BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quran(Pro )vs Bible (con)

First of all I need to make it clear that what we're debating The QURAN and the Bible and not anything else lile "Hadiths or Muslim Interpretations of the Quran (ex Ibn Kathir,etc. .) since the Quran alone is the only source of Islam or at least that's my view. Also, the debate will include various topics to campare the two Holy Books with such as :1- Signs/Proofs of being from God (Scientific miracles, etc)2-Historical evidence that the Book wasnt altered with or corrupted.3- Any prophecies included in the Books.4- Human Rights /morals included in the Holy Book5- Most importantly "which is the one calling truely for peace and being open-minded and many other topics Hope Good luck for Con and I wish the debate goes on in good manners and be enjoy able for us all .
Do you know the wae *Cough* (ONLY THE WAE IN)

DO YOU KNOW THE WAE, if no, SPIT ON YOU NON_BELIEVERS CLUCK* CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*CLUCK*
Is there a place for Christianity in today's world.

In today's society full of religious pluralism and reeling on the effects of postmodernists moral relativity, we ask is there a place for Christianity in today's world? I hold that the Christian worldview provides the most fulfilling life here on this planet. More importantly it allows for the forgiveness of sin and provides hope not only now but for eternity. If other religions eliminate the self or conclude there is no soul or it is not eternal, what hope does that provide for man's longing as an eternal being. I would love to hear back on this issue and have a an enriching exchange on the matter. Thanks
Donald Trump is qualified for President

" As directed by the Constitution a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older." [1]Donald Trump is above the age of 35, as he is 69 years old. [2]Donald Trump was born in the United States, specifically in New York. [2]Donald Trump has been a resident for 14 years, and in fact, he has lived in the United States all his life. [2]He meets the Constitutional requirement for President, therefore he is qualified.Sources:[1] http://www.loc.gov...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
iran deal is a mistake

Pro's final rebuttal dropped my contention refuting the negative impact of the deal with Iran and missed the point entirely. I didn't say a deal was better than nothing - I said there was no potential harm from the deal, as not enacting the deal maintains the status quo that would exist was there no deal, whereas enacting the deal provides economic stimulus ONLY IF the conditions that demonstrate that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon are met. In short, without a deal, they continue to build a nuclear programme unimpeded whilst relatively impoverished and the global economy detrimentally affected by the reduced supply of Iranian oil. However, with a deal, they either enact the conditions specified, reducing or eliminating their ability to complete a nuclear weapon, whilst the global economy experiences the benefits of reduced sanctions. Pro also totally ignored my second round contention that the entire phrasing of the argument means, that even if the agreement proves beneficial for Iran but not the United States, which I have conclusively proved is not in the offing, the deal is still not a mistake, as a mistake has a specific definition and Pro at no point defined who he or she was trying to contend it was a mistake for. As Pro has dropped this contention as well, Pro has been demonstrated to agree that it is impossible to define the deal between P5+1 and Iran as a mistake even should it not prove particularly beneficial for P5+1. As a premediated action for behind which there is a clear and justified rationale, and as the result of a drawn-out process rather than an hasty decision, the deal is clearly not a mistake in any sense of the two definitions that I introduced in Round 2 and that Pro has chosen to not to rebut, therefore demonstrating that Pro agrees with those (incontrovertibly accurate) definitions. I would also like to point out that Iran is not in fact receiving economic stimulus - rather, they are simply being returned their own, earned assets currently frozen in P5+1 countries (http://america.aljazeera.com...). Sanctions are also being lifted, which has an undeniably positive effect on the global economy, particularly the United States, the world's second largest oil consumer. Pro has dropped my contention as to the demonstrated economic harm of sanctions, implying that Pro tacitly agrees that economic sanctions have a net harm on the global economy. Pro has also used no sources whatsoever, indicating that they can meet none of the Burden of Proof. To conclude, Pro has dropped all of my main contentions from Round 2, as well as having failed to rebut the one contention that he or she attempted to rebut in Round 3. I believe I have conclusively established that there is no potential harm from the Iran deal in excess of that was there no deal, whereas I have also established the numerous benefits of the deal should it be successful. I believe myself to have thoroughly met the Burden of Proof through extensive use of balanced sources. I rest my case.
iran deal is a mistake

I appreciate this opportunity, especially as this is my first-ever debate on this platform. I will be arguing that the agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran was not by any means a mistake, as this appears to be your argument. If you have any clarifications, feel free to offer them in the second round, as you chose to use the first round for your argument rather than to nail down definitions and eliminate vagueness. I will be using historical precedent, the analysis of those relatively well-informed in the field and of course, information directly of the deal itself to argue my case that the deal signed between the United States and Iran was not, in fact, a mistake.
Raising Minimum Wage

