BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

Argument 1: Gay people existWhy are there gay people? This is like asking why does evil exist. The answer is because God gave us free will. Homosexuals choose to be gay through choosing their primary goal. God doesn't choose anyone's goal for them, he makes it possible for us to achieve a high goal. Gay people can have a high goal, but because they have to take it in turns to be emotionally happy they can't truly be what God wants them to be. Argument 2: People have free will in HeavenRevelation 21:4 says "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So according to the Bible there will be no pain, or suffering in heaven. However no-one can really know for certain what heaven is like but it probably won't be anything like life on Earth. Argument 3: God is made upImagine a boy says 'the Sun prevents cancer' and then says 'it doesn't really, I made it up', the fact he made this up doesn't make it untrue. Though the Sun causes cancer, and what he says is contradictory, he is actually correct. Therefore proof by contradiction does not establish the truth (unless perhaps you're solving a maths problem). Evidence that God exists:There are around 2.18 Billion Christians who have a relationship with God (~1/3 of global population) [1]There are between 0.7 Billion and 1.9 Billion Muslims who have a relationship with God/Allah (~1/4 of the global population [2]God is a huge part of their lives, and has an influence on them, therefore God existssources: [1] http://www.pewforum.org...[2] https://sites.google.com...
God exists.

If God exists and created every one of us, then why did he make some people gay. He called gay people an abomination (which hey aren't) yet still seems to create them. Also, heaven is supposedly perfect yet if it was then it wouldn't have people with free will inside it and it is restriction of another to remove their free will, a sin. Heaven and God therefore must be sinful and that is a contradiction, therefore God is made up by the people to explain why things happen and to get rid of things they do not like and control them (ie Gay people).
Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

All points and sources extended. _______________________________________________________________________ "My opponent did exactly as I thought he would do. He searches for information on the internet and plagiarizes someone else's knowledge as if he knows something about the origin of life." It is called backing up a claim with evidence, not plagiarizing. "I don't have to do that since I was taught everything about the origin of life by the Creator of life. We were created first as invisible wavelengths of energy. Then these wavelengths are processed into illusions that give each one of God's created beings a defined world to experience life in. This means that each one of us has our own universe of information to experience from your own perspective that is different from another created being." Where are you sources? Where is your evidence? "Many physicists are now seeing that there are multiple universes and not just one. If you want, you can Google this "multiple universes" and see what I was taught by our invisible Creator. Any of you people can read other people's knowledge and pretend you know something but you won't be taught directly by our Creator like He has taught His Voice, which is my created existence." Any evidence of this? Also, the multiverse theory has some evidence for it (though this is not the topic of the debate). http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "Amino acids are only illusions, too. My opponent doesn't understand this to be true." Where is your evidence of this? To claim without evidence is the same thing as making no claim at all. This video might help you understand how the burden of proof works. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent did not follow the rules of the debate. He has not successfully made a rebuttal of the information I provided. He has not provided evidence for his claims.
Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

My opponent did exactly as I thought he would do. He searches for information on the internet and plagiarizes someone else's knowledge as if he knows something about the origin of life. I don't have to do that since I was taught everything about the origin of life by the Creator of life. We were created first as invisible wavelengths of energy. Then these wavelengths are processed into illusions that give each one of God's created beings a defined world to experience life in. This means that each one of us has our own universe of information to experience from your own perspective that is different from another created being. Many physicists are now seeing that there are multiple universes and not just one. If you want, you can Google this "multiple universes" and see what I was taught by our invisible Creator. Any of you people can read other people's knowledge and pretend you know something but you won't be taught directly by our Creator like He has taught His Voice, which is my created existence. Amino acids are only illusions, too. My opponent doesn't understand this to be true. Have a nice day in the mind of our Creator, Saint Brad
Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

