BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Easter should include presents

Easter defenately should not have presents because Jesus died on Easter and we should not celebrate that historic event with presents but before I can talk about this statement more I must rebut my opponent- Stefani. She said that we should include presents because Easter eggs make us fatter. I strongly disagree with this because she said we shall 'include' presents as well as Eggs so we still will get fat. Next, she said children want something they can keep. Maybe they can't literally keep Easter Eggs but they can keep the memory of eating them. Her last argument was that we should get presents because it's a holiday. In every holiday or public holiday do we get presents? Of course not! Also Easter isn't always in the holidays, sometimes it's over a long weekend. Now back to my case, we must not have presents because Jesus died on Easter so we mustn't celebrate his death with presents. That would be very disrespectful. "Now, look under the Easter tree and see what presents you got." Is that seriously what you want?
Creationism should not be taught in public schools

"The argument is that creationism should not be taught in public schools." -arthur.pichou To teach is to inform, such is the role of teachers. The question under consideration is of teaching, not brainwashing or otherwise. Very few things are taught in public schools as absolute fact even within science, for most are merely the current means by which we understand the world. To argue that creationism should not be taught in public schools, because it is a religious doctrine that some assert as absolute truth, would be to commit a Irrelevant Conclusion fallacy (1). If it can be taught without being asserted as an absolute fact, than it has a valid place being taught in several classes. While most pieces of creationism shall likely remain at the hypothesis stage, a central one is currently a well accepted by the current scientific community. Father Georges Lema"tre's Big Bang Theory went directly against the scientific belief of his time (2), yet is now a cornerstone to our scientific understanding of the universe. Atheist dislike of the theory, caused it to actually be named such by Sir Fred Hoyle as an insult against it (3). The theory remains highly untestable, but much evidence points to it regardless of it originating from a religious belief that the universe was created instead of having always existed. Due to actions of multiple catholic popes, the the big bang theory is now a religious doctrine. Without need to debate the value of religion, the big bang theory is a piece of religion tied by many with creation itself, but should remain in science class at public schools for the foreseeable future. As even the opponent against creationism in public schools has agreed it has a firm place in public schools (unless teachers bringing up the subject in several classes, does not mean to inform them of it?), this debate likely does not warrant three more rounds. While he has stated "Creationism is the religious doctrine taught as fact," if creation must be taught as fact is a separate issue, from if it should be taught at all within public schools as is the current subject. Sources: (1) http://onegoodmove.org... (2) http://www.pbs.org... (3) http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Creationism should not be taught in public schools

The creation idea, in relation to religion, can be brought up as a part of historical culture, a metaphysical idea, or a device in literature; however, this does not address the argument which was put forth. The argument is that creationism should not be taught in public schools. Creationism is the religious doctrine taught as fact, not a tiny piece of historical background to a navigator's odyssey. Creationism as religious doctrine, asserted to be absolute truth, has not been addressed; therefore the argument stands. This does not mean that creation as an idea cannot be mentioned, even in biology classrooms; for example, a teacher might show why certain creationist claims are wrong in order to develop critical thinking skills in her students.
Creationism should not be taught in public schools

Creationism as defined by dictionary.com is "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed" (1). Because members of religions believing in creation are common, to not teach this word in public schools would risk handicapping students. Therefore creation has a place in English language classes. Further the hypothesis of creation has influenced many important people throughout the history of the world, be that as it may as a part of their religions. For example; the great explorer Christopher Columbus was a devote believer in creation (2), leaning on his faith rather than empirical sense lead him to the Americas thus his primary legacy in history. The fact the wars have been fought over not just greed, but ideology is further proof of its impact on the world. Therefore creation has a place in history classes. Creation is an interesting concept, and an interesting concept is the basic criteria for what belongs in philosophy classes. Therefore creation has a place in philosophy classes. Sources: (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.britannica.com...
Creationism should not be taught in public schools

If we are to accept the most basic assumptions we can make and operate therein (i.e. the universe exists and we can learn about it), then no religion, creation myth, divine theory or other untestable, baseless assertion can be taught as fact in the classroom. Every evidential apologetic has been demolished; moreover, the basal presuppositions of the creationist deny the second basal assumption of empiricism.
Creationism should not be taught in public schools

