BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

As far as controvercial topics go, Gay marriage is one of the biggest ones, but it doesnt have to be. Why is gay marriage such a controvercial topic? Closed minded self-richeous people who are too stuck in their ways, they are the reason its such a controvercial topic. I'm not saying that everyone has to think that being a homosexual is right, or that everyone should be, but for goodness sake, why stop two people from having the right to marry eachother? "You cant get married because youre gay". That sounds an aweful lot to me like saying "You cant get married because youre black." or "You cant get married because youre catholic." Discriminating against someones sexual orientation is just as good as discriminationg against their color, as far as i'm concerned. Let me guess, the next arguement will be "You can't controal color, but you can controal who youre attracted to." Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Sure, smeone can act like theyre controaling it, but really all thats doing is eating them up inside. Proof? You say yu want prof? Here, an article from outproud.org. "In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide," which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually. (5) The report recommended that "mental health and youth service agencies can provide acceptance and support for young homosexuals." So, you say "Well if youre gay, hide it, and act like you arent.", thats just as good as handing them the gun and saying "Go ahead, shoot yourself." Denying someone the right to commit themselves forever to the one they love just because they share the same genitalia? Heinous.
The Best Comic Series is "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson.

. http://www.mycomicshop.com... I meant the company's name was Archie, idiot. Anyway, the Sonic comics are about the young, 13 year old Sonic the Hedgehog, with his partners the Freedom Fighters, facing off with the Tyrannical Dr. Robotnik ( Dr. Eggman ), who turns animals into machines. These comics have lots of humor, and, unlike dear old stupid boy and tiger, has action and adventure. So, a hedgehog with supersonic speed, or a first grader with a stuffed tiger, no contest.
The Best Comic Series is "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson.

"Calvin and Hobbes" is a comic about a boy and his tiger who travel throughout forests and go through first grade and has real life-like happenings. Plus, there is no such thing as "Sonic the Hedgehog Archie" comics, either you have horrible grammar and then you were only supposed to state one comic, and if your not horrible at grammar then you need to check your comic book shelf again.
The Bible Teaches the Holy Spirit is a Person

You say the Bible says a spirit is a person. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to make a arguement the lenth of yours, however; I will do my best. And I apoligize for my critical behavior. When the Bible talks about people approaching God's person, it means his essence. People did not exist before God created them, so God is not a person. This is one of my arguements that has not been refuted. And I don't agree with the NWT transalation, so I cannot reply to those points. Hebrews 9:24 gives the impression appearing before the essence of God. Matt 22:16 and 2 Cor 1:11 make no mention of God. Thanks again pro
The Bible Teaches the Holy Spirit is a Person

IamZero has forfeited round 4. I do hope he returns to answer my points in round 5. I should be clear to anyone reading this debate that his definition of person in simply inadequate to cover all beings that can be considered persons, and has a faulty criteria for personhood. I have presented evidence for the personality of the Holy Spirit that has not been overturne. I have shown the Holy Spirit has personality (he loves, grieves, has preferences, is hurt by sin, is holy, interested in guiding and teaching us, and so on; personality is unique only to persons. I have shown that since God is called a person (prosopon) in the Bible, and since God is a Spirit, that spirits are person; thus, the HolySpirit being a Spirit also shows his personhood. While I gave Con a point by point response to all his arguments, he ignored most of mine. I gave Con a definition for "person" from the dictionary to which he made no rebittal, so the definition stands. I also showed how the Holy Spirit fits this definition. In light of these facts my position that the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is a person remains unimpeached.
The Bible Teaches the Holy Spirit is a Person

Like I said, obviously Adam and Eve weren't born in the conventional way, there was nobody to give birth to them. If your not going to refute my main points, why am I debating with you? If by person you mean sentient being, I agree with you. However, you should be more specific. The wikipedia definition of spirit is the nonphysical part of a person Sound familiar? Since the Holy Spirit doesn't have a physical body, He cannot be a person. He created people.
The Bible Teaches the Holy Spirit is a Person

