BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: God likes Saturn better then Earth

Venus Let me be a bit less broad; god's real name is Jupiter. The reason humans are on here is because the other planets, let by earth, named the fatass planet Jupiter when it was created. Source: http://www.roman-empire.net... God hates man According to 2001 a space odyssey Saturn did have beings, ways before humans, but they transcended material existence. Source: 2001 a space odyssey So, if god hates earth, SATURN was the FIRST thing he ever hated. And you know the saying, FIRST THE WORST. Source: Kindergarten Top ten criticisms Adam Buckley, 29, does not want to legitimize RB as an artist by giving her a spot of the worst songs of 2011. Sources: Adam Buckley I believe this rebuttal is adequate.
Resolved: God likes Saturn better then Earth

"Earth, as we all know, Is the second best of the planets in god's heart. [1] Due to this fact, it is to point that Saturn is not the best."A video of some youtube kid who likes to do math isnt a valid source to claim that Earth is somehow Second Best..... It only shows how some people have a terrible taste in what they consider to be bad music. I mean for f*cks sake, the song 'Friday' isnt even in the top 10! The source cannot be trusted. "This is true, but it is made of asteroids. This means god wants anyone going out of Saturn to die and for Saturn to be trapped, so Saturn is not liked by god."The reason Saturn has a ring made of Asteroids is to keep humans away from it BECAUSE he likes saturn so much! Have you SEEN what humans do to planets??? Just look at New Jersey. God hates humans very much too, why do you think hes always creating natural disasters, new diseases, famines, etc to kill us off? God despises humans and wants to keep us away from Saturn because he likes Saturn a lot, as evidenced by the fact that he put a ring on it. "Venus is named after the godess of love and beauty"God didnt name Venus though, the Romans did.... And Romans have a really, REALLY sh*tty taste in what is considered 'Beautiful'. Have you even SEEN the Coliseum lately? It looks like New Jersey..... and it smells like it too.The fact is, God loves Saturn way more then Earth as evidenced by the fact that He made sure that humans dont visit it and f*ck it up, and because he put a ring on it. The fact that he put humans on Earth though actually can be evidence showing that Earth is Gods LEAST favorite planet! Think about it, humans are like the AIDS of planets.... And Earth has AIDS because God made it that way. Since God gave Earth AIDS you can argue that God doesnt like to use condoms but thats a whole other debate. The point is there is a lot of evidence that God hates Earth and loves Saturn more then itI rest my case.
Resolved: God likes Saturn better then Earth

Beyond is a talentless hack. Earth, as we all know, Is the second best of the planets in god's heart. [1] Due to this fact, it is to point that Saturn is not the best. 1. Saturn has a ring This is true, but it is made of asteroids. This means god wants anyone going out of Saturn to die and for Saturn to be trapped, so Saturn is not liked by god. Venus is named after the godess of love and beauty. Since god let it spread, it is safe to say that VENUS is the must beautiful planet, otherwise it would be named SATURN. [3] 1. This video http://www.youtube.com... 2. King James Bible verses Venus 1: 5 3. Roman mythology
Iran - Possible Nuclear Threat

Okay since my opponent shows no interest in this debate I'm going to make my points short and sweet.Iran is a radical theocracy and therefore cannot be trusted with nuclear technology due to its unpredictability. The Iranian government has made its stance clear by saying they are for the destruction of Israel and the United States.Iran has a history of backing terrorism and wouldn't hesitate to sell nuclear material and secrets to radical groups or sects. Victory.
Iran - Possible Nuclear Threat

nuclear: pertaining to or involving atomic weaponsthreat: an indication or warning of probable trouble Iran:a republic in SW Asia. 67,540,002; about 635,000 sq. mi. (1,644,650 sq. km). Capital: Teheran. war: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. possible: that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc[www. dictionary. reference. com]I will let Con start this debate since the points he is willing to debate on the subject was left vauge. I look forward to opening statements.
God is real. Big Bang and evolution did not occur.

