BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should remain a legal standing law.

"Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy,most often performed during the first 28 weeks" My fellow debater I believe you will agree with me that we cannot talk about ABORTION without talking about pregnancy and of course women get pregnant because of unprotected sex. so you see the connections between the three,I believe also that you will agree with me that we might say that most women abort because of unwanted pregnancy but we fail to ask what makes them have this unwanted pregnancy, the answer is UNPROTECTED sex and not UNWANTED SEX. In this juncture, I would like to outline some of the reason below why I believe that if "Abortion should be a legal standing law" it will be disastrous to human existence. 1-since it is a crime to kill a full grown person punishable by law,it is also a crime to kill an innocent yet unborn child who knows neither about you having unprotected sex nor your ability to save a life. 2-According to WHO most of the women who do abortion end up dead,and in such case we lost two people,one being innocent and the other a cruel witch. 3-A country with high abortion rate will end up with economic difficulties as there will be low work force compared to country with have legal laws that punished women who are guilty of such act. 4-We are disobeying God the creator of human soul by destroying an innocent child thus, violating the law "thou shall not kill" 5-Most women that have abort a child end up destroying their womb, and so doing she will not be able to give birth any more and she will never be happy with herself,then she will end abducting a child. 6-If a woman has the gut to destroy an innocent child's life who has done her mother no harm are Ruthlessly killed how much more for her to kill full grown individual. 7-My fellow debater you will agree with me that if not for the love of your mother who did not abort you for any reason other than the love she had for you, you will not be here today debating on this topic. To crown it all,your point that if a woman is not prepare for a child should abort the child doesn't make sense because if you are not prepare for a child then you should not have sex,but if you did, don't destroy life because there are people or NGO's or Government agencies that will take care of that future leader that a Barbarian of a mother has destroyed. I believe that people at home will surely agree with my views,Thanks once more.
Abortion should remain a legal standing law.

Women should be able to determine their own future. It is ultimately the woman"s decision whether or not she should bring a child into the world. This is important because only she knows whether or not she is capable of bringing a child into the world. I believe that the abortion law should remain standing. Pros: 1). Reproductive choice empowers women, allowing them to take control over their body. 2). Women who receive abortion are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. 3). Allow women to have an option to choose not to bring fetuses with abnormalities to full term. 4). Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, be on welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. 5). Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. 6). A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 7). Abortion reduces welfare costs to tax payers.
Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America.

I'm really surprised to see this case brought up and not an ignorant, prejudice one. This is an intelligent rebuttal that I disagree with and I thank you for a debate instead of a hate speech. I. Congress The United States Congress has the right to allow same sex marriage unless the states ban it otherwise. If the state chooses not to recognize these marriages, then the marriage will be outlawed. II. The Supreme Court A. The United States Supreme Court can pass an ammendment to protect the right to marriage for all human couples. This has been done to grant African-Americans citizenship and the right to vote for several peoples. More civil rights can be given with the power of the Supreme Court. B. Many states simply will not recognize this fundamental right of human couples. They should be forced to recognize this marriage like they recognize interracial marriages by federal law. C. IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth ammendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." III. National Level Progress "If this were to go on a national level, both sides would weigh out. Then, nothing would get done anywhere because the two sides balance themselves, even though most people in Minnesota would want it." A. The case implies that it should be done, which implies that it will be done. We are debating whether it should be done or not and nothing more. B. Democrats have a majority in Congress and it looks like they will have a bigger lead after more special election results have come in like in Mississipi. Also, it is very likely that the president will be a democrat and if the Congress legalizes same sex marriage, then the president will likely follow suit and will not use veto power against his Democratic allies, despite minor differences in opinion. C. For a very long time, interracial marriages were disallowed in the United States of America. Many southern states continued this trend until the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to discriminate in marriages. This was a unanimous vote to overturn discrimination in differing race marriages. You no longer have to patiently await your opponent's response. I hope all the judges vote PRO for better debater and more logical position. Thank you. :)
Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America.

