BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty should be allowed

I'm not sure why Pro challenged me specifically to this debate, especially given that my profile says I am for the death penalty, but since it was directed towards me I felt obligated to accept. I thank my opponent for this debate, and am honored to be debating "the-great-debater". Since my opponent A) Challenged me and B) Is Pro I feel he should have burden of proof. I will not argue this round so as to let him present his case first. This should be a short and sweet debate.
i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate

Oh my non-God, Pro has resorted to even further levels of retardation and troll tactics. Being in grade six (assuming he is) is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever and Pro has exhibited DISGRACEFUL behaviour. So much so that he should be banned from using the Internet for a number of weeks and sent to a special camp, where he can only have one glass of juice and half a banana a DAY.
i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate

use big wrods= logikal fallitcy ikno i onli spel bad becuas im in grads 6, but mrmount is nice let us ply dsoccer and he his creatism say is babler ans salso oos is to mr mount ofso homeoroom andhe nice i slo klike my mucisa teacher mrs smith shed lest me play favorite instrumenrtr thre bas drum, is hard butt i have sex paked ab so don mes, i need gf sas well, i aske crystal out she regected me so i fel a bite dpress so i go ont hsi debet,.orgi so i cant pwn u losrs to the gROUNDD! this make me bettr felling so i go pls vote me, i hot, smrt an had bg ons pnsd asldo ther the and yeahh i prove u rong
i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate

**Rebuttals** Once again, Pro has made an array of spelling errors--ensuring that is his 'case' can only really be described as a grammatical genocide. Instead of taking note of my previous argument and making an *effort* to rectify his mistakes, he's returned with even worse spelling and has now started to refer to the Bible as the 'balble'. In addition to that, he has completely failed to provide *any* evidence and support his claims. He's continued to assert that 'atheit are damb'--which in English, translates as 'atheists are dumb.' In round one I provided a link confirming that atheists are statistically more intelligent than theists, which thus negates this point. Pro however has chosen to ignore this evidence and continue in repeating this claim. So not only has he *not* addressed that properly, but he has also *not* made any attempt at expounding on or corroborating his other assertions--that I specifically outlined in round one.
i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate

well frist of ald vhy are atheit are damb because gos mad the dumb. non beliers ar dunb" Now if evolusion is real!, who did dinesotr evolwe. wher dit uniwerse come from? they were creted by got!!! to confer the balble i will show becuasse the vbible say there willl be athiest ins ythe end it troue. wy not yu try expirenemt yure self NO UNIWERSE. Thank you jeet and dun nee
i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate

Accepted. Firstly, I will address some of Pro's points: In his inclusion of 'proof', Pro asserts that the 'bable confirms story', which correctly translated into English means: 'the Bible confirms the story'. Also according Pro 'the design of the univerde is prefect', which again, is grammatically incorrect. 'Universe' and 'perfect' are the words that Pro should have used. His third assertion is that 'atheistr are dumb', which also has a major spelling mistake. 'Atheists' is what Pro should have written. Lastly Pro argues the 'big bang-explosion from nothing, close my hand and say bang, no universe'. While there is an improvement in the spelling in this particular sentence, it is still logically unfathomable. For example, there is far more to the Big Bang theory than one closing their hand and saying bang. On the basis of his so-called 'proof', Pro reaches the conclusion that 'god esist and athesm is incorect.' Before adding 'amen to my brothers and sisters (no capital letter with 'Amen') in Cris; got bless you all (assuming that Pro meant 'god', which should technically be spelled with a capital letter and outlined as 'God'.) As well as that, Pro was not even able to spell 'Christ' properly or indeed use a full-stop at the end of his sentence. In order to affirm his resolution (which is also a grammatical travesty) and his additional inclusions of 'proof', Pro will have to provide *valid* evidence for the following things: -That the 'bable' (AKA Bible) confirms the story, which Pro hasn't actually specified. An example here would be that I could assume he's referring to Leo Tolstoy's 'Anna Kerenina' , or perhaps Vladimir Nabokov's 'Lolita'? This is primarily because he has failed to define his terms or clarify exactly what 'story' he is arguing for. -That the universe is indeed 'prefect' (meaning perfect.) Pro is obliged to do more that simply state this if he's to substantiate his arguments. -That atheists are 'dumb'. This is another statement that is in fact easily refuted. Research has actually shown that there is sufficient evidence to show that atheists and the non-religious, are on average more intelligent than atheists [1.] http://www.independent.co.uk... -That 'athesm' (I.E 'atheism') is 'incorrect', this is a major thing for Pro to prove. -That God 'esist' (correct spelling: 'exists'.) For Pro to actually affirm his case, he's going to have to provide scientific *evidence* that not only suggests an existence of God, but confirms it.
In this debate, I will lose.

