BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god does not exist

Now I think the first thing I should do is define the terms of the resolution. My opponent has somewhat defined what god is. He defines it as "an all seeing all knowing creator, and I suppose judge of all mankind". I will simply define god as: The creator of the universe who is all knowing, all powerful, morally perfect, who interacts in human affairs either by answering prayers or performing miracles and who is the ultimate moral judge of mankind. Exist will, for this debate, mean to exist independent of one's thoughts. This means that for god to exist it must exist as something more than a mere invention by humans. Now my opponent did not actually bring an argument in the first round so I am assuming that he will start in the second round seeing as he as instigator and Pro of this debate retains the BOP. I will simply use this round of the debate for acceptance and definitions. Good luck to my opponent!
god does not exist

Hello, my debate is the non existence of god, yes a totally unoriginal view but I would like to put across my own views and opinions so that anyone can have the chance to try to convince me otherwise. I am not saying Jesus did not exist, and I am not saying that the Bible is all rubbish, It is after all a form of history book. A lot of it's teachings, and those indeed of Jesus himself, are quite insightful, what I am saying however is that god, as an all seeing all knowing creator, and I suppose judge of all mankind, is in fact no more than superstition and folklore that has no real substance or proof of fact that I have ever found to convince me that he/she exists. I welcome your reasoned and serious debate on this matter.
We (American government) should defund Planned Parenthood.

Rebuttal 1: Teen pregnancy and STIs It is true that PP (Planned Parenthood) does provide these services, but so do almost all local and school based health clinics. Also even though they may provide these services their main revenue and main operation is abortion. Abortion patients constitute 12 percent of Planned Parenthood clients -- 332,000 of 3 million unduplicated clients in its most current report. 37 percent of all Planned Parenthood clinic income revenue is from abortion procedures, according to conservative estimates. Rebuttal 2: Freedom of Religon The fact of the matter is though that people who have a religious objection to abortion are having their tax dollars fund the largest abortion clinic. By having my taxes go to it, I am indeed supporting it. Contention 1: Planned Parenthood is not safe for women and young girls Recent undercover footage released by Lila Rose"s Live Action shows Planned Parenthood employees in several states willing to aid and abet in acknowledged human sex trafficking of girls as young as 14. (1) The undercover footage resulted in the firing of Amy Woodruff, manager of the Central New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic. (2) It also caused Planned Parenthood to call for mandatory training sessions of thousands of its employees across the country on reporting requirements. (3) 1 - http://liveaction.org... 2 - http://www.nj.com... 3 - http://www.nytimes.com...
We (American government) should defund Planned Parenthood.

Let me start by saying this is an open debate to anyone who accepts it. This is my first debate on this site and am not entirely sure how everything works, but I love debating politics and hope to have a good debate on this site. I would like to wish my opponent to best of luck, and lets have a good debate. Planned Parenthood has been shown to be selling body parts and tissue from aborted babies (1). We as a country can not support this monstrosity. All other services that Planned Parenthood provides are provided by local health clinics. Also the government should not use tax payers dollars to support an abortion clinic when abortion goes against many peoples religious beliefs, and by forcing them to pay taxes for abortion, you are directly violating their 1st amendment rights. 1 - http://www.cnn.com...
Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

My case is attached: https://docs.google.com... Allow my opponent to make whatever arguments he wants in the 2AC as I have forfeited the NC/NR. A quick apology to my opponent for this hastily prepared case. Responses: My opponent's entire case rests on the assertion that objective moral codes exist. This is not true as I have proven, and thus I negate, and my opponent's entire case comes crumbling down.
Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

The debate isResolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.This is intended to be an LD debate. It will be structured to be as close to LD format as reasonably possible. If you are not familiar with LD debate or don't know what LD debate is, please refrain from accepting. The round structure will look something like this:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Aff's Case, Neg's Case + rebuttalsRound Three: Aff rebuttals, Neg rebuttalsRound Four: Aff rebuttals, Neg passes the round to keep in line with speaking rounds. Good luck to whomever accepts.
The United States Should Cut Direct Budgetary Aid to the Palestinian Authority

