BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org user "Acer" is a socialist and has contradictory views.

First I would like to define what a socialist is. He is one that follows socialism. Socialism is defined as follows: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. , in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. . http://dictionary.reference.com... "1. Acer is a socialist. "The government does not hog the money so much as the rich people do. " This is a socialist belief. "Giving the government money is a much better and safer idea than handing it to the rich" Same here. " The basis on which my opponent calls me a socialist cannot be derived from the definition of socialism, so how is it logical that I am a socialist without following socialism. Also the above facts are derived from common sense, not a political view. Is it not true that the rich get richer. . http://ezinearticles.com... . When the rich earn their money, they place it in the bank. When in the bank, it is not used. When money does not go back into the economy, the economy suffers because money is not being exchanged, . http://judelfoir.wordpress.com... . It can also be clearly seen that the government does not hog money. If they did, they would be rich and have no debt, but as the case stands, the government is trillions of dollars in debt. Not exactly good, but can clearly say it does not hog money. As I said before, both of my statements are derived from logic, not a political view. "2. Acer's views are contradictory. "If they do not spend their money, the economy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. " So, he wants people to spend money. "Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners. One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands. " So, he doesn't want people to spend money, because "money {ends} up in only a few peoples hands". Both opinions expressed are describing the same situation. .. " Not really. I said that people should spend their money. It is just who receives the money that is different. The second quote I realize now is a false statement, but they do not contradict. With higher sales taxes, the government gets more money. It was simply a reply to my opponent saying lowering sale taxes were good. It says nowhere that people should not spend, however, it does say that the money that is spent should not all go to one person. In conclusion, I disprove your resolution because it is not logical.
Debate.org user "Acer" is a socialist and has contradictory views.

I affirm the resolution. 1. Acer is a socialist. "The government does not hog the money so much as the rich people do." This is a socialist belief. "Giving the government money is a much better and safer idea than handing it to the rich" Same here. 2. Acer's views are contradictory. "If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse." So, he wants people to spend money. "Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners. One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands." So, he doesn't want people to spend money, because "money {ends} up in only a few peoples hands". Both opinions expressed are describing the same situation... In conclusion, the resolution is affirmed. All quotes taken from: http://www.debate.org...
The god of the bible does not exist

Rules: Prove that the god of the bible exists 1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god. 2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence. 3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any scientific evidence to prove its god's existence. 4. Chapters and verses only please using either the KJV, NIV, NLT translations/ versions only. 5. For extra credit, Prove that any god from any religion has ever existed. 6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
The god of the bible does not exist

okay, Now for the real person who has to wrap this fiasco up. . . Strike paragraph 1. It is only YOUR opinion that I am boring. The proof that this is not boring is that there are 150+ comments on this debate. When"s the last time anybody saw that? Strike sentence 2. Not only do I not have a tinsel mind, You hardly brought up any of the points I made to refute them. Strike sentence 3. There is nothing in the "rules" that says anything about what I can say about your argument. Establishing the fact that you cannot disprove God shows that God, At least "might" be real, Which is one of the rules for this debate. Strike sentence 4. The same person who ranted in his last post about me not being able to read, Does not even know how to use google" let alone any other scholarly sources" Strike paragraph 5. If I was lazy, I would not be arguing with a fool. On top of that, Backwardseden elevates what he believes above every other religion, How, Nobody knows because (I"ll say it again), His belief that God is not real is exactly the same as another person"s belief that God IS real. Both are unfounded, Both are unprovable" Strike paragraph 6. God does not communicate through the Bible. This has been proven in past debates. I have already given 3 reasons, And I am not going to repeat myself like you do backwardseden. Strike" eh" sentence 7. Uneducated people" children" could insult people more than backwardseden" Strike paragraph 8. When you do not read what you wrote, And put" "f" communication, Instead of" "of" communication, You no longer have the right to speak" Strike paragraph 8. My gosh you have a perverted view of the Bible, History, Archaeology, And everything else in this world. When is the last time you opened your eyes and looked around" beyond your self-pity slime pit and greasy you-tube videos? You are ignorant: ignorance meaning that you don"t know what and when you don"t know. You might be "smart, " but at the same time, You are ignorant because you choose to be. Altogether, You have wasted so much space on this website in what appears to be you trying to prove to everyone that God does not exist. However, The only true thing that I see, From everything from you, Is that the whole time you are trying to prove to everyone else that God does not exist, You are really only trying to prove it to yourself. Someone that knows that God does not exist, "does not need to put up the same debates over and over, But you do. You are the type of person who likes to defeat other people"s logic, And what they know" not so they will "see the truth, " but so you can feel better about yourself. Like you said, "Yeppers, All of your ideals go chopitty chop. Because there's nothing intelligent you had to say. No evidence of anything that is true that you brought up. NOTHING. "
Alcohol should be illegal.

