BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam will conquer the West and own the world

Many people see Islam as a religion that never seems to have gotten out of the stone age, and they are partially right. http://www.americanthinker.com... http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... Also something interesting http://search-the-quran.com... That's a quote from the Quran https://www.google.com... Explanation of terminology used. Interesting. http://strangeside.com... Those who arent of the same religion are somehow inferior http://www.hitler.org... If Islam begin to take over the world, people would see the problems of why they could never rule and they would fight back and win.
Tyga is the ideal presidential candidate

Tyga is the epitome of a perfect president and it shows when he speaks. In his speech "Rack City" Tyga says: I need my money pronto Get it in the morning like Alonzo Rondo, Green got cheese like a nacho In just that segment Tyga has made it clear that he understands the economic crisis we face in this country. We need our money pronto and Tyga will get the money the morning after his election. This will surely convince fiscal conservatives that Tyga, as they say, got their backs. Tyga also uses the word Green (with a capital G) which demonstrates he is aware of the environment and will support legislation to keep it safe. Thank You God Always reminds us that he is a God fearing man and his faith guides his decisions. Also Tyga finished rather poetically when he says that Green "got cheese like a nacho". This is a very clever appeal to the Latino population concealed under the guise of analogy. Tyga himself is an African American man but his inner diversity reflects America. I'll leave it at that for now because of two reasons: 1. I know that this is one of my opponent's first debates. 2. I have things to do
Tyga is the ideal presidential candidate

I'll take this.Proposed definitions;Tyga- Michael Ray Nguyen-Stevenson (born November 19, 1989), better known by his stage name Tyga (an acronym for Thank You God Always),[1] is an American rapper signed to Young Money Entertainment, Cash Money Records and Universal Republic Records.ideal- a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence.Anyways, I accept.
If the fetus is a human person, then abortion is generally immoral

I accept Trent_H's challenge on the morality of abortion. He seems to have quite a bit of knowledge about this topic and I think that this debate will go very well. Debate.org has been expanding a lot lately and it's good to see new members who have well developed positions on issues that many of us have settled amongst ourseles.My argument will be based on self-ownership and the libertarian concept of the inalienability of the will. I believe that a person is the sole owner of his or her body and has total discretion in its use. I support the Rothbardian position that one cannot, for instance, contract oneself into slavery because this constitutes an attempt to transfer a nontransferable property. I will obviously elaborate on this significantly in round two and explain how it pretains to abortion, but I want to make sure that Pro and readers understand my approach. Unlike most other pro-choice arguments it is not based on whether the fetus is a person, so I will not be contesting that point (I am skeptical as to whether the fetus can be considered a member of the moral community, but I see this as nonessential).I have nothing more to add this round. Pro has asked that I just indicate my acceptance of the challenge and not make opening arguments. I've given a brief description of what I'll be talking about later, so I'll turn it over to him.
If the fetus is a human person, then abortion is generally immoral

Debate DescriptionIn this debate Pro (myself) will argue that abortion is generally immoral because it directly takes the life of a human person who possesses the same basic rights that you and I have. Con will argue that the fetus is a person with said rights, but that abortion is still morally acceptable. I ask that Con only accept the debate in this round and wait to post their opening argument until round two. Round three will consist of rebuttals and round four will consist of closing arguments.
Homework Is Unnecessary

Here are my arguments (I actually posted them in time!):1. Homework actually teaches kids responsibility. When kids do homework, they learn that it is their fault (NOT THE PARENT'S) if they turn it in late. [1]2. Homework also provides kids with the ability to manage their own time. This is key, and I still struggle with this sometimes; however, students should have learned to be able to manage their own time effectively. [1] This also ties in with perserverance, which essentially states that students don't give up on a project and they keep working until the project is done. If they stick to it, they should be done BEFORE THE DEADLINE! [1]3. Homework helps kids get better grades on their tests. Five studies were taken, and in each, "the average student who did homework had a higher unit test score than the students not doing homework." [2] There were also 12 other studies that prove that homework helps kids get better grades. [2]As a note, the amount of homework recommended for kids varies by their grade. If they are elementary students, they should have less homework, but if they're high school students, they should have more homework. [2][1]. http://memphisparent.com...[2]. http://education.cu-portland.edu...(Yes, I know I didn't take up too much space, but I believe I was "to the point". The websites explain my arguments in much greater detail. Please read them.)I'm eager to hear your rebuttals. Thank you so much for working with me on this, and I again apologize for forfeiting the other debate.
Homework Is Unnecessary

Greetings! I'm challenging sketchb to this debate given that he had to forfeit the last one. In this debate I will argue that homework is not necessary and should not be required. I will use the debate format he proposed for our last discussion: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Arguments (NO rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Rebuttals to Rebuttals, Final Remarks I look forward to an interesting discussion. Thanks!
Persuasive Debate: Animal Rights

