BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All laws in the U.S. based solely upon religion should be overturned

The debate in Washington, the various states and in the media about the SCOTUS decision to allow gay marriage dances around the more important point: the SCOTUS should have ruled that all laws in the United States which are based solely on religion should be found unconstitutional. With regards to gay marriage, let's first establish some facts. In the United States, no couple is married in a church. No couple is married in a synagogue. No couple is married in a mosque. Anyone who is legally "married" in the United States ends up in one place: their local clerk of the courts office. That is where the legal filing of the contract, a legally-binding union between two people (and up until recently, that meant two people of the opposite sex), is conducted. Devoid of the license, and the witness seal of a notary public, no marriage is considered legal in the United States. So there's the rub: the religious aspect of marriage is simply a facade. In essence, everyone in the United States participates in a civil union in order to be legally bound together. You can call it marriage, you can reminisce about your wedding, but don't forget the legal process that accompanied that celebration of love. One of the foundations of our constitutional legal system is the idea of equal protection under the law. While religious freedom is also a key principle, so is the freedom to be free from forced religious participation. Other laws, so called "Sunday" laws, violate this principle as well. Why not ban purchasing alcohol on Friday instead? That's the Muslim holy day. So let's tear down the facade. Let's stop issuing marriage licenses and start using civil union licenses instead. Or let's stop referring to the legally-binding union between a couple as marriage, based on the religious notion. Or let's violate our constitutional principles and keep thinking of this union of two people in terms of religion. If we decide to keep it that way, let's go all the way. Let's stop issuing any licence to marry. No more filing fees! County governments will really appreciate that loss of revenue, I'm sure. Let's allow divorces to occur in church, or in a synagogue, or in a mosque. No need for any silly paperwork. I'm sure the divorce attorney industry would love that change, right? But if we don't decide to stomp on our constitutional principles, then let's stop tolerating solely religious-based laws from governing our lives.
Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Hello, I will take the Con side of this debate, meaning I will argue that evolution theory is better suited to explain how nowadays species came to be than creationism. Definitions: The theory of evolution states that the diversity of species we see today originated from single cell organisms through mutations and natural selection. It often comes akin with the belief that the first single cell organisms developed by chance from non living matter under the right conditions. This is not directly part of evolution and there are other beliefs (the first life came with an asteroid, was created by God who didn't meddle afterwards, etc.) However, I support that belief, so feel free to argue against it, if you want to. Creationism is based on the bible. The hypothesis consists of the following aspects: - Life, earth and the universe were created by God roughly 6000 years ago over the course of a week. (Since evolutions has no statement about the later two, I agree with you that we should stick to biology as the subject of our debate.) - Evolution does exist in the form of micro-evolution, where for example the species of cats that were originally created split up into the diversion of cats we see today. However, Creationists reject what they call macro-evolution (evolution from one species to another), because they believe that evolution cannot create entirely new organs such as wings that weren't present before. - Most fossils we find today were created during Noah's flood. Animals we don't observe today, such as dinosaurs died out during that flood. Since creationist views tend to vary from one another please let me know if you disagree with any of these points.
Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Hello, I'm reinstating this debate as my previous opponent has conceded.Full Resolution: Which model creation or evolution can better account for the variety in species we see today.Now that I have the time to do this debate I'll reinstate it. Notice that this debate is impossible to accept and if you find a way to accept then you forfeit. Comment below if you are interested.Arguments must be kept biological. If not, then the side must justify using the argument by explaining why it is relevant to the resolution.Creationism - the biblical belief that the universe and all kinds of animals came into being over the course of seven days Round 1: Acceptance + Definitions Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3-5: Rebuttals
The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat

Hello DDO!EXPANDED RESOLUTION, RULES & DEFINITIONS"The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat"By this, I mean that if the dead were to rise and feast on the living it would pose an equal or greater threat to that portrayed in zombie movies. The zombies would essentially destroy society as we know it.To avoid ridiculous semantical arguments (zombies can't be real; they would blow up like corpses do; wild animals would destroy them), it is a condition of this debate that my opponent agrees that our hyperthetical zombies would function exactly as portrayed in George A. Romero's 6 zombie movies [1].This first round is only for acceptance, with arguments beginning round 2. Good luck to my opponent, I hope this is a fun debate.SOURCES[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat

