BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God's existence

Firstly, I would like to sate that I am not against religion, and I don't believe that religion is stupid. I think it's perfectly fine to be religious and for one to have a belief system others may disagree with. Now onto my argument. I would like to stay on the topic of God being omnipotent, if you don't mind. If God was able to create the universe and make everything in it, then does this mean God can change what 2+2=? That God can make 2+2=5? If God can do this then everything we understand about the universe implodes and the thing God created (the universe) has laws that can be altered and changed by God. If this is true, then maths (the tool humans use to understand everything), maths is a human creation, God didn't create it. This means that God actually created a universe without laws or rules, which means anything could happen. Yet not anything does happen. Everything follows these laws and when something doesn't follow it the rules have to be changed or we realize that a new rule has to be created. But everything we know follows these rules, and nothing that once did follow these rules now don't. Therefore if God can change the answer to 2+2, then why hasn't he? I just have a few questions (I have never really understood these things so could you just explain. Me asking these things isn't be trying to be rude I am just curious) Why does God only intervene with human life between the years 4000BC and 400AD? Why is God male? Has anyone seen God to prove this? If God were to tell people about God's existence, wouldn't God tell everyone on the planet rather than a small group that has to tell everyone? God would surely want everyone to know that God exists. God said that Noah's ark was the only time God would flood the world, yet floods in countries all around the world are flooding and innocent people, children are being killed. Why is God flooding them if Noah's ark was the only time it would happen? Why do hurricanes and earthquakes happen?
God's existence

Secondly, as a Christian, I am prepared to argue my case, but I will respect your beliefs. Let's begin. I will make my round 1 argument by addressing your argument on omnipresent and omnipotent. To address your point on God being both omnipresent and omnipotent, that means that God is everywhere and can do anything. He is the sole Creator of the universe. Look at nature and it's complexity: do you really think the universe we live in, in all of it's complexity, could have been created WITHOUT divine intervention. Omnipresent does not mean he cannot leave a room; it means he is everywhere. God's unlimited power means he has the power to be everywhere. However, the only way us humans can fully comprehend omnipresent is if we could comprehend eternity. Sure, we know it means forever, but can you even begin to comprehend that? That is beyond size and time. Think of the concept of Him being omnipresent as Him being a omnipresent 3rd person narrator in a book, that book being our lives. He knows exactly what is going on, but that doesn't mean he is everywhere by human definition. Also, God being omnipotent means that he can pick up that impossible to lift object he created. Human definitions of the impossible are not the same as His definition of the impossible. If that were the case, then He wouldn't be able to create the entire universe, so we wouldn't exist and wouldn't be having this argument right now. Also, to address the point of being in a vacuum: a vacuum is NOT something that has nothing in it: a vacuum has no AIR in it. If a vacuum had nothing in it, how are all the planets, stars, meteors, etc. in the vacuum of space? Once again, good luck in this debate. Hopefully we can now move on to other topics other than omnipotent and omnipresent.
Hillary?(pro)Trump?(con)

It very evident that The Clinton are known for cheats and lies. They get away with whatever. Just like the recounts at the Iowa caucuses http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com... Lying about her scandal http://www.thenewamerican.com... Liking is partial, the other is about voting for "the least worst candidate. Trump's rise to popularity is remarkable being a businessman and not a politician.
Hillary?(pro)Trump?(con)

There must be an aphorism in that uniqueness statement. Like that ASCII plain text encryption technology to Hilary's email. Hilary's to be feared! She will bring into the white house of major unique problems to add on her collection that she already brought. But alas, Mr.Clinton left a strong message to US millennial generation -> "Mr.Clinton cheated on his wife, take it from the ex-prez as a role model!" Meaning, vote for Sanders or Trump. Unlike Mr.Clinton, Hilary won't slap us.
Gay Marriage

Why is there any reason to disapprove of gay marriage? It is harmless to those around the couple, and would move the world closer to equality for everyone. Some people say that people become gay because of Blah, blah, blah. That ISN'T what the debate is here! We are trying to find a LEGITIMATE reason that these homosexual partners are not receiving the same benefits as a heterosexual couple with the same intake and social status.
The Death Penalty