Pro has failed to at any time raise his argument above the fallacy known as an Argument By Assertion, sadly a fallacy famous for claiming God as fact because it says so in the bible. With a little more work he may have even raised it to a Hasty Generalization, had he cited even a single case of religious teachings being misused in school. His only high point was opening with a rhyme, but even then failed to elaborate to what it meant.While a religious studies class would be an ideal place for religion in public schools, within the confines of this argument Pro has stated it belongs (to a limited extent) in multiple science classes. "This does not mean that creation as an idea cannot be mentioned, even in biology classrooms." Schools teach ideas, bringing an idea into a class is teaching it.Beyond disproving Pro's limited claims, I have proved several places in school to which it does belong. However the ideal place for such to be fully explored, would be a structured religious studies class, that students choose whether or not to take.
alexander hamilton was the bisexual overloard

Thank you for the debate. I'll present my arguments. Overlord -a ruler, especially a feudal lord. [1] Feudal - of, relating to, or like the feudal system [2] Feudal System - the political, military, and social system in the Middle Ages, based on the holding of lands in fief or fee and on the resulting relations between lord and vassal. [3] So breaking down the entire statement, you're saying that Alexander Hamilton was an overlord of the Middle Ages over all bisexuals. I would say that Alexander Hamilton was a bi overlord of the Middle Ages but you used the instead of a so that's the way I interpret it. Alexander Hamilton was active from 1789 to 1795 as the Secretary of Treasury. That's far past the Middle Ages. And the Secretary of Treasury isn't comparable to a ruler. "The Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the Presidential cabinet. This person is the acting head of the Department of the Treasury, and deals with all financial and monetary matters directly relating to the government. The secretary is the principal economic advisor of the President and plays a major role in formulating economic policy." [4] Let's compare that to ruler. Ruler - a person (such as a king or queen) who rules a country, area, group, etc. [5] Notice in parentheses king or queen. A king is much different than a Secretary of Treasury. Here's the definition. King - a male ruler of a country who usually inherits his position and rules for life [6] A Secretary of Treasury is nowhere near running the country anytime soon. Here's the current line of succession up to Secretary of Treasury if Barack Obama were to die or something. The Vice President Joseph Biden Speaker of the House Paul Ryan President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy Secretary of State John Kerry Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew [7] In recorded history it has never gone down that far to Secretary of Treasury being president and it certainly wouldn't happen in the time of Alexander Hamilton. Let's say that he did become after the long line of succession. He wouldn't be able to rule over only bisexual people. And he wasn't in the Middle Ages either. And this never happened in the first place, so the whole statement is false with my reasoning. Thanks. Peace. P.S. I'm aware that this is a troll debate, I just like to treat them super seriously because it's fun. I look forward to your rebuttal. Citations [1]http://www.google.com... [2]http://www.dictionary.com... [3] http://www.dictionary.com... [4]http://www.investopedia.com... [5]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [6]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [7]http://www.infoplease.com...
Gun law Regulations

The use of these tax dollars will be put into a good use. Isn't it better to do full background checks on someone before basically handing them a gun? If someone believes they need to possess a gun in order to feel safer and more secure then that is absolutely fine. However, anyone who desires a gun for that reason should not have any problem going through a thorough background check system. In conclusion, it doesn't make sense for everyone to just carry around a gun without a valid reason. Just allowing guns to be shared and dealt freely will do us more harm than you may see it does good. It has and will spike more crime, increase the number of deaths, homicides, and suicide rates. If we don't do anything to make the situation better then we should blame ourselves for the mass shootings that have been taken place and similar situations where the suspect obtains an illegal firearm. If there is something done to alleviate the negatives and focus on the safety of innocent people, then the good definitely outweighs the bad.
Gun law Regulations

In doing so, the hiring of new agents and departments to keep track would consist of more tax dollars in order to pay them to do so. If the United states is willing spend that much money on reinforcements than there should't be a problem in buying more efficient systems to run background checks or decrease the application fees. There's a price to pay for living arrangements, food , education and other necessities but there shouldn't ever be a price on protection. The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. An armed populace means less crime. Its ok to regulate gun dealing as long as it doesn't violate the second amendment. Criminals don't pay any attention to laws... If guns were ever banned than only the bad guys would have them..Criminals prefer unarmed victims!! Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help.. When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!! **Police do not protect you from crime, they just investigate the crime after it happens.** With enforcing strict gun laws are we protecting the people or the criminals?
Gun law Regulations

