BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

Resolution - Gay marriage should be legal in the United StatesThis is a Shared BOPFor the purpose of this debate legal shall be defined asLegal - A federal and state recognition of gay marriage across the board (The federal government shall give all the same rights and benefits to same sex couples as hetero sexual couples) Rounds Me(1) Outline(2) Contentions(3) Rebuttals, Contentions, ClosingAdversary (1) Contentions(2) Rebuttals, Contentions, Closing(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon shall result in a full 7 point drop from my adversary due to him/her having an extra round. (2) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct point(3) Multiple FFS shall possibly result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges.
Is a smartphone a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant)

A smartphone is not a PDA because of many reasons. First, a PDA cannot call or text like a smartphone can. Also, a PDA does not have Wi-Fi capability. On smartphones, you can install whatever app(s) you want but on a PDA, you get stuck using the default apps like a calendar/planner. Also, you cannot get advanced functions on a PDA, but you can on a smartphone. You also cannot get social media platforms or games on a PDA. A PDA is an outdated personal calendar but you get all of that on a cell phone.
We should not teach students how to write in cursive.

Whether or not cursive is "out-dated" and "outmoded" is insignificant. The fact is that learning cursive, regardless as to how often you are going to use it in a regular day, has definite psychological and biological benefits. Cursive has actually been shown to improve brain development in the areas of thinking, language, and working memory [2]. "Cursive handwriting stimulates brain synapses and synchronicity between the left and right hemispheres, something absent from printing and typing." New York Times [2]. Cursive is more of an art form than a simple writing tool, and as such it offers benefits similar to learning any other art form. When one learns cursive you tend to continuously improve[1] as opposed to simply remaining fairly static in your skill level. Think about it, when one learns to write in print your writing style hits a level of proficiency and then levels out; you get good enough to be legible (and in some cases illegible) but never get significantly better. With cursive one continuously improves until one has achieved a high level of legibility. So, if these benefits are not enough to convince you of the benefits of writing in cursive, here are some more. By learning (and becoming proficient at) cursive you are developing a skill that is becoming more and more uncommon. It is nearly universally accepted that when one writes in cursive the writing appears to be more professional and eloquent. Because of this if a person is to cultivate this skill, they hold something over the average human. This allows a person to make written letters appear much more professional and allow them a higher chance of being hired, or being recognized as being professional. Imagine being employed at a job, and when given an important letter you find to your horror that you cannot read it. Imagine the embarrassment as you have to talk to a superior or co-worker and ask them to translate what the letter says. Does learning cursive really waste time? When you can see all the benefits listed above it is clear that it does not. The biggest reason for learning cursive is that it actually makes a person SMARTER. When one develops those motor skills, particularly at a young age, one has definite psychological benefits. Another reason is that a person simply appears more professional when they know how to read and write cursive. This increases a person's probability of being hired or kept on, particularly since cursive proficiency is becoming increasingly uncommon. As I have effectively nullified all of my opponent's harms and shown empirical benefits in writing cursive I urge votes in favor of the negation. Thank you. [1]-https://www.psychologytoday.com... [2]-http://www.nytimes.com...
We should not teach students how to write in cursive.

We shouldn't be teaching students cursive in school anymore. Why? it's out-dated, outmoded, and wastes too much time. Let's face it, nobody writes out long, hand-written documents out anymore for any realistic, serious purposes - at least, not like they did in the past. Yes, cursive has some use today - namely, signatures, but who says we need cursive for signatures? You can sign your name any which way you want - I, for example, choose to print instead of use cursive. Second, cursive is simply outmoded these days. Go into any office building and you will see exactly 0 people using cursive for a task that could be done only in cursive. I'm not suggesting that we just don't teach kids how to write by hand, just that we really don't need to be teaching them how to do fancy loopy letters over a course of many hours. Do you know what students could be doing instead of learning cursive? Learning to TYPE! Or doing anything else academic-wise, for that matter. Today, in the modern world, we use typing in our daily lives far more than we use cursive. Seriously, typing is actually a requirement for most professions these days, whereas cursive isn't, so why are we teaching cursive? Even if you don't teach typing, students could be doing any number of other things with those tens of hours devoted to learning cursive. Want to bring reading, math, and science scores up? Cancel cursive and fill that enormous time gap with hours of education in the things students need to succeed in today's world!
Who is the biigest fool? Part 2

