BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Would Create A UN Standing Army

Re:1. Nationalism" Indeed, what this legislation is asking for, is for countries to be forced into donating an equal amount of troops for a shared goal of being able to enforce it's legislation's against those parties that agreed to them in the first place."This is an ideal goal that will never come to fruition. Sure, everyone is fine with peacekeepers, but when we are talking about a formidable, permanent, large, international standing army, their will be fights, and squabbles over which country get's the most soldiers. Most of the reason for this is that one country may pay more into the U.N than another, and decide that they should get more troops. Also, a unanimous vote is not required. If two superpowers disagree, a standing army to fight over can only spell war and disaster for everyone.2. The goals of the U.NThe outcome would have been different in that war and civilian casulties would have plagued the nation. Any advancement in infrastructure would have been halted, the Rwanda government would have taken minorities hostage, and we would have a situation like Syria in which war and strife destroys the foundation of the nation.3. Finances For a new legislation to create a world wide, permanant military, the funding would need to come from somewhere. The membership fees simply aren't enough. Whether it is through increasing the membership fee, or taking a sum of money from every country, creating this army would unfairly affect those countries that cannot afford the rise in fees and mandatory contributons to the U.N.4. SecurityTurning an already bad situation into a war zone is not security.5. FavoritesIt does not matter how a country could logically be accused of favoritism, because countries will always try to shift the blame off of themselves and onto other, more powerful countries.6. International Law is an agreement between two or more countries. If the agreement is broken, their are other ways to punish beligerentsOver to you, Pro.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

I would Luke to start off saying this is my first debate and I an gay myself. I'm doing this to strengthen my argument. 1. Gay people should not get married because it us against the natural order of things. Since humans began to form society we have been straight and gotten married as a straight man and woman. Until recent years we have lost our heritage has society and have been tricked by gay propaganda to think that being gay is normal. 2. If the gay gene does exist does that mean it us hereditary if so then wouldn't that mean that the biological children of the same sex couple would be gay as well as that children's children and that would spark an increase in homosexuals if do then humanity will eventually die out because sperm banks will be over flooded with demands prices would increase and the human race would stop producing. 3. Separation of church and state is true but so is freedom of speech. People will not agree with gay marriage so they will protest it and have the right to sign petitions and protest against it. Just because things don't go your way doesn't mean it us discrimination just because they are expressing their religious beliefs. 4. The "Love is love" argument is not valid either. I am in live with my dog and my dig loves me. We want legalization of animal and Human marriages. If my dog barks "I do" does that make it right. Well that was painful shoot me now.
Breathing should be Illegal

Well ladies and gentlemen. I believe that my opponent has covered so much ground that I don't even have to provide separate contentions. I'll label all of my points of negation as I'm going through destroy my opponent's case. R1) DeathsMy opponent has systematically given every single one of you guys a death threat. I thought my death threat was bad until I read this contention. In his 6th contention, he even talks about how he thinks your suffering is a good thing. Threatening voters is bad enough, but saying that it's a good thing that they'll suffer and die is like the crappiest thing you can do in a debate. He should lose this debate on that alone.R2) Weeding out the weakClear contradiction with C7. You can't believe in macroevolution and the Bible at the same time. That's just ridiculous.Plus if we were to accept this, we would lose the intake of air, which eliminates half of one of the greatest people in the world, Airmax. This is an atrocity that cannot be supported.R3) Environmental harmsDead bodies produce carbon dioxide. So if everyone dies, we release so much carbond dioxide into the atmosphere that everyone starts dying from heat, then the animals start dying releasing more carbond dioxide, then everything just dies.R4) Shut upBy my opponent's logic, he is a moron. He's not me, so that's the only logical conclusion. Therefore, he should shut up.R6) Increase sufferingNo idea what the crap this means. Romanii is going to have to do a much better job explaining to me why it's good for a baby to suffocate until it dies. I need something more than this crap about a hammer and the fact that people actually do suffer regularly. I don't even know what that proves.C7) The BibleI didn't even expect him to stoop this low.I know that the rules of logic aren't applicable in this whole debate, but let's look at that syllogism. First of all, your whole syllogism relies on an "if." OJ Simpson's aquittal relied on an "if," and now we know who dun it. Second of all, his conclusion is just restating his premise. He's just begging the question now.R8) Romanii's a moronHe can't possibly be right if he's a moron. And that's just his own reasoning, so we can just rule out his entire case at this point. Thank you for reading.Source: https://student.societyforscience.org...
Breathing should be Illegal

