BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans should colonize Mars by 2050.

No way! That's 34 years! According to my sources our technology shows that it take 3 years to go to Mars on our average spaceship. It will need material to build stuff. We all working together will still take a lot of money and be only be able to send 20 spaceships in 5-10 years. Each spaceship will only be able to carry 1/814,000 of all the major equipment needed. We can't send that much spaceships, and humans may not even want to go to mars.
Humans should colonize Mars by 2050.

Definitions: "colonization" Oxford defines colonization as establishing oneself in an area. The point at which human colonization occurs is when crops are grown and humans can self-sustain. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. First round is for acceptance only 7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss
There is a God

However, the "evidence" he presents for God, is not really evidence for a God at all. I will explain why all my opponent's arguments in favor of God's existence fail. Fine-TuningMy opponent makes the argument that it is too unlikely that the planet would have just the right conditions for life without a designer. This is false, as there are so many planets in the universe, that the odds are actually very high that at least a few of them would be able to support life. The fact that we find ourself on a planet that supports life should not be surprising, even assuming that God does not exist due to the abundance of dead planets that do not have life. In fact, this is a good argument against God's existence. If God existed, he would only need one planet. All the dead planets in the universe suggest that we actually are here by chance! Pro has not really shown any genuine improbability here. Thus, his first argument for God's existence fails. Also, this is not even the fine-tuning argument. MoralityMy opponent says that without God, we would only act in our self-interest. This is false. People who only act in their self-interest do not do well in society, and get shunned because they are a hindrance. If people work together, then it actually benefits everybody more in the long run. Evolution and the environment with regards to our society explains our sense of morality just fine without God. Something is only "wrong" collectively to human beings. However, without us, morality means nothing. There is no reason to think morality has any meaning outside of the collective human experience. The Big BangMy opponent mentions evolution, and just bare asserts that it would be implausible without God. However, he gives no argument for this. It is just a bare-assertion without reason or evidence to support it. Personal ExperiencePeople claim they experience X. That doesn't mean that X exists. This is a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter what people claim to experience when it comes to extraordinary claims. If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. They are just words without proof. Useless. This isn't even an argument. Conclusion All of Pro's arguments for God fail. The resolution has not been affirmed.
There is a God

I would first like to state that I am atheist, but even I can find evidence that there is a God.Arguments for God 1: Fine tuning of the universe2: It would explain how we have morals 3: It is a logical assumption as to the start of the universe4: Thousands of years of personal ExperienceThe universe is fine tuned for a creator. We circle the sun year by year, and fail to appreciate that if we were one mile off in either direction this planet would be uninhabitable. This has been the case for millions of years. We have the perfect conditions to sustain life which as far as we know, no other planet has. Science offers mere probability as an answer. Even if were by chance that were able to sustain these living conditions the odds are so improbable that it is hardly logical to assumethat.It also would explain where morals are bred from. Without a way to judge morality we would have no reason to do good. We would only act in self interest. This is not the case however. All the time people are acting good and a majority of the people within the world assume the same things are bad. This is a moral compass that can not be explained. With the evidence of the big bang it shows how life started, but again it is my probability. Due to sheer probability, the chances of evolution occurring in the way science describes are astronomical. It is a far more plausible theory to assume it was guidedScience is also quick to discard any example of personal experience. Any type of belief in divine healing or miracles, but throughout the ages we have heard countless stories of this. Enough to see it as a viable point. Sure it can be labeled, as a theory but with multitudes of people saying and believing that similar situations happened, it can be argued as a valid point and one that science can not combat. We also know the scientific community is relatively small, compared to other communities. So to automatically discard personal experience because they can no see it or experiment on it, is illogical http://www.youtube.com...http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Death penalty is the best way

No worries my grammar is lacking as well. anyways when i stated save taxpayers dollars i ment exactly what i stated it has been proven that it is more expensive to execute a person then keep them for life in prison. http://www.nbcnews.com... Prisoners live thanks to us.- i mean so does 40 percent of america on welfare but were not killing them. Revenge is not a moral thing May we not succumb to thoughts of violence and revenge today, but rather to thoughts of mercy and compassion. We are to love our enemies that they might be returned to their right minds.- Marianne Williamson Crimes increasing are due to a messed up family system and public education. More people are dropping out of highschool and using welfare or other more shady ways to live.
Death penalty is the best way

