BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Santa Claus is Real

I will be debating that Santa Claus is real. When I was young my parents told me all about Santa Claus and his magical miracles and stuff. He is so kind to bring presents to everyone. When I was six years old my parents gave me a book about Santa Claus. I remember how I used to write my wish list and send it off to Santa and he would always respond to my every request with the presents I asked for. The book about Santa said that Santa will do whatever you ask in his name, and will bring toys and stuff. One day my parents said that Santa was not real. I am really upset now because I know that Santa is real so why are they trying to tell me that he is not. I know he is real because I have a book about Santa and the book is the word of Santa. I am sure that the book is the word of Santa because the it says so right in the book. And the book is infallible because it is the word of Santa. And I know it is the word of Santa because it says so in the book. Anyway, now everyone is trying to tell me that Santa is not real but obviously he is. In the book it says that all nonbelievers will get coal, but if you believe in Santa you will get presents. My friends have tried to convert me to believing in other magical beings such as the tooth fairy and the easter bunny but I know that these are all fake. It's so dumb that they believe in those things. I mean seriously, obviously Santa is the one true magical being. My friends are trying to tell me that if I don't believe in the tooth fairy then I won't get money and if I don't believe in the easter bunny then I won't get a chocolate bunny, but I tried to use logic and reasoning to convince them that they won't get presents if they don't believe in Santa. Then I got my other friends that believe in Santa and I fought against my other friends that believe in their magical beings. I am very mad that people are attacking my beliefs about Santa. Now I wish to debate my opponent.
Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted

Preface: - Due to limited time & exhaustion, I am gonna focus in this round on advancing arguments. - Also, Pro has the BOP to prove that Incestuous Marriage should be permitted, thus, he does not get to make assumptions, which I am not required to disprove either. If Pro makes an assumption, then he has to establish it, otherwise it should be dismissed as bare assertion. Case: I. Incestuous Lawful Marriage is an incoherent concept: - It is clear that Incest, by definition, describes sexual relations which are prohibited. A lawful ‘incest’ is no incest. Therefore, the whole concept of lawful incest, thus lawful incestuous marriage, is incoherent, for it is self contradictory. II. Incestuous relationships should not be permitted in a democracy: - This, for, evidently, virtually all subjects of society on the globe do not think Incest should be allowed (for social & religious reasons). Thus, permitting it goes against the principal of democratic rule. Here the argument is simple & has 3 contentions: 1. If we value democracy, & do not wish for the majority to be ruled by the rules of the minority, then we should value social or religious norms, thus should not permit Incestuous Marriage. 2. In democratic countries, which constitute much of the World, incestuous marriage should not be allowed. 3. In non-democratic countries, a discussion based on liberty & norms isn’t even suitable, in which incestuous marriage is not allowed to begin with. III. Incestuous relationships should be restricted by social or religious norms: - Here is a broad version of how my argument about this should look like: 1. If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we will have to concede all norms, for then, they should be all considered arbitrary. 2. If we concede all norms, then we have to concede the norms such as those of nubility (& thus age of consent), or bestiality, or human sacrifice, or infanticide. . . 3. If we concede such norms & we value liberty & thus the harm principal, then we have to concede all norms which do not infringe the liberties of others, such as those related to nubility, bestiality, voluntary suicide & human sacrifice . . . for they don’t infringe on the liberty of others nor harm others. 4. If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we should permit: bestiality, voluntary suicide, euthanasia, drug use, prostitution, human self-sacrifice . . . & also pedophilic marriage, for nubility (or the age of consent) is also a social (or religious) norm, & it has been in many places in the past, & still is in some places, less than 12 yo, & even less than 10 yo. Rebuttals: - Next round.
Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted

DetailsThis debate will address the notion of any and all Incestial marriage that, were the members not related, would be permissible otherwise. I. e. Arguments against underage incestial marriage would not be relevant to this debate. Full ResolutionIncestous Marriage Should Be PermittedDefinitionsIncestous: Relationship between two people traditionally considered too closely related to be married. Including parent-child, sibling-sibling and between a parent's sibling and a parent's child. Marriage: A union that grants the same rights as what is generally considered to be marriage in society, granting legal & constitutional benefits/protections associated with it. A marriage may for the purposes of this debate be recognised "recognized by a state, anorganization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. "[. http://en.wikipedia.org......]Format:48h,
Bill Clinton should have resigned post-impeachment.