I hope the discussion leads to something insightful that our readers can be better informed about this current event in today's world. I do accept pro's definitions; however, in order to be clear, I would like to provide one more definition. Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. [1]As is custom, I believe pro gets the opening arguments, and I will follow by serving his head to you on a silver platter. Good luck Romanii ;) [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Satan is the good guy

I accept. As PRO, I must argue that Satan is the good guy, whereas CON must argue that this is not the case. CON writes, "Satan is the good guy and God is the bad guy. "In so doing, he effectively concedes the debate--he admits that Satan is the good guy and that God is the bad guy, contrary to his position compelling him to argue otherwise. He provides several reasons justifying this position, all of which readily support my case. There is no way that CON can win this debate at this point.
Satan is the good guy

Satan is the good guy and God is the bad guy. For starters God had Abraham sacrifice his only son Isaac on the top of a mountain. God never really intended for him to he just wanted too see how loyal Abraham really was. Satan on the other hand isn't as cruel, he doesn't care how you live your life he wants you to live your life how you want to live it. Satan wouldn't have you sacrifice your son just to see if you would do it.
Should homework be allowed

Not all homework is useful--some of it is "busy work." Busy work is assigned in the situation where the teacher does not want to teach or has nothing to teach, but needs the students to be actively doing something while they are in class. The student cannot give their self homework if the homework did not originate from the student. If the school never gave the student an assignment, they would have never had to do the assignment to begin with, and therefore would not have "given their self homework." Sure, it's up to the student whether or not they have homework--that's called being an A student as opposed to an F student. Doing homework in an external class is a bad idea because it distracts students from the current class at hand. This would ultimately result in the student performing poorly in that class as well, as they are not focused on that class because they are focused on finishing their busy work. There are teachers who will assign massive assignments and then put off grading them. That is ultimately useless to the student, and the teacher is not doing the job they signed the contract for. When I was a senior in high school, I literally watched the turn in box for my English class pile a whole two feet high. The teacher was too busy playing with his kids to do his job. In college, you often won't have homework. Instead, most of your responsibility will be showing up and paying attention in class as well as covering the material in the textbook before you show up for lecture. Very seldom will you turn something in, and when you do, it will be on a website that automatically grades it. Finland is a country with less to virtually no homework, and they are currently ranked #2 in the entire world as far as education. The United States is only 14th. This illustrates the lack of a correlation between homework and academic performance. Some people finish their homework slower than others because they are struggling with it due to lack of instructing. If the teacher spent more time covering material than assigning it to students in a "figure-it-out-on-your-own" methodology, students, there is a high probability that students would perform more competently in their classes.
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Hi, this is my first debate on this site. I've taken some History classes, but am still in high school, so hopefully you won't be displeased if you find me ignorant of a subject or a point you make. Uhm, I'm not quite sure what extra definitions I'd like to add or contend with you on, only I guess that all words that we use are capable of being found in Webster's dictionary or on dictionary.com? That's it really. If either of us uses a word that is meant to be taken in a different way, I s'pose we'd just identify how they are meant to be taken. I know it's obvious, but I'm just writing it purely for my own benefit. Other than that, good luck have fun, hopefully we both learn something.
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Definitions: Language: Complex system of communication used within a group of people. [1] To simplify this debate and avoid the introduction of irrelevant exceptions, we will only be talking about one's native language, or first acquired language. And to clarify further, structure of language: The rules that govern a language (i.e., its grammar.) World view/Conceptualization of world: fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. [2] Resolution: The structure of a language affects the ways in which its native speakers are able to conceptualize their world. (Pro will attempt to affirm the resolution. Con will attempt to negate the resolution.) The first round of this debate will be strictly reserved for discussion of terms of debate, definitions, and acceptance. This is my third attempt at having this debate; hopefully I find a strong opponent. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
is deforestation necessary for development

Your debate seems like it was against deforestation... Anyways.... If deforestation occurs, the process of reforestation is something that would take time to occur. "Regions deforested typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and degrade into wasteland" -My oppenent That is a very against statement, and you are FOR deforestation so this is confusing to me. It seems that you're changing your stance. Deforestation, as stated before, destroys animal habitats and like you said yourself, degrades into wasteland.
is deforestation necessary for development

