BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Abortion. Many argue that it is immoral.That the unborn has a right to live. Many forget that the choice for the termination of a pregnancy shouldn't be according to a personal belief,but according to what the mother wants.A fetus is alive,it is.But a woman's right to her body is greater than an unborn cluster of cells.Sure,life matters,but animals live.Bacteria live.Fungal clusters live.Why should a cluster of cells leeching from a woman's nutrients have more right than the Mother herself.An unwanted baby is sure to have a traumatic and unfulfilled life. Adoption is not the answer as it has been proven to be unsuccessful.Child birth is incredibly painful and laborious,and an unwilling woman should not be force to go through it just because another persons belief dictate that she should be forced to do so. Banning abortion is no help.Doing so will only give the demand for underground abortion clinics to arise.That will cause incredible health issues and danger to the woman's life. Some argue that fetuses can feel pain during abortion.That is irrelevant as the fetus will die anyway.Animals feel pain when slaughtered,yet no one argues against that.A woman's right to her body and person outweighs an unwanted fetus taking nutrients from said body. Having a child unprepared can end a woman's career,stump her social life, and create an incredibly damaging environment for the child to grow up in. A religious reason is irrelevant as,shocker,not everyone believes in it. Women should not lose control over their bodies just because a majority decided so.Just because a book written thousands of years ago has some words in it does not mean that, in our fact driven modern world, it must be used as law.We take only facts. Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). At the end,a women must have the choice over her own body.Many who argue that a fetus's life also matters tend to speak of women as if they don't have a choice.It is not the debater's,but the woman's word and choice that truly matters.
2a. Affirmative Action

Affirmative action can be defined as helping disadvantaged groups of people to gain education and jobs. Now I know what most of you are thinking. You are probably thinking that this is some sort of 'reverse racism.' Forget these preconceived notions. That's one of my rules. Now then, let me first address the most common argument against affirmative action. Affirmative action is viewed as some government-imposed anomaly that is not present in a free society. Fortunately, this is not further from the truth. An extremely large part of affirmative action takes place in the form of private entities giving out scholarships that target generally disadvantaged racial groups. Though my opponent will try to convince you otherwise, there is nothing wrong with this. A private entity should be able to give scholarships to anyone they want based on any criteria. Just as an employer should be able to hire anyone they want. However, this brings me to the other major part of affirmative action. Many employers try to hire a larger portion of disadvantaged racial groups than one might expect. This is for many reasons, including diversity [or at least a guise of diversity]. There is nothing wrong with this. Employers should have the right to hire whoever they want, as long as they do not step on the rights guaranteed to us, the individuals. We don't have some fundamental right to be hired just because we're as educated and experienced as the guy they actually hired. The company can hire based on whatever reasons they want - they could hire us for having good education and experience, they could hire us because we're a guy they'd like to have a beer with, they could hire us because we're of a racial group that would increase diversity in the company, or whatever other reasons they want. Trying to stop these things is ridiculous. Stoping affirmative action means limiting the rights of entities to make decisions that should be protected. A company should not be required to hire only the most educated and experienced candidates. They should have the power to choose who they hire. Specialized scholarships should be able to target whatever group they want, be it women, minorities, poor people, people with beards, or even majority groups like men or whites. I am in support of affirmative action in the same sense that I am in favor of any entity doing anything that does not infringe on other people's rights. There is no need to abridge the freedoms of these entities. But perhaps my opponent can show us otherwise.
According to the Bible Jesus Is God