Hello, first of all, what is your "experience"? have you ever worked for the police? if you havn't then how do you know all that you say you do? alcohol is something that is a privelge. but to flat out make it illegal is just stupid. Yea alcohol is sometimes bad, but there are people taking measures to make sure that if someone abuses it they get punished. A lot of people use it responsibly. Just because some people use it in the wrong way doesn't mean EVERYONE shouid get punished. If people are educated correctly then they may make smarter decisions. When you are educated about something then you may use that knowledge to the best. a ton of people make stupid mistakes and that really sucks that the innocent person is the one who is mostly killed, but I don't feel that EVERYONE should have to pay for it. As for the illegal drugs. you make it sound like it is better to do drugs then alcohol because less people get hurt. well then lets make alcohol illegal and make drugs legal. do you see how stupid that sounds, if you do that is how stupid it sounds to make alcohol illegal. I look forward to debating this topic more in the future.
Alcohol should be illegal.

I think alcohol should be illegal in the United States. In my experience, alcohol causes more deaths, injuries, and problems in society than most illegal drugs. People who are under the influence of alcohol tend to be more aggressive, want to fight and attempt to drive. Drunk driving kills more people annually than someone who chooses to participate in other illegal drug activity. Usually, when someone is involved in an alcohol auto related accident, the person who was drinking ends up walking away without a scratch while an innocent person is killed. People who participate in illegal drugs act foolishly, but generally don't kill people.
Alcohol should be illegal.

You make it sound like everyone abuses acohol. which they don't. people who do drugs are the people at least in my area of Michigan that vandalize property and stuff. They aren't the ones who keep to themselves. the ones who drink are the ones who sit at home with a beer and watch tv. maybe you're living in some alternate universe if you think that acohol is worse then drugs. to me the only time that it's worse then drugs is in the case of date rapes. since alcohol is the leading date rape drug. but that isn't done intentionally by the victim. maybe instead of making it ilegal there should be harsher punishments or something.
Cloning

This is all Con's opinion. He states things like "May be..." And "Is it..." He never actually backs up his claims with evidence. So what if it's expensive? It's expensive, therefor no one can use it?! If they can afford it, then I see no issue with someone let's say regenerate their arm. I bionic leg may be a substitute, but can never actually be used to the same extent a s a human's leg. It cannot feel anything. What is wrong with letting someone heal part of a leg? Your questions, my answer. -Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created? Anyone does. Why not? -Is human cloning "playing with nature?" Do you mean playing god? No, I don't believe in a god and you cannot enforce your believes onto others by saying that your religion will not allow this, it is not fair. Why not clone someone? So what if it's against nature? -Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo? If someone donates the fetus, then it is justified. It is justified to donate blond as well. -If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent? The... Existing person. -What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face? I don't know, why would the other kids care? Why would the clone tell anybody? What does this have to do with your arguments? Every body will get bullied at some point. -Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity? Yep. -Should cloning research be regulated? This yet again has nothing to do with your arguments. Con has a very weak case, no evidence, and therefor has made his argument purely opinionated. Just because you think it's bad, doesn't mean everyone else must now agree with you.
Cloning

