BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
debate on topic

Thank you for the evidence. "Now I would like to ask how someone with a 6 digit salary or more is more important please clarify. Secondly you stated proper people can not run for president as easily tell me what you mean by poor people because all political members have a substantial amount of money are you talking about average people like me and you because we can not run for president. Also money does not matter when running it depends on you ability to convince voters you are the right choice. " Money does matter when running. It costs money to buy plane tickets and book places to speak. it is much easier for the rich because whey have enough money to be able to run a campaign. The poor have much less money to. The average person earns 45,000 dollars a year. After paying the taxes, bills, food, clothes, and other essential items, they will have little money left over to run a successful campaign. As I said the rich have massive amounts of money due to the tax cuts. They could use that money to fund a successful campaign. "IN what possible way would money have an effect on a political leader" Bribing "Bill Gates money does not make a big difference to any leader because the money is not theirs" I wasn't just talking about bill gates. There money does make a difference to them otherwise the Bush tax cuts would have expired long ago and legislation would not have been passed. Do you think it is just a that they have passed legislation helping the rich more, in expense of the poor?
debate on topic

First off her is my evidence ( . http://www.cbsnews.com... ) He said he would favor the rich. IN what possible way would money have an effect on a political leader or any leader for that reason they have enough money as it is and Bill Gates money does not make a big difference to any leader because the money is not theirs and they have no use of it. Now I would like to ask how someone with a 6 digit salary or more is more important please clarify. Secondly you stated pooper people can not run for president as easily tell me what you mean by poor people because all political members have a substantial amount of money are you talking about average people like me and you because we can not run for president. Also money does not matter when running it depends on you ability to convince voters you are the right choice.
debate on topic

First i will attack my opponents case then i will go back to my own. His second point said My second point states that the government tries to help the income disparities. He stated that "bailout funds are used not to hire new workers, but to add bonus money for a few elite employees" He has stated no evidence for this. And i ask him to. He also says that the government tries to help the poor. While they are also Having the rich pay less taxes. 9% less, actually. While only went down .6% That doesn't sound to me like the government ate trying to help them. his third point is the government does not favor the rich. He said that "In the eyes of the government a person with a net worth of 250,000, or higher, is the same as a person with a net worth of 77,000, or lower" If i was a government official, i certainly would favor the rich if they had 59 billion dollars. (Bill Gates does, . http://www.forbes.com... ) every one of these people on this lit have 1 billion dollars or more. As shown in the Bush tax cuts, the government does favor the rich. I stated all this in my 2nd point. It should have expired long ago, but congress keeps voting to keep it in place. The rich people keep persuading congressmen and women to pass this and other legislation to benefit them, in the expense of the poor. It is hard for poor people to e successful when they are spending there money paying taxes. The government does favor the rich.
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

2. i take back this one. he wreslted God in the form of an angel or something else. it's more figurative than the full glory of God than to say you saw God. 4. "This is a case where it appears a scribe made a mistake in copying II Chronicles 22:2. Scholars are confident of this because II Chronicles 21:20 and II Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father died at the age of 40. If Ahaziah was 42 at the time of his father's death, he would have been two years older than his father -- an impossibility. In older Hebrew, numbers were represented by single letters. The letter for forty was mem and the letter for twenty was kaph. It is possible that these two similar letters in ancient Hebrew were confused in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. When the letters were expanded to words, the error was carried over. This is further supported in that some Septuagint translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Arabaic manuscript, and the Syriac manuscript have twenty-two in II Chronicles 22:2 instead of forty-two as found in the Massoretic family of manuscripts."5. permanent death is no more, that's hte point, not whether someone will die or not. 6. one is rejoicing for revenge, the other is rejoicing for justice. con is being too literal.
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

1. The commandment says we should not kill. Then the Lord God of Israel tells every man to arm himself with his sword by his side and slay other people ie kill them, thus the contradiction. It may be a general rule not to kill that however does not void the contradictory nature of the scriptures. 2. Ok 3. I Peter 2:3 says to submit to every official rule or order of man, of the supreme king or governors. The key word here is "man" for if mans law is not that of God (and it often isn't). So the contradiction is clear if we strive to adhere to Acts 5:29 and "obey God rather than men". some more... 4. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. - II Kings 8:26 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. - II Chronicles 22:2 5 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death. - John 8:51 6. Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: - Proverbs 24:17 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. - Psalms 58:1
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

