BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I will be debating that Abortion is wrong and should be stopped. I will be taking the pro-life stance. I will give supportive evidence through the Bible, websites, personal opinions, etc.The rules are as follows:Round 1: Opening StatementRound 2-3: Debate/rebuttalsRound 4: Debate/rebuttals/closing statementI look forward to a respectful debate. Anyone that would like to take the pro-choice stance, please accept this challenge. *Opening Statement*Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus (A). This definition contains the word "survive". This suggests that a fetus or embryo is living while inside the uterus. By taking out this fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus, it ends the babies life. We are the United States of America. Why are we allowing murderous organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, to kill our next generation without giving them a chance. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are entitled life in the United States. That means anything that is living, including a fetus or embryo, is also entitled life. We as a country need to realize that we are murdering our next generation without giving them a chance. (A)https://en.wikipedia.org...Abortion
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should stop

I am willing to abide by my opponents clear and excellent rules for this debate. Since my opponent has not clarified further or added definitions, etc, I'm assuming my opponent will argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should stop immediately and I will argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should not, at least not just yet. As the instigator and Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that the wars should end immediately. I graciously give the field to my respectable opponent.
Christmas is better than halloween.

The point of Halloween is to be scared, get candy, and stick-it to the paranoid folk who ban Halloween because they saw a cross in the crease of their toes. (I'm being somewhat facetious of course, people who oppose Halloween usually have valid reasons, but I think they over analyze what its really about). "...For Christmas, you get toys, money, candy, gift cards, clothes, anything that is on your wish list!..." AND there's one major issue with Christmas. It has turned into a celebration of American consumerism and greed. The general attitude is supposed to be for the advancement of humanity and embracing the ideas of brotherly love, but instead, we celebrate our own greed and ask for a few things that cost a stupid amount of money. I personally try to avoid this by forcing a list of 50 items, all ranging in price from $5 to $200. Also, Christmas is the time of year for arguing between Fox News and the ACLU. Fox usually claims that Christmas is either "under attack" or "too commercialized", while the ACLU claims that saying "Merry Christmas" is offensive and begs Americans to (be Socialists and) say "Happy Holidays" instead. With Halloween, there aren't hordes of liberals (not saying that all oppose Christmas) bleeding their hearts dry over people saying "Trick or Treat" or "Happy Halloween." {Speaking of the ACLU, I found out that Chuck Norris wrote a little something about them, it won't help my argument but I felt like sharing it. http://aclu.procon.org...}
Christmas is better than halloween.

Which is more scarier? Santa Claus or monsters and stuff who can kill you? Exactly. Everyone loves food too. Too much candy can make you literally sick. On Christmas, however, there are so many different options of food. For presents too, who wants candy and ONLY candy? I mean, seriously. For Christmas, you get toys, money, candy, gift cards, clothes, anything that is on your wish list! Christmas teaches kids to behave and that they will be rewarded. Halloween teaches kids that once it gets dark, all the monsters come.
Christmas is better than halloween.

Santa isn't scary? What isn't terrifying about a fat guy wearing red who breaks into your house once a year and eats all your cookies and milk? We make our children walk around on Halloween so they won't be fat and steal cookies around Christmas time. If you're talking about presents, then what gift is better than free candy that you burn off by walking? As a wrestler, I can say that its easier to make weight after Trick or treating than after eating fattening Christmas food.
Christmas is better than halloween.

Because gingerbread is more of a Christmas thing! You can also cuddle and stay warm inside watching Christmas movies and drinking hot chocolate. On Christmas, everything is just so warm and cozy, but on Halloween, it's all evil feeling and scary. If you have kids, you have to deal with them being scared and everything, but on Christmas, you can simply just tell to be good or else Santa won't give them toys, they won't be frighten because Santa is scary, but frighten that they won't get toys. Another thing about Christmas, is that you get PRESENTS! For Halloween, it's only about candy, but for Christmas there's candy, gingerbread houses, hot chocolate, beautiful decorations, AND PRESENTS! All your wishes comes true (AKA wishlist). Halloween, however, it's "trick or treat" as in "Give me candy or you'll regret it." And, also, on Halloween, you have to deal with those terrible kids who egg your cars and TP your house.
Stand your Ground Laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense

To Review:If able to do so, one must first retreat in order to give justice to aggressor as the act in aggression may not have merited the punishment distributed through force of the "victim."It is unjust to assume that the act in aggression merited death to the aggressor. This law, however, allows the person confronted to make this assumption. This law gives citizens a blank check to achieve justice wherein the perception of that person confronted in viewing the situation may not be credible nor may it be correct.The resolution is negated because the self-defense proffered by this law is not legitimate as it violates the principles of justice. All preceding points, having gone uncontested, flow through the round. Vote Negative
Stand your Ground Laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense

Because my opponent was unable to share any points in the affirmative of this resolution, I will simply commence the debate by offering a brief speech in the negation. To begin, I offer the following definitions: Self-defense: The protection of one’s person or property against some injury attempted by another. The right of such protection. Black’s Law Dictionary Stand your ground law: A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The clause also encompasses the use of deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. According to the NCP [1] on self-defense, there are five requirement needed to deem the use of self-defense legitimate: The defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that his act was necessary to defend himself. That he was being threatened with physical harm. The defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent. The defendant must show that he reasonably believed that the threatened harm was unlawful. The defendant must show that the threatened harm was of such a nature that it actually required the level of force that the defendant used. These requirements have been instituted within our lawful society in order to preserve the rights of all parties concerned. When any one of these requirements is infringed upon, justice cannot exist within the scenario, thus an argument of self-defense is not legitimate. The “stand your ground law” bases itself upon the “victim’s” perception of the scenario, which may not be accurate. Through their own emotional bias, a victim will not have a realistic view of what actions of their abuser are in fact punishable or to what extent they should be punished. We have a justice system for a reason, this purpose being to achieve a just verdict through unbiased contemplation within the due process of law. It is for this reason that all of the specific requirements listed above must be met. Instead of furthering the justice of self-defense, this law furthers injustice, because it takes away the necessity of retreating if one has the ability to do so, and thus violating the fifth requirement in removing the justified level of force. Relaxing the imminence standards in cases of domestic violence enhances the risk that deadly force was unnecessary by justifying pre-emptive self-defense or, the act in anticipation.[1] http://nationalparalegal.edu...;
Homo and bi sexuality is against the Bible

but on the the actual debate: you are splitting hairs. By the dicionary deffinition a homaosexual is a person who ingages in or practces sexual relations with someone of the same sex. So just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean that you are homo or bisexual if they are the same sex as you, you must have some sort of sexual interaction with someone of the same sex to be classified as homo or bisexual. And it does also say in the Bible that if you have thought about doing something that is shameful or and abomination in the eyes of God then you might as well have done it for real. Therefore your idea that acting in homosexual sex is wrong but being homosexual is okay is not backed up, to be considered homo or bisexual you must PHYSICALY ACT ON A HOMOSEXUAL URGE AND BE INVOLVED IN HOMSEXUAL RELATIONS. Here are just a few mentionings of homosexuality being seen as a sin and being wrong in the eyes of God "In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling. " It is reprehensible and unclean. In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an "abomination" but here as one worthy of the death penalty! Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a "sodomite" in the land of Israel. An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as "wickedness. " In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then and now, a particularly rebellious sin. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God. " The terms he uses here seem to be specific REFERENCES TO BOTH ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PARTICIPANTS IN A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned. From all this we can draw at least the following three conclusions: 1) Homosexuality is contrary to Scripture. There is no way to speak of any kind of acceptable or "Christian" homosexuality. There is never any allowance for it. It is never anything but sinful. " <. http://www.biblicalstudies.com...; BY THE WAY I agree with you that the way i worded the topic wasn't correct. I would have been better off saying " homosexualty is VILE and an ABOMINAION according to the Bible"
Homo and bi sexuality is against the Bible

