BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The word "terrorist" is inherently biased and should not be used by governments.

Over the past six years, we have seen the word "terrorist" thrown around by the media and politicians alike, to describe almost anyone outside the country with a different point of view. The word has over 100 different definitions, and according to expert Walter Laqueur, the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." As easily as I could call the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks "terrorists," they could call George Bush himself a terrorist. The fact is that both sides have killed thousands of people. Therefore, both are "terrorists." Therefore, all militarys, all militant groups in the world are "terrorists" from someone's point of view. We simply use the term as a label, or to throw into question people's loyalties, i.e. "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." -GWB. Since the term is only a useless label, it serves no purpose, and is therefore not needed as it is not descriptive. Calling people terrorists has become an excuse to listen to phone lines, search without warrants, and even torture. Removing this word from official use would help to keep a neutral position.
American Isolation is a Good Thing

My argument is that America should choose not to intervene in global politics and that by doing so hurts itself. This is my first debate so if I am doing something wrong please tell me. Point 1 Different Cultures It is merely impossible for the average American politician to put themselves in the shoes of a Iraqi or Iranian. They have beliefs and desires that we cannot understand because we grew up in a Western Civilization. Forcing democracy and our culture onto people we share nothing in common with hardly ever works and in a lot of cases ends in disaster. If you want a good example, there is a book called Massacre at El Mozote that chronicles Americas role in the El Salvador (wikipedia page for those who do not know what I'm talking about is http://en.wikipedia.org......). A modern day example would be Libya (http://www.theblaze.com......), where America supported rebels that turned up being just as violent and unreasonable as the dictator Gaddafi. Point 2 Economics The fact of the matter is that now and days, multi-national corporations hold huge amounts of weight when it comes to the politics of America. "To big to fail" is a term constantly tossed around by politicians while they have no allegiances to the American people. This means that American industries are moving overseas because companies want the cheaper labor and these politicians are not stopping them. The American people do not trust banks, as shown by a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com......) and the government is ignoring the wishes of the people by continuing to pander to them. Point 3 Military Spending My family has a ton of history in the military, my dad and granddad were in the Air Force and my uncle was in the Marines, and let me start this argument by saying I am all for veterans rights because they are the reason we in America live very comfortable lives. However, the military needs to be shrunk and we should stop being the worlds police force. 20% of our budget goes to defense while veterans get 7%, education gets 2% and science gets 2% as well ( http://www.washingtonpost.com......). I'll end my opening with the wise words of president Eisenhower and pay careful attention to 4:50: https://www.youtube.com......
It is wrong to kill one to save many

Full resolution: It is morally unacceptable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Rules: 1. Don't forfeit because it causes a glitch. If you don't want to make arguments, just say that and submit the argument. 2. Please don't troll. 3. Kritiks are fine. If you use semantics, I might run topicality on you, but if you are prepared for that go ahead. 4. Burden of proof is shared. 5. GoogleDocs are not a violation of conduct as long as they remain within the 5,000 character limit.
Different Religion clubs should be allowed in school

see religion shouldn't be allowed in school whatsoever kids. mmmkaay Its getting hot in here so take off all your burkas (or at least slip into a burkini) get those titays floppin about In all seriousness, PRO never even specified public or private school which kind of makes this impossible. Regardless, as a general rule of thumb, keep your dirty stinkin holy books out of my laboratory.
Scrubs is the best medical show

