BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a sad approach to life

The existence of the Lord has been debated for all times, and is not something I consider worthy of discussion. I know what I believe and I accept everyone else believing whatever they want. However, I am interested in the debate about life fulfilment, and if a life can be complete and happy without a relationship to the Lord. This question is the foundation of a group of other subjects; such as the duty of missionary work and our call to spread happiness to others who is yet to get to know the spirit. How can a life without any answers be a happy life? How can a life that starts and ends with our presence on earth be a meaningful one? How can decisions be easy and right without a moral to guide you? And how can there be comfort in expecting nothing else but decomposition and nothingness after this life is over? I would be happy if my opponent consider him/herself an atheist. I am not interested in debating this to prove a point or win. I want to share my view on happiness and how to achieve it, and I want to hear the other point of view and learn from it. I am pro in this debate: Meaning that I do not believe there can be true happiness without serving the Lord. My opponent will be con: Meaning that he/she does believe there can be true happiness without serving the Lord. Sorry for bad English. Good luck.
Homosexuality is a Choice

Thanks to my opponent. I will go ahead and jump right in. So to prove that homosexuality is a choice one need only look to society. There exist' a large (presumably numbering in the thousands) group of formerly gay individuals who claim to be living quite happily as now heterosexuals. There are also those who were heterosexual and have now chosen to be gay and are living happy lives in their new sexuality. They're motivation for making this change is irrelevant as their mere existence is proof that sexuality is a choice. A common method for opponents to attempt to debunk this fact, is to say that surely they are just in denial, or suppressing their true sexuality. This is easily dismissed as irrelevant as well since if even one of those formerly gay people is not lying, the only alternative is that sexuality is indeed a choice. I would argue that unless my opponent can prove that all formerly gay people are lying than it must be accepted that homosexuality is a choice and sexuality is not static. It is also necessary to consider the implications of sexuality not being fluid (not a choice). Pedophiles for instance cannot be treated because they are told that their sexual attractions are not able to be changed. Are we then to be accepting of pedophiles who remain abstinent? After all if they are abstinent who are they hurting? We must also explore the claim that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. This, like the other arguments which claim no choice, has a huge hole in the rationale. Jason Collins has an identical twin, Jaron, who was "astounded" to discover that his brother had entered into the homosexual lifestyle. If sexuality were predetermined, not a choice, and they share their genetic make up, the only conclusion one can logically draw is that it was obviously a choice for Jason, as Jaron is not gay. To conclude I would say that as it is impossible for my opponent to prove that sexuality is genetic, or biological since the evidence is inconclusive at best; we must use reason and logic, which dictate unequivocally that sexuality is fluid and not static. With all due respect, you may reject one of these arguments but you cannot in good conscience reject all. http://isites.harvard.edu... http://socialinqueery.com... http://www.americanthinker.com... http://www.thenation.com...# The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011).
Homosexuality is a Choice

PrefaceThis debate arose out of a discussion in the forums; the resolution is the same as the title of the debate. Here is a link to the forum thread that has spawned this debate [. http://www.debate.org...] I hope that this will be a civil, engaging discussion and a learning experience for both of us; I ask that my opponent keep and open mind while prosecuting this debate and I will endeavor to do the same. Thank you. VotingThis is a no-voting debate; please do not vote on this debate unless one of the three conditions below is met. An ELO restriction of 5,000 has been placed on this debate to make it hard for any votes to be placed as well. Voting may occur if (1) one or both parties participate in severe breaches of conduct (personal attacks, swearing, name-calling, gratuitously insulting arguments or people, etc. ), (2) one or both parties forfeit a round or rounds, or (3) Pro does not post arguments in round one or uses R4 to advance his arguments instead of passing on that round. The exceptions are designed to ensure fairness and to ensure civility. Rules1. Remain civil and polite2. No forfeiting3. Pro MUST present his case in R1; it is not for acceptance.4. Pro MUST not present arguments in R4 in order to keep things even. StructureR1: Pro presents argumentsR2: Con presents arguments, Pro rebutsR3: Con rebuts, Pro defends his caseR4: Con defends his caseThanks.
Why Perseus is the best mythological Greek hero of all time.

