BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Idea That Democracy Gives You Freedom is Fallacy

Democracy sells itself, in part, as the political view point that provides freedom to it's followers. Examples as to why this is false. A man was arrested, tried and jailed for wearing a t-shirt that said "Killing police is fun". This may not be a tasteful display of opinion, but it was actually harmless. We vote for those to rule us based on ability to perform in front of the camera. Once in power hundreds of rules/laws/decisions are made that impact our lives directly. We had no say in these decisions and they were never mentioned in the election campaign... We have no real say in how our children are educated. We have no real say in media coverage of anything. Democracy is Fallacy. The only choice we have is which control freak to vote in next.
Assisted suicide should be legalized

I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.
Assisted suicide should be legalized

I being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician." Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points
Conceal to carry

I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.
Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

Thank you for putting so much time and effort into this debate. You have been very respectful, and you have clear and logical thinking. I apologise that my arguments are quite short. Yes, some parts of the Bible are literal. You argued that the part about the creation of Adam and Eve, the first humans, was literal. However, I would like to put forth a question. The Bible says that 'God took a rib' from Adam and created Eve. This action itself may be literal as you say, but have you ever thought that it is a way to express that God created woman from man? The action of taking a rib might not be true, but what it symbolises is that God created woman from man, not from monkeys or apes. Evolution believes that human, male or female, were descended from monkeys or apes. As for your point that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are literal, I do not agree. The Bible details how they committed the first sin by eating the forbidden fruit, and how they blamed each other, how God punished them and how they bore their sons Cain and Abel, etc. There are a lot of detailed descriptions. If you have read the Bible, you should know that sin is a very important thing in God's eyes because it is what separates him from us, and the reason why Jesus was sent onto the Earth. The first sin was what started all of this, and I do not think the Bible would be literal in such an important part, as it is not literal in many other important parts like how Jesus died for our sins. Yes, all humans sin individually, but the first sin was what caused us unable to communicate with God directly and the first humans to be driven out of the Garden of Eden. You had this point :'God gave us two revelations: the Bible and the physical Creation. If these two things conflict, there MUST be an error in interpretation. Since there is MASSIVE scientific evidence for evolution, we are likely MISINTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURE.' This is not true. Although there is a lot of evidence for evolution, it does not mean that the Bible is fully literal in the creation part and that we are interpreting it wrongly, that these two concepts do not clash. I would like to remind you that although there is a lot of evidence for evolution, not all of the details must be true. Six day creation is not an unlikelihood as a powerful being which can create time and space has the power and ability to do that as well. People, including scientists at that time, once believed that the Sun went around the Earth. They had lots of so-called evidence which, of course, was proved wrong. this may be the same with evolution. As years past and technology develops, we will be able to discover more and more about the past, and perhaps new evidence will bring light to this matter. Perhaps evolution will still be right, but some facts like humans evolved from apes would be wrong. No one knows for sure, that's why we call it a theory. I had a great time debating with you. You really did a lot of research and I appreciate that.
Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

I have to admit your point about taking the Bible literally is correct. Some parts of the Bible are metaphors and are not to be taken scientifically. However, I would like to point out that, as the Bible says, humans were made to govern the Earth, and are very special. Would the Bible be metamorphic about such an important being? The Bible was also very detailed about the creation of Man (as well as female) and the description is not a mere sentence like your examples. I would also like to list this verse as an example: 'So God created man in his own image...' Genesis 1:27 Let us now look at the meaning of create in this verse. 'To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.' (http://dictionary.reference.com...) '1. To bring something into existence: he created a thirty-acre lake over 170 jobs were created 2. Cause (something) to happen as a result of one"s actions: divorce created only problems for children' (http://oxforddictionaries.com...) Yes, here it says that it can be a result of one's actions, but here we are talking about the creation of something that physically exists, not a problem. You cannot say 'God's "tampering" with apes created the existence of humans.' (Note: You cannot say 'humans' because it is a noun so it cannot be a 'something to happen'.) In the Bible it means that God created humans from scrap, from original materials, not modify (evolve) an ape or a monkey. I am interested in hearing your rebuttal.
Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