This speech must be cut fairly short as I have somewhere I need to be, but I will do my best. What I want to do at this point in the round is evidence comparison. Which evidence is better? I would argue in all cases, it's mine. Issue 1. Costs. We can see that most of my the Con assertions under costs are either from poor material, or have no basis at all. The Con brings up biased sources, and uncredible evidence to make the point. I have, tried at least, to use unbiased studies, such as my deterrence source, to show an factual, unbiased look at the death penalty as a whole. So, in short my evidence regarding this point has been better. Vote Pro. Issue 2. Deterrence. Once again, my evidence is taken out of context. My first source was simply to show that there is evidence for deterrence right now. It would be simply my word against his, if not for the studies I brought up in my last speech, that showed a growth of the murder rate when the death penalty was taken away. This was completely dropped by the Con as well. Issue 3. Innocence. I have showed there is no evidence of anyone in modern times getting executed as a innocent. Three times in fact, with solid evidence. My opponent's only response has been, "Humans are fallible, they make mistakes. " If this were true, there would be evidence. My opponent just can't back this up. Issue 4. Prison Chaos. His evidence about the murder rate being higher in death penalty states had nothing to do with convicts in prison. Only in the outside world. Some final words. I truly do apologize some of you are unable to access my sources. 90% of my sources were from databases that are inaccessible unless you have authorization. That is why I have posted full credentials, dates, titles, and authorship's as my sources instead of full links. I can send anyone who wishes full quotes from my sources. I also apologize if sound a bit whiny in this speech. I am just pressed for time.
The US should decriminalize prostitution

Con argues that prostitution should be illegal because all sex should be illegal, and all sex should be illegal because it destroys freedom. Con's argument goes like this: sex is irrational, and all irrational actions destroy freedom, so therefore sex destroys freedom. This argument is nonsense.First, consensual sex isn't inherently irrational. If I choose to have sex, it's a choice I make, and that choice is made on the basis of what Con calls a "rationally-guided will." The choice might be based on a number of different reasons. I could have sex because I believe it will give me pleasure (it almost certainly will). Or I could have sex because I want to have a child. Or I could have sex to assert my freedom from my parents. Or I could have sex to assert my freedom from prudish social norms. Or I could have sex to make someone I love happy (i.e. to give pleasure to someone else). Or I could have sex to assert my dominance over someone. Or I could have sex to assert my submission to someone. Each of these are rational choices. They are choices made on the basis of specific reasons with specific intents and goals.Second, prohibiting sex is irrational. It would lead to the end of society, which in turn will lead to the end of freedom. If anything destroys freedom, it's a prohibition on sex.Third, sex isn't slavery. They're not even in the same ballpark. Slavery inherently limits a person's available choices; consensual sex does not. If two individuals choose to have sex, they're still able to retract their consent, they're able to stop having sex, and they're able to do everything else they could do before they had sex. The act of having sex imposes no limit on the choices available to a person before they have sex. By definition, the act of having sex is completely unrelated to a person's freedom. Finally, engaging in irrational actions demonstrates the existence of freedom. Contrary to Con's assertions, the ability to engage in irrational actions is fundamental to the notion of freedom. The idea that I can choose between two actions, a rational one and an irrational one, is the basis of what it means to be free. If I'm forced to only perform "rational" acts, there's no freedom at all. Freedom is about making choices. It's about having the capacity to choose a rational action or an irrational action. The key point is the capacity. Just because the choice you make is irrational doesn't mean you've lost the capacity to make that choice. Mill's point is that you should be able to decide between your available choices, even if some of those choices are irrational and self-destructive, as long as the choice you make preserves your capacity to make choices. This is why slavery is completely different from sex. Slavery destroys our capacity to make choices, whereas sex has no effect on that capacity at all.
Drone policy

it will not violate the 4th amendment. drones aren"t bad per se. There are many lawful uses of drones, including wildfire control, tracking suspected criminals for whom a qualifying warrant has been issued, tracking of stolen vehicles, etc.It is a new technology that can be used for good. Anything new is scary. You sound like your trying to scare people. Please understand and do more research on the future positive impact of this technology before deciding it is only used for bad.
Drone policy

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com... In the very first paragraph, the mention of the Government's use of "lethal force" on US Citizens. My argument stands that this is a violation of the 4th Amendment, which like the entire Bill of Rights is intended to cover what the Federal Government can NOT do. If we accept this violation for perceived "safety", we are at danger of government's misuse of that acceptance down the line. This does not create safety, and it does not make the citizens "apprehension free". In fact, many citizens are very concerned and "apprehensive" about the drone policies coming out. It's almost like they are testing the waters to see how far they can go. Like I said, with each step, the next step becomes all the much more easier. This is dangerous.
Drone policy