Not only did Perseus kill powerful mermaids like Medusa, he also managed to kill the Kraken (A super-powerful sea beast sent from the one and only sea god, Poseidon) with no help except for the deceased head of Medusa. This is a true act of heroic bravery because by doing so, Perseus ended up saving Andromeda (princess who was forced to death by the king and queen, her parents). Did Jason, Theseus, or Hercules do anything as brave as that? Ever? In comparison to Theseus, Theseus was selfish and did not care, at all, about his family. In contrast, Perseus was extremely loyal to his family, so much so that he, Perseus, risked his life to save his mother, Dana". Also, this is a debate, so it is always opinions being partially backed by questionable facts. Please, understand that I respect the partially heroic deeds committed by Hercules, but, he did not even do it by himself, as Perseus always had. This shows that he, Perseus, is the strongest and most heroic mythological god or goddess.
Why Perseus is the best mythological Greek hero of all time.

Perseus is not the best mythological greek hero because there are many other heroes in greek mythology who should receive credit for killing crazy evil stuff (chimera, sphinx, etc.) In fact, Hercules is named as one of the best heroes in greek mythology. He is well-known and had many victories during wars. But I do not understand if this is a question that will impact our society. We are talking about mythology which is also fiction. It is as if you are comparing that I like smarties but you like coffee crips more. It is not a relevant question because it is purely based on opinions. I may like one thing and you like another. I hope this has told you that it does not matter what I think about Perseus or what you think about him.
Why Perseus is the best mythological Greek hero of all time.

Perseus is the number one best mythological hero of all time for many reasons. Not only is he the son of Zeus (the king god of the universe) and killed a crazy mermaid called medusa (the one with snakes for hair), he also showed much compassion by helping out someone that he did not even know. He, Perseus, is much better than Jason because although he was trusted to receive gifts from the gods, he was given them in ready-to-use condition, unlike how Perseus had to figure out the best possible uses for his minimal objects that he received. And according to greekmythology.com, neither Jason nor Theseus are actually listed as mythological HEROES, although they were listed on the site, proving that the previously mentioned 'heroes' are not really heroes at all. As well as that, if you look at things in the sky, the only one of these three gods you will find currently represented as a constellation is, of course, the best hero, Perseus. As you can see, Perseus really is the best hero ever.
God was a homophobe

I believe that god was a homophobe. In the bible it clearly says 'man and woman' meaning that he is against both male and female falling In love with the same sex. If god wasn't a homophobe then why would it be a sin to be gay? If two people are happily in love with each other then why should they be classed as sinners, surely god would want people to be happy and not feel guilty for loving the same sex
Hiroshima was not nuked

Comic Sans Case Juan: Juan is a mexican name therefore the donald trump rule dictates that it is invalid.Case two: i met that guy, he was a lair.Case tree: no Buenorebuttals(ahah "butts")let it be noted that Pro has dropped all arguements. (ahah "ments")notice how my arguements are in this box of Comic Sans. So one could say my argruements are "in" Comic Sans.Comic Sans
Hiroshima was not nuked

Case 1:Pro is HitlerPro is Hitler because I say so and I can never be wrong because I say I can never be wrong. dont vote for Hitler, vote con. Case 2:Pro likes cheese. You can't trust someone who likes cheese. vote ConCase 3:in kings 69:69 The bible says to always vote con. If you dont think that kings 69:69 says always vote Con then you interpreted the passage incorrectly. Case: 4:BoP does not exist.
Hiroshima was not nuked

Contención Juan: Mi oponente no ha logrado demostrar de forma clara su posición. I que se muestra la forma en Hiroshima no fue bombardeado porque sé que los japoneses que saben las personas japonesas de Hiroshima.Contención dos: avatar Mi rival es un sombrero de fieltro, mi oponente es más, obviamente, un Judio. No tengo nada en contra de Judios, que sólo poner por ahí.Contención tres: ¿Habla español?Refutación: si bueno* Gotas de micrófono *
LGBT rights and marriage should be universally legal.

I understand that the USA is a free country and everyone can do as he wishes and not pass the border line of the law....and many countries have also accepted LGBT's and have supported their rights. But some countries just cant. A country that is politically known as an Islamic country e.g. (Egypt/ Saudi Arabia/ Morocco/ Algeria etc.) cannot accept the rights of LGBT's. This is because the Islamic religion doesn't allow LGBT rights to be protected (we will not go into why the Islamic religion doesn't accept LGBT's), and so countries listed above and more cannot accept these rights. No one in the world has the right to contradict countries policies unless they are killing people for the sake of it. No one in the world has the right to start a movement and force a country to accept the rights of LGBT's.... because its non of your business....its not your country... and these are not your people.... so keep your eyes on your country and leave the rest alone...
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