Contradiction 1 Thou shalt not kill. - Exodus 20:13 Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side. and slay every man his brother...companion...neighbor. - Exodus 32:27 Contradiction 2 No man hath seen God at any time. - John 1:18 For I have seen God face to face. - Genesis 32:30 Contradiction 3 Submit yourself to every ordinance of man...to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors. - I Peter 2:13 We ought to obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:29 For a scripture that was compiled over such a great period of time there are bound to be inaccuracies and contradictions,
Racing horses should not be able to use steroids

"when i said "natural" i did not me the horses god-given talent, i ment his talent from training and working where as steroids is "artificial" talent. " My opponent still does not refute the argument that says skills come from working to reach a common goal. "take kobe bryant for an example. you have to admit, he does sometimes get foul calls that some other players may not get. " I don't have to admit anything. MY OPPONENT NEVER SUPPORTS THIS CLAIM. THUS DO NOT LOOK TO IT IN THIS ROUND. "Kobe bryant is good and he definitely deserved the MVP. Saying that, he does not need the extra help from the referees. now, to tie that back into horse racing, just like kobe bryant, horses do not need extra help. " FIRST YOU SAY BRYANT GETS HELP. THEN YOU SAY THAT JUST LIKE BRYANT HORSES DONT NEED HELP? ? MY OPPONENT CONTRADICTS HIMSELF MANY TIMES AND NEVER PROVES THE RESOLUTION TRUE.
Racing horses should not be able to use steroids

when i said "natural" i did not me the horses god-given talent, i ment his talent from training and working where as steroids is "artificial" talent. take kobe bryant for an example. you have to admit, he does sometimes get foul calls that some other players may not get. Kobe bryant is good and he definitely deserved the MVP. Saying that, he does not need the extra help from the referees. now, to tie that back into horse racing, just like kobe bryant, horses do not need extra help.
Racing horses should not be able to use steroids

"guess what? in baseball ITS ILLEGAL. now im not saying that no one does the m because they do but ITS ILLEGAL back to horses" You said-"just like any other sport, your talent should be judged by your NATURAL talent" I said-"TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT, MY OPPONENT HAS TO SHOW THAT EVERY PLAYER IN EVERY OTHER SPORT PLAYS WITH NATURAL TALENT. COUNTE- EXAMPLE- BASEBALL. MANY BASEBALL PLAYERS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE USED STEROID" You clearly said that in other sports players always use natural talent. I argued that this is untrue and gave the example of baseball. ""its only the good horses that can use their natural ability to become great"-me "this is a complete poinion"-opponent so , opponent, are you saying that non-talented racing horses can win? " No, that is not what I am saying at all. You said that all horses who are good have natural ability. My argument is that ability is not "natural" but rather a result of training and work. I have refuted everything my opponent has said.
Racing horses should not be able to use steroids

guess what? in baseball ITS ILLEGAL. now im not saying that no one does the m because they do but ITS ILLEGAL back to horses youre right, steroiids dont amount to greatness. but it can make the differnce from winning by half a foot to losing by half a foot. "its only the good horses that can use their natural ability to become great"-me "this is a complete poinion"-opponent so , opponent, are you saying that non-talented racing horses can win?
Racing horses should not be able to use steroids

I will start by adressing the arguments of my opponent. "think just like any other sport, your talent should be judged by your NATURAL talent. " TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT, MY OPPONENT HAS TO SHOW THAT EVERY PLAYER IN EVERY OTHER SPORT PLAYS WITH NATURAL TALENT. COUNTE- EXAMPLE- BASEBALL. MANY BASEBALL PLAYERS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE USED STEROIDS. "any horse can buff itself up with steroids. " This is true. But steroids don't amount to greatness. Some talent was already there. "its only the good horses that can use their Natural ability to become great. " This is a complete opinion. My opponent is being very vague and not explaing his position.
Should Abortion be Illegal

