BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion for rape victims.

Hi, I'm squonk. I will be arguing that rape victims should not abort their babies. The reason for this is simple: God has a plan, and we just have to trust God. 1 Corinthians 10:13 says, "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it." We must also remember Jeremiah 29:11: "For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope." It is not God's will for us to end life.(I'm an atheist but I'm argunig the Christian side.)
Abortion for rape victims.

Abortion is a proceedure by medication or surgery that ends the life of the unborn child, and while usually unethical, is justifiable homicide in this case. Con will make the first move, no strawmans, and I support choice for the victim, not just abortion unless she is under 15 years old. No child should have a child, especially if she was raped. When two human lives are connected, there has to be some choice.
Marjuana should be legal with a few restrictions.

My opponent opened his arguments stating that the source I gave (which showed a correlation between lower auto-accidents in states after legalizing marijuana) did not prove causality - which I find highly ironic given that most of his sources don't prove any causality whatsoever. You also cited the social costs of alcohol to prove your point of the social costs of marijuana once again.I believe that our arguments have been heard on both sides already and it is up to the voters to judge here.My closing thoughts on why to legalize marijuana:- added tax revenue (no social costs have been proven)- increased personal freedom- it is less harmful than alcohol, which begs the quesrion as to why marijuana remains illegal. - It has positive benefits, too. Marijuana is used medically to reduce pain and tension.- No harmful effects have been proven by marijuana use in adults, cancer or otherwise.- Increased safety of those who currently buy marijuana on the black market, as well as eliminating drug cartels of marijuana- It has the same withdrawal symptoms as caffeine- Our jails and court system will become unclogged with frivolous cases of marijuana use- For these reasons, marijuana has more benefits than costs, and should be legalized.
Pedophilia should be illegal

My opponent says, " I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could, come up with good arguments to support police action against thought crimes." I am sure that it would be possible to do so. Police actions against thought crimes is the basic premise of Minority Report. Although the problem in that movie is the "minority report" (one of the three pre-cogs sometimes does *not* see the person committing the crime). So even in a movie with psychics who can foresee a person committing a crime, there is still an acknowledgement of free will. My opponent says, "While researching this debate, I've discovered that pedophiles aren't inherently dangerous. There is a difference between a child molestor and a pedophile. Child molestation is typically a crime of opportunity most children that are molested are not molested by pedophiles." I also was surprised to learn that most molestations are crimes of opportunity by family members who test negative for pedophilia. My opponent says, "If pedophiles aren't afraid to come forward, then they will feel safer seeking treatment . . . I hope that society at some point stops turning these guys into monsters and starts to make an honest attemp[t] to understand them, so we can prevent them from ruining their own life as well as others." I agree. The stigma against pedophilia makes it harder for them to openly acknowledge that they have this condition. Their inability to openly acknowledge their pedophilia makes it harder to seek treatment. Their inability to seek treatment makes it more likely they will molest children. While child molesters are bad people, pedophiles are *not necessarily* so. Prior to YYW's blowup, I had considered the term "pedophile" to be synonymous with the term "child molester." It makes me happy that both Wylted and I seem to have learned a meaningful lesson from this debate. I thank Wylted for this debate. I thank you (the judges) for reading. And I kindly ask for a Con vote on the resolution.
Pedophilia should be illegal

I took a position I didn't intend to in this debate. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could, come up with good arguments to support police action against thought crimes. I'm sure those arguments could, sway some voters to side with me. Honestly, it's too late to post any argument worthy of defeating my opponent. On a side note: While researching this debate, I've discovered that pedophiles aren't inherently dangerous. There is a difference between a child molestor and a pedophile. Child molestation is typically a crime of opportunity most children that are molested are not molested by pedophiles. The best way to prevent pedophiles from hurting a child, is for the community to reach out to them. If pedophiles aren't afraid to come forward, then they will feel safer seeking treatment, not that all of them need treatment to resist temptation. I hope that society at some point stops turning these guys into monsters and starts to make an honest attemp to understand them, so we can prevent them from ruining their own life as well as others. Sorry Bluesteel, that I wasted your time with this debate.
The Moral Argument is Not Sound

