BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inherited wealth is undeserveved taxes on estates should be radically increased not eliminated

This is simple stuff: THE MONEY IS YOURS BECAUSE YOU HAVE EARNED THE MONEY BY ENGAGING IN A CONSENSUAL TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRANSACTION WILLINGLY TOOK PART IN IT. WEALTH IS NOT CREATED, UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL PRINTING OF THE PAPER IN WHICH THAT MONEY MANIFESTS ITSELF. THE WEALTH IS OUR THERE FOR ANYONE TO OBTAIN BY ENGAGING IN A TRANSACTION LIKE THE ONE I MENTIONED. AS FOR THE BELIEF THAT OTHERS ARE IN NEED, THEY ARE NOT IN NEED. A POOR PERSON LIVING IN AMERICA TODAY HAS IT BETTER THAN THE RICHEST PERSON IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CREATING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OR TAKING PART IN LABOR THAT BETTERS THE LIVES OF OTHERS, OR AT LEAST THE OTHERS FEEL THEY WANT OR NEED THIS PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR LABOR. IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT. EVERYONE WHO FEELS THE NEED OR WANT FOR SOMETHING HAS TO PAY FOR IT, WHETHER THEY ARE A BILLIONAIRE OR A HOMELESS PERSON. PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T EARNED THE MONEY TO BE RICH AND ALSO BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIBLE AT HANDLING IT. THIS IS A UNIVERSAL TRAIT AMONG THE POOR IN AMERICA. IT'S WHY WHEN POOR PEOPLE WIN THE LOTTERY THEY ALWAYS END UP POOR AGAIN. THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE WEALTH AND SUSTAIN IT. ALSO, THE 1% DOES MORE GOOD FOR THE POOR THAN THE OTHER 9% COMBINED. Have a nice day.
Inherited wealth is undeserveved taxes on estates should be radically increased not eliminated

I would contend just because you earn money doesnt mean you can say what to do with it after you die Completely, That state must take its share to give beck to those who REALLY created it, My contention is all wealth is collectively created no one does it alone, You have employess, The people who build your roads, Provide your electricity and food, Every aspect of the society you live in helps you be you and create, So no firstly it isnt yours and secondly even if it was the state has every right to all of it once you are dead, To benifit the society as a whole
Inherited wealth is undeserveved taxes on estates should be radically increased not eliminated

You are being kind of vague. Inherited wealth is less than most people think. It's not really that big of a deal. That wealth was earned by people who offered the world something, And thus rightfully earned the money. It's their choice how they spend it. Giving it to descendants is a great way to spend it. You have no right to decide how much money they should receive. The money is theirs, Not yours. People like you seem to think that they should get to decide how wealth is distributed. Just because the money is undeserved doesn't somehow make it not their's anymore. Who told you that you had a right to take the money that is rightfully someone else's and spend it in your interests? Your turn:
Evolution did occur creationism is wrong

Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to define "evolution". However, in light of the debate title, we can assume that he means "bacteria-to-man" evolution, or "macro-evolution". In essence, Pro must prove that human beings evolved over millions of years from single-celled organisms, which creationism directly rejects. Burden of ProofPro has the burden of proof. Pro must provide substantial evidence that proves evolution. Substantial EvidenceSubstantial evidence in this case will be evidence that supports evolution and directly contradicts creationism. Evidence that fits into both views should be considered irrelevant. After all, this debate is not "Evolution probably did occur, creationism is wrong", but "Evolution did occur, creationism is wrong". Good luck, Pro!
Christianity vs Atheism

Before I start I will ask the Christian side to use arguments that apply to Christianity only. A Muslim could say: "Why dont you believe in Allah?" Replace 'Allah' with Yahweh or whoever for taste. To address my opponent's question, I will ask he bring evidence to the table. I can't say some creature lives under Mars surface, asking someone to disprove it. It would be fallacious thinking. Or to put it simple: Not enough evidence. Atheism is more likely to be correct then Christianity.
Christianity vs Atheism

