BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lady Jane Grey should have been allowed to rule England as Queen instead of Mary.

REBUTTALSorry for the late response, yet late is better than never. Let's move on to the rebuttals. RIGHT TO RULEI have previously displayed in my opening argument how the placement of Jane Grey as the first heir to Edward VI was illegitimate, therefore negating my opponents argument here. I will, however, relay my opening argument as a rebuttal. My opponent states that "as the King, he certainly had the power to name his successor", however this argument is flawed. Given that he had a regency in place he was legally not able to make a law of this sort without the consent of his advisers. This was not the case as in reality the Duke of Northumberland had forced the young King to write this law and he ignored the regent entirely. This in itself harms the legitimacy of the King's proposition to make Jane his heir because it is likely that he had very little say in the matter. The other issue with this opening argument is that the law was not even officially signed and approved by Parliament. While Henry VIII hardly needed to use this step, Edward VI was required by law to have all of his laws passed by the Parliament, and in this case the law was not passed. LEGITAMACYThis argument is flawed on many regards as well. First off, my opponent acknowledges the fact that Mary had married Philip II of Spain after her brother Edward VI had died. Therefore the unspecified law had no effect upon this situation. My opponent claims that even though Edward VI was dead at the time of the marriage, the law still should have been enacted and Mary would no longer have a claim on the throne. This is absolutely ridiculous because using this logic Mary, nor her sister Elizabeth, would be allowed to marry without losing their claim to the throne. This is simply a way of cherry picking a law so that it can be interpreted in your favor, even though it is absolutely illogical. Therefore Mary's claim does not only exist, it is still the strongest claim in the world as I have shown already in my opening argument. Also, it would be much appreciated if my opponent could actually find the document that states this law as the precise wording could have a large impact on the debate as a whole. Rebuttals will be longer in the final round, do not fear!
Lady Jane Grey should have been allowed to rule England as Queen instead of Mary.

Round 2First of all I'd like to start off by saying that I'm sorry about the lateness of this response, but I've been procrastinating with University things.RebuttalsMy opponent is correct that Mary, in a normal case, would have been first in line to the throne after her brother, Edward, died. However, this case was not a normal case of monarchical succession, as Queen Mary was a Catholic. Let's post this again to make it easier for all of us: So it's obvious that Mary I was definitely next in line for the succession if this were a normal case. However, it wasn't. [1]'The 1544 Act stated that the king ‘myght by the auctoritie of the saide acte give and dispose the ... crown ... by his letters patentes ... or by his last will ... to any person or persons’. This act was signed into being by the British Parliament in 1544 under King Henry VIII,It was afterwards that John Dudley persuaded Edward (the then King) to write his own will leaving Lady Jane Grey the throne. She was [2]'known for her Protestant piety and learning; it was this religious devotion which presuaded Edward to alter the succession.'Whilst my opponent is correct to state that the letters were never validated, [3]'Nonetheless the letters patent were signed by many prominent figures in government, by judges and certain leading citizens of London.' So judges, government figures and other leading London citizens didn't take issue with the document during King Edward's life, it was only afterwards that they changed their mind. Thus, the Third Succession Act no longer had any credence as the 1944 document allowed future monarchs to declare their successors. As it happens, Edward did do this, thus nullifying the third succession act as Henry VIII was no longer the King, so Edward VI, the current monarch, was allowed to change the succession.In relation to Edward's age, (his being 15) it is true that he did, at the time, have a regency. However, despite this, Lady Jane Grey was still pronounced Queen. Therefore, it was high treason for Mary to attempt a coup to replace her.The Hanoverian RuleMany are familiar with King George III, the third Monarch in the Hanoverian line, also commonly known as the Mad King. However, not many know that his family, the Hanovers, were not first in line to the throne upon the death of Queen Anne. In fact, they were 52nd in line to the throne. However, they were the first protestants in line to the throne. Thus, George I became King, despite the fact that there were 51 people who were further up in the line of succession. This shows that it doesn't matter if people who are further up in the succession want to be King, as long as they have more approval and, for 9 days in 1554, Queen Jane Grey did.Sources:[1] http://mary-tudor.blogspot.co.uk...;[2]http://englishhistory.net...[3] http://mary-tudor.blogspot.co.uk...
Lady Jane Grey should have been allowed to rule England as Queen instead of Mary.