Is the minimum wage in NY really $15? I don't live in NY, But I thought the minimum wage for New York CITY was $15, But outside of the city it's less (around $12. 75). Please clarify. Nonetheless, It's tempting to use GDP to justify minimum wage increase, But GDP is not a good reason. Just look at a state like Texas (my state. . . Which also happens to be the best country on the planet LOL). And let's use 2017 numbers Texas NY Minimum Wage $7. 25/hr $9. 7/hr to $11/hr GDP $1. 65 Trillion $1. 61 Trillion State Income Tax 0% Varies from 4% to 8. 8% There are a lot of factors which impact GDP, Minimum wage being just one of them. Texas also has no income tax, Whereas NY does. Of course, One could argue property taxes are a reason to raise the minimum wage (I would argue NO). I'll admit Texas has property taxes, But I like to look at property tax as a tax on what you BUY (OWN), Not what you EARN. TX doesn't tax me on what I earn (state income tax), But it does tax me on what I buy/own. So if I make $7. 25/hr, I'm not going to get taxed on that-- the state isn't going to take that money. Whereas, In NY if I make $9. 70/hr, Guess what. . . . The state is going to take some of that money. So, I know this may be oversimplification, But the more a state takes from you, Well then, Of course the more you have to make. Of course politicians want to raise the minimum wage-- the more you make, The more gets sent to them. In short-- GDP can't be used to justify Minimum. Texas has a higher GDP, But a lower minimum wage than NY. The numbers above come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the U. S. Commerce Dept) and NY State govt page https://www. Bea. Gov/ https://www. Ny. Gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wage
Raising Minimum Wage

Nope. Don't raise the minimum wage. Why not? Simple. Let the free market dictate what the wage should be. If a person doesn't want to earn $7. 25 /hr? Fine. Go out and learn new skills so that you make yourself valuable to a potential employer. Wages, Like house prices, Will reflect what a market will bear. I'm a manager and hire people (in the high tech field). I pay people what I feel their skill set is worth. There are some people who come to me and think they should be making what Joe/Jane makes (he makes $16/hr). I say well. . . Joe/Jane has such and such skill set, They are able to do this this and that-- you're not. If you want to make $16/hr, Go out and learn the skills Joe/Jane have. Hell, I even give them the opportunity to train alongside Joe/Jane so they can start to learn those skills. And then, If they can demonstrate proficiency with those skills, They will soon find themselves making $16/hr. Bottom line, Learn skills which will make you valuable to an employer. Get an education. Learn Skills. Find a demand and fill. That's what people will pay for. Finally, Do the things that other people don't want to do. People will pay all sorts of money to have people do stuff they can't do or don't want to do.
Raising Minimum Wage

I am new to this website and am currently working on a semester final for my highschool english class. I am not going to say im really good at debating but i would like to get another persons opinion on raising minimum wage. It would be extremely helpful for someone to either stand up for minimum wage being raised (as this is the essay my teacher is wanting from me) or to say that it should not. So far, People are arguing that it is not easy to afford things being paid what they are now. This is my only argument, And it seems the website needs you to participate in 3 debates before being able to vote. I only enjoy reading debates but if i must make this, I appreciate any help i can get. :)
Raising Minimum Wage

Will not post an argument. Will simply say in my previous argument, I meant to post a table showing GDP vs minimum wage for Tx vs NY, But the table formatting didn't come across. Here it is again: Texas Min Wage = $7. 25/hr State Income Tax = 0 GDP = $1. 65 Trillion NY Min Wage = $9. 7/hr to $11/hr State Income Tax = Varies from 4% to 8. 8% GDP $1. 61 Trillion
Grover Norquist's pledge is based on sound economic ideology.

I am arguing that the ideology behind Grover Norquist's pledge [1] is not sound economics. In this debate, Pro must agree to the following interpretation of the ideology behind the tax pledge, along with the definition following: that raising taxes is unconditionally poor economic policy and lower/not changing taxes is unconditionally good economic policy. Unconditional - Without conditions or limitations; absolute [2] Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 is for opening arguments - no rebuttals. Round 3 is for rebuttals. No new arguments may be submitted. Round 4 is for closing arguments. No new arguments can be submitted. [1] http://s3.amazonaws.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Barack Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

It seems I have missed round 2. I will therefore provide an opening and final statement in one post. A Nobel Peace Prize a lifetime award achievement that garners worldwide recognition as well as subculture recognition. It is awarded to an individual that has spent their life pursuing their dreams and arriving at a culmination of all your lifetime dreams and desires. A breakthough or groundbreaking discoveryin a field could also warrant it. An example is John Nash, the mathematician in A beautiful mind. Watch the movie as my source. For becoming a U.S. president... Barack Obama has not achievednothing of what he set out to do and promised to tge grsatest nation in the world. He's in his mid 40's I believe, still a yound budding age as a President. How does this warrant being able to receive an award the same as Teddy Roosevelt, The Great Titan that rescued the great nation and turned it into an even stronger nation for the next president. Barack Obama's failed action and policies in his 2nd term is something that really deserves an award similar to the former president g.w. bush, and that is to be put in the white house hall of shame and mocked and joked upon.
Dogs are better than cats.

