BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal

It is unfortunate that a person chose to troll the debate. It goes to show that when it comes to certain issues, some are prejudicial. Ending persecution is a must and what makes us human is our ability to reach out to another human being, regardless of their color, sexual orientation and geographical location. So the gravest crime we can make is to decry that some people are not human beings because of where they are situated geographically. A womb afterall is just another point, a space-time coordinate situated in Earth. Are we are embracing homosexuality because it is fashionable and a vogue in modern pop culture? Horrible of me to ask this! But if we are sincere about ending persecution, why can't it be inclusive all at once and not selective based on the fashion of the times? And so if it is selective it must be because our values are selective, and therefore not consistent with each other.
Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal

It goes without saying that homosexuality has increasingly become a sensitive issue in America. Openness is the modern agenda and those who keep a backward perspective are not welcome. Anti-gay has become a taboo. It now even came to the point that anyone who wants to "tackle" any "gay" issue is viewed with distrust and skepticism. This debate is guilty of the same. I'm not anti-gay (far from it) but I want to use the recent positive developments in support of gays to propel discussions on a separate but related issue that concerns persecution. If modern society is willing to end the persecution of homosexuals, it should likewise examine its conscience about the gravest persecution of all, those that involve the innocent unborn children. In the promotion slavery, some of the greatest minds of the time argued "their mental capacity are not fully developed". In the case of homosexuals, "they are not natural". And in abortion, "they are not humans". Same issue but society is bent on applying different rules. Some may think this is adhoc but this is precisely why I called this debate "Mash-up challenge".
Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal

;) I knew it !!!I was expecting (hoping even) that someone will troll this debate. It was unfortunately, however that he/she chose to ignore the introduction.The motion and introductory text were sprinkled with a good dose of sarcasm because I hoped it will attract the intellectually brave.Sarcasm, for today, will just have take a punch in the face! But as always, let's move on The values of MODERN American culture decree the end to all forms of persecution, and we have finally tackled the one that has always been at our closets for the longest time - HOMOSEXUALITY.But aren't we being hippocrites?On one hand, we are convinced we have to change attitudes towards persecution of gays. But on the other, we are willing to perpetuate the most evil of persecutions, one that involves the innocent.The status quo has now shifted to pro-gay so why not end abortion too?WHAT? MIND-BOGGLING IS IT NOT?It obviously will not match everyone's taste, but this was the intention of the mash-up challenge!I am the PROBeing the PRO, I am the devil's advocate and will defend the motion that modern values regarding discrimination, homosexuality and abortion are selective, biased and at odds with each other. And therefore, Americans are hippocrites!There, I laid it all out ;)A way of defending the CON is to argue that similar to the persecution of homosexuaity, women are victims of domestic abuse and that pregnancy is one of the most potent tools to silence the victims. Pro-choice movements are merely seeking abortion as means to end the cycle of abuse.So abortion and modern attitudes towards homosexuality, both seeking to end persecution, are very consistent with each other. And so therefore, Americans are not hippocrites!This debate is not a soliloquyMy opponent has already started his empassioned defense against abortion regardless of the sexual orientation of the unborn.This is a complete misreading of the motion so how do we proceed?I shall let my opponent decide, that is if he/she is reading this at all.
Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal

If the child is gonna be gay it's still going to be a human being. The child gay or straight faced with the decision of life or death is gonna make the obvious decision that it would live. Obviously the unborn can't make the decision but why wouldn't you let that child live on and let it be itself. It can still be very successful in any category and by the time it becomes an adult they are gonna be allowed to be married and nobody is going to believe they chose that and I don't believe it is a disability that restricts or questions that child's ability at success which should be judged by the quality of work. I believe that this child is still in a position to become a successful human being and maybe even change the lives of everyone in the world. It's undeniably evident that the kid is going to endure bullying and harassment but my little brother is bullied because he isn't athletic and he had so many birth defects and my parents knew about it before birth. But believe me my parents have never second guessed their decision to let him live because because although he isn't like us he reminds us the simple moral values of love, faith, and respect is all someone needs to be happy all their life. We are all the same and gay, straight, bi, or even if you don't have a sexuality at all(which some people have literally no sexual desire or preference) we are all the same there is no difference. Once again I want to stress being gay isn't a disability that will hold back someone from being what they want to be. That child has the potential to be whatever it desires and if they have the strength to accept their difference then we are gonna have to accept it as well it's gonna become a norm to see gay people. It won't become the majority but that Child deserves to live as long as the mother isn't at risk during birth or was raped. I believe this link has a few really helpful answers as to why gays can still be successful. http://emptyclosets.com... And to the voters please think of this in a situation where only situation abortion is legal because that is really going to be the only way this debate would come up.
Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal

It's time to ruffle some major feathers and let the most hated debate battle begin! !! American society is committed in ending marginalization and discrimination. But killing an innocent child is a form of persecution. Is it because unborn children are not a minority (all of us at some point are), hence they don't deserve choice? But as some of our morally deficit friends would say - unborn children are not yet fully developed human beings and should not be granted human rights. Although they forget to mention that in human history, the same arguments are used to legalize slavery - some are not fully developed mentally and so slavery upon them is justified. And so on one hand, we kill unborn children but on the other, we are committed in ending persecution. Is it because the latter is more vocal and visible in the media? Ladies and gentlement, this debate is not about legalizing gay marriage or criminalizing abortion. The motion of this debate is not about policy but an attempt at resolving the question of moral philosophy - are our modern values regarding discrimination, homosexuality and abortion, selective, biased and at odds with each other?
Religious law should be implemented.

In the 21st century, religious separatism is quite unconstitutional and is irrelevant. Most people have gotten to the point of understatement that there are other religions than theirs. That is in Western countries, but in places like the Middle East, religion is the law. Most places in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have people who riot against violet religion opposition. For example, The Lahore riots of 1953 in Pakistan were targeted at an Islamic sect but was eventually calmed by martial law. Yes, some excerpts in major religious books do not align with today's views but setting up laws against them would cause much more violence, especially in places like the Middle East and Eastern Asia, where religion is valued at such a high extent. A better idea would be a reformation of the religion. For example, religious scholars could rewrite ancient books like the Qu'ran and the Bible, and make it fit the present day ideology, but keep some of the ancient texts that don't condone violence. Stripping freedom of religion from people will not result in a happy country, and the government might even fall because of riots. I agree that religion should not enter the judiciary, but religion should be somewhat active in the legislation. Religion is a key factor and has been the success of many ancient countries like ancient Egypt, Greece, and ancient Rome. Those countries were the template for today's governments. Religious laws should not dictate our religious law, but it should dictate our personal lives. Most religious excerpts are not violent, and coming from an atheist, I have looked at the Bible through troubled times. The good outweighs the bad, and religious laws should not be added, but religions should have a reformation.
Religious law should be implemented.

Fundamentally, I believe in the absolute separation of religion and state. It is observed today that in many countries, religious law is the primary, if not the only source of the country's criminal and civil law. Eg: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (Sharia applies in full in Saudi Arabia) Any in-depth analysis of religious law, be it the law prescribed in the Qur'an or the Bible or any other religious text, will show that these laws are incompatible with modern civilization. The Hadiths (Sahih al-Bukhari) in Islam prescribe the death penalty for those who leave Islam and in the Bible does so for adultery. These are still in practice in theocracies. This is outrageous and the consequences of religious law should be noticed. Furthermore, this will result to a persecution of minorities in a particular country, whose way of life may go against certain aspects of the religious law of the majority. Religion cannot dictate our personal lives and religious law does exactly so. Any 'moral' benefits of religious law can easily be found in secular law as well. When religion does not enter the judiciary, only then will we see true unity and peace in this world.
There is a god

I am disappointed that I didn't get to hear your argument, but life goes on. I extend all of my previous arguments to this round, and I'd just like to quickly conclude everything. First of all, the US has a Christian majority. Iran has a Muslim majority. India has a Hindu majority. Does that mean that God is different depending upon where you are? Of course not. it all depends on how people interpreted he environment and how things happen. So God is just that; an interpretation of nature. Many theories suggesting the existence of God are contrary to the laws of biology, physics, and science in general. Nothing can change the laws of science. That's not possible. Only religion can blur people's minds enough to make an exception to the laws of science. The laws of science are what they are, and I apologize if they conflict with your religion, but that's life. I'm sorry if I'm blasphemous. I'm sorry if I am a heretic. I'm sorry if I'm going to hell, but I just don't see any reason to believe in something that just isn't plausible. Unfortunately, as we agreed, the burden of proof lies upon my opponent, who has not made an argument. Since my opponent has not argued, the burden of proof is unsatisfied. Therefore, there is no choice but to vote CON. Thank you.
There is a god

