BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should chocolate milk be in school

I disagree. Yes, it is sugary but aren't many other foods? If one of the arguments is that we shouldn't have it because it's sugary then we shouldn't have ketchup, beans, juice etc. in school. What type of diseases are you talking about? As long as an individual keeps the amount of chocolate they eat under control then I really don't see the problem. Schools don't force students to eat chocolate and if you can't eat chocolate then don't. I'm lactose intolerant so I avoid eating chocolate at school and it's not that hard. If my school were to ban chocolate because there are a few lactose intolerant people it would just be unfair.
Destroying all Weapons of Mass Desturction

Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons means detterance. Through the Cold War the US created the theory of Nuclear detterance by means of Mutally Assured Destruction. Now MAD is when a nation uses a nuclear weapon against another nation the US in turn would launch all of their nuclear weapons at that nation. Now this sounds crazy and it's meant to be that way. When we observe the Stability-Instability theory we can see that the nuclear weapons have helped the world maintain a cold peace between superpowers as none of the World's strongest nations haven't waged war against eachother in the past 70 years. They are forced to only engage in minor conflicts and proxy wars. (Schelling, T. C. (1966), "2", The Diplomacy of Violence, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 1–34) The US still has nuclear weapons in the Post Cold War world due to the US using them to protect itself and our allies in the world. Contention 2: World not perfect. People will still use weapons. Subpoint 1: Humans, in nature, are evil and selfish. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted. "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think." Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) This shows that both Hobbes and Freud show that humans are terrible creatures and make terrible choices, hence the phrase, “Only human.” This is why we need the government to regulate many of these things otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do many things, because we would be so dysfunctional. Subpoint 2: The world cannot be trusted. With the Philosophy applied from Subpoint 1, we can see that humans are naturally evil things and if nations began to disarm then other nations would be liekly to invade and/or use nuclear weapons against these nations. There are several rogue nations that would be highly likely to attack the United States with nuclear weapons as soon as we dropped our defenses. Wheather it's North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, or Russia we simply cannot trust them to disarm as well. That is why we cannot disarm.
Black Lives matter is Bad

Rebuttal: My opponent makes the opening statement of Black Lives Matter riots are completely pointless, on the principal that police are not out to get black people. Which is partly true, to the fact that police are not out to get black people. But Black Lives riots are caused by an unfair justification when a white accuses a black of committing a crime which is not true. My opponent makes the statement of "It is only considered racist if a white guy shoots the black guy" which is false. As I stated earlier, if the reason is unjustifiable then it would be considered somewhat racist. But if the "white guy" has a properly justified reason it would not be racist. My opponent then goes on to state one single story about black cops killing a white man and his son, which is a mere one example of bias based cops. While I do not agree/defend the cops actions, it is notable that the cop presumed that the man was carrying a weapon which he states in the video. There have been over 21 cases of black men killed by white police, where else there have been 5 cases of black cops killing white cops. My opponent further goes on to say that Black Lives matter forcefully make a point, by looting and burning. Whilst I accept a few cases of a mass riot which was caused by Black lives matter, most protests caused by Black Lives matter are peaceful. My opponent has made the stereotype that all protest by Black Lives Matter is evil. My opponent goes on to say that black people kill each other more, which is largely irrelevant. The entire focus of this debate is that "Black Lives Matter" the group defending unjustifiable crimes committed to black people by other ethnicities. I find that it is completely irrelevant to the entire debate, but since he has brought it up it is notable that Black People kill 12% of people whose race falls into the white ethnicity group where else whites kill 16% of people that fall into the black ethnicity group which means, whites kill more blacks than they do of themselves and they kill more of themselves than they do blacks. I now conclude my rebuttal Sources: http://www.theatlantic.com... https://fellowshipoftheminds.com... http://www.ibtimes.com... Argument one The black lives matter is a group that rather than segregates - it unites. Whilst some may think that it is a black supremacist group which it is not it is a group that strives to create unity among both black and white. The group believes that there is a racial gap between white and black and they don't try and make a supremacist society but rather an equal one. Which is stated on its website, and reinforced in every Black Lives Matter protest? The black lives matter has caused awareness of the racial gap between the white and black ethnicity group, which is vital in understanding where we as a society should work towards. I conclude my first argument and await my opponenets response. Sources: http://blacklivesmatter.com... http://blacklivesmatter.com... https://policy.m4bl.org...
Black Lives matter is Bad

