BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is not Dead (Pro=Alive Con=Dead)

If God were at one point alive he would most certainly be dead. I'll start by pointing out that everything that is alive must and will die. There is no evidence in our universe of immortality or everlasting life. Even if we are speaking of God as a Concept he is still not immortal. Many Different Gods have lived conceptually and Many have been lost or forgotten. So whether God is physical or conceptual, it is clear that his death is inevitable. But, examining God as a physical being and assuming we are discussing the Christian God, it is clear that he is dead and has been for some time. If we examine the Bible from Old Testament thru New Testament it becomes clear that God, who claims to be perfect and know all things, spends much of his time correcting his mistakes and putting mankind through trial and error type experiments. As we progress into the New Testament it also becomes clear that God gains more emotion and grows more forgiving. This all suggests god is as flawed and fragile as his creation. Also, as time passes God appears less frequently and speaks less frequently to his creation. He sends angels as messengers and his word is sent through his son. It's almost as if God has aged and is unable to be as involved as he was in the Old Testament. He stops speaking to Man, He stops sending plagues. He stops destroying cities. He seems to be unable to intervene on his own. Like an elderly man who owns a business he hands the keys over to his son and retires. All signs point to God heading towards his own demise. Nowadays there is no sign of God being alive. Almost as if he never existed at all.
God is not Dead (Pro=Alive Con=Dead)

Even when the world has came to an end, God wont be forgotten, He'll be praised be praised by the ones who stay true to Jesus. They'll be the ones who stay alive, He'll destroy the ones are evil, because He'll destroy evil. God can control everything in the universe. So he can control the mind. If the mind takes in information, then it can take in what God has in plan for us and put it into a dream. Have you ever just sat down in a quiet place? Doing nothing, just sitting, and thinking. Then another voice comes in. Telling you to do something. Something that's right. After that, you do three things, 1.Listen and do 2. Hear, and dismiss 3.Don't hear it. Wrong. Just wrong. Those 'gods' aren't used anymore because this, as long as people praise him he won't be "forgotten". If people do, hell send phrophets.
God is not Dead (Pro=Alive Con=Dead)

You may not forget God, but you will eventually die. Everything will eventually die including the earth and the universe around it. There will be no memory of God. As for dreams, they are the minds way of subconsciously making sense of the world around us and processing the information we absorb. No evidence suggests that's God speaks to us in our dreams. The Holy trinity which suggests that Jesus and God are one in the same can be considered a metaphor for the bond between father and son. We can assume that God is saying that Jesus speaks for him and that whatever Jesus says or does mine as well be the word of God. You might hear the voice of God but I do not, no matter how closely I listen. Your personal belief that you hear God is hardly and argument for his existence. As religions fade away and peoples beliefs in those religions fade away so does the power of their gods to influence over the behavior of humanity. We may not have forgotten Zeus but we are not ruled by his influence anymore. The same thing will eventually happen to the Christian God. If he is not dead he is certainly dying. But there is no way of proving his existence. There is evidence suggesting that his story and that of Jesus is taken from past religions and stories which makes a case for his non existence.
Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in certain/any enviroment