Reason 1: The source link is broken, so I cannot verify the premises of this argument. Furthermore, no direct quotes from the article back up the impact conclusion, that "This means that when we give money to the Palestinian Authority- It is also going to Hamas. " Reason 2: The source is obviously biased. This wouldn't be an issue if the article cited other sources which back up it's assertions, but it does not. So we're expected to take information from a biased reporter at face value. And even if this were true, by this argument US tax dollars paid for the Israeli offensive in Gaza (Operation Protective Edge), which cost north of 2,000 Palestinian lives in densely populated civilian areas (. http://www.haaretz.com...). This fails to top the number of Israelis killed in terror attacks since the year 2000 (. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...). Are Israeli lives worth so much more than Palestinians to the US? Why? Reason 3: The source which my opponent supplies is entirely self-referential, and has been found to fabricate evidence in the past (. http://www.counterpunch.org...). It can hardly be considered credible. Reason 4: In light of Operation Protective Edge, the same argument can be made against Israeli military forces. If they are willing to wantonly slaughter civilians in vastly disproportionate numbers to their own casualties in order to achieve their aims, what gives them the moral high ground over insurgents who target civilians? My opponent's entire argument rests on the unsupported and unspoken premise that violence against Palestinian civilians is justified, while violence against Israeli civilians is not. Otherwise, it falls apart in the face of death toll statistics. And, seeing as my opponent forfeited, she can neither defend her case, nor can she critique mine, which is based on the US's status as a conflict mediator which, if it is to be effective, precludes the favoritism which we already show Israel, let alone the complete abandonment of Palestine. Thus the resolution is negated.
Lemonade stands should be legally obliged to provide a drive-through.

in today's world, we as humans seek convenience however at what cost should this convenience come at? Should it come at the cost of little children struggling to make some money, only to be burdened by creating a drive through? Or even having to pay a $50 fine when they only make half of that at most a day? Or what about the Police Officer who now has to look for lemonade stand owners who are in violation of city law? Or the law maker who has to now waste time on the "Lemonade Bill"? The only beneficiaries of this new law are lazy people and websites that make fun of dumb laws. Please vote in opposition of this new law.
Lemonade stands should be legally obliged to provide a drive-through.

Con starts his first argument by laughing out loud, but I assure you that this is a very serious issue.His questions: Are Lemonade Stands registered businesses?Lemonade Stands supply purchusable inventory, so I don't see why it would then matter whether they're registered businesses or not.Are you advocating for a new law, or an existing law to be enacted?I am advocating for a new law. I'm pretty sure that if you're against my law, you're against the whole constitution.Are Fast food businesses currently legally obligated to provide drive through services?I'm not doing your homework for you, mister!Will your new law/existing law hurt current lemonade stands?No, it will improve them. Thank you.
Lemonade stands should be legally obliged to provide a drive-through.

Lol I am pretty sure you are a troll, however I have nothing better to do, so I'll debate. I have some questions I would like you to answer: Are Lemonade Stands registered businesses? Are you advocating for a new law, or an existing law to be enacted? Are Fast food businesses currently legally obligated to provide drive through services? Will your new law/existing law hurt current lemonade stands?
Lemonade stands should be legally obliged to provide a drive-through.

https://www.google.co.uk...Ahh, the innocent iconic image of two young beautifully-oblivious young girls running a lemonade stand. Well, it is not that good-sounding to me. I have had bad experiences with these places!I was blasting quality music out of my supersize speakers and rolling down the road in my ferrari when I spotted one of said stands. I was quite parched, so I drove on up to the stand in my monster of a vehicle only seconds before hearing an annoyingly-high-pitched scream. So, apparently you're supposed to walk to one of these things, but that takes too much effort in my opinion. I sighed before tossing my $0.25 precariously out of my car window and then heard two slightly different noises. One was the sound of some kind of coin hitting a small child's head, the other was the sound of a different small child suffocating. "Ah, well," I figured "must be next door's damn annoying kids. Stupid next door!". But I can't help but think that this whole fiasco wouldn't have happened had these two brats provided a drive-through service. I will not stand to see another man have the frustrations that I was frustrated by, so I now advocate that drive-through services should be legally obliged. Thank you.
Why People Should Be Vegetarian

Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Plants are in fact alive. So are bacteria, fungi, protists, and of course, animals. It's not really set in stone whether plants feel pain or not, as there have been a few studies showing both. Alright, let's go back to 7th grade science. Animals must eat other animals to keep the populations in check. If there are too many predators and not enough prey they die of starvation. If there are too many prey, the predators reproduce fast, growing their population, and then eat most of the prey. It's an endless cycle. So, it's natural for us to eat animals. It's not wrong. Thank you.
Why People Should Be Vegetarian

Nice reasoning. But plants aren't that special. It's bad to eat plants but it ain't a living creature is it. When you kill it does it make sounds of pain. No plants don't because plants don't feel pain. Animals do. There living things and plants are too but there not that important. We could just plant more and more plants and they will just keep producing. Animals though they do make more of there kind but if we keep the rate of killing animals there will be no more meat on this planet.
Why People Should Be Vegetarian

Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

Here is what I will do throughout the debate and what I am fighting for as I lay my case setup. In my next round, I will point out how the motion is not a feasible option to follow, both mechanism-wise and as a consequence. Then I will propose an alternative to achieve the wanted results if given the benefit of the doubt. In the final round, I will make the comparative between the worst case scenarios of both sides and will also prove to you how even my worst case scenario works better than my opponent's best case scenario. As my opponent hasn't provided any substantive so far, other than his/her/their stance, I will consider this as a case setup and acceptance round, where we make what we are fighting for clear and elaborate and justify later. Good luck to my opponent, have a great debate!
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I believe that there should certainly be a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood, due to their high crime rates and violence. You see, while it is racist to entirely segregate society by race, we must do what we can do at the moment to reduce/minimize violence caused by blacks. Thus, there should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood in every country, including African countries. I'm pro, and you're con. You have 3 round, 3 days to prepare your argument, and an upper limit of 8000 characters. Let's go!
The UK should become a Secular State, free of religion

I thank Con for his response, even if I do not agree with religious bigotry.Although I feel Con has stooped in his level, I will not be brought down to it.I would like to point out that I joined here recently, My first debate is in its closing stages, none of the four debates I am a part of have ended yet, and while all the others, so far have stayed proper and intelligible, cons last round has fallen below par. While some debates on here are very much meant as jokes or meaningless wastes of time, and are agreed on as so by both parties, I actually joined to have a structured debates about issues that I feel passionately about with people who might either change my mind, or at least bring up other points in new lights.Cons utter failings in round 3Unfortunately Con has failed on multiple grounds in round 3. He argues my case is false because of my religion. This fails on 2 accounts. The first being that no ones argument, point or opinion fails because they believe in a specific god, deity or worldview. This is not just complete discrimination to that specific religion, but it is an utter lack of rational thinking and it is discrimination and inequality like that which makes me argue for a secular state in which all religions are equal.The second point is that, as openly seen on my profile, I am an atheist. So not only has Con not met his burden of proof, he has completely ignored facts. This compromises his entire arguments validity and it shows a categorical failing in both his research ability and ability to construct factual arguments. Cons argument is self contradictory, also... Rhino's.It is unfortunate that Con did not look into my profile to see that actually, I share the same religious view as him. Maybe he did and was just irrationalised by the fact that I don't seem to share the same fascination with Rhino's as he does, who knows. If he did see that I was also an atheist he would realise though, that his argument is a logical contradiction that fails entirely.Con states that my religious view proves my argument false. Con has the same religious view as myself. Therefore, by Cons logic, he is also wrong.Conclusion Cons first round argument is a logical informal fallacy that still fails to meet any burden of proof. Round 1 backs up my claim.We strive for fair laws and a diverse society, but let religious leaders pass discriminative laws. Con has not shown any counter to this.We teach our children false truths based on faith teachings and disproven claims. This would not happen in a secular society, and Con has still not shown any counter to this either or that the rest of the possible outcomes in round 2 won't happen.Round 3 has shown that Cons arguments from majority and morality by popular vote were flawed. He has not shown any counter to this.Cons argument in round 4 is self contradicting, lacks any evidence and reaches out to religious bigotry. It has no merit and would be better off in a playground.
Animal testing should be banned.

