BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Having Kids Should Be Illegal

I think that, by the age of 20, most people have had sex. They haven't been married, sure, but they've had sex. By 30, it gets harder to have babies. Most people try to have kids at about 25, once they have steady jobs and a decent income. Everybody in the world can coexist. We do not need to kill anybody. That is a violation of human rights and if we killed all the minority groups you have specified we would be left with only 100 people. We are never going to do that. That is wrong. I'm thinking about history and social studies, and I'm a pessimist, and I believe that mankind has a great potential for knowledge and being evil is a choice. Also, I'd like to point out that Hitler, Kim Jong-Un, and Stalin were not criminals, because they were the leaders of their countries and what they did was not considered illegal within their own countries. They were highly immoral people, however. They were DICTATORS. Also, you're pro-communism, so don't pick on Stalin. And Hitler wanted mass genocide too, so don't call him out either, you hypocrite. The ratio of bad guys to good guys in human history is about equal, because good and evil are equal opposites. We had Hitler, and Stalin, and Kim Jong-Un. But we also have Shakespeare, and Mark Twain, and Julius Caesar, and Einstein, and George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln, and Leonardo Da Vinci, who were revolutionary geniuses of their time. The future can be good or bad, depending on what we make of it. To kill most people on the world and prevent everyone from having sex would prevent progress and kill off a species with more intelligence than all the other mammals which inhabit this tiny speck of dust floating in an infinite void. Polar bears need humans to survive. Polar bears do not kill humans, and humans do not kill polar bears. The amount polar bear attacks in the last few years was strikingly low, as few people live in the Arctic, and there's a fine against shooting polar bears since they're endangered. Neither species poses any threat to the other, except indirectly through global warming, which we can easily prevent. We are not going to prevent sex. Sex is how new humans are made, and if humans did not have sex, we would die out within about a century, and we are not going to pass a law which would kill us all. We can change lightbulbs or install solar panels to save the Arctic. Global warming is not caused by farting or cigarettes. Next, I'd like to debate PRO in... Videos for people is a great Youtube channel. I've tried it a million times before, but I'd like to see your spin on it. Until then, I'll be waiting. Judges, vote wisely, consider both arguments with care. I'm outta here.
Having Kids Should Be Illegal

Whoo! Last round, and we are done with debate number 5/100. Either you have minor dyslexia or grammar errors, or you don't anything either. You say that very few people over the age of 20 are virgins. I think it's better to change that number to 30. Also, you say that sausages and polar bears can coexist in the world. Ummm...you are a frankfurter, and I am a polar bear. If we ever meet each other somehow, I will definitely eat you. I don't know what to say, now that sausages have brains and can debate. Anyways, think about history and social studies you've learned before. You say that somebody might solve global warming. There are also criminals, like Hitler or Kim Jong-Un or Stalin. Do you want more of those people terrorizing the Earth? There are more bad guys and criminals than geniuses in all of human history. Yes. We aren't in too much danger, but we in the threatened zone, which is already a matter of concern. That is caused by melting ice and overpopulation. We kill humans to solve overpopulation, and we also ban smoking, vehicles, and whatnot to prevent the ice from melting. But the world population is already too high at 7 billion. We can stop it from getting too high by killing off a lot of people and make having sex illegal and punishable by death. Now let's see what you think. You can choose our next debate topic.
students rights are being violated in school

First of all, thank you for letting me debate against you. I look forward to it! Good luck! First, you did not state in which country this argument is directed towards. My interpretation is ALL schools, in all countries. This includes colleges, universities, high schools, and elementary. My concerns also continue as follows, what types of violation are your arguments directed towards? These facts are not provided so I will continue my debate as interpreted. Since you failed to provide the setting, in which your arguments would be directed towards, I can use the setting that I have experienced personally. May I ask where you got this information? Failure to provide sources will render your facts false.
students rights are being violated in school

