BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bring on the devil for all I care and try and prove that you are no more then an undecided atheist

Why should I debate with somebody that is so smart that they don't see how stupid they are? Honestly prove to me at least that we can talk with each other, so we can speak with each other and not at each other. All you need to do to prove that you have a fully functioing mature age brain is to at least answer the question I have put forward. Ok I will be as dirrect and articulate as I can with the question Now if you see a person in a deep round hole with even sides straight down digging with a shovel deeper and deeper and refuse your help. So you try to pass them a ladder and they still refuse to climb out and refuse your help all because they need to find there own way out. So you can only sit back and watch as the hole gets deeper and deeper until it's so deep that the efforts made to go deeper are in vain because the dirt just can't with all might be thrown up and out of the hole. So now the hole is so deep the person in the hole can't go any deeper and there isn't any water as to float out them out and now the rope isn't long enough and the ladder even combined with the ladder isn't tall enough and even still if you combined all 3 items the shovel the rope the ladder and the hight of the person in the hole still hasn't got the total hight to get the person in the hole out. The answer isn't "pray for rain maybe or even hope for it' you never know it just might or to even dig side ways and then up as to tunnel there way out. because that person would suffercate from infixiation as the dirt would close the passage behind. This is not a trick question. So is it posible for that person in the hole get out of that hole with no more then a shovel? is it yes or no and how is it posible or not posible to do so.
Bring on the devil for all I care and try and prove that you are no more then an undecided atheist

If you mean what you say and say what you mean from the heart it is never mean. So you are no more then an undecided atheist or are you an undecided believer of God or Gods? This is so stupid it's like a bet each way on the horses. At the gates of heaven I couldn't make up my mind, but I am now a believer in an creation creator can I come in. Now if you see a person in a deep hole digging with a shovel deeper and deeper and no matter what you do to get them out with a rope and refuse your help and you pass them a ladder and they still refuse to climb out and refuse your help all because they need to find there own way So you can only sit back and watch as the hole gets deeper and deeper until it's so deep that the efforts made to go deeper are in vain because the dirt just can't with all might be thrown up and out of the hole. So now the hole is so deep the person and you have no water to fill up the hole as to float out that person and now the rope isn't long enough and the ladder even combined with the ladder isn't tall enough. So how could that person in the hole still get out of that hole with no more then a shovel?
Bring on the devil for all I care and try and prove that you are no more then an undecided atheist

So why are you here to nit pick at the header. Believe you me if I had more room for text within the header it would have been; Bring the devil on for I care and try and prove to me that all atheists are no more than undecided atheists and not actually full disbelievers in any sort of an existence creator. If you would like to continue within this debate. As I do apoligise as this has come accross as the likes of a loaded question. I could or even would like to start this debate with not a mixed message header.
Marijuana should remain illegal

So, now I will refute my opponents original claims. On my next round I will rebut my opponents rebuttals. "Marijuana is a substance that many people abuse. " I don't deny this, however what my opponent does not address in round 2 is if these bans work or not. My opponent doesn't have much of an argument here, for he does not prove nor demonstrate that marijuana is controlled right now. The reality of the situation is marijuana isn't controlled. Regardless of whether it's illegal or not , you have millions of users. Let's learn a lesson from prohibition. When the US tried to ban alcohol instead of use being put to a halt, the users kept going. The only real change that happened was the formation and rapid growth of violent gangs. "This "gift of nature" is a cause of several thousand employment terminations, incarcerations, relationship breakups, car accidents, and more" The problem here is not the drug, but it is the people. Marijuana itself is not a strongly addictive drug, yet repeated use/ dependence does often result in addiction. Addiction to marijuana can be easily avoided by exercising self control over the drug. While weed is the cause for some of these yet legal substances are just as easily the cause. For example, alcohol causes all of the problems you have just named. "The fact that it "grows naturally" doesn't excuse the fact it is an abused drug" Now I'm going to bring up something called the strawman fallacy. What this is, is an argumentative strategy that is used to win arguments, yet it actually just shows poor debating skills. The strawman fallacy is when you take a legitimate argument and portray it as a poorly thought out stance that is void of logic. That's exactly what you're doing. Little to no one is advocating that marijuana isn't an abused drug, because it's grown naturally. " nor does it call for a legalization." You really have not demonstrated this. All you have stated is that marijuana is harmful to those who are addicted to it/abuse it. That does not prove that 1. a ban solves the issue. or 2. A ban is more beneficial to society than legalization.
Marijuana should remain illegal