***Disclaimer: I promise to treat religious people with the utmost respect. I would ask for my opponent to do the same for non-religious people. I would also ask for those who comment to kindly exercise respect. Please feel free to be critical, but do so respectfully, please. Thank you.*** How many times have I done this debate? Too many. How likely am I to win this debate? Not very, considering that the majority of people are religious no matter what I say. Do I care? Not at all. It always seems to amaze me that there are so many people who still believe that what is written in a book is somehow of equal or more validity as what years of scientific conjecture and empirical evidence has clearly supported. Scientifically, God has not been disproven, but everything but. I don't think that it's any coincidence that the number of religious people and theists have decreased substantially, directly correlating with scientific discoveries made through the years [1]. Science was not meant to contradict religion, but in many ways it does naturally. Before I go on any more, I will allow my opponent to argue. ---Atheism: The original non-prophet organization--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obama and his policies

"I think that Obama's policies have deeply hurt the United States and it is showing. We are about to go into a recession despite what everyone is saying." Any evidence of this or is this just your own opinion? We have a streak going of months and months of consecutive job growth, the Dow Jones has never been higher, unemployment is below 8% for the first time in forever, a good number of companies are making record income.... The economy isnt quite where we would have liked it to be but it sure doesnt look like we're about to enter another recession...http://www.google.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://thinkprogress.org...http://www.alternet.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://seattletimes.com..."We are still not creating jobs fast enough." But we have been creating them... Its not easy using 20th century tools to fight a 21st century recession because this recession is not like any of the ones we had in the past.... http://en.wikipedia.org..."He is trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights, among others." The second amendment is open to interpretation, and his recent orders regarding gun control doesnt take away anyones guns, it just makes it harder for people to get their hands on more of them.... Nobody is going door to door demanding to take your guns away from you.Also I would love to hear what 'other' rights Obama is trying to take away from you..."And finally, he denys the fact that Al queda is still alive, which is evident that they are from the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, but still insisted that it wasnt them but a video made in the US so he could cover it up and save his own job."Thats the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.... Obama has come out an openly stated that it was indeed an attack by Al-Qaeda and not a riot related to the film "The innocence of Muslims".... He doesnt deny that Al-Qaeda doesnt exist and hes not trying to cover anything up to save his own job. http://www.theatlanticwire.com...http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...
Obama and his policies

I think that Obama's policies have deeply hurt the United States and it is showing. We are about to go into a recession despite what everyone is saying. We are still not creating jobs fast enough. He is trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights, among others. And finally, he denys the fact that Al queda is still alive, which is evident that they are from the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, but still insisted that it wasnt them but a video made in the US so he could cover it up and save his own job.
Gabbie222 should be banned.

I propose that Gabbie222 should be banned.Gabbie222 has started 3 spam debates.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...She has also started a flame war in the comments section of this one:http://www.debate.org...After Imabench voted against her, Gabbie222 PMed Imabench calling him an idiot.http://www.debate.org... (Read the votes)All of Gabbie222's arguments are terrible.ConclusionGabbie222 is a troll, has lowered this site, and should be banned.
Gabbie222 should be banned.

ConclusionIt is clear that Gabbie222 is a troll, spammer, and should be banned in order for the quality of this site to be preserved.Gabbie222 has not refuted any of my points.Gabbie222 has started 3 spam debates.http://www.debate.org......http://www.debate.org......http://www.debate.org......She has also started a flame war in the comments section of this one:http://www.debate.org......After Imabench voted against her, Gabbie222 PMed Imabench calling him an idiot.http://www.debate.org...... (Read the votes)I trust the audience to vote their best choice.
Gabbie222 should be banned.

"how am i spamming"According to the DDO Orientation:-spamming: When a user annoys other users by posting a lot of text on nothing. There are two types of spamming. Text spamming, such as "LOLOLOLYOULOSTTHEGAMELOLOL" and argument spamming "I like cheese, do you like cheese?". Most spammers make their own threads to spam in, though if they infect a serious thread the consequences can be disastrous.-spam debates: Debates with no purpose that are [usually] made to annoy members of DDO. Some spam debate resolutions: "lkdfsall;kklasdfjlk" or "Rabbits will eat my opponent". Do not confuse with joke debates, which are non-serious resolutions with serious arguments.You posted three spam debates, "I am awesome" "Dr. Pepper" and "idk I just wanna debate"You are spamming.Again, she did not refute my points.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...
Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir

Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. I will go Con. The Affirmative may present its case in the rest of round 1 and I will then lay out my case round 2 Then the affirmative can atttack/build their case in round 2 I will build my case/attack their case in round 3 Then can then attack my case and pretty much its the last rebuttals/conclusions so no new data
Call of Duty 4 is a better game than Halo 3

