BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion does more harm than good in this world.

Religions have a powerful role in that they influence individuals' values and behaviors. Through constant preaching and inspired actions, most religions shape different communities' civilization and how individuals interact with their fellow religious mates and with the rest of the world. The following are ways in which religions shape individuals' behavior and thought patterns, collectively or not, to positively work on making this world a world that everyone finds comfort and pleasure living in. 1.Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles. It injects discipline in an individual's character and it helps individuals from diverse backgrounds; with or without the same religious beliefs, to live at peace with each other. -Research paper about "Why religion matters even more" by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. - http://www.heritage.org.... In the article http://www.zenit.org...; the article by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D is further summarized and looks at an applicable approach of this issue in Rome. It bases more emphasis on the higher levels of sustained motivation and progressive achievements of religious students in high school and college with relative contrast to non-religious students. The first argument, mainly about peace and discipline, relates to the second argument (below) in the following ways : a) For two individuals to live at peace with each other; there has to be a mutual sense of "standardized and acceptable behavior" between the two individuals and b) How religious groups treat others in time of need is reflective of their own values. Any religion with peace as one of its central themes willingly takes the responsibility to try and restore peace within the whole world, without taking into account any religious boundaries. 2. Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty and other world-problems-restorative-measures. - http://www.vancouversun.com... highlights the positive contribution of religion with respect to fighting poverty in Canada. It argues that, with the aid of Canada Statistics, religion in Canada is the leading "structure (for lack of a better term)" in terms of fighting poverty. An insignificant yet relevant page promoted by different religions from the Middle East with the purpose of helping individuals who got injured in a natural disaster: http://www.uri.org... Brief Conclusion : Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in a world that has been through recessions, racial fighting and currently still fighting 3rd World issues. It reduces the crime rate and racial killings that would otherwise do more harm to the world. Religion intervenes in the lives of the poor and offers financial and emotional support, more efficiently that most government organizations. These kind and considerate religious acts reduce the impacts of poverty to society.
Abandon marriage as government issued

There are some rather important benefits that are granted to married couples by government, these include but are not limited to: Hospital visiting rights Tax breaks Inheritance rights where no will exists Allowance of procession of joint property Allowing the immigration of spouses While I do think government should step back from marriage particularly in regards to divorce the fact is that it is necessary for a government to recognize marriage legally which will inevitability lead to some restrictions which will make it effectively government issued. Furthermore my opponent makes the case that should government not control marriage gay marriage would not have started. Of course it would, infact the opposite would have happened homosexuals were not allowed to marry as the government was not granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Should a marriage certificate not be necessary for a marriage homosexuals would have married much earlier.
Abandon marriage as government issued

This debate is written with all respect to mentioned groups, it is not my intention to insult anyone, nor do I expect reactions that do so. I think it is an awesome idea that benefits all. Here goes... With problems rising from pro and con in regards to same sex marriages, wouldn't it be an idea to abandon marriage as government issued? Now it's supposedly the gays who ruin it for religion, and in 20 years people might fight lawmakers because they want to marry their goldfish. Scientists argue that it is more natural to have multiple partners or even under-aged partners, than it is to have a same sex partner. Matrimony even discriminates married people as pension for married people is a lot less per person than it is for singles. And the list goes on. Where does it end??? So as government needs to be as neutral as possible in basically every aspect of life, why don't we the people cancel marriage all together as government issued? This way nobody will feel left out, because no one is in! You would still be able to have a ceremony and 'marry' for spiritual or religious reasons, but keep it out of government hands.
Right-wing/conservative/republicans are not Christians

As a strong catholic, I can debunk all of your falsehood, the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" that applies to the humans forming inside the body of the mother, Jesus, condemned any form of sexual perversion, and Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" and god created men as men and women as women, and for a country, illegal aliens destroy it form the inside, making it only natural to call it out and stop it. socialism as well, it destroys country's, Muslims kill us christens, and I know this better than any one, I got shot 5 times in Iraq, almost a 9/11 victim, but my 9 year old sister and mother were killed, so it well keep us safe from savages, and as a officer, the "Black Lives Matter" "movement" is only another danger, they promote violence against us, and yes, If a officer just shoots some random person, prosecute them as a citizen, and since when were Jews not treated as humans? they are christens without Jesus basically.
Right-wing/conservative/republicans are not Christians