Your trying to twist my words. When I say born like any other, I mean born with a physical body. The method doesn't matter. You also misinterpret Genesis 18:1-22. The "men" were simply in the form of men. If the Lord showed himself in his true form, Abraham would have been incinerated. Adam and Eve were people, but they weren't born simply because there was nobody to give birth to them. You never provided evidence how a spirit can be a person. If the definition of person is so vague, why are we arguing over it? You picked something that couldn't, according to you, be defined so easily, ensuring you win.
Ban vaccines

Con seems to argue that animal suffering is tolerable based upon two main points I. Animals are stupid and thus inferior. What does inferior mean anyways? Inferior " adjective 1. lower in station, rank, degree, or grade (often followed by to): a rank inferior to colonel. 2. lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base: descending into the inferior regions of the earth. 3. of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard: an inferior product. 4. less important, valuable, or worthy: B+ bonds are inferior to AAA bonds. 5. acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre: an inferior observer of human nature. " How about acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre? Humans are smarter, so does that give us the right to act selfishly towards those that are less intelligent? Nay, "with great power comes great responsibility." II. God giving humans dominion over animals. Con using religion to rationalize the suffering and killing of a wide variety of animals for vaccine testing purposes. Yet, ignores religious criticism of vaccines. "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"." [28] What about the character of God? Mercy seems consistent with the character of God. Acts 3:26 "Even so has the Lord Jesus Christ come from His infinite, far-away throne, on His errand of mercy, to a sinner's soul." Also which is closer to God's way of healing? Does God heal with potions and sharp needles? From what I understand of the Bible God heals with faith. I just don't see how vaccines are consistent with the Bible and the character of God. Vaccines are researched and developed by a cult of sadistic witches and warlocks who torture animals. Then, charlatan healers kill or permanently injure babies by injecting these vile toxins into the babies' lifeblood. Big business looks the other way because profit margins are high. The public is brainwashed by teachers who mindlessly reiterate textbooks. All in the name of destroying some invisible force labeled a pathogen, virus, bacteria, and other names. Ban vaccines and put a stop to this treachery. Vote pro. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.quotecounterquote.com... http://biblehub.com...'s_errand_of_mercy.htm
Ban vaccines

I Pro will argue for the topicCon against the topicBan " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid(someone) from doing or being part of something" Merriam-webster Vaccine " any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production." http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Nalu is the best couple in fairy tail

Okay, Mr. NaluFan I do know what you mean by the fact that they have had many moments and look good together but that doesn't mean that they really would be a good couple. Some of Natsu's actions may have made it look like he was in love with Lucy but he did something like that for practically every single female character. For example, he literally dragged Erza's dying body out of a lacrima that she was partially fused with, and then swam, with a broken leg, 50 miles back to shore carrying her. How's that for a moment?
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a worthwhile project.

Many thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate. In answer to his suggestion that the LHC is unnecessary as there are already numerous other colliders, I reply that it will help prove or disprove scientific theories that existing colliders are not big or powerful enough to do. The world-renowned theoretical physicist Professor Steven Hawking told BBC Radio "The LHC will increase the energy at which we can study particle interactions by a factor of four. According to present thinking, this should be enough to discover the Higgs particle, the particle that gives mass to all the other particles," That said, Prof. Hawking reckons the scientists at CERN are talking out of their backsides and has bet them $100 that they won't find the Higgs boson! "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again" the wheelchair-bound boffin told the BBC. But there are many more theories that the machine can help scientists explore, for example string theory, multiple universes and Hawking Radiation. My opponent questioned the practical applications of the LHC and claimed that there are no identifiable "spin-offs" from the project. Modern humans have always investigated the world around him out of pure curiosity, rather than in pursuit of a specific technical advance. In so doing, however, his discoveries and scientific equipment have led to huge technical leaps forward that have subsequently had profound benefits for the whole of mankind. For example, we would not be taking part in this online debate had not scientists working for NASA and CERN developed the Internet. In conclusion, although at this stage, it may be difficult to quantify the social and economic benefits the LHC will bring, doesn't mean there won't be any. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk...
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a worthwhile project.