Halo 3 you say takes more skill and is a faster paced game you say? Call of Duty 4 is all about accuracy if you "spray and pray" against a good player you will be dead before you hit him once. This game is all about reflex's, reaction time, and more about out smarting your enemy more then anything else. Call of Duty 4 is played like a chess game playing against skilled players, you have to think one step ahead of your enemy. It is all about that first shot I admit but its your fault you let the enemy acheive that chance you have to assume whear that enemy is.. If I was playing I wouldnt run through a doorway to the objective not thinking anyone would be waiting for me. Even in Halo if you get shot in the back and you kill the person that got the first shot obviously there is a large skill difference. Call of Duty is realistic, when U.S. Marines storm a known insurgent hide out they check corners and watch each others backs. In Call of Duty if you have no one to watch each others backs you can hear an enemy sneaking up on you.. Even then its not likely for them to get behind you if you checked all corners. Halo is a game that requires minimul accuracy its mostly about throwing grenades in the same direction of your enemy, North, West, East or South and running up to them and pressing the beatdown button if you are too lazy to aim. ------Good luck on your responce Brad------
Call of Duty 4 is a better game than Halo 3

First I will adress my opponent's case, then my own. My opponent's case: "Call of Duty 4 is the biggest franchise on www.GameBattles.com (The world leader in game compition)Halo is 5th" While this may be true, it just goes to show the subjectiveness of the company gamebattles. Gamebattles caters to the majority of gamers, and most gamers seek a fast-paced, luck-based video game. Gamebattles is, however, affiliated with Mlgpro.com (Major League Gaming). Mlgpro's motto is to reduce most of the luck component in video games and produce the most skill-oriented, compelling online gaming experience. Major league gaming has decided Halo 3 to be its flagship title, as they have stated numerous times that it provides an excellent competitive multiplayer experience. Major league gaming has decided that Call of Duty 4 is even inferior to Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and has coincidentally given more support to that video game. My case: 1) More entertaining to the non-gamer civilian ESPN, a major sports broadcasting company, has provided exclusive coverage to Halo 3, and continues to highlight and comment on tournaments and other halo 3 events. Halo 3 is the first and only game to be broadcasted in such an audacious way because the game is not only exciting to play, but exciting to watch; clearly ESPN agrees. 2) Provides a competitive layer that Call of duty 4 lacks a. Aiming - Halo 3 includes only hitscan weapons. Hitscan weapons, by definition, are weapons that, no matter what, fire within the reticule. Call of Duty weapons take a more realistic approach which makes aiming more luck-oriented. This makes "spray-n-pray" (firing wildly around the target hoping bullets will hit the enemy) a viable option, which absolutley dissolves all skill. Halo 3 aiming requires the reticule to be on the target at all times, and with faster movement and higher jumping, this task requires much skill. b. Camping - In Halo 3 Major league gaming settings, the radar is removed. This, along with the fact that once shot the player can turn and, if better, still have a fair chance of defeating the opponent, deters camping. In Call of Duty 4 five bullets or less can kill an enemy. With such a high lethality compared to that of Halo 3, camping has become completely viable and efficient, as achieving the "first shot" will actually be the "last shot". In halo camping will only aid you in one shot, which is not a deciding advantage in a fight between avid players. **Good luck on your response cooljames**
Call of Duty 4 is a better game than Halo 3

Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 are two videogames, the former being cross-platform and the latter being exclusive to the xbox 360. For this reason, the debate will be centered around the xbox 360 version of both games. Because I am against this (CON), I await your arguments and definitions as you have the burden of proof. Good luck.
Islam can be supported scientifically

If you noticed the top part of the argument, then you'll notice that I'm in the "con" section. Therefore, I don't think it can be supported scientifically. Since the topic statement is vague, let me clarify- I mean that I don't think that there is any evidence to support it, I think that science disproves the religion's beliefs, that is to say, many of the statements made in the Qu'ran are false. These include the belief of the Earth being 6,000 years old, and other statements including embryology, water, etc. I assume that since you're on the pro side that you believe there is scientific evidence for the beliefs of Islam. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about that.
Islam can be supported scientifically

As I understand this, you 're making the statement that Islam can be supported, scientifically. My question is: Islam can be supported, scientifically, to do what, please? Can it be used in place of the Periodic Table of the Elements? Can it be used as a way to track and manage parasites? Can it be used to make sure that a plumber's work is well-done? Are you stating that Islam exists, in actuality? The actual books of the Harry Potter stories exist, in actuality, but the events described, therein, are fiction. So, I find your statement to be, poorly, worded. The information gathered from the layers of the Grand Canyon yields information that can be, and is, supported, scientifically, and, indeed, can, only, be gained by using, purely, scientific methods and the story is, far more, believable, not too complicated that it cannot be understood by a person who is learning it for the first time and, interesting.