Here are my rebuttals. I quote from your argument 'Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.' Well, here is a quote from the Bible. 'the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7.' WELL, HERE IT SAYS GOD MADE THE FIRST MAN FROM 'THE DUST OF THE GROUND', NOT MODIFY (EVOLVE) HIM FROM A MONKEY, LIKE WHAT EVOLUTION SUGGESTS. GOD MADE MAN SEPARATELY, BUT EVOLUTION SAYS (ACCORDING TO YOUR QUOTE) THAT WE ARE ALL DISTANT COUSINS. THERE IS A CONTRADICTION HERE. Here is another quote '...he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Genesis 2:21-22' Here it clearly states that the woman was made from the rib from the first man, NOT EVOLVE FROM AN APE OR MONKEY. But you said 'Why couldn't God have created human life in a physical way (evolution)? Why would it have to be in an instant?' Well, no one really knows, but this contradicts the Bible as it clearly says God created the world in six days, not have it evolve over hundreds of years. And as I said above, the Bible clearly records the unique way God created humans. And that method has nothing to do with evolving from apes or monkeys. I look forward to hearing your clarifications.
Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

I can see that you spent a lot of time doing research, and I appreciate that. You have some strong points, but yes, you can improve with the organisation. Keep it up! Here are a few questions I would like you to consider. Firstly, you mentioned that Galileo was a Christian but that he proposed the Earth went around the Sun, in which the Church leaders disagreed. Now I would like to clarify. The Bible does not say anything about the Sun going around the Earth. The leaders thought it was true because God made life possible on Earth so they thought our planet was superior over others and that the other planets revolved around us. However, what has that to do with evolution? Here we are not debating whether this fact precludes Christianity. Secondly, I would like to point out that the evolutionary theory agrees that one phenomenon leads to another. Christians believe that too, but, they think that it all starts and ends with God. Evolutionists do not think so. They think that another thing that is explainable by science started it. That's why they say that chemical reactions were the first phenomenons that created the world. Christians believe that it is God, as the Bible says "In the Beginning, God created the world." They believe that God created life. Christians believe God made everything. Evolutionists say that it all started with the Big Bang but fail to explain where time , space and matter came from, and refuse to admit that there is a creator. This is the main difference in the two theories. Christians believe everything started with God, evolutionists do not think so.
Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

Topic:Evolution does NOT preclude ChristianityAs I'm on the Pro side of the debate, I will argue that evolution as scientific fact doesn't invalidate anything about Christianity.Definitions:Christianity: The monotheistic religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus. For the purposes of this debate, we should put denominational "Christian" doctrine aside. Christianity in this debate is SOLELY based on the teachings of Jesus. With this in mind, PLEASE quote the Bible (the best source we have) when referring to tenets of Christianity, rather that your church's philosophy (if you have a church, that is). By "evolution," I refer to the the scientific theory that all life on earth evolved from a single organism. Through millions of generations, the organisms adapted to the environment and thus diversified. This also means that we humans evolved from animals.Understand that a scientific "theory" isn't the same as the colloquial definition of the word "theory". Wikipedia summarizes, "A scientific theory is 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."'To put this into context, 97% of scientist agree that the theory of evolution is fact.http://www.people-press.org...Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Again, don't just say, "A Christian must believe this" or "a Christian must believe that". Christians disagree on what being a Christian entails. The best source we have on Christ is the Bible. Therefore, it is VITAL to quote the Bible rather than just spout off church or denomination-specific doctrine.3. The final round is for closing statments.One last thing, you don't have to be a Christian to enter the debate. Anyone is welcome. However, to participate well in the argument, you will have to have a good understanding of Christianity and the Bible. Please though, if you accept, take the debate seriously and try to put in a good argument.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. -Charles Darwin Rather than say he's an atheist, a friend of mine says, 'I'm a tooth fairy agnostic,' meaning he can't disprove God but thinks God is about as likely as the tooth fairy. -Richard Dawkins Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe. -Thomas H. Huxley
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated"- Madalyn O Hair"Believe nothing, No matter where you read it, Or who has said it, Not even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense"- Buhda."Most people cannot bear sitting in church for an hour on a Sunday. How are they supposed to live somewhere very similar to it for an eternity? – Mark Twain
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

"Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?" -Carl Sagan "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." -Bertrand Russell "I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure " that is all that agnosticism means." -Clarence Darrow
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us." By Charles Bukowski "Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake." from Jon Stewart. "Agnostics are just atheists without balls." "Stephen Colbert
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." - Friederich Nietzsche"Tell me there is a God in the serene heavens that will damn his children for the expression of an honest belief! More men have died in their sins, judged by your orthodox creeds, than there are leaves in all the forests in the wide world ten thousand times over. Tell me these men are in Hell; that these men are in torment; that these children are in eternal pain, and that they are to be punished forever and forever! I denounce this doctrine as the most infamous of lies." - Robert G. Ingersoll Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God? - Epicurus
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