I believe that the Black Lives Matter riots are completely pointless. Police are not out to get black people. There is no such thing as white privilege, and the way they are trying to get their point across is simply violent and unnecessary.1: It is only considered racist if a white guy shoots the black guyHow often do you here in the news of a black police shooting an unarmed white man? Definitely not as much as a white police shooting a black man.Did you hear of the 2 black police officers that opened fire on a white man´s truck? The man had no weapons in the truck and the officers had not given any reason for why they were pursuing him. They shot 18 rounds into his truck and ended up killing the driver 6 year old autistic son and putting the driver himself in critical condition.(3)If a black police officer shoots a white man, is it racist? If you look at the statistics, 732 white people were killed by police and 381 were black. Blacks(2) 2: The way the Black Lives Matter movement gets their point is comepletely evil.Are the Black Lives matter protests peaceful? Yes, if you count looting and burning and rioting peaceful. The black lives matter movement is just making a different image of themselves, by burning, looting and destroying places they are casting an image of violence and aggression.3:Black people Kill Each otherWhite males being 38% in 2012 of the population commited 4,582 muders, and black males being 6.6% of the population commited 5,531 muders.(1) If you want to get rid of crime against blacks, you need to get rid of the black gangsters on the streets. You need to change their culture.From the data above we can see that the black lives movement is a movement that casts a bad image on the black community. If they really want to get rid of black violence you would have to make sure you are getting criminals off the streets. Of course, there will be actual racism such as the shooting of Walter Scott, who was shot running away. But rioting on the streets is not going to do anything.1: http://www.breitbart.com...2: https://www.washingtonpost.com...3: http://downtrend.com...
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

You have too many rules. Anyways. P1. guns are the main cause for every mass shooting. Is P1 true? example one. A man with a bunch of guns on top of roof shoots a bunch of people with semi automatic guns....... http://www.comedycentral.com.au... Could he have done it without guns? Sixty four year old man. No guns, none of that. Another usual argument.... Say a burglar goes into your house and robs you, then you are defenseless. But if you had a gun, ext. Well stop and look no further for a solution because hey! If guns were banned, the likely hood of these events would be less. That is the whole point of banning guns. Why do we need guns? They are mostly useless unless you want to kill. Before you go into a rebuttal. Which one point I am sure will be, they can get gun illegally. But if guns were banned in America, the price for a gun would go up, because some people would still be desperate. Then only the rich would have guns. Which is not good, but, the mass murderers would have a much harder time getting guns. Guns are weapons made for killing. It is immoral to support that. I hope you are with me.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I support concealed-carry and think the main reason to have guns is self-defense and protecting against a tyrannical government. If you think you have a convincing argument, try to change my mind. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Thank you in advance. I am looking forward to a great debate!
Same Sex Marriage

Okay but not all religions oppose same sex marriage. So by outlawing gay marriage, aren't you in the process leaving out that religions' views and beliefs. And yes the Bill of rights does guarantees freedom of religion, but I don't see what that has to do with giving gays the right of same sex marriage People need to realize that gayness is not a disease. Just because two gay men are going to get married does not mean its going to have any effect over your life, or make you change your religious views, So yes we are allowed freedom of religion but we should also be free to marry who ever we chose.
The Existence of God Can Be Proven

Can you prove the existence of God? For the purposes of this debate I will be arguing that you cannot prove or back up with sufficient evidence the claim that god(s) exist. 'Prove' will mean that the contender has backed up the claim that god(s) exist with enough evidence that the need for a creator has become a logical necessity. It will not be my job to prove to the contender that god(s) do not exist because the claim that god(s) exist is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can only be supported by the pro/for. If the contender also wishes to support the God of his/her specific religion then be my guest. We can turn the debate that direction if you wish. The default however will be arguing from a deist perspective.
The Existence of God Can Be Proven