Good day, Ladies and Gentelmen. I'd first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I'd also like to ask that the voters based on the arguments presented, and not on on your personal opinion. With that said, I will now move onto my case. My opponent makes a good case. Homosexuals have every right to get married. It is perfectly natural. HOWEVER, that does not mean it should be federally legalized. Moreover, this should be a state issue, not nation. The main reason why it should not be federal is this: Amendment 10 to the constitution of the United States of America. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution gives powers and restrictions to the national government in articles 1, 2, and 3. Marriage liscences are not within these powers. Hence, the power belongs to the state, NOT the federal government. Another reason why state control would be better is for more of a community outlook. A liberal state, like Minnesota, where I live, would almost certainly legalize homosexual marriages (provided we get a new governer). However, a state like Texas, where Republicans double the number of Democrats, would not. This is because people in certain areas have mainly similar political outlooks. If this were to go on a national level, both sides would weigh out. Then, nothing would get done anywhere because the two sides balance themselves, even though most people in Minnesota would want it. Because of these two reasons, I negate "Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America." I patiently await my opponent's response.
Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America.

My opponent forfeits his last round. Please extend all my arguments into this round. Since they were not rebuttaled, you have no choice but to vote CON. Walking through the city, looking oh so pretty, I've just got to find my way. See the ladies flashing. All there legs and lashes. I've just got to find my way. Well you see me crawling through the bushes with it open wide. What you seeing girl? Can't you believe that feeling, can't you believe it, Can't you believe your eyes? It's the real thing girl. Got me feeling myself and reeling around, Got me talking but feel like walking around. Got me feeling myself and reeling a... Got me talking but nothing's with me... Got me feeling myself and reeling around.
Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America.

I will go straight down the flow. I. My opponent says this: < > However, this is simply not the case. As I have shown you, Amendment 10 of the Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Marriage liscenses are not in the constitution. Hence, it should be a state issue, not national. II. My opponent makes the claim that there should be a constitutional amendment for gay marriage. As I have previously said, this would be nearly impossible, as there will always be two sides on the issue. Like my analogy before, if all the liberals in Minnesota and all the conservatives in Texas meet each other nationally, there will never be 2/3's of congress in support of the amendment. Also, I'd like to add that if marriage liscences were mandated by the Fed, it would take longer for people to get them, they would be harder to get, and it could possibly raise prices and taxes. People would need to submit their letters to the national government, which takes our leaders months to read, review, and send back. Following a simple state approach, however, the process is much eaiser, and it would avoid these problems. Finally, this really isn't something the national government needs to deal with. This would put to much power in the federal government's hands. The 10th amendment was put in place so the federal government COULDN'T control social issues like this one. Otherwise, the could overpower any state decisions. III. <> PRO contradicts himself in point B. I disagree with point A because that is not mentioned in the resolution. It states, "Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America." Obviously sgould is a typo, but what is he saying? Should or would? We don't know. For the sake of this debate, I was under the pretences that both were acceptable. It's his fault if he meant to say 'should.' Anyway, he still contraidicts himself saying this: < > ALTHOUGH THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE THE MAJORITY, the do NOT have the 2/3's majority needed to pass an amendment. It would get done. This is PRO's point C: < > Intresting. I didn't know that. Back to the debate----> Going back to my reasoning, I believe that the power of marriage should be kept to the states. Although gays have a right to marry, it is irrational to believe that it would ever be legalized in Congress or even that it should. Marriage liscences, contracts, and prenups are not mentioned in the constitution, and thus their power belongs to the states. Also, management by the state would make it easier, cheaper, and quicker to get a marraige liscence. Thank you, I Re-patiently await my opponent's rebuttal.
Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

Before I start can I please ask for u to not space out your writing so much it hurts my eyes, Thank you. So you are using that fact that the Bible talks about some of the commandments being bad to disprove my claim. Next you asked then what commandments should you follow. Now my answer is to search the Bible. Now when I did this is what I found. Next thing are you trying to say that the KJV is wrong if so call at the people at the stores selling them, I'd love to record it. Also I'm not Catholic nor do I believe Judaism, I'm a Pentecostal Christian. Romans 13:8 - 10 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet,"[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law This is showing that all we must do in order to fulfill is love one another like we love our self (or at least as we should love our self). This is the only way to fulfill the commandments. Therefore it's not a matter of what commandments should I read its a matter of how do I fulfill the law (which is by Love). Next I feel as if I worded it round in round 2. What I meant about it's okay to interpret the scripture is that it's okay to put some of the things in the bible into your own words (this is as long as it still has the same message). Like for example if you don't understand something or your talking to someone who probably wouldn't understand it's alright if you put it into your own words to explain what's going on. The time that interpreting the Bible is wrong is when there interpretation has a whole different message than what is in the Bible
Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