Sadly this is supposed to be my opening argument though my opponent covers most of the factors for this argument so I am going use a more of an rebuttal approach/ telling my opponent why his statement is false. Mostly because I feel my opponent has to have the burden of proof. First the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I belive that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have training on how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. So the teacher has to equire more training sessions to obtain these weapons, which means more work for teachers but of the same pay roll. Second training won't help a person not to want to kill someone. there were over 50 teachers who "raped" there students in 2012 in the district of port saint lucie county itself. Is it safe to even have one of theses teachers have a gun? One man could easily kill a full classroom of students. Secondly, the teacher must have the right saftey precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not have the gun case unlocked at any time, unless there is an emergancy. Also , if they do unlock the desk there has to be an combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the the teacher could easily remeber, e. g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there were a subsitute teacher in that class that day , they would also have the combination. If the teacher came in a emeergancy I feel it would take to long to get the gun out to shoot. Second giving an subsitute teacher a combination to a gun? That completly destroys your first argument for the need of training. Subsitutes are a mistory and definatly are very likely to kill students over a "trained teacher". At least another teacher should use the gun instead of the subsitute. Third paragraph. .. . I want to stop writing so much so i can have room for my other arguments. This could ultimatly lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through the day of certain situations happening. First off students feeling safe has never been a major problem. Students have always felt safe because it is very unlikely to have a gunman come to there school or district. Second it would not make the schools safer but more unsafe because there are questonable teachers with armed weapons on campus in locked class rooms. And it would not make students feel better because they would be worrying about the loaded weapon. Many high school students may also post threats of breaking in to steal the gun. So in conclusion gun ownership would not reduce crime rates but increase them. It would be better to have a threat of a gunman for two minutesevery decade then the constent threat of a teacher. Another thing I would like to mention is would the teacher also bring the armed weapons with them while walking in the halls?
Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in certain/any enviroment

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e. g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school. Sources: My thoughts ;D, no seriously.
Illegal immigration

You are right, but these statements have both sides. The first your statement is that illegal immigrants work on hard works and take little salary. Illeal immigrants take good and high salaryly work places where own citizens want to work, and send all taken money to their homeland. The second benefit of any immigration is that immigrants increase demographical status. Due to illegal immigration, the overall population of the country spurts and results in major difficulties. There is overcrowding and increased burden in public places and public transports. The third benefit is that illegal immigrants pay any taxes Not all illegal immigrants pay taxes, even more than half illegal immigrants don't pay taxes.
Illegal immigration

Illegal immigration's benefits. First, from the state point of view, illegal immigration to their country is beneficial because employer recruit aliens for little salary and hardworks where no one wants to work. The benefit is that for the hard work employer pay less than it should be and extra money stay in that country and increase country's budget. The second benefit of any immigration is that immigrants increase demographical status. For example if country has little population immigrants fill it. The third benefit is that illegal immigrants pay any taxes if they must pay, again strengthening the country's economy.
Illegal immigration

The moving from one country to another become easier than it used to be. However, it began to cause a lot of problems for everybody. The issue is whether illegal immigration has more benefits or disadvantages. It is very important because we met this problems in our usual life. Illegal immigration is beneficial for the country. However, for the legal immigrants and citizens of particular countries illegal immigration influence badly. Illegal immigration has benefits and disadvantages but we should understand all situation and later make decisions.
Illegal immigration

Most pople in developing countries wants to immigrate to the US or Europe for searching good life. They do anything to stay there or try take citizenship. Whether illegal immigration is good or bad. Some people say that illegal immigration is a crime, because they cant find good employment and trying to find easy money. However, illegal immigration has more advantages than disadvantages. Illegal immigration benefits the US economy through additional tax revenue, expansion of the low-cost labor pool, and increased money in circulation. They contend that immigrants bring good values, have motivations consistent with the American dream, perform jobs that Americans won't take, and that opposition to immigration stems from racism. http://immigration.procon.org...
Illegal immigration

Basically I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am totally for giving people better lives but i don't feel that it should be at the cost of others. If all of America's benefits and opportunities is a life boat and the people already on it are citizens, we can't just keep putting people on the life boat(illegal immigrants) because than it endangers the people already on the life boat. And I know feel that illegal immigrants probably haven't done anything illegal in their lives and they had good intentions when they got in the US but just the sheer act of them bypassing the usual protocols of becoming a citizen is what is illegal, and that is something we cannot look past, I feel America is not stepping up to the task and securing boarders, that they are almost aiding and abetting them in committing the crime of coming to the US illegally.
Illegal immigration