Sorry for my mistakes :) But I really do not understand what you wanted to say with argument which you mentioned. you contradict yourself. we are paying taxes not to provide prisoners with food and contains with money. Prisoners live thanks to us. we must saves tax money , which is would not be spent to keep a convict in a jail. Convict will executed and there is no chance that he will break out of prison and commit crime again. It is like a revenge too. he took someone's life, so... he should be killed too. I want to add one that if when will be process of proving of guiltiness, government do bugs, Government will be responsible to prisoner's destiny. a lot of people avoid capital punishment and refer to life imprisonment, but I'm talking about the opportunity live without scariness and in order to make people learn how life is important. Criminals are increasing. It becomes more and more... how we will stop it? I'm saying again about the opportunity...
Death penalty is the best way

First, reduce the number of criminals. The death penalty will be a lesson and an example for others. - I have yet to find a study in which this is proven. there is no conclusive evidence that shows death penalty detours crime and even if it does at what cost? the life of an innocent man and millions of taxpayer dollars. There have been several cases were the crime was "proved" yet later was incorrect in its first judgment and turned around. You may claim phenomenon but i will refer to the bible in this case Genesis 18:23-32 better to spare 10000 sinners then kill one innocent man. How do you justify prisoners as human stone bags? They are still living breathing thinking humans. They can still do things they still live they read think have activities they still go on with normal day to day lives. We are not some third world country we don't leave are prisoners in dirt cells and water-board them they actually have pretty decent accommodation for the circumstances. Armed rebellion? so you think the forefathers should be murdered i mean this one was kind of out of left field..... the last sentence i must ask you to rewrite because it is somewhat incoherent. Thanks
Death penalty is the best way

society is one of the most important aspects of our lives! First, reduce the number of criminals. The death penalty will be a lesson and an example for others. We must proceed, of course, on the severity of the crime. If the crime is proved, and it really is difficult, or that he deserves the death penalty or life sentence, I think we should choose the death penalty. This is a much more humane thing than life imprisonment human stone bag. I repeat, with a proved crime. Mistake or political blackmail is quite possible. I think that we should not mix the two phenomena. First is a deliberate or inadvertent error investigation or trial, and the second is the reward for a proved crime. I am only talking about the crimes that are proved and are severe crimes against the person, or against society, after all, rape, murder, armed rebellion, which was defeated, and in which many people died. It seems to me that these crimes deserve the death penalty, if it is obvious that we are not dealing with it is unclear how a man whose guilt is not obvious, and the obvious and proved murderer and a criminal.
Death penalty is the best way

I would argue your opinion line by line but it appears to be to disjointed and incoherent to make a legitimate argument against. So instead i will argue the general gist of what you say. You claim the death sentence is better for society in what way? various studies agree that it is cheaper to put a inmate in jail for life then to execute them. An alternative..... don't kill them i mean its hard to respond to your argument but ill leave it as this. innocent people are murdered for no reason, better to save one innocent then condemn a thousand sinners.
Death penalty is the best way

Death penalty is the best way to the society.! It is one of the first main argument! But the guiltiness should be proved!!! why guilty people sit in prison and suffer for a whole life, while they can suffer few minutes or hours. It is the best way to all around!!!!!! do not enter the laws and rules... many countries avoid it!! What You will choose... to yourself, to other people???? which way is better alternative?
why do some secondary schools have blazers

First of all, the topic of the debate is, "why do some secondary schools have blazers. " Many schools, like our school uses uniforms also. Uniforms represent the school. And also, as the debate resolution, my opponent asks a question. A debate is NOT supposed to be a rhetorical question, and you get the point. So the debate resolution is bad. As Pro has the BoP, I will be refuting my opponent's arguments in this round, and make my arguments in the next round. Uniforms represent the school, that is why they wear uniforms. They just wear it for lots of reasonable reasons. I answered why some schools wear it.
The God of the Bible is Not a Trinity

