BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abe Lincoln was a bad President

Lincoln didn't give a crap about the Slaves he only cared about his county. Slaves in the CSA thought it was a blessing to be freed by his proclamation, Lincoln freed them from the states that applied to make the South poor and make them bail out on agriculture. The Confederacy Freed her slaves a couple months later after the proclamation for them to FIGHT IN THE WAR. During the war, Lincoln assigned that all Confederate prisoners will be killed-witch is a war crime. Here's some quotes that he said in public 1. "BLACKS AND MEXICANS ARE THE SAME AS MONGREL DOGS!" 2. "NO BLACK SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON A JURY!" 3. "BLACKS ARE INFERIOR TO WHITES! http://civilwartalk.com...; regional new paper has been writ in about him and he order to shut down the sight and jail the writers for violating his personal space (um, everyday I hear something about our president)
Abe Lincoln was a bad President

Thanks for accepting :) I think Lincoln was not the best president the Country had because he took the rights away from several states to tax them higher then the Northern states because of agriculture was more expensive than industrial uses. Many Northern didn't believe in war and wanted the South to leave in peace but Lincoln declared war on the seceding states then lost four more. Lincoln abused his power, and misread the Constitution. If a state (Maryland) wanted to leave let them leave don't send there governor to jail and there secessionist to death. That's what he did to keep Maryland in the Union! He murdered innocent Men of the South; During the war Lincoln sent generals like Sherman to March and steal and kill Planters and just innocent family's living in there houses. More Americans, North and South died under a presidents power than any other presidents in American History. Lincoln blocked of all Southern Ports without a war document, that's a war crime. And He invaded another country. The South wanted peace; Not war but Lincoln blocked off all ports and sent soldiers into the Charleston Harbor.
Abe Lincoln was a bad President

Accepted. Firstly, I"ll define "good". good-to be desired or approved of. Now, for a simple numbered list of what Abraham Lincoln has done for us. 1. Successfully guide America through a 5 year Civil War without permanent loss of territory or secession by Southern states. Are modern day Americans opposed to the fact that 11 specific states are still part of our Union, specifically South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina? No. Not a sizeable majority of them. 2. Pass the Pacific Railroad Acts (which wouldn't have passed with democratic gridlock in Congress), which ended up significantly growing the Western coast and US. trade in terms of size and economy. Desirable? Yes. Are modern day Americans opposed to products/services produced by California, Oregon, and Washington State, as well as products from Asia and trade to those countries? No. Once again, something desirable. 3. Attempt to give specific civil rights to African Americans via the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Is modern day America not approving of the awarding of specific civil rights to African Americans, like the right to vote, citizenship, and protection against involuntary servitude? No. Already I"ve listed three things that Lincoln has accomplished for this nation. Pro, I await your reply.
Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.

Thank you for giving me the oppurtunity to once more explain my side. The points that I will be bringing up will be as follows: Evolution is THEORY and should be treated as such because of the many flaws in the theory that I will be pointing out. Evolution is not strongly supported, as fossil evidence cannot back it up, and other reasons. Good luck to you, and I hope to have a good, well constructed debate.
Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.

I seek this debate in order to provide my opponent with a deeper understanding of Evolutionary Theory. My goals: 1: Keep this debate religion free. Although science and religion have traditionally been at conflict, the question of whether biological entities evolve is purely an empirical matter, while the god concept remains beyond physical reality. My opponent is free to continue believing in a god whether he accepts Evolution or not. This debate simply investigates the empirical evidence for and/or against it. 2. Use proper definitions. Rhetoric and poorly defined semantic footwork are too common in debates. This is a scientific issue, and we are here to address the evidence, whether poor or strong, and apply reasoning to that evidence. Likewise, statements such as: "Evolution cannot explain __________" will not be granted merit if it is not followed by any kind of acceptable empirical data or reasoning. 3. Establish that Evolutionary Theory, whether a product of nature or by the will of a creator, is an established fact of science, and all objections to it fall short of either rigorous peer review or simply getting the evidence straight. These are simple and necessary requirements for the scientific method. 4. Remember that Evolutionary Theory does not apply the Big Bang cosmology, Planetary formation, or Abiogenesis. These may be intimately connected causally and physically, but the Evolution of organisms on this planet is a specific process that needs independent investigation. 5. Leave emotions at the door. Simple.
Marmite is terrible

