BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
skateboarding is a hard sport

In my opponents last speech, the only argument he has is that I can not skateboard. Although this is a extreme assumption, it is true... I can not skateboard. But I also can't play hockey, play football, play baseball, swim, snowboard, water-ski, cheerlead (for MANY reasons), or even mountain bike. Congratulations Pro, you have proven to me that I can not skateboard. However, the debate is not what is hard on the personal level, but instead on the general level. No where does he have any argument about comparing skateboarding to ANY other sport. I have proven that skateboarding is not harder than any other sport due to its uninterested level (which went unargued). I have also proven that the reason it takes longer to learn is because of the lack of interest (again) and the lack of facilities, not the sport itself (which once again went unargued). For goodness sakes, he didn't even read all of my arguments or explanations and due to him being Pro, he must prove it's hard in which he has not done. Therefore, I urge a Con vote. Thank You
skateboarding is a hard sport

ok i dont so much time to read all of thata but i would aprecate it if u dont write so much. first of all i would like u to go out and buy a skateboard and try to kick flip and i garente u would not be able to. and in away that is easy. if u watched the x games this year and u see that big rap that is hard. abd some of the most basick tricks are hard. i would also like u to go out and buy a ranmp skate up it and hook ur board on it and step on the tail and u will fall im willing to bet. so i would like to see u try to skatboard and it is harder than most sports
skateboarding is a hard sport

The first problem that I have with this statement is where he talks about how long it took him to learn to kickflip and ollie, and then he goes on to say how few places there are to skate. Well, against this you have to wonder, how much of his time was spent actually in a place worth skating. If it is hard to find a place to practice, of course it is going to take a while to learn how to do all of those tricks. All he has proven with his first speech is that it is hard to find a place to practice, not that skateboarding is hard. For the purpose of this debate, I offer two new arguments for the Con side. 1. Skateboarding is no harder than any other sport. What you will see through out this debate is the lack of difference between skateboarding and any other sport. When you were young, how long did it take you to throw a ball a decent distant? It could easily range from 5 to 8 years. Now what would it be like, if instead of practicing to throw a ball, you were on a skateboard in a proper practicing area. It would probably take you about the same time to learn how to do an ollie and a kickflip. In essence, skateboarding is not harder, it is simply just practiced less often by fewer people. 2. Less people willing to skateboard does not make skateboarding "harder." Through out this debate, I'm sure that Pro will prove how fewer people are skateboarding and I am sure that he will blame this on how hard it is. This is simply not true. Less people are skateboarding not because its hard, but because they either find a less interest in it or that they are too scared to. Neither of these things tie into the difficulty of skateboarding, it just proves that other sports are more popular. In fact, if I put my mind to it, I am sure that I could do a kickflip and an ollie within a week, but personally, I have no interest in doing so. Also, if I wanted to be on the football team, it would easily take me MONTHS to be able to get into shape and be able to compete at any sort of level. -In the end, you vote for difficulty and not popularity. Just because less people do it does not make it harder. Skateboarding is no harder to compete in then football or any other sport. So far in this round, Pro has only proved that skateboarding is hard to find a place to do it at, not a hard sport to compete in. Therefore, you should vote Con. Thank You
skateboarding is a hard sport

i skateboarding is a hard sport. Yes it is a sport get over it.do u know how long it takes people to learn how to ollie let alone the big tricks. it took me 3 months to learn to ollie and another 4 to kickflip. And im Bam (if u dont know who that is dont take this debate).Just finding a place to skate is hard. some thimes sht park is full or to many kids better than u and u dont want to look stupid. skateboarding is hard but fun and makes u cool.
Should Humans Eat Meat

I have been raised eating meat my whole life. My dad, step dad, mom, grandpa, grandma were all hunters and lived off meat they have killed them selves. I have tried to go vegan/vegetarian two times. I tried both time for about 3 months and both time I had head aches all day, and near the end, both time, I started shaking. So who the hell do you think you are calling us selfish and ignorant. I do not agree with "chicken farms," or harming animals for no cause, but you went over the top. I have tried to stop, because once I thought that it was wrong to kill animals for food, but I did my research and found WE WERE MADE TO EAT MEAT! MEAT IS HEALTHY! I'm not telling you to start eating meat! Being vegan is great. But don't go around calling names when you don't know the other point of view.
God is not a hero

