BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Government should substantially increase investment within the African Continent.

I will argue the resolution that the United States government should increase investment within Africa. The United States government will constitute all things distributed or provided by the nations ruling body. Africa will be defined as the 54 countries that constitute the African continent. - BOP is shared.- First round is acceptance- No rebuttals will be made until the final round. You will make your arguments in R2- Acceptance is in comments- A one paragraph closing will go into R4. The debate can be extended to R4 on the condition the my opponent and I agree to in the comment section of this debate.- By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all rules and defenitions in the debate.Further Definitions Investment: an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.Arena: a place or scene of activity, debate, or conflict.Market: an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted.Intervention: the action or process of intervening. Debate Voting Rules- A 3 point vote will be factored in for whomever had the best arguments. - The source point should count for 1 point. It will take the S&G spot. Because of this, S&G will not be counted. Intentionally bad S&G will be stricken from conduct. - RFD's will be required to mention every argument. This is to prevent selective voting.- You may not vote on the source point and not the argument one. This is selective voting, and will not be accepted for this debate. - I've been also tipped to not allow Mikal to vote on this debate. I agree, and not because I don't think he'll not vote fairly, but because this debate stemmed from an argument with him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Good luck to my opponent and may the best debater win :)
shake it up is the best T.V. show ever!!!!!!!!!!!1

You can't state that a show is good simply because you like it. The show shows two 14 year old girls that constantly sneak out at night, act disrespectfully towards parents, an lie to adults in order to pursue a danceing career. How can you state that Shake It Up isn't a bad influence? Children need to be taught that hard work will make your dreams come true. Through out the series, Cece only works hard when danceing. She often through fits when she doesn't get the lead and after she whines for an hour she pulls some ridiculous stunt to get herself the spotlight.
shake it up is the best T.V. show ever!!!!!!!!!!!1

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you on this topic. I find Shake It Up to be a very lame TV show. The dancing is mediocre at best and the music would never be considered popular in our world. I could go on forever about the horrible characters. The TV show is about two girls that "best friends forever", yet, one of the girls is constantly getting the other into trouble. Not only do Rocky and Cece break rules but it shows kids that it's okay to break the rules. The way the show portrays school and adults is not realistic and it teaches kids to trust their own judgment compared to an adult that knows more about life. Shake It Up show that being smart in school isn't important, it's how you look and how popular you are. The show pokes fun at kids that are smart and/or get good grades. Shake It Up is a bad influence on children and is an overall cheesy show.
Contradictions in the bible

I would like to apologize for my previous argument. Those of you who are using google's web browser Chrome, you should be able to fix my previus post by copying and pasting the following into your URL bar.: javascript:void(document.getElementsByClassName('left')[0].childNodes[4].innerHTML=document.getElementsByClassName('left')[0].childNodes[4].innerText.replace(/\n/g,'').replace(/''/g,'').replace(/''/g,'')) This will not work in either Internet Explorer of Firefox. Also, because one Hebrew letter took up several letters, the end part was cut off due to the character limit. To recap in my previus points, In chapter 1, line 11, Genesis said "And God said: 'let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind..." In line eleven it said "and there was evening and there was morning, a third day" In line 27 it said "And God said 'let us make man in our image'..." Clearly, man was made after trees, by several days and several lines. The time difference is far to large to be a mis translation, and knowing Hebrew, i don't see how it can be read as man coming first. But genesis provides another account of creation in chapter 2 Chapter 2, line 5 "No shrub of the field was yet in earth ..." Chapter 2, line 7 "Then The lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Chapter 2, line 8 "And the lord God planted a garden eastward in eden..." so now it is no plant life then man then plantlife
Contradictions in the bible