FAVZTR - Alfrid 84ZZSI - Azog W5Z6AC - Bain UER3JG - Bard XTVM8C - Barliman Butterbur 555R9C - Borrow Wight KEID2V - Beorn ZIBYHO - Bolg MXUXKO - Braga H2CAID - Elros THAVRM - Fimbul 00TE7J - Galadriel 3CE37P - Gollum TPD7YW - Grinnah V4Y5HZ - Lindir
Marmite is terrible

Amazing grace! how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch; like me! I once was lost, but now am found, Was blind, but now I see. 2 "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed! 3 The Lord hath promised good to me, His word my hope secures; He will my shield and portion be As long as life endures. 4 When we"ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We"ve no less days to sing God"s praise Than when we first begun.
USFG should adopt a Childbirth Limitation policy

I thank Bluesteel for accepting. I also look forward to a fun round. Onto the round. I could sit here and list all kinds of impacts about overpopulation. How it will strain resources, lower quality of life, ham other species, etc. However, I will assume that most of us are already aware that overpopulation is causing, or would cause, serious issues to both humans and the environment, specifically the United States since that is what this is about. So I will simply elaborate as to why childbirth limiting to two in the US and A will be effective at controlling it. The main reason is the obvious one, less children. Large families are the biggest problem in regards to childbirth. My first source (1) shows that 28% of women have 3 or more kids by the time they lose their reproductive ability. This means that, since the current US population over 307 million people, we already have at least 86 million more people that will add approximately 215 million more people in their lifetimes. This shows you how people multiply when not controlled. Look at Octomom. She alone has accounted for a +15 to our population. These kids will likely average out to add 40 more children. Then see Jim Bobb and Michelle Duggar (3), who have an atrocious nineteen children. Nothing personal against Bob and Michelle, however it is these kinds of people that need to be stopped, as they are one of the causes to our expected oncoming population spike. The solvency is the 2 children rule. Technically, it would lead to a death rate that exceeds birth rate. If every couple of 2 had two children, +2, then the couple died, -2, it would even out. However, not every couple wants 2 children, if any at all. So while the 2 children families cancel out, other families will actually account for a -1 or -2. I know what my opponent will say. "Well, not everyone will abide by the rule, some will still have 3+". I understand this. However I believe that if the rule were in place, the families that have less than 2 children, combined with deaths that happen "prematurely", it would still contribute to a net decrease in population. Even if it didn't, it would still be an important step in solving the problem. I await my opponent's responses. 1. http://www.babycenter.com... 2. http://www.google.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
USFG should adopt a Childbirth Limitation policy

Thanks for the topic BlackVoid. ==Intro== I intend to argue that overpopulation will be caused by developing (not developed) countries; that there are moral issues involved in banning childbirth, and that resource crunch predictions are often wrong (Malthus). Unless my opponent offers an alternate proposal for implementation, I will assume that the U. S. 's two child policy will be similar to China's previous "One Child" policy.
USFG should adopt a Childbirth Limitation policy

Nobody can deny that overpopulation, if it isnt already, will be a very serious worldwide issue within the next 50 years. As we are rapidly multiplying, resources will soon become even more stretched then they are now. There have been many ways proposed to combat this issue, some have been implemented, but this is one that is up for debate. The topic = Two children maximum. Before I begin I will point out that nowhere am I trying to say that a limiting on childbirth in the US will not solve for the problem by itself. I merely support the position that this is an important step in the process and will help contribute to solving the issue. Round 1 will be for intros. Also I ask my opponent if they would like to debate the general idea of childbirth limiting to two, or if they would like me to give and explain a specific policy. Although I would prefer the former, as debating the worth of a specific policy could mean con could say my policy is bad but another limitation one is better, which isnt what I intended for this topic. However if they feel a specific policy must be proposed to best debate this, I will do it. I thank and wish con good luck in advance.
Peanut Butter vs. Jelly