I negate the debate topic on the grounds that no one can know or prove for certain who will win or lose this debate. I will begin by responding to my opponents claims as to why she thinks it is certain or even provable who will be victorious in this debate. "As you could tell, my opponent is an amazing debator. He's got an average of 81.25% in winning, while i have none." This is presumptuous and incorrect. I am not an amazing debater, or even a good one for that matter. While my win ratio is of the order of 80%, I tend to take on debates posed by others, rather than start my own. This gives me an advantage over a lot of other debaters who start a majority of their debates. And it's true that my opponent currently has a 0% win ratio, but that is 1 loss from 1 debate, which is not representative of either a good or a bad debater. My opponent and I have both lost 1 debate, and in fact the debate I lost was similar to this one in context. "opponent has different positions in the government and the society compared to me, which is because his mind is much more superior that an 11- year old's brain like me." My opponent and myself may or may not have varying positions in society, but this has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Now that I have responded to my opponent's arguments, I will pose my own - It is up to my opponent to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she will lose this debate. I propose that this is impossible to prove. I will provide a few possibilities for how I could lose this debate. If even one of these proposals is possible, my opponent should lose the debate. 1. My opponent could start numerous accounts for debate.org, and vote against me with each one. This would more likely than not result in my losing the debate. 2. My opponent may have many friends on this site who will vote for her without so much as reading the debate. 3. The voters of this site may find my opponent's arguments to be more well-rounded and to provide more evidence than my own. This would surely result in my defeat. I will leave it here for now, but my point is clear. It is impossible to prove this resolution, and at best my opponent has made a guess. I have shown a number of ways I could lose this debate, all of which are possible if not probable.
In this debate, I will lose.

Dear opponent, and all the people watching this debate.As you could tell, my opponent is an amazing debator. He's got an average of 81.25% in winning, while i have none.Repete will continue and become the best while i rot in a trashcan. opponent has different positions in the government and the society compared to me, which is because his mind is much more superior that an 11- year old's brain like me.
Everyone is at least a little gay.

I'm disagreeing that everyone is at least a little gay, which means your argument is that EVERYONE is at least a little gay; not some, but EVERYONE. As a gay guy, I'm totally gay. I am not sexually attracted to women at all. Not even a little, little bit. So I can fully understand that there are people that are only sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and not the same sex whatsoever. As long as there is at least one person on Earth that claims to be 100% heterosexual, I can believe it and fully accept it as truth. Therefore, NOT everyone is at least a little gay -- some are, but not all. Thanks for the debate.
birth control should be covered by insurance

I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to "suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world." Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;
birth control should be covered by insurance

Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.
birth control should be covered by insurance

Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.
birth control should be covered by insurance

Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Questions for my opponent: 1. The BBC source you quoted states that "it has been suggested [the Taepodong 2] could have a range up to 15,000km. That would put Alaska or Hawaii within its reach and even the continental US if a lighter warhead were used." How is this not a threat to the US? 2. If South Korea knows that the Yeonpeong attack was a diplomatic maneuver, why have they stopped talks with North Korea? 3. Even if military power isn't equal, wouldn't you agree that the more aggressive country with less advanced weapons is more of a threat than the more docile country with more advanced weapons? 4. According to globalfirepower.org, Iran is 18th place in military strength and North Korea is 20th. Does this seem like a big difference to you? 5. The Taepodong 2 is not an adequate transport device? By saying this you are devaluing the lives of Hawaiians and Alaskans. 6. How are Iranian WMD's and ICBM's a threat if they can't reach the US? Your source says that the "ICBM" that Iran has can only reach Israel and most of the Middle East. 7. What evidence is there that Iran's nuclear program is not just a peaceful clean energy program? 8. Which country do most terrorist groups target: the US or Israel? 9. South Korea is non-nuclear. Therefore, a North Korean attack on South Korea would be suicidal only if the US gets involved. Since a war between two nuclear countries would result in mutually assured destruction, would the US really be willing to militarily intervene in South Korea's favor? 10. We are fighting two wars against terrorism? What terrorist groups are you talking about? I forgot to say this at the start of the debate, but I would like this to be PF format. Rounds 2 and 4 are to ask and answer questions. Round 5 is to weigh existing arguments.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Contention 1: North Korea will have longer-ranged ballistic missiles than Iran BBC News quotes that "North Korea will have nuclear ICBM's (missiles that can reach the other side of the world) in 5-10 years" while FARS News Agency states that Iran only has "short and mid-range missiles". Iran poses a threat only to countries that are in the same region such as Israel, but not countries far away from it such as the US. North Korea, on the other hand, will be able to strike the other side of the world with nuclear warheads in 5 years, making it a threat to the US and all other nations. North Korea has the means and the animosity to attack the US; Iran only has the animosity. This makes North Korea a much greater threat than Iran. Contention 2: North Korea is more aggressive than Iran The recent North Korean Yeonpeong Attack on an island that is disputed between North and South Korea proves that North Korea is much more aggressive than Iran. Iran and Israel have not attacked each other and are starting to have diplomatic talks [1]. North and South Korea, on the other hand, have stopped diplomatic talks and have bombarded disputed territory, killing each others' civilians. Common sense dictates that the more aggressive country is more of a threat, especially under circumstances where military power is about equal. The more aggressive country is more likely to attack other nations, especially those that hinder its aims. Thus North Korea is more likely to attack the US because it's more aggressive and the US hinders its efforts to reunite Korea. The souring relations between North and South Korea also makes a North-South war more likely, forcing US involvement. Contention 3: North Korea has more types of WMD's than Iran In addition to nuclear warheads, North Korea also has a bio weapons program that although rudimentary by Western standards, is capable of producing weaponized anthrax, cholera, and plague. With ICBM's to launch the biological warheads, North Korea can infect an entire region of the United States or any other nation with a dangerous pathogen. Iran, on the other hand, has publicly denounced the use of biological and chemical weapons [4]. Remember that when estimating a nation's potential as a threat, one must factor in not only the amount of weapons that a nation has, but also the types of weapons. Some weapons are more destructive than others. Biological weapons threaten not only the nation being attacked, but also bordering nations, and depending on how far the disease spreads, nations in other regions as well. North Korea's possession of biological weapons makes it not only a threat to the US, but also to US allies and the rest of the world. Sources: [1] www.huffingtonpost.com/.../iran-and-israel-hold-secr_ws_329720.html [2] www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/bw/index.html [3] planet debate [4] http://www.armscontrol.org......
The D.A.R.E Program