My argument's purpose is to redefine what it means to be a Christian. You are not a Christian unless you follow the words of Christ. You can say that you are a Christian all you want, but that doesn't make it true. My definition of a Christian is someone that has the same morality of Christ in addition to following his words. Condition: The Gospel or the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, John from bible contain Jesus' words. Accepting this debate accepts that to be true. 2nd condition: People can lie to their own selves. They can create bias or assumptions based on that lie. They can be wrong without knowing they are wrong. 3rd condition: You can't be a Christian without following the Christ's moral path. 4th condition: We can focus, if you choose to, on one of these moral issues to prove the point. However, if I win, then my point is still made. New Morality from the Christ Abortion should be allowed Homosexual Marriage should be allowed Transgender people can go in whatever bathroom they want Amnesty should be given to law-abiding illegal immigrants(aside from them being illegal) Socialism should be in place There should be no Muslim ban Jews are people like the rest of us and should be treated as such. Black lives movement has fair points that should be addressed and changed All people rights must be respected(subjective term, needs to be defined, what does respect mean to you? ). If you follow most to all of these morals then don't challenge, you are close enough to being a Christian. This debate is about revealing truth. And I say that most Christians on the right wing are not actually Christians. I know that each of these things can create their own morality arguments, but the point of this debate still stays the same which is that this is still on Jesus' moral path, which defines what he wants us to do. We can focus, if you choose to, on one of these issues to prove the point. However, if I win, then my point is still made. As Christians, we should follow the Christ's moral path. If you disagree with that, then you are a hypocrite. Last and final condition: If you lose by the judgment of the votes(100 votes minimum), then you must say that I am right. If I lose, the same condition applies.
Teachers should have guns in school

No. Teachers should not have guns in school. Let me first just say that I own a rifle, and am not an anti-gun person. I am not a member of the NRA because I disagree with their stances on many issues. This issue being one of those. Pro says they can have the gun if A. They want to be armed and B. They pass a mental evaluation and C. They get training How much training is a teacher going to need? Well, how much training does a police officer or a SWAT team member get? It's going to have to be comparable to that if they are going to defend themselves (and/or their students) from an armed probably mentally deranged assailant. That's fine for people who have elected to go into public defense as a career, but that's not why a teacher becomes a teacher. Pro also states that the gun be kept in a "safe place" where none of the kids know where it is. In order for a gun to be used in defense, it has to be accessible. That's just logic. If you can't get to a gun in a crisis situation, and get to it quickly, the gun is useless. And if that gun is accessible to a teacher, then it will be accessible to others as well, and possibly accessible in turn to a student. There rarely are any "secret locations" in schools. 7 states already allow teachers to carry guns. Like this teacher in Utah who accidentally discharged her gun http://www.sltrib.com... no one was hurt in that case, but what if a child had been around? Even experienced gun owners have accidents sometimes. You're also opening the door to teachers who maybe don't have the greatest experience with handling guns. Say a teacher who has never fired a gun decides they want one. Pass the mental evaluation then goes through the "training" you say they can get. Now that person is packing heat. They will be making in some cases instantaneous decisions about whether or not it's time to pull their gun on someone. With a school shooter that decision is obvious. But what about an angry parent? What about an out of control student? What about a gang leader defending turf? I wouldn't pull a gun on those people, but some people will. And there will be shootings at schools. You haven't stopped the problem, you've accelerated it. Letting teachers carry guns will ultimately cost many more lives than it saves.
Israeli music vs Foreign music

Time for a multi-cultural debate! I will be posting Israeli songs (predominantly Mizrahi) and my opponent will be posting foreign (non-Israeli) songs in response to them. Hopefully this'll work. :D"Mizrahi is a genre that combines elements from Europe, the West, and Middle Eastern/North African countries transported to Israel by migrating Jews."Rules:1. I will post one "sad" song, one "upbeat" song, one "religious" song, and one "love" song. My opponent should do the same and the song style must match whatever song they are responding to (for the religious song the specific religion doesn't matter).2. Each of my opponent's songs must be of a different region or cultural influence. What these will be is up to him/her.3. English translated lyrics must be posted with the song. If the translating software does a bad job my opponent is given a pass.4. Trolling is automatic forfeit.5. First round is acceptance.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Israeli music vs Foreign music

Unfortunately, my opponent has misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean "upbeat" in the musical sense. What "upbeat" was actually supposed to mean is happy or cheerful.[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Perhaps I should have clarified what it was before. If my opponent wishes, he may post the happy song as well as the sad one in the final round to make up for it.The only song we have left is the sad one. It is called 'Clouds.' I hope that you will enjoy it.http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics:The clouds covered them,Seeing how my legs failed,My brother abandoned me when I reached out for help,When I shouted "help me, my friend."I will go back to where I was,The nights I spent in secret,My friend, the lie is not worth it,My friend, that is the story of my life.The clouds covered them,Seeing how my legs failed,My brother abandoned me when I reached out for help,When I shouted "help me, my friend."I will go back to where I was,The nights I spent in secret,My friend, the lie is not worth it,My friend, that is the story of my life.I will go back to where I was,The nights I spent in secret,My friend, the lie is not worth it,My friend, that is the story of my life.I look forward to my opponent's response.
Israeli music vs Foreign music