I want to begin with a quote from my opponent. "I did take up the material and simply said the source of it is not qualified since the author himself is ambiguous, and is not scientifically proved. Consequently, the material is not reliable." He thinks that he dealt with my argument by saying that my source, the bible, is unreliable and unqualified as a source. On what planet and in what universe is this logical. My proposition is, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE Jesus is God. To affirm that proposition the ONLY qualified and reliable source and material is the bible. Notice the issues is not that I am claiming that Jesus is God and quoting the bible to prove it. If that is what I was doing maybe he has a point. I am not claiming that Jesus is God, but that according to the Bible Jesus is God. The only way to determine that Jesus is God according to the bible, is to see what the bible says. However suspect or unreliable the bible may be in my opponents view, the one area that it is reliable is about what IT say. There is no greater source of authority about if the bible says something than the bible. You the readers understand that. If I were to claim that according to to gallop poll McCain is leading the presidential race the most authoritative source to prove that would be to check the gallop poll. You could not logically quote zogby, Rasmussen, or any other poll as proof that McCain is leading in the gallop poll. You readers understand this very clearly. So the fact of the matter is, if I am going to prove the proposition that "according to the bible" Jesus is god, to ultimately prove that, I MUST quote the bible. Now if I was going to just try and prove that Jesus is God, I agree that the bible could be questioned as a viable source, but that is not what I have done. The Bible still very clearly says in plain and impossible to misunderstand language that Jesus is God (Is 9:6, Jn 20:26-28, Titus 2:13-14, Rom 9:5). Even he cannot deny that.
According to the Bible Jesus Is God

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, I'm trying to deal with this argument in the most logical manner;therefore, I do not believe it is possible for Jesus to be God according to Bible. "Readers you understand that in order to defeat an opponent's argument you actually take up his material and answer it." I did take up the material and simply said the source of it is not qualified since the author himself is ambiguous, and is not scientifically proved. Consequently, the material is not reliable. "He says that it is impossible to a father and a son at the same time. Even if that is true, which it is not, that is not what we are debating. I simply set out to affirm that Jesus is God according to the Bible and I did just that. My opponent wants to know how I can prove that Jesus is a father and a son. I want to know, why would I try to prove something in this debate that is NOT my proposition." It is significant to prove how to be a father and a son at the same time because the Bible, the only source you are using to sustain your proposition, states God is Jesus' father, Jesus is God's son, and Jesus is God himself, and that's the proposition that you're trying to prove. It absolutely fits the topic and does not deviate from it at all. Well, furthermore, my opponent would have to prove everything written in Bible is reliable and true in order to justify the source he is using is proved and reliable to the readers of this debate. " By the way, to prove that Jesus is God, one does not have to make him a father and a son. What if I were a Trinitarian and believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? They believe that the Son (Jesus) is God, but is not the Father. So, you see my opponent has presented a straw man." I don't think my opponent is making a coherent sense at this point. My opponent is saying.. 1. God the son. 2. God the father 3.Son is not the father. I will let the readers judge if this makes any sense.
According to the Bible Jesus Is God

Readers you understand that in order to defeat an opponent's argument you actually take up his material and answer it. He did not deal with any of my verses that I presented that in no uncertain terms say with any ubiquity that Jesus is God. I can see already that he is not going to deal with my verse in any theological or logical manner. My proposition states that the scriptures teach that Jesus is God. I used scriptures that say that plainly. Case closed. He says that it is impossible to a father and a son at the same time. Even if that is true, which it is not, that is not what we are debating. I simply set out to affirm that Jesus is God according to the Bible and I did just that. My opponent wants to know how I can prove that Jesus is a father and a son. I want to know, why would I try to prove something in this debate that is NOT my proposition. I may even believe that Jesus is at once father and son, but that is not the point of this debate. By the way, to prove that Jesus is God, one does not have to make him a father and a son. What if I were a Trinitarian and believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? They believe that the Son (Jesus) is God, but is not the Father. So, you see my opponent has presented a straw man. Tell me that neither Isaiah 9:6, John 20:26-28, nor Titus 2:13-14 says that Jesus is God and you win this debate. If you can't change the wording of those passages then I win. If this is so pointless to debate then, why are you doing it?
According to the Bible Jesus Is God

"According to the bible, Jesus is God" With this such religious topic, I don't think it is absolutely possible to prove which side is wrong or right by presenting reasonable or logical sources. Therefore, I'm just going to represent my points of view about the topic and prove why it is impossible to support one's notion on this topic with logical senses. In bible, it states "Jesus is son of God, God is Holy Spirit, and Holy Spirit is Jesus." With logical senses, it is impossible to be a father and a son at the same time. One might say.. "it is possible because it's Jesus." Well, how can you prove it? It is not only impossible to prove it was actually possible but also pointless. As my opponent did so, one might represent the Bible as a source to prove the point. However, what makes Bible the most reliable source in this world when the author of it is God himself, who neither can be seen or touched by us just regular people? It is pointless to argue about such a religious topic, therefore this debate should be tied or favored for me since my opponent will not be able to prove his point is right by legal or coherent sources.
According to the Bible Jesus Is God

