BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why can't christians take their god at his word? Well only whenit suits them as is the christian way

1)PRO SAYS: "Oh and cut the crap that you are an agnostic because the way you present yourself, sorry, you think, act, and are a christian. So I shall treat you as one." I have done debates on this site on "Reality is a computer simulation", and a debate where I defend Affirmative Action despite being anti Affirmative Action. Not everyone is an unhinged ideologue or what you demand they be. Sorry, Pro is wrong. 2)PRO SAYS: "If you expect me to read, and or respond to what you have to say..." I don't care if Pro responds or not, nor is there any expectation. "then its not going to be a nosebleed trichinosis eyesquint where I have to work to see what you compose. If you cannot compose your argument in a reasonable font with a reasonable font size, so you don"t shrink it for jeez sakes, then don"t bother because its NOT MY JOB to waddle through your poor execution of malnutrition in choices of font families and sizes." a)I have no trouble reading it. b)Zoom in and it becomes any size you want.... 3)PRO SAYS: "It was truly nauseating to go through what I went through" Then you need psychological help. "In your last argument and I won"t do it again. If you don"t like it, tough, deal with it." I couldn't care less what you do. I'm waiting for tears and gobbling of Prozak by Pro in the following minutes post debate. 4)PRO SAYS: "I don't need excuses in a philosophical debate where an Atheist starts calling things evil while believing and claiming objective evil does not exist. It pretty much takes care of itself." OK then you don"t believe that god is evil (claiming that you are agnostic tee hee so that's a hypocritical contradiction). Nor can you take YOUR god at his word which has been previously proved and with that excuse, it backs it up. You don't even know what you say. Nor can you read either, nor comprehend because Matt and I have both most certainly claimed and 100% shown that god IS evil even though nobody can prove that this god even exists. Now you wrap your head around that and figure it out that it is the belief in this s--t of a so-called god that creates all this pain, suffering hate and evil. So this debate is now over. Bye." So no rebuttal.
Why can't christians take their god at his word? Well only whenit suits them as is the christian way

Pro didn't request a Christian or a theist to debate, so I happily jumped in to challenge "and grow my deductive logic skills." In which you didn"t present any,. That"s because YOUR religion, god and bible requires none. It also requires no thinking, reasoning, rationalizing nor common sense. Oh and cut the crap that you are an agnostic because the way you present yourself, sorry, you think, act, and are a christian. So I shall treat you as one. RULE CHANGE: If you expect me to read, and or respond to what you have to say, then its not going to be a nosebleed trichinosis eyesquint where I have to work to see what you compose. If you cannot compose your argument in a reasonable font with a reasonable font size, so you don"t shrink it for jeez sakes, then don"t bother because its NOT MY JOB to waddle through your poor execution of malnutrition in choices of font families and sizes. Also do away with the separation of paragraphs in between every---single---idea you have. Wow if you cannot control your brain farts, who can? And again, its NOT MY JOB to scroll on down every single time you have a thought to see what you did and didn"t say to see if you actually brought in evidence to back up what you said. Its was truly nauseating to go through what I went through in your last argument and I won"t do it again. If you don"t like it, tough, deal with it. "I don't need excuses in a philosophical debate where an Atheist starts calling things evil while believing and claiming objective evil does not exist. It pretty much takes care of itself." OK then you don"t believe that god is evil (claiming that you are agnostic tee hee so that's a hypocritical contradiction). Nor can you take YOUR god at his word which has been previously proved and with that excuse, it backs it up. You don't even know what you say. Nor can you read either, nor comprehend because Matt and I have both most certainly claimed and 100% shown that god IS evil even though nobody can prove that this god even exists. Now you wrap your head around that and figure it out that it is the belief in this s--t of a so-called god that creates all this pain, suffering hate and evil. So this debate is now over. Bye.
Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.

To avoid problems like this a board of members should be appointed they should be maverick from government. They should be controlled directly by an Educational Head. This board of members can have frequent visit to any schools and can inspect the students any time and can review the students and compare them with the tests they have written. This Board can even blame the Educational system if there any riddle and can give astringent punishment if any malpractices happen. Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance because Teachers' whose service is interminable should be noted and should be lauded with more salary this is an appreciation given to them for sacrificing themselves for their students. This can even encourage other teachers to work hard.
Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.