The following is in order of my opponent's paragraphs:I do not need to state this. That is a main component to debate. Without evidence, claims are merely opinion and invalid. My opponent uses opinion in his logic arguments and are thus invalid. My opponent has yet to state an argument with statistic (until his most recent argument), while from the very beginning I have had both logic and evidence arguments. My opponent has merely stated sources, he has not proved the sources are valid or tied them to the debate. His sources are merely stated and not tied to any argument. In fact, if my opponent read his articles, he would realize that they mention self-management as a skill learned from professionals. His first source states:"Many people are using self-management without realising it, but formal self-management skills can be learnt on courses, usually run by people with direct experience of mental ill health. "His second source states a program run by professionals in order to help in self-management:"Several manualized self-management programs have been developed in recent years, but perhaps the most widely disseminated is Mary Ellen Copeland’s Wellness Recovery Action Planning known as WRAP (Copeland 1997). "Thus, my opponents sources back me up. Not only this, but his sources have nothing to do with the public school system. Ignorance? That's very mature to insult me during the debate. I am currently studying psychiatry and the effects of the brain. My opponent states that his ADHD gives him credit in the field, but I am actually studying this along side professionals. Clearly I know what I am talking about. Mental disorders can be managed to the point where they no longer are evident in the person's life. "Cured" is defined as "relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition. " This is able to be achieved by medicine and therapy, however only if the disease is recognized. As I stated in my original argument, undiagnosed mental disorders is a serious problem that can be managed in our school system alongside the physical testing of eyes, ears, height, and weight. Again, my opponent merely stated sources. He or she did not tie them to arguments or the debate at hand. Asylums and madmen have been a major part of history. This is common knowledge. I realize that they have varying degrees. I mention this is my first argument using the proof of ADHD. The government pays for the nurses currently in schools, so the nurses that are already being paid for could administer the testing (as they are qualified as professional nurses).
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

First, allow me to note that my opponent had failed to state that "claims without evidence are invalid and are ignored throughout the debate" in the preliminary round. Second, while I find it extremely myopic of my opponent to disregard the logic of my arguments in favour of evidence, I will take up the challenge. Evidence for self-management of mental disorders sources are: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk... http://mentalhealthrecovery.com... I would also like to note that my opponent has displayed ignorance of mental disorders and their effects. While it is true that mental disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance of the brain, my opponent likens it to the common cold by saying that it can be cured. The fact is, mental disorders are more similar to cancer. They are mainly genetic in origin and hence cannot be cured. They can only be managed. It is true that doctors can manage mental disorders, but what kind of doctors? In my own case, a psychologist diagnosed my ADHD and a psychiatrist is helping me to manage it. My argument is supported by these sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://psychcentral.com... http://www.cchr.org... I will also reiterate the fact that people have been managing their mental disorders throughout history. If they were so uncontrollable that self-management is out of the question, we would then have a lot more mental asylum patients and many more cases of historic "madmen". I will also extend my argument that mental disorders have varying degrees. My earlier example of myself and a friend of mine both having ADHD with myself as more inattentive and my friend as more hyperactive remains. This is a simple comparison which illustrates my point. The fact that my opponent has ignored this point implies that he agrees with it which calls into question his/her entire argument. An additional argument I shall make is that it is expensive to hire psychologists and/or psychiatrists to evaluate the mental condition of so many students and in so many schools. It stands to reason that were the school to subsidise the entire operation, they would hire professionals with a low fee. This in turn calls into question the competency of the doctor and reliability of the results. If the students were to pay for the screening, it would alienate students from a financially unstable background as they would be forced to pay psychologist fees in addition to school fees which many people are currently struggling to afford. Hence, as my opponent has demonstrated his/her lack of knowledge in the area of mental disorders and also a lack of concern for the expense of the operation, you should vote for opposition.
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

The following paragraphs correspond with the order of my opponents paragraphs/arguments:My opponent does not understand that claims without evidence are invalid and are ignored throughout the debate. I urge my opponent to find proof or evidence that all schools employ counselors. Besides, "Ought" is defined as "used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like" by dictionary. com. This explains nothing about "needing" to do something, it is simply just and moral. I urge my opponent to find any proof or evidence that mental health screening, the helpful finding and curing of mental illness, encourages depression. One cannot learn to manage a mental illness by his or her self. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain that must be cured by professional help. Mental disorders are manageable with help from doctors. Again, my opponent makes nothing by opinionated, unsupported statements.
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