The odds are that my opponent is right that at some time in the future a massive asteroid with the potential to make the human species extinct will be on a collision course with the earth. But don't panic just yet! One of the objectives of the LHC is to discover the nature of mass and gravity. Why do massive objects attract each other? Also, we know that only 4% of the universe is made up of physical matter, so what makes up the rest? What is this "dark matter"? Once we have the answers to these and other questions we may be able to harness this knowledge to develop a method of deflecting or destroying asteroids that threaten our planet. And who knows at this stage what other benefits the human race will accrue from the discoveries scientists will make using the LHC? When man first made metal from smelting ore he couldn't possibly envisage the myriad of uses the material would have in the future. When electricity was first harnessed, how could the scientists of the day envisage how fundamentally important their discoveries would be to the development of modern humans? The reason why you are able to jump in your car get the sat-nav to direct you to the nearest drive-thru restaurant when you are hungry rather than having to go out and hunt down a rabbit or gather some fruit is because our forefathers invested in the unknown, in the hope that research and development of new technologies would bring real benefits to society. For this reason, I think that the taxpayers' money is money well spent. Indeed, the rights to use the technology developed as a result of the discoveries made at the LHC can be sold to private industry, potentially making a profit for the taxpayer.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a worthwhile project.

I must show that the (LHC) it is worth while. To who is it worth while? Remember that movie "Contact" with Jody Foster? Same kind of machine, it will benefit no one but those involved in it's construction and those who get govt grants to maintain it. It will do nothing to improve life for people. An asteroid is going to destroy every living thing on this planet and knowing the origin of the universe will be a mute point. Money should be spent on protecting this planet from asteroids in our own little universe that we can never leave. I am not against knowledge but if the machine had any value it wouldn't need to be funded by the tax payer. And last but not least we have to take the word at face value from a few privileged scientists who report any findings or information about what their "opinion" is about the origin of the universe. Oh ya It's funny how man thinks he is so smart and powerful as to think he can create the energy needed to create a black hole that will consume the earth. I went to all of your links and as far as I can tell it is only worth while to those involved. One link mentions new inventions but gives no examples. I submit it is only useful to those who slobber all over it in ahhh.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a worthwhile project.

Today, the LHC, which is located 100m underground on the French / Swiss border was fired up for the first time. For those who may be unfamiliar with the project, please be refer to the links (1; 2; 3) which can be found at the foot of this page. Even though this project represents one of the most important scientific experiments ever undertaken in the history of mankind, unbelievably, there are people that have criticised the programme. In addition to the usual religious zealots that have been denouncing science since the days of Galileo and beyond (4) we also have a pack of hysterical panic-merchants who are scared stiff that the device will create a mini black hole that will eventually swallow the earth. (5) However, the majority of the critics suggest that the project is a waste of money.(6) However, given the huge scientific and technological benefits that could potentially accrue from the LHC, I would suggest it's worth every last penny. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.lhc.ac.uk... (3) http://public.web.cern.ch... (4) http://edition.cnn.com... (5) http://www.msnbc.msn.com... (6) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk...
Should the drinking age be lower than 21

The human brain does not finish developing until you reach the age of 25. All of the other things you listed will not do the same type of damage that alcohol will do. Though the legal age is 21 and the brain doesn't stop developing until you are 25, the brain is mostly developed by that age and will not cause nearly as much damage as it would to an 18 year old. The legal age being 18 also allows for very easy access to kids aged 14-17 due to the fact that 18 year olds would only be in high school. Those 18 year olds would be able to distribute alcohol to younger kids at their school. The drinking age being 21 stops these problems, and the only con is that 18-20 year olds can't drink alcohol/
Should the drinking age be lower than 21

The drinking age should be lower than 21, at age 18 young people are considered to be adults, they are able to vote, buy Cigarettes and even go into clubs. Not only that they are able to get married, sign contracts , join the military and not only that but if they get into trouble they can be prosecuted into an adult. Therefore if your legal to do all of this then the drinking age should be legal for 18 year olds to chose to drink
The United States should split in two countries. One liberal and one conservative.