Incentives cause teachers to cheat.[1][2][3]"...analysis, coupled with interviews of educators from flagged schools, led investigators to implicate some 178 educators in 44 of the 56 schools examined"[3][1] http://www.nber.org...[2] http://www.slate.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.

'Matha Pitha Guru Deivam' is a famous saying in Sanskrit which means 'Mother Father Teacher God'. This saying really portraits quality of a teacher. Here teacher is a person who is kept before god and he should be respected as like as a god. Still in India there are government schools where we can see teachers who are altruistic and dedicate them only for the students and there are teachers who works only for salary. How can teachers from the two category is treated equally and given with same salary? Real achievement for a teacher comes when his student achieves. A teacher who is assiduous will some how make his students achieve and try to improve his student's performance. So there should be a person who should note the achievements, academic performance of his students and should award the teachers with the ' PROPORTIONAL SALARY'
Voting Should Be Compulsory

Seeing that you have forfeited "Round Three", I will take my time to add a few more points to why Voting should be compulsory. Compulsory voting seeks to help the people live in a better democratic society, seeing that ALL OF THEM make a difference and have their say. It would significantly lower the amount of people complaining about how their say does not make a difference, as they will believe , since everyone is voting, all says are of the same importance. Non less than another. I wish to hold my argument here.
Voting Should Be Compulsory

"Voting is an integral part of democracy, without this process we go back to oligarchy were only a few people decide; The idea of democracy is to avoid this. So how will mandatory voting help? Well first let us look at the statistics, in America's 2008 Presidential Election only 64% of the population voted, less than 2/3 of the population voted! If the other 36% had voted I'm sure there would have been a different turn out." This statement proves that more votes make more of a difference. You say that "The less religion you have, the more "Democratic" of a society", this is not correct. Democracy is decided upon the votes of the majority. If the "majority" is religous, then the vote of the religous (if all the same) will decide the poll. Democracy is not about the reason or background of the decisionmade by each individual, it is about which choice was voted by the majority of voters! So that quote is not a fact. This statement will also help you understand that more votes make more of a difference. It"s not about the origin of the vote....that is not of interest. As long as there are more people voting there will definitely be a difference, for better or for worse. I will reference a sentence in your argument; " there is no way of knowing if there would be any change ": OF COURSE THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING! No-one can tell the future! I am here to try and prove to you with facts and evidence that this would be the best way to go.
Voting Should Be Compulsory

You want to make the vote compulsory because it might make a difference and might represent the "say" of the American people. But disregarding the constitution for hypothetical gains is foolish, and here's why: 1) You cannot prove more votes makes more of a difference. You can research and guess and do all the calculations you want, but by the end of the day until you make voting mandatory there is no way of knowing if there would be any change as a result of it. Logically there wouldn't be, and by making voting compulsory you ruin people's motivations to vote. (i.e. forcing someone to do something isn't motivating them to do something) 2) Let's say it's Democratic to not practice Catholicism. It encourages "hate speech" against homosexuality, therefore undemocratic. The constitution clearly states Freedom of Religion, yes? But it's "democratic" (it's also an opinion on what's democratic) to not practice an idea which preaches inequality of treatment. So why doesn't the government just ban Catholicism? The less religion you have, the more "Democratic" of a society - so why not? It would be violating the constitution in pursuit of making a more Democratic society, the exact same thing you're for doing. So if you're against my proposal, then you would then have to redress your own logic.
Voting Should Be Compulsory

Although I understand that point of view by " The Freedom Of Expression" I believe that, in this case, there should be an exception. "The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it is done." 1.Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 2. Making voting an obligation would increase the amount of voter in a significant manner, broadening the representation of smaller/disadvantaged groups. Democracy is usually overruled and misrepresented by the larger parties, making it an unfair judgement. If everyone voted it would mean that there would be more truthful opinions based on the party leaders attitude. More people voting means more fair democracy. 3.People don"t vote for reasons that are somewhat related to apathy such as; they think their vote won"t count, apathy, lines are too long or cannot get to polling area. We Are In The 21st Century. 3.1 Apathy is a lack of interest, concern or enthusiasm. http://survation.com... This survey shows that a great number of people with apathy towards democracy feel more or less the same about it as non-voters. The only reason behind they don"t vote is really just the reason behind their apathy, so lets see that. 3.2 Reasons for Voter Apathy http://www.zencollegelife.com... This article explains EXACTLY what I am trying to explain to you. We Are In The 21st Century. There is no REAL reason for people NOT to vote. Simply not wanting to is not right, unacceptable. They do not know how important their vote is to any government candidate. Compulsory voting would make voters/people incline to know more about Democracy, increasing their interest in it and helping them realize how important their vote is to the government and all political party.~ Votes make a difference, America wants a difference. More Votes, more differences.
Voting Should Be Compulsory