My song will be the upbeat and happy one, titled 'From the Sky. '. http://www.youtube.com...Chorus: Falling from the sky like drops of water,gives me a love that tickles the soul. Lyrics:(chorus)I'm sitting by myself,waiting for you just to come and say you're mine,I want you to hug me tightly again,And not forget that a love like this comes once in a lifetime. (chorus x2)I'm yours, only yours,I fulfill all my nicest dreams with you,I want you to hug me tightly again,And not forget that a love like this comes once in a lifetime. (chorus x2)How I want you to hug me tightly,And not forget that a love like this comes once in a lifetime. From the sky. .. (All the lines about love are references to skydiving). I await my opponent's song.
Israeli music vs Foreign music

My opponent has responded with an excellent video, although since there is no consensus on when Zoroaster lived, the world's earliest monothiestic religion was likely Atenism (a variation of the Egyptian pantheon).In this round I will post the romantic song. It is called 'Off the coast of Portugal' and is considered a classic in Israel.http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics:I was searching for love my whole life,I traveled on a lonely ship,I crossed continents and seas,And there was no loving woman.At a small port on the coast of Portugal,By the lighthouse she waited for me,The waves brought me luck,I found by her a safe haven.And tonight I'll be back,Like a butterfly to a flower,I am her guest,This night is important,I know I found love.She took me to the alleys of the village,She said to me "Here we'll live forever,You sailed enough for me,I want a husband and not a guest.""For you, anything, my love,I'll sell the boat now,I will build you a lighthouse of love,And around it walls of gold."And tonight I'll be back ...It is Con's turn.
Israeli music vs Foreign music

I've already listened to enough western style music. So I'm going to focus on more eastern style of music (Chinese, Middle East, India, etc.) While radically different from what people are used to...it should be interesting. The earliest monotheistic religion present in the world was not Judaism. No. It was in fact, Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrian Holy Hymns are known as the Gathas. This is the first 15 verses of the first Gatha. An extremely powerful prayer, at the very least, it should open your mind. I am not going to be able to copy and paste this into here as it is kind of long, but, if you want the text there you go: http://www.zarathushtra.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Israeli music vs Foreign music

My first song is the religious one. . http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics: If I do not raise up,If I do not raise upJerusalemat the head of my happiness,at the head, at the head of my happinessIf I forget thee O'Jerusalem,May you forget my right arm,May my tongue wither,If I do not rememberIf I do not raise up,If I do not raise upJerusalemat the head of my happiness,at the head, at the head of my happiness 3xI eagerly await my opponent's response.
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

"In my debate on one going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like, bench tried cluttering my debate with a bunch of stupid quantum mechanics. It did not work. Because I am immune to shenanigans."If it didnt work then how come you didnt end up winning that debate? ;D"I had a clear consensus on what I was defining as a bitch. I never resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like what everyone initially thinks when they thing of what a bitch is," I resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like a bitch.""You resolved that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a b*tch, I argued that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like a b*tch. We both have succeeded and failed to some extent. "1. During this debate, I have only had the burden to prove that Whoopi looked like a bitch in one qualification, therefore looking like a bitch. This I have done without refutation."And I only had to prove that Whoopi does not look like a b*tch in TWO qualifications. This I have done without refutation"My definition of bitch prevails because it comes from a credible resource, rather than a bench."Well I know im not credible, but these sources which provide ALL the definitions of a b*tch dohttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...https://www.vocabulary.com..."It's not about whether she IS a bitch, it's about whether she LOOKS like a bitch."Right. And you have dropped all my arguments about how Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about every little thing or someone who does demeaning tasks for someone else. "Assuming that's what my opponent meant, if she both looks like and doesn't look like a bitch, then she looks like a bitch"Thats like saying that if Obama is both white and black, then he is only white.... Which is just irrational to claim. "If we've both met and not met our burdens of proof, then we've both met our burdens of proof."But you also havent met your burden of proof at the same time, which you choose to ignore and simply dismiss as irrelevant. "Since Con admitted that I've met my burden of proof, this debate is basically over."Except I havent ;)============================================================================================You cannot simply ignore all the definitions of a 'b*tch' when claiming that someone does or doesnt look like a b*tch in the same way that one does not simply walk into mordor. Not only has gingervitis over here NOT met his bop on why Whoopi Goldberg looks like a whiny b*tch or why she looks like someone elses b*tch, he has also flat out denied the other valid definitions of b*tch for the sake of preserving his own arguments. Does Whoopi Goldberg look like:A dog b*tch? ================ YesA whiny b*tch =============== NoSomeone elses b*tch? ======== NoThe final score is 1 Yes to 2 No's, therefore Whoopi Goldberg does NOT look like a b*tch
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