My argument is that Scrubs, a comedy/drama medical show airing from 2001 to 2010, is the best medical television show (not including the 9th season). Why do I think Scrubs is the best medical show? I have several reasons: •Scrubs is actually funny. How often do you come across a FUNNY medical show? Unlike all the depressing-overly-dramatic hospital shows that we know of, this one can actually give us some laughs, and does have enough drama (but not nearly enough as Grey's anatomy/ER) to keep it interesting. •The theme song is catchy. I'm listening to it right now as I'm typing this, and I absolutely love it! •It's surprisingly realistic. Scrubs is actually the most realistic hospital show. if you look past the silly cartoonish humor, you find a series that's quite in par with the real lives of doctors—and unlike your typical medical drama, it's one that's not required to end each episode with a climactic surgical procedure. •It also has the ability to turn from happy to sad, and then back to happy in just 3.5 minutes. Just watch the finale of "My Musical". http://www.youtube.com... It also has the ability to come up with sad endings that you just don't see coming. Watch "My Screw-up" or "My lunch." Don't be surprised if you cry. •It always has an important life lesson at the end. I learned all my life lessons from the sad parts of scrubs, and I can't be the only one, there's a facebook group about it. The link is at the bottom of this post. •It has the best music. I don't know how, but the writers always choose the best possible songs for every situation. The songs aren't just a nifty song to play at the end of each episode, but they actually become part of the song. •Algebraic writing. Scrubs lets the characters progress, where-as on Grey's Anatomy and ER, the writers want the characters to do something, so they write their scripts to get the characters to do so, even if it doesn't make sense for the characters to do it. Scrubs lets the characters get to where they need to be. This is one of the reasons why the show is so amazing. http://www.facebook.com... http://www.slate.com... http://www.youtube.com...
It is possible to oppose abortion without using religion.

Some things are very cruel and you don't need religion to pick up on this fact. The cycle of life is , people partner up, they have children , and then the children grow and partner up and then they have children and so on, yet some people find it normal to go against this cycle. Abortion is a very cruel act that no one should take on, these babies have a right to live. lastly, if a baby isn't wanted, then you should take on more responsibility seen as abortion should never be you after choice
Dose it hurt more if you get hit in the balls by a kick or by a punch

I think that if you needed to hit someone in the balls then kick then in the balls it could produce the most power and it is a fast way to get the job done. I think that a kick could make them crippled for a long time then to just hit them in the balls compared to the damage that it could do the the area because when was the last time some one punched some one and it broke a bone I do not remember this happening but a kick could brake a bone fast. In football dose the ball go farther when you kick the ball or throw it. this is my end argument.
Dose it hurt more if you get hit in the balls by a kick or by a punch

I think it hurts more to get hit in the balls by a kick Dose it hurt more if you get kicked in the balls or get punched in the balls I would like a person that has had the experience in getting hit in the balls and I would like to have a short argument and what hurts more and why, this video shows my example on why it hurts more to get hit in the balls. www.youtube.com/watch?v=desb0W6u80Y
Morality is not Relative

While relativism does allow for an open mind, it does not tell us what is right and what is wrong. As I mentioned before, this is a huge problem. If we rely on feelings to decide what is wrong and what is right, does it prove anything? Morals are said to be free from subjectivity. Thinking that something is right does not make it right. To sum my argument, moral relativism is not true. It has been shown that not everything is different therefore disproving the above mentioned theory. Also moral relativism allows for moral progress. Morals are absolute.
Morality is not Relative

1)If morality is not relative then you're an ethical absolutist 2)Ethical absolutist believes in one moral code. 3) Thus morality is not relative for there is only one moral code. 4)If you don't believe in one moral code then you are an relativist 5)If you"re an relativist you believe every society's morals are equally the same 6)It is normal for it holds the same values as other society morals 8)Then some morals are relative
Does God Exist? (For fun before people complain)