Have you ever thought your rights were being violated? Many students have enjoyed all of their rights, but at some schools rights are being violated in terms of making school "so called better." Though some people think that rights are an unimportant factors of school rules I think that schools should factor rights into backpack and locker searches, putting metal detectors in schools, and dress codes. My first reason for students having backpack searches is that administrators should not conduct backpack searches. Backpack searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is important because students own their backpacks not schools. Another major factor according to Dennis Hartman, a reporter for the Synonym Classroom, an online education news website states, "It takes time to perform locker searches." One more source according to Charr from this website in his debate states, "the average ratio of students to Faculty is 1:19 That ought make search take a lot of time. In addition to backpack searches the second reason that I believe that students need their rights is metal detectors. Although not in many schools currently, some have them. According to Brian Steele you would have to ensure there was no other way to get stuff into the school. This is important because metal detectors would be pointless if there were any other ways to get weapons into school. Another idea suggest that there would be much hassle. It would take time to get every student through the metal detector(s). most cities and school districts couldn't pay for to put a metal detector in every school, that would just be ridiculous. I also believe that dress codes are a violation of students rights. Lets face it most students dislike there dress code. Not only would removing dress codes take away the right violation; it would create a bond between teachers and students. This would be a powerful and everlasting bond. Taking away the dress code would mean that students would think that school is the next best thing. Some may argue that while the other side believes backpack searches metal detectors and dress codes are beneficial in schools. I however, reject those ideas because according to a survey I took most teens at my school dislike the dress code. Searching backpacks helps schools find drugs. Metal detectors are excellent ways of finding weapons. Lastly dress codes help ensure that students don't come immodest. To sum it up, rights rule. Were your rights ever violated. Backpack and locker searches have much in common. but on the other hand dress codes are what they are. Now's the time to vote Pro. Please help me in the fight.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

The New Testament is replete with references to God, his beloved son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. 2 Cor 13:14 and Mat 28:19 are explicit examples. The tripartite nature of God is obvious when you consider the following:1) Christians believe absolutely in One God, a doctrine derived from the Bible.2) Christians (and many Jews) believe that the Holy Spirit is an emination of God, a doctrine derived from the Bible.3) Christians believe that Jesus is a manifestation of God in human form, a doctrine derived from the Bible.Therefore, God is One, but the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God. But God is One. I don't pretend to understand this, but it is the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is a doctrine derived explicitly from the Bible.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

Many Bible translations read "I am," some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Those translators try to connect the expression in John 8:58, where the Greek e"goR42; ei"miR42; is used, with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title "I Am." However, the last part of John 8:58 in the New World Translation reads, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.". Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus" reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e"goR42; ei"miR42; as a title to the holy spirit. Con admited, "if you're looking for the words "trinity" or "homoousias" in the Bible, then you're going to be a long time looking." If in this last round he can not give a single verse that mentions the three persons of the trinity and shows that the persons must be three in one with equal divine honor, then the trinity is, in fact, extra-Biblical. Thank you.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

Judaism, the quintessential monotheism, contains within its holy books mention of the ruach ha-kodesh, the holy spirit. It does not refer to some other divine entity, the actions of the spirit are co-terminous with those of God. It is the divine presence and influence of God, nothing more. You might call this Binitarianism.Once the Son arrives on the scene, he begins saying things like "Very truly I tell you," the Jews, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58), which imply that he is also in some sense equivalent to God. In fact, the very God that spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush. Why? Because "I am" is one translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH. I don't believe for one moment that Mark, Matthew, or Luke believed that Jesus was God. However, John did. And the Gospel of John is part of the Bible.Now, if you're looking for the words "trinity" or "homoousias" in the Bible, then you're going to be a long time looking. This does not mean that the concept is extra-Biblical. IF God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all God, and God is One, then God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are One.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

According to Con, to demonstrate that the Trinity is Biblical, two things must be shown:1) The three Persons of the Trinity must be established in the text, and2) These three Persons must be one in the same.The Father, the Son, and the holy spirit were all mentioned in Matthew 28:19. But, absolutely nothing is said in that verse about their being one. In fact, Jesus' answer to Satan in that same book of Matthew demonstrates he is not part of a Trinity.2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU." Verses like this only prove that there are the three subjects named (the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit), but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor. Con has not succeeded in showing a single verse that both mentions the three persons of the trinity and shows that the persons must be three in one, with equal divine honor.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