Resolution The moral argument for God's existence is not sound. Structure R1. Acceptance R2. Opening Arguments R3. First Rebuttals R4. Second Rebuttals R5. Closing Statements Rules 1. No arguments in the first round. 2. No new arguments in the last round. 3. Do your best to interpret charitably. Definitions and Abbreviations and Clarifications 1. The moral argument: (1) If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. (2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. 2. Objective Morality (OM): moral facts exist and are true or false independent of any individual's opinion. Moral values refer to goodness and badness. Moral duties refer to moral ‘oughts.' 3. Atheist Friendly Morality (AFM): a class of moral theories which don't depend on God. 4. Divine Command Theory (DCT): a class of moral theories which depend on God. 5. God: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.
The Moral Argument is Not Sound

This round is for my conclusions. Conduct Philsobot and I both had reasonable conduct. I agree with my opponent. Grammar My opponent is right. I am new to typing for proper purposes so I make mistakes. He sure like to blair these mistakes which I would think is obivious to the reader. Anyways I have made grammer errors and points should go to Pro. Arguments My opponent argued that P1 of the moral argument contains two implicit contentions: (1) Theism can provide a foundation for morality. (Theistic morality is possible) (2) AFM cannot provide a foundation for morality. (Non-theistic morality is impossible. ) He argued that as long as just one of these is false, then the moral argument's P1 is not true, and the moral argument is unsound. My opponent argued this case but did not state why God does not exist nor why OM is not required if you believe in God or not. He argued that non-theistic morality is possible without God and he is right. Though he has failed to prove OM does not exist. Nor could he deny that we all contain simliar moral convictions hence OM. My opponent also gave us a possible ontological foundation though he did not provide how this argument made OM impossible. He gave us a great example of moral conduct and oughts. Though he never proved that OM is impossible because to do so he had to prove God does not exist- He did not. Or that OM is not grounded to all humanity- He did not. In summary, I should be given the convincing arguments points because: 1. ) I provided reasons for thinking God is necessary for the existence of OM. This supports P1 of the moral argument, proving it sound. 2. ) I mostly agreed with my opponents proposal but it never proved OM does not exist. 3. ) I provided the same argument each round in different ways as to show the many varibles of the OM. 4. ) I showed that OM is and that you do not have to believe in God to have it. 5. ) I showed that majority of people throughout time have had similar moral principles and that shows OM. I was clear that my opponent did not disprove God nor that humanity had grounded morality. Reliable Sources We both had good resources even though my opponents complains they were not. To end My opponent became real cocky and arrogant at the end and I see conduct loss here. I tnak my opponent and thank each reader.
Gun Bans

Yet again.................yet again you, sir, provided the statement that "even if you couldn't pull the trigger, would the guy having a gun on him change his mind about attacking you?" well wouldn't he just shoot you outright. Here please take note that my intention is not just justifying violence of which I am against but highlighting the fact that having a gun on you doesn't prove a single thing in your defence other than your point that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", hence making it clear that manslaughter is ok with you, without even the inkling what your family would do without you while you are serving sentence.............. This reckless nature again portrays the fact that you sir are hanging on to the only branch to survive and that's violence....... I'll cite an example here....I suppose you have seen the movie "crash"...If not then please do sir,'cause it'll do a damn good job of enlightening you on what keeping guns for self defence eventually results in..... You also attacked the fact that gun bans though in effect have still been unsuccessful in curbing crimes!!!!!!!!!!! Then sir you again overlook the fact that people like you who support the motion against the gun bans are the real culprits behind the scenes for this............Just think of some remorse..... But of course you in the end seem to favour my opinion that gun bans after all are good for you,the nation and the world. "The debate is over if gun bans are a good thing, according to him in the above statements..." Thank you sir for yet again trying to disapprove my facts.......Thank you for this enlightening debate(I'm surely going to use the topic in my upcoming school debate!!!!!!!!)...May luck be with you in the voting rounds!!!!!!!
Gun Bans