Alright, I will go into evidence for why I believe God exists. It is not scientific evidence because God does not exist in this universe, he exists in the spiritual world. This is why you have to look for indirect evidence that supports a cause beyond the universe, meaning God. Another reason we don't see signs of God is because he doesn't make himself known to everyone, Otherwise everyone would be saved. But the Bible clearly states that not everyone is saved. So if we found overwhelming evidence for God, everyone would believe in him and be saved. But that;s not the case. Finding piles of evidence for God would actually contradict what he said in his word. Plus, Christianity is a faith based belief. If us Christians found overwhelming scientific evidence for God, then we then don't believe in God by faith alone, which again contradicts the Bible. *If you want me to actually give the Bible verses I will, but for the sake of time, let me move on to the next topic. Now to what I believe to be indirect evidence for God. First is the design argument. Let's just take one everyday thing and look at it for a second, rain. John Piper has an amazing article about this and here is the link: https://www.desiringgod.org... Can you still tell me that even rain can come from an explosion? If it did that is an awful lot to be perfectly arranged through an explosion. And what about the rest of the world? If rain is this complex than can you imagine the rest of the universe? As I said, you believe it takes an intelligent person to produce an encyclopedia, but you believe it takes nothing to produce the work of millions of encyclopedia's worth put together. Interesting. Do you believe that there was once nothing? If so than can nothing produce something? Even if you do it goes against 2 scientific laws. Remember, the big bang is only a theory. And What about motion. According to Isaac Newton something will never be set in motion unless acted on by another force. But if there was nothing there has to be that ultimate force that sets everything in motion. How could nothing be that force? But What I am having a hard time believing is that what you believe is a theory with insufficient evidence, but you don't believe 3 of the most famous scientific laws backed up with generations of evidence. Even though the big bang has evidence, the amount of evidence against it is overwhelming. Because God is all powerful and is not bound by any scientific laws, couldn't this be evidence for him? Virtual particles can't come from nothing, they are simply the result of a chemical reaction, which is way different than something coming from nothing. Even Stephen Hawking's admits that something can't come from nothing, a different force is required. You have also made a claim on evolution but you haven't proven that all of the coincidences occurred. You just said it takes millions of years to complete. THAT'S NOT PROVING IT. sources used; DesiringGod.org Geekychristian.org
Does God Exist? (For fun before people complain)

I would like to note that my opponent completely disregarded my arguments from round one, so I would kindly request that you respond to them in the next round. I would also like to note that your arguments have been copied and pasted from other debates, notably (for round 2 - http://www.debate.org...) and for round one (http://www.debate.org...). I would also like to note that a commenter noted that I'd like to add that Pro copied and pasted his first argument, verbatim, from the movie "God's Not Dead"". As for your argument: "Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, than is it possible that there is a God? Is this chance greater than, less than, or equal to the chance that evolution is possible?" There is a clear black and white fallacy in this statement, as my opponent is implying that it can only be evolution or God. This is not true, as many educated Christians agree that evolution still happened, just aided by God. As the chance of evolution happening is 100%, due to the astronomical amount of evidence we have in its favour, I think your first questions are rather foolish. "Remember, in my first argument I mentioned all of the coincidences that would have to happen for evolution to be possible. There is no evidence to confirm that any of these coincidences happened." The only coincidences you mentioned in your first argument were mutualism, which I responded to there, if you'd have read my first argument. 1) This question is a clear misrepresentation of facts. You are talking about DNA being like a language, key word : like. It is a code yes, but coded by nature. 2) I didn't say this in my first argument, but by saying this, you are calling the universe intelligently designed, hence begging the question. 3) Yes 4) This question is currently being answered by quantum physicists, but something can come from nothing, as we see in virtual particles etc. If you'd have read my first argument, you wouldn't ask this question. No, because you can't apply your knowledge of cause and effect from within the universe to the universe as a whole. 5) Evil is defined on an individual bases, people find things evil that other people claim are good. 6) No. Morals are an evolutionary trait, and come about from a concept called "you scratch my back, and ill scratch yours. Essentially, people perform actions for the good of a clan, and avoid actions that are bad for it. 7) Yes. You can't prove god, which is why I lack belief that he exists.
Does God Exist? (For fun before people complain)

Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, than is it possible that there is a God? Is this chance greater than, less than, or equal to the chance that evolution is possible? Remember, in my first argument I mentioned all of the coincidences that would have to happen for evolution to be possible. There is no evidence to confirm that any of these coincidences happened. All I have left is a few questions: 1. If it takes an intelligent person to make an encyclopedia, then wouldn't it take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of encyclopedias in the first one celled animal? Or did it happen by chance? Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins admits that amoebas contain information equivalent to 1000 sets of encyclopedias combined. 2.If intelligently designed things call for an intelligent person, than why is the universe an exception? 3.Would you agree that just because we can't see something, such as gravity, atoms, and wind, doesn't mean it doesn't exist? 4. Would you also agree that nothing cannot create something? If so, then is it safe to say that this is evidence for a cause beyond the universe? 5. Does evil exist? If so, how do you know unless there is a moral law? 6. Doesn't a moral law require a moral lawgiver? If so, then what is the moral law giver? 7. If you can't prove something, does it mean it isn't true? Atheists must answer all of these questions.
Is golf a sport

Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated "Golf is the most boring activity known to man" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.
Is golf a sport

