BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal Healthcare, if implemented, will have negative effects on the American people.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I will do my best to argue with intelligence, logic and a full amount of sense. The last thing I want is for this debate to be based around semantics, rather than the real issues but I am slightly confused by Pro's resolution and since he does not expand on it at all in his opening argument, I am not quite sure how to interpret it. Does he mean that(assuming it is implemented): 1) UHC will have negative effects on every single US citizen. 2) UHC will have negative effects on the majority of US citizens. 3) UHC will have negative effects on the 'average' US citizen. 4) UHC will have negative effects on US society and the people as a whole. 5) UHC will have positive and negative effects but the bad will outweigh the good. Or perhaps some other interpretation that hasn't occurred to me. If my opponent wishes to argue any of 1-5, then I am confident that I can prove him wrong but perhaps he has some other position that he will explain in round two. In the meantime a little research I conducted into Universal Health Care:( in the UK I am proud to say we have had our National Health Service for over sixty years. ) http://www.herald-mail.com... http://www.medcitynews.com... http://www.socialist.net... http://www.boston.com... And some great arguments in favour of it: "# Every family deserves health care they can count on for a lifetime. # People shouldn't risk losing their life savings when they develop an illness. # Physicians and patients, not insurance companies, should make patient care decisions. # We need to put our leaders to work for taxpayers again." source: http://www.amsa.org... Thanks. In sympathy, Con.
I'm new. I'll debate anything.

"I don't agree with you at all." This is the only thing , except the title, that my debate partner wrote. Now I'm supposed to write something. I only accepted the "challange" , but this is not really a challange because we have nothing to debate. However, I think that his opening statement is unfounded. Since he can't possibly know what are my oppinions on all subjects and topics, he can't know for sure that he actually does not agree with me on some of them. He says that he's into bananas at his profile, and I like bananas so I guess we agree on bananas. Another possibility is that his statement is a paradox.. but I'll give him a chance to elaborate on the issue he wants to debate.
I'm new. I'll debate anything.

I'll admit that I mistook the Round 1 entry form for something else. A perfect storm of donkey laxatives and the slash-dot effect blunted my normal acuity for deft web navigation. However, my adversary squandered any opportunity to take advantage of this mistake, electing instead to dash off a discursive and pointless discussion of bananas. charmingly adorned with arbitrary quotation marks. So it is only due to my gentle decency and the pity I feel toward victims of the punctuation burglar that I hereby suggest a forfeiture of round 1. Instead, I propose to direct my argument to my adversary's claim that television "is a tool for indictrination." I am going to take the liberty in assuming--on the basis of some recent evidence--that you intended to describe television as a tool for "indoctrination." (I also take it that your hatred of television was not balanced by a love of books.) At any rate, I feel confident in inferring that your strident condemnation of televisions is not motivated by the ethical failings of an electronic device, but by a desire to come across as detached from the banality of convention. After all, television ownership doesn't require your allegiance to the cult of low-culture. I'm not a big fan of TV either, but sometimes I want to watch a Vice-Presidential debate or a documentary about bobcats. And even if nothing on television ever appeals to you--which is a reasonable position--you shouldn't adopt a presumtive contempt for those that do watch TV. In my experience, people who feel the need to identify themselves only in extremes, by, say, suggesting that television and sports are social pathologies, end up identifying only their pretentiousness. Yet all of this would be less annoying if you 1. exhibited any erudition--something one might expect from a man who wastes no time in idle leisure--and 2. did not write on your profile, in the middle of many declarations of belief, the following sentence: "My belief is that people should keep their beliefs private." This linguistic masterpiece is not only refuted by everything else on your profile, but it actually manages to refute itself. I must confess that the logic deployed therein does not suggest an author of wily debate-mastery, but I hope nevertheless that your rebuttal proves me wrong.
Abortion Should be Legal