There are many reasons why cats are better than dogs. They treat your guests better than dogs as rather than jumping up on them, barking or even attacking like dogs, cats will greet your guests with kindness and soft touches. Cats are actually quieter than dogs so you won't get in trouble with your neighbors. It has also been proven that cats can smell better than dogs, so they would actually be better on finding drugs rather than drug dogs. There have been many cases in which cats have protected their masters' just as dogs have. One example is the recent indent when a DOG attacked a child and as CAT saved said young child. Claiming that dogs are better than cats is just false.
Dogs are better than cats.

I believe that dogs are better than cats for a couple of reasons. First of all, they did not receive the title "Man's Best Friend" for nothing. They may not live as long as cats, but dogs are more useful and loyal. Examples: 1. Dogs can be used by hunters to retrieve birds that are shot 2. Dogs are used to find drugs 3. There have been cases where dogs have saved their owner's life Also, dogs are a main part of a lot f books, including Old Yeller. They can also be trained, unlike cats.
fortnite is better than gangstar 2

Intro You might be wondering right now " Why did somebody actually accept this?" Well, I"m an avid player of GS2. Gangstar 2 is a far superior game to Fortnite for 3 main reasons. One: It"s on a Nintendo product, the DSi. Two: It has more action and intense gunplay. Three: The GTA aspects of the game make its game design fun and exciting. (Post note: The current E3 rumors suggest that Fortnite might be coming to the switch but this is only rumors.) Counter The current state of gaming suggests that people want to play their games on the go. Well at the time of your argument you stated Fortnite is not on mobile. Well GS2 was already on mobile for a few years before Fortnite was even making a battle royal mode. Gangstar 2 may not be the best in the series but that's what is good about it. The GS series has grown and expanded, changed and improved over the 11 years. The way you mentioned the cussing and inappropriate language children may encounter intrigues me. GS2 has violence and some mild stuff sure, and so does Fortnite, but Fortnite also has people. Who needs to be constantly supervising when you could say yes or no to your child when they want to get said game. You already know what your kid will be exposed to and you can deny it all or not. People are unpredictable. Give a kid an hour on Fortnite and he might come back with a few new cuss words under his lip (see what I did there?). You simply can"t save your child from everything other people do/say. This is why single player games are a good alternative for parents who want to keep their kid somewhat in what they want them to know. Yes playing with others is fun but for parents, it's a danger having their kid playing with somebody they don"t know. Me personally I could care less but in this case, I speak for the clueless. This game is also not a pay to win cash grab with no purchases after the initial one. There is no way to spend any money for virtual clothes or emotes. Plus, these virtual items will be meaningless in 5 or 10 years. Bottom line: If there are no in-game purchases, you can"t waste money. *I"m gonna be honest this is my first debate. Please leave any suggestions for anything I can improve on. It is greatly appreciated! 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100111
fortnite is better than gangstar 2

e," said Pannoni. "In some games, there is never an end to what you spend money on. In 'Fortnite,' when you win or lose, you won or lost fairly and not beacause you bought a bunch of stuff." Bottom line: If your child can settle for generic attire, they can play "Fortnite" for free. If they want to dress up and express themselves in the game, they will pay for it. 3. Your kids can play "Fortnite" with their friends, but they will also be playing with strangers. One of the advantages of "Fortnite" is that because it is on an online public gaming platform, your kids can find out who of their friends plays too and play with them online from anywhere. It's great for letting kids keep in touch with far-away friends or even friends from school. However, it also means that your child will be playing with strangers, as anyone who signs up could be in the round with your child. "There can be inappropriate talk on the mic or chatting," said Pannoni. Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that this aspect of "Fortnite" necessitates some parental supervision. Two of her own older sons play "Fortnite," though her elementary school-aged son is not allowed to play nor to watch his older brothers play. "Letting a child play this means having some real conversations about violence and about online safety and how 'friends' in the chat are not friends " they could be anyone " and that usernames mean nothing," said Gilboa. "So 'Cory11' doesn't necessarily mean that this is an 11-year-old person, for example." 4. It's coming to mobile devices... soon. Fair warning, parents: Very shortly, kids will be able to play "Fortnite" on the go. Epic Games began accepting sign-ups for iOs as of yesterday.
Gay Marriage I