You're right, with only 54.2% of eligible voters voting - it's not a real say of the American people with who is elected. However, it would be undemocratic (ironically) in attempting to be more democratic, as forcing people to do something they don't want to do is a violation of the First Amendment. Someone, by not voting, can be saying or implying that the American political system sucks and voting is stupid, this is Freedom of Expression and their means of free-speech. By forcing them to vote, we then deprive them of that freedom and in turn become more authoritarian than we ought to be. It is not the government's role to force people to express themselves, merely to protect their right to do so, and by making voting compulsory the government no longer protects that right but infringes upon it by making people express something they don't inherently want to.
Abortion on demand should be illegal

Abortion on demand should not be legal. Abortion is not a safe procedure for the woman, It reduces native born children and leaves society in a position where we can have sex without consequences. The idea of sex being a safe act is a lie perpetuated by drug and product companies that want to sell you something and lower your standards to abasement. Does the availability of abortion raise the moral standards of our society? Does abortion raise women's autonomy? I would argue that it does not. Even in the case of rape, Abortion takes something away from the autonomy of a woman and the evidence of the real consequences that they have suffered through. Many women are speaking out after abortions saying they have such regrets about ending the pregnancy that they seek help from doctors or drugs to help them function. Yes, Abortion is the worst thing for our society. It reduces the value of life, Sex and marriage and relationships, And the power of a woman to create new life as though it were all a pointless exercise. This type of mindset does not belong in a society which hopes for something better. It belongs in a society which has a death wish.
Abortion on demand should be illegal

Thank you for a most interesting and civil debate. I"m glad you addressed the penalty aspect of the issue. Since you say "Abortion on demand should be illegal, " there must be a penalty for breaking this law. While a small percentage of women who seek abortions may be mentally unstable, The vast majority are stable and sane. You just said abortion is murder, Since the pregnant woman plans the abortion, This would make it first-degree murder. This means that in 30 of the 50 U. S. States that have capital punishment, A woman who obtains abortion pills online and self aborts could be executed for murder. Abortion is a unique situation. Is abortion taking a life? I"d have to say yes. An embryo is at the very least a potential human life. From this point of view it makes no difference if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest or if it is just an unwanted pregnancy, It is still a life. I don"t think it is intellectually honest to be against abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, It is still a life. But this life is part of a woman"s body, It is conceived inside her and it is dependent upon her. If she wants it removed from her body, It is her decision. Personally I think abortion should be safe, Legal and rare. I think the way to fight abortion is by making contraceptives more available and making sex education more effective, Not by imprisoning or executing women for having abortions.
Abortion on demand should be illegal

I used the rape example because you brought up rape in your opening statement. And again I ask, If abortion should be illegal, What should the penalty be for a woman who self-aborts? If you make a law you also have to impose a penalty for those who break the law. What is the penalty? I"m sure there are instances where a person has to decide whether or not to have a limb removed. For example a situation where someone suffers a traumatic injury to a leg and has to between several surgeries that will require months of painful rehabilitation that might not work, And they"ll have to end up losing the leg anyway, Or simply amputating the leg right away and be done with it. Like an unwanted pregnancy, These are decisions where individuals weigh the options and make a decision based on what they think is best for them. I would not be in favor of a person having a perfectly good limb amputated, But that"s not comparable to an unwanted pregnancy. I would guess that a person who wants a perfectly good limp amputated has some mental health issues. I do not think this applies to the average women who seek abortions for unwanted pregnancies. There are thousands of different reasons why women seek abortions. They vary from health reasons to financial reasons to emotional and psychological reasons. I would never presume to be able myself to make this decision for every woman. By making abortion illegal, You would be making the decision for all those women. How can you do that?
Abortion on demand should be illegal