The drone policy does not in any way indicate that it would use missile strikes to stop an American terrorist, but to capture them, and that statement alone covers the majority of your entire argument. secondly you have to understand the technological aspects of drones. A drone contains a sensors that can find, fix, and track targets on the ground meaning that a drone strike isn't the only way to stop a terrorist .The implementations used to cease the American terrorist in Afghanistan will not be used here in the us lives would be at risk and I think our government has never, in any way put the lives of the American people at risk. that being said drone policy is safe, drastic measure will not be used against the capturing of a a terrorist but a more sophisticated technological method such as sensor targeting will be used in apprehending the threat.
Drone policy

While there may be a threat of terrorism against the USA, I don't believe a Drone Program would keep America "safe and apprehension free". Since you didn't define drone policy or "safe and apprehension free", I'll do so below: "safe and apprehension free": Elimination or reduction of a threat in reality and in the minds of citizens of one threat, without in and of itself introducing a new threat in reality and in the minds of citizens. (EXTREME example: people may be threatened by criminals, announcing that you'll nuke the country to eliminate criminals will not make America "safe and apprehension free"). Drone Policy: I'm assuming you're referring to the controversial memos about using drones to kill American citizens without due process, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. This is the policy that was implemented in Pakistan to kill a US Citizen suspected of being an important terrorist figure, the attack that killed many innocent civilians and children. This is similar to say, China saying they are chasing Chinese terrorists who are anti-China, drone bombing an American suburb, to get a bad-guy, while within collateral damage, killing Bob and his wife across the street, and little Annie and Dave and a several other innocent American families and children. It's inexcusable. Many innocents including children have died in Pakistan, whom we are NOT at war with, due to our drone policy there. You could not say his resulted in a "safe and apprehension free" Pakistan. Now, the question is whether implementing the Drone Policy within America will make America "safe and apprehension free"? If you are suggesting that the drones be used within American borders to target and kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without due process or a trial. I think the threat to our guaranteed freedom under the 4th Amendment is enough to make that untrue. Are Americans afraid of being falsely accused of committing a crime now? No. Why? Because if you know you didn't do it, there's no evidence that you did it, and prosecutors would fail to convict you in court. Imagine, if people were being picked off by drones for being suspected of crimes. How safe would people feel? Not very. And this is not even accounting for "collateral damage". Whether it's now or sometime in what is hopefully our long long future, a leader using the precedent for Drone Policy to kill American citizens, may decide to label anyone with opposing political views as "terrorists" and order a Drone Strike. This is not only a threat to the safety, but a threat to the very fabric of our country, our freedom. Remember, every step that even slightly errodes our freedom makes the next step easier for the next leader. Add up enough steps, and you have a situation that I don't think either of us want.
Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

PrefaceThis is the semi-final round of the Official DDO Tournament's Experts' Tier. Having debated this topic before, I look forward to developing and improving upon my arguments as part of a constructive discourse with Phantom. Thanks to Phantom and to TUF for making this round possible! I look forward to a challenging, competitive, and exciting debate!Full TopicA Just Society should never deliberately initiate warRules1. No forfeits2. BOP is as follows: Pro must affirm that a J.S. should never deliberately initiate war; Con must show that a J.S. may deliberately initiate war.3. There shall be no a priori presumptions in favor of either side4. No new arguments may be presented in the final round5. Violation of any of these rules, or of any part of the R1 set-up, constitutes a 7-point lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: ArgumentsR4: ArgumentsR5: Rebuttals and Debate Summary
Same sex marriage does not harm anyone more than hetrosexual couples getting married.

[Gay people are not permitted in the Bible and that would offend some people] Response: Although I myself do not believe in God. Both Jesus and the Bible do not condemn same sex marriage. Although homosexuality is condemned in certain parts of the Bible however same sex marriage is never criticized. [People should not see gay people getting married as it would offend some people if gays were to marry] Response: The concept of same sex marriage would offend SOME people and I capitalize some because it is only a handful of people would be offended which could be for several reasons (such as religion or just being intolerant in general) However peoples attitudes towards same sex marriage are constantly changing and they are changing in favour of same sex marriage with roughly around 70% people in favour of same sex marriage. [Marriage is a ceremony for a man and a woman, if two people of the same sex were to marry it would offend peoples beliefs] Response: Marriage is a ceremony conducted for two individuals who wish to be joined in union in the eyes of God. Although some countries do not allow same sex marriage there are thirteen countries who permit same sex marriage, with the number slowly increasing it will not be long until churches will be made to give gay couples the same ceremony as heterosexual couples. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.people-press.org... http://christiananswers.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Same sex marriage does not harm anyone more than hetrosexual couples getting married.