This debate is on the origin of life. I will defend abiogenesis as being the current most probable explanation, my opponent will try and show a different explanation to be more probable than abiogenesis. Definitions: Abiogenesis- Organic matter coming from inorganic matter Probable- More likely to happen or be the case Rules: 1. Burden of proof is shared (Con must propose and defend other ideas that could be more probable than abiogenesis) 2. Source all claims 3. Stay on topic 4. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct. 5. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points. 6. Follow the following format for the debate Format: Round 1- Acceptance. Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals. Rounds 4 & 5- No new points/arguments. Round 4- Rebuttal of previous points/arguments. Round 5- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case. Let the debate begin!
Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

My opponent did exactly as I said he would by turning my writing into trash with the same questions all unbelievers of a Master Designer use as excuses to deny Him. He believes a debate can prove that abiogenesis makes sense as the origin of life and that the knowledge I was taught directly by our Creator has nothing to do with the origin of life. I can easily say the same thing about abiogenesis. I don't believe in abiogenesis because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this theory. "IF" is the word that these scientists use to support their theories and that shows that these scientists are not confident in what they believe in. I am absolutely positive that I speak for our Creator and that we were created as invisible waves that can't be seen. I know for a fact that these waves do NOT take up any space nor do they form into solid particles that physicists can't even prove are solid. That's because I know for a fact that these particles are only illusions. Since there particles are only illusions, then amino acids are also illusions that aren't real. They are formed during this age to deceive God's people into believing that their theories prove that they exist. Why can't these scientists who study these invisible things get together and come up with one theory about the origin of life. It has gotten to be just like religion where each religious group believes they have the Truth. Quantum physicists don't agree with each other because they're at the point of guessing now. Their mathematics can't help them understand where these invisible waves came from. All you have to do is listen to our Creator through the written and spoken testimonies by the illusion that's writing this sentence and find out about the origin of life. Is it so difficult to accept our Creator's thoughts versus deceived scientists who can't get together in harmony and give us one solid answer to the origin of life? Neither religion or science has the answer to the origin of life. Only the Creator of life can give us the answer and that Creator has been speaking in this forum since last June. I could care less if you unbelievers can't hear Him. I'm only in this forum to find our Creator's chosen believers and there are a few in here. God bless you believers who hear His word, Saint Brad
Public colleges in the united states should allow all forms of speech on campus

Round 1 will be establishing definitions, rules, and providing a topic of their case. Round 2 will be presenting the cases, with no rebuttals allowed. Round 3 will be rebuttals only, with no case defense allowed. Round 4 will be rebuttals, case defense, and/or additional arguments. Round 5 will be case defense, with no additional arguments or rebuttals allowed. Definitions: Public: maintained at the public defense and under public control. Restrict: to confine or to keep withing limits United States: the united states of america, the nation College: an institution of higher learning If the con disagrees with any of these definitions, he or she can place their proposed definition in their first round speech, then the debaters can reach an agreement via the comment section. The topic of my case will be the human right of free speech My proposed rules are as follows: 1. No expletives or foul language unless from a direct quote. 2. Unless a source is provided, the evidence presented is invalid. 3. If you start this debate, you must finish it as well. 4. Rounds will be half of an hour. 5. If you fail to post an argument for the round, you will forfeit. Again, if the con wants to eliminate a rule or add a rule, you must state so in your first round speech and negotiations will follow in the comments.
Born gay part 2

I do not think being gay is as simple as a choice, but I believe that when you're a child you are still trying to form connections and gather facts about the world. During this time you form your basic fundamental traits, although some genes do make some traits prominent than others, but you form what you think is socially acceptable, and you aren't even close to figuring things out about sexuality. I believe that during this time when you are so open to what you're parents tell you and what facts you are gathering, later in life you may develop certain personality traits that may make you homosexual, due to the basic fundamental connections you have formed as a child.
Prisoners should be required to work while serving their time