Thank you for starting the Debate. Rebuttal: My opponent states that God has created a meaningful existence and i question that statement. Sure the plant has given us life and is the reason we are alive but if god created the earth... why didn't he give food to the 4 million people in africa who are starving to death as we speak? In addition you stated that God has made an Ultimate Sacrifice... which sacrifice are you speaking of? You also mention his undeserved love of the human race. God, according to the Bible and Priests and Historians is a super powerful being with the ability to do anything. He decided to create humans and put them on Earth. So now look where we are? We have 4 million people starving in Africa. Why does he not give them the food and water they need to survive? Wars are being waged everyday and woman and children are dying unjustly. Recently a 13 year old boy was found in Syria. He was tortured and beaten and finally killed. They found three bullet holes in his body. He was also casterated. Now where is the almighty god when this is going on? You know how there are single mothers who are forced to take care of their children because the father left? Well this is kind of how it is. God (father) left the earth (mother) to take care of the humans (children). He just left and even if he looked back, it sure doesn't seem like he cares what happens to us. He definitely didn't show up when 8 million people where being put in gas chambers and ovens. We are his children right so what kind of father would he have to be to watch as his children, by the millions, scream in agony an pain. Wouldn't you give up your life, for your children instead of having them be tortured to death. Also, the bible tells us that if we commit sins we will go to hell. And according to the online dictionary, hell is "the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death;the abode of evil and condemned spirits; any place or state of tormentor misery". So when you die, if you commit any major sins you will be sentenced to a life of Misery and Torture. Would you watch your children got through that? No matter how wicked they are... hearing them scream in pain for all eternity. Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...
God is not a hero

Hello, Screaming Rage In this debate I will be arguing on the negative, namely, that God is a hero. To specify, I will be arguing that the Christian God is a hero because of what he has done and is in recorded history. I will base this argument on on three points: God's creation of a meaningful existence, God's extreme sacrifice for, as well as his undeserved love of, the human race, and finally, God's inherent perfection. I look forward to your opening argument.
God is not a hero

I thank you for your reiteration. To answer your question, allow me to refer to a quote of the twentieth century Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis: "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them." -C.S. Lewis I make my defense on the bases of free will. As already stated by Mr. Lewis, the logical conclusion of Divine Intervention in human action is the total lose of free will. With this stated, I ask you: What is the value of a creation which cannot think and decide for themselves? This creation would be no better than a computer program. It would be better if it hadn't been created at all. So while I do see some admirable compassion in your argument, it is regrettably narrow. The existence which you envision would be meaningless. That is, it would have absolutely no ability to change itself independently from its creator. With this said, we have established that in this world, there are flaws, that these flaws are to be blamed on the human race itself, that while God does have the power to intervene with these flaws, and that if he did, it would result in a loss of free will, and with it, a loss of meaning in the world. I have thus proved that God is not to be blamed for his lack of intervention, and that he has a very good reason for not doing so. So while you show compassion for the human race with your argument, you show a lack of understanding in them. I do hope that after reading and considering my argument, you will come to a better understanding of the incredible and, albeit, misunderstood being which we call God. I await your response.
God is not a hero

I know that famine is brought by droughts and lack of rain. But I must ask you this again, if god is holy and super powerful, like the bible holds him to be, why does he not help us? Why does he watch his children suffer? Why doesn't he bring on the rain so that they could have some food. Also again, if he was all super powerful, it wouldn't have been hard for to go in the concentration camps and save the people that were being murdered there? Where was he? I await you response.
superman's power is not limitless.