Gun control laws would make it a little more difficult and a little more expensive to buy a firearm. In disagreement with your statement of "people doing what they can in order to get what they want," basically means that in order to stop the trafficking of guns from states with looser gun laws into states with tougher gun laws something major has to be done. However, with these laws, it WILL be harder to attain a gun. Even President Obama said If gun control laws are in effect then a set up of a strong background check system including having the FBI hire a couple hundred more people to help process background checks because their big numbers since talking about 20 million checks are getting done every year. Hiring 200 more ATF agents to be able to go after unscrupulous gun dealers. Then that will apply across the country and so, you know, some states may have laws that allow for conceal and carry. Some states may not. There"s still going to be differences, but what will at least be consistent across the country is that it"s much harder to get a firearm. There is no guarantee that criminals especially ones like the modern say Al Capone are not going to have ways of getting guns, but it may be a little more difficult and a little more expensive, and the laws of supply and demand mean that if something is harder to get and a little more expensive to get, fewer people get them and that can make a difference.
Gun law Regulations

I agree that guns are responsible for high death rates however, 75% of those death rates were among victims whom which were killed by the hands of those who were put into place to protect us. Police all over the country have gone on an increasingly high power trip especially in authority. Assault on women involving a gun could have been prevented if it weren't so difficult to obtain a gun. It is easier for someone to get a gun on the street for protection rather than at you local gun store. And that is only because gun laws are so strict in NEW YORK alone. In order to possess a gun in New York City, you will need a valid New York City handgun license or rifle/shotgun permit. The process for obtaining a handgun license in New York City is long (between 3 " 6 months, and waits up to 8 months are not uncommon), and compared to many other jurisdictions, rather expensive. It"s not particularly difficult, but it is tedious and incredibly time consuming. It tests your patience, and there is a lot of bureaucracy to deal with. It's a 1-3 month wait just to have an officer assigned to your application. All the while you're living in an unsafe crime area and are looking to protect yourself and loves ones. but have to wait damn near a year in order to do so. Not only is the submission extensive so it the payment process. Fees for application process include " 2 US Postal Money Orders, made payable to New York City Police Department are required, one for $340 (for the application), and one for either $94.25 (electronic fingerprints) or $105.25 (ink fingerprints), depending on how you are being fingerprinted. These fees are non-refundable. so even if your application is denied you're out of $340.00. Theses gun laws are too strict and expensive. Crime rates would definitely decrease if they were to let up on a few of these strict restrictions. The time frame is completely ridiculous. And the only reason gun trafficking is done on under the radar is because people nowadays specifically minorities have more than just the gang members in the neighborhood to fear they have their government and police as well.
Gun law Regulations

Gun control is definitely needed in today"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.
Gun law Regulations

Strict laws shouldn't be inforced to restrict people from their second amendment right to bare arms in protection. Prohibition didn"t stop alcohol" gun control won"t stop guns. The people who prospered during Prohibition by importing and supplying alcohol were gangsters like Al Capone. If gun control were in place, the people we"d really have to worry about would be the modern-day Al Capone supplying guns. People will do what they can in order to get what they want.
The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim.

I cede this round as according to the rules. I would like to thank Yassine for this debate, to voters, please do read Yassine's (now posted) round in his link. If you have trouble accessing his round then please message in the comments so that he can make amends. When accounting for Yassine's final round, please check it's within the 10,000 character limit including sources, if it's over then just disregard the excess portion.
The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim.

Firstly, I thank Envisage for willing to debate with me on this Topic, hopefully this will turn out to be a good debate. BOP: - The BOP is on Pro: to prove that the Qur'an we have today is Not what Muhammad dictated Verbatim. Only arguments brought to their full conclusion will be accepted, & thus suggestions &/or questions will not be admitted as valid arguments. - The BOP on Con: to establish with a reasonable degree that the Qur'an we have today is indeed what Muhammad dictated Verbatim. - Authentic Sources are required. In case Pro has a hard time finding some to support some of his Arguments, I’ll then have to concede if there are authentic sources that do support his Arguments. Structure: - Round 1: Acceptance & Opening Argument of Pro. - Round 2, 3, 4: Arguments & Rebuttals, plus Closing Argument of Pro. - Round 5: Closing Argument of Con, Pro must cede this Round.
God himself has intentionally killed people