I agree that statements which I wrote have two sides, but benefitial sight are dominate. To conclude the United States, European nations, and other developed nations around the world have improved economically, often times at the cost of third world nations, where they encourage keeping their labor costs low to increase their own profit margins. By doing this they have left immigrants with no choice but to head towards where the money and opportunity lies. The United States does not seem to understand this, as it believes building a fence along its southern border will fix the problem. Ultimately a compromise must be reached. Politicians as well as legal citizens ought to reach out a brotherly hand to help those in need such as illegal immigrants, while any human migrating to another country ought to become familiar with the host countries' political system, language, and culture. Most importantly in order to receive the benefits of a host country the migrants must start off on the right foot by not migrating illegally, and second they must contribute to the system by paying all taxes as legal citizens do.
Should Logan Paul Be Forgiven

I believe Logan Paul should be forgiven. Not because he is spreading positive attention to himself, but because he is spreading positive attention toward suicide prevention. Logan went out on his own time to find what it truly means to live with those types of thoughts while risking fans leaving due to inactivity. His apology video was sincere and his actions proved him to be worthy of forgiveness. And I don't think his core audience would be or has been effected by his video, as when it was still up, it had a stupendous amount of support. I am no way a fan of Logan Paul, nor do I think what he did was right, but I do believe that it's about time to let it go.
Should Logan Paul Be Forgiven

Should Logan Paul be forgiven? I think not. Logan Paul was outrageous, he didn't think the situation through - he just posted it online for everyone to see. Some people can't deal with their lives, they physically don't have the opportunity that we have, they may not be able to make a decision and they are already dying on the inside. They could have been SEVERELY bullied or are being chased down. The do eventually take the decision to kill themselves they don't want to be alive - they don't want to be known. They want to be removed from existence but then some 22-year-old mindless person exposes their identity to the pure horror of millions of viewers. Were that person to be looking down on the video, they would be horrified. Logan Paul is exploiting their trouble to the whole world and letting his existence been known forever. So what does Logan Paul do in return? He apologizes, teaches himself a lesson to better himself though? Or does he do it to get positive attention towards him again?
Marvel Comics Civil War: Pro Registration > Anti Registration

In this round I will systematically address each point mentioned by CON and present a counter argument towards it. 1. "take away their freedoms". Police department, ambulance workers, doctors, firefighters - they all do not have freedoms as well. They have a certain set of rules to follow, to ensure safety and morality behind every decision they make. And even when it comes to extreme and spontaneous situations, they still have to consider some guidelines, even though making a choice all by themselves. But that does not make them less efficient or dissatisfied. Superheroes squads could just be another department, who would respond to the people or government, but make good in the world. Is that not a purpose? If by freedom you mean an ability of being a vigilante, well that always ends up bad for those superheroes. 2. "only allow people to know who is different." Exactly. One of the main arguments for the SRA was that people could not distinguish superheroes and superbaddies anymore. The SRA would let them see who is willing to co-operate and contribute to making world a better place, and who is an arrogant and ignorant fool, who thinks he can provide justice using his subjective views and perspectives on virtues of morality. Therefore, knowing who is who is a massive advantage both for heroes and people. 3. "When the act did pass it has shown that it created more hate, and fighting broke out" The fight broke out with the death of Goliath, which had nothing to do with the act. Therefore, there is no further need to comment on this argument. 4. "this act would punish everyone that had these genes rather then the few that miss use them" In what way would act punish those with genes and power? Act is not meant to worsen heroes lives, its meant to give them purpose and efficiency that they were not able to have before. Maybe CON needs to re-read the purpose and procedures that the SRA act provides. 5. "this war happened it left the usa defenseless aginest threats outside of the nation" There is no doubt, that one of the side effects of having a Civil War inside of the country will reduce the efficiency of defences outside of national boundaries. However, once again, the actual physical and verbal conflict has began before the Act, therefore the Act itself cannot be blamed. PRO has finished with this round. I thank CON for this argument and eagerly expect the next one.
Marvel Comics Civil War: Pro Registration > Anti Registration

Now I will start off with saying that a act like that would take away there freedoms. They are fighting to create a better place, now there are some bad guys with super powers but you think that they would fellow it? Of course not, this would only allow people to know who is different, and who is fighting to stop these criminals that also use there powers. This act would only create more problems rather then solving the ones it try's to fix. When the act did pass it has shown that it created more hate, and fighting broke out. It has hero aginest hero. Human vs super human, this act would punish everyone that had these genes rather then the few that miss use them. Plus when this war happened it left the usa defenseless aginest threats outside of the nation. This is due to the heroes keeping them at bay fighting a government that had betrayed them, and the heroes fought among each other.
All people should read books