While cleared land is used as pasture for livestock, plantations of commondities and for settlements, the removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss and aridity; adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regions deforested typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and degrade into wasteland. Socially, there is disregard or ignorance of intrinsic value, lack of ascribed value, lax forest management and deficient environmental law that allow deforestation to occur on a large scale, In many countries, deforestation is causing extinction, changes in climate, desertification and displacement of indigenous people.
is deforestation necessary for development

Deforestation has already been destroying our natural wild life, yes it may provide jobs but it rids animals of their habitat. Yes it can supply raw materials for paper, but for desks and chairs, they are being made out of plastic and metal now so that part of the argument is void. Providing room for crops? What about the vast farm land that is in the Western section of the United States? That is plenty of land for crops and farming purposes. Deforestation more times than not is removing habitats for animals, causing their species to slowly die out. The Tasmanian Tiger, Sea Mink, Caribbean Monk Seal and others have been wiped out due to deforestation. 1 A community would use deforestation to build the community? It would help expand but it would dwindle their natural resources drastically if they would just cut down trees to build houses and soon be left with nothing. Sure it can give room for things to be built, but theres already a lot of unused space but people still choose to cut down trees to make room when theres already room provided. A lot of natives have tended to protect the trees and amazon, saving the wild life. Transportation, thats what highways and airplanes are for, clearing out trees for more roads wouldn't be beneficial with very safe and fast means of transportation are provided.
6 years old boy got molested today

Wow okay so a pedophile here willing to overpower children against their will. Why? You sick bastard is that the only thing you know. Let me guess your daddy did it to you, Or maybe you're so desperate to have sex that you attack children because adults are able to see a fucked up mind, So you go against a child will. Also by me assuming by your profile picture your a Christian. Now by that you should be going to hell for. For it is you for destroying one of the things that God loves most. . . Family. You by raping that child are destroying the family structure because the child is your sex object and God thinks sex is sacred and by trying to fool around with that child shows you have never seen a Bible in your life. You are nothing but the devil's bitch and I can't wait for the day you die because you left harm on this earth inspiring more demons like you.
6 years old boy got molested today

6 years old boy got molested today I was walking down the town as usual Walking around buildings to find places Where children play alone Then I saw a 6 years old boy He was alone I decided to molest him When children are alone with the molester They are much less likely to tell So I approached him, Put my hands around his head And kissed him on the lips He pushed me away, So I let him go He ran away, And so did I Crucual part is to leave the place of molestation Walking is very good, I walk every day Searching for new children to kiss I also dream of one day Grabbing a child from her parent's hands And molesting her in front of her parents While everyone tries to stop me I would still place a kiss in the child's lips Even when joy disappears from my acts Even when I am more often afraid than happy I still do what I do I still molest children Some say it is the will of God Some say it is the mistake of nature Some say I have been hit in the head too much But none of that really stops me I will still molest children I molested children before And I will molest even more
The Black Lives Matters Movement Is a racist hate group.

Hi, to begin with I'd like to say how glad I am to have this opportunity to debate with you on this controversy! In response to your opening argument, I'd like to begin with the most basic benefit of the black lives matter movement. This movement can be paralleled to the civil rights moment of the 60's which resulted in slow but historical change. As with the black lives matter movement, we are able to publicize the errors of our society in a more accessible fashion. With black lives matter, society is at least forced to acknowledge the unrest in the black community. Thanks for reading 😀
Add Fashiom to Health Classes

Firstly, I would like to clarify the premise of this debate. We are debating that fashion should be made mandatory in health classes, NOT that fashion should not exist as a subject. Firstly, I don't think these topics are related. Fashion has no place in the health classroom. Second, the aspects you point out would be beneficial to fashion being in health courses,are already taught, and it is a complete waste of time revising how to brush your teeth, because these are already addressed to by other institutions if you are really struggling. Thirdly, and material benefits this course could have, could be assigned to its own separate course, which would avoid a lot of problems (which is will address later). Thanks for the challenge.
Add Fashiom to Health Classes

I would like to see fashion added to mandatory health classes that everyone has to take. It might be expected that middle school kids already have an understanding of fashion, just like they should have already learned how to brush their teeth and use soap. A little review and clarification is beneficial for everyone. An education in the principles of fashion serves kids in many ways. First, it increases their self-confidence interacting with peers. Second, it immunizes them to some of the worst fads and gimmicks to which they might otherwise succumb. An understanding of fashion also makes for better consumers. Avoiding wasting money on low quality or grossly overpriced makes more funds available for stimulating the economy I sustainable ways.
Add Fashiom to Health Classes