http://www.youtube.com...Okay Koopin Your turn. You must make a 3-4 minute Love speech about anyone of these people (your choice).1. Sarah Palin2. Lickdafoot 3. Miley Cyrus Some where included in this speech you must say the following things:" My love for you burns with the fiery passion of 1000 suns" "My love for you is similiar to that of the love a monkey shares with his banana" "My love for you is like Diarrhea, I just can't hold it in any longer!"" If I could re-arrange the alphabet, I'd put U and I together!" Perform this video as if it is a direct message to the person you choose, and make sure this person really feels the love! Good luck! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Who is the biigest fool? Part 2

Okay so here is my over reaction to finding something video.Now as payback, I will have Koopin do the video that social pinko never completed. "Supersaiyans are real". Please include an introductory speech similiar (doesn't have to be the same, or as long) to the one in the video, and perform all actions as closely to the video as possible. Thankyou!http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Who is the biigest fool? Part 2

Okay so this is part 2 of "who is the biggest fool" debate. The way this works is that both debaters have to command each other to do certain actions, that the other person must fulfill. Rules: 1. Let's keep this debate rated PG. Nothing raunchy or disgusting. 2. Nothing physically impossible. 3. A forfeit or improperly performing an action results in a loss. 4. This is a video debate so all challenges are performed on video. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate! My opponent goes first.
Who is the biigest fool? Part 2

http://www.youtube.com...Okay so your next challenge is to perform a "Leave brittney alone video". However you are going to be replacing the name brittney with Gabby. Gabby is a troll who is unliked by many members by this site for her constant hate words, and lack of knowledge on arguments. Try to be as passionate and obsessed as chris crocker is in his video. Be sure to even fake cry if you can. Try to make the video at least 2 minutes long. Good luck!http://www.youtube.com...; The video will be in reference to this person: http://www.debate.org...
It is more probable than not that a god exists.

Pro began with a God of untenable greatness by placing it in reality, along with everything else, thereby creating a reality that is greater than his God. He could have argued that reality is God or that it contains God, but in aticipation of arguments, he did both. He did, in fact, accidentally hit on the only definition of God that has ever interested me - Reality as God - but he didn't know it. "Reality as God" would make Pro "the right hand of God" but it would also make everyone else equally so, which participating theists would be loathe to accept. Despite an increased chance of actually winning the argument. If reality is God, then everything and everyone is equally a little God and the Pro's would finally have a God that an atheist might accept. However, the argument has nothing to do with "God", does it? This argument is about resenting being resented for resenting being resented. If you look at the sides seperately, "offense" is called "defense" and "defese" is called "offence". Viewed as a whole, offense and defense are one and the same because the argument, oversall, is an endless loop. "God" and "no God" are equally possible - exactly equal - but, inside the loop, that is irrelevant because the argument isn't about "God". It's about resentment and resentment is 100% personal. Regardless of how many resntful people you gather - regardless of the presence of some sort of "mass consciousness" of resentment - each is offended, personally - assuming they aren't there for the free coffee, each has personally and freely chosen to participate.Some would say "but he wants to make me do this" or "they want me to believe that" but so what? No one can dictate to you. If how others respond to what you want to do or believe is more important to you than doing and saying as you please, then that's your list of priorities and you can't hold others responsible for that. If you can't live your life without approval of others, then you're sunk - you're stuck"in the loop". There's nothing, whatsoever, wrong with being "sunk" or "stuck in the loop". Even if I, personally, perceve it as a small life and believe that no one would choose it if they understood what they were choosing, it would be utterly and profoundly irrelevant because "I" can't choose for "you". No one can. You're on your own. You can pay attention or not, as you choose.
It is more probable than not that a god exists.