There is 0 evidence for that, though there are lots of evidences for a god. And I will prove that in a moment. But for now, if you don't mind would you please answer these to questions: 1. Do you you believe objective moral values exist? 2. How do you believe the universe began? 1. I don't think this will prove God more then Allah.2. I don't think the Universe 'had' a beginning in the normal sense of the word.I thank Pro for abusing the BOP.VOTE MA
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

a. It was stated "You are correct, neither does the constitution or the Declaration of Independence directly state that LGBT should have rights, but more so it never said that they shouldn't." The fact that the founders of the country didn't add LGBT rights to the constitution shows that people do not have these rights. If the founders wanted people to have these rights, they would have added them in to the constitution. b. Yes...the Bible does say that all people are one in Christ Jesus. But this verse does nothing to prove that people have LGBT rights. Lets remember what the Bible says about homosexuality. It says that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," (Leviticus 18:22). The Bible is clearly against the sin of homosexuality. c. As for the story about Ruth...I went back just now and read the first chapter and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing there in the story indicates that they were lesbians. Again...Naomi (her mother in law) helped Ruth get a husband. There was nothing between Naomi and Ruth in the same way your indicating. d. The Declaration was created for the Americans. But the declaration did not state that people have LGBT rights as I have already shown. And nor would it matter if it did since the Declaration is not used to make court decisions. e. Lastly, it was stated that "the only argument you desperately hold onto is the fact that homosexuality is "dangerous." and assuming that the Declaration doesn't apply to all of those." This is not true at all. I am worried about the dangers of homosexuality (as all people should), and I know that the Christian God is against homosexuality, and I know that LGBT rights were not unalienable rights that the founding fathers claimed people had. I am not desperately holding on to anything. My argument is pretty solid.
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

You are correct, neither does the constitution or the Declaration of Independence directly state that LGBT should have rights, but more so it never said that they shouldn't. Your arguments are valid. You have mentioned the religion of Christianity, and the one and supreme god, and if I cant argue highly enough with the legal documents of America, then I will bring the bible into this. As it says in the Declaration of Independence the bible states that all man is created equal. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."Galatians 3:28 This is stated in not only the Bible, but in the Declaration of Independence. If it was repeated plenty, then it must be imported. (IRRELEVANT-On another note, there is a word that is mentioned in the text as where Naomi loved Ruth as Adam loved Eve and even mentioned words that were said, were displayed and portrayed as sermons and such at a christian wedding.) The Declaration of Independence was created for America and the people who lived within it, so how does it not exactly pertain to them? The only argument you desperately hold onto is the fact that homosexuality is "dangerous." and assuming that the Declaration doesn't apply to all of those. If it doesn't apply to them, then it doesn't apply to you.
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

It was stated that I have described "actions, not the terms of sexuality inflicted with personality nor a lifestyle." But a persons actions do show how a person lives. If I were to mention a person that was the first man on the moon and has recently passed away...the first man you would think of is Neil Armstrong. The actions of a person do help us understand a person and what they are interested in. Feel free to address this later but it is pretty straight forward. Your story about the lesbian couple was irrelevant. And I hope you weren't trying to tell me what happened in the Bible because that is not even close to being true. You realize that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law and she helped Ruth get a husband? See Ruth Chapters 1-4 for details. And yes, I am a Christian who knows his Bible well. When discussing what rights people have, you shouldn't do it based on the minority (LGBT=2% of US population) or base the decision on how it directly affects you. It is essential to think about the society as a whole. This is something people in our age aren't very good at. As I have showed you, homosexuality does endanger society and it does affect me in some ways. For example, I have to be a witness to the huge sin every day and I have to see more people with mental health disorders and etc... Lastly, it was said that "Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which CANNOT be given away or taken away. The LGBT community has every right to be available to these as anyone else." I understand what the word unalienable means and that is not the problem. The issue is that the founding fathers did not see LGBT rights as an unalienable right as I have already shown you. You completely ignored what I said and now you are just asserting with no evidence that it is an unalienable right. And that is the main problem. You keep asserting that LGBT have these rights but this is only an opinion of yours and it has no affect on society. In order to prove that LGBT have rights...you must stop arguing your opinion and give an actual reason supported by the constitution. The problem is that you can't do this as I have already shown.
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

