mean, what if a kid was home alone after school? Open the fridge, pop out some wine, and drink that sh*t up. The weed would be less available, because they have to pay for it. And their parents would buy it for them if they needed it. And who's to say that Benadril isn't something we'll have outlawed in a year?
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

I take it my opponent will be arguing that the use of marijuana ought to be legalized for all ages because of the fact that marijuana is used in some religious practices. However, this would legalize it for EVERYBODY, not just those who use it for religious purposes. I really don't think definitions are needed. === Argumens === a) This would make it readily available to children. What kind of child needs to be using marijuana without parental consent. This would make is possible for children to attain cannabis at Wal-Mart. Bad idea. We protect children from several things in our society, such as: violence on television, sex, etc. Why not marijuana? It only makes sense. Children aren't old enough to make well-though out rationalized decisions, especially if those decisions would hurt their bodies. My opponent's case is visibly flawed.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized for All Ages

I first did weed when I was a little Rastafarian 7-Year-Old. I used to be busted all the time for sacrificing the holy grass to my God. What about the little Rasta kids who can't do their sacrifices anymore without facing the Feds? I'm all grown up and found the true way of life, Scientology, but I still respect those kids. Why not, people?
Church and State should remain separate.

Hello, I would like to start off by saying this is a good topic for debate that I would love to take part in. First off, I feel some things need to be defined before we can start arguing so we have a more specific premise of debate. If you disagree with my definitions then feel free to post your own. I will be defining religion as a set of morals or belief system that involves a deity (god to enforce or create such beliefs). I feel philosophy should also be defined, which is, in general, a set of morals or truths or process for determining morals or truths. First I would like to point out you're right about the 1st amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean that religious people can't vote based on personal conviction? When it comes down to it that's the way everyone votes, but if there's a god involved then is it not okay? Honestly, here's the truth, when a god is not involved there is no such thing as moral truth or universal morality. There's no way to put one philosophy on top of the other because there's no ultimate justice. Just as Immanuel Kant said, there must be an afterlife for justice, otherwise things we see as immoral can be left unpunished. So if there isn't an afterlife there is no passing of judgement for actions. This is important because now we are left with a lot of beliefs and no way to prove any of them are right. What then is the best way to determine policy? The best way to do that is voting your belief and seeing which one comes out on top at the polls. If someone votes a Christian into office or a Muslim into office, then that's the decision of the body of voters. Under the representative system, this person is chosen to represent a body of people who share similar beliefs or desires as him or her. It would actually be a political atrocity for him or her to vote in a way other than his or her personal beliefs about a situation, because the people who elected him share those beliefs. I'm going to argue under the premise that God doesn't exist. Now I argue moral relativism, which I define simply being that morality is relative to the individual. Essentially, since there is no point in anything we do, whatever one feels to be right is what's right. Therefore, the only immorality is that which you do and feel to be wrong. So if someone votes in a way they don't feel is right just because they're forced to then that is a moral atrocity. For my final point, I would like to point out the logical contradiction in the policy. If we take away any religion, we are left with an atheist government. What's the problem with that? We are not establishing a religion, but we are establishing a belief system, which clearly contradicts the first amendment. When it comes down to moral issues, representatives and voters will have no choice but to vote within the debatable premise of atheism alone, and they will be restricted to that belief whether they like it or not. It would be a constitutional atrocity.
Church and State should remain separate.

When making laws or political decisions, the form of government in which a country is under rule plays an important role in what laws are considered "valid" or constitutional. In the United States, the form of government is ran mainly by the people in which citizens are required to vote potential candidates into office that will make political decisions that abide by constitutional law. Unfortunately, many of these candidates and elected officials use religious based propaganda in order to persuade voters into making political decisions based on their religious beliefs and use their religion to dictate legislation. However, this is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution which grants ALL citizens of the U.S. the right to "freedom of religion" or the freedom to exercise the religion of their choice and laws are required to be based on secular ideologies instead of religious based ones. However, many religious people, Conservative Fundamentalists Christians in particular, cannot seem to comprehend this, and through politics, they use their religion to take away personal freedoms from others (despite being against "big government") and use the Bible, and other forms of religious documentation to dictate legislation. The United States is not a theocracy and the Bible, Koran and Torah are NOT valid forms of documentation when determining what laws and freedoms the American people have. Church and State must remain separate. If you disagree please start your rebuttal by explaining WHY you feel that the United States should combine politics and religion. Please base your arguments on logic and if necessary, provide evidence to support your claims. Thank you.
Without blood there is no atonement for sins.

In this debate, I will argue that the Jewish people in the time of Jesus were forbiden to worship Jesus as God nor accepting him as their messiah. Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals Only Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements I ask that whoever accepts this debate is a Christian. The Hebrew Bible is in this debate is the only authoritative book, as in the time of Jesus, the New Testament was not written. Serious debater only.