This is a persuasive speech debate, no BoP, no rebuttals, just your arguments to convice the voters and persuade why your side is right. The program is here: . http://www.debate.org...The StructureThe strucutre is very important. There will be two rounds, with 10,000 characters each, and we only make our arguments in the second round. If anyone rebuts their opponent's arguments, it does not follow the tourney, and the rules, so they lose. So, you have to follow the strucutre very very very carefully. There are two ways, I will make my opponent decide which way is the better way for him/her. a. First way1. Con makes rules/ Pro accepts2. Con and Pro make arguments, no rebuttalsb. Second way1. Con makes rules/ Pro agrees, accepts, makes arguments2. Con only makes arguments/ Pro waives. If you do anything else, you lose. I will let my opponent decide on what strucutre, I am fine with both. RulesMy rules will combine with the structure1. Forfeiture when having to make arguments is a loss2. No trolling3. No rebuttals4. No K's5. No semantics6. No source wars (over 40 sources)7. No quitingDefinitonsIf my opponent disagrees, then we will change them. Animal: a living thing that is not a human being or plantRights: morally or socially correct or acceptableThe definitons are from Merriam Webster. It is a very high-quality dictionary. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...I thank my opponent missbailey, Rosalie for making this program, and hope to have fun. Thanks! :)
God exists.

You went from arguing Gods existence, to stating that nature is pissed. Nature has a conscience? I was mistaken, I kind of figured that nature was just a word for everything around us. Honestly, I don't really think I need argue with you anymore. Everyone with some sort of intelligence will know who won this debate. We have the person who grew out of santa claus and the easter bunny, but not God. We have I, the free thinker.
God exists.

It's a good demonstration of the higher-intelligence behind nature. Nature absolutely demands speciation, and absolutely hates towns and villages where the people inbreed for hundreds of years. Nature punishes the incestuous areas by making the offspring utterly stupid, weak, and pitifully ugly; easy to kill by the marauding invaders. Nature also brings the marauding invaders, tricking them into thinking they'll get gold, restored honor, et. al by killing everyone; making them unwitting pawns in the demand for speciation. Closed borders, e-trade, and modern military defense has ensured the continual inbreeding. Nature is f*cking pissed. We will certainly see a World War 3 (Armageddon) in our lifetime; and we'll think it was over Assad using chemical weapons or Iran building nukes; atheists will blame religion; but really it was just the intelligence of nature guiding us the entire time.
God exists.

You obviously have no idea what Miraculous means even though I defined it for you in my last argument. You don't want to argue the moral issue of religion with me, because you will lose. Period. If you're saying people who aren't religious are immoral because people in china inbreed with one another, than you are obviously an ignoramus. First off, what makes sleeping with people related to you wrong? If you want to get SUPER technical I could tell you that we are ALL related. We're related to fish for goodness sake! Your argument is invalid. Just because inbreeding is risky doesn't make it immoral. Abortion is risky, childbirth is risky, neither of those are immoral. I'll tell you what the definition of evil is though. Killing 99.9% of the population on earth because mankind isn't using his free will like you intended him to. Pure evil.
God exists.

Lol toxic clouds formed the virgin mary. so funny man. Your denial mechanism is more miraculous than anything Jesus did, scientists should capture you and run tests so that we may eventually have superior mental abilities like you. So I am going to throw out a defense for the necessity by nature of religious mass-killings with modern examples. This video above is regards to a man who sued his wife for producing an ugly baby. http://www.youtube.com... Record numbers of Asians are getting plastic surgery, why is it that the majority of the Asian Population can only be described as "butt-f8cking-ugly"? Inbreeding. These Countries have unnaturally gone over 1000 years without being utterly sacked, all the men killed, and all the women raped. The gene-pool hasn't been reset and now every Chinese is practically a second cousin to each other. To make matters worse, the rules of war have changed and you can no longer execute all adult-age males and rape the women, which means the gene-pool can never be reset now. God now has to step in with the apocalypse to reset the gene pool.
God exists.

This one is actually easier to explain. First off, let me ask you an easy question. Do you believe aliens have visited the earth before? Because there are thousands more videos that are much more impressive than that one of the virgin mary, that have been put together in a more talented and sly manner. There are videos of UFO sightings that make even the greatest disbelievers start to believe. However, it is slightly possible that the video hasn't been tampered with in any way shape, or form. This being the case you have to look at the fact that the atmosphere has been turning pollution and other gases into shapes and forms that humans automatically fit into whatever it is they want it to fit. If I saw two white clouds crossing each other like two bones I could instantly match it with crossbones which are an image of death. If I were a fanatic I could then get everyone else to believe that what i saw was a revelation when in fact it was a mere coincidence. Humans are a pattern seeking species. All we do is look for ways of putting things together to fit what we know, or in religions case what we think we know. You need to give me something much more concrete, and empirical, if you are to have me accept any of this 'evidence'. For instance, science put a man on the moon- that's evidence that it works, religion crashes planes into buildings, commits mass genocide, starts the crusades, what does this say about religion?
God exists.