PROPSITION: The Scriptures Teach That Jesus Is God! By the scriptures I mean the 66 books of the Bible. By Teach I mean to impart informantion. By Jesus I mean the son of Mary & Joseph. By God I mean he is Deity. This is such an easy propsition all I am going to do is list some scripture references as proof. Isaiah 9:6 KJV 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. John 20:26-28 KJV 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace, be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Titus 2:13-14 KJV 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. This should provide sufficient proof to get this debate started. I welcome response from anyone who may chose to respond.
theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

you can not prove non existence with physical evidenceYou can't prove a negative period. I don't understand the purpose of the assertion.when for something to be physical it has to existow you just define god then.. remember to describe in detail carefully and i want a naked painting toI was using the usual Christian depiction of God as an example. I could have just as easily used a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh God in that example.In the example I gave, I did not use "corporeal" to describe God. It is possible for God to exist but not have a physical form that we can perceive. Human perception is, after all, limited to three spatial dimmension and one time dimmension. Things can exist without an obvious or observable physical prescense. For example, I cannot observe your thoughts but I can reason that they exist through logic.It hould not be assumed that God has a body to pose naked for a painting (I assumed that comment was a joke).it is true you have claimed a known god to be all powerfullIn that specific example, yes, God is defined as being all-powerful. However, I would not assert that God as being a "known god" (whatever that means).health is good.. no god involvedhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://witscience.org...https://www.psychologytoday.com...Health and God can overlap.
theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

Your assertion is that atheists/theists do not have evidence and as a result can not win a debate. This is false. Both positions have evidence. Generally, an argument will begin by defining God. Let's say, the usual non-denominational Christian God: all-knowing, all-powerful omnibenevolent creator of the universe as described in the Bible. The atheists evidence would be in finding logical inconsistencies with God as described in this context. They can pick apart the Bible in its historical and scientific inaccuracies or they can expose God's nature as paradoxical (how can an benevolent being allow evil to exist and still be benevolent?). These act as evidence against God's existence and can be strong enough to dissuade some people from belief in God. A theist also has evidence to chose from: the creation of the universe necessitates a creator. How can good and bad be said to exist without some objective standard for "goodness"? The testimonial of thousands of matyrs and other believers over the centuries. Whether or not this evidence is sufficient is certainly up to the person being presented with the evidence but clearly this warrants more than "not proof so it doesn't count".
theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

got plenty of broken records to win a debate.. you are right forfeit, at one point it becomes very clear to the opponent he can not escape... 5 rounds disable any possibility of this they have no arguments.. they dont even exist in the debate.. its like denial of denial is the highest level you get out of them, and that is suggested claims as proof... is there a god? they can have no talent, there is no math or certainty involved..
theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

What does it mean to win a debate? Doesn't it simply mean that your opponent concedes? In this case, an atheist and a theist are both capable of winning a debate as both have a pool of evidence to draw from to create a case for or against the belief in God. Whether they win the debate depends on their talent for debate, the strength of their evidence and the position of their opponent.
Best Country in the World

Let me summarize your achievements 1. Expansion 2. Military success 3. Technological innovation 4. Successful bi-partisan government 5. Ability to solve problems and then some comments above longevity and ideals 1.Expansion while the United States grew 4 times in 100 years, Nazi Germany grew four times in less than 15. It reached from ssible. This is evident in the advancements in technology and economy during a small period of 13 or so years. 5. Ability to solve problems You mention Civil War and stopping Saddam. Nazi Germany need an army. They made one. They had too high unemployment, they lowered it from 6 million to almost nothing They were not faced with a civil war because nationalism was very high As said, Nazi only ended because of bad luck and a stupid decision by Hitler. The USA is very young by world standards. Ideals ideals ideals. Why is liberty good? Why does this belief make the United States a better country. I'm sorry. I don't buy into democracy and liberty is better than fascism. I don't. Prove it. Some other things Nazi Germany did Economy Lowered unemployment created public works jobs huge industrial boom Workers were offered cut-price holidays, theater trips and concerts. In Berlin, 1933–38, the KdF sponsored 134,000 events for 32 million people (2 million went on cruises & weekend trips, and 11 million on theater trips). The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio. I could go into a list of inventions developed by the government. But I will hold that until later rounds too. Basically, everything the USA did, Nazi Germany did better, and in less time.
Best Country in the World