I noticed in your last argument, you stated " What makes marijuana any different? ". Well, there isn't anything that especially demonizes marijuana, but what lifting the ban of marijuana would do is 1: Increase use, whether it be recreational or medicinal, Leaving millions susceptible to falling prey to addiction and drug abuse 2: Increase access. More than likely, we will see marijuana stores and even vending machines pop up across the country. It would be putting it on display. Enticing passers-by to stop in and buy some marijuana. 3: Most of all, it reinforces the idea that smoking weed is okay within our children's minds. It takes away the idea that smoking, whether it be cigarettes or marijuana, is bad. We are trying desperately to decrease the amount of smoking within our country, and make sure our children don't get involved with the health risks of smoking. Lifting the ban on the drug would practically be encouraging smoking. Legalizing marijuana would be a step in the wrong direction. In Amsterdam, a city that has already lifted it's ban on marijuana, has seen an increase in crime around coffee houses where the marijuana is sold. To add to that, Amsterdam has also "become the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana in school". Why lift a ban, just to put another in place? http://townhall.com...
Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen

OK, first off my opponent broke my rule. It said the first round was for acceptance only. I should win based on that alone. Sure, my opponent probably didn't understand the rule, since it was in German, in which case, helps to prove that a person should, in fact, at least know two languages. Now, my opponent tried to translate what I said and failed miserably. It seems he tried to use a computer to do the translation, which resulted in bad grammar and a loss of the true meaning of what was said. Again, more proof that a person should know more than one language. Since my opponent couldn't understand what I was saying, his responses were not accurate. I was attempting to state what the most widely spoken languages were. http://www2.ignatius.edu... In any case, my opponent attempted to argue that if the entire world only spoke one language we wouldn't need to learn others. That's nice, but that's not what the debate is about. In reality, there are hundreds of languages spoken in the world and in reality, knowing more than one language will be beneficial. If the world was flat, we would fall off of it .... "If" isn't an argument for what is real. So, in closing, I want to say that I won this debate because my rule was broken, my opponent couldn't fully understand my arguments and by not being able to understand, he proved my point that being at least bilingual, is necessary in today's world. Please do not vote, if you couldn't understand the debate, yourself.
Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen

I am sorry that I broke a rule.Pro never actually gave enough reason to back up his side of the argument, that each persn should speak at least two languages. The argument he used to attempt to do this is that if we could speak to each other, then there would be less of a language barrier. Yet this does not mean that each person should speak at least two languages. Pro's ideal world can be acheived by taking the most widely spoken language, and then teaching it to everyone who doesn't yet speak it. Inevitably, there would still be at leat one monolingual person that only knows this widely spoken language and still, no language barrier.Pro provides incredibly weak rebuttals of my arguments. He first says: (P1) There are, actually, many languages R03;R03;are widely spoken. Chinese is the most spoken, and for that it is English and Spanish.(P2) It could be the only one language would be better with the world, but it is not.Actually, there are hundreds of languages R03;R03;in the world, not just one. Therefore, the decision of my enemy is wrong.My argument was that in the most idealic world, there is one language. Also, there may be a language barrier in this debate, as he appears to have a misunderstanding. I said that there must've been AT LEAST TWO. This means >2.
Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen

Ich moechte mein Gegner fuer die Debatte bedanken. Der einziger Regel die ich hatte, war das der erste Runde nur fuer die Annahme war. Mein Gegner hat den Regel gebrochen. Vielleicht koennte er die Regeln nicht lesen weil die auf deutsch geschrieben war. Das ist genau der Grund wof"r Menschen wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen sollen. Nun zur die Debatte: Notwendigkeit (P1) Es gibt, tatsaechlich, viele Sprachen die weit gesprochen sind. Chinesisch ist am meisten gesprochen, und dazu gibt es Englisch und Spanisch. (P2) Es konnte sein das die Welt mit nur eine Sprache besser waere, aber so ist das nicht. Eigentlich, gibt es hunderte von Sprachen auf der Welt, nicht nur eine. Deswegen is der Beschluss meiner Gegner falsch. Die Welt wird immer kleiner mit Internet und Flugzeug Reisen. Es wird immer mehr Noetig das die Menschen der Welt mit einander sprechen k"nnen. Wenn man nur eine Sprache kennt, ist es nicht so leicht als fuer einer die mehrerer Sprachen kennt, Kommunizieren zu koenen. Mein Gegner will wissen warum ein Mensch zwei Sprachen kennen soll. Es ist ganz einfach. Wenn mann gescheftlich, fuer den Ausbildung, oder fuer persoenliche gruenden mit Auslaender Kommunizieren moechcte, hilft es sehr viel wenn mann mehr als eine Sprache sprechen kann. So hat Mann hat viel mehr Gelegenheiten! Meine Gegner koennte diese Debatte besser geniessen, hat er deutsch gesprochen. Leider muss er wieder auf Englisch zur"ckschreiben. Schade.
Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen

I accept this challenge.Necessity In order for reason in knowing two or more languages to exist, there must be at least two widely spoken languages. However, this isn't good, as then a language barrier would exist. If there is only one language, then everyone can talk to anyone and convenience is restored. So, to recap:(P1) For reason to exist in each person being able to speak at least two languages being necessary, there are necessarily at least two widely spoken languages.(P2) But a world would be better if there was only one language.(C) Therefore, it is not true that each person knowing at least two languages is necessary. Absence of reasonI see no reason why each person should have to know at least two languages. Perhaps Pro would like to inform me on that one.
Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen

My opponent's argument is that being at least bilingual is necessary in today's world (for there to be less of a language barrier), yet this is false. It is not necessary. As I've pointed it out before, there can be less of a language barrier if we take the most widely spoken language and then teach everyone it. Inevitably, there would still be a monolingual who only speaks this widely spoken language.My opponent tries to shake off this objection, but I see no refutation worth answering to.But still, even if his argument were sound, he fails to prove that each person should speak at least two languages. His argument attempts to prove that bilingualism is a good idea, but he has made no connection between bilingualism being a good idea (rather subjectively, might I add) and each person should speak at least two languages. He has only said it subjectively. Any fool can make an opinion.VotingConduct - Pro, as I broke a rule.Spelling & Grammar - Tie.More convincing arguments - Me, as Pro made no good arguments at all.Sources - Tie, no sources used were relevant to arguments.
The US government should distribute federal farm land to the poor

I. The BLM, USDA, NFS, and FWS hold plenty of unused landThe Bereau of Land Management and US Department of Agriculture, hold 100's of millions in acres of land. As most people know, when the US government attains property, the government puts it up for sale like any other transaction. The US government is sitting on these acres of land, and what are they being used for? Absolutely nothing! That's right, this land is being say upon for future development, although it could be used now. II. 6% unemployment with no earned income Right now, over 6% of Americans are not earning any income. This is a serious problem, and a economy isn't healthy if it isn't sitting around 4% at minimum. These acres of land are being unused, and we have people hurt now. I strongly contend that these people should be given land held by the US federal beauracracies. That way, they will be able to earn income, recieve justifable welfare, and begin to pay their taxes. III. The USFG can still administer distributed lands I do fully acknowledge the importance of preserving land for future development and extraction, but the hard fact is, we don't have the money, resources, or investors to make full use of all the deposits were sitting on. With that said, there is no reason US citizens can't be distributed land and still have that land controlled by the federal government.We can easily lease free land to our people, and claim it back later, once its needed. Can my opponent provide any evidence to the contrary? IV. Why hasn't this already happenedI am only bringing this point up to deter my opponent from making a "why don't they now" argument this round. I'll tell you why. Because big sharecropping companies like Kelloggs and Tyson fear having millions of workers operating private farms for free. It creates competition, which helps the economy. They do not like competition, as it hurts them.The only reason this hasn't passed, is because the US corporate lobbies prevented it from happening. This initiative would produce billions in revenue through levies by the US, and will stir economic competition among US corporates. This wont cure unemployment, but it will ensure that there is always a job oppurtunity, whether it be fishing, ranching, or farming. All at no expense to the US government or the people.Thanks for the debate! Cheers!
Kids should stay home when it snows

It appears that my opponent has ignored all the arguments I have put in my previous round. Pro introduces several new arguments, which I will counter. Frost bitesWhile cold weather may mean that the school has to do physical activities indoors, it does not affect indoor learning activities. Unless your school has a broken heating system or they spend most of the time outside, frost bites are not a problem as they only occur when your skin is exposed to the cold air. Any reasonable student will already have a coat on when going outside for breaks, and the school might allow students to stay inside during break time. Because they are either indoors or they have layers, frost bites are not really that big of a deal.Traffic and commute to schoolMy opponent raises the point of commuting to school. However, while snow-related damage to property and injuries caused by accidents on snow days is a bit higher[1], fatalities are actually lower during snow days. [1] Why? Well, most drivers slow down during snow days, so collisions are less severe. [1] While traffic slowdowns may occur, that just makes it harder for some people who live far from the school to get to school, instead of posing a significant danger. That does not affect the students that live near the school, which most do. Just because it slightly affects a few students, does not mean all students should stay home and miss important instruction time.[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Kids should stay home when it snows

