BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman

wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970"s and 1980"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !
Resolved: the world is not going to end in 2012.

The Mayans are a civilization, right? Of course, they believed stuff that we do not believe now. God is the only one who knows everything. Probably most people have started planning because they think that this is bogus, but people are planning for the worst things to happen. Here are the ways we could die by 2012. A. Iran, Egypt, or another country that hates us will send nuclear bombs to blow us up, and then we will send bombs up, and then we all die, and the rest of us that are living starve to death. B. The blue star that I mentioned. C. One of the new presidents (this country or not) will start an anarchy, and spread throughout the world.
Resolved: the world is not going to end in 2012.

to start off with would you believe the myans? they had no technology and had believed the world was flat. when my source says. and a myan expert said this "Contrary to what many believed, year 2012 will not mark the end of the world but will just be a start of a new calendar, according to Mayan timekeeper. Many consider it a joke although others are scared we might never live to see next year thanks to the Mayan calendar's 'apocalyptic' prediction, the Daily Mail reported." and also if the world will end in 2012 then why are we having the presidential election? Also if the world is going to end then why is the world getting ready for events in 2013?
Resolved: the world is not going to end in 2012.

The world is going to end in 2012: The Hopis (who are a native American tribe who is on reservations in Arizona (1)) have claimed that the major changes would start when a "large blue star" displays itself. Then, in seven years, the star would become bigger, even bigger than the sun. With the Mayans, they believe that the seven year period has begun, because on October 24, 2007, they believe they saw the blue star(2). Your turn. 1 http://www.bigorrin.org... 2 http://voices.yahoo.com...
Resolved: the world is not going to end in 2012.

the Mayan culture has been distorted and repackaged to resemble something that no longer has any base in science or anthropology. Also if the world is going to end then why is there people running for president? Earth has been getting along just fine for more than four billion years; if there hasn't been any sign of the end yet, there is no reason to expect it in the near future. Take for example the Jehovah's Witnesses. No one group of people in history has ever predicted the end of the world so often and been wrong so often. As of 1984, they are 0 of 9. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net...
Jesus is a zombie

I would hope nobody assumes is Jesus is a zombie, he wasn't mindless and didn't digest human flesh. Nor was he a Ghoul, Vampire, Wight, Ghost, And/Or Wraith He was a Lich, a Lich is made when a Magician or King striving for eternal life binds his soul to his animated corpse and achieves immortality. They bear wounds thy had before death, and can often bring the dead back to life. http://www.buzzfeed.com...
a monarchy would be good for america

Firstly, Americans didn't just die only for individual rights, they died so they wouldn't have to live under a monarchy that abuses the people, secondly a president bowing to another world leader isn't a sign of weakness it is a sign of respect, Abeam didn't show up to threaten war he wanted peace, hence the respect to another leader. secondly a monarchy would show fear to other nations because one person has the total power to nuke entire nations out of existence, that amount of power has to be decided hence the 3 branches, if we had a monarchy we would be feared in the same way north Korea is feared, one person with the power to eliminate millions of civilian (including that of there own people) terrorism in the east would not stop in the slightest because it is directed at the west not just America, innocent lives in Europe are still at risk, and terrorists wouldn't need to threaten America anymore because we would no longer be a viable threat to Islam, instead America would be made a threat to the entire world, we have by far the largest military and to give total power to a single person, like I said, will end in the abuse of that power, save for the fact that Americans have just lost a good portion of their rights and had there history spat on, the safety of every person in the world is at stake. There is no way to justify this, the citizen's freedoms should come before instilling fear in the hearts of everyone in the world, the purpose of America should be to keep the world safe, not keep it in constant fear.
a monarchy would be good for america

Yes many Americans died for freedom but they didn't know that under this so called democracy we would have a corrupted government, a president who bowed to a middle eastern leader. We are losing our strength in the world because of this. I think that if we had a Monarchy there would be no terrorist attacks because we should be feared not a country that fears others. We have no proper military under this government so if we ever were invaded we would not be able to stop them.
a monarchy would be good for america

Again, a monarchy is much like a dictatorship, there is a definitive leader with much or total power of the state and in modern history every dictatorship has so far been a total failure, and every monarchy that had control of the state has failed and been abolished for a pretty good reason : it infringes on the rights of citizens. but america was build on the ideas of freedom and rights for citizens, for one you would be taking away the indirect democracy we have in place right now, Americans would lose there right to vote. not to mention that the U.S. current government was built around the idea of making sure a monarchy will never take control of america ever again, we have the 3 branches to ensure this and in order for a real monarchy to work america would have to throw away the 3 governmental branches in place and instill it all to the power of the monarchy, which many many Americas have died trying to prevent, to allow a monarchy to rule the United States would be a blatant insult to those who founded our great nation.
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