My opponent operates under the mistaken belief that statistics are the be all and end all of debates. Yes, there is a trend. However, we have answered the question of "Is there a link" and not "What is the link". My opponent has also stated that we NEED to help people with Mental disorders. However, the purpose of school is to teach students how to be self-reliant and to solve their own problems. I suggest the counter-policy of presenting the OPTION for professional help to be provided. I repeat, enforcing that help only serves to remove our basic right to choose and prevents students from finding their own solution. As a matter of fact, schools already employ a counsellor who's job is to help students with disciplinary issues. Additionally, I would like to reiterate my earlier point that the mental disorder itself is not the cause of depression or suicide. Rather, this mental health screening might itself cause depression among students. No one likes to be told that something is wrong with them. The ability to manage oneself cannot be taught and each individual must learn through a process of trial and error what works for them. My opponent has failed to acknowledge that many people are capable of managing their mental disorders which is why they have only become prevalent to date. I find it logical to assume that, had mental disorders been as unmanageable as stated by my opponent, their prevalence throughout history would have been better documented. If mental disorders are so unmanageable, I think our society would fall apart as statistically, 25% of the global population have mental disorders (http://www.who.int...). Hence, enforcing mental health screening only serves to kill one of the key purposes of education which is to learn self-reliance. Instead, this screening should be presented as an option to be taken by worried parents. Again, I will reiterate my point that many people are capable of managing their mental disorders and that new subjects will be unable to learn how they can manage theirs if they rely on others. For these reasons, I am proud to oppose.
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

My opponent has created false accusations. I claimed that Dylan Klebold was a depressive; I believe my opponent is referring to Eric Harris.My opponent claims that if there was no gun it would solve the problem, however Dylan and Eric actually created their own pipe bombs in order to commit the act. The shooting was meant to blow up the entire school and not simply be a shooting.He or she has presented no evidence to his or her claim, making an unsupported opinion that it would create a feeling of "something wrong" with those with mental illness. However, with any illness, there is something wrong with the victim. There is a biological unbalance of neurotransmitters in those with mental illness; there is something biologically wrong. They need help. Which is why you must vote con.I have accounted to moderate cases. I present ADHD, your example of a moderate case.I have not failed to draw a connection, as I present statistics that connect them. The claims my opponent states to contradict me are not supported by numbers and thus are an unsupported claim that should not be considered. I make claims to connect the subjects of suicide and depression and drug abuse with multiple sources and statistics (see my first argument).My opponent conclusion makes nothing by unsupported fact and opinion. You must vote in my favor.
United States Public Schools Ought to Require Mental Health Testing for its Students

Challenge accepted. Ok, now where were we? My opponent has attributed the Dylan Klebold case to his psychopathy. I prefer to attribute it to the lax gun control laws in America. If there was no gun, he would not have been able to conduct that school shooting. However, informing him of his psychopathy might have prompted a fit of rage followed by hysterics and drama. So let me just start off by saying that it's fundamentally wrong to put such mistrust on people. By mandating Mental Health Screening, we are sending the message that something is wrong with kids with Mental health issues. It breeds the pass/fail mentality which alienates many youths from their respective communities. It is up to the parents to decide whether or not they wish to screen their child's mental health. If the school were to enforce it, it takes away our basic right to choose. Additionally, mental health issues can have various degrees. In my own case, I possess ADHD with less hyperactive, more attention deficit. However, a friend of mine who is also ADHD is more hyperactive than inattentive. These varying degrees make it extremely difficult to judge whether or not problems will actually arise. I think that in your argument, you refer only to extreme cases and have failed to account for more moderate cases. You have also failed to draw the link between depression/suicide/drug abuse and mental disorders. Therefore, I argue that suicide and drug abuse cases arise mainly due to circumstance rather than mental disorders. Abused children are more likely to experience depression, commit suicide or do drugs due to their situation rather than a mental condition. Rather, sociopaths are less likely to care due to their nihilistic nature and ADHD is really not that big of a deal. Speaking as a person with ADHD, the biggest problem is inattentiveness which is by no means a reason for me to kill myself or go into depression. In conclusion, the varying degrees of mental disorders combined with the fundamental error of removing our right to choose are 2 reasons why mental health screening should not be carried out. Furthermore, mental disorders are not the leading causes of suicide, drug abuse or depression. Instead, circumstance is the main cause of these misfortunes.