Sorry, I don't follow too well. But everything I said (save the numbers on who voted for the perjury charge) was in my initial argument. And if not, it was just in different words. Regardless of whether I opened it "with the fact that he purjured himself", Con did not manage to disprove my second point about Clinton's perjury, nor did Con respond to my first point. So, my points still stand. Bill Clinton lied many times to the American people, and later lied about it under oath. In my initial argument, I proved this to you, the reader. Con did not knock down my points, therefore: the resolution still lives!
Bill Clinton should have resigned post-impeachment.

Con claims that since Clinton was acquitted of perjury in the Senate, he did not commit it. However, just because he was acquitted by the Senate doesn't mean he didn't perjure. The Senate trial ended up being almost entirely based on party lines, with no Democrats voting for the perjury charge and only ten Republicans voting not guilty. There is a large amount of evidence that pretty clearly displays that Clinton did commit perjury, all of which I included in my initial argument. To reiterate: Several impartial (or even partial to Clinton) sources made responses indicating that Clinton did, in fact, perjure. The Arkansas bar fined Clinton $25,000 and revoked his law license for five years, and the Supreme Court bar revoked his right to practice law on the Supreme Court bar at all - he then resigned from his position on the Supreme Court bar. In addition, the federal judge presiding over the Paula Jones lawsuit cited him in contempt of court and fined him $90,000 - a complaint with which Clinton and his legal team complied. Most damning of all is Clinton's own admission of perjury, on his last day of office, when he was granted immunity from prosecution: "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false." Con did not respond to this evidence which was already in my initial argument, or to my first contention. So, my contentions still stand.
how jesus can be god

Thanks CON for instigating.Any Christian brother please clarify my doubts and debate with meOkay, I will clarify. You are taking the CON position on "how jesus can be god", you are doubting that Jesus Christ can't be God because of, well, your doubts. That's why we have this debate, which I accepted so you can argue and prove that Jesus can't be God.Now, moving on, the Trinity, a Christian doctrine that defines God as 3 define people (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and in this case, 'Son' is reffered to Jesus Christ [1]. I will present the Gospel of John from the New Testament the Bible as evidence, since it's is an accurate and a valid source of reference to religious discussions and teachings such as this because it is considered a historical document, a sacred scripture according to various religions [2], like the Catholic Church, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that the Catholic Church’s view on the Bible is the word of God and that it teaches the truth [3], and we can take their word for it because the Catholic Church is absolute and has been a great influence on religious society. The doctrine states that Jesus was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. [4]Examples from the New Testament:John 1:1-3 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.[http://www.biblegateway.com...]John 10:30I and the Father are one.[http://www.biblegateway.com...]John 5:18This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.[The Word referred to Jesus][http://www.biblegateway.com...]These sources and arguments are not enough, so I'll save it for the next rounds if my opponent responds and argues thoroughly with reasonable arguments with accurate references. So, in conclusion, my whole case above clearly shows that Jesus can be God because he is the Son of God, it has been adressed many times in the Bible that He and God are one.SOURCES:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.vatican.va...[4] http://www.christiananswers.net...
The rapversity vs other groups on DDO

Rapversity is not a bad group by any means, however, I don't believe it inputs anything into DDO. Raps can be created without a group and I believe rapversity is just jumping on the band wagon, which was ultimately inspired by the inspirational Brotherhood. Let me create a list containing as much constructive criticism as possible. -You have no manifesto. Without a manifesto your group has no rules to abide by, nor do you have any promises made. It's important for explaining why your group was formed and gives everyone an insight into what you do. -The group is based on a democratic system, which ultimately means; there is no "brain child" behind the organisation, no one with a vision to bring the group out of its early development stage, as new members with their own agenda can multi-account and effectively take over the group and decide its fate with a majority vote. I believe this to be dangerous and ineffective. -Vote bombing: How can a rap group improve upon the already abundant raps that we see? It can't, it's only apparent use, would be to push certain voting agendas where the rap group vote bombs and supports its members. I believe this is dangerous. -The rap group never mentions anything about abiding by the websites Terms of use, this could be for various reasons, but I believe it makes sense to interpret that as them not being interested, nor having even read the Terms of use. This is indeed dangerous for a group that may develop influence on DDO. This is my initial view of rapversity. In my next round I will give reasons why the Brotherhood is better.
Hot dogs are sandwiches. Change my mind.