In the bible people say there are contradictions. One in particular is genesis chapter 1. They say the order of the creation is contradictory in itself. In Genesis 1 and 2. The "contradictions" are just a miss communication of words. Some words that we use were not used when the books were written. Like as in our word sky they called the sky the heavens (Genesis 1:7-8). It also depends on the version of the bible that you use. The King James Version was the very first version to be translated into Old English. The newer versions have been "improved and updated so that you may better understand the word." The newer versions have changed the meanings of the verses. In the KJV the old English language shared common meanings with the Hebrew language. All the older languages were similar to allow communications between the peoples. When people claim that the meanings have changed they are spouting false truths.
Skeptics Should Argue with Theists

Interesting. I think your distinction between arguing and persuading is false, since one can argue and must argue in order to persuade, but it's all in just how we define these terms. For the most part, it's just your opinion. I would like to say that I am a theist-to-atheist convert who was persuaded first by scripture. Nothing refutes scripture better than scripture. However, had it not been for the skeptical claims of scripture I observed when I was highly theistic, I would have not doubted the holy text at all and reconciled all contradictions like theists do. Most theists are not as open minded as I was, or willing to be swayed at all, because they don't read scripture or use evidence to justify their beliefs, but rather just believe it because of an emotional appeal. They can say, "Will it contradicts itself because God wants it to," and they'll happily believe that. What I'm asking I guess is that even if you will convert some theists in the long run, is it worth it? You also made the remark that it's fun for both sides to debate this topic, which I think is true. We could be debating about factory farming or whether or not abortion should be illegal, but instead we're debating about the existence of an ancient man in the sky whom the majority of the world's population believes in. Often these believes get in the way of our politics and slip into the more practical issues, with people saying, "Abortion is wrong because God says so," or, "Gays shouldn't have rights to marry because God says so." If ridiculing and arguing these theistic ideas gets rid of this poison in our logic, then it would be beneficial to debate theists and try and convince them of the nonexistence of God.
Skeptics Should Argue with Theists

Should the skeptical society continue to debate with theists and creationists on the existence of God and the issues within theology? Right now I am Pro but am open to be either side, so if anyone wants to be Pro, I can gladly switch to Con. Religious people don't often listen to what skeptics have to say. Should the atheist community continue to educate these people, or are we just wasting time? Is it pointless? Should we be concerned about other, more important issues rather than who believes what? Is it a waste of everyone's time?
Skeptics Should Argue with Theists

I don't see how the definitions given show a clear distinction between 'arguing,' and 'persuading,' as you described. I know we don't share the same terminology but I expect to be interpreted to some degree when I use two similar words synonymous, but what these words mean is not what the debate is about. Does arguing, persuading, debating, correcting, critiquing; any of those, have any good result with religious people that outweigh the time and energy wasted? I will put forth another ball in this pin: it may not sway the fundamental theists, but it may convince, or begin to convince, people who are on the fence about the topic. People who are watching, listening to the arguments and find the skeptic's arguments more convincing; or, maybe a theist who is having doubts? What this would do when helping an individual who is struggling with their theistic beliefs and leading them to a line of thought they never considered before, finding reassurance in that if they accept the alternative, everything will be alright, because they no they're not alone. When I became an atheist, a weight was lifted off my shoulders and I didn't know why; I thought I was perfectly content with serving God; I was so brainwashed that once I deconverted, a burden was lifted that I wasn't even aware existed (of course, not everyone would have this same experience). If anything there are these people who are onlookers; bystanders, not necessarily ones involved on either side on the debate but watching who are the reason the skeptic debates in the first place.
A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

This debate has become silly and redundant and wish to apologize to my opponent that it has not become more enjoyable. Here are the rules for 16 and 17 year old drivers in my home state of florida. "With your Operator's License, you may: 16 years old – only drive between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work. 17 years old – only drive between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work." Even if you ignore all the other arguments in this round, it should be clear that what the pro side of an argument must argue for by advocating a bill to raise the driving age is something other than the status quo. That is, that people under 18 should be kept off the road completely. That was the position the pro side held in his first argument with no deviation. He could have argued and probably won the debate just from the position that those under 18 should not be able to drive. There were resonable responses to my arguments about learning and need for a car and etc, but instead my opponent took on my framework and therefore loses the round. The bottom line is that a hybrid system is better and both sides agree than raising the driving age to 18 uniformly. Therefore, I win the round. The counter proposal I proposed is the one both sides agreed upon. Bottom line. Everything else in this round has been extraneous.
A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