There are snow storms and children should not be allowed to go to school because they can get frost bites. And when teachers drive sometimes it results as a car crash it happened in my school lots of time. Just because it is soft does not mean it is good for walking some people slip on snow. Today there was so much snow and they want us to go to school. Unless it is just little snow it is ok but snowing hard school needs to be closed.
Kids should stay home when it snows

Here I will present my counter-arguments. Snow will be defined as "soft, white pieces of frozen water that fall to the ground from the sky in cold weather". [1]My opponent's only argument is that "Snow gets too windy". The argument that snow gets too windy, therefore when it snows children should stay home does not follow. While snow can be accompanied by wind, sometimes it is not. Because the only argument presented is "it gets too windy", the suitable debate topic is around wind, not snow. Plus, unless your school is outdoors or the wind is so strong that the school building can get damaged by the wind, the wind does not impair your ability to study in a room with central heating. Sources:. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Is god a alien

Rebuttals . "God is a other worldly being" In Christian belief, their is only one true God their is no other worldly being but him. "wanting supreme control of humanity" Christians believe God gave everyone free will. Their is no evidence in the bible that suggests God controlling humanity. "Cause it shows that anything that distracts or takes a way from him is bad and a mark against him. " What you are saying is if we don't think about God for a second is a "mark against him"? We are supposed to argue if God is an alien. This statement does not contribute anything to his arguments and I would like to ask Pro to clarify this statement. "He sends angels down from the sky in beams of light" These beams of light came from the sun/heaven. Nowhere in the bible claim the beams of light came from an alien or a flying saucer. "Speaks to people with out being their" Again, God is omnipresent. He is everywhere at the same time so technically he can speak to anyone anytime he wants no matter where you are. "Ezekiel 1 god comes down in a wheel in a wheel shape object similar to now day flying saucers" No one knows for sure what a flying saucer really looks like or even if its from aliens. You can't assume that the wheel shape object from the Bible is similar to flying saucers since people who claimed to have seen flying saucers(UFOs) have different descriptions of what it looks like. Also people have different interpretations of the Book of Ezekiel and you can't say your interpretation of flying saucers in the book is the correct one. . http://ancientaliensdebunked.com...
Is god a alien

Full Definition of EXTRATERRESTRIAL : originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere http://www.merriam-webster.com... God is a other worldly being wanting supreme control of humanity. Cause it shows that anything that distracts or takes a way from him is bad and a mark against him. He sends angels down from the sky in beams of light and speaks to people with out being their. Ezekiel 1 god comes down in a wheel in a wheel shape object similar to now day flying saucers
Is god a alien

Since Pro did not lay down any definitions I will offer them. alien - a hypothetical or fictional being from another world: extraterrestrial - a hypothetical or fictional being from outer space. god - (In Christianity) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Sources: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Pro explained God is extraterrestrial (being from outer space) but in the debate title he wrote "god is a(n) alien (being from another world)". I believe Pro is confused with the definitions of alien and extraterrestrial since he just contradicted himself in the first round. I am arguing that god (Christian god) is not an alien (being from another world) I will lay down my argument. In Christian beliefs, God is omnipresent and an eternal being. He is everywhere but the universe cannot contain him. God is not an alien because he is not from another world and not a fictional being but an eternal being that is present everywhere at the same time. omnipresent -(of God) present everywhere at the same time. Source: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
There is parallel Universe for every difference

Well I certainly respect your beliefs, yet I would have hoped you could back your opinion up with some explanations. Furthermore it seems in the reality you are describing, there would have to be an infinite amount of universes, and not only that. At every infinitely small period of time all of the infinite amount of universes would have to each(!) split up into an infinite amount of universes. It seems the theory proposed by Pro implies an utterly absurd reality.
There is parallel Universe for every difference

Thank you for inviting me to this debate, I hope it will be fun and productive for both of us. As an introduction let me clarify my position: I am so far not convinced of the existence of any kind of parallel universes and I hope The Instigator (Pro) will provide both evidence as well as a theory for his opinion. My initial counter argument goes as follows: Assuming determinism is true, there is logically only one outcome given a specific situation. That is: "A" must always lead to "B", and can never lead to anything else. By using the word "always" I do not mean that situation "A" can occur multiple times or in multiple places. What I mean is that if one had the possibility to rewind time, "A" would never lead to anything else then "B". Considering that assumption, even if there are multiple universes, they would all look the same. "A" would lead to "B" in every one of them. I hope I didn't take the introduction too far. I am eager to read the arguments put forth by Pro.