Full resolution: The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) program should be taught in schools. "...D.A.R.E. is a comprehensive K-12 education program taught in thousands of schools in America and 52 other countries. D.A.R.E. curricula address drugs, violence, bullying, internet safety, and other high risk circumstances that today are too often a part of students’ lives." [1]Should - must; ought Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Statements from Con, Rebuttals from ProRound 3 - Defense from Con, Opening Statements from ProRound 4 - Rebuttals from Con, Defense from ProRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritiks3) No plagiarism4) Please use citations5) No forfeiture6) No troll arguments7) BoP is on ProThank you!Citation[1]http://www.dare.org...
Robert De Niro better actor than Al Pacino

I do however have to disagree with your one word with one word of my own : overrated. Scarface has always been overrated to me, although a great cult classic, people have always given it too much credit. It became huge because it was the first of its kind with the story of a huge drug dealer that had a downfall. Look at all the movies now that follow the same cliche. De Niro gets great parts and like Pacino he puts himself in his role and really gets emotional with it (which is why they are who they are). For example we have the film Raging Bull in which De Niro won an oscar for Best Actor and he had to gain almost 50 pounds for the end of the film. Talk about dedication? In the film Heat, De Niro and Pacino face off against each other and De Niro clearly takes the stage and gives a great performance as the villian and lost romantic. The movie Casino was directed by Martin Scorcese and you have to remember that he directed Robert De Niro in previous movie classics like Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull. His characters vary from gangster to sinner gone holy in The Mission or soldier coming back from the Vietnam war in Deer Hunter in which he delivers a unforgettable strong performance alongside Christopher Walken. So many movies that people have not seen either like him alongside Robin Williams in Awakenings where he plays a mentally ill patient at a hospital in which he does very well. You cant speak for everyone when it comes to Meet the Fockers which alot of people enjoyed anyways, but since you want to speak of forgiveness, I will not forgive Pacino for Gigli and Oceans Thirteen. I do respect his roles especially in Godfather, but wait, De Niro had a role in that too :)
Robert De Niro better actor than Al Pacino

Since you made no arguments to support your opening statement, can only assume you want me to make the first point. 1 word: Scarface. That movie alone gives Al Pacino more points than Deniro could get for all of his good movies combined. (I'm only counting the good ones that each have done, if you want to consider the bad also Pacino still wins.) Then there is the quality of the acting. Deniro gets parts that he isn't really right for, just because hes Daniro. When I saw him ioin casino with that curly haired guy trying to act like a couple of gangsters I laughed spontaneously throughout the movie just at their acting. A good actor knows what roles he can really make work, and if you ask me a good movie was ruined because of a poor choice of leading roles. Everything Pacino has ever done was golen. Deniro gets a good movie now and then, but America can never forgive him for the meet the faukers saga.
Evolution (Pro) VS. Literal Creationism (Con) (Part III)

I believe that CDB forfeited intentionally. It is an assumption, but he continued doing a different debate with me at the same time and decided not to do this one. Conclusion: I have not been refuted well at all, perhaps due his ignorance and avoiding of arguments. My arguments withstood the test of CoolDudeBro, therefore had the best arguments! Thank you for reading.