It is always nice to debate an opponent who understands my stance and voices clear and relevant arguments. The premise is that fashion should be incorporated into health class, and not an additional class with a whole new curriculum. Health class is a mandatory class that typically drags on and on about reproduction, substance abuse, nutrition, physical activity and such. There is also a lot of fluff and redundancy to make it fill the entire semester allotted to the class. I fully support teaching kids all these basic concepts, a little repetition and clarification of things kids either whispered or shouted. Stuff even dunderheads had picked up on in their years on an elementary school playground. When I was a kid a health book was the only place kids were likely to see drawings of the opposite sex's genitalia. The extensive substance abuse analysis over-hyped the dangers and effects so as to make it seem intriguing to those with no knowledge and inaccurate to those with even a little. Most information was stretched out with inane activities and role-plays, which is not what you do with material that is either completely sanitized or demonized. Suffice it to say, there is room for a few more chapters in a health book, and streamlining the other chapters will serve to make them more interesting, relevant and manageable. Remedial fashion could be integrated into other practical life skills type classes, like careers or family-consumer-science (Home-Ec). But as a self selected outward expression of internal choices and values, it is best kids are exposed earlier. Health-class typically are required in seventh grade whereas other classes may be electives or required later in a teenagers youth. So while career exploration can set one up for the a successful adult life, applying the fundamentals of style result in a successful and productive adolescence.
Texas A&M University is the best university in the state of Texas!

The Aggie War Hymn Good-bye to Texas University. So long to the Orange and White. Good luck to the dear old Texas Aggies, They are the boys who show the real old fight. The eyes of Texas are upon you. That is the song they sing so well, So, good-bye to Texas University, We're goin' to beat you all to -- Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem! Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem! Rough! Tough! Real stuff! Texas A&M! Saw Varsity's Horns Off! Saw Varsity's Horns Off! Saw Varsity's Horns Off! Short! Varsity's Horns are Sawed Off! Varsity's Horns are Sawed Off! Varsity's Horns are Sawed Off! Short!
Texas A&M University is the best university in the state of Texas!

We were the first university in the state of Texas in 1876. The 2008 U.S. News and World Report ranks Texas A&M 62nd, tied with Worcester Polytechnic Institute, among all American universities and 23rd among public universities. The Washington Monthly ranks the school 1st nationally with criteria based on research, community service, and social mobility. Newsweek International ranks Texas A&M as the 77th university globally based on "openness and diversity" as well as "distinction in research". Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranks the university 50th nationally and 88th internationally based on educational quality, faculty quality, and research output. The Times Higher Education Supplement ranks Texas A&M 60th among the world's top 100 technology universities, 24th among America's top biomedicine universities, and 50th among North America's top 50 universities. Kiplinger's Personal Finance ranks the school as the 26th best value public university based on in-state tuition, and the 12th best value public university based on out-of-state tuition. In addition, Hispanic Magazine ranks Texas A&M as 25th nationally for Latinos, while New Mobility magazine ranks the university as one of the top ten "disability-friendly" colleges. The John Templeton Foundation listed Texas A&M as one of the thirty-five American college programs that "communicate[s] the values of honesty, trust, respect, responsibility, integrity, and fairness in the classroom". Texas A&M Mens Basketball ranked #11. Traditions: 12th Man Midnight Yell Silver Taps Muster Bonfire Aggie Ring We have the most Medal of Honor winners (7 total) than any other school besides Annapolis and West Point.
Texas A&M University is the best university in the state of Texas!

OK, so maybe Texas A&M as a vet school, but having a vet school does not make a university the best in a state. And while A&M may have done better in football this season than Texas, overall Texas is better which brings me to my counter statement. University of Texas is the best university in the state of Texas. We are rated #4 in the AP poll for mens basketball, the most important sport of the winter season. Plus, you don't even have a real mascot. You are the "aggies" which means a student at an agricultural college. Well, duh! We know you go to an agricultural college, why not come up with a cool mascot like the Longhorns? We are ranked the 44th best school in the nation and most importantly we are flat out Universty of Texas - Austin, no "A&M" junk in the way. What school? Texas. Hook 'em Horns.