Every year, the almost same story occurs: the headlines might say "Teen driver killed in wreck," or "High school students dies in car crash." The families who have to brave the realities of another dead teenager want action. Source: http://www.ipromiseprogram.com... The National Teen Driving Statistics says * Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. * 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. * 16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. Source: http://www.rmiia.org... In fact a recent report by AAA estimates the cost of crashes involving 15-17 year olds to be $34 billion annually in medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs in 2006. In 2006, 974,000 crashes occurred in 2006 involving drivers ages 15 to 17 according to the analysis conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for AAA. Source: http://aaanewsroom.net... New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. a 16-year-old's "the executive branch" of the brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older - the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior. Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland have found that this vita area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25. That is why brain and auto safety experts think that most teenagers are just too immature to handle today's cars and roadway risk as they tend to treat cars more like toys or video games. Source: http://www.usatoday.com... Although teenagers would want to be behind the wheel and drive, because it could create a sense of maturity and responsibility, raising the driving age ultimately causes fewer numbers of deaths, less accidents and crashes, and less guilt among teenagers and parents.
Only God can gave and take life.

I believe that only God can give and take life because God is the one who gave us life in the first place so we should respect that and die naturally, not take our own life. i believe that all forms of Euthanasia and abortion are wrong as it is not allowed in my religion. Life is a gift from God and we should take care of it just like we would take care of any other gift a person gives to us. ive got lots of reasons for the arguments but cant think of many against... help me out please thank you xx
Slaughter houses

You are definitely entitled to think that eating meat should be criminalised, just as much as a meat eater has a right to think that to ban slaughter houses would be going against his right to farm animals who are barely conscious on the level that humans are.The basis of your entire argument is the premise that eating meat is inherently immoral and unforgivable. No justification of this assumption has been supplied other than the fact that we'd hate if another species dominated, and ate, us. This is irrelevant since there is absolutely no evidence that any farm animal can realise what they really are or where they are ranked in the food-web of the world. they don't care that they are an inferior species to us, their only mental concerns appear to be directly related to basic bodily functions.
Slaughter houses

The elimination of slaughterhouses will need to be a gradual process for people to adapt,meat eaters are addicted to meat,they dont want to give it up and see no reason to because they believe that animals are here on this earth for their benefit....if animals could fight back and it put people at risk of being killed by them, i doubt they would want to kill and eat them..the very fact that they dont is why cruelty and abuse is inflicted on them,to me that says the people who do this are very weak and need the power over an animal for them to feel any strength,its one of many flaws which humans have!
Slaughter houses

In that grand scheme of things, the venture of alternatives to slaughter houses will usually end up in far more painful and enduring methods of killing animals for meat.If meat were made illegal, it would be inevitable that a huge black market for it would open, one in which very low-funded criminal facilities would be used to raise and slaughter the animals in the most economically viable way possible. As least standardised slaughter houses must pass safety tests as well as compete for certification as the best slaughter house in the region or something along those lines.They are a very good way of ensuring humane killings of animals, humane meaning relative to the alternative of not have any of them.
Liberals vs. Conservatives