My CaseArgument 1: A Fetus is a HumanWhen a zygote is made at the moment of conception it already has the attributes needed to be alive. It has the reproduction cells, metabolism, growth, etc. so because of these facts a fetus is already a human and killing it is murder. So if abortion is murder it should be illegal. When fertilization begins a new being has been made with human DNA and it has the qualities needed for life. By the third day several organs including a nervous system are being created. [1,2,3]Argument 2: Abortion is Bad for the EconomyPopulation growth is linked to urbanization. Its obvious that urban countries tend to be wealthier. More abortions would mean less population growth. When you have less consumers, less goods are purchased. Less goods purchased means slower economic growth. When more abortions occur, you are shrinking the labor force. A study has shown that for every baby aborted, the country loses $15,000,000. Just like less consumers, there would be less workers to produce goods. That means less money is being put into the economy. 40 million people have been killed from abortion. The less people, the less money the government gets on taxes. Abortion does not benefit society. [4,5,6,7,8,9] Argument 3: Abortion Increases the Risk of Breast CancerThe number of abortions tends to correlate with an increase in breast cancer. This is certainely true in Finland. Thirty studies concluded that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. An abortion increases this risk by 50%. Eight medical associations have accepted this fact. [1,9,10,11]ConclusionAbortion is bad because it does not benefit society and it increases breast cancer. In addition, it lowers economic growth. Abortion should not be legal. Sources[1] F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition[2] Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981[3] Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984)[4] http://blogs.worldbank.org...[5] http://www.nrlc.org...[6] Miriam Cain, Fight For Life - A Pro-life Handbook for Southern Africa (1995 Africa Christian Action, Cape Town)[7] http://www.lifenews.com...[8] http://suite101.com...[9] Lime 5, by Mark Crutcher, 1996, Life Dynamics Inc. Denton, Texas. p223-238[10] http://www.newswithviews.com...[11] http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...
Abortion Should be Legal

I Bow Out GracefullyIf you have not read that post in the forum today, I am heading to the Republican National Covention. We pack today so I am very busy and will not be able to post a full response to you. If possible I wish my opponent could I accept my request for this debate to be a draw, then we can debate in the future. So I give my opponent two options:1. He can claim victory.2. He can agree to the draw and we will debate this after my vacation at the RNC.I leave it to him.
Beauty Pageants should be banned

Pageants are not using women as objects nor are they exploiting women. The contests promote the individual inner and outer beauty. Why would anyone think that gaining inspiration to succeed is a negative thing? If the individual promoted her life from that, whoever the inspiration was gained from, that's a positive. Women have free choice, they have the choice to be there. Simply banning something because the minority think its wrong is daft. We live in a democracy, we have choice.
Beauty Pageants should be banned

Many girls do see the contestants as role models. However seeing an adversary as an epitome giving the inspiration to succeed isn't the right way, because beauty fades. Having a career under beauty would take you far, but at an age will fail. This is simply using women as objects and debasing them. These contests promote the way women should be rated and change the idea of women to an object which I, myself as a woman wouldn't want . Unfortunately Con being a man can't conceive what it is like.
Beauty Pageants should be banned

Of course its about beauty but its about intelligence, public speaking, self confidence, physical fitness and many pageant winners do a lot of community work and conduct numerous speaking engagements. Many girls will see the contestants as positive role models which gives people the inspiration to succeed. The media are the fault of why women want to look certain way. Most women have the desire to look a certain way, even without pageants. My opponent fails to see the bigger picture.
Beauty Pageants should be banned

I would like to state that I am the "pro" because the topic is beauty pageants should be banned and i am "pro"this topic:) A girl watching a beauty pageant and seeing that she does not fulfill the requirements to be one would have a low self-esteem. Beauty pageants today have a big impact on young teens which think that they be like "the so called beautiful girls" which have no reality in their looks reflecting an image which is completely false. Isn't their anymore valid things than beauty?:)
Beauty Pageants should be banned

I am to debate on a subject that has 3 rounds and a maximum of 500 words! My opponent has the wrong stance as "pro" when it should be "con" as my opponent is against Beauty Pageants. Over these very SHORT, 500 words and 3 round debates, I will debate: 1) Why Beauty Pageants should not be banned 2) Type of pageants of the positives that follow 3)Why bullying, health issues, anorexia, suicide or bulimia is not directly linked to Beauty Pageants Good luck to my opponent, sorry... no words left :)
The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