Looking forward to my first debate here. My argument is that .Gay people are not permitted in the Bible and that would offend some people .People should not see gay people getting married as it would offend some people if gays were to marry .Marriage is a ceremony for a man and a woman, if two people of the same sex were to marry it would offend peoples beliefs. Those are my arguments.
San Bernadino

As the affirmative of the debate's proposition, I would like to first start by mentioning that my opponent failed to bring in a value for this debate. Therefore my value, the well being of the people is the only value which can be used to evaluate both sides arguments. This therefore eliminates the impact of my opponent's first contention, because I have no need to prove that there is any investigative evidence as to why we should hack into Farook's iPhone. As for the remaining of my opponents contentions, these are all pure l speculation and have no impact in the constant timeframe for this debate which since my opponent failed to reason, shall be the present. My opponent also dropped my point, therefore by not refuting it he has conceited to my resolution and therefore has let me win this debate. Now, to weigh. Voters, it is logical to pick my side on the basis that anything that has contact with a terrorist should thoroughly investigated as any case is. By law, for an American corporation to refuse to comply with the government is not only immoral, but is a sign of treason against our national security. Vote Affirmative!!
San Bernadino

Hello my name is Michael Bojarsky, and since my opponent failed to introduce a value or any points, I will continue on to introduce my own. As the affirmative, our standard for both sides will be the well being of the people. My first point is that Apple Inc. is an American company. As a corporation that has benefitted off of the American economy and people, and one which owes its existence to this great nation, Apple Inc. ought to be helping the American government instead of backstabbing it. My second point is that Apple Inc. refusal to help the American government break into one of the perpetrators encrypted iPhones actually endangers the nations security and the well-being of the American people. This once again is a violation of the value of this debate, which is the well-being of the people, therefore, I am the affirmative should win this debate.
San Bernadino

Once again, my opponent mocks me, for what else has he in order to pose some form of "threat"? It is quite simple to decide who won this debate. Just because we are not sure that something has value doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate it. As Justice Antonin Scalia himself had said, " a search is a search, even if the result is the bottom of a turntable." My opponent calls my arguments, "dumb" but worrying about the national security of the people isn't a dumb argument. My opponent says that there might be other cases in which the government will press on other companies to hack their equipment. But not only is pure speculation and theoretical, my opponent has not provided any evidence or explained the impact. It is also nontopical to the resolution. My opponent dropped my argument on treason which means that he hasn't found a way to refute it so it still stands. Vote For Me
San Bernadino

Firstly, I did not drop any of your arguments, and since in your own argument said that the rules of a specific debate do not apply to this round, I have never actually said I conceded to your arguments. A assumption is a very erroneous thing in the debate world as well. Secondly I specifically did not drop your "point" on how I have the burden of proof. I responded to it by say that we both have the burden of proof, this is debate for God's sake!! Thirdly, I would like to also add that you ironically failed to provide any actually evidence that I had warrants for my points, you can see it if you click on "previous arguments". So instead of calling me ridiculous, inexperienced, how about you take this round seriously as an actual debater would. Lastly, I would like to point out that there is really no difference between my opponent's points, and the fairytales of a conspiracy theorists. What kind of dystopian lullaby is my opponent dreaming of where corporations are under the control of governments across the world. What the government is doing is lawful, constitutional, and will continue to be. In response to my opponent's argument, or insult (they've become synonymous at this point) I would like to say that my opponent provided no direct evidence as to why the phone has no value. What if Farook forgot to destroy the phone or left it behind for an accomplice? We never know unless we check. The rest of my opponent's points are just the same old things he introduced in the other rounds. Voters, to be honest all he did was just put a bunch of fancy word together. You really want to talk about the well being of the people? A true patriot, one who actually cared about the well being of the people would make sure that anything potentially being a threat to his (or her's) security would be investigated. My opponent dropped my point on treason therefore in his own words has conceded to my argument. Please Extend, and thank you.