ROUND 1RIGHT TO RULEWhen King Edward VI lay dying at the age of 15, he appointed his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, to be his heir. He therefore essentially dis-inherited his half-sisters from the throne. As the King, he certainly had the power to name his successor. Legally, therefore, Lady Jane Grey had the right to rule.LEGITIMACY OF EDWARD VI'S SISTERSIt could be argued that Queen Mary did not have a claim to the throne. [1] If she [Princess Elizabeth] or Mary married without the consent of their brother and his Council, they would forfeit their right of succession to the throne.As King Edward VI never gave his permission for Queen Mary to marry King Phillip of Spain, Queen Mary, upon marrying the Spanish King, forfeited her right to the throne. Even though she was, by that point, Queen, she effectively revoked her power by doing so. However, this was ignored at the time.Back over to you my Atheist-Independant friend!Sources:[1]http://books.google.co.uk...
The 3 necessary qualities for a 'good' teacher.

Ok, this is my first debate on here, sorry if I screw this up in anyway. The topic here is, what does it take to be a good teacher? I figure everyone has some slightly different view of the necessary requirements. My view is this: A teacher is to present the information, to present it in a way that the student(s) can grasp, so as not to teach 'over their heads'. In order to do this I feel 3 things are necessary. 1. The teacher must be aware of their own limitations. A teacher must know exactly what they can and can't help someone else to learn. Otherwise they risk getting in over their head and poorly presenting information and misguiding their student. An example being a drama teacher opting to fill in for the astro-physics teacher...probably not a good idea. 2. The student's limitations. A teacher must be aware of what a student already knows, in order to meet them at their level. For a college level algebra class to go over basic addition, would probably be a waste of time for the students. At the same time, the teacher must know what a student can't learn yet. To know what is going to be too much for the student to grasp at that time. If someone doesn't know the difference between a Solar System and a Galaxy then this person is probably not going to be able to grasp something like 5th dimensional 'brane-world' theories. 3. A teacher needs to remember their station. A teacher must remember that their role in the teacher-student relationship is to provide the student with the information they need. This includes the actual information of the subject material, along with any tips or tricks that the student may find helpful in grasping the information. A teacher can find one of their greatest mistakes in trying to 'force' a student to learn something. If one grabs a young tree and attempts to 'yank' it up and make it taller, they will probably find they have instead uprooted the tree completely. The same applies to students, they must be allowed to grow at their own pace, in their own way, at their own time. To attempt to force a particular mold upon a student, or to force certain information upon them even if they cannot understand it at the time, will instead lead to resistance, and confusion. This is my feelings of what it takes to be a good teacher. I am interested in what anyone else has to say on the matter. Look forward to an intriguing, respectful discussion. Again, I apologize if this is of poor quality, I am a student of this site xD.
The 3 necessary qualities for a 'good' teacher.

I am grateful for a gracious, welcoming opponent! Indeed, such fine arguments as the Con's side are worthy of vote. I feel it'd be beyond rude to tarnish such fine points with anything but the finest of logic, and reason, and in the Pro of this debate, I see no adequate way of providing such an argument. So, indeed, I forfeit, and gladly so, having gained insight, and entertainment, as I had hoped.
The 3 necessary qualities for a 'good' teacher.

Absolutely wonderful argument from my opponent! Beginning this debate I did feel that in some form those three qualities were indeed 'core' qualities for teaching. I must now, and contradicting the nature of a debate I suppose, admit that I have been clearly, logically proved wrong. My opponent's last argument left me with even more examples of my own life, in which I myself have assumed a teaching role, and I was forced to concede that I indeed did not adhere to those three qualities. I began this debate launching a theory, hoping for a logical, valuable contradictory theory to be placed against it, in order to test, and prove, or disprove my theory. My theory has been quite aptly disproved, and I am very impressed! I would love to argue the points further, though honestly, even as much as I enjoy playing 'the devil's advocate' in a debate, I must admit, I'm at a loss for any worthy, logical rebuttal at this point. I congratulate my very impressive opponent, and thank you for a wonderful debate, I do hope to debate with you in the future.
Abortion

Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it. To say that getting pregnant, with no plan in place to prevent that is a "little mistake" is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly there are no reasonable people going around saying that if someone chooses to have an abortion then they should be killed, I have no idea where that comes from. Now to the real point of the issue, is abortion okay? The answer to this should be very simple and I am not sure why it is such a big question. Killing another human being is illegal, and it is immoral regardless of whether you are religious or not. In what world is it okay to kill another human? An unborn child is not just a nuisance that you should be allowed to kill off at your convenience. Any scientist will tell you a single cell is proof of life, why does this for some reason apply to everything other than humans to the left?
Abortion