A sandwich is defined as something placed between two pieces of bread whereas a hotdog is a sausage that has been placed between two parts of a single bun. In the case of the sandwich both pieces of bread are individual and separate whilst the bread part of the hotdog is connected together. This is the same reasoning as to why a burger is a subset of sandwich if and only if the top part of the bun and the bottom part of the bun are completely separate. A hotdog cannot be a sandwich as its status as a hotdog relies upon the bun being connected and not cut in two.
Hot dogs are sandwiches. Change my mind.

You wouldn't call pita bread stuffed with lettuce a sandwich, You wouldn't call a taco a sandwich hence by logic and process of elimination the defining features of a sandwich must be that two separate pieces of bread contain something edible. This is the only functional definition of a sandwich because otherwise nearly everything that you eat that involves bread becomes a sandwich. Thus a hotdog since it only has one piece of bread is not and cannot be a sandwich.
The U.S. government should ban the manufacturing and selling of tobacco.

Hello friend. Tobacco should not be banned because: 1. It would lead to riots. 2. Tobacco creates jobs. 3. Tobacco would still be bought and sold illegally, as we see with all other illegal drugs. 4. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban tobacco. 1. Tobacco is addictive. "Yes. Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year." http://www.nida.nih.gov... People consiously choose to take the drug and it makes them happy. http://media.www.thetraveleronline.com... The population would not allow the government to ban food. To smokers, tobacco is almost as important as food. To have the entire population experience withdrawl symptoms at the same time would set up catastrophe. 2. The tobacco industry does create jobs and generate wealth. To destroy it would further hinder our economy. 3. Banning marijuana did not stop its production and dealing. Such a government ban would be next to unenforcable. 4. Constitutional arguments against the ban: http://media.www.redandblack.com... "Essentially, those who support the smoking ban as a measure to protect public health tacitly support a form of totalitarianism where the will of the majority is expressed through the government and the rights of the minority are not protected." http://www.associatedcontent.com... "According to the judge, this is a violation of bar owners due-process since it prevents them a chance to establish their bar as a cigar bar." There are many more. Tobacco manufacturing is not interstate commerce; therefore, the federal government cannot regualate it. A state may or may not be able to, but a federal ban is unconstitutional. I hope my opponent accepts this debate.
Should high school dropouts have to serve a one year military conscription with academic benefits

Why my friend, I am not saying that supporting their families is the only reason they drop out of high school. It is the majority. I Would rather have a person learn from their mistakes on their own, rather than being force to learn. If the number of families is too large for the base, then what happens. Are you going to leave them in need? If you hadnt forced their child to join the military, he could have helped them. If every problem like this is solved by the government then we will never realize our past mistake. These teenagers need to learn that everything cannot be solve by someone else. It was their choice to dropout. If they decide to live a life of crime, they will be caught. That is what laws are for, to set order to our country. How could you say that fixing the problem for them will give them education that will benifit them? Im sure that the highschool geration would agree. You simply cannot force someone to fix a mistake. That will be one year that will not benifit.
Should high school dropouts have to serve a one year military conscription with academic benefits

The government may have had this right to take away your right to speedy trial since the 1800s ,but not only then. The only reason that teens dropout of high school isn't to support they're family but also because they are lazy or don't feel like doing the work. Do you honestly think that these students who drop out of high school to support they're family will not resort to crime to help out. I don't think so and you are right that the military will give the families benefits. Military men and women are allowed to let they're family live on base while they are on deployment or leave. Would you want your child to learn honor and discipline while on the road trying to find a job without a high school diploma? Crime is very tempting and gangs take care of each other with expensive gifts that are bought with money received from drug addicts. Tell me how is it moral to leave a young adult to a life of crime and scuffles with the police. Under the hardship of providing for their family.
Should high school dropouts have to serve a one year military conscription with academic benefits

I must agree, most want a job and want to support their country. But that is also one of the major reasons that teens drop out of highschool.They want a job. Their families are not making enough money and they want to help them.I know if they join the military, the military will also provide some support for their families too. but with over a million of dropouts every year and increasing, that is going to bring a tremendous cost.Does our country have the stable economy for that right now?Most would say no. If you belive that the government can take our rights without a trial by jury, you my friend are still in the 1800's.Due process is given to everyone.Teen.Adults.Even children.These are part of our basic human rights that none can take away from us. Simply giving them a second chance will give them nothing, considering that they dropped out to help their families.That is a second chance itself.They will get an education and learn dicipline along the road of life.It is their choice.
Should high school dropouts have to serve a one year military conscription with academic benefits