Your assertions on both parties are generalizations. I am not taking a side on this, since the resolution (if you can call it that) doesn't specify that I need to. While I am not a liberal, I will still defend your generalizations on them. Really it only seems like you are contrasting and comparing the two based on your own belief of who and what they are.But I would say both are false, and relative only to opinion.You can't really say that a liberal (person of Democratic Belief tendancies) doesn't care about people; this isn't true. A lot of the things they stand for are because they endorse human freedom, and life. Abortion- Arguments are generally centered toward human choice, and freedom. Gay Rights- Arguments are generally centered toward human choice, and freedom.Gun Right- Protection of Human Life.ETC.Given there are only ten minutes for me to post a response, I will hurry through this.Liberals beliefs and personal values are aimed at supporting human rights. One of their responsibilities is to "respect human rights".http://www.pbs.org...I will accept the fact the liberals can be ignorant and place their own needs and wants over the view points of conservatives, but this is human flaw, not flaw of belief and value. Many of the same character flaws you find in Liberals can also easily be found in the values and beliefs in conservatives. Ultimately politics are a whirlwind mess of Ingorance, poor arguments on both sides, and contradiction. I am not going to attack Conservative beliefs, because it is not my place to do so in this debate.I would defend the same things for conservatives, as I have for Liberals.Out of time, posting this before time expires. VOTE TUF. ;-)
Liberals vs. Conservatives

Liberals are self anointed they honestly believe that they are wiser and nobler than others and that the way to improve society is to have the government force people to follow what the anointed want rather than what they themselves want to do. Conservatives are routinely blamed for not caring about people but I believe it is just the opposite that is true that liberals only care about their vision of how the world should be and not about real life human beings.
Debate Class should be mandatory for all Applicable High School Students.

This should be fun since I've never done a debate with 10,000 characters per round before. I'll use this round for acceptance only so I won't go into the topic. I think the resolution is generally quite clear anyway and I'm proud to oppose it. I know very little about the finer details of how exactly education is structured in the USA but I should be able to pick most of that up anyway, and my guess is that it won't be very important to the debate.
Debate Class should be mandatory for all Applicable High School Students.

Resolution: High Schools should have a Debate-based class (be it Logical Thinking, Logical Conversation, and any related topic thereof) mandatory for all Applicable Students:High Schools: Any form of secondary education, usually including 9th-12th grade. Referring to Public High Schools.Applicable Students: All students who would be logically applicable for such a class. Mentally Challenged students, for example, would not be logically applicable for such a class.Rules:-No Trolling-The Debate is referring only to United States High Schools-Clean cut sections. Use Rich Text for more comfortable reading.First Round is up to Con. If Con uses R1 for acceptance only, the debate will carry on. If he, however, uses R1 for his first argument, then Con may not reply with an argument or rebuttals in R3.Basically... Con chooses who starts and ends this debate.----------------------------------------I look forward to this debate.
All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

Going to try this one again. As the resolution is pretty straightforward, I won't spend much time specifying in this round, but I will make one thing clear. This is not meant to be a conversation about whether any nation should have nuclear weapons, or whether some nations should. It's a question of whether all nations should have equal opportunities to produce their own nuclear weapons. As such, this applies to every nation, including those that currently have them or are purported to have them. I will request that Pro follow these lines in the debate. I will define nation, as this can be an ambiguous term: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. (dictionary.search.yahoo.com) However, I will clarify a little more to make this simpler. A nation should be demarcated by defined borders accepted by the majority of the international community. As such, Al Qaida and Hezbollah would not be nations, but Iran and Lebanon would be. If any further clarification is necessary, I will gladly oblige. The burden of proof will be shared. I will have to make a clear case for why some countries should not be allowed the opportunity to build nuclear weapons, while it is up to Pro to defend why those countries should be allowed said opportunity. It is up to him/her how he/she would like to shoulder this burden within the debate. I have set it to 5 rounds, 10,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments. The only restriction I've placed is that you must have completed at least 5 debates. As I am getting extremely tired of forfeits, I will also request that whomever accepts this debate be prepared to take it to its conclusion. If one of us does forfeit without reason, voters are advised to afford the other debater the full 7 points. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance only R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Rebuttals and conclusion And with that, I await my opponent's acceptance and a good debate!