"Dropped Argument"I agree that of course there were Christians that believed in the Eucharist being literal. There are Catholics that believe this nowadays. The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct teaching. There were Christians teaching false doctrines even in the first century, so we must be careful to believe a doctrine just because that a couple of early Christians believed it.Literal Vs MetaphorMy opponent says that "this is my body" makes no sense as a metaphor. This is completely false. Of course it can be taken metaphorically, and it can make sense, even more sense, when done this way. If my opponent wants to argue that Jesus meant it literally, that is one thing, but to say that it isn't even possible to interpret it metaphorically is just dishonest. And my opponent does not justify is inconsistency with the door vs body analogy.Communion as a MealJesus is the Lamb, but the bread and wine are taken symbolically to represent what He did for us. This is proven by Jesus being physically present during the first Communion. No part of His body was changed, and His disciples would have noticed some kind of transformation, or would have written something special like that in the Gospels.Original Sunday WorshipIn the book that I quoted, it did explain how the early church had "homilies" which originally meant discussions, as in, the Christians would have discussions to learn about the religion. Over time, "homilies" changed into one guy preaching. This is a difference. A major difference. It changed from a more social and meaningful dynamic to a 'go to a ritualistic service and listen to one guy give a message.'Justin MartyrMy opponent is being dishonest when he claim that Justin Martyr teaches the bread and wine are also transformed. He does not say this. He only claims that our blood and body are transformed. Justin states that they do not take the bread and wine as common, because the symbolism helps them to see it in a different light. Other Church FathersClement of Alexandria says, "Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk." (1)Clement specificially describes the blood and flesh as figurative. One must realize that this is probably the view of the other church fathers. Clement was a a teacher at the Catechetical school of Alexandria, so it's definitely true that many people were taught this doctrine growing up. John 6There were many times where the Pharisees didn't understand Jesus' parables, so they left, and only when the weak were weeded out, Jesus would then explain the true meaning afterwards. There is no reason to believe that just because Pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying (just like how later gentiles would misunderstand the doctrine of Communion) does not mean that this is the correct interpretation.Back to Pro.References1- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...
The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

Literal Vs MetaphorOne of my main problems with Pro is that he admits that it is obvious that when Jesus said, "I am the door" it is so plain that he is being metaphorical. Yet, he states that it is obvious that when Jesus says "This is my body" he is being literal. I fail to see how my opponent justifies interpreting these two statements in two different ways. He is being inconsistent, and is only doing so to save his doctrine. Communion as a MealMy opponent argued that there is no evidence that the Communion was supposed to be a meal, and the fact that it completed the Passover means that it does not have to be a meal. However, Jesus' last supper with his disciples was the first Communion, which was a meal. Why then are we not supposed to follow suit? Epistle of MathetesMy opponent fails to see the relevance of this epistle. I apologize for the inability to have made it clear. This epistle refutes the idea that we can somehow please God with the ritualistic services that we do. Catholics think they please God with the Eucharist, but they are acting just like the Jews did. This is the comparison I am making. Original Sunday WorshipThe discourses of the clergy were generally meant to explain the Scripture lessons which had been read. At first these discourses were very plain, and as much as possible like ordinary talk; and from this they got the name of "homilies", which properly meant nothing more than "conversations". (1) In the early church, the members would have fruitful discussions with each other, instead, it changed into people flocking to hear one guy preach while the Communion went from a full meal that brought together people into the stale experience that it is nowadays, where people go up and take a tiny bite of a cracker and sip a tiny bit of wine. Justin MartyrMy opponent does not prove that Justin Martyr teaches that the wine and bread transform into the body and blood. I have already shown how Justin states it is our body and blood that are transformed, so this source works against my opponent. Jesus in Two Places at OnceMy opponent argues that, during the first communion, even though Jesus was present with them, He also transformed the bread and wine into his body and blood. I ask that the readers use their own common sense with this argument. Other Church FathersNone of the other quotes from the church fathers says anything about the bread and wine magically transforming into Jesus' blood and wine. All of these passages can be taken in a symbolic understanding. These quotes do nothing to prove his point. He would need a church father specifically saying that the bread and wine are transubstantiated by the priest after he utters the magic words (which Jesus apparntely forgot to say during the Last Supper. )I look forward to Pro's responses. References1- . http://www.studylight.org...
The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