Look, I know that a lot of religious people are going to say; "because the Lord said so", but how do you know that, what I primarily question is how humans can know all of this "spiritual" knowledge but only the church can have it? If a girl or woman did a little mistake of not using any condoms, or if she got raped, the Lord did not help her in those times, he had to just watch until she got the abortion and she is in the wrong. A woman"s vagina is she"s, not yours, not theirs and most importantly not the church"s she decides what happens to her, and if a god really exists it wouldn"t tell people like the church to kill her over HER mistake.
Abortion

You believe that in my second argument I meant that I prefer the money, no I don"t, what I meant was that if I cannot give the child food or home it should be preferencial to skip the hunger and cold of the world. In my first argument maybe I was not being clear enough, but I meant that you should abort a baby that has a pulmonary dysfunction or a physiological hazard that tempts to kill the baby slowly, and I believe that neither of us has one of those diseases so I believe that neither had the true answer to that argument. And in the third one I"m not talking only of the U.S, that actually was a big guess that you tried to do, and I"m not saying we HAVE to do it, but if a mother wants to help a little (IF she wants), she CAN have an abortion.
Abortion

I will respond to your numbered points with my own correlating numbers. 1. If a born child has a disease we do not just kill it, it should be the same with an unborn child. An unborn child is still a living human being and deserves a chance in this world no matter what obstacles they may have to overcome. 2. To kill abort a baby on the basis of finances is one of the most immoral things you can do. You are saying you value your money more than your own child's life and I just can't wrap my head around that. You wouldn't just kill a two year old because you were sick of paying for it so why should you kill this baby for the same reasons? I have no problem with adoption and in these cases more often than not it is the best option. 3. Over population in the United States is not a factor, the latest population growth figures show an increase of 0.71% the lowest since 1937. If we ever get to the point where we need to kill babies in fear of overpopulation then we have failed as a society.
Abortion

With your first statement, I must say that you don"t have to look to far a lot of the con people say that the women should be killed by this "horrible decision". And yes killing is totally wrong, but if the women is raped it"s obvious that there needs an abortion, also if the family it"s not economicaly all right then, they should either abort or put to adoption, which they do the second one most of the time. Yeah, if the parents are financialy above but they did not planned it, they should take responsability or abort which I"m ok with either, and yes I know that sounds "hypocritical" but let"s think about certain factors about how abortion could help. 1: If the baby is deformed (it cannot work propertly) or is diagnosed with a horrible disease, the parents should prevent the pain and abort before the fetus comes to the world. 2: The Economic position is essential, if the parents or mother are/is poor they should either put on adoption or abort. 3:(This is a more personal opinion). The over-population is a big factor for which I believe that abortion is a good way to stop the world from ending a lot faster. But look, it is my opinion and if you get angry with tell me why and we will talk like civilized people.
A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy

The resolution is "A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy."For my first debate on this site as pro, I will be arguing that some inflation can be a good thing. In the debate inflation has the meaning from http://www.merriam-webster.com... #2: a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services.First round acceptance only. No new arguments in final round.Cheers.
Religion is Good

The bible, Quran, and many other holy books have atrocities in them, many of which are promoted by god or god condones them. You can see, for exampe, examples of this in the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...Just some examples of this from the bible include:God flooding the entire world, despite their being millions of innocent babies, animals, etc on the planet(see Genesis)God ordering the Jews to kill every amalekite, including women and children, their animals, etc(see 1 Samuel 15:3) God hardening pharoah's heart, and then punishing Egypt for Pharoah refusing to let the Jews go, even though God was the one responsible for Pharoah refusing(see Exodus 9:12 for hardening of his heart)An example from the Quran:"Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die." (2:6-7)
The God Hypothesis qualifies as the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

1."There's nothing to say that the cause of the universe could just be some naturalistic phenomenon (there's nothing saying there can't be a physics of the singularity), or a quirk in the aether (there's nothing demonstrating this cause need have any sense of agency), or even that it still exists now (maybe our cause was expended in the Big Bang). " CON did not explain exactly how the cause could still be natural since the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity, which shows that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning, clearly preaches against this possibility. If he did explain and demonstrate how it could still be natural, he would falsify the God hypothesis. Plain and simple. I await his response. According to the Space-time theorem,This cause must be changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. it must be timeless and therefore changeless without the universe because it created time. Since it also created space, it must transcend space as well and must therefore be immaterial not physical. There are only two possible candidates that can possibly fit such a description: either an abstract object (like a number) or a disembodied mind (or consciousness). However, abstract objects do not stand in casual relationships. For instance, the number 9 cannot anything and therefore it follows logically that the transcended cause of the universe is an disembodied mind. 2. Now, CON claims that even if we accept the notion of a cosmic designer, it would not follow that this cause is all knowing. I have already explained this.The laws and constants fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values. If constants were to be altered by less than a hair, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. This cause was able to choose the right value every time. Then, it also follows that this cause new to not choose all the wrong values within an INFINITE set of values. Therefore, the knowledge of this being would be infinite. 3."However, we have a pretty neat (albeit incomplete) account of how life kicked off and developed billions of years later: evolutionary biology and abiogenesis stuff, respectively." CON never really explains or demonstrates how life can come from non-life, so I cannot effectively falsify his objection. He is going to need to be clearer. Experiment after experiment shows that life comes from life and complex life forms create other complex life forms. That's what the evidence points to today. CON has not provided evidence that shows life comes from non life or that simple life forms can produce complex life forms.
Open Borders for Living/Travelling