The Bible is against homosexual sex not homosexuality. There are about six different parts sections of the Bible which specifically condemn homosexual sex. This is not a condemnation of homosexuality as being homosexual only has a slight causal relationship to having homosexual sex. Allow me an example: If a bisexual man falls in love with a woman in high school, gets married, lives out his life and dies... the Bible has no condemnation for him being bisexual. Bisexuals are generally sexually attracted to individuals of both genders, however the Bible condemns (and commands murder of) homosexual sex (female-female homosexual sex is only noted in Romans and is an observation and doesn't spell out the death penalty). So we see that so long as homosexuals and bisexuals ignore the attraction they feel for the same sex and never engage in homosexual sex... the bible has no condemnation for them. Further, the term "is against the Bible" is consistently poorly worded. To say that a person wearing clothing of two different fibers is against the bible is "accurate" but ambiguous as it seems to imply that the person in question opposes the Bible. The same holds true for the topic: Homosexuality opposes the Bible. It may seem rather persnickety but the topic doesn't make much sense.
Homo and bi sexuality is against the Bible

>>I in no way believe that homosexuals should be murded for there actions only pittied and helped... I am myself completely opposed to treating people as anything less than people. I encouraged that my state of California currently has legal gay marriage and hope that legal remedy by the 14th amendment progresses to render unconstitutional every unjust law on the subject across the nation. However, we are discussing the Bible, and the Bible says very specifically in Lev 20:13 that homosexual sex is an abomination and those participating are to be executed. If one is to render the Bible as an accurate account of the desires of God on the subject you should be far less pity and far more Phelps. Those homosexuals who act upon their homosexual desires and attractions are to be killed. My objection is very specifically that just because a gay man doesn't have sex with other gay men doesn't make him any less gay. As such, a homosexual can follow biblical commandments without impediment by either not engaging with sex or only engaging in sex with women. You didn't put the dictionary definition of homosexuality, although you did claim reference to the dictionary as if it were some grand arbiter as to what words are suppose to mean rather than a reference guide to how they are used. However, let me do exactly what you claim to have done: http://dictionary.reference.com... homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. We have but one disagreement. Is homosexuality to be defined as sexual desire AND behavior as you contend or does it refer to sexual desire OR behavior? The dictionary is kind enough to side with me in this regard. If one has desires directed towards a person or persons of one's own sex they are homosexual. Further, sexual desires aren't thoughts. When I see an attractive women, I do not think about why she is attractive rather, I simply become aware of such perceptions. There is no choice or thought involved. Likewise if I found myself inversely inclined that would imply something different all together. As this point is the linchpin of our entire argument allow me to spell it out: I have not nor have every agreed with the proposition that a homosexual need 'lay with a man as one would lieth with a women' or 'use men against their own nature'... just that there is a desire within some people to do that. The bible condemns the actions not the desires. Clearly if one were to simply ignore those desires, deem them a test, a live out their lives in solitude as many practicing Christian homosexuals endeavor to do, they would not be violating Biblical commandments. As it says in Ezekiel 18:27 -- "When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul."
Homo and bi sexuality is against the Bible

I in no way believe that homosexuals should be murded for there actions only pittied and helped . . . Secondly i put he DICTIONARY DEFFINITION of homosexual in my last argument. So just thoughts dont make you homosexual i speak specificsly of those who engage in homosexual relations. Truthfuly you are agreeing with me. A HOMOSEXUAL CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH IF THEY HAVE INGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS. As far as finding another man attractive, i dnt mean you want to have sex with them i mean that you think that they are handsome or mabey more attractive to a woman than yourself. Since we arguing the same side i beleive that neither of us will respectfuly "win" this debate. well i have no more to say so thanks for debating me on this widely contreverial topic . . . GOOD JOB and enjoy all the other debates you are or will be in.
Dance is harder than Football and most other sports

First off I'd like to point out that I'm English, so when I talk about football I mean soccer, which has relatively little protection apart from shin pads. None of what you say really establishes any concrete facts about dancing or other sports. You will never be able to prove as fact that dancing is harder than other sports because it's all relative. In a situation where someone has to dance ontop of a metal spike while wearing a weighted vest, dancing would be more difficult. In a situation where a man with no legs has to oppose a team of professional football (soccer) players in a game of soccer, the game of soccer will be more difficult. So it makes no difference to the argument if you say these specific dancers have to have these specific requirements and their facial expression matters. Because some professional dancers have to wear masks, and not every type of dancing is ballet dancing. Any sport can reach a level of difficult that reaches a difficulty level of impossible and so can any dance. The same can be said about having a body type suited for sport or suited for dance. If you ask someone with a small head, small skeletal structure frame and a metabolism that burns calories fast if it's easy to have a body that's good for dance they will say yes, because they were born that way. On the other hand someone who was born like the elephant man with head deformities will find it difficult/impossible to have a small head and a good body for dancing. This is no different than football, if you observe sports science and see how specific the body types are, for example how fast and agile Christiano Ronaldo is, ontop of that as I said previously the competition to be a professional football (soccer) player is much more fierce, so not only do they have to have the body type but they have to be able to competitively beat other people at the same game with the same body type. Not all dancing is competitive, and not all dancing included objective goals and is overall a subjective artform. So therefore how "hard" something is, is relative. And it is incorrect to say dancing is harder than football and other sports.
Dance is harder than Football and most other sports