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals.
Animal testing should be banned.

It's highly unclear what you are trying to say with this list. Points 1-5, 7,8, 10-13, 15-24 seem to all relate to either drugs being bad for humans, or the animal subject not being optimal for the test in question. I would agree medications, especially strong medication, is dangerous but that's beside the point. And people overdose, mix medications with other medications or alcohol and so on, surely that is a contributing factor to the number of deaths. That is also completely unrelated to animal testing. And in the cases where the animal testing was not effective, that's not a reason to ban testing in the instances where it in fact is needed. Regarding item six, I would like a source. I would think this survey asked more specific questions than "if animal experiments had relevance to human patients". If not, these doctors are quite frankly idiots. How could you give someone a bovine heart valve without first testing if it worked. As I said in my previous post, insulin was invented entirely by tests on dogs (http://www.nobelprize.org...). That certainly has relevance to human patients. Item nine and fourteen puzzled me, is it there to show certain animal tests are unpredictable? If so, see paragraph one. If it's an ethical issue, that's certainly something that could be changed without banning all animal testing. For items 26, 29, 30, 31 are in special need of sourcing, but virtually all of these require background reading. Preferably peer-reviewed. Item 27 and 28 are not relevant. As a matter of fact we have those medications, so obviously that's not the case. Regarding item 32, 45% of what, Nobel prize recipients? Regardless, if 45% of any group think animal tests are crucial for their work it seems rash to ban it. I don't see the relevance in your last point, obviously some progress could be made. The question is, would it be more or less? You even said, in your initial statement, that we could miss out on pesticides and medications if we banned animal testing. I'm in an advantageous position, since you are arguing for an extreme. The alternative to banning animal testing is not to make it mandatory, or to base our every decision on its outcome. All I have to do is find one instance of animal testing where the gain outweighs the cost, morally and practically, and I have won. I will claim the invention of insulin was worth the suffering of those poor dogs in the 19'th century. I will also claim it was worth subjecting mice and rabbits to whopping cough, in order to create a vaccine against that terrible illness that killed so many infants and elderly. I will claim pacemakers and prosthetic limbs were worth the suffering of the large mammals they were first tested on.(http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...) Now it's up to you to tell me why I'm incorrect.
Animal testing should be banned.

While I think most people would agree that animal testing should be used to a lesser extent, and be performed as ethically as possible, that's not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a wholesale ban, regardless of the costs and benefits involved. I consider that irresponsible. Certain animal experiments are almost demonstrably unethical, and sometimes even unnecessary. That can't be said about all animal experiments however. We can not do research into malaria if we don't keep mosquitoes. We need to analyze snake venom to create antidotes. You may argue these pursuits are unethical, but it's certainly up for debate. I'm guessing the divisive issue is tests on mammals. I'm in no position to disprove all the biologists, doctors and pharmacists who claim animal testing is viable and useful, and the burden of proof is certainly on any person who wants to make such a claim. Humans are mammals, our muscles and digestive systems are often quite similar as well as our endocrine systems. In my opinion, the breakthroughs that rest on animal experiments speak for themselves. If there are better and cheaper ways, we will surely adopt those instead. People did not enter science because they are sadists. A complete ban on animal testing is not a viable approach, surely plenty of diabetics who are alive because of it would agree. I'm not sure it would have been more ethical to learn how to do kidney transplants or how to place the first pacemakers on humans.