"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do" "suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ." These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.
Is golf a sport

I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.
Drugs in sports

The side effects previously listed in round two were for over exercising. If you actually clicked on the link, you would have plainly seen that the article was about the ten signs of over exercising. Over exercising has many more effects than the standard cosmetic changes of steroids. And while steroids can give a person mood swings, so can being tired and with out appetite. Please, the next time someone gives you a link for reference, refer to it.But on another note, self improvement is not illegal. Plastic surgery can be dangerous but it is still allowed. Lipo suction is a self improvement method, but it too is not illegal. People choose freely (in most cases) to proceed with these methods knowing the risks of what they are doing. Why should we not give our athletes the same option?
Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

I would like to begin for thanking my opponent for such a civil, logical debate. Unfortunately, a logical point is not always a sound one, especially when it is attached to emotion: "that's how I felt as a child being forced to praise a god that I was starting to see wasn't really there."My issue with this point is that one cannot be "forced to praise a god" because praise is a function of the mind. One could be forced to kneel, though I highly doubt physical manipulation of children is commonplace in faith schools; it's illegal in America though I digress. Praise is a feeling of gratitude and love for a "superior" being, and, if children don't believe in such being, they cannot be forced to praise it. It's wrong in the same way as forcing children to pretend that America is made out of chicken and giant ice-sickles. It can't be done (yet) and if it could, I wouldn't call it a moral infringement. "My point with the "communist school" analogy is that it would be immoral to indoctrinate children into any ideology"Assuming that the ideology is equatable to a faith school, I fundamentally disagree. "I'm just pointing out that religion does not equal morality"It does not, and I never claimed that it does. I merely wish to explicate that religion is laced with moral teachings, and children who attend faith schools will receive a healthy dose of these morals. "Abortion is wrong. Period.Contraception is wrong.Masturbation is wrong.Abstinence is a good idea."I agree with three of the four, and even the Abortion one can go either way in my mind. I assume that you don't wish to debate these issues, but if you do, I will counter in the next round. "The Earth is less than 10000 years oldDinosaurs walked with peopleThere was a "Great Flood"Animals do not evolve."This is, in my area, a silly exception. My mother is a science teacher at a Catholic school, and all of these are adamantly rejected. Anyone with half a brain between their ears can decode this, and anyone without can live in blissful ignorance."I cannot stress this enough: You do not need a religion to be a moral human!"No, you do not. I never claimed that this was true. It's saying "you don't need to go to a candy store to get chocolate." You don't but it is a way. In conclusion:Faith schools are one way for children to obtain morals. My argument stands:Large gain, negligible loss. (My analogy was never addressed.)
Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

I disagree with Pro's first two statements:In my argument, I assert that indoctrination and brainwashing are not the same thing because indoctrinated childen still have great freedom of choice in the matter, wheras brainwashed children would not. And again, I do not assert that the indoctrination is not effective, I simply state that the indoctrination does not brainwash. I never claimed that faith schools producemany athiests, the examples were only to explicate the freedom of mind "indoctrinated" children still posess. There is an obvious difference between schools that teach morals and schools that teach politicals in that children indoctrinated into communism gain nothing, except possibly a rudimentary understanding of econmics. Faith schools teach that good people:Givie to the poorLove their neighborsDo not lieDo not stealDo not gossipDo not hateBeleif in a god is but only one pillar of faith schools. Any faith school that does not teach these other values is a failure and an ecception to the rule.Let's think of what our planet would be like if1. Everyone went to a good faith school2. Everyone was completely and totally brainwashed3. They remained effectively brainwashed for the remainder of their livesEveryone would be compassionate, would give to th poor, would resist crime and would be generally knder and more pleasant. And everyone would worhip a god that (apparently) doesn't exist.Large gain, small loss. Now, as I argued last time, I do not beleive that people will be effective brainwashed into a relegion, so I see large gain, no loss.Your "white's only argument" is a valid analogy, save one point: white supremacy is no moral we wish to engrain upon our youth, generocity is. But, for the sake of debate, I will say (and I'm black) that such a school might be worth it if they were also taught to be kind to other races and to live out pure lives of charity and good deed. Conclusion:Large gain, little or no loss as explained in my previous argument.