Well, I'll try to the best of my ability to write in a clear and concise manner, and answer your questions in a straightforward way. It isn't in my purview to question your beliefs or faith; however, you should not be offended when I speak frankly. I want us to understand each other, so I need you to define "God," please. I cannot argue for or against the existence of such a vague term. Back to you.
God is real. Big Bang and evolution did not occur.

You told me to challenge you to a debate, so here it is... This topic is the topic of God. I would like you to understand that no matter how much "scientific things" you throw at me, you will not change my strong conviction in God. Although, I will never change my mind in my belief of God, I will debate the topic. Also, I would love to hear about your thoughts on the Big Bang and evolution. So far, none of my opponents have given an answer to my questions I have about the two theories. They have twisted the question and yet again tried to question my beliefs and faith. I hope that you will answer these questions directly. Also, I want to add that the type of evolution I am referring to is not the adaptations species may make to fit the conditions of their habitats, but evolution meaning that all animals share a common ancestor.
Abortion

According to http://www.numberofabortions.com... There have been over 90,000 Abortions today across the entire world. The majority of people might choose the pro side to this, abortion should exist. And I have noticed the main argument for this is "The baby is not considered alive and/or human unit birth." An Abortion typically occurs between the 13th and the 20th weeks of fetal development. By the 13th week of fetal development, the baby has already developed its organs and body parts meaning that the baby is very much alive in every way as a non-living thing cannot be made living by the effects of birth. According to the Webster"s dictionary the definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." This is what you commit when you walk into a school and shoot, promptly killing children. This is also the same thing as killing a fetus which by definition is "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception." The majority of abortions are performed after 8 weeks. which, by definition, would make this murder. Many would like to argue that a Fetus is non-living or human so this law does not apply to such situations. It does in fact. By definition, a living organism is something that "stimulates some kind of response or growth" in which a fetus does and it is, in fact, a human fetus, not a mouse fetus or a horse fetus. And as stated in the paragraph above "a non-living product cannot become a living product by the effects of birth. There are always other options, such as Adoption.
Mormonism is not christian

First off, I would like to say that this debate is whether or not mormons are christians, not doctrinal differences.One denomination of Christianity cannot set the standards for the rest to follow. Merriam-webster.com states that a christian is, 1:one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, if you ask any mormon if they believe in christ, they'll say yes, thereby fulfilling the defintion of christian. We don't believe in multiple gods. I would like to know where Pro pulled that from. We don't put any man in front of Christ as far as teaching goes. You could argue that Joseph Smith was a heretic, but then the same definition would apply to Paul, because you can't prove that Paul actually saw an angel except by what you have in the bible. I could go longer into doctrinal debate, but I don't have to. And since pro didn't cite any sources to back up his claims, they can't be proved to be true. I could write another page saying how wrong he is, but then it would just be my word versus his.
Mormonism is not christian

My hope is that by this debate we will learn from each other. In the Mormon religion it is believed that god was once a man and was granted god hood by a different god and that god before and so on and so forth in an infinite succession of god hood. This is wrong. It is a sin to aspire to be like god. He is the all knowing, all powerful ONE god. Jesus is god and from his birth by the Virgin Mary has always been a god. But the beauty of god is that Jesus was also a human. Mormon believes that Jesus was a man who attained god hood. Jesus was actually always a god who took flesh and became man too. Also Mormonism believes that Jesus went to the new world ( the America's ) and preached to the native Americans and that they had horses and huge cities way advanced for the time. But horses weren't brought to the new world until the 1400's way after the religion of Mormonism states that they had them. Also there is no archeological evidence whatsoever of the supposed cities that the Mormons believe we're there. And the biggest problem with Jesus going to the new world is that in the bible he ascends into heaven until the second and final coming which didn't happen in the new world because that signifies the end but it never ended. Mormonism believes in an infinite amount of gods and places more importance on a heretical man (Joseph smith) than Jesus the savior of mankind. Solely on the fact that they believe in the infinite cycle of gods bestowing god hood onto mortals and so on shows that they are In Fact polytheistic while Christianity is SOLEY AND STRICTLY MONOTHEISTIC
Teachers should not help students with bad grades.