If one is to demonstrate that the Trinity is Biblical, it seems that there are two distinct things to be shown:1) The three Persons of the Trinity must be established in the text, and2) These three Persons must be one in the same.In Round 2, I succeeded in showing the first, e.g. Mat 28:19. I will now proceed to show the second. Deuteronomy 6:4, alongside much of the Tanakh, proclaims that "the Lord our God, the Lord is one." However, much of the New Testament describes three aspects of God: God, the Father; the Holy Spirit of God; and the Saviour. For example, 2 Cor 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." The only logical reconciliation of these facts is if the Three Persons referenced throughout the New Testament were acting in unison with one will, the will of God. Thus, in spite of three manifestations, there is but One God. This is the central mystery of Christianity, and it is Biblical.
The Trinity Is NOT Biblical

I merely have to demonstrate one instance in which the Trinity is substatiated in the Bible in order to prove my case. I will not resort to the opening of the Gospel of John, as my opponent suggests I might.Instead, I point the reader to the record of the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19:- "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."I agree with my opponent that the precise relationship of each person of the Trinity to the others was not articulated until much later, but the Trinity itself is Biblical.
I need a one page essay on why you should be nice to your sister

I, con must prove "I need a one page essay on why you should be nice to your sister" wrong. You did not imply who "I" was. So it could be anyone talking in the 1st person. So say for example a pour orphan in Africa wrote this and it was translated. He would not need a essay on why you should be nice to your sister. I have already proven my opponent wrong.
On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

I accept. I'd like to note that this debate is part of September's Beginner's tournament hosted by the gracious Lannan13 and his co-mod The-Voice-of-TruthLinks: (http://www.debate.org...) and (http://www.debate.org...)As given by the mods, our topic is as specified:SOLONKR you are Pro to this topic and shall be arguing that gender is biologicalMistermittens you are Con, debating that gender is nurture and dettermined by society. All definitions are assumed to be what can be found in any standard dictionary. As such, there shall be no semantic or definitional abuse in this debate. :>Anyway, I know this will be a fun debate. Well wishes to my esteemed opponent, Sir SolonKRAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd We're off!
Global Warming Exists

I only missed because I have not been on my computer for a while. Here is my arguement again from my response in the second round: "The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period of 13 months. Particularly when a large portion of that cooling occured over one month. Only over a period of years to decades can you confidently discern climate trends. Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate." A. Don't forget, I said that the fact was that 2011 was the SECOND coldest month since 2000, so it has been colder (source is on my commet, same with second round). "It seems that my opponent is absent and her timer ran out, hopefully she comes back because it's been a good debate." A. Why thank you, same here!
Global Warming Exists

"That case is not true. 2011 was the second coldest year since 2000. This proves that the weather is, in fact, cooling. Don't forget, we had a huge snowstorm in October last year that caused many schools to cancel for the day. That is why the globe is not warming up." My opponent seems to think that a change in the weather for a period of a year or months or days, has to do with global climate change. The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period of 13 months. Particularly when a large portion of that cooling occured over one month. Only over a period of years to decades can you confidently discern climate trends. Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skeptic.com...
Global Warming Exists

Thank You for not adding more points. Rebuttals: "We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming." A. That case is not true. 2011 was the second coldest year since 2000. This proves that the weather is, in fact, cooling. Don't forget, we had a huge snowstorm in October last year that caused many schools to cancel for the day. That is why the globe is not warming up.
Global Warming Exists

The Earth is Warming We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Defeding Inalienable Rights: a Crisis of Philosophy (We are unable to defend 'natural rights')