I find many of your arguments to be things that are inevitable in today's world or in general. 1. "Terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens." Terrorists already come in. And is it okay that the U.S. government intervenes with other countries' business? Such as Middle East War, Syria, Vietnam, ect. ect. No, it's not. We are not the only country being terrorized. In fact we terrorize other countries' citizens. 2. Illegals. Not all illegals come here for that, they come here for a better life. What makes a person who comes here legally okay to use American welfare versus someone who is not legal. They can still get on welfare, how does it make a difference? It doesn't. What makes people who live here getting welfare any different? It doesn't. Most of the time illegals don't even get help, because they can't. They work slave labour and barely get paid, with no taxes, but help to stimulate YOUR economy. We shouldn't be able to regulate such things. Man belongs to the land. The land does not belong to the man. 3. Drugs. Okay, there are drugs here. They have been here forever. They will be here forever. Trying to regulate drugs is a waste of time. Just because we have open borders, will not heighten the drug trade. "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom." 4. National Security threatened and terrorists kill innocent children. Not once can I think of a outside terrorist attack on U.S. soil that innocent children were killed. Versus Whereas, look at what the U.S. has done to the Middle East, thousands upon thousands innocent people and children have been killed at the hands of the American government. 5. The Bill of Rights is just a paper. It has no dictatorship over the free will of humans.
Open Borders for Living/Travelling

If we open our borders, then terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens. Illegal Immigrants will come in here with no intent of becoming citizens and live off welfare and food stamps. You say that we should be able to go wherever we want. You are proposing that we allow drug dealers to come into this country and trade drugs. National Security will be threanted because Terrorists and spies will come in here and kill innocent children and take military secrets. In our Bill of rights, no where does it say that we can go wherever we want. I will wait for your response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Hunger Games is Better than Divergent.

The Hunger Games has gained much more popularity than Divergent. Everywhere, you will here people referencing to it, but not really referencing to Divergent. Everybody knows who Katniss Everdeen is, but not everybody knows who Beatrice Prior is. The Hunger Games was awarded an 87% by Rotten Tomatoes, but Divergent only got a measly 41%.
Abortion...briefly

I disagree- the point of having a child isn't to improve the life of the parents. It is to bring a new life into the world, so that they can pursue the goals they want to. Besides, many women have had abortions and later regretted it, because they realise later on that they could have happily cared for their child but were bogged down by irrational uncertainties at the time: http://www.catholicplanet.com... Many people are adopted and live happy, full lives. Here is an entire thread of adopted people sharing their stories: http://answers.yahoo.com... . How are we to stop people using abortion as contraception? People could just lie and say they they forgot to use contraception.
Abortion...briefly

I don't think i'm a minority at all; surely I owe it to my parents to be more of an improvement to their life than not, they gave me this life in the first place, what bigger thing could they do for me? It's not that I 'shouldn't be allowed', it's that I wouldn't Want to. I should have been born to improve life for everyone, obviously mainly myself but not at the expense of others happiness. Adoption is no way for a child to live..it's generally not a happy upbringing so that shouldn't even be thought of, let alone as a solution to something that could've been solved at the root of the problem. Yes, using abortion as contraception is wrong, I am arguing assuming the option of contraception has passed by accident, or 'un thought out'.
Abortion...briefly

I suspect you are in a minority, then. In fact, I doubt you even really believe it yourself. Do you honestly think you shouldn't be allowed to live just because you will be a 'burden' to your parents? Is your life worth less than your parents having to work a little harder to support you? Do you value your life that little? Here is the testimony of a women who was conceived by rape, and still leads a wonderful life, with three children of her own- http://www.righttoliferoch.org... . If a women feels she can't provide for the child, she can put it up for adoption. The sad fact is, many women do have abortion for trivial reasons. Sometimes, they even use it as a form of contraception. Having one every time they get pregnant.