Rebuttal (Again)"Yes, but then people like me come in with the sole attention of f*cking it up ;D" *intention.That said, this is not the first time bench has tried to f*ck up one of my debates. In my debate on one going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like, bench tried cluttering my debate with a bunch of stupid quantum mechanics. It did not work. Because I am immune to shenanigans."But im arguing that since there isnt a clear consensus on what a b*tch is then Whoopi Goldberg must look like a b*tch in what everyone initially thinks when they think of what a 'b*tch' is."I had a clear consensus one what I was defining as a bitch. I never resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like what everyone initially thinks when they thing of what a bitch is," I resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like a bitch.""you technically havent met your BoP since there is a more commonly used definition of [bitch] that Whoopi Goldberg doesnt satisfy, and therefore wouldnt be gay." There are three places where my opponent went wrong here:1. I provided a solid definition in Round 2. During this debate, I have only had the burden to prove that Whoopi looked like a bitch in one qualification, therefore looking like a bitch. This I have done without refutation.2. The definition presented comes from Random House Dictionary in 2013. The definition my opponent provided (someone who works for Romney) is one used by what he calls the "common person." My definition of bitch prevails because it comes from a credible resource, rather than a bench.3. Had my opponent played the common person card in Round 2, it would have at least been worth refuting. Rather, in Round 2, Con simply threw forward some definitions with no reason why they were better."You argue that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a dog, and you are correct in that."Vote Pro. "I argue that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about stupid stuff or does demeaning tasks for someone else, and I am also correct in that."Congratulations. But my opponent is still not arguing against what I am arguing. If he's not doing that, then he's not refuting the resolution. Since he's not refuting the resolution, the resolution stands without a dent and Pro wins."Since there are multiple definitions of b*tch, Whoopi Goldberg can both be and not be a b*tch"It's not about whether she IS a bitch, it's about whether she LOOKS like a bitch.Assuming that's what my opponent meant, if she both looks like and doesn't look like a bitch, then she looks like a bitch. Case closed, I'm going back to bed."Pro and I have met and not met our burdens of proof over whether or not Whoopi Goldberd does or doesnt look like a ... b*tch."In this specific debate, if Pro meets his burden of proof, he wins.If we've both met and not met our burdens of proof, then we've both met our burdens of proof.If we've both met our burdens of proof, then I've met my burden of proof.Since Con admitted that I've met my burden of proof, this debate is basically over.Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch.
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

"Au contraire. I rarely do troll debates. Often times, I make a silly resolution, but I take it quite seriously. This debate is no exception."Yes, but then people like me come in with the sole attention of f*cking it up ;D"In order to have Whoopi look like a b!tch, she needs to look like A b!tch, not ALL b!tches."But im arguing that since there isnt a clear consensus on what a b*tch is then Whoopi Goldberg must look like a b*tch in what everyone initially thinks when they think of what a 'b*tch' is. If the resolution was 'Whoopi Goldberg looks really gay', and you define gay by its less commonly used definition as 'joyfully happy', then you technically havent met your BoP since there is a more commonly used definition of Gay that Whoopi Goldberg doesnt satisfy, and therefore wouldnt be gay. "Regardless, my opponent's lone contention has fallen if it even stood up at all, and the resolutions still stands"You argue that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a dog, and you are correct in that.I argue that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about stupid stuff or does demeaning tasks for someone else, and I am also correct in that. Since there are multiple definitions of b*tch, Whoopi Goldberg can both be and not be a b*tch.... Since b*tch has multiple definitions, it means people can both be and not be real b*tches..... For example: GWL whines like a little b*tch but he may not look like a b*tchFox News Anchors b*tch frequently about menial things but they dont look like b*tchesObama has to cater to Democratic voters like a b*tch but he doesnt look like one. Libertarians are the b*tches of Rand Paul but chances are they dont b*tch about everything in politics (although many of them do)Iraq is America's b*tch since we demeaned them, but since Iraq is a country it certainly doesnt look like a b*tchThe national debt is a real b*tch that wont go away but the national debt doesnt look like a b*tchThe person at the DMV acts like a b*tch but she certainly isnt anyones actual b*tchThe hooker who stands on the road prostituting herself is somebody's b*tch but she doesnt act or look like a b*tchPeople can both be and not be a b*tch at the same time, so that means both Pro and I have met and not met our burdens of proof over whether or not Whoopi Goldberd does or doesnt look like a huge b*tch.