BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Battle of sports: Soccer (PRO) vs. Basketball (CON)

Please keep arguments brief. I don't really want to be reading 8000 characters worth of basketball. Thanks : ) Soccer is better than basketball because it is more popular and it is more exciting to play and to watch. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. There are many reasons why soccer is so popular. One reason is that it can be played quickly. A pick-up game of soccer can start within 5 minutes. All you have to do is set up goals, which can be as simple as two rocks, and pick teams. Very little equipment is needed. For basketball, you need a basketball hoop. Which can cost hundreds of dollars. Soccer is exciting, in several ways. 1.There is non-stop play, except for one halftime break. In basketball there are several ways to stop the clock: calling a timeout, fouling, etc. 2.Soccer usually has a low score. So getting that one goal can be extraordinarily sweet. Soccer goals can also be incredible. Curves, headers, bicycle kicks, scissors, the list goes on and on. What's the best thing you have in basketball? Slam dunk, alley-oop? 3.In soccer it is much easier to perform tricks with the ball, which are fun and exciting. For example, when juggling a soccer ball, one can perform several tricks including: around the world, rainbow, scorpion, balancing the ball on your foot, balancing the ball on your back, etc. You can also perform tricks while dribbling: maridonas, scissors, double scissors, jay-jays, etc. While these can be done in basketball they occur less frequently in basketball games. http://www.youtube.com...
Battle of sports: Soccer (PRO) vs. Basketball (CON)

I am arguing FOR soccer. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing for basketball. The actual debate will commence in round 2. Rules: 1. When accepting this debate you will post a single alphanumeric character as your response in round 1. 2. Debating will commence in round 2, where I will present my argument. 3. Your argument should consist of an explanation of why your sport is better than your opponent's sport and a response to your opponents arguments.
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

For what the Quran says is violent, it says many times more statements promoting the how life is sacred, peace, anti-aggression, forgiveness, and the Freedom to Believe and there Being NO compulsion in religion. Explicitly. [2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion.This attitude led Islam to flourish while Europe was in the Dark Ages, and many Muslims still try to live by it today. The minority terrorists are defacing a religion of peace and creating oppressive societies misrepresented by the Quran. Muslim terrorism is still a very minor cause of terrorism when looked on at a larger scale. In Europe, where you mentioned the migrant crisis was happening, less than 2% of terrorism is caused by a Muslim. And less than 4% in America. Is the end of the world you claim to be happening truly being caused by the same people? Being a Muslim is a lifestyle of peace. No matter what you think is a religion or not, it was and always will be a religion, and whether ever single Muslim follows it or not, it is a lifestyle of peace. Sources: http://www.masjidtucson.org...;Do read that site for any more questions you may have.
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

how is it relevant.. muslims are the problem.. without muslims islam is but a book ready to be burned the quran has over 100 verses that calls for death and torture of unbelievers.. history and statistics are irrelevant to what is in the book.. to what muslims need to follow right there are other forced at play.. muslims need to abide by our laws or they go to jail, and they need money or they cant eat... a higher power then allah i know exactly what islam is... this is easy to figure out for someone like me.. everytime i read a little of the quran i can predict the rest of the stuff... easily, and im spot on everytime the only moderate muslim is when there isnt enough muslims to radicalize him... ban it.. they go to jail for doing muslim stuff.. like we banned cannibalism.. its just a law islamaphobia is a non sense term.. as phobia is unresonable fear... islam is terrorism.. and there are 1.6 billion of them in the terrorist mafia spreading through the world like a cancer islam is about killing everyone else or making them join islam.... there is no coexistence with islam with only islamic rule banning islam will kill islam.. as it can not exist as a religion, it would put responsibility on muslims and they wouldnt be unable to continue being muslims, couldnt do terrorism morally anymore... you are not listening.. every word i speak is true... there is no denying it... its sad peoples brains are gone like yours
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

you are not fine. islam is forced, and going deeper into it allah is the spirit of terror or fear.. so islam not being banned means muslims cant convert, they cant unsubmit, in fact anyone who supports islam out of fear, is a muslimp. eating food dosnt make me religious.. try not eating food for a year, good luck the root of islam is that its forced, without this islam could not exist.. as it cant be a religion, this is fundemental, banning islam will make it a religion, and it would die..
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