Even though I am liberal, It would save both liberals and conservatives a lot of BS. the historic south would become a conservative country and the rest would become a liberal. Everybody would move (or stay) to they're new countries according to their beliefs. If somebody was liberal but wanted to stay with there family in conserveyland, than they could but could move to the liberal state if they wanted. This way people would be happy and conservatives will learn they're mistakes.
Should games be considered as a sport

By every dictionary I've been able to find, a sport requires a physical effort. Debating is not a sport. Although it requires mental effort, it still doesn't make the cut.Dictionary.com (1) - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling,wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. - a particular form of this, especially in the out of doors.Oxford (2)- An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.Learner's Dictionary (3)- a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each otherCambridge (4)- a game, competition, or similar activity, done for enjoyment or as a job, thattakes physical effort and skill and is played or done by following particular rules:The simple fact of the matter is that the term sport simply doesn't fit. We call them E-sports for a reason, because they're not real sports. They need a new name (Hence the E- part of it) because it's not an actual sport.Now the question is whether or not it should be. The simple answer is no. Why should we change definitions because of a new trend? Leave sports physical and come up with your own term, or your own title.(1) - http://www.dictionary.com...(2) - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(3) - http://www.learnersdictionary.com...(4) - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Gun rights in general

Con hasn;t rebutted my point about guns being useful in crises such as war and revolutions, and about unofficial security agencies. Crimes "In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms [1] and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns" Weren't firearms and guns one and the same thing? If not, then its only 4 percent, and furthermore, if guns are banned, other means of murder are always there. Without guns, it will open up the imagination of the murder and would lead to innovative and harder to trace methods of killing, such as overdose of medicines or poison. Criminals may try to make the death look accidental or self-inflicted, but with a gun, they won't start thinking so creatively. Furthermore, banning guns would result in the development of an illegal guns market funded not only by criminals, but also innocent but safety-paranoid patriotic citizens. Capturing them would feel wrong to every police officer who is governed by principle and morals. Self-defense Con argued that I would kill a thief without reason. I argue that I said I will shoot for his weapons hand and make sure the aim is to disarm him rather than kill him. Moreover, gun wounds can be survived if not aimed for vital areas. The problem of self-defense killings can easily be solved by some instructions and training by the police during the application for a gun license. Children accessing guns Once again, police must instruct the gun license holder to not pass on the weapon to anyone else's possession. Moreover, any decent parent would instruct their child to keep away from guns, and lock the drawer which has it, or have the safety on. The police can instruct license holders to not keep their gun in a place reachable by children, and certainly not to keep it loaded all the time. Moreover, a law must be made that the gun can only be kept in possession of the license holder, and if found loaded/accompanied with bullets in the hand of any relative or any other person, the person shall be arrested. Risk of homicide and suicide Mere conjectures. I have a battle sword and shield at home, doesn't mean I am at risk of using it for terrible things. My friend has a rifle, but he barely does target practice with the rusty old thing. It depends upon person to person, whether they can handle a gun or not. Police can conduct a psychological, background and criminal records check before assigning a gun to a person. Moreover, your statistics do not mention whether they have counted policemen, army men and terrorists in their percentage. We are talking about normal civilians here. Con hasn't managed to rebut any of my arguments, and his arguments are subject only to the US. Many other countries such as India allow people to have licensed guns, no one talks about that, now do they?