Bruh... you seem to be getting angrier and angrier in each round! If a women decided to have an abortion then later regretted her choice, sorry but its her own problem. If you know your not ready to have a child then guess what. Don't have sex. It's as simple as that. Don't go home crying saying you've made a mistake cause its too late. Your NEVER going to see that child again. It's dead. YOU killed it. Your problem not mine! If you know abortion is a horrible thing, then you wouldn't even think of it as an option.
Should Abortion be Illegal

I don't have a lot to say because you aren't answering any of the important arguments in this debate. 1) she's making a decision to murder a human being, which you conceded to 2) you forget that it's not just her body, it's the child's body too 3) as I've already mentioned multiple times, abortion actually does more HARM to a woman than good. It promotes the exploitation and abuse of women's bodies by men which perpetuates sexism, it can have awful effects on a woman's mind and body (and in most cases it does), and if you haven't already read the narrative I posted the link to, I highly encourage you to. 4) Finally, having to face a decision like abortion is truly a horrible thing. As a woman, I sympathize completely with the mother. That is why, so that both the mother and child can hope for a better life, I cannot under any circumstances support abortion. The labor pains and medical complications of pregnancies do not come close to the pain and sexism and murder cause by getting an abortion. If you care about the women who are faced with this decision, you will agree too. P.S you are way out of line on the rape debate, because guess what? Only 1-2 percent of abortions are done on rape victims. Does that mean we don't care about it? Of course not! But even those 1-2% will be harmed further by abortion which in itself desecrates a woman's body. Do we really want to harm them further? (My professor did a study on it and if you want his contact info please let me know cause he's very well educated on this topic.)
Should Abortion be Illegal

Whether you agree or not, abortion will always play an active role in our society. Abortion can be a highly miserable experience, to someone else, having a child can be a highly miserable experience. It"s impossible to go by a rule book, when it comes to dealing with an issue, where human lives are at stake. At the end of the day, a mother has every right to decide the next move of her life! Sometimes life can be really harsh on us. There are times when abortion may appear as the only option for the betterment. Although a mother may have a hard time choosing this option, she may eventually consider this 'soul-killing decision', keeping in mind all the pros and cons of this decision. A mother has to go through the actual 'labor pain' and other issues involved with parenting and juggling responsibilities. Others can"t understand the level of trauma that a woman may be experiencing in her personal life. She is the only person who knows best, if she would be able to take care of the unplanned child or not. We all know that it"s quite impossible to raise a child without family support and finance in hand. To a great extent, the life of the baby depends upon the mother"s health. In some cases, medical emergencies compel a woman to resort to this action. There is a possibility that her own life might be at risk, if she delivers the child. (Going back to the rape thing) Some of the rape victims can be minors...They wouldn't"t be mentally or physically prepared to take care of the newborn baby. Why should such victims go through the ordeal of bearing a child, which is a product of some unfortunate incident of their life? At the end of the day, it's her body,her choice...
Should Abortion be Illegal

1.The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion. http://www.news24.com... 2.Also, a fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 3.Some children would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have serious physical handicaps,serious genetic problems, or even serious mental defects. It wouldn't be fair for that child to be born into pain. No parent wants to see their child in pain. 4.There are also social reasons hen people decide to have an abortion for example they may be living in poverty, mother unable to cope with a child or another child. The mother being too young to cope with a child, her family maybe disgraced at the fact that their 15/16 year old daughter is pregnant. This may bring shame onto the family.
Should Abortion be Illegal

