BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Murder should stay illegal

When you murder you are talking someone's life and future experiences. Murder is essentially worse than slavery because in slavery you still can love and make decisions. With murder you don't get to life or make any other decisions. Think about this, if you ask someone if they would like to be murdered they will probably say no. To allow murder to be legal you would endanger friends, family, and even yourself. That's right. You could be killed too. http://d2bb.org... Voters: please note that my opponent dropped my argument of people becoming the next Hitler or terrorist.
Murder should stay illegal

Rebuttal 1 ) We should obey the ten commandments This is an assertion, that is false. The US is not based on christian faith because it has the word "In God we Trust". That is also not a reason to take the bible literally. No one with half a ounce of common sense reads the bible literally. Rebuttal 2 ) People going around killing Population control, this adds to my argument. Pro even admits it would reduce the population in the third round. All my points are dropped, so extend arguments.
Murder should stay illegal

Contentions First 1) By legalizing murder we deplete it. murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Murder is defined by the characteristic of being "unlawful". If we make murder legal, it will be lawful. At that point murder cannot exist because it is lawful, and murder is an unlawful act. 2) Money This opens up billions of dollars in profit yearly and thousands of new jobs. Killing people for the F*k of it, would allow people to promote and take out contracts, open up business avenues, and basically shift in billions of dollars in the US economy. This would appeal to poor people that have no jobs, and basically employ half the people in the US that are unemployed already. The cost of a kill can vary between 5 grand to 1 million dollars. [1] This revenue would benefit the economy greatly. 3) population control Now we are depleting murder, making money, and now the added benefit of keeping the population in check. The world is running our of resources. The ability to keep that in check is essentially for life to thrive. We need this to happen [1] http://www.havocscope.com...
Murder should stay illegal

Murder is the KILLING OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS. nothing about that seems right. The U.S. is devoted to the Christian/ Jewish God because " in God we trust". And if you think about it the Christians and Jews follow the Ten Commandments. One of these Ten Commandments states that you shall not murder. So there for murder is wrong in the U.S. Second of all just imagine what it would be like if murder was legal. Everyone would run around killing whoever they please. There wound be an anarchy (practically). The crime levels would go up because let's say someone was stealing and the store owner is about to call the police the criminal would just kill the store owner. Everyone would be scared to live in this terrible world that would allow murder.
Tell weird things you've heard or read

Simply say weird sentences you've heard or read somewhere. They may or may not make sense in context. It has to be something you've heard or read somewhere and not just something that you made up. However, you are not required to say where you got them from. Weirdest sentence wins. "Speaking as a medical physician, why might I shove my finger up your bottom if you couldn't name seven bald men apart from Yul Brynner?"
physician assisted suicide should be legalized

"I do not see how my argument is not relevant to the debate. " If someone chooses to die, it is their choice. The physician has no right to try to stop them. The person does not need saving. The person just wants to die. "And people who have a mental illness causing them to commit suicide are crazy, you'd have to be crazy to want to kill yourself. " Not necessarily. Their life could be in extenuating circumstances. They could be severely depressed. Neither of these cases can be called crazy. "Second I was talking about physician assisted suicide, I was just using the term "pulling the plug" lightly. " That's all right with me. My opponent's contention is still definitionally irrelevant, though. That's the main problem. *** Two of my contentions stand unrefuted, and my opponent has done an inadequate job of attacking my other contention. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant. By offering virtually no rebuttals in round 3, my opponent has essentially conceded.
physician assisted suicide should be legalized

"This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. "pulling the plug". (http://depts.washington.edu...) "just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other." Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.
physician assisted suicide should be legalized

if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry" How is this? just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other. contention one: the physician should try to save there life, not take it away. The physician is there to save the person's life,not to just give up and pull the plug. This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, "oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?"
physician assisted suicide should be legalized

I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies.
Skyrim deserves to win the next Ultimate Game of the Year