A fetus is part of a woman"s body, Therefore the decision regarding abortion is up to her. To say anything less is to say that half of the population are not in charge of their own bodies. You say abortion is not safe but more women are injured during childbirth than during abortion, By your logic childbirth should be illegal due to safety concerns. If abortion should be illegal, What should the penalty be? For example, If a woman becomes pregnant as the result of a rape, And she obtains some abortion pills online and self-aborts, Should she then be charged with first degree murder?
Resolved: Military Consription (drafting) is unjust (LD Rules and Format)

It seems necessary to define a few words. Unjust: lacking in justice or fairness . http://dictionary.reference.com... Fairness: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice . http://dictionary.reference.com... Injustice: violation of the rights of others . http://dictionary.reference.com... The most important value at stake in this debate is justice. Justice is a key necessary aspect of society and without it there is no moral order. To achieve justice, we must preserve the inalienable rights guaranteed through government. Such inalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A military conscription violates all of such rights. 1. Military conscription puts a citizen's life at stake without his permission. 2. The draft makes military participation compulsory and therefore removes individual liberty. 3. When an individual is drafted against his or her wishes, then the government has interfered with their pursuit of happiness. 1. When individuals are chosen by the government to be obligated to be in harm's way and to risk life and limb, they have obviously been put into jeopardy of life. According to Thomas Jefferson, governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of men. Should a government implement a draft, it has interfered with such a right. Therefore, such an act of government is unjust. 2. Liberty is by definition the power to do as one pleases (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). When one is obligated to participate in the military, then government has obstructed that individual's right to his own will. Therefore, the draft is unjust. 3. The pursuit of happiness has often been associated with liberty, but often it is entirely different. When the government puts one in harms way and then that individual dies, then their pursuit of happiness has ended. If a government can obligate people to die, then such a government has crushed the rights of an individual to pursue happiness. For this reason as well as the ones before-mentioned, military conscription is unjust, or violating the rights of a people. I now await my opponent's argument and prepare for rebuttal.
Resolved: Military Consription (drafting) is unjust (LD Rules and Format)

Yay! First debate on the national topic!!! Rules are that of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Due to previous misconseptions, I will clarify that the rules of LD Debate can be found at www.nflonline.org, and we will follow these rules, since they are official. I Negate the resolution, and because we follow the LD format, I will allow the affirmative to have the first speech. I await my opponent.
Is Imagination real

You posed the debate almost like a question "Is Imagination Real" but then support that with "imagination is rea (I'm assuming you meant real).Next you phrase "tots play "pretend" and they believe in things liked "fairy-tales" exist." (which in my mind that means they don't exist).Next you make an unsupported claim that children have more energy than adults, which is why they imagine what adults can't?You did offer an idea that imagination useful. But that is different than real.
Rap Battle

I don't blame your dad for leaving, it probably made him sick,watching the unfit bitch he married choke to death on my d|ck.And you can go ahead and keep clenching those fists, bats, bricks, stones, kicks,I take my licks like I was dipped in Styx.You should learn to spell, dog, I don't meant to disrespect you,but, "left to", "Pity", and "famillies" are all fucked up and confused,You had some good rhymes in that last verse, I'm happy to concede,but guess what? Once again, none of them were about me. And tell me again, what lines did I drop? I addressed every verb, noun and every weak flop.I hope the voters are paying attention to these MC's,I address your responses and you just go ME ME ME.On the real though, I am sorry about your Mother,I don't have a diss there, you'll never have another.No wonder you have no hype man, your life story brings people down,I wanted a fun battle, now it's all just frowns.Still though, we're both men, and we stand on this battleground,to hurl childish insults and put each other down.It's not a battle rap if there isn't any battle,I don't need your biography, medical records or prattle,I don't need your sad attempts at mispelled rhymes,I don't need your saliva, your bile or chyme.And if you don't want my pity, don't get so depressing,all your droning on shows is that inside your stressingBut you say you're dead in there, because you've been through hell,After facing me in battle you'll be dead on the outside as well.I'll tear off your thin skin, put your bones on my sick rims, pound your short, round a$$ to the ground, just one of my victims,I win.Even my limericks are better than yours,my rhymes are primal, yours are cold-stored.I won't pass you the mic again, come take it from me,You'll die deader than deaths own door key.And if you want another battle after this, it's cool.I've got a crew, two minutes, and a fly-swatter for you.