It has been proven time and time again that when we are attacked our primal instincts kick in. We suddenly know how to fight back or how to resist. It then makes it obvious that if you are under attack, you would not hesitate to fight back, even if you couldn't pull the trigger, would the guy having a gun on him change his mind about attacking you? My opponent is attacking "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", he says that I am trying to portray guns as people friendly. Tell me then, can a gun, in a gun case, murder a man? Can a gun in a woman's purse, for protection, kill a man? Not unless a person pulls the trigger, therefor reinforcing the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " My oppoenent stated this: "the statement you later provided in your defense that "The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to . http://en.wikipedia.org...... i agree with the fact that crimes haven't reduced because of the fact that they have increased. Accordind to . http://archives.cnn.com...; My opponent defeats himself in that statement, Gun banns have been in Washington DC since 1976, If gun violents has been increasing since 1976 with gun ban, after gun ban, after gun ban, Its obviously not working! My opponent then says that Ive missed the glitch, that Ive looked over something, he says that having a gun doesn't fully prevent you from being assaulted, But no sir you've looked over something, having a gun, and decreasing the chances is better than not having a gun and remaining defenseless. Please pay attention to the fact that my opponent has stated this: 1. "The statement you later provided in your defense that "The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to . http://en.wikipedia.org...... i agree with the fact that crimes haven't reduced because of the fact that they have increased. Accordind to . http://archives.cnn.com...; 2. "Here too sir you fail to see the major glich the ability of the criminals to assault you is decreased but not nullified fully" The debate is over if gun bans are a good thing, according to him in the above statements, they make things worse.
Gun Bans

Thank you for taking my debate pro. I will use the format my opponent used. 1.) I would like for you to rephrase the first one and try again please. 2.) The ability to use the gun reduces the criminals ability to assault you. 3.) You cant prove that you wont use a gun if offended, would you Vageesh? 4.) My opponent is taking self defense and slamming it up against the wall, why do you need to know the reason they assaulted you, its assault, plain and simple. According to law self defense is simply this: Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. According to http://www.lectlaw.com... This law "Sir" is the difference between you and the gunslinger. My opponent hasn't offered a logical reason as to why gun bans should be in place. Every reason he has offered has been defeated, besides his first reason (I have no clue what he meant). My opponent used self defense as a reason against gun bans, when in all actuality they are a reason to have gun bans according to Thomas Jefferson.
Gun Bans

Well as worthy opponent said that gun bans are not doin' any good (for everyone),well in that case just look around you.. Those people who carry arms with a malicious intent cannot be justified on account of their carrying them.What I'm intending to highlight here is that 1.)Would you like to count yourself among the many others who have no concience(the killers etc...) 2.)How can you say that having a gun n your pocket won't prevent you from any assault(not every one knows youre' carrying a gun. 3.)How can you prove that you yurself won't use the gun when you are offended..after all anger maketh a person mad. 4.)As to what Thomas Jefferson once said that "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." well you justify this statement with basic intent of saving innocent people from injustice.. I hold high regards to that Concern of yours but why do you lose faith in your judicial system.. . For beter explanation,let's take an example.. You were assaulted in an alleyway..you had gun andoyu shot at the person in SELF DEFENCE..who'll know whether you did not do it intentionally.Would'nt killing/harming a person play on your Conscience. You killed/harmed the person the person without knowing the reason why he assaulted you in the first place. THEN WHAT ACCORDING TO YOU SIR WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND A GUNSLINGER!!!
Gun Bans

Hi all, and good luck to my opponent. I will open with two points i will expect my opponent to offer an opposing view to. 1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A great man named Thomas Jefferson once said. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." I will now rephrase it so my opponent can understand this statement. If you are to take guns away from the people, you are simply taking guns away from those who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. Criminals don't obey the law, therefor why do you think they wouldn't have guns after a gun ban was to come into place? Gun banns disarm the innocent and help the murderers, rapist, robbers and other types of criminals who rely on guns to assault the innocent. 2. Gun banns have a reverse effect on the intended purpose. "banning guns to the general public increases people's vulnerability and fails to reduce violence because the law-abiding citizenry are victims of violent crime, not perpetrators." According to http://www.law.harvard.edu... The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Non-existence of God

I only claimed that DNA proves G-d because of how efficiently it holds information in as little space as possible, which is better than any computer we have. Also, the appendix does serve a purpose- it is part of our immune system. Besides, just because we have genetic issues now doesn't mean that genetics were originally imperfect. As a matter o fact, I could say that all our genetic issues are caused by pollution, and this would have factual backing since cancer only began to appear in the 1890's and was unheard of up until then, then it gradually became more and more common. Also, this debate isn't about evolution, it's about G-d existing.
The Non-existence of God

Well, the DNA argument would be a good one- if humans were physically perfect in every way. But we're not. There are many examples of this. The appendix serves no purpose, and is dangerous, because it risks becoming infected. The fact that we eat through the same hole that we breath is dangerous too. It can easily lead to choking. No omnipotent creator would design us that way, with glaring mistakes. Now, you may be wondering, "This also disproves evolution!" It doesn't. Evolution helps species evolve to threats that they face at present, not threats that they encounter in the future. Unfortunately, this leads to defects. Millions of years ago, the appendix probably served a purpose. Now, it is a "design flaw". Evolution doesn't fix the mistakes that it makes, so we will always have appendixes. That is my response, happy? Also, in the future I would encourage you not to declare "I win" after making a point. You've done this twice already. It's a serious breach of etiquette and will result in you being looked down on by others.
The Non-existence of God