I will first start by analysing your choices for game of the year. I shall start with Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception. I agree that this is a good game, however, I must say that in my opinion it is just that. Good. it is not anything exceptional, nor does it seem to be a world away from other games (for example, it seems to be a bit of Grand Theft Auto, and perhaps a bit of Assassins Creed. ) It is also exclusive to the PS3, which means it is missing out on millions of potential customers who only own a Xbox 360. The Legend of Zelda is strictly a Wii only game, and I think that this puts it at a major disadvantage to win the Game of the Year title. It is quite safe to say that the Wii is the least popular of the 3 main consoles (Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii), and this might lead to a lack of consumer demand. I think the game might win some award next year, but i doubt that it will be the ultimate game of the year. I also think that this series has being playing it "safe" for the past few titles, and the games do not seem to be very different from each other. Batman: Arkham City is, in my opinion, the strongest opposition. It is, I agree, and very strong game, with a great many good qualities. I however, think that it is far too much like Assassins Creed. In fact, many of my friends who own the game say that you should not by both the latest Batman game ad the latest Assassins Creed. I have played the new Batman game, and I must say that I agree with this point. Portal 2 is a great game, and I had endless hours of fun playing this game with a friend when i went on holiday with them. This game however won the 2011 Golden Joystick Ultimate Game award, and may, many people did not entirely agree with this decision. It is therefore very unlikely that this game will win it two years running, especially since its award was so contested. I will await your reply with anticipation.
Skyrim deserves to win the next Ultimate Game of the Year

I am very glad at the chance to debate this topic, this being my first debate also. I would like to instead suggest other games which could win Game of the Year which you have ignored, and to point out some points of what Skyrim lacks. I agree that Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 do not deserve the game of the year, as their gameplay may have become somewhat stale. But I believe you have left out some of the other main contenders for Game of the Year. The possible games which could beat out The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim would be as listed: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (which I will be focusing on during this debate, and which I also personally own). Batman: Arkham City Portal 2 Each game has it's own respective positives, in which I will go into more detail as you build your argument in the next round. Thank you once again for debating with me.
Skyrim deserves to win the next Ultimate Game of the Year

Firstly, I would just like to state that this is my first debate, so bear with me. I personally own Skyrim, and I have been playing it from day 1. It is a rich and immersing game, and in my opinion it highly deserves to win the next Game of the Year. I have played other contenders for this title, such as Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. However, I have found these games to be too similar to their predecessors, and indeed to each other, and this is why I think that Skyrim should win the next Game of the year.
Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump.

In fact, on his first week in office, he has 45% approval and 47% disapproval rating. On his 170th day in office, his approval rating has gone down to 38% while his disapproval has gone up to 57%. [1] In the latest polling statistics conducted by Politico [2], 46% approve of him and 50% did not. In New Jersey alone [3], 35% approve while 58% did not. If my opponent had wished to debate this argument, he should have given the facts and statistics on how he made to that point. Second, the evidence why I said like that is because of the Amnesty International Report entitled, "The State of the World's Human Rights" and said that whether it is Trump, Orban, Erdoğan or Duterte, more and more politicians calling themselves anti-establishment "wielded a toxic agenda that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people. " [4] My opponent challenged me to give more evidence to prove, here is another one coming from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein and said that Duterte and Trump are "breaking long-hard taboos" because the former "has spoken openly about extrajudicial killings", and the latter said that "torture could be necessary in certain circumstances. " [5] Finally, he argued that Donald Trump ran a better campaign, tore off a shade of political correctness, and engaged in communication people wanted. If that is certainly the case, let my opponent answer those questions: Why did he say that Mexicans were "asumably good people"? Why would he said that he would "drain the swamp in Washington", yet some of his cabinet are extremely unpopular like Betsy DeVos and Neil Gorsuch? Why did he say that John McCain is not a war hero just because he was captured? Why did he win the election with the help of Russian intervention, and caused the delight of Vladimir Putin? And, is it a better campaign if he publicly insulted Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, and especially women? In short, Trump's "Make America Great Again" means "Make America White Again", "Make America Hate Again", and "Make America Great Again with the Republican Party". That is the truth that Donald Trump simply does not have the temperament to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States and the American people will pay the price for turning their country into a laughingstock and they will suffer the consequences for voting Trump. Hillary Clinton ran a better campaign and she would have been in the White House. I presented hard FACTS and gave my opponent real TRUTH. I await for the opponent's response. [1] . http://www.gallup.com... [2] . https://morningconsult.com... [3] . https://www.monmouth.edu... [4] . https://www.amnesty.org... [5] . http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump.