I'm not gonna debate anymore, you seem to have a fiery passion for gay marriage that leads you to misinterpret my argument in every possible way, this is no debate because you have no real sense of what were talking about I'm OK with gay love, (civil unions) but gay marriage is different than normal marriage plus it's not a constitutional right. "The constitution does not give the right of marriage, if what you are argueing were true then anyone who wished to could marry their dog, or their cousin. On annother point, the constitution does uphold the ideals of the decleration of independance however that does not give the decleration the power of law or constitutional authority." -Julius Maximus quote He is correct you know, gay marriage wasn't a constitutional right, and still isn't.
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

1. You said that gay marriage would destroy the meaning in a relationship. I asked you how. You completely ignored that. 2. It's not a rare occurrence for a straight couple to be infertile or just have a lot of problems having a child. It's actually quite common. About 10% of couples cannot have children thanks to total infertility, and be it gay or straight, it doesn't make them unnatural (1). 3. Where is the necessity of a female or male role model in a family anyway? I don't see a study saying one in five children without a role model are committing suicide or growing a third arm or something of that nature. If it's not even initially necessary, why worry about it? 4. How does the church's opinion matter if marriage isn't even an aspect that originates with the church. Marriage is a pagan event practiced long before even Judaism came about. You don't get to define the purpose of marriages because your beliefs didn't even influence how marriage was started (2) (3). Why should gay people who are probably non-practitioners of your religion have to be subjected to the laws of your religion? If I'm a muslim and you're a christian, why should you have to sacrifice your life to Allah if you don't even practice my religion? It's impractical to tell someone who doesn't believe in what you believe in to do as you do. Sources: (1): http://www.womenshealth.gov... (2): http://burnsidewriters.com... (3): http://www.city-data.com...
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

No it's not the same, why do you think it's a issue if it's a right listed in the constitution 2. That's a rare occurrence therefore it's unnatural 3. You explained nothing about role models, you simply explained the couple would teach that gender exists. Children should know about the male and female gender difference before the 6th 4. I believe they have a right to love, but granting them marriage would destroy the purpose of marriages and the church agrees. (this pathetic issue would long have been resolved long before now if homosexuals would simply settle for civil union. )
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

I'd like to start off with the fact that during the time of the founding fathers, gay marriage was taboo. However, during the liberal movement during the Victorian era, things that were formerly odd and uncommonplace became popular because people wanted the ability to do what they wanted. Because this is an issue now, disregarded what the laws were in the past, we should allow gay people to get married. 1. Why would you say that? How would they destroy meaning? It's the same thing. Two people who love each other. That's the meaning of a relationship. 2. Says who? Some straight couples are completely infertile and need to adopt. Does that make them unnatural? 3. Should the child go to public schooling, he or she could still effectively learn about the opposite sex without the need or a mother or father. If the child doesn't attend public schooling, it's not like women and men have just disappeared in the eyes of all gay children, and their parents aren't idiots. They can explain the situation to their children. 4. What you are doing is denying the people's constitutional rights to be American by keeping two people who love each other from getting married in order to keep holy religious sects that do not predominantly lead the nation by any means and because we are not a theocracy run by religion we should take in concern what they say but should not obey it as law. Despite the fact that fundamentally, these religions have negative views of homosexuality, Americans overall should still have the right to love who they want. As I described in Round 1, gays will only be able to marry if they can find a pastor willing to unite them, therefore not infringing on the rights and privileges of the church.
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Thank you for your argument, I believe if the founding fathers wished it to be a right it would be, Gay marriage currently isn't a right, and I strongly believe it isn't defined in the constitution as a right. 1. all around men and women are completely different and same-sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship 2. If you can't produce offspring in your relationship then your relationship is unnatural 3. There would be no role model within a child if he never/rarely saw the opposite gender in his household 4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage.
Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Specifics of Legality Firstly, I argue that it is unconstitutional to deny two people who love each other the right to be married IF AND ONLY IF the ramifications include a pastor or priest who is willing to unite the two to marriage. If a pastor is unwilling to declare those two couples a married man and man or woman and woman, the state should be forbidden to officially enforce he must unite the couple even if it goes against his personal beliefs and religion, because that would be a violation of his rights and would render any argument, including my own in this topic, completely moot and hypocritical. In the Declaration of Independence it states that all people have the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness(1). _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Why is it unconstitutional if the stated source is located in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution? Because the Constitution reaffirms the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (2), it is therefore unconstitutional to impede on the rights of all people, no matter what sexual orientation or preference, the right to the same civil marriage as straight couples. Gay couples should not be subjected to the rules of the bible or Christianity itself because it's likely they are either non-religious or don't want to believe in a religion that might forbid something they can't help and they should not be subject to rules of the bible in which we are not governed by or publicly taught. We are a secular-neutral state that does not enforce nor promote and religion of state whatsoever, and it is unconstitutional to do so the congressional legislature, so why use the argument of homosexuality being a the bible if we are not a theocratic government led by Christianity in the first place? (3) In these ways, gay marriage is a constitutional right for all men and all women. Sources: (1): http://www.archives.gov... (2): http://constitutioncenter.org... (3): http://www.au.af.mil...
Teachers having guns in the class room.