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I was hoping you would see that the first round is supposed to be acceptance only, but nevertheless let us get started. For my rebuttal I am not going to cite sources since your arguments are based on opinion/theory. First you say that sometimes a mother is too young to have a child. "Too young" is not a valid argument for multiple reasons. The first reason is that there are alternatives to aborting children due to the mothers age. -family members could help support the child or even take full responsibility if that is a viable option -the mother could put the child up for adoption -the responsibility of having a child could and should be shared by the father as well if that is a viable option. In fact the state will hold the father responsible for the child in most scenarios The second reason is that "too young" is not a clear standard. If you mean underage (18 or younger) then I agree it is too young to be having a child, but that is an opinion. It is completely possible for an underage girl to have a child. Being "too young" does not excuse her from taking responsibility for her actions. Next you say that sometimes the mother does not want the baby. I find this a moot point so to emphasize why it is not at all an argument I say this: Hitler did not want Jews alive, but that does not excuse him from genocide. Finally you say that if a woman is raped and does not want to see the baby that she should have a right to kill it. This is wrong for multiple reasons 1) there are alternatives to abortion, as mentioned in rebuttal to your first argument 2) the fetus is a human being, which I will argue after completing this rebuttal 3) I sympathize entirely with victims of rape, but a woman who becomes pregnant, regardless of how it happened, will benefit more from going through with the pregnancy rather than aborting the child. I will also provide evidence for this point. My first argument is that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. This is because an embryo develops chromosomes within hours after fertilization. Therefore, a fetus in the beginning stages of development has the genetic coding of a human being. This makes it a human being! http://www.princeton.edu... My second argument is that women will benefit more from going through pregnancy than from aborting the baby. 1) abortion is murder 2) women are at risk when they get an abortion and can suffer from very severe medical problems http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org... 3) many women regret having an abortion and can suffer depression from it. Some even commit suicide. The link below is a personal narrative which I hope you take to heart. http://www.abort73.com... My third and final argument is that abortion promotes sexism. 1) The majority of people who provide funding for abortions are male. 2) it encourages men to engage in sexual activity with women but WITHOUT commitment (this is a claim) (The source I am using for the funding information does not want me to publicly provide his/her personal information. If you would like to contact this source please notify me)
Should Abortion be Illegal

Should Abortion be Illegal? I am taking the Pro on this argument. Here are the rules for my debate 1) provide sources for all arguments and claims 2) the first round is acceptance only, no arguments until the second round 3) if you do not rebuttal claims and/or arguments made from the round prior to your next set of arguments, they cannot be brought up later. I want this to be an organized debate with direct clash in each round. 4) you can bring up new arguments up until the last round, which should be a summary of arguments and claims you believe remain in your favor, rebuttles to new or continuing claims/arguments in the fourth round, and a concluding statement that wraps up your side of the debate. Note that these are not requirements for the final round, but should give you a general idea of what the final round should look like.
Should Abortion be Illegal

You are absolutely correct when you say I'm getting angry with every round, this one in particular. I in no way think of abortion as an option, and in fact entitled it "should abortion be illegal?" so that someone who honestly cares about this topic and believes it should remain legal would participate. You absolutely refuse to have an honest and educated discussion about this and it frustrates me. And now on top of it you have an attitude that tells me you don't care about this topic at all. I'm not just speaking to you when I say abortion kills and hurts and perpetuates violence against women every single day. Everyone should care about this topic and should participate in discussion about it with an open mind. Based on how much you don't care about a woman who faces this problem, I'm pretty sure I am the only one in this "debate" that cares enough to try and communicate civilly and honestly. If you didn't want to actually debate this topic you shouldn't have started it in the first place. It would be best if you just didn't continue, unless for some reason you want to in which case I would be perfectly happy continuing to give my view. But only continue if you are going to actually TRY.
I purpose that fast food restaurants should supply school lunchs!

Aha, so my opponent concedes that there are some students who do eat lunch. Extend all arguments. On a more sympathetic note: I'm very sorry to hear that. We feel for you, our hearts & minds go out to you(whatever that means), & you are constantly in our prayers(those of us who aren't atheists). But just remember there are starving children in Africa... Pragmatic: This is assuming you've gone to all the higher ups in the school, if you have not done so yet, that's the place to start. 1) start (a) petition(s) 2) go to the board of ed. 3) Threaten to go to the media 4,) Go to the media 5) Speak to your representatives in the government; mayor, governor, councilmen, senators, congressmen, the president etc. 6) Find a lawyer 7) Take advantage of the situation, become an entrepreneur, by selling lunch to the poor starving students. Then you'll expand & grow into a huge multi billion $ corporation. & don't forget about me, I want a cut ;) Good Luck.