first of all, i hear superman hold a book of infinite page. now because he held this book that means his power is infinite? no. why because there is no physical law that say only someone with infinite power can hold that book. holding the book has nothing to do with power level, someone with magic ability can also left that book using their magic. it does not means their magic is infinite, because superman did not do it all by himself captain marvel was their helping him as well. this will also mean that superman and captain marvel both have infinite power right? second point is just me reasoning. OK, we all know that superman body absorb and metabolize solar radiation like that from the sun, this increase his ability to do many things, they say that his kryptoian body is a living battery. And yes his body does act in that way. superman powers are not limitless. even his prim form. batmen told superman that if he use his power to the max potential he will return to normal human. and it will take him 24 hours to return to normal. so lets brain storm exactly what calculation batmen came out with. so a rechargeable battery does not hold infinite charge as it will drain it charge constantly and eventually it will need to recharge. If superman power was infinite he will never need to recharge and he will not need the sun. be we see in smallvill when Clark almost die because his body was out of charge he need a human to help him to recover. However his power will be consider infinite if he absorb all the stars in existence. but he is unable to do that and i know he is unable to do that because. in order for him to become superman prime he had to stay inside the sun for 1000 years. now a 1000 years is a very long time, and that tell a lot about the men of steel's ability to recharge. that tell us that he can't recharge as fast as his fans are telling people. his body can only hold certain amount of charge, which enable him to do crazy things, however he cannot fight forever, he needs to recharge. so if he is constantly fighting after some time he will get tired just like any other hero. that is not having infinite power, like that of God Spawn. a perfect example of this was when he was fighting Doomsday. he got tired and his punches where not doing much to Doomsday, that is why his last move to end the fight was to push Doomsday far up high enough so that he can gain a little energy, using the little energy he had he force all that into one hug crash down to earth. if he was going to continue fighting Doomsday, Doomsday was going to kill him and move to destroying everything else. His body will always act like a batter in every single version of him. he can lose his power even if he is not fighting, if he stay away from the sun for a long time he will become like a normal human.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

That "technicality" is what I've chosen as the criteria for my hypotherical positon in support of partial-birth abortion. In fact, I am arguing that we should NOT kill these infants. My opponent is the one arguing in favor of killing "infants born alive by accident during partial birth. " And yet my opponent has repeatedly made arguments against abortion in general. If abortion is wrong, then CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY, infanticide is wrong. If a baby has not been born [is still inside the mother], and the mother wants to end it's life, then by my hypothetical stance, she should be able to do that, because it has not gained it's rights, since it's still part of her body. However, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE DEBATING. We are debating whether it is permissible to kill a child that is unquestionably not part of the mother's body. My opponent has given no arguments in favor of this, no criteria by which we should allow it. Instead, she has relied on trying to show that my two viewpoints don't make sense together. I believe I have cleared that up, but if not, WHO CARES. I have argued that babies should not be killed after they are born, my opponent has failed to do the opposite.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

let me be clearer. i said: "you can't argue that the mother is hindered when inside her, because in a partial birth, the baby is not going to be a hindrance to the mother any more." If the baby is in the process of being born, it cannot seriously be considered to be a hindrance to the mother, if all it has to do is be removed a little more. The woman, in that situation, has no reason to be for the baby's death, as it couldn't pose a restraint on her. And, since we know and believe and partial birth is wrong, how can it seriously be argued that two seconds makes a difference? it cannot seriously be considered that. that a mother might otherwise be justified to have an abortion, and the reasoning sound... thinking that a woman could have a parital birth, but then not be able to terminate outside the mother is flawed, it cannot be taken seriously. you are entitled to your opinion obviously, but no serious person could think it different. if you are for partial birth, when the baby is viable etc, then you must be for a two second, accidenetal, allowance, as you'd be arguing techincalities otherwise. my reasons for allowing the death of the baby soon after birth are similar enough to during birth. for one, my weaker point, if hte birth cord is still attached, it can still be argued to be part of my body. for two, the mother doesn't want to deal with the emotions of the baby living, and depression, and since it's part of her body that it came from, and someone needs to decide, then it should be her. lastly, maybe i am wrong regarding my belief in killing after birth. but, if that's the case, that doesn't mean you're right regarding partial bhirth in any circumstance,,,, if i'm wrong, that means you're wrong too. a technicality of a few inches cannot reasonably be considered significant. if she can have the baby partial birth, she can have it all the way, and there's no need to terminate it. but irregardless of why i think what i do, you've still not shownn how you're right, to any reasonable person, that two inches is signficant, and that she can't just finish her pregancy and not terminate it. since we know that to be valid termination, when she could just finish it up, how can you distinguish seriously a post birth abortion? you can't, seriously.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