Did you check out the constellation map? It's incredible. Actually I was raised atheist but became Catholic after a supernatural event and much research. So my next exposition will be something modern, a caught on film apparition of the Virgin Mary in 2011 over the Ivory Coast. The technical aspects are absolutely incredible, when you look at the un-enhanced original video you cannot see anything but the sun, but if you tilt your laptop screen to dim brightness the apparition appears. I could not find any or anyone with means to recreate this supernatural chameleon effect with software or even begin to hypothesize how . The first video is dimmed (digitally) and shows what the crowd saw. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The second video is the original and the miracle happens at 1:40 when the crowd starts screaming; you can pause it there and see how dimming screen brightness (by tilting laptop screen) makes it visible. I would be very impressed if you could explain how this could possibly be forged.
God exists.

Of course you believe your religion to be the one true religion, why wouldn't you? Your parents brought you up in a Catholic (I'm assuming) house hold and therefore you accepted whatever they told you to be true. You were too young to argue or understand what they were saying to be nonsense so you took it as complete and utter fact. If you had been born in Indonesia you would be believing in Allah, if you had been born in India you would be a believer in Hindu, if you had been born in Greece thousands of years ago you would be believing in Poseidon and Zeus. The point is, mono-theism is incredibly ridiculous, and to believe that your God is the one true God means you are JUST as ignorant as the muslim that accepts Allah to be the one true God. Now, for your so called miracle. http://en.wikipedia.org... Scroll down to Technical Analysis on that page. As I suspected the image has been constantly tampered with to preserve it longer than the normal material would allow for. Also, brush strokes were found on the painting. Just because MOST of the people in the 1500's needed to do an under sketch doesn't mean that all painters needed one. Do you really believe this? I could burn the image of jesus into my arm right now and claim that it just appeared and half of all Christians would instantly accept that as evidence. Proof even. Obviously it's a little different than your claim, but still you get the idea. I'll leave you with a quote from the great late Christopher Hitchens. "What is more likely? That the laws of nature have been suspended in your favor (a miracle), or that you are under a grave misapprehension?"
God exists.

I agree with you to an extent about poisoning the mind, especially false-religions (I hold there is only one-true religion). Bolshevism I think you would agree is quite poisoning as well. My opinion on science is that it is completely profit driven; corporations won't shell out the grants for something they can't yield investment in. An example of science being exclusive to profits: The Philippine Pygmy http://en.wikipedia.org... They reach full adult-hood at 12 years of age, have an average life-span of 16 years and die of old age at 27, and are quite possibly modern surviving homo-erectus; but frankly, no one cares (as noticed by the very short reference list). I hold that these Aeta People are the result of evolution and that civilized man (Adulthood 18 years, peak age 120 years) are the result of creationism/alien seed theory. So my first miraculous exposition will be the Image of Guadalupe: http://www.youtube.com... i. Miraculously Received in 1531AD ii. No undersketching or underdrawing iii. Material disintegrates in 30 years but hasn't after 500 years iv. Attempts to make copies have failed v. Survived acids and fire vi. Maps Stellar Constellations Unknown Until Late 20th Century In The Position They Were Aligned That Day In 1531AD vii. Eyes of Image Demonstrate Purkinje-Sanson Law And Contain Microscopic Images viii. Image Changes Color At Distances ix. Image Maintains Constant Temperature Regardless Of Room Temperature
God exists.

I am an anti-theist. Unlike an atheist who just doesn't believe in a higher power, I believe religion poisons the mind and forces scientific progress to a sluggish halt. Now that I have pointed out what stance I will be taking, and since you have stated what you want to use for an argument; please post your 'evidence' in the next round and I will more than gladly send my rebuttal. Also, thank you for taking the time to debate with me. It's much appreciated.
Ron Paul supporters should not vote for Mitt Romney, but should write in Ron Paul!