As the last round of this debate I would like to wrap things up. This website talks a bit more about my point of view in this debate http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Overall what I think is that teachers shouldn't have guns in the classroom because there are too many things that can go wrong with having a gun, especially in a classroom. Guns are also quite impressionable children. Save them for outside the school. There are just as safe opinions for protecting yourself. As I said in my last vote I wanted to share with everyone a video on excuses since it seems as my opponent has so many on why he can't post his argument and commit to a debate. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com.... To conclude, teachers shouldn't haves guns in the classroom. Thank you everyone, this is my second debate and I appreciate all who tune in on the debates I participate in and vote for me.
Teachers having guns in the class room.

Just like in my other debate my opponent has forfeited. I will now be saying similar things from my other debate on, Should students be given homework during the weekends, which strays off topic, but for good reasons. I believe I posted my last argument about six days ago. I waited a while after I posted and decided to see if warriorcat227 was online. He was online. He saw my post on the debate (I can't see him not being able to have seen it) and chose not to reply. I asked myself, why did he choose not to reply. Since he was online after I posted my argument, unlike in my other debate, he obviously hadn't forgotten to post his case because he never logged on to his DDO account. No I believe warriorcat227 is the type to give up. In all of his debates he challenges people, posts his first argument and then stops there. Why does he do this? My theory is that he doesn't want to debate, he wants to only put his opinion and nothing else. I believe this is so because I bet he doesn't want to read what his opponent argues. He doesn't want to be persuaded, he doesn't want to follow through on what his opinion is. He's a wimp. I know that was a little mean but common, you're not going to support your case when your opponent posts a strong argument. You give up warriorcat227. Besides that though the fact that warriorcat227 didn't even attempt to post a second argument is pretty selfish. Now I have to wait three days to post my next argument because he won't bother to put anything. That means when the debate is practically over it still has to go on until the DDO system forfeits the round for him. I know this didn't have to do with the actual debate on teacher's having guns in the class room, but I believe that if someone is going to be so selfish and make it take longer for you the people to vote on this debate and for me to post my arguments that they should be selled out. Nobody likes to have someone do that. Thank you. And please keep tuned on this debate I hope to post a video that I hope you all will enjoy. Again, thank you.
Almost half of all rape accusations are false.

As showed throughout the debate, there's no conclusive data supporting the resolution. On one hand, Pro gave some arguments about our culture and the craziness of women. But, as said by himself, they "are not really hard proof evidence in the first place". On the other hand, He showed some studies "supporting" the preposition. I successfully showed that those studies do not prove the resolution. One of the studies express that just 7,4% of accusations are evidently false. The other study used a rather incorrect method, thus it is invalid. Pro expressed that my focus on fallacies within his argument was a waste of time. As a matter of fact, pointing out all the fallacies that conform Pro's argument is the best way of negating the resolution. If the argument is full of fallacies, the argument is invalid. Then Pro's argument is invalid. The burden of proof is on Pro, and since there are no valid arguments supporting Pro's point, the resolution is negated. Vote Con! Great debate. Good luck to my opponent!
Almost half of all rape accusations are false.

It's unfortunate I didn't have enough time on my hands to really delve into some of the intricacies of this debate and answer some of your objections. I have instigated a new debate with the same topic that, if no one else takes me up on, my opponent can regard as a rematch. For what it's worth, I haven't had the time to reply to every objection but I have offered some very compelling reasons why women do in fact use false rapes rather lavishly. I've also shown police testimonies of experts in the field as well as the most objective studies conducted on this topic demonstrating that the figures converge more or less around 50% or half. My opponent has spent quite a bulk of time attacking points such as the "guilt culture" and "women are crazy" arguments - not really hard proof evidence in the first place - trying to prove the proposition is a "fallacy" instead of really going after the empirical data which are the independent studies and credible police testimonies from experts on sex-crimes. He didn't offer any reasons as to why "corruption" should occur in the instance of police reporting of false rapes. That was a very convenient way of dismissing a very substantial part of my argument out-of-hand. To be fair he did raise some fair objections that I could have responded to if there was enough time so I let you be the judge. I have tried to show that there are many viable explanations as to why false rapes are common that have not really captured the interest of academia or public institutions narrating the story fit to print for public consumption, and thus why we might find figures higher than those normally told in media, public affairs, etc. If we are to follow where the evidence leads, then it is reasonable to say that almost half of all rapes are false. The empirical data bear this out and the rest of my arguments are there to buttress those empirical stats. Thanks for a good debate!