I'm not arguing that books are bad. I'm arguing with the ambiguity of the statement 'ALL PEOPLE SHOULD READ BOOKS' I would like to address the arrogance of pro's statement ' people who cannot read should learn too' those who cannot read are at a huge disadvantage and dont merely choose to, there are many medical reasons for the inability to read such as dyslexia, physical/mental disability as well as sociological factors. My next argument has been misinterpreted, the 'statement' takes away free choice/will, by concluding that ALL should read, you are dictating and forcing your own subjective opinions upon them, if a person chooses not to read it is there right not to. ACADEMIC SNOBBERY being well read does'nt equate with being knowledgeable, the statement is looking down on those who don't read as being less intelligent and holding academic prowess above learned life skill. The capability to think for yourself without use of written opinion of another, dependence only on books is bad
All people should read books

To address your first argument, people that can not read should learn to. I'm guessing everyone that can't read has had a chance to learn once in their life. For your second argument reading books is not taking away your free will or choice. For your third argument, why would it cause restricted and misinformed view, in fact I think it would do the opposite you read newspapers, historic books wouldn't it give you an enlightened view? Your fourth argument, reading can stunt natural creativity? Well you can tell that's not true because you can read and you came up with this argument. And for your last argument, reading can cause the reader to become dependent on the "book" people don't live to read. I read and I'm not taking my book every where and depend upon it for water, food, happiness, and housing. I believe reading is not a escape from realty but a door to imagination. Thank you and good luck
All people should read books

I accept this argument and will be arguing that NOT all people should read books. My main arguments on the subject will be Not all people CAN read books, therefore making it an impossible expectation. I am generally a believer in free choice and free will, thus the pro argument itself totally removes both. Reading can cause a restricted and misinformed view. Reading can infact stunt natural creativity. Reading can cause the reader to become dependant on the "book" I will attempt to give a full argument for each in next round, as long as PRO is happy to proceed with all the above points.
Prolly Should Be a Word

I will answer each point in turn! "If you did do that thought, then I would consider you pretty dumb because it is obvious that a normal person would use it in context" Yeah, well, I'm a pretty dumb and abnormal person! But if it makes people happy, as you would suggest, then why would you also say that people give you a hard time about it?! You yourself say that people who say it are given a "hard time"! You contradict yourself here! "As far as probly goes, I do not think that it is normal, and it is definitely not as fun to say." Allright, so go ahead and say prolly for fun, but it doesn't need to be put in dictionaries! "People may say probly, but people also say prolly." People may say prolly, but they also say probly. Your missing the point, probly isn't a word! It is just a way of pronouncing probably! It's not a word unto itself! Prolly is also simply a pronunciation of probably, so therefore it can not be its own word! "Just because the people around you do not say it does not mean that nobody does. You are assuming things that you shouldn't. The word prolly is just as common in my community as probly may be in yours." I said quite clearly "I will take your word for it"! I never assumed anything! "As you said before, probly is not a different word than probably. By talking fast, someone may say this but *saying prolly also means the same thing*." If prolly is also not a different word than probably, why should it be made a word?! If prolly is simply a way of pronouncing another word, then why should it get it's own spot in the dictionary?! "This doesn't cause only trouble though. By learning to abbreviate things quickly, children/teenagers are learning how to take notes faster. By abbreviating words, they are learning skills that they can use in college." This is slightly far fetched though, right? OK, yes, there are definitely here and there advantages to abbreviations, but this should not be incorporated into every-day speech. "I meant that people that already say prolly because that is how they learned to talk will not feel weird about saying fake words and having their friends bother them about it." Bother them about it? I thought you said it would make them smile. Hey, you know what's also fun to say?: Vote CON!! -His imperial majesty.