This round will be short and sweet.R1: Second Class Relationships, more likeHomosexual couples are intrinsically worth less to society than heterosexual ones, my entire argument is based off of this truth. And it doesn't follow that since barring homosexual couples from earning the status of marriage (that is, a publicly celebrated relationship) we are in any way affecting the rights of homosexuals. If marriage was a public union with its basis in desire then my opponent would have a case. However, he has yet to justify such a conception of marriage, and the conception I provided justifiably excludes homosexual couples from participating in the publicly celebrated relationship, due to their inability to utilize our reproductive organs in their correct fashion.Even given my opponents contention prevailed, it would also follow that pedophiles, zoophiles, and people afflicted by other forms of sexual perversion would also qualify as Second Class citizens, for they are not being protected from discrimination by "the principles of social contract."R2 & R3: Does legalization follow? As for R2, my opponent provides no sources backing up any of the claims or scientific studies. Also, the "Emory University" study is obviously biased and not up to par; my case demonstrates no intollerance towards homosexuals, but I still maintain that Gay Marriage should not be legalized.But granted his studies are correct, what would legislation in favor of gay marriage entail? It seems that it would be the forcing of controversial moral views, upon the legitimacy of Gay relationships and the morality of homosexual acts, upon the juristiction there of, an attitude many gay marriage advocates criticize the social right of doing. All in all, his case doesn't follow through with his conclusion. Social stigma against pedophiles would be reduced upon abolishing the Age of Consent, but that doesn't mean we should dow it.As for R3, this is the Broken Window fallacy. If money wasn't being spent on Gay Weddings, it would be going somewhere else, like improving the quality of life for the participants that would have otherwise wasted 6 grand on a ceremony. Also no sources.
Tf2 is superior to CoD

I would like to say that in your argument, you said Team Fortress 2 vs The Call of Duty series, and in all of the Call of Duty games there are hundreds of weapons that have been added an taken out over time, providing many more weapons than Team Fortress 2. And Team Fortress 2 is not the only series with DLC, as many weapons are released for Call of Duty over DLC. I would also like to say Team Fortress has just as much a fair share of immature players as Call of Duty does, also from experience, and due to the game's overall more childish playstyle and graphics. Call of Duty also has its own charity, found here http://www.callofdutyendowment.org... where players can donate to help veterans get jobs, which is a mature and very nice thing in my opinion. Another point I bring up is the large variety of game modes in the Call of Duty series, including the very popular Zombies mode. While Team Fortress 2 is limited to only 7-8 modes, Call of Duty features around 20, not including campaign. Which brings up another point, Call of Duty has a story driven campaign, which provides even more entertainment with an excellent story written by expert writers. I await my opponent's response.
Tf2 is superior to CoD

Though I accept that CoD has offline multiplayer and that this is a very good point, team fortress 2 does have many more weapons, despite the fact you sometimes have to pay, I argue that you find them in battle more than you say, for example, provided you play 1 hour per day, 7 days a week, you will average about 10 weapons, to a varying degree. I also argue that having a different weapon is more meaningful in tf2, for example, in CoD, all LMG's serve the same purpose, area denial and cover fire, however tf2's equivalent, the minigun is far more versatile, with variants specialising in defence (the brass beast), offence (the tomislav) all purpose (minigun) and support (Natasha). You can even completely changing the class, making snipers into spy killing machines using jarate and the bushwacka, turning medics to assassins picking of the injured using the solemn vow and crusaders crossbow, soldiers can become merciless shock troops, literally squashing snipers, medics and engineers, oh and who could forget the mighty demoknight. I would also like to point out the community, tf2's community is relatively mature, always say gg, and aren't plagued by brain dead fanboys. The only time I played CoD online was MW2, and after an hour I turned off my sound and the next day I sold the game.
Tf2 is superior to CoD

In my defense of the Call of Duty series, Team Fortress may be free, but it has a lot less weapon choices. I own both games, and I know from experience. In Call of Duty Ghosts, when in the multiplayer, you have access to over 50 different weapons, not including killstreaks. In the game Team Fortress 2, you start out with 3 weapons for each class (except medic and spy, who have 6 and 4 respectively) averaging around 20-30 weapons. You may mention the fact that you can get weapons in game, but you either have to buy them in microtransactions, rarely find one in battle, or find them in crates that require a key that costs real money. Another advantage over Team Fortress is the offline multiplayer. For those without Internet, Team Fortress 2 is a waste of space and you have no point in downloading it due to the lack of offline multiplayer. In the majority of the Call of Duty games, offline multiplayer is allowed, and very enjoyable. In my third and final point Call of Duty has split screen multiplayer, a feature Team Fortress 2 lacks. For those who want to enjoy a game with a friend, Call o Duty provides an easier alternative than playing online, and I personally enjoy experiences next to someone on the couch than online. And to counter your first argument, Team Fortress is only free on PC, and for those who want to play the game on the Xbox 360, it will cost money. On the other hand, the Call of Duty series is more widely available, and is available for more platforms.