Quite a lot of what you said proves my point. For starters, the overweight guy dancing you may see as him being a good dancer, but just because you think that he looks good dancing does not mean that it was easy for him to become as good as you thought he was. But since we don't know the guy, we can not tell for sure. You said that football is only based on if you score if he is good at defending, scoring, and setting up goals. Whilst with dancing (let's say that it's ballet to make it simpler), it is also based on how you perform, but it's more intense. In football, you can make any face you want, but it doesn't matter because your face is covered by a helmet. You can be as big as you want as long as you are strong enough and can make the goals, etc. You're protected by guards so if you fall the chances of you getting hurt is a lot less likely. With ballet (and all other kinds of dance) you have to always have a facial expression, no matter what you are dancing. Without even having a facial expression, you won't make it as a professional, and that's the easiest part. In ballet, you have to have a very specific body type. This includes high arches, a flexible torso, small head, small bust, slim hips, small ankles, long arms and legs. That's only for a female professional ballet dancer. And as a dancer, you are never protected. If you fall and hurt yourself, ex. your pointe shoe breaks and you break your ankle(which is actually very possible) your career is practically over. Or if you just simply fall and hurt your back. It is not easy to be "good" at dancing. It requires years of training, like football. (Unless you are just naturally flexible, having good technique, ability to perform, etc. But that is highly unlikely.) Even though the world of football is so much bigger then the world of dance, the requirements of becoming a professional ballet dancer is still the exact same of what it would take if the world of dance was bigger. You still have to have the correct technique and body and facials, etc.
Dance is harder than Football and most other sports

Firstly dance is subjective, it is an art form. It's primarily a form of expression. So looking at it from the aspect of what does it take to be a good dancer vs being a good footballer it is more difficult to be a good footballer. I for example don't like ballet, but I might like watching simple 90s rave dancing, so therefore I would judge simple easy movements to be better than complex athletic movements of ballet. There maybe an overweight guy dancing in the street and me and my friends love the way he dances, and we all agree he's a good dancer, so therefore subjectively that guy is a good dancer. Football on the other hand isn't subjective, it doesn't matter what style the footballer used, how good the footballer looked, what the audience watching football think, the only thing that matters is that the footballer either scores goals, helps scoring goals, or defends against goals being scored against him. It doesn't matter if me and my friends watch an overweight unathletic football player and we all love the way he moves and agree he is good, he isn't good unless he performs well defending, scoring or setting up goals. For he same reasons of objectivity and art value it's also easier to be a professional dancer than a professional football player. A professional dancer may just get a job being a pro dancer for being good looking and having a nice looking body, a footballer on the other hand is purely relying on performance. Additionally to this football worldwide is more popular than dance, therefore the competition to be good is more fierce. And I think if you add up the amount of people who earn money dancing it will be more people than earn money playing any one individual sport. It's mainly the fact that good dancing is subjective that makes dancing easier, I could do a dance now, film it and upload it to youtube and tomorrow it might be the biggest dance craze ever and according to millions of people it's the best dance ever, even if it's not that difficult to do. Now that would be a total fluke and involve no real difficult skill. Football on the other hand is different, a footballer might get one or two lucky goals, but continually playing against difficult opponents and scoring goals is the only way to be one of the best football players. Your argument was very vague so I've tried to look at it from a multifaceted perspective. Which is it easiest to earn money doing and to become a professional at. Which is it easiest to be good at. Which has definite pre established goals and requirements.