My opponent stands by his claim that he has proposed a policy change, which I believe he has not. He proposes a "change" in policy about how prisoners should be forced to work while incarcerated. I believe that this is not an actual proposed change, because prisoners are already forced to work while incarcerated (with exceptions for prisoners with medical constraints). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...'+Rights http://www.debate.org... Perhaps my opponents original opening argument did not specifically state the latter part about inmates "working to cover their own costs", but since inmates are already forced to work and he mentioned the expensive cost to keep inmates incarcerated, I would assume the actual statement "prisoners should be forced to work" is more of a precursor to the latter part. And though I agree that programs such as sustainable farms are a wonderful solution to helping lower the cost to all, there are still several more factors involved in the total cost of keeping prisoners. These factors cannot be disregarded in a discussion that is asking for prisoners to be forced to work to cover their own costs. My opponent believes that innocent taxpayers should be relieved of the burden to cover prisoners living costs, and that this should be achieved by forcing them to work in order to cover their own costs. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with my opponent's beliefs. However, I do not agree that under the current circumstances prisoners should be forced to work in order to cover these costs. I feel that the current wages paid to prisoners is inadequate to cover the cost of their living, and until a more efficient plan is proposed that would either lower their cost of living or allow an increase in the amount they are capable of earning to cover the cost, I see the proposed idea to force inmates to work in order to cover their living cost inefficient. I do not deny that it is unethical for taxpayers to carry this burden, but I do feel it is more important to cover this burden in order to keep adequate numbers of prisons open to keep prisoners safely separated from society. In conclusion, if it cost $62/ day to keep a single inmate, and the average inmate can only earn less that $1/ hour and work a max of 10 hours/ day then it is impossible for them to earn an amount that is even relatively close to what is needed to cover their cost of living. So, based on current conditions and standards, which already require prisoners to work while incarcerated, my opponent's argument is lacking a proposed change in policy that would effectively improve already established norms. I will end with that, and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Prisoners should be required to work while serving their time

I don't disagree with your argument that prisoners should in some way still contribute to society and compensate for the financial burden that we as taxpayers incur. However, I disagree that forcing inmates to earn a "living" while in prison is inefficient and unethical due to the inability of states to monitor safe and ethical working practices that prisoners would be subject too, as well as it is still our taxes paying the meager wages that prisoners are forced to work for, since the majority are unable to leave prison grounds in order to acquire more acceptable positions. Currently the majority of prisons have already implemented plans that require eligible inmates to participate in duties and jobs that allow them to earn a wage between $.20 - $.40 per hour and up to a $1. 15 for more skilled positions in prison factories. These earnings are often applied towards a number of court-mandated judgments, which is one less thing that we, as taxpayers, are not directly responsible for paying (http://www.bop.gov...). The low wages earned by prisoners is also still covered by our same taxes that support their "living" needs. In order to pay higher wages more of American's taxes would have to be allotted towards the prison systems. This would occur by either increasing taxes or taking away form other needed social programs. To force inmates to work unregulated jobs under the control of prison wardens for these meager earnings in order to cover their "living" costs seems unrealistic and ineffective based on current standards. By forcing inmates to work in below minimum wage positions that are primarily labor-based is essentially allowing the acceptance of indentured servitude, which is described as unskilled workers forced to work in labor intensive jobs for a specific amount of time in return for accommodations, such as food and shelter while working off a specific debt. And indentured servitude or "debt bondage" is illegal according to article 4 of the "Victims of trafficking and violence protection act of 2000" (http://www.state.gov...).
Prisoners should be required to work while serving their time

"The average annual operating cost per state inmate in 2001 was $22,650, or $62.05 per day; among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01 per day." [1] It is my view that while in prison, inmates should be expected to work to contribute back to society in order to address this burden. I will address elderly prisoners, financial concerns, release programs and a number of other problems with incarceration within the United States. I will also be arguing that this is not a form of slavery, in spite of the position put forth within the Georgia prison strike dilemma. The Con side will have to argue that they should not be required to work, hopefully with good sources and clear reasoning =) Good Luck! 1) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
Euthanasia