In the bible Romans 15:4 saysFor whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. This proves that the bible is without fault. Then you asked for proof of why the bible should be interpreted. Now the bible should be interpreted but only with Godly knowledge, only wisdom from God can be used to interpret the bible. Now proof for why it is okay for us to interpret the bible is for example Jesus spoke in parables so that we would have to search deeper into his words, and so that we would be able to see what he was saying in our own way.
Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

Thanks for accepting!@Pro.R1.1 - "Actually scripture was meant to be interpreted."Con.R2.1 - What is the textual basis for this?@Pro.R1.2 - "Yes biblical texts do require the belief that the bible is without fault."Con.R2.2 - What is the textual basis for this?And also, "Therefore it is true that Biblical Texts do require the belief that the scripture is without error."
Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

Actually scripture was meant to be interpreted. But this doesn't mean that we are saying that the bible is of fault. Yes biblical texts do require the belief that the bible is without fault. Now many may say that then this means that Christians must still obey EVERYTHING written in the old testament but this is also wrong because in the bible in Romans it clearly states that Christians are no longer under the law but under the grace. Therefore it is true that Biblical Texts do require the belief that the scripture is without error. Though biblical texts require this belief still it doesn't mean that then it is wrong for us to take the bible into our own interpretations.
Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

Rules, (or Subject to Moderator Reset):1. Scope: Debate does not include whether Scripture is actually inerrant, but rather : if it demands a belief in inerrancy.2. Definition: "Scripture" should be understood following a "plain-meaning" understanding of a definition that Christian/Jewish Biblical texts provide.3. Well-Informed, Substantiated Arguments : Applying proper hermeneutics based on Christian or Jewish Biblical texts; (No arguments from various traditions/doctrines).4. Numbered Arguments: For reference. (e.g., R1.C.1 = Round 1, Con, Argument 1; etc).5. Burden of Proof : Pro - to assert the references where Scripture demands such a belief. Con - to refute interpretation, translation, or relevance of such references.Round 1 - Con Argument:R1.C.1. There is insufficient textual basis to suggest that either Jews or Christians must accept that Scripture, (as it has been preserved today) - is the "Inerrant Word of God" .R1.C.2. And, if Scripture acknowledges its own errancy, and a necessity to rely on greater sources of truth - then Christians/Jews should not be required to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
boo i hate the news

You say boring news should be replaced with wrestling, however, who determines what constitutes boring news? To some people, the excitement is about Little Spears or who adopted a child from Uganda this week. To some people it is the coverage of the absurdity of politics and the occasional real issue. You seem to think that all news is boring from your comments that both politics, the weather, and entertainment news is all boring. So if we changed CNN to the WWEN and had all wrestling, all the time, people may be even less informed than they are now because they are too busy watching Triple H power slam Mankind through a steel cage.....What happens when people become too bored with wrestling?
The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.