To conclude this debate I’d like to highlight a few things. First off my opponent began with discounting the use in getting the worlds attention this presidential election cycle, but then proceeded to talk up the good Ron Paul has done in the primaries by ‘adding to the discussion” Well that’s exactly what my case about national media attention is about. If there was a significant amount of write-in votes for Ron Paul, this would add to the national discussion, it would echo around the media news tv shows, the radio programs, books that the pundits write, ect. Second off, my opponent says he “half-way” agreed with me on my point about the morality of needed to vote your conscious. Well that “half-way” agreement is a lot more like a “full-way” concession when its not actual given a rebuttal against it. and my opponent did not rebut my point about morality in placing your vote with the person who think the best. He just proceeded to speak about differences in the Republican and Demarcate platforms from the Libertarian. But this does not relate to the issue I brought up specifically. Even if Republican conservative principles work better for a libertarian’s key issues of interest, if the Libertarian is the best candidate you find best able to do the job, then that is were your conscious lies with and so your vote should. To vote for anyone else would be a lie. Disagree with that if you like, but in this debate without rebuttal my case about morally voting your conscious stands and so you should vote Pro! Also while my opponent makes it out to seem like the only difference is foreign policy, libertarians defer from republicans on near all social issues. So its more than just a few issues they are unsatisfied with from both parties, its just the one my opponent brought is an issue there unsatisfied with both parties at the same time So as I see it my summary points 1) 2) 3) and 4) all still stand although I drop five after much results have already come in, this race shall be close.
Ron Paul supporters should not vote for Mitt Romney, but should write in Ron Paul!

Thank you, and good arguments. The people who only pay attention at the end of the presidential campaign are not the ones that need to be impressed right now. Creating an environment most conducive to smaller government should be the goal. Ron Paul switched to the Republican Party because it has more in common with his ideals than the Democrats, and is currently more effective in elections than the Libertarian Party. The Primaries are where Paul gained the most support. It waned only after the field was significantly narrowed, but he was surprisingly effective at influencing the discussion toward fiscal conservatism, and even appreciated for doing so by conservative commentators. The point is, you don't have to go along with the flow, but do use it to your advantage. In tommorrow's primary, pragmatism today will win Libertarians more respect and converts if they haven't spoiled the last election. I half agree with my opponent on voting one's conscience. There is quite a bit of difference between the 2 candidates right now, enough that most people could make a clear decision who was better. I am not a Libertarian, but the only issue that both Romney and Obama really seem to agree on that a Libertarian might hate, is that global military presence is acceptable on some level. If that is a huge concern for a Libertarian, I would understand a write-in or Gary Johnson. However, global over-reach is not the major spending and credibility problem we face. It's over spending on the larger social programs, and the massive borrowing and stifling of the economy. While I share my opponent's hope in what the results will be, I don't want to make an assumption, I want to make certain. If a Libertarian is really concerned about liberty, Romney is the only safe bet right now, even if I don't like him nearly as much as some of the others.
Ron Paul supporters should not vote for Mitt Romney, but should write in Ron Paul!

Last Minute! I realize there are a LOT of Ron Paul supporters out there, some of whom I have talked to are planning on writing him in. At the time I am typing this, 38% of people who voted in the poll on ronpaul. com, are voting for the man, 30% Gary Johnson, 19% Mitt Romney, 7% Barack Obama, 4% won't vote, and approx. 3% combined Virgil Goode, Jill Stein, and other. As someone who was never a Mitt Romney fan during the primaries, but is a supporter now, this distresses me. My arguments: 1. )Even though Ron Paul never endorsed anyone that I've heard, he is no longer running as of August. He is hardly seen in the big national polls. The vast majority of people will vote for the two main candidates. 2. )The major Libertarian view of smaller government is far more compatible with someone like Mitt Romney who would either shrink the size of government, or at least not grow it as much as Barack Obama. 3. )If you are a Libertarian who desires the seemingly ineffective War on Drugs to end, Romney may seem to be a poor choice, but only one major candidate would have any probability of shrinking the size of bureaucracies involved. 4. )The same argument, but even stronger, applies to taxes. 5. )Barack Obama has not slowed unwarranted wire taps, at all. There's at least a chance with Romney. Last two points: 6. )If you throw away a potential vote for Romney on Ron Paul in this election, the rest of us trying to get Barack Obama out, and want to be effective at it, will be very vexed with you, and campaigning to Republicans and other conservatives will be more problematic for you in 2016. 7. )It is only logical to save your efforts to elect Ron Paul in the primaries, when more Americans will be willing to pay attention and take him seriously. That's when out-layer candidates have the best chance to become main-stream. Not during a major 2-way election.
Miley Cyrus is not a good role model for young girls.

My opponent has brought up Miley Cyrus's controversial photo scandals she has been involved with. Unlike other celebrities, such as Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus has apologized for her offensive photos. This can add to her good role model standpoint because girls will take after her and learn from mistakes they make and learn to be apologetic. Young people can CERTAINLY emulate this behavior. My opponent also brought up that her song "Wake up America" is "hypocritical and an insult to the American people by telling us to do something about global warming when she herself is a larger cause of environmental damage." Certainly her song has influenced people to do something; more energy was potentially saved. Much more so than the tiny fractional electric bill of recording the song. My opponent would like to know where I got the quote "Helps deprived children across the U.S. by providing improved health care, education and community support". http://www.clubmileycyrus.com... States "The charity is to help deprived children across the U.S. by providing improved health care, education and community support." And yes, anyone who is able to write an entire book should be considered a role model.