I would like this to be a continuation of the previous debate. This is my response to your last argument, argument #2. "islam is not a religion, its forced.. like eating food is forced, and dosnt make you religious the punishment for leaving islam is death the ignorance of your pure evil dosnt shock me, most people sleep walk along side you into the oncoming tide of disaster" Are you... fine? Islam is a religion... Check the dictionary, ask a Muslim, and anybody. No matter what you believe, Islam is a religion, and what you think doesn't matter and will never change anything. And I don't know about you, but I'm not forced to eat food.. and make it religious. I understand that in some places people cannot believe in anything else. But that is the case with many other religions, and doesn't determine what the religion itself is fundamentally like. What I think you were meaning to say was the Sharia Law. Sharia Law is considered to be a "good" thing based on how it was intended to be, but seeing how it played out through history, some of it wasn't. Some of the Sharia even promoted charity. That isn't the fault of the religion, though. Changes happened through many, many Islamic Caliphates and cultures, and some customs have stayed, for the better or worse. Today, Sharia is different than what it was "meant" to be , but it isn't really what Islam means. It's just a facade of what few used to get and mantain influence. Not. The. Religion. Now along with decency, reasoning, ignorance, historical knowlege, religious tolerance, and grammar, we also have to the piling list of things you need to fix, your analogies. Please. At least try. You used this before, so you thought about using it. Don't. NONE of your sentences even make SENSE. Are you literate? FOR SUCH BOLD CLAIMS YOU MAKE, MAKE THEM LOGICAL AND CONSISE. I am having TROUBLE READING them and having even more trouble THINKING how such IGNORANT connections can be made! And onto the oncoming tide of disaster? You? Are you living in the Middle Ages? Is knowledge and acceptance still a bad thing to have? Can YOU answer to me, CLEARLY, why Islam is a "life of fear" (hopefully without your atrocious figures of speech) and compare it to other religions ? Do you even know anything of Islamic history? World history? Or history in general? BEFORE YOU RESPOND, PLEASE READ THROUGHOUT ALL OF ISLAMIC HISTORY. I can guarantee you will make a half-arsed effort of a response, so please read all of it. From Muhammad to the Caliphs to the Golden Age all the way to the Soviet-Afghani War to now. At least understand what Islamic culture and history is like. You may find something you disagree with, you may even find something that you agree with, but you should at least understand how the religion has developed and why it did that way. I doubt you are even going to read this, but if you actually do take a step towards being more knowledgeable, respond with the name of a major Caliphate. If this doesn't work, the debate will soon shift to why and how much of a fundamentally flawed person you are. Please look into this. Thanks! :)
Legalizing Gay Marrige

First I will start with definition of Civil Marriage and then commence rebuttal and the laying down of my case against homosexual marriage. Marriage-- The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship [1]. What is Marriage? Marriage has historically been a union between a husband and a wife (mostly heterosexual) under law in order to sanction the rearing of new citizens within societies. The traditional principle upon which the institution was found is the idea of the husband leading the house and supporting the wife, and the wife serving the husband. The husband has the duting of prividing basic necessities for the wife (and children) and the wife has the duty to cook, clean, and provide sex for the husband. The whole reason the state is in it is to preserve the family unit so that it might bring for better future citizens, and so they give tax breaks and other subsidies to the couple to aid in that goal [1]. So that basically rules out my opponent's entire case about love, because it's not about love, it's just another subsidy that the state gives to it's citizens for a specific reason. Why Marriage should be abolished altogether. My case will not just be against gay marriage, but will be applied to all marriages. The reason why the institution of marriage should be abolished as a state contract is that it promotes sexism, oppression, violence, and slavery. It is also just another pointless subsidy that the state gives to people with the tax dollars of other people. A) The whole structure of marriage is very sexist and from the link I have given as my first source has always been that way. The very fact that only Men and traditionally allowed to propose, and the fact that men are looked at as the leader over the wife for no more reason then the fact that she is female. The idea that she is a servant, and that her only role is to do as the husband comands is very sexist. There is also the concept that the husband is the protector of his wife is also a form of sexism because it presupposes that women are week and in need of protecting merely because they are female. Sexism is a form of oppression and should never be sanctioned under the law. B) There is no real reason to give tax breaks to people for merely having and raising children, and moreso the homosexual marriage doesn't even bring forth offspring, so the institution of marriage is essencially a pointless series of tax breaks for having sex. With all do respect to married couples, where I come from, we called people who are payed to have sex, prostitutes, and I doubt that anyone reading this would want the government promoting such an idea. I will now await my opponent's response. Thank You. Sources[1]. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Legalizing Gay Marrige