I believe euthanasia is a good thing: If someone is suffering something absolutely horrible, they can be put out of their misery. Unfortunately, you can not bring religion into a debate, as it is biased, and not everyone has the same religion. If you can not afford the hospital bills you need to pay, you can be euthanized. There is a selection process for euthanasia. You have to be accepted into the program. If you were to get rid of euthanasia, think of all of the potential suicides there might be. Euthanasia is death with dignity. If someone has an incurable health related problem, that is causing them to die a slow and painful death; they can be euthanized. Conclusion: Doctors are helping people be happier. They are preventing people from suffering longer then they should. It is a horrible experience to watch someone suffer, euthanasia can prevent people from having to watch it.
Euthanasia

I believe Euthanasia shouln't be allowed, I have several reasons to believe this. Below are a few quotes that mainly outline my argument and inspire me to encourage the banning of Euthanasia in the whole world. Read on... Quotes: Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families Moral pressure to free up medical resources Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution Religious arguments: Euthanasia is against the word and will of God Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life Suffering may have value Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable Conclusion: Doctors are expected to care for people not KILL them. Legalising euthanasia, and yes! don't ignore it- sooner or later it will affect you and your familly. Euthanasia encourages the killing of humans. I strongly believe that in any state Euthanasia (that painfull injection of DEATH) should be demolished and strictly prohibited! Thankyou
fear is a joke i forgot to laugh at

Fear is quite natural, and shouldn't be thought of as a joke. Though you can laugh at a person for having a strange fear, it's probably for a good reason. Fears tend to form as a child. A child can naturally fear the dark, simply because it is harder to see, leaving the unknown in front of them. A child's fear can also be influenced by the agent of society; while here we may be afraid of something as a norm, another place may find it silly, while being afraid of something we find silly. It is also necessary to our survival. It's the one thing that keeps us alive. Without fear, we would run into dangerous situations without knowing it. If people weren't afraid of spiders and snakes, they'd probably play with them, and end up dead. (Darwinism?) Fear is not a joke, but rather an important part of existence.
Rap song off

In addition the themes are all extremely shallow so it's not as if the lyrics make up for the lack of physical talent. Whatever though, this isn't really a debate it's just a battle but Pro has literally stuck the the exact same theme throughout and ignored thievery I said in my round 4 so you can't accuse me of raising new point sin last round since this is building on what I said in round 4 about my song range. This rap is just awesome, absolutely fantastic. Flips from first to third person seamlessly, has the most incredible metaphors I have ever heard in a rap ever. Combines comics, science fiction, folklore and gangster life and so many other themes all in one song while being so damn catchy. Not only is it all those things but it is so beautifully insightful into the psychology of an egomaniac on the run. . http://www.youtube.com...
Rap song off

Okay my first rap was irony/sarcasm based humor, my second was emotional/vengeance with almost perfect flow, my third was a metaphor-fest which actually has some of the most complex verses if you combine all the references together. So I think my entire physical game has been covered and the only thing left to murk at is lyrics and the theme itself. Here is one about internal conflict of religion. Extremely recent but I have every right to use a recent one, so yeah... Also no rule about artist-repeats was established and Hopsin had one of three verse sin the other song so you can't really say I repeated, per se. http://www.youtube.com...
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

Your argument that it would better help distribute property to everyone is more of a socialistic theory and would require more than a hike in property tax. Let the people work and earn their property. Most people don't want/need the property. People will pay to get what they want/need. If you wanted to really increase the progressive type tax on property taxes everybody would be selling and not buying. That can create a huge problem and we have already seen that. You also stated that property tax should be the main source of revenue, i again argued that it shouldn't and that the main source of revenue should be going to the federal government, regardless of whether or not everyone should have property. The circumstances of everyone getting property just doesn't fit the current fiscal situation this country is in. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

i did explain why we should do it. it would better help distribute property to everyone, and it would stop penalizing labor. even if property tax is progressive, it can be even more progressive. you say that the tax cuts had no part in the bubble, but i'm not necessarily arguing cause and effect or anything like that. all i'm saying is that revenue would be highest when there is a bubble. the revenue isn't high because of hte tax cuts necessarily, but revenue is clearly higher than it should be when there are bubbles.