OPENINGGood evening DDO and welcome to the Zombie Apocalypse, mwuahahahaha! Before we begin, let me quickly run through the characteristics of a Romero zombie: All applicable dead (I. E. brain not destroyed) return as zombies. Zombies are slow moving. Zombies can only be re-killed with significant damage to the brain. Zombies are capable of really base level logic (I. E. use a brick a break a window. ) Being bitten by a zombie is 100% fatal. They are capable of biting through human flesh quite easily. Zombies have fairly good senses; attracted to non-Zombie sounds (I. E. gunshots. ) Zombies may head towards places that were important to them in life. OK, with that in mind I’ll begin my arguments. .ARGUMENTSTHE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE = PANIC & CHAOSThis is fairly obvious; if the dead started to rise and consume the living it’s likely to cause the worst panic in history simultaneously across the globe. I hypothesis that this panic would likely cause society to grind to a complete stop. The more reliant a population is on the functions of its society (I. E. the Western world) the worse it’s likely to do. NOT SO EASY TO KILLOK, assuming that the zombie apocalypse happens in some reality where zombie movies also exist, a lot of people are going to know how to kill zombies right off the bat, right? Yeah, I guess but it isn’t going to help you: Zombies don’t exactly walk in a straight line with good posture; they stumble. Most people have little to no training with a gun and would find it very difficult to achieve a headshot. Even if someone had been trained, how many would be able to remain calm in the face of a rotting corpse coming at them? Getting close to the zombies (to bash their skulls) might work, but is extremely dangerous given how fatal a bite is. In summary, only a tiny percentage of people would be capable of taking on a small horde of zombies with an assault rifle and having any chance of victory.100% FATAL, SELF-SPREADING EPIDEMICFinally, if you consider ‘living death’ a disease than it is easily the one of the most dangerous diseases ever conceived. If you are bitten, you are 100% certain to die. Once anyone dies, they rise and automatically begin to spread the disease. NEVER SAFEFinally, the most dangerous aspect of the zombie apocalypse is that the only way to be truly safe is to stay away from everyone; dead or alive. Other unscrupulous people may rob you of any supplies or weapons you have. Any person who dies returns as a zombie; an accidental or natural death could destroy your entire group. Worst of all, you might not even know there are zombies around until several people are effected. CONCLUSIONRomero was right; the living dead would destroy mankind as we know it.
The United States is a Democracy

Well, bummer. It seems con was unable to post an argument. I maintain my position. The United States is a democracy. In response to those who commented I will submit the following. @funnycn you said "Why is this even a debate. It's a Republic." @A_mysterious_stranger you said "The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic." I got the impression that the two of you were disagreeing with the resolution. Since my opponent did not provide anything for me to respond to I will respond to your comments. The link provided by @A_mysterious_stranger lead to this page which states that the U.S. ".. is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy in which majority rules is tempered by minority rights protected by law".(1) the following is taken from Wikipedia"s page on democracy "In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister."(2) As stated here the term republic refers to a representative democracy, as I stated in round two. I am open to debating either of you, or anyone else who is under the delusion that due to the fact that we are a republic we cant be a democracy. Conclusion: Having studied political science formally in college, it has become a pet peeve of mine to hear people who call our country a democracy corrected by some ill-informed individual that it is not a democracy but is in fact a republic. The United States is a Republic. It is also a Democracy. To say that the United States of America is not a Democracy is an inaccurate and uneducated statement. The United States is a Democracy! The resolution stands. Thank you to all who take the time to read and to vote. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
To be suggested.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example. Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on. In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
To be suggested.