The God of the Bible Is Not a Trinity. By the Bible I mean: The 66 books of the Christian Bible; both the Old and the New Testaments. NOTE: You do not have to use the KJV exclusively. GOD IS ONE PERSON: My first argument is that God is one person. If this argument cannot be defeated, then my proposition stands. This is exactly opposite of the Trinitarian assertion that God is one Being (divine nature) in three separate persons. "Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person." Galatians 3:20a AMP I use the Amplified Bible because it readily captures the sense of this passage. The reason that the Amplified Bible translates Galatians 3:20 is two-fold, but I will only deal with one in this first argument. Thayer: ""Heis" means the cardinal numeral ONE. where the word "heis" takes the place of a predicate it means one person" (page 186. A Greek, English Lexicon of the New Testament) A.T. Robertson: "One, when masculine, sets forth the idea of the cardinal numeral "one;" when referring to people or beings ALWAYS the cardinal numeral is implied" (page 186 volume 5; pages 526 and 527, volume 4; page 299 volume 4, Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament) A.T. Robertson: "one person" (Robertson's Word Pictures, Retrieved from E-Sword Electronic Version) Kenneth S. Wuest: "The word 'ONE' is masculine in gender, and therefore is personal, referring to a person." (Wuest's word studies from the Greek N.T. vol. 1 pg 106) Marvin Vincent: "the masculine εἶς, one person" (Vincent's Word Studies, Retrieved from E-Sword Electronic Version) When the masculine singular "heis" is used, it always refers to one person. God is one person (heis). ONLY THE FATHER IS GOD: There is no Trinity because only the Father is God. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 KJV Joseph Henry Thayer: "Only-NT:3441 1. an adjective, alone (without a companion); So that what is predicated may be declared to apply to some one person alone." (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg 418) "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:6 KJV These verses clearly teach the the only God is the Father. JEWISH MONOTHEISM: The Jews reject the Trinity. I will have more to say after my opponent responds.
Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

First of all, in Pro's definition of the word "rights", he uses the word in the definitions. I propose a new definition of this word: The collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts, or under an agreement.Second of all, since Pro didn't provide a definition for the word "deserves", I will provide one for him. Deserves: Should have. Source for "rights": http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... With that out of the way, here is my contention, because I only actually need one.Contention 1- Not everyone is capable of having/responsible enough to have the same rights.These are some things that I'm sure even Pro wouldn't want. Deaf musicians Blind people in control of a car Mentally insane children in public schools I rest my case. Back to Pro.
Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

I don't really expect anyone to accept this but if they do then I'm happy to debate this with them. Debate StructureRound 1: No acceptance round - just go into arguments Round 2: My arguments, your rebuttals Round 3: My rebuttals, you leave this round blank DefinitionsDisability: a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. Rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled to. Same: identical; not different. RulesNo forfeitureNo requesting to tie the debate - please ensure that you have enough time to debate thisNo trolling All basic DDO rules applySourceshttps://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...
Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

To keep this fair I am not allowed to respond to my opponents rebuttals - although it is tempting. I would also like to point out that my opponent used "wtf" in their rebuttals. This is a lack of conduct and as a result conduct should be awarded to Pro. Rebuttals I apologise for the short rebuttals round. This is due to the fact that my opponent provided 1 very short contention in his arguments round. This gives me very little to refute. I will respond to the 3 bullet points raised by Con. Deaf Musicians - Beethoven is commonly referred to as one of the greatest musicians in history and his best pieces of music was written after he became deaf. Although due to this problem he had to give up conducting this didn't limit his abilities on the piano. In fact it made him more passionate and as a result his work most famous pieces of work come from this period of his life. Blind People in control of a car - My opponent has not stated which right that this would prevent them from having and even if it did prevent them from having a right there is actually a way that blind people can drive - of course it is recommended that they don't for the safety of others but there is nothing preventing them from driving specially designed cars. Mentally insane children in public schools - Making mentally insane children go to special schools isn't depriving them of their rights. Whilst they rae going to a special school they still keep their right an education. I assume that this is the right that my opponent was referring to. It is hard to tell what exactually they were referring to since they did not provide any justification to their arguments and they did not state which right it would be effecting. Again, I would like to apologise for the short rebuttals round but there isn't much that I can do about it since my opponent decided to write such a brief argument. Vote Pro! Sourceshttp://www.bbc.co.uk...;https://en.wikipedia.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