"My opponent claims that "sexuality and lifestyle is not what defines a person." Of course the sexuality of a person and their lifestyle helps determine who the person is." I will address this, however this particular statement displays and describes actions, not the terms of sexuality inflicted with personality nor a lifestyle. As you continued on, you also described ACTIONS. Not what I had previously mentioned. Though this is nearly irrelevant, there is a story of a homosexual lesbian couple. If you had read it clearly, the story of Ruth and Naomi and her feelings were actually proposed and celebrated, not condemned, no horribile death or torture, nor' "smiting." I suppose. Her actions were NOT condemned. I do respect your beliefs and such, and that is if you're of the Christain Religion (as I assume, and if you aren't feel free to correct me so I can strengthen my argument.) As for Homosexuals(ality.) being dangerous, how does it endanger you..? Perhaps if you managed to worry about yourself, and not that of ones intentions, which has no involvement with you, perhaps you wouldn't feel threated or under attack. "The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which CANNOT be given away or taken away." The LGBT community has every right to be available to these as anyone else.
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

Many believe that they should be granted their basic human rights by the government. People are solely declined their rights based upon their sexuality. With the LGBT community on a high rise, increasing rapidly, many plead for equal rights. Lesbian and Gay couples are rather harshly discriminated with at least 42% of LGBT supporters/members have reported living in an environment where they felt unwelcomed or unsafe. The fight for LGBT rights have been debated for a long time, whether or not to allow certain rights to certain members of America. The LGBT community should have all rights such as heterosexual citizens are granted. A sexuality and lifestyle is not what defines a person. The LGBT community is human too, the only difference between anyone else is the difference in sexual orientation. America has been wrenched from discrimination that would have once completely ruined society if there hadn't ever been a change, waging a war upon our selves, and due to just the difference in thinking and right and wrongs, a childish dispute has pulled us back into the pit of where we have the risk of destroying each other once again. "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4th, 1776. The refusal to permit the rights to every American citizen counterworks the Declaration of Independence, violating the right to the Pursuit of Happiness and restraining the Declaration of Independence to only certain citizens of America, when it was surely applied to this country as a whole. How do you justify detaining an inalienable right that you were given at birth? When a change was applied, so were the rules and you are no longer eligible for the rights you had back then? You can't. Promotion of sexual and gender disorders and the building of family structure worries many when it comes to the right of being able to adopt within the LGBT relationship. The investigation on the impacts of having same-sex parents on a child has been supplied for the past three decades. Adoption isn't the only way for a Lesbian or Gay couple obtain a child to raise, there are options such as being involved in opposite sex marriages and/or relationships, alternative insemination, foster parenting, or taking in place a surrogate, in some states all of these are banned or unavailable to same-sex couples. On the topic of the mental health of a child being unstable with same-sex parents was proved wrong a study performed in Australia and published in the journal of BMC health." (LGBT) Parents provide an equally supportive and healthy environment for their children as heterosexual parents," taken from Dr. Fran Walfish.
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

Where you quote what I had previously said "it does not take long to steal a car" I must have mistyped that because it does take a long time to steal a car. Also, I haven't received very many arguments from the con side. The only clear argument I saw about why we shouldn't ban cars from drunk drivers for 1 year is that not all drunk drivers have killed people. Of course I know that, but eventually they might and suspending their cars will lower the chances because it takes a long time to steal a car so the police will have more time to get to this person and arrest them. They will then be in bigger trouble, and they probably will have not had enough time to access the interior of the car and drive away, making it safer because it isn't possible for them to kill someone while driving if they don't have a car to use. This website for the organization MADD shows that it is possible in some places for a person to have killed someone and to still be allowed to stay at home with their car. They may have their license suspended, but not their car, making it still possible to kill someone, or even if they just went out drunk driving and didn't kill someone, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to get drunk and drive again but to kill someone this time. http://www.madd.org...
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