First of all your paradox wasn't a question about the existence of G-d, you presented me with a paradox, and I answered it. And I never said "believe this," I only said "this is what I believe," as an answer to your paradox. You seem to get off topic here and go less on the "there is no proof" argument and instead begin to argue that the bible is immoral. Either way I want to respond to this too. The Torah never supports the idea of slavery or says that men are better than women, infact if you read your book this should be evident; though the word used is "slavery" it really wasn't. First of all, you were never *forced* into servitude, you became an indentured servant by owing someone money. Second, you couldn't be held there forever, at most you would be a indentured servant for 7 years. Thirdly, you weren't property since your master couldn't beat you/sell you/etc. And in regards to men being better than women, this is nonsense, you should see Genesis 1:27 because it seems to be that women are equal to men. In this last argument you deal not at all with the existence of G-d, since my arguments were not responded to, I will count them as dropped, I win thank you.
The Non-existence of God

That was an excellent response to my paradox, but you still haven't proved that G-d (I'm going to start typing that in order to keep people from being offended) exists. You say that there is no proof, but we should believe in him anyway. This makes sense, but it doesn't prove that he is real. In order to convince someone that G-d exists, you shouldn't say "Oh, believe this.", you should say "This is concrete evidence that supports the idea of G-d, etc. etc." I'm also going to add some of my reasoning to why he doesn't exists here. Why was G-d present in everyday human life for thousands of years, but hasn't been heard or seen of since the development of solid record keeping? Also, how come there are no "updates"? Original religious texts support the idea of slavery and infer that men are better than women. We know these ideas now are wrong. But no changes have been made.
The Non-existence of God

"I'm not saying that the fact that those people are all dead means that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the fact that they're all dead means that whether or not that actually happened is disputable. Very disputable. The French Revolution is different, because there are hundred of written accounts about it that prove it happened. There are only two written accounts that corroborate your story, and those accounts were written by the same group of people. The authenticity of these accounts is debatable. It's like finding info on Wikipedia. Sure, it could be true....but if no other site backs this info up, then you can't say that it is reliable. Essentially what I'm getting at is, your evidence is shaky, and it can't support your argument. Please find some other information that you think supports your ideas, instead of repeating yourself." Again, you can't introduce these stories without everyone seeing it, Christianity and Islam were only accepted without any decisive proof because people wee forced by Constantine and Mohamed to believe their new religion, here is no evidence of Jews being forced to accept the Torah. Also, DNA can hold more information than any computer that we have, and it holds it in the size of a molecule. If humans can't devise something that efficient, remind me again why it can happen on its own? "I would also like to leave you with a paradox. If God (Or, if that offends you, G-d.) is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and evil exists, then one of those can't be true. G-d would destroy the evil, right? The argument of "Free Will" doesn't explain this, because if free will existed, then G-d wouldn't be omniscient." It all depends on your definition of G-d and who you're asking, if you ask the Christians they will say that evil comes fro Satan, the Buddhists/Sikhs say it comes from pride, G-d says this: "See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil." - Deuteronomy 30:15 "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7 Basically, G-d created and allowed evil because things won't work without it, if humans aren't tested, they won't get better.
The Non-existence of God

I'm not saying that the fact that those people are all dead means that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the fact that they're all dead means that whether or not that actually happened is disputable. Very disputable. The French Revolution is different, because there are hundred of written accounts about it that prove it happened. There are only two written accounts that corroborate your story, and those accounts were written by the same group of people. The authenticity of these accounts is debatable. It's like finding info on Wikipedia. Sure, it could be true....but if no other site backs this info up, then you can't say that it is reliable. Essentially what I'm getting at is, your evidence is shaky, and it can't support your argument. Please find some other information that you think supports your ideas, instead of repeating yourself. I would also like to leave you with a paradox. If God (Or, if that offends you, G-d.) is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and evil exists, then one of those can't be true. G-d would destroy the evil, right? The argument of "Free Will" doesn't explain this, because if free will existed, then G-d wouldn't be omniscient.