Oh. I guess that second half was important >.< 1. "This means, at the point in which, we, as in society, abuse the convicted, we are not doing any better than the criminal. Essentially, (especially in the case of the death penalty), we are committing the same atrocious act as the criminal herself." But the State uses the death penalty for self-defense against the criminal, while the killer had no justification for his actions. The criminal killed a member of society, so society has to punish the criminal. Concerning the rhetoric, some criminal acts are more civil than others (if that makes any sense). What I mean is, it wouldn't be sanitary at all to rape the rapist. "Retribution is almost synonymous to revenge, the purpose of any ideal judicial system is not acquire revenge, but to serve justice, to give someone what they are due for committing a crime against society." Justice is defined as "giving each their due". If the killer believes that someones else is due death, what do we have to do to the murderer? 2. "Also, my opponent has not offered a reason for as to why life imprisonment could not serve the same purpose." People can still conduct murders from prison. All they need is a cell phone or laptop. They can even do it through mail. Life in prison is no better than the death penalty at deterring crime, and it would only be a better option because less people die. But then prisons get over clogged, and people can still murder other prisoners. 3. "He states that we should kill the convicted in order to stop them from committing more crime. He fails to show how jail couldn't serve this same purpose." See #2. "Furthermore, a just society cannot put someone to death in order to prevent them from committing future crimes." A JUST society can put a convicted KILLER to death, because it is "giving each their due".
To be suggested.

Alright, so I believe that in a just society, the death penalty should be used. 1. "An eye for an eye, a limb for a limb" (or however that saying goes) If you commit a serious crime, the punishment should be an amount supposedly equal to the magnitude of the crime you committed. Say you break into a bank and steal money. The punishment would be to return the money you stole, pay for damages, serve jail time and possibly do some community service. But what if you did something as serious as taking someone's life? The punishment for pre-meditating and killing someone (first-degree murder) should be equal to that. So why not use the death penalty? What else is a sufficient punishment for an act of murder, the taking of a life? 2. It would set an example for future killers. If you are planning on killing someone, unless your judgment is clouded enough to be considered guilty by reason of insanity (in which case the death penalty should not be used), you would probably consider the consequences. Unless you really hate your life and are self-destructive (in which case you are a danger anyway), you are probably going to think twice about murder if the punishment is death. 3. It prevents future crimes. Why leave a convicted killer around other people? By giving the murderer what he deserves, you are protecting potential victims of murder. How do you stop future crime? You prevent it from happening with a just punishment. Your move Con.
Abortion should in most cases be illegal

Round one is just for stating your position and acceptance. rules 1. No ad hominems 2. No new arguments in final rebuttals 3. standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply. I will be arguing that abortions should be illegal except for when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life of the mother. I am looking for someone who either believes that abortion should be legal in all instances or should be illegal despite any danger to the life of the mother.
i know i am resonable because i know logic

Logic is the training of the brain. So there is a your and my logic. Others have greater logic than others. I have greater logic than a 5 year old. I never said there was logic in fantasy and it does matter what you think about that poison mushroom. If you know it is poison then you would go find something else to eat. Unless you are unreasonable, which would mean you have logic and are unreasonable.
i know i am resonable because i know logic

you know with your brain cells? what are you most certain of right now, what your neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words? know=physical experience of now if i say i have an apple in my hand, space and time is implied for example, so when i say i know logic, its already implied i have a brain if i can not know without a brain, ai? so in a way i agree with you, but a blind man can not know these words, like i assume you can
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

hello! my name is hamze ojjeh and i'm a muslim, in english my friends call me hamzay. 1_be polite, no cursing, sarcasm, or being rude 2_everything you say has to have a proof. 3_you can't link to untrusted websites for your proof, like wikipedia, yahoo answers or any of that kind. 4_if your not sure about what are you talking about don't write it. 5_ you have to have a valid proof to support claim 6_ you can't support your claim using the bible, same thing applies to me, you can't get a proof from a verse, but you can get a proof from certain verses for an example, you can't get a proof from a verse that says jesus is a god, and same thing for me i can't get a proof just by saying that the quran says that jesus isn't a god, but you can get a verse that supports what it is saying for an example, god is etc etc etc because etc etc. may the best one :)
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