In round 1, you said that they should have their cars taken away because just having their licenses taken away won't start them from driving.-I used my example of stealing another one's car to show that taking their cars away cannot stop them either.In the past 2 rounds, your only argument that drunk drivers' cars should be taken away from them is because they kill people. I will provide quotes from your arguments to show this:"That person could go out right the next day and kill another person. Of course the penalty on them would be bigger, but for the price of someone's life? Again? If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people.""At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone? At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time, and since they will probably get caught, they will have a bigger punishment and they will have not killed someone again."-These quotes were your only arguments for your resolution, therefore it is implied that you are assuming all drunk drivers kill people.-Nevertheless, how do you account for the drunk drivers who don't kill people? Do you still think they should have one of their human rights taken away (the right to possession).I gave you 4 reasons why you're arguments are invalid:1. They own the cars. They bought it with their own money that they worked hard for. 2. It is a basic human right to own possession. This is related to the first reason.3. What if they didn't kill anyone? What if they didn't even crash the cars in which they have driven drunk?4. It is legal in some nations to drink and drive. Therefore, they've done nothing legally wrong and their government cannot legally take their cars away.Over to Pro
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

I said that it does take a long time to steal a car, and that because or that, the police will have an easier time and more time to catch the drunk driver. Also, I didn't say that drunk drivers always kill people. I never said that. Drunk drivers do kill people, that is true, but they don't always kill people. When people read you're argument, they are going to read things that aren't true about my arguments. And you did not give me very many reasons why my arguments are invalid.
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

*I would like to apologize for my small font in the previous round. I do not know what happened. Without further ado, I present my rebuttal.Rebuttal:"It is possible for a drunk driver to go and steal someone else's car because they don't have one of their own, it's possible for them to do almost anything. That doesn't mean they will...At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone?"-Pro is being contradictory. Pro claims that while it is possible for a drunk driver to steal a car, that doesn't mean they will. Then, Pro proceeds to assume that all drunk drivers kill people.-I drove drunk once, and I didn't kill anyone. And I didn't even have a license.-But what if a drunk driver didn't kill anyone? Furthermore, what if a guy who wasn't drunk drove a car and killed someone? These are rhetorical questions of course, and I don't expect Pro to respond. "It isn't easy to steal a car, so whoever the person is may not want to go through the trouble...At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time"-Pro has contradicted himself again. Pro claimed that it isn't easy to steal a car, and later claimed that stealing a car does not take a long time.Addendum:-What if it's legal? There are many countries where it is legal to drink and drive [1]. Should they have their car's revoked for doing something perfectly legal?-I repeat my last point from my previous argument. They bought their cars, they own it, and the government has no jurisdiction to revoke their cars from them simply because they were drunk driving. You have yet to explain why it would be justified for the government to break their own laws.-You have yet to meet your burden of proof. Sources: [1] http://recombu.com...
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

It is possible for a drunk driver to go and steal someone else's car because they don't have one of their own, it's possible for them to do almost anything. That doesn't mean they will. It isn't easy to steal a car, so whoever the person is may not want to go through the trouble. At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone? At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time, and since they will probably get caught, they will have a bigger punishment and they will have not killed someone again.
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

Rebuttal:"Imagine, some drunk driver goes out and kills someone. All they lose is their license. That won't stop them from being able to drive."-Yes it would. It would stop them from driving legally. If they lose their license and they are caught driving again, they will be punished. The government is only allowed to perform on a legal basis. They have no jurisdiction to take away someone's car in most cases.-Pro is assuming that taking away someone's car will stop them from driving. This will certainly not stop a drunkard if he wanted to drive. If a drunkard wanted to drive a car, but his car was taken away, he could potentially steal someone else's car. Therefore, if his car is not taken away, he would only be committing two felonies: drunk driving and killing someone. But if his car is taken away, he would be committing three felonies: drunk driving, killing someone, and theft.-Therefore, in this case, the government has no right to take away one's car, neiter should they take away one's car for drunk driving because the felonies being committed would be increased."If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people."-Not true. I have shown how they can kill more people by stealing cars, in which case their crime would be bigger.Addendum:-If they own a car, they obviously paid for it with their own money that they worked to get. That means, their car is owned by them by right. Every human has 30 basic human rights, and one of them is the right to possession. You can take their right to drive, but you cannot take their car because they paid for it. [1]-If you broke the rules in DDO, you can get banned, but you can't have your computer taken away from you.Sources:[1] http://www.samaritanmag.com...
Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

Of course drunk drivers should have their cars revoked! Imagine, some drunk driver goes out and kills someone. All they lose is their license. That won't stop them from being able to drive. That person could go out right the next day and kill another person. Of course the penalty on them would be bigger, but for the price of someone's life? Again? If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people.