Which is more nutritious and beneficial to your body? I need someone to take up the con side and represent the benefits of jelly. I would like this debate to be light hearted & fun, so please, no dissing throughout the debate. However, whoever would like to claim the con position, take this seriously. Use facts, cite sources, and limit the amount of opinions you use in your argument. See below for the order of this debate. Round 1- Acceptance & Greetings (Do NOT present your case in this round) Round 2- Initial Arguments Round 3- Rebuttals & Closing Statements (recaps) Please only accept my challenge if you're willing to do the research and put in the effort for this debate. Also, last requirement: Follow the round list. Don't go ahead, and for the first round, just accept the challenge. Thanks, I look forward to debating with you.
There should be driving lessons at higschool

There should not be driving lessons in high school because although some would argue it would give people a boost, it would also be prohibitively expensive for all involved. If you are seriously suggesting that putting teenagers in cars before the age of 17 is a good idea then you obviously need to think again. Firstly, the school would have to purchase cars for their lessons. These cars would have to be numerous to support the student body and would have to have the added feature of a dual driving wheel so as to keep the cars safe. This is without mentioning the accidents that would, inevitably, take place. This is just the beginning of the reasons why driving lessons are an immature judgement to put in place in schools.
Public Nudity should be allowed

I'll start with a few brief points for my side, and then respond to some of my opponent's arguments. With that out of the way, let's begin. Contention One: Distraction Imagine you're driving down the road. You're driving and just minding your own business and then all of a sudden TITTIES. Just some gorgeous babe walking down the sidewalk completely nude and she's got the nicest rack you've ever seen (this is presupposing your straight. It still works the same with gay people except it can be a guy with a big d*ck). What are you gonna do? You're going to stare of course! Of course since you're staring at the chick's breasts instead of the road, you're more likely to crash and not only kill or hurt yourself, but kill or hurt other people driving. Public nudity is distracting and thus should not be allowed. Contention 2: not professional. If we make nudity allowable in public, people are going to get the bright idea to go to work in the nude. Despite the comedy factor of watching people walk into a law firm naked, let's think about this. How seriously would you take your preferred newscaster if (s)he did a cast completely naked? How seriously would you take Obama if he was waving his black junk around while trying to give a press conference? Our nation would end up as one giant troll and it would be all chaos and disorder and the world would end on December 21st, 2012. Contention 3: Economic impact. If we let people be nude, they won't be wearing as many clothes. This is going to set the clothing industry back a ways and cause people to lose jobs, since the demand for clothes will drop. Losing jobs = bad for the economy. Now, I'll go to my opponent's arguments. The first point my opponent raises is that public nudity isn't offensive to people. This is clearly false. People of religious beliefs or conservative ideology would be offended if people just started strutting their stuff down the street. People will be offended. My opponent's second point makes no sense, as us being scared of naked people isn't a point in raising. It's relevance to the round is nonexistent. My opponent's third point is de-bunked by my first and third points. Nudity would harm people. With that it's an easy negative vote.
Public Nudity should be allowed

1 is public nudity offensive? No. 2 Should people run from people who are in the nude? No. 3 Should people have the right to walk in public naked? Yes. People should be able to be allowed to walk in public naked they are not harming anyone they are not out to rape anyone male or female they just want to be able to walk in public nude and in my book that's completely harmless man and woman should have the right to show their parts to the world women are proud to want to show their breast and other body parts as well as a man wanting to show his.
Public Nudity should be allowed

This is going to be an incredibly short round seeing as my opponent drops literally everything from the last round extend my contentions and responses to his case. Don't let him try to defend his original case in the next round since he already dropped it and conceded it. Same thing goes with my arguments. To respond to my opponent's argument over insecurity: 1. Irrelevant. How we feel about something doesn't factor into logical debate dealing with facts and rational thoughts. 2. Even if it was relevant to the debate, at best it would be a moot point because how comfortable one feels about their body doesn't correlate to allowing public nudity, since those not comfortable with their bodies wouldn't go nude anyway. Therefore his most recent argument can safely be ignored. Easy con vote is easy.
Abortion Is Wrong