Its good to start this journey on the website with someone who I can learn with :) Ok, firts of all, scientist now, face many problems already with cloning with success, I"m not an expert in this field, but working and manipulating genetics is very hard, and even if they could increase the odds of success, problems can arise during the clone's development, both before and after pregnancy. With the creation of a clone, scientist face a problem bigger than we could ever imagine. This is the first problem. If they try to overcome this obstacle, they are spending too much money in something that isn"t 100% certain to make it work, and while this, other problems in Earth are left aside, when in the opinion of most of the people I talk with, should be a priority. Its like Space Exploration.. From that, comes more questions.. Ethical, social and legal questions. -Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created? -Is human cloning "playing with nature?" -Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo? -If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent? -What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face? -Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity? -Should cloning research be regulated? With all this questions, wouldn"t be easier to stay out of this unknow subject? Does this create the changes in society that we really want? I guess not... With all this questions, it comes many advantages, just so you can see that its better stay this way, and try to find other ways so solve some problems you mentioned. Like you say it can regenerate an arm for example. Nowadays, we have a solution for this. Bionic elements, like arms, legs.. And this didn"t made such a problem to society.. -The possibility of compromising individualities. -Loss of genetic variation. -A "black market" of fetuses may arise from desirable donors that will want to be able to clone themselves, i.e., movie stars, athletes, and others. -Clones may be treated as second-class citizens. -Unknown psychosocial harms with impacts on the family and society. Don"t we have more disavantages than advantages? You can try to fool me and others who will read this, but deep down, you will know that clones are not the solution, and that human society is not ready to embrace such a bit change.
Cloning

Con gives me the horrible impression, and I hate to say this, of someone who has not read any arguments about cloning ever. First, let us refute his treasured arguments. What is immoral about cloning? You haven't made any arguments, you have merely told me to think about how my life would be if so was a clone... Please give me more to work with next round. And please have some way to prove your claims mate. Why can't I "Play god" I know you're new, but you have to at least explain your reasoning. Thanks, Pro. Then, I shall give you multiple *advantages* of cloning. 1. To help infertile couples have children (This would include couples of the same gender, and couples who are just unable to have a child) Why not help these couples? 2. To replace a deceased child Let's look at different uses of cloning. This will include a variety of categories. Why should we not help replace the child con? 3. Reproducing a Deceased PetAlthough cloning is extremely expensive, if one had lost a pet then they would be able to revive them. you could clone your cat. At least one biotechnology company in the United States offers cat cloning services, and they are now working to clone dogs. Why not clone the family pet? 4. Cloning for the stem cell researches: "(CNN) -- A human embryo, containing about a couple hundred cells, is smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. Scientists need strong microscopes to see these precursors to life, and to take from them stem cells, which have the potential to become any cell in the body" This is showing that if we clone cells, we can help people regenerate things such as a lost arm perhaps. Why not clone for medical researches? Is this immoral? http://www.cnn.com... 5. Cloning for food: Why not clone for more food? Animals such as cows, sheep, goat, etc... Are being "genetically engineered" to create healthier food. Pretty much like creating animal models of disease, cloning might be a faster way to produce large herds of genetically engineered animals. Why not clone for food? 6. There are multiple ways cloning could be handy. Cloning, although expensive, is very useful to us. Have fun mate.^
Cloning

So, in my point of view, cloning can"t ever be good and there are so many reasons... I"m only gonna name a few. First, I would like to mention a movie, "The Island", a very good movie, I don"t know if you ever saw it, but it is about the creation of clones is a research base, without them knowing that they are clones, or that are live besides the base, because they"re to believe in the extintion of human specie. They are used to extract organs for the "real" one. This makes a lot of ethical questions. This isn"t moral.. We can"t be here playing god, that"s not why we are here. We are here to live and manage our lives, not to create and destroy the life of others. In a way it"s good, but imagine the side effects.. Imagine you are the clone. Its better to stay the way we are, instead of jump into an abism where we don"t see the bottom.
Cloning

BTW: Conduct: FF, mostly results in a lost of conduct. It should go to Con. S/G: Should be pretty obvious. This goes to me as well. "firts" Arguments: He made a FF, and was able to be on, so I would call that a concession. He never addressed all of my arguments in the second round, so this needs to be awarded to me as well. Sources: I used the only source. ..
Schools should teach more about the environment