In the example of the flood, my opponent asserts that there were 5 billion people on earth at the time of the flood. The problem with this statement is that no record exists that has come down to our day that states this and thus my opponent's assertion is completely baseless, without evidence of any kind. However, there is evidence that the people of the Earth were warned as it states at Matthew 24:39 that they "took no note. " Also, this is not an assertion made by Matthew long after the fact, as we have both accepted the Bible as God's Word as was stated at the beginning of the debate, "Both debaters must assume the standard Bible is correct. " This is also based on 2 Timothy 3:16. With the example of the firstborn of Egypt, there was clear warning made to Pharaoh, the one in responsibility of all of Egypt. Pharaoh ignored God's warning and Pharaoh was thus guilty of murdering all the firstborn of Egypt. (Exodus 4:22,23) If one were to take the medication away that a doctor had given to a patient, and that patient dies of not having correctly taken their medication, is it the doctor's fault? As far as the killing of Uzzah is concerned, the mercy of instruction was given not only to him but all of God's people of the time. Thus he knew better, but handled it carelessly anyway. (2 Samuel 6:7)In the baby of David's case, David is to blame for his sins of adultery and murder. (2 Samuel 12:13)With Jeroboam's baby, Jeroboam is to blame for the death due to his ungodly course. (1 Kings 14:9)When it comes to the last example of Ezekiel's wife, yes she was guilty of her crime and wasn't extended mercy. However, God knows the hearts of humans and if there were any kind of hope left for her, He would have extended mercy for her if she had any remorse left just as Sodom and Gomorrah had no remorse left. (Proverbs 21:2, Genesis 18:22-33)
God himself has intentionally killed people

The first point I made is that it is the rebellious individual who brings calamity upon themself, God shares no blame. My second point is that God always holds out mercy to those who truly want to turn around and repent. With the flood, God held out every opportunity for everyone to repent and cease their sinful course. Noah not only built the Ark to save himself and his family, but was directed by God to also preach and tell everyone what he had been told. The others however, took no note and thus once again the people killed, and God shares no blame. This is the same with the case of the firstborn in Egypt, Uzzah, and David. With Ezekiel's wife, though it is never stated, she brought it upon herself with adultery. It is shown by what it prophesied. God knew of this and how happy Ezekiel was to have her and thus consoled Ezekiel by telling him not to mourn.
God himself has intentionally killed people

First, to make sense of the debate, "intentionally" refers to one intending on doing something when having done it as well. This is not even how death itself began. We must remember that God and His purposes do not change. Adam and Eve were created originally to live forever. They however, disobeyed God thus killing all who have died, even though not directly. This means that God carries no blame for any of the deaths that have ever happened. Put simply, the child of a parent for example, plays with a snake after being taught to stay away from the danger. It is then not the parent's fault when the child gets bitten. In fact, the parent would definitely mourn over the event regardless of who was right. Similarly, long before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God taught Adam, who in turn taught Eve. Obedience would have protected them, but ultimately they died, not because God killed them, but when they disobeyed Him they suffered the consequences. God no doubt felt very sad to lose them, but they made their decision to ignore Him.
Virat is the best player.

Even if you drop my argument that cricket is inferior to baseball because it is less evolved, you still have not shown any sources that point to Virat being good at cricket. He is bad because he can only make it onto a bad team, as I pointed out earlier. Also "Chris Gayle was the first player to score century in 20-20 world cup. He is the only Caribbean player to achieve this record. He made 117 run in 57 balls against South Africa in 2007 at Johannesburg."[1] Chris Gayle carried his team, the West Indies, to win the T20 world cup. If anything Chris is much better, which automatically makes Virat not the best player 1.http://twenty20wiki.com...
Virat is the best player.

Virat is bad. He plays cricket, which is an less evolved sport. Vote for be purely on the fact that baseball is better then cricket because the Cubs mad history by winning the World Series. Also Virat is not really that great, he was on India's one day team which means he is just bad. Come over to the land of the free to find the best players because anyone who is decent at cricket will move to the United States for the extra money baseball pays.