The reason I didn't need a longer argument was because this resolution is extremely flawed. Rebuttal 1:"A disability is not a person's fault, it can vary from being a genetic problem to being the fault of the parents. Disabilities are very rarely intentionally caused by the person themselves. When we talk about rights we often start with the most common ones associated with this issue. " Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this. However, it doesn't support the resolution whatsoever. "A disabled person can often be discriminated because of their condition and be stopped from receiving the job or qualification that they deserve to have. As we know, by the term rights, we are referring to human rights. The key word in this is human. No matter how different they may be from you, they are still human beings. "If a business is detremented by someone who has a disability, then the disabled person should not have a job in that business. After this well meaning but flawed argument, Pro goes on a rant that doesn't support the resolution whatsoever. The Universal Declaration of Human rights was created so that a madman wouldn't decide that he doesn't want a certain group of people to live, and try to kill them all. Some rights should be shared by disabled and abled people, such as the right to live. This doesn't mean all rights should be. "Since you are arguing against the rights of disabled people, I can only assume that you are not disabled. There was always the possibility of you being born disabled. What happens if tomorrow as you walk outside you get hit by a truck and end up having your legs amputated - I know that this may be quite a disturbing thought, but it could happen. If that happened, would you want to keep the rights you already have? The most likely response to this is yes. "This would be a false assumption. That doesn't really matter though, as it doesn't affect this debate. The argument he makes after this assumption is one I have already refuted. If I had all of my limbs amputated, I wouldn't want to have the right to participate in manual labor. Rebuttal 2: "If a disabled person has poor vision or even no vision at all, their other senses are sometimes harnessed so that their hearing is better and their sense of smell is better. This is so that they can tell what objects are. With a better sense of smell, they can tell what food they are eating. With better hearing, they can tell when something is coming towards them - e. g whilst a person with good vision would see a car coming towards them, a blind person would be able to hear the car and sometimes they can react quicker than the person with perfect vision! The same concept applies towards deaf people although, their eye sight is improved so that they can lip read more easily. "Is Pro seriously suggesting that blind people should be able to drive? Excuse the colloquial language but: wtf? Note: As the rules state, I will be leaving the next round blank.
Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

I was hoping for a longer argument from my opponent since they only have 1 argument round. Since this is for arguments only I will not refute my opponents argument. I accept their definition of rights and deserves. Argument 1 A disability is not a person's fault, it can vary from being a genetic problem to being the fault of the parents. Disabilities are very rarely intentionally caused by the person themselves. When we talk about rights we often start with the most common ones associated with this issue. A disabled person can often be discriminated because of their condition and be stopped from receiving the job or qualification that they deserve to have. As we know, by the term rights, we are referring to human rights. The key word in this is human. No matter how different they may be from you, they are still human beings. "[The human rights were] adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, [and] was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again." Although it is not directly mentioned, we can tell that the reason that they were created is because of discrimination and prejudice. Although this is not the only factor involved, World War 2 happened because of Hitler's hatred for Jews, gays, disabled and black people. If we did not enforce The Universal Declaration Of Human rights then a similar event to WW2 could have occurred at a later date. Since you are arguing against the rights of disabled people, I can only assume that you are not disabled. There was always the possibility of you being born disabled. What happens if tomorrow as you walk outside you get hit by a truck and end up having your legs amputated - I know that this may be quite a disturbing thought, but it could happen. If that happened, would you want to keep the rights you already have? The most likely response to this is yes. Argument 2 If a disabled person has poor vision or even no vision at all, their other senses are sometimes harnessed so that their hearing is better and their sense of smell is better. This is so that they can tell what objects are. With a better sense of smell, they can tell what food they are eating. With better hearing, they can tell when something is coming towards them - e.g whilst a person with good vision would see a car coming towards them, a blind person would be able to hear the car and sometimes they can react quicker than the person with perfect vision! The same concept applies towards deaf people although, their eye sight is improved so that they can lip read more easily. Since my opponent has only provided 1 argument I will keep mine to 2 arguments. My rebuttals will be in the next round. My opponent's rebuttals should be in this round and the final round should be left blank by my opponent. Sources http://thoughtcatalog.com...http://www.un.org...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The economics system is not biased against poor people.

I did refute those points. To get a job higher than minimum wage, one must usually go to college, which is nearly impossible to do without drowning in debt. Saying, "if you work hard enough you can be rich" isn't an argument, its a vague statement, and quite often untrue. You also provide no statistics to suggest that people who work exceptionally hard go from lower class to higher class just by working hard. A minimum wage worker still cannot support themselves working 40 hours a week.