"Well, I am not sure if I am understanding correctly, but how can there be logical absolutes if they are merely mankind's conventions?"convention - a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity"My opponent has stated that morality is what is agreed upon, thus there is no objective morality"That is true."My opponent has stated that the laws of logic are conventions (what is agreed upon). So how can there be logical absolutes?"You have completely misunderstood my point. It's not like people just made up these rules. We just use them to describe what we observe."If logic is not immutable, I can mutate it, and this would apply to math, language, and pretty much every other thing that requires logic. What is stopping me from doing this? And what is stopping my statement from being valid?"Wrong, logic is immutable. I never said that it wasn't."If logic is merely a description of the world around us, I might ask, does the world around us ever change? If so, why not logic?"Logic is what never changes. That's what makes it logic. Logic is what stays the same. It's a constant. Just like gravity. "Would this be absolutely morally wrong at all times and in all places? If so, what moral standard are you appealing to? I say yes and appeal to Thou shalt not murder."Is slavery acceptable? I say yes and appeal to Exodus 21. (Right after Exodus 20 where the ten commandments are listed.)"This presupposes that negative consequences are truly and objectively negative does this not?"By definition negative consequences are negative. How about you use the laws of logic we were just talking about?"Are these up for debate?".Well sure, the debate just might not last very long."As far as Islam I am quite certain Islam shares some ideologies that are not very in line with the Christian moral ethos."You are right in saying that, but the God of Islam still shares omnipotent and omniscient characteristics."I would like to bring up one final point, the presupposition that our sense are working properly was not addressed. Do you have any thoughts on this?"Yes, if you can't trust your own 5 senses then what the hell can you trust? (An interesting thought though)
This house regrets the rise of anonymity in social media

My opponent made a very strong arguments i will proceed to rebut. Now, before jumping to my argument, i would like to send some rebuttals regarding to what my opponent said. Rebuttals: Firstly,my opponent stated that we always want friends for audiences when we have fake profiles or is anonymous. Well, no, i disagree with this totally. People are not always aiming for audiences when they are anonymous. Mostly, anonymous people always aim for doing something harmful , something like cyber bullying, humiliating others, cursing bad words or stuffs because there is no filter and because they do not care what people think. Therefore, it makes them become irresponsible and the idea that irresponsibilty is good is surely promoted by anonymity because people do not care about the bad consequences for their actions.My opponent also said that it is easy to detect fake account, which i also utterly disagree with. My opponent is being too assumptive about it and he did not even try to explain how it is easy to spot fake accounts. I challenge my opponent to explain this on the next round. Now i will proceed to my next rebuttal Second argument, nowadays, people are afraid to use social media just because of anonymity, which is well-known to be dangerous. Many anonymous people steal other users real identity, harass others and cyber-bully others, as what i had mentioned before on my first rebuttal. For example, someone with high reputation is always targeted by another person who is jealous of them. The anonymous person will try to kill the person's reputation by humiliating them in social media. And the person whose reputation is hurt will end up being depressed when trying to find out the anonymous person. Eventually, when he has no chance to find out the anonymous person anymore , he will just put an end to his life out of the anguish he is having. The anonymous person must have responsibility over the death of the person. Even polices cannot track the anonymous person when he is anonymous. And of course It is not the person's obligation to die just because of anonymity. As i have said before, i will send my last argument in this round. However, my argument has been used in the rebuttals against the opponent, about the irresponsibilty which is promoted by anonymity. I will extend my case about the irresponsibility. Basically people are a lot meaner when they are anonymous. Because they don't care the consequences for their actions. They can say something bad like "Go to hell" or "Damn you" when they are anonymous. They can also say something bad like You-Know-What (inappropriate to mention the word due to my young age {12}, though it is bad for adults too :D) This are all the arguments why i think this statement should not fall I do not think i can extend my case further anymore as i am out of idea now. I am not a good debater but i enjoy debating with my opponent :)
This house regrets the rise of anonymity in social media

Ladies and gentlemen. The social network has been affecting many people's life. We all know what social network is. It includes something like facebook or twitter, and it is very rampant, widespread in our community. What i mean by anonymity here is, a state when people do not disclose their real identity. They can change their name into somebody else's, or into something like Superman, Snow White, or Barbie to falsify their whole identity in social network. This is what we do when we sign up in facebook or twitter when we are asked to give email address or username, we can type any names that we want to use, but we don't have to disclose our real identity. While actually facebook can do a more complicated measure by putting in our real identity, something like putting in the name of the country where we live in, to let us access the facebook which makes our identity become real such as some company always require people to have ID card Now i will move on to the arguments why i want to defend this statement. Firstly, the nature of anonymity is people think that they are anonymous which makes them feel more free to talk their mind.They can be extremely abrasive in their words or speech, they can give their hatred speech, such as showing hatred to another races without being judged or accessed. There is also sexual predator which can utilise this matter to approach younger people and in the end rape them when they meet up.Because they can falsify their real identity, something like lying about their ages,name or gender, which is anonymous and makes them harder to be detected. This is my first argument and the next argument will be presented by myself on the second round, as well as the rebuttals that will be made against my opponent. Now, I look forward to my challenging opponent
The Best Fruit