Opposing Argument: #1 A Teacher's Job Students are not all equally smart. Some students learn differently than others. While some students learn with hand-on experience others learn from reading a book. The teacher's job is to help the student succeed. A teacher's evaluation is mostly based on student's test averages and school grades. A teacher job is to teach the students. If a student does not learn then the teacher has not done their job. Opposing Argument #2 Mentally Challenged Students Are you expecting students who have obvious learning dysfunctions to learn at the same pace as normal students. Almost every school I have been in there has been a mentally challenged students. Every one had a personal aide to guide and teach them. The teachers would take their time to carefully teach them at their own pace. Opposing Argument #3 Student Attitude Some students may have a lazy attitude where they do not want to do homework. A teacher then should start to take away their free time. At my high school if you below a 70% then you only got half lunch periods, and you could not leave school campus. During that time whichever class you were failing that teacher would help you. If teachers teach their students good attitude at young ages then it will stick with them through life. It will show them that you can't just give up and not do it. Overall a teacher need to teach consequences. Conclusion: A teacher should be there to help the student succeed in life. A teacher is not Boss at a work but more of a trainer for life.
Teachers should not help students with bad grades.

To start off, I would like to state that a teacher should help some if there are questions in a specific assignment that were not included in the lecture and such. But if a student basically asks for the teacher to repeat the lesson, I find that unacceptable. I remember having a previous class in the past and the teacher tried to find ways to help the class succeed. She gave numerous online surveys for the class to take for feedback. My class was full of people who were unintelligent and they often socialized instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing, so I assumed they were trying to save their own butts. They still ended up making indecent grades afterwards. You either learn it or you don't. That teacher was a very good teacher and gave concise, well developed lectures that taught the lessons well. Students should be able to pay attention in order to succeed. If one pays attention in class to the lecture, one will do well on assignments, tests, exams, and etc. Self motivation is the true key to success. If a student can not motivate him/herself, no one else will. Only the best will pass, and the others will be proved weak. The teacher's job is said in the job title, to teach. I will not deny that the teacher should help sometimes when there are questions not included in the lecture or assignment, but nothing more than that. You either learn it or you don't. If a student does not understand the concept, that is his/her fault. If they paid close attention to the lecture, there would be troubles at all then. Teachers would know what they are talking about, they are trained to do so, and their lectures are expected to be well developed and concise. In addition, this can give students a glimpse of life after college and that they will have to support themselves to survive. It supports individuality and lets the students take control of themselves. As for parents, (if the student is in Middle school or High school) they should rather be spectators of the scene and watch. They shouldn't even check the student's homework, let the student find out his/her own mistakes and learn from them. If a student with horrific grades find their mistakes and change their work ethics, they will be able to change everything around and are more likely to have a better future. also shows a good situation of who is likely to succeed in the future and who isn't.
Abortion

#1 assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. Sir, may i ask is it or is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible.When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year. Maybe not 100% effect but good enough. While 100% of the 15 year-olds reported using condoms "usually" or "always", the percentage of 16 (60%), 17 (53%), and 18 (50%) year-olds who did so declined with each year as sexually active females became older. As they got older at the age of 18 half of american women stopped using a condom. Also i left them out because according to the crimeandclues.com that most rapists are using condom now a days to prevent DNA evidence.Also i left them out because of my first statement "No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong. #2 Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing. I would like you to refrain from insulting me if it makes no sense to you please say so kindly and don't be arrogant about it, thank you. Next it is a person and embryo is a persons first stage of life,a person who goes brain dead is still living but has no brain function therfore people usually give up on them and pull the plug.But an embryo is fine, growing a soul and you cut the wire before that can happen thats like cutting a babys legs of therefore he did not know what he lost so its fine. let me see how i could better explain take yourself say before you could see i cut out your eyes out therfore i can do that because you havent experienced or developed them yet. I now stand ready sir.
Abortion

Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. I'll begin by responding to your R1 contentions in numerical order. In the second round I'll make a case for my side (more in depth) and then I'll conclude and re-cap all of the final arguments in R3. 1. "No life should be taken,without probable cause." Con did not even begin to defend this assertion. 2. "Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy." Not only is this statement grammatically incoherent, it's also incorrect. Con assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. 3. "Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference." Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing. 4. "Some say 'hey its not alive yet' it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive." Yes, a fetus is alive. It's still not a person. 5. Some say 'It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion' well how do you know. Can anyone prove this? Yes. Living babies aren't capable of having complex thoughts, let alone unborn fetuses. This can easily be proven with a brain scan and monitoring one's brain waves. Additionally, I do not believe in a soul but that is neither here nor there, as a soul is irrelevant to my position. I'll leave it at that for now; Con is free to make any clarifications and I will expand on my position further in the second round. Good luck, Con, and thanks again. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion

Affirmative constructive: No life should be taken,without probable cause. Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy. Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference. It is the same as sentencing one to death in a court room the only difference is that those in court got a chance to defend themselves. Some say "hey its not alive yet" it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive. Some say "It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion" well how do you know. Can anyone prove this? I now stand ready for Cross-examination.
Abortion

1. Con's only 'rebuttal' to my point was him saying: "Well ma'am if you actually read my arugment i actually proved as teens got older they stopped using condoms and etc." This doesn't even begin to address my point. I had mentioned that Con has the burden of explaining why the State is responsible for forcing citizens to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, which obviously his statement does not do. I als said that teenagers only made up 1/5 of those seeking abortions and his idea that unwanted pregnancies only happen to "dumb" or careless teens is false, obviously. 2a. (Which I had listed as 1B... don't know why Con changed it) I pointed out that it's hypocritical and non-sensical to think that abortion is okay in cases of rape only. Instead of explaining why Con supports that idea despite its flaws, he responded with, "Ma'am i belive that in the law,and also common sense that taking a life is wrong with out a cause is just common sense thats why when people kill people they go to jail or sentenced to death." Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with my point - besides, I already argued against this notion in another contention (about personhood). However Con does go on to explain that abortion in cases of rape is permissible because rape is different than accidental pregnancy. The problem is that if Con's case is based on the notion that life begins at conception (which he's argued) then life begins at conception even in cases of rape victims. So, Con was asked to explain why innocent lives (fetuses) were invaluable or able to be taken just because the mother was raped. In either scenario, the "innocent life" dies and does not deserve death. Con failed to make a valid argument in this regard. In saying women who were not raped cannot receive abortions, he's saying that some fetuses are more deserving of life than others which is just backwards and non cohesive with his other arguments. 2B. Con says that technology can be used to determine if one was really raped or not. Obviously Con does not know enough about sexual intercourse if he really believes this to be true. Nevertheless my point still stands; I argued that people would lie about being raped and say they were raped just to receive an abortion, which can have devastating effects and implications. In short, my response is that technology cannot be depended upon to make this distinction. 3. ... I'm not really sure what Con's argument to my 3rd point was, if any. He didn't respond to my contentions directly. Please extend all of my other arguments from the previous round, as I cannot make sense of Con's lacking rebuttal. Thank you.
Michael Richards is not a racist

Michael Richards has been a friend of the black community. I should also note that Michael Richards also voluntarily worked alongside the actor who played Jackie Chiles, who played a good black role, not a negative portrayal. We mustn't judge a man by mere words, but by action, and Michael Richards has done a lot for the black community.Meanwhile, on Friends, Jennifer Aniston unashamedly endorses David Duke, and in another episode a joke revolves around black people's hairs.