I believe that gay marrige should be legalized because you can love whoever you want to love. Just because some people say it's against their religion or they think it's gross doesn't mean that anyone should prevent people from living happily together. Some people say the law is there for the same reason the law against marrying objects or animals is there. Gays and lesbians are people who have feelings and one of those feelings is love. Why would people suddenly jump up and try to stop gay marriage because it's against thier religion, when they pay no attention to the other rules of the bible? It also says in the bible to remain virtuous, and to not get re-married. Most christians don't follow all of the rules in the bible.
In a relationship people shouldn't be judged .

In a relationship people shouldn't be judged by their sexuality , race , background. Weight , hight or any physical. Who has ever heard "she's to fat , and he's so skinny " Or " she's to ugly to be with him " . What about "she's Hispanic / white / ect. And he's black / Indian / ect. Like people need to stop judging . In a relationship " is between 2 " not 3 or 4 or 5 !
The 17th Amendment Should Be Repealed

I've recently returned from a short break away from DDO. I had hit a losing streak due to multiple forfeits from lack of time (and just darn good opponents) and want to get slowly back into the swing of things. I'm looking for a thought-provoking, intelligent, and educational debate, please. Please don't accept this if you're going to forfeit or are largely unfamiliar with the topic.
People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented

You have very good points, however the first poop to be ever found was 50,000 years old. During that time Neanderthals roamed the Earth, meaning there was no way a toilet could have been made. However according to national geographic the first poop to be made was at that time, way before the toilet. You brought up the point that poop originated in 1900 AD, but actually the term was very popular in the 1560-1580s. The first toilet was made in 1596. As you can see the it was made later than the actual term poop. Therefore I must state the people did poop before the first toilet.
People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented

You make a good point; I'll give you that :) However, that information is irrelevant to my statement. Humans may have had stomachs and intestines in their early stages, but we didn't "poop" until much later. You see, the term "poop" comes from the onomatopoeia poupen or popen, which originally meant "fart". "Poop" didn't come into its current meaning until sometime around the year 1900 A.D. Were toilets invented before the year 1900 A.D.? If so, then the statement "No human ever pooped before the toilet was invented" is a true statement. Well, I happen to be in luck because some of the first indoor toilets can be seen in civilizations as far back as the Indus Valley civilization (2,600-1,900 BC) where streets were built on a grid pattern and networks of sewers were dug under them. That's a good 4,500 years before 1900 A.D. and that just accounts for the toilets which used running water. The truth is we actually don't know exactly when the toilet was first "invented" because a toilet can be defined as any apparatus that is used for defecation and urination. Technically, that means that anything you use for peeing in or on would be your proverbial toilet. So the person who invented the toilet... was the first person who ever pooped.
People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented

I am a master debater and I'm here to show off my master debating skills. I've never lost a debate in my life and I'm now certain that my skills are so good that I can even prove the impossible. Just the other day, I was sitting on the commode while reading Dilbert and thinking to myself, "Ya know... This would be really uncomfortable if this toilet wasn't here." Thus, I came to the inevitable conclusion: No human ever pooped before the toilet was invented. Think you can prove me wrong? Well then, take me on in this quick little game of wit and I'll show you that I am, hands down, the number one debater in town.
Does sport too much a part Australians life

Sport plays too big a part in the Australian life due to the fact that it is now interfering with the overall effectiveness and operation of our work. Compare Australia to Texas. Both areas have populations of about 20 million. Both have a similar economic layout. Both are Western style, modern civilisations. The biggest difference between the two of us is that Texas has 6 national sports teams whereas Australia has 80. Both of us should have the same amount of sport teams since we are identical in all regards. The reason why we don't is not because Texas lacks sporting capabilities, its because Australia has gone overboard with too many sports. Its become primary entertainment to the point where we sacrifice all else for the sake of it. The first Tuesday of November is traditionally Melbourne cup day. Its a horse race, not uncommon, but what is rather stunning is that the entire state of Victoria declares a public holiday to take time off work to see the races. This is only case where this happens in the entire world. Everywhere else, people have the decency and common sense to recognise it as a simple race, and not to use it as an excuse to reduce work efficiency. Sport is really starting to drag Australia down. Melbourne being called the worlds sporting capital is an insult, not a compliment. In essence, sport is playing too big a part in Aussie lives. I hope to hear from my opponent.
Children should play a role in choosing their teachers.