A disturbing thing has occurred to me. It should be well known by now that I have always held that Man has certain inalienable rights. Indeed, several key points of my ideology hinder on this belief. If the right to life in not an inherent, natural right, then one cannot reasonable defend any other rights as such. Let us be clear that such matters can still be resolved under the theory of social contract- that is, so long as the People agree to defend all life, there is no danger of losing legal protection of one's right to exist. The problem, however is this: If we are unable to defend certain rights, such as the rights to life and liberty, as natural and inalienable in nature, then we are wholly dependent upon social contract to defend these rights, as the only possible conclusion would be that they are granted purely by the group. The crisis lies in the fact that if such a position is adopted, then there is no line of reasonable or logical defense against murder, abortion, slavery, or any other crime or act against Man if society fails to protect the People. Furthermore, is such rights are not inherent, then we cannot demand that society protect them- we are at the mercy of the masses. This is truly a disturbing thought. How, then, can we defend our belief that such rights are inherent, without relying on mythology or emotion-laden words? What logical defense do we have? If we are to protect the rights of all people, we must address this matter with the greatest urgency- there is no matter more important to the ideological or pragmatic defense of human rights, for if we fail then we have no defense against a civilization seemingly intent on devaluing human life and casting aside all ethical hindrances in favor of libertine and gluttonous excess, without the slightest regard of consequence to fellow Man. (Let it be known that my hope is that I can be shown wrong in my concern)
Defeding Inalienable Rights: a Crisis of Philosophy (We are unable to defend 'natural rights')

For the sake of Coherence the positions in this argument need to be further clarified and expounded. PRO do you intend to argue that there is no such thing as Inalienable rights? Or is that MY position? I would gladly argue either side. I well realize that in doing what I am doing, I am essentially forfeiting the first round - but I think this argument has an immense amount of potential and I want to be clear on what is being debated. Please respond with a more defined set of positions - I am glad to take up this debate.
Abortion should be illegal in all cases.

We shouldn"t kill me because I am smart enough to not have a baby. As soon as I found out about global warming I sold my car to prevent it. The next action we should take is forcing people to abort all babies by killing them and the person they fukt. I do not want to live in a world where polar bears lose there habitat and die and I"m sure you don"t either. If you like animals you should be anti childbirth because it is the reason animals are dying.
Donald Trump is a Gender

I sexually Identify as a Donald Trump. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of being a billionaire from New York. People say to me that a person being Donald Trump is Impossible and I'm fcking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a bank give me a small loan of 1,000,000 dollars and install a gold wig on my head. From now on I want you guys to call me "Donald Trump" and respect my right to build a great huge wall and kill dirty Muslim immigrants and Mexicans. If you can't accept me you're a Liberal, will get sued and need to check your political privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Resolved: The legal drinking age in America should be reduced to 18 years old.

I absolutely disagree . Drinking ages should lower to age 18 because its RATIONAL. 1) drinking at the age of 18 should be allowed because it makes sense to allow a 18 year old to drink a beer if he is legible to serve in war.Tennesee Law Professor ,Glenn Reynolds said, "If you get shot at, you can have a shot". 2)at the age of 18, you are pretty much allowed to do anything except drink. At the age of 18 , you can vote , serve on jury, marry , and sign a contract. if a person at this age is allowed to do these things , then they should be allowed to be trusted to drink alcohol. 3) By lowering the drinking age to 18, teens that are nearing their adult years, will no longer take joy in illegally drinking .The legal age for drinking is 21. By leaving it at age 21, the law is saying that alcohol represents maturity, which is the exact reason why teens strive to break the law ,so they can be considered MATURE. My opponent shold be able to argue that these points are not RATIONAL..... for the next round.....
Resolved: The legal drinking age in America should be reduced to 18 years old.

I think that the age should stay at 21 because at 18 years of age you havent quite matured yet and your just now getting your liscence to drive with out a parents supervison. It is illegal to drink and drive for all ages, so i say that to say this if your attending a party, there is drinking involved and your drving by your self you can risk your life and someone else sif your not sober.
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

The debate refers to contradictions, which by its definition one needs to contradict oneself to fulfill the purpose of contradiction. You chose the debate, otherwise I can just flip the tables and announce that because you stated you didn't chose the debate, I can just change it to something compeltely different.Whatever. I won't contradict myself anyways. Do you hate debates that involve questions?No.Are you involved in a debate that involves questions?Yes.Can you say the alphabet backwards?Yes.Are you confident in your debating skills?Yes.Will you answer all the following questions with a "yes" or "no"? Yes.