"It is very unnerving to be proven wrong, particularly when you are really right and the person who is really wrong is proving you wrong and proving himself, wrongly, right", in the blank book written by Lemony Snicket "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion", spoke by Carl sagan. "George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd",spoke by Sam Harris.
The existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven (quotation battle)

After acceptance in round one individuals will only be able to make arguments through direct quotation of individuals. Their is to be no use of an individuals own words in the following rounds unless it is to provide a source for the individuals quotation. Their is to be a maximum of 3 quotations within a round. Deviation from these rules or failure to post a proper source from a quotation is to forfeit the debate.
Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out.

Because my opponent did not submit an argument, I continue to advocate which I stated in the previous round. In closing, I am not against the idea of Social Security. I think that it was a necessary program in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2 to help lift America out of economic turmoil and aid struggling seniors. But since then, many more tools and methods have become available to save for retirement and build up a "nest egg". Some of these methods are much more effective than social security and provide the holder with a real tangoble asset which they can pass down to their spouse or children. I am not saying take away Social Security. It should still be left in place but it should be made optional for those who are savvy investors and savers and would feel that they can save more effectively using an alternative method to the social security system. I urge everyone to vote CON. Thank you!
Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out.

Debate itineraryRound 1:Acceptance only. It is permissable to give definitions and to giveOBJECTIVEbackground information. No subjective arguments may be made in this roundRound 2: Pro will bypass this round to give con a head start since pro initiated the debate and chose the topicRound 3: standard debate rules. do whatever you wish to buttress your argumentsRound 4: closing statements and final remarksWhen using specific examples of events to back up your point please refrence a media source accessible for free through the internet that elaborates on that example.Thank you for accepting this debate. I hope we will have a meaningful and interesting discussion about this topic.
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

You make an astounding argument about the girls and the procedures and I cannot argue about that, but I beg to differ about its legality and the standards involved. Right now, as legal as it is, we have doctors both qualified and unqualified who perform these operations with no regard to whether if botched, they would be responsible. If it were made illegal, these doctors would rarely risk to perform them in unsafe environments nor be caught at it, the health of the patients and these operations would be far in between and not as frequent as they are now. Some abortions are induced abortions and even though are a hazard to the women, they are done all the same with or without consent. A debate for another day. http://en.wikipedia.org... As for having the females make their own choice, Statistics show that 35% choose to have the operation," a decision that indicate there is problem not only with the promiscuity of the teens but with the decision to keep or remove the pregnancy" as stated by Choice Pregnancy Care center. http://www.choicespregnancy.org.... Lets us make the decision for our children, let us protect them and let us make Abortion illegal.
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

If abortion were to be made illegal, it may be more expensive but it would not stop people from getting them. It would just decrease the safety of the procedure. You are right that we should not have untrained and unlicensed doctors performing these surgeries but the fact is that we would have them if abortion was made illegal. So it is better for the procedure to be done right and professionally rather than in an unsafe environment. If it was my relative or family I would want them to be able to make the choice for themselves. Some girls may be more promiscuous but some may not, one can't say what would really cause girls to act that way. Abortion being legal or illegal does not directly relate to girls being promiscuous or not. Abortion being illegal does not deter girls promiscuity. Statistics of rape cannot be considered completely accurate due to victims not always coming forward which is a lot more prevalent in male than female cases.
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

That is true and as with great responsibility comes great power. If abortion were to be made illegal, can you imagine how expensive it would be, the present price not withstanding? Girls would be less promiscuous because it would not be as easy to go for an abortion. Men who perform illicit actions in either raping or having sex with minors would get more punishment as compared to now. I still ask everyone to assume it was their relative that an incident happened to. All I can say is that we would not have quark doctors performing abortions, all abortions would be done in major hospitals, Before an abortion is performed the Police would be all over to make sure it does not happen again, and the perpetrators would get the maximum penalties and anyone involved would have an answer if Abortion was illegal. Statistic show that in every 6 women 1 has been raped and in every 33 men 1 has been raped. http://www.911rape.org... For these men few ever come forward to say they were raped and men cannot get pregnant. Imagine if these men could get pregnant? an act would pass through the Senate so fast before we could blink our eyes and rape would have a death penalty. Unfortunately, most of the law makers are men, whose relatives have most probably never been raped and since abortion is legal, they have no pity or remorse for the women who undergo abortion. Let us make Abortion illegal and give justice to the body of the woman.