Completely sorry. As I said to my opponent in my other debate, I lost track of time with homework and couldn't get to my debates. Although I have one round left and little amount of characters, so lets go. -When Jesus came down to earth, he was both man and God. As confusing as that sounds, when studying the Bible you HAVE to keep this in mind. Humans eat and drink, so since Jesus was human, he also ate and drank. But Jesus never sinned, because God cannot sin. I tried to use the Greek and Roman gods as an example, since that's the closest comparison, but I must have failed to get my point across. When Jesus was questioned by the Pharisees and Saducees, he said that he was, in fact, God. -When I said you don't have to take it literally, I meant that you don't. God doesn't have to say everything literally. When Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5), he didn't mean he was a literal vine and that his followers were literal branches. -SPELLING ERRORS. Your response in Round three says I admit it has errors, but as I said, "Most of the errors in the New Testament are spelling errors, and don't affect the actual translation of the Bible." Only a couple are not spelling errors, and neither affect the overall message the NT gets across, which is this: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believed in him will not perish, but have eternal life. -God never had sex with Sarah. This was the one verse from the Bible you didn't site. For the others: the reason my response was so, was because the Bible was merely mentioning the R rated and X rated stuff. These are people from the Old Testament, and like everyone but Jesus, they sinned. -In round four, you ask who the comforter in John 16:7 is. I have an answer: The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is what comes into your heart when you believe in Christ, and He is the comforter. Again, I'm so sorry to keep you waiting. Unfortunately, this is the final round, and I had fun doing it. Have a blessed day.
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

Hello! it seems like my opponent didn't write anything yet, lets just hope that he well for this round, i'm going to ask this Q anyways john 16:7 """"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you"""" and in the quran, jesus says," a messenger will come after me and his name shall be ahmed" which is another name for mohamed. so tell me this comforter who can it be if it's not mohamed ?
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

"""This also means that these gods can feel physical pain and, to a point, be tortured'"" that doesn't make him a god if he feels pain, and a god being tortured also doesn't make him a god, a god that created a universe, a god who created this really huge massive sun, is being tortured by little humans ? no i don't' think so, and a god that was in a billy of a woman who was created by a god doesn't make since, a god must be the only one powerful, if theres another one like you that doesn't make you a god, jesus was eating and drinking, jesus didn't say that he is god, he didn't say that he is the son of god, but it was the roman people who started talking about that, history doesn't agree with that, in torah it mentions him as a savior and in the quran it mentions him as a prophet, and the bible doesn't say that he's a god, but your gonna tell me that theres a verse in the bible that says(i don't remember it entirely) that only who pass through jesus well go to heaver or something right ? well that was 100% true, before islam came people who follow jesus as a christine's well go to heaven, and before christianity came people who follow mosa as a jewish will go to heaven, and before the three of them came, the people who were doing good well go to heaven, because there was nobody to tell them. """First, I would like to point out that you set a standard that Pro cannot site the Qur'an as proof, neither can Con site the Bible as proof.""" I wasn't bringing facts and getting proofs from the quran. """" it is not necessary to take the creation story literally""" Why ? the bible is the word of god right ? Huh ? you do know that your bible has many errors and really really bad stuff, but you still consider it to be the word of god ? as a muslim i do not consider the bible right now as the word of god, but as a muslim i have to believe in christianity, and judaism, if i don't believe in jesus i'm not a muslim, i believe in all of his miracles he did, but i don't believe that he is a god or a son of god, it's like 1,2,3 first came judaism then christianity then islam, and mohamed is the last prophet, there is over 100,00 prophet and only 25 are mentioned and only 4 that came with a book. i wanna ask you a question, you can get whatever you want from the bible for this one, where did in the bible say that jesus is the son of god or god ? """so...""" soo is that the bible says you can't do adultery but theres many stories in the bible that support adultery, GOD i mean GOD was sleeping with sarah, wow, and the kid she got why isn't he a god ?