The question on why Hillary Clinton should've won the election is because of the outdated system called the Electoral College. In fact, it has been occurred in American history four times. [1] [2] The most recent one before the 2016 election was the 2000 election [3], which George W. Bush, despite winning the Electoral College with 271 electoral votes, lost the popular vote to Al Gore by a margin of 541,895 votes or 0.5%. That is the outdated system still practiced up to this day. Sixteen years later, the "Gore phenomenon" still happened, but this time, the margin was about 3 million votes. Comparing to the two campaigns, Donald Trump is more extreme, bragging about the things he has done as a businessman, bullying other presidential candidates, and even worse, attacking without any concrete evidence. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is more vibrant, defending about the legacy of Barack Obama. In fact, even the Obamas themselves campaigned tirelessly. Challenging on the third contention, I find it very vague because if you look at the opinion polling [4], the fake news ousting helped boost Donald Trump's "ratings" among the people, but instead becoming extremely unpopular with an average of 55% of Americans disapproving it. From the moment Donald Trump become president, all of the world's nations view Obama more favorable than Trump, with no surprise the only country showing more confidence in him is Russia. [5] [6] Also, his decision to withdraw from the Climate Change Agreement with the three words "Pittsburgh, not Paris" drew negative criticism not just from other countries, but also at home soil as well. My opponent contended that Donald Trump was able to connect with what voters wanted on the issue of being an outsider. He also contended that Donald Trump was successfully able to take strong stances and say things that most politicians would never dare say, communicated what the people wanted to hear, and by not using political language but rather using the language of the people. I find those contentions as simply worthwhile but lacking its luster because Donald Trump's words are nothing but like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators. Donald Trump joined the ranks of Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Nicolas Maduro, Kim Jong-Un, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan as leaders who did nothing but violating the human rights of their own countries. Thanks to Donald Trump, the United States has turned from the world's strongest democracy of the free world, to being a laughingstock and a third world country. The American people don't want him to be their president. I await the opponent's response on this matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://occupydemocrats.com... [6] http://www.pewglobal.org...
Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 US Presidential Election over Donald Trump, because of the two candidates, she has grace under pressure, and have words that are so inspiring that the legacy of Barack Obama are placed beside her. After all, she is the first female nominee of a major political party for President of the United States. She was a First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. She put America's reputation in the world back when she visited over 100 countries and she did something presidential: putting U.S. foreign policy to the table. I know that from the very start of her campaign, she has the courage to do what no other woman would accomplish: to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the world's strongest democracy. I hope that this debate will be fair and square, and I will defend it to the best of my ability.
The Bible proves that Jesus was not God!