According to https://www. Care2. Com/greenliving/10-health-benefits-of-mangos. Html, The health benefits of mangos also include: prevention of cancer (colon, Breast, Leukemia, And prostate), Lower cholesterol, Clear skin, Improves eye health, Alkalizes the whole body, Help with diabetes, Improves digestion, Helps fight heat stroke, And boosts the immune system. Kiwi has more fat than mango and triple the sodium.
The Best Fruit

The kiwi's benefits include the mango's (and even outway them) and more. According to SparkPeople. Com (https://www. Sparkpeople. Com/food_vs_food. Asp? Food=35_36_mango_versus_kiwi), Kiwis have twice the protein, Twice the potassium, Half the sugar, And twice the dietary fiber of a mango. Kiwis have antioxidant compounds, Vastly high vitamin C content, And twice as much fiber as mangos, Effectively matching and exceeding Con's argument. Even though kiwis have half the sugar of mangoes, They are sweeter and have a more fulfilling taste. Mangoes intrinsically pale in comparison to kiwis.
The Quran has no contradictions with Science

As per his request in the Opening Statement, I shall wait until the final round to rebut his statements, and will insead use this round to present my second case. Case II: Barrier between Free Water and Salt Water The Quran has made an absolute claim that there is a very distinct Barrier Between Salt water and Fresh Water. "It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. " Quran 25.53 {1/2} The key part here is the totality presented in this Barrier, when using a word as strong as forbidden. In truth Science shows there is no barrier. There is a region between Fresh Water and Salt water called an Estuary. {3} There is no barrier here. What it is is that the fresh water slowing salinates as it moves out into the ocean, becoming Brackish Water. {4} How long the estuary is depends on the quantity and force of the water moving out into the see. If it is a large ammount of water and moving at high speeds, it will push into the ocean for a substantial distance, but if the oceans current is much stronger, the estuary actually begins before the river ends, and pushes only a short distance into the ocean. {5} This is not an objective barrier by any means, but rather a transition zone from one to the other. A barrier bars completely {6}, which is not what we see in real aquatic situation.1] . http://www.usc.edu...2] . http://quranx.com...3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...4] . http://www.princeton.edu...5] . http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...6] . http://dictionary.reference.com...==Unitomic==
The Quran has no contradictions with Science

Thank you for starting with an easy one and thank you for specifying exactly the word that is the source of the contradiction ("Therein"). It will all clear up when I simply just state the previous verse: {See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another. And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp}. The word "Therein" simply refers to the heavens. Meaning: God has made the moon a light in the heavens. This is very clear to me (a person whose mother tongue is Arabic). If you look at the translation in the first source you provided, you'll see what I mean. The translation in that source is as follows: "And He has set up within them the moon as a light, and has set up the sun as a lamp". It's clear in this translation "within them" referring to the heavens in the previous verse. It can't be the moon because the moon is singular and it must be the heavens because the "heavens" is plural. Moreover, the original Arabic word in the Quran is "Feehinna" which translates to "in them (females)" not "in it". It also indicates that it is a female plurality. For if it was a male plurality, then the Arabic word would be "Feehim" (which also translates to "in them (males)"). The Arabic language makes a distinction between plural male and plural female pronouns. Now let's compare the moon and the heavens in the Arabic language. The moon is a singular male, and the "heavens" is a plural female. They are very distant in the usage of the pronouns that replaces them. For the moon, you would say "Feehe" = in him (there is no "it" in Arabic) If we're talking about multiple moons, you would say "Feehim" = in them (males) For a heaven, you would say "Feeha" = in her For heavens, you would say "Feehinna" = in them (females) The Quran say: { He made the moon "Feehinna" a light } which obviously refers to a bunch of females mentioned before (in this case: the heavens). Note: In Arabic, every object has a gender, just like Spanish and some other languages. Now you can argue that, grammatically speaking, the word "Therein" refers to the moon itself, and you may be right. But I don't need to argue against that because the original text is very clear, so why argue over a bad translation? In conclusion, the verse does not indicate in any way that the light is coming from within, nor it states that it is a reflection. It simply states that the moon lights, without getting into whether it is generated there or reflected. I would kindly ask you to follow the debate structure and give your second example in your next response. If you have something to say about my first defence, leave it till the end where you get the chance refute all three defences. Or we can chat in the comments if you need me to clear something up. Thank you