Ave.Contingency ArgumentCon drops this. Extended.Moral ArgumentCon drops this. Extended.Con's Chopstick ArgumentCon's silly argument against the existence of god never ends up making any sense. Why should we consider God plus one chopstick to be greater than God? Even if that assumption can be justified, it still doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. It just means that other things exist along with god, which is something that any theist could rationally accept. The argument fails because it makes unjustified assumptions, and it is ultimately a non-sequitur.Vale.
It is more probable than not that a god exists.

It is my intention to dispense with your God using nothing but my chopstick. By giving your God existence and placing existence in reality, all I have to do is add my chopstick and reality becomes "God + 1 chopstick" - at which point reality is easily conceived as being "greater" and God, as you've defined Him, disappears. You "disappeared" your own God. Now what?
It is more probable than not that a god exists.

Ave.Contingency ArgumentP1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. P2) The universe exists.P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence. P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.P5) The explanation of the universe must be due to an external cause. P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.C: The external cause of the universe is god.JustificationP1: It is impossible to concieve of anything that does not have a reason for its existence. If it just exists, then that in itself would be an explanation for its existence.P2: If the universe doesn't exist, how are we debating each other?P3: This follows logically from P1 and P2.P4: We have astrophysical evidence that the universe began to exist. If the universe began to exist, then it cannot exist nessecarily.P5: From P4, the only choice is that the universe exists because of an external caP6: Spaceless because it existed before space. Timeless because it existed before time. Immaterial because it existed before matter. Omnipotent because of the great power required to cause the universe to exist. Personal because god must have intended for the universe to be created.P7: If god did not have any of those traits, he would not be maximally great.Moral ArgumentP1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.C) God exists. JustificationP1: The least arbitary and most plausible source of objective moral value duties would be a maximally great being that exemplifies the standards of moral good. If this maximally great being does not exist, then it follows that there is no standard of objective moral values and duties.P2: 1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral 2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily 3) Some objective moral knowledge exists Therefore, 4) Moral truths exist.ConclusionIf the two arguments I have offered stand, then it follows that it is more probable for god to exist than not to exist. I turn the debate over to Con in order to rebutt my arguments. I thank you for reading, and I hope we have an interesting debate.Vale.
It is more probable than not that a god exists.

Ave. Definitions: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived Existence is to have actual being in reality Burden of Proof: Pro must show that it is more probable than not that a god exists. When we consider all things, the arguments favor theism over atheism, if only by the smallest margin possible. Con must negate Pro's arguments. Rules: First round is for acceptance. Next two rounds are for back and forth argumentation. No putting forward new arguments in the last round, and general rules of conduct should be followed. Vale.
Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery

Yes, and there are plenty of other verses along the same lines as 1 Peter 2:18, such as Ephesians 6:5, and Collosians 3:22. As for the Old Testament verses -beating people with rods, stoning, and other physical punishments were common place in the world of the Old Testament. So beating your slave with a rod as punishment would be seen no differently than beating a non-slave with a rod. And slaves then were not the same as slaves two hundred years ago. They were more like indentured servants. As for 1st Peter 2:18, just because he wants slaves to submit to their masters does not mean He condones slavery. Let's look at Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Does this mean He condones the evil or the slap? Of course not! God does not condone, approve of, or like the slap, nor does he condone, approve of, or like slavery. My argument for the Matthew passage relies on the verse before it:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (NASB). See, this relates back to the Old Covenant changing to the New Covenant. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill. Because He fulfilled the Law, our covenant with God changed. God did not change, we did. When Jesus is about to die this is what the Bible says:Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus" lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."(John 19:28-30, NIV). See, again, He fulfills the Scriptures (the Law) with His death on the cross. As a summary, slavery was not the same in the Old Testament as 200 years ago, Jesus does not condone slavery just as he does not condone the slap, and He fulfilled the Law with His death. My opponent seems not to understand the shift from Old to New Covenant, nor the world around the Scriptures. I thank Pro for the debate. Thank you.
Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery

I will point out that slavery is, in fact, condoned in the New Testament as well.For example:1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.However, the word of god does not change. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.If Jesus is god, then the morality of the Old Testament is endorsed by god.That means other verses condoning slavery in the old testament are also valid, including:Leviticus 25:44-45Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.Christians still value the Old Testament because it has the story of Genesis and the 10 Commandments, amongst others. I have yet to see a Christian throw those things out and call them the "Old Covenant ". I'd also like to point out that nowhere in the 10 Commandments, or elsewhere in the Bible, does it state "Thou shalt not own another human being as property." Thank you once again for the debate.
Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery

I apologize for my proof of burden statement. I was thinking along the lines of "Well, show me where, I can't really do much until you show me the evidence" (Granted, I could go out and look for evidence and rebut that, but this makes more sense), and should have said that in the first place. Having said that: Back when Exodus was written, most other nations (Non-Jews) had no such code*, and could kill their slaves if they wanted to. Therefore, followers of the Old Testament COULD claim the moral high ground, as their code protected the lives of slaves. The golden rule proves this (if we're talking about deciding which code to follow), as the masters would rather have their lives be protected than have them not be. Anyway, most Christian denominations do not take the Old Testament to be their covenant. The Old Covenant (All those specific, harsh, and specific laws that Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are chalk full of, including the surrounding passage of your evidence) was a deal God had with the Jews before Jesus came. Evidence for this claim- Luke 22:20*-In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. This is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31*-"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Also, Galatians 3:24*-Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. So, Christians (as they believe), are not held to the Old Covenant Laws. I honestly thought you would use some New Testament passages having to do with slaves submitting to their masters. But I guess not. Thank you. *I used this site to find the specific verses: http://carm.org...
Christians can't claim the moral high ground because the Bible condones slavery

Wow! I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. There was no need to assume the first round was for acceptance ONLY; it said it very clearly as fact. Then he goes and uses the first round to claim I somehow have the burden of proof when, by him claiming con, took half the burden to prove Christians CAN claim the moral high ground.OK, I'd like to point out that according to U.S. Law, slavery is against the law, mostly due to the fact that it is not moral. One of the main reasons for the civil war, was because, although slavery was legal then, people knew that it was not moral to get free labor from fellow human beings and put them in living conditions where they would be beaten and/or killed.Morality is based on the "golden rule": Treat others the way you want to be treated.That being said, the Bible does, indeed, condones slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. This is not just a story. It is a direct rule from god that you may, in fact, beat slaves you own as property. This is not indentured servitude and this is not taken out of context. A Christian can NOT take the moral high ground due to the fact that his/her god condones slavery.
Traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective than "self defence" fighting systems

Okay, well to further back up my story I'd like to put forth a legend, of a roman soldier thrown into the gladiator pit, killed many, simply because gladiators were trained for combat that's pure aggression, the soldier had trained in Both aggressive and defensive. Same Principle for martial arts, if you're all defensive, then what happens when you need to act first. Pin a man where he is at his weakest and you have him, turn his greyest strength into a weakness. Feign an attack and then attack their opening, self defence arts are only designed to fight untrained people, but not everyone you fight will be untrained
Traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective than "self defence" fighting systems

Im not saying, Krav vs Kung fu or something like that, I'm saying that Krav Maga leaves a lot of situations untouched. Also there are many special forces around the world that use traditional martial arts, such as Silat, muay boran and even Kung fu. And most special forces train in eclectic martial arts, like Hapkido (Korean special forces ) and of course the marine core martial arts program. Say you are in the street and your trained in boxing, if someone throws a kick to your legs you aren't trained for it and it's likely to connect, same Principle with Krav Maga but on a more complicated level. Such as, if 3 people attack you and one has a knife, you're trained and you know what to do, but say one tackles you to the ground and has some ground fighting experience, you can't do much. That's where traditional Martial arts take a holds, they train for everything, most are battlefield arts, designed to fight in the midst of all kinds of enemies, pankration itself fought off the collective armies of Persia.