My opponent should feel free to offer his contentions and/or rebuttals. The only other thing I'd like to add is that no new arguments will be allowed in the last round. I won't be offering any scripture or historical references this round. Instead, I wanted. to give the voters a couple things to think about before casting their votes. Both my opponent and I are going to be offering many Bible verses (sometimes maybe the same ones). And both of us will be suggesting ways to interpret these verses. The key, I believe, is which interpretations coincide with what the early Christians believed. .. . I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once: Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase: I never said you stole money. Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote that meant I never said you stole money. .. He said it. Or. .. I never SAID you stole money. .. But I sure thought it. Or. .. I never said YOU stole money. .. I said she stole it. Or. .. I never said you STOLE money. .. I said you borrowed it. Or. .. I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car. Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later? Development of doctrine. Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the difference between development versus departure is this. .. Is the teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip. Development versus departure. I now turn it over to my opponent. Good luck!
Child Molesters Should Receive Life In Prison On First Offense

1. The past round I have provided evidence and supported my claim, with shocking backing, and there has been no evidence and or argument disproving my claim, other than attacks on the claim. 2. I am also not arguing on why the other percents do not repeat crime, just the fact that a large portion of them do repeat, and if they did remain in prison the second crime wouldn't have happened. Because these types of people are severely disturbed, and more often than not incurable, and there is vasts amounts of psychological documents which can be found proving that statement. With child molesters, there crimes have a victim which often develops psychological issues, because they have their innocence taken, and future sexual expression is linked to something negative. Child molesters steal the lives of victims that keep living after the crime is committed. Please provide evidence that illustrates these disturbed individuals deserve a second chance to be able to recommit their crime.
Child Molesters Should Receive Life In Prison On First Offense

"2-"More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back." What about the 1/2 who are not sent back within a year or the 22.1% who are not sent back within two years? "1-"Recidivism rates range from 18-45%. The more violent the crime the more likelihood of repeating." -Studies by the state of Washington." And the 55-82% percent who never again commit that crime? Please show why they deserve life imprisonment. "Therapeutic techniques, such as cognitive therapy or even aversion therapy have been shown to create little to no effect on child molesters" Also, please show why the fact that society is not able to help child molesters yet, we should completely give up on each and every one of them.
Child Molesters Should Receive Life In Prison On First Offense

1-"Recidivism rates range from 18-45%. The more violent the crime the more likelihood of repeating." -Studies by the state of Washington. 2-"More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back." -California Department of Corrections. 3-"The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment." Therapeutic techniques, such as cognitive therapy or even aversion therapy have been shown to create little to no effect on child molesters. 'It's only in the last few years that people have started to say that certain sex offenders are incurable,' Being molested as a child is a very disturbing event, and often creates many psychological issues within the child's life and future. http://www.yellodyno.com... http://www.nytimes.com...
Child Molesters Should Receive Life In Prison On First Offense

"Of all criminals, child molesters have one of, if not, the highest recidivism rates." First, please cite a source for your claim. "..these people do not deserve a second chance, and after the first offense, should remain in prison, where they can do no harm." Obviously if everyone stayed in prison they would be able to do little harm to society, but please show why no child molester deserves the chance to rehabilitate himself/herself. Show why society should completely give up on an individual on a first offense.
Child Molesters Should Receive Life In Prison On First Offense

Of all criminals, child molesters have one of, if not, the highest recidivism rates. These are people, who are dangers to society and often ruin the lives of their victims. Psychological help has little to no effect on these disturbed individuals, so keeping them out of society is the best "cure" for these individuals. By child molester I mean the much older man or woman sexually abusing a younger child. There are special sections in prison in which many child molesters reside because even the prisoners have severe hatred for these people. Based on the amount of damage child molesters do, not only to their victims, but to society, these people do not deserve a second chance, and after the first offense, should remain in prison, where they can do no harm.