I find this a very interesting topic both as a parent and as someone who works with a lot of teenagers and other young people. I must point out that as Pro my opponent bears the burden of proving that children should play a role in choosing their teachers. I don't believe she has provided any evidence supporting this yet. I totally agree with everything my opponent says except her resolution and the following sentence: "Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. " This is basically just a clarification of the resolution. I agree that teachers should be held accountable if their students persistently perform badly and with my opponents description of current recruitment procedures. I don't however see how this supports the resolution. Her initial paragraph seems to instead suggest that other teachers or principles should observe prospective candidates in a classroom 'audition' type setting. This to my mind is indeed a good idea but quite separate from the debate headline. It is my contention that on the whole children are not the best qualified to assess a good teacher on initial impressions. They are likely to make superficial judgements on whether they like a teacher or not and the majority of students would probably want to employ a teacher they thought would give them an easy ride, rather than one who would make them work harder. I await my opponents response. Thankyou.
Children should play a role in choosing their teachers.

In this day in age teachers are chosen from a pool of eligable people. They are not observed in a classroom setting when other adults are not present therefore, the principal/dean etc. does not know what is going on in that particular classroom. Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. When a significent amount of students are failing or doing poorly in a class, the teacher should be held responsible. Children these days have such little say in the people who control their future.
PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

PETA has rarely made significant contribution to helpful conservational and environmental issues. In fact, they have a done a large amount to harm it. They are continuesly forcing beliefs on people, from both peer pressure, and by creating laws. They give other organizations bad raps for their bad deeds. They are far to extreme and don't understand how to help a group of animals, they only understand how to save one. It is fine if they want to go live in a cave somewhere; and give animals the same rights as them. But, they should not be forcing this upon the rest of the world. Their bad qualities far exceed any good ones they posses.
Old testament truth, New testament made up for love of money and power

My dear Pro. Gullible is as gullible does and hope is uncertainty. And I am simply saying that there might or might not be a God. Because I have no way of proving the unproveable. Blind faith in archaic man made mythology, Is what it is. Pro is as selectively certain of their beliefs as the are selectively uncertain. I would suggest that Pro is actually not as steadfast in their knowledge as the would care to admit. If there is a God and God is all. Then surely God is all sensible. Amen.
Old testament truth, New testament made up for love of money and power

You say this is not about religion. So what is it all about? And Jesus and Immanuel were not any ones name, But corruptions of the Hebrew and clearly two separate ideas. Pro themselves, Attempts to re-interpret the biblical myth and further corrupt the original Hebrew tales. The New Testament was a continuation of the Old Testament tradition of mixing real people, Places and events with religious pseudo scientific theory. So why does Pro think that one should be any more believable than the other? Yes: The biblical tales make sense. In so much as they are what they are. Inaccurate, Naive, Archaic assumptions. The human race as since moved on somewhat in their understanding of the Universe. So why do people like Pro continue to wallow in the past mythologies? Because they have been conditioned to do so. And why do we continue to indoctrinate ourselves with these false realities? Because as Pro themselves admits there is still tremendous wealth and power to be gained from doing so. And I understood Daniel, But I was able to distinguish fact from fiction.
Old testament truth, New testament made up for love of money and power

To: W0LV3NBANE thanks for your comment I would like to say that I think you understand of what I am trying to say, I am merely trying to show that the Old Testament is proof of the truth, As what is written is happened and is happening. You see I do believe that Jesus is really although his name should be Immanuel, Not sure of how they came to the name of Jesus. With great persistence, I got to understanding of my wisdom, I am not trying at all to argue all I am trying to see is why is it not that we should all believe the same. I am aware that we will all see things in a difference point of view. I would like to ask questions and would like your honest opinion, You see someone has commented on properly how I was raised as a catholic, And didn't know any better, We lived to a system. This is not about the Catholics or any other religion, So if you are prepared to debate, Yes would like to start off with Daniel firstly, As when I understood Daniel, I re-read the Bible and it's now starts making sense.