My basic arguments for my pro-life beliefs can be summed up in the acronym SLED. S- Size: Yes, the embryo is very small, and at its earliest stages it's no more than a single cell. However, humans do not gain their value based on their size. If that were the case, men, who are usually bigger than women, would necessarily have more value. A human's value doesn't change based on its size. L- Level of Development: Many arguments the pro-choice movement revolve around the belief that because the embryo hasn't developed certain attributes, we have justification to terminate their lives, attributes like cognitive brain function, a beating heart and the ability to feel pain. But where does this hold up outside of the womb? A five year old girl is much less developed than an 18 year old. In fact, the 5 year old hasn't even developed the ability to reproduce, but certainly we don't say we are justified in killing that little girl simply due to the fact she isn't fully developed. In fact, under that same ideology, anyone under the age of 40 could be killed "justly", because humans don't reach their full level of development until around that age. So a human's value isn't contingent on its level of development. E- Environment: Another contention against the pro-life movement is based around the fact that the embryo is still inside the womb. I would then ask, "Why does that matter? Do human being's value change based on their location? I mean, did you or I change who we are when we walk into a new room, or a school, or home? That's silly. So why should we grant value to children only when they move 8 inches from the womb through the birth canal? Human's value is not contingent on their location. D- Degree of dependency: While in the womb, a fetus is 100% dependent on its mother. She is its protection and provision. But does this grant women the power to end its life, simply due to the fact that it's dependent on her and her actions? Let's see. I was never fully independent of my parents until I was 17 and moved out. Before then, from birth to 3 or 4 years of age, I was still arguably 100% dependent on my parents supplying me with food and keeping me from dying. Yet that gave them no right to terminate my life at their whim as soon as I became inconvenient or they couldn't afford me. So degree of dependency doesn't decide the amount of value someone has a human being. That's SLED, a simple acronym to help you remember many of the flaws in many pro-choice argument. And my basic belief why the pro-choice movement doesn't make sense.
Abortion Is Wrong

I'd like to start by stating this: I will concede my argument and concede my stance. I no longer believe that abortion should be restricted and that women should have full liberty to do what they want to do. If. If what? If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these two premises aren't true. 1) The unborn are human. 2) The unborn are alive. If you can give me good reasons using logic, science and/or philosophy, that these two premises are in fact false, then I will admit that the unborn have no more right to live than a cow or a bed bug; however, if the statements are true, then I believe that the unborn should have rights like you and I, and should not be given less value. This is the philosophical and scientific reasoning for belief that the two premises are true. 1) The unborn are human. The world's leading embryology textbooks give arguably un-refutable scientific evidence for the unborns' humanity as shown here in Keith Moore's "Essentials of Human Embryology": "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being. " [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B. C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2] Also here in Dr. Langmans textbook: "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote. " [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] I have a very high confidence that almost all, if not every embryology textbook will state that anyone's humanity started from the moment of conception. 2) The unborn are alive. According to the Oxford Dictionary (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...), life is defined as: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. It's obvious to see that a fetus, from the moment of conception, contains the capacity or is currently acting out each of the four requirements given. They are constantly growing, they have the capacity for reproduction, there is constantly functional activity, and there will be continuous change preceding death. .. Which hopefully won't come in the next few months. Now I have provided solid evidence that the unborn are alive, whole human beings, therefore, being given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, emphasizing the right to life: the right from which all others are derived. Now there are a few possible rebuttals, but instead of attacking straw men, I will simply allow my opponent to provide his reasons for supporting abortion.
Daniel Dennett's arguments against qualia fail

Whenever someone experiences something as being one way rather than another, this is true in virtue of some property of something happening in them at the time, but these properties are so unlike the properties traditionally imputed to consciousness that it would be grossly misleading to call any of them the long-sought qualia. Conscious experience has no properties that are special in any of the ways qualia have been supposed to be special. Theorists of the contrary persuasion have patiently and ingeniously knocked down all the arguments, and said most of the right things, but they have made a tactical error, I am claiming, of saying in one way or another: "We theorists can handle those qualia you talk about just fine; we will show that you are just slightly in error about the nature of qualia." What they ought to have said is: "What qualia?"
Daniel Dennett's arguments against qualia fail

Daniel Dennett has argued against qualia as he describes them in "Quining Qualia" and other books and articles. I will take the position that any arguments Dennett has made that the Con/Challenger picks, up to three to be presented in his first round, fail to produce a knock out punch for Qualia because his arguments invariably fail to consider any positions beyond spiritualism or eliminative materialism. These other positions accommodate his objections. Feel free to Google the terms.