"I didn't mean just kindergarten I meant all kids even young ones."What defines a young kid? Why shouldn't we be educating 17 year olds? They're still in school. Throughout the debate, Pro didn't really seem too sure who should be learning this. "Teachers can tell kids how to stop pollution and recycle."Yes Pro is absolutely right here. Children can be TOLD how to do these things. This does not mean that they will retain this information, or that they will know what to do with it. ---Pro's entire closing argument seemed to completely disregard the issue that was presented in round 2: That current environmental education is terrible. Adding more bad education won't make it better. 10 spoiled oranges will not taste as good as one fresh orange.
Schools should teach more about the environment

I didn't mean just kindergarten I meant all kids even young ones. Teachers can tell kids how to stop pollution and recycle. When I was in...um... I think 2nd grade we went to a place that taught us how to recycle and how to make our own recycled paper. However when we moved my sister never got to have that experience. I think all schools have to be able to do stuff like I did. I'm not saying some schools don't , just that all schools should. Peace out!
Schools should teach more about the environment

Advice: Often times it is better to make your own point instead of making your sources do so. Sources are primarily for reference and to validate arguments.-- Expert in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at University of California-Los Angelos Daniel Blumstein [1] argues that the way Environmental Science is taught in the United States and other countries is terrible. The education tends to dissassociate awareness with actually taking action. As a result, environmental education has failed to keep pace with envirnmental degredation. Until this issue is solved, I don't see more education fixing anything. What can you propose that will fix this throughout all grade levels, not just for kindergarden?[1] http://newsroom.ucla.edu...;
Schools should teach more about the environment

Thanks for going against me! I am brand new at this so I am positive you will win. Anyways yes 5 year olds can understand it. Is it that hard to learn to recycle? Look at this PBS kids website. It is teaching kids about the environment http://pbskids.org.... Sorry I don't know how to make it a site-thingy. I'm not good at electronics stuff. This website is showing kids what happens to trash and how it hurts our planet. It also shows how life will be like if we don't take care of the world.
The Bible teaches a literal 1,000-yr future earthly reign by Jesus in Jerusalem

I will also say that the bible does teach a literal 1,000-yr future eartly reign by Jesus. I also would like to say everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books, even though they still have incredibly important points to make. I would like to first however make sure of something. You say you are taking this debate from a preterist view point please define it. Or say that your view matches this That you "regard the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. .. [that] Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation. " Would you also agree that "The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in A. D. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and Israel. " Let this be a good debate. I am fairly passionate about the pro.
Jesus Probably existed

Your second round will contain your secondary arguments and rebuttals to my secondary arguments. Your third round will contain rebuttals to all of my arguments stated and a summary of your case. I don't wish to sound demanding or anything, but I am new to debating online and I only have experience debating in real life. Definitions: Jesus. The well known historical figure of the NKJV Bible. Probably: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt,[1] More likely than not. existed: Needs no defining. If you accept, please wait for round 2 for me to present my case. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Jesus Probably existed

I'm particularly glad that my other two debates on this topic have stirred up so much interest. Furthermore, it's great to do a debate in 3-speaker style again. I'm very familiar with the style because we do it in New Zealand as well, but recently most of my real-life debating has been British Parliamentry style. Anyway, enough of my personal rambling and on with the debate! I accept your definitions, except where you define Jesus as a "historical figure. " This makes the motion tautological, and besides is not within the spirit of the debate. My contention will be that Jesus cannot be presumed a historical figure, and that indeed, there is much good evidence to suggest that Jesus is not a historical figure. Although I think we both have an equal understanding of what existed means, to provide some kind of clarity to voters, pro is defending that it is probable that a physical manifestation of Jesus walked the Earth. Note that in the resolution as phrased, pro carries the burden of proof. Good votes only please.
Climate Change

I will argue that climate change is not man made. The pro will argue that climate change is man made.StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: Attack Opponent's ArgumentsR4: Defend R2 Arguments NO NEW ARGUEMENTSMust use sources in arguments.Also, Stupidape please don't accept this challenge. I want more people to be involved in this debate, not just you.
Euthanasia

Hello welcome to the debate! We will be debating about Euthanasia when the person that's suffering is mentally capable to make the decision. I will be pro for that my opponent will be con for that. 1st round is acceptance only, this debate is closed I WILL ONLY PICK SOMEONE AT OR BELOW MY LEVEL! So don't even ask if your a top debater if you find a way to get in without my consent you will be forced to forfeit! Good luck!