I will conclude this debate with reviewing my initial arguments and how the CON responded. Argument 1. Jesus is not the same as God according to John 14:28. A) It is a simple concept, Jesus is not greater than the father who is God. The Con merely inquired in how I knew the Father was God. The CON never deals with this passage, instead the CON decided to talk about the trinity. The CON also ranted about my use of logic and scripture, implying that this was a faulty means of understanding. Then he makes this grand statement: " Much of scripture is counter intuitive while simultaneously believable." My argument still stands, he has one more round to deal with it directly. Argument 2. Jesus is not all-knowing according to Matt. 24:36 A) The CON never deals directly with the text given, instead he quotes other passages, but does not deal with the passage directly. The he talks about the trinity some more. I made a rebuttal to his argument in Genesis 1:26, which he claims is proof of the trinity, to which we are not debating. He never responded to my rebuttal. Argument 3. Jesus never claims to be God, but he does claim to be the son of man. Matt.8:20; Psalms 146:3 A) The CON merely used the argument of the grammatical article and capitalization as a counterargument, and said scholars or interpreters know better than us, but used no resources, which still would not necessarily disprove my argument. Argument 4. Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it. John 13:3 A) CONS response:4. " Interesting argument. But Jesus was going back to be with Father. That does not mean they were separate, it means Jesus was going back into heaven. If God can be in two place at once why couldn't he separate Himself from Jesus while also being in heaven?" 1) The CON misses the point, which was that God had given Jesus his power. 2) Round 2 CON: " God forsook God" This is a crazy statement, I have never heard this from a Christian until now. Besides the CON again does not deal with my point of the argument. Argument 5: Jesus never claims to be God. A) CON uses John 8:54-58 as his first proof that Jesus claims to be God, when he says "I am". Its unfortunate for the CON that Jesus didn't say: I AM......GOD. B) I gave Mark 10:18 as an example of Jesus claiming that he was not good only God is good. The CON remarks this way: " I believe He is actually implying that He is God and that He was pointing out no human is God." That is far from what Jesus was saying, even if it is what he meant it only disproves your point because Jesus was a human and therefore not God. The CON spent a lot of time poking at using logic and the fact that I am not allowed to use scripture to prove arguments because I do not believe in the credibility of the Bible. The only way anyone knows anything about Jesus, whether they believe in him or not, is the Bible. In John 17:3, while praying to his Father, Jesus made reference to Him as "the only true God." Therefore Jesus cannot be the one true God. The Bible proves that Jesus is not God. I appreciate the debate and your time.
The Bible proves that Jesus was not God!

Argument 1: I am sorry I did not clarify. I was asking you how you could believe that the Father was referring to God? In the Christian faith, it would make no sense to equate the Father to God and not the Son to God. The Trinitarian view holds this language as communicable language. God is multi-faceted in such a way, that He describes Himself in three parts, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. You keep saying that it does not make sense for Jesus to refer to Himself as someone else. I say, God is generous to give us a picture of what He really looks like in human terms. A God that transcends time and language has to communicate with us somehow. It makes sense that His communication would sound weird. I think there was a sense in which Jesus had "limits," at the point in time. So it would make sense that He would say the Father is greater. However, Jesus chose to put those limitations on Himself, philosophically He had to power to break them because He was God. Argument 2-3: I am in Bible School and I am learning Hebrew and Greek. You are correct about the Hebrew language. However, the interpreters of Hebrew know the better than we, and translated the article "a" in Psalm 143 and the Greek scholars put the article "the" in the Matthew passage. There is a sense of capitalization bearing importance in both languages just so you are aware. Again saying that God the Father "bestowed" is merely a picture of how God operates. "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. (Genesis 1:26)” "Let us make man" is proof of God referring to Him in a plural nature, making the idea that Jesus is God not farfetched at all. Argument 4: Your verse is actually driving home at the heart of the Christian gospel. God forsook God. Forsake in biblical terms does not actually mean abandoned. It means withheld mercy. God is a just God (another point for another debate) and He cannot look on sin. Jesus summoned all of the humans' sin upon Himself and allowed the Father (Himself) to lavish His wrath (a just wrath) on Himself. It is a crazy gospel. But Christians believe that this is their only hope. No its not perfectly logical. But the Christian faith is not centered around logic, but is centered on Christ our Lord.Argument 5.Jesus was testing the rich young ruler. He was asking why He called Him God because no one referred to Jesus as God. In this verse Jesus does not say "and I am not God." He says "except God." I believe He is actually implying that He is God and that He was pointing out no human is God. Hence, He asked, "Why do you call me good?" Conclusion; The Bible, as a whole, does not prove that Jesus was not God. In fact, I do not believe any of the Bible makes any sense in Jesus is not God.