There have been military conscription's in the United States before and the government has special abilities in war time and right now the United States is engaged in warfare in the Middle East. The government can suspend your right to trial by jury in wartime. It is also not immoral because these students would all be trying to find jobs in these tough times and as unlikely as it is they might find a minimum wage job. Either way they would not be benefiting the economy very much and could just as easily fall into criminal activity. They would be living off the taxpayers dollar not doing much to benefit society. With the conscription proposed these students would not only have the opportunity to see the world but also help their community with the service to their country and they would also have the opportunity to try again at their education.
Should high school dropouts have to serve a one year military conscription with academic benefits

America was founded upon freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of education. Freedom of equal rights. Freedom of press. Freedom to bare arms. LOOK AROUND!! We have the freedom of choice. Forcing a dropout to enter the military in not freedom. Yes, it may benifit with dicipline, but it does not ensure that they will get an education. For the past years, there have been consequences for not following military rules. Exercise is one of these punishments. Making someone do something isnt moral. Especially if it is just a young adult. The army based exercises are meant to train the harsh conditions of being in the military, not passing High School. Simply forcing someone also doesnt ensure that that person will learn from the experience. If that person was unwilling to learn in high school, what makes you think he will learn in the military, where they would force you to learn whether you like it or not. Taking alay a freedom is unconstitutional. It cannot benifit.
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

https://en.wikipedia.org... There is Malaysia. One of the worst income and wealth inequalities in the world. The pro side is not even promoting his case anymore. All points he has even have been rebutted. Everything a private school offers that are good can be replicated with public schools while all the negatives remain unattended too. We are talking about educational quality here. The quality is not up to my standard unless it applies to everyone. Private schools will cut out the poor and disadvantage and looks good on paper but we fail to see the generational poverty that we create. The pro side has failed to bring up anymore points for me to argue against. Please keep in mind that the burden of proof lies solely with him.
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

My opponent is saying that I haven't rebutted his 'financially inequality' argument whereas In paragraph 7 of 3rd round I said: "Also Turkey and Malaysia have the worst income and wealth inequality in the world." What about the quality of education in Turkey. Also, my respected opponent gave two links, both about Turkey. What about Malaysia? Isn't it ONE OF THE BEST PLACES FINANCIALLY IN THE WORLD??
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

The burden of proof lies with the pro side. He has yet to come up with any real evidence to support why all schools should all be private. He has also not given any evidence on why private schools are better. So far, anything he has described as a positive for private schools, can be matched by public ones. The point of public education is to have education available for all people. The pro side has not rebutted my point on wealth inequality in countries that have installed this policy. Overall the pro side has yet to really put up any argument with substance. I do not need to promote public schools, just counter private ones. Burden of proof lies with him. No proof is to be seen. I rest my case.
THW (This House Would) make all schools private

Welcome back. Now's the time for rebuttal, and I'm going to rebut what con's said. " Private and charter schools demand money upfront from "consumers" and leave the poor behind. Without public education, generational poverty will never be solved and the nation will be become more divide on wealth." 1 There are charitable organisations in all countries that would be encouraged by the government to give money to people who cant afford paying for education. 2 The money saved for the government by the private schools would go to the pockets of employees, part of which would be paid as school fees. "The main point of the pro side on educational benefits of private schools, is that their reputation must remain sound. This seem odd as public schools have reputation as well" I never said that! I said that private schools 'try' thier most to have a good reputation, to get more money from guardians of students. Please read my argument in the second round again.. "Public schools are paid by state property tax, not federal funds. There is no burden on the federal budget from public schools." Well, and the money left in the state property tax? Doesn't it go straight to the federal funds?? (I'm talking as a Qatari citizen, NOT an American. I don't know much about U.S. finance. "Both examples from the pro side are from countries ethnically and economically nowhere similar to America and cannot be used as a comparison for a action as making all schools private. " I never said I'm talking about America. I'm talking about making schools private all around the globe. "Also Turkey and Malaysia have the worst income and wealth inequality in the world." What about the quality of education in Turkey. Also, my respected opponent gave two links, both about Turkey. What about Malaysia? Isn't it ONE OF THE BEST PLACES FINANCIALLY IN THE WORLD?? I strongly call upon voters to vote by fact and power of debate, not by opinion. Thanks. Adil Muhammad, Qatar