There are many ways to decide when to give a baby rights. My opponenet claims I have not shown how there is a difference between a baby still inside and a baby outside. The difference is the the baby inside has not yet been born. I think I made this clear. Since being for partial-birth abortion requires that someone either A> have this as their criteria, or B> be okay with slaughtering babies. Since A makes a lot more sense to me, I chose A for this debate. By my reasoning, a baby still inside the mother does not deserve rights, because it has not been born. By my reasoning, a baby outside the mother DOES deserve rights, since it has been born. This is just as valid of criteria as "As long as it's the first trimester, it's okay." There's always going to be a slippery slope. What about a second after the first trimester is over? Regardless of my position in this debate, I urge everyone to consider what PRO is asking. PRO is asking that BABIES that have actually been BORN should just be killed. My opponenet has not shown why a baby who has been born should NOT have rights, as I asked her to do in R1. My opponent instead has tried to show that by my hypothetical belief in partial-birth abortion, I should be PRO. However, consider that my hypothetical pro partial-birth abortion stance could very well be wrong. Not only that, but I did show a difference. The criteria I am using to determine if a baby deserves rights is whether or not the baby has been born. By this criteria, a baby inside the mother does not deserve rights, a baby outside the mother does. I once again ask my opponent: Why should a baby who is born not have rights? What are YOUR criteria?
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

by your reasoning, that the child should have rights.... then the child inside the mother should have rights, five seconds before it was born, and we all know this is flawed reasoning. you have not demonstrated how the five second change makes any difference. you can't argue that the mother is hindered when inside her, because in a partial birth, the baby is not going to be a hindrance to the mother any more. and we all know partial birth is okay. in partial birth, the baby is still viable, often. if you don't think viable babies are aborted wtih partial birth for no purpose, you wuld be mistaken. as one abortion doctor said... "Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted. On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: "Who owns the child?" It's got to be the mother." so, becuse partial birth is clearly okay, there's no real distinction that suddenly makes infanticide immediately or thereabouts after birth not okay.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

Infants should never be killed unless it serves some more important purpose, and for this reason I must disagree with the resolution: "infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed" Partial-birth abortion is not the issue here. The issue here is killing an infant. The justification for partial-birth abortion is that an unborn is not actually a human worthy of rights yet. Let's say that I agree with this [since my opponent wanted an opponent who agreed with partial-birth abortion] So to make clear my hypothetical viewpoint, I believe that a fetus becomes a person deserving of rights at BIRTH. Thus, an infant who is accidentally BORN during partial birth should not be killed - for that would be murder. Thus, I base my position on the fact that infanticide and homicide are wrong, and that the baby definitely deserves rights [like the right to not be killed] once it is born. I therefore challenge my opponent to show me why a baby who is born should not be considered a person with rights.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion in all situations (even if it's done in the name of emotions of the mom which just means inconvenience etc, as often occurs... don't debate me if you don't accept this premise. i'll be happy to prove it in another thread though) but say they are against this to debate me. what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb. or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose. or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it. it's all the same difference.
This Poem by MassiveDump is a Poem by MassiveDump

Unless my opponent can prove his name is "massivedump" (which by the way is an odd name to give to your kid) then it stands we don't know who wrote the poem. But there is not a single registered child named "massivedump" so it would be impossible for a non-existent person to write such a poem. So no, he has not met his burden of proof because his burden of proof is non-existent. Thank you. I hope the voters will choose wisely.
This Poem by MassiveDump is a Poem by MassiveDump

Roses are red,Tulips are too,But Violets are Violet,Not f*cking blue,Roses are red,Daisies are gold,Violets are violet,I have no soul,Roses are red,Gun's in my hand,Take off your pants,And get in the van, Roses are red,Violets are blue,No one debates poetry,STFU.