Your argument was weak. Anyhows, I am now going to post my argument.The fossil recordWhile evolutionists like to use the fossil record as their evidence, the record doesn't speak for itself. While we can make logical guesses on how they came here, it's more valid if we have a written true story of someone who was there. Yahweh was there and he has told people to write his stories in the bible of a written account of the past. The fossils everywhere is evidence of a global wide flood. A flood could have altered the terrain and thrown fossils everywhere.The transitional forms discovered could easily be the offspring of mixbreeding monkeys and humans. There's such a thing called a liger but do we say that tigers evolved from lions? No. Radiometric DatingRadiometric dating is dating used to determine the age of rocks by measuring the amount of radioactive decay. However, we don't know the initial conditions of the rock or the decay rate. This falsified radiometric dating.It's the same evidence, different interpretations.I mentioned before, the fossil record and all is all evidence of the past and our origins. However, you can't know for sure what happened by naturalism using observational science. An evolutionist who believes in billions of years and darwinism would interpret the same evidence as a biblical creaitonist in a DIFFERENT WAY.While we can form intelligent guesses of the past based on historical science, we can't know for sure because you weren't there. Imagine walking into a room with an hourglass. The hourglass may have some sand on the top and some sand on the bottom. However, you can't calculate how much sand was truley at the top. You can make a logical guess but factors such as cracks in the glass and if a person took out sand could highly off throw results. However, there was someone there to account for what was there. That someone was god, he has inspired people to write stories based on his words and they were put all together into the Bible. The bible has proven to be trustworthy and reliable accurate accounts of the past. Evolution Evolution suggests that life came from non-life. However, this has never been observed making evolution not really holding up with science. There is also no observable information in which new information can be added to an organism's genetic code. From going from a fish to an amphibian, new code would have to be added. There is no new code which pretty much disproves evolution.how can evoution happen then? it can't. What we observe is that humans are humans and monkeys are monkeys, and fish are fish. These are 2 scientific evidences against evolution. THe second law of thermodynamics also disprove evolution.Sourceshttp://www.icr.org...
The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.

1- What Evolution Is To discuss evolution it is good to define evolution early on. "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."(1) "Evolution is defined as the process of growth and development or the theory that organisms have grown and developed from past organisms."(2) Evolution is a very slow process. 2-Proof of Evolution An excellent place to start in discussing evolution is the fossil record.(3) The fossil record is a record of all of the fossils that people have found. It is obviously not complete, But what the scientists do have is a pretty clear map.(4) They have clear evidence of change. While it is impossible to have very link, there is very clear evidence of transitional species.(5) 3- Evidence Against Young Earth Creationism Young Earth Creationism tends to suggest that the world is around six thousand years old.(6) Carbon dating is accurate for dating organic or once organic material within thousands of years.(7) In 2,000 it was discovered that modern man has been around much longer than that. Two Homo Sapien skulls in Ethiopia were found dating back 160,000 years(8). And Carbon dating is perfectly valid. Most of its supposed flaws come from people trying to use it to do things that it isn't made to do(7). 1: http://www.nas.edu... 2: http://www.yourdictionary.com... 3: http://www.agiweb.org... 4: http://www.fossilrecord.net... 5: http://biologos.org... 6: https://answersingenesis.org... 7: http://www.icr.org... 8: http://www.berkeley.edu...
The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.

I would like to begin with calling both of our citations into question. Backing evolution is the entire scientific community. You can make any claim that you'd like about propaganda but at the end of the day what they say is something you can hang predictions on. There are some things we cannot yet predict perfectly, like the weather, or anything with which we forget to account for every variable, but there are others we know. If two objects are about to collide and we know the force behind each, the conditions of the environment, and the schematics of each, then we can tell you exactly where everything will go. Police also use science instead of the bible and they can catch a lot of criminals that way. The bible is not a very good source for these things. I cannot use it to catch a criminal, for sure. In fact; it has a bad history with prophecies.(1) 1: http://faithskeptic.50megs.com...
The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.

You seem very confident about your beliefs and like to parade them, so please, allow me to debate you on the issue of evolution. I know that you mentioned carbon dating, but that is a dead horse. Every young Earth creationist I've met has tried to pull that one. This debate will be my millions of years of trial and error against your ten thousand years of divine intervention. As this is posted as a science debate, I expect your citations to be scientific.
Rap Battle #3

Behold, i'm catness: more athletic and cool than Katniss, the Hunger Games are now the Plunder into Shames for my opponent RevNge is wishing he hadn't tried to get revenge! He never will, never has, and is now being taunted, ima poet, he's a rodent! He's a creepy stalker, only goes on DDO cuz he got no job, the blasted little thing is fukking in his room sobbin,' no longer a snob I don't kill nobody, well, maybe i do in the heart like a lynch mob, but I'm smarter den him "bro to open a door you turn the knob!" See, this guy says he can rap and goes into technical explanations, but ran into a door cuz he didn't see it. he got a concussion. 'Blah blah blah' is what I read in his previous arguments, 'Wah wah wah' is what I hear when I walk into his small room apartment!