First of all thank you for following the ground works for the debate Second to answer your question we are trying to see who better displays whose country is best, while trying to also compare the two countries side by side. Not a simple task so I hope you're up to the challenge. Now to the debate: Now just in comparing the countries side by side mine is better. Just by the fact my country beat yours in war in that period…WW2…but there are also some other things…my country lasted 200 years. Yours lasted a period of not even 15 years…Your country was built on hate for Jews…mine was built on liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. The United States started as 13 colonies and eventually quadrupled in size in less than 100 years. The United States fought off Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, the greatest superpower of the time. The United States wrote a constitution, originally the Articles of Confederation. The failure of the Articles prompted the U.S, to right a new constitution the Declaration of Independence that still stands to this day. The United States doubled it size quickly w/ the Louisiana Purchase and sent excavators into it to find the Pacific something it did successfully. The United States fought a War w/ Mexico and added the Republic of Texas The United States fought a war w/ itself, and successfully ended those ended that and resolve it and continued its greatness to today. The United States lead a Industrial Revolution and connected its whole country w/ a railroad, developed the cotton gin, the steam boat, interchangeable parts, etc. These innovations opened the door for all the technology we have 2day. The United States fought in the First World War and came out ending on the victorious side. The United States fell into a great depression, but rebounded nicely into WW2 The United States fought in the Second World War and took down your country the Nazi Germany and took down the Nazis and Communism in Germany for the most part. The United States was the first to land on the Moon and established NASA and innovated some of the most groundbreaking astronomical astronomy discoveries. The United States secured Kuwait, and slowed Saddams tyranny. The United States established one of the most successful governments ever, not dominated by one political party like many other governments, but two political parties, the Republicans, and Democrats. This is only some of the many great accomplishments the United States accomplished…I didn't go into detail since I don't want to run out of fire power for the 3 other rounds after this, so good luck.
Best Country in the World

Ok, the United States of America is a country I am proud of living in. Don't get me wrong. I believe the best country in all of existence so far is: 1933 – 1945 Nazi Germany Please let me tell everyone I am not anti-semitic in any way. But the evidence in the strength of the Nazi military, economy, social revolutions and geography are amazing Now let me ask you a question. Are we going to be a) saying why our country is good and leave voting up to voters comparing b) saying why our opponents country is bad or c) saying who's country is better
Best Country in the World

Now this debate is going to be a tricky one... I will now lay the ground works: It is 5 rounds long Pro-con means nothing It is one what you think is the greatest country ever in the world Not currently Ever. Based on accomplishments, victories (wars), its goverment make up, culture, etc. anything you think makes that country the greatest evr. The first round will be like this. i will name a country i think is great in my opening argument, Then my opponent will name onew he thinks is great and leave it at that, it is similiar to this debate (please look at it for reference),: http://www.debate.org... Then in the next round (2-5) we will start discussing what makes the country great. Now don't except just to trash the country i have named b/c that is not the topic of the debate. Tell me your country then tell me why yours is better than mine. O.K. i thinmk i can get started: I believe the United States of America (USA) is the best country ever. Beased on its goverment make-up, accomplishments, etc., etc., ect. i will leave it at that giving my opponent whoever that might be a chance to state his/her best country, and remember do not back it up until your next round...
Resolved: that we should kill all the whales

no rules here, just adhere to that whales are: noun (plural or whales) a very large marine mammal with a streamlined hairless body, a horizontal tail fin, and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing. And kill means exterminate. Basically dead (bench, you know what I'm saying here)Adhere to those, and the rest is up to youRound 1=acceptance.