BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

Argument 1- The earth is perfect for life and its function Rebuttal- Out of about 7 trillion (or billion?) planets or more in the universe, there is a high probability that one of them would be in this position. It's just math and probability. We function not because a higher power made us to function, but because we evolved like this to function. Argument 2- What created the universe then? Rebuttal- There has always been a question that if God didn't create the Big Bang, what did? I say it was a spontaneous combustion. It happened on its own. And if we say that everything needs a creator, then who created God? We would be led on an infinite chain which we will never end, nor we will have any answers to it. My Argument- I say God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence to prove so. He hasn't been seen in this century or the last, nor has he showcased any of his powers. Injustice, corruption, poverty still happen, and no God intervenes. We are about to burn up the world with global warming and killing many other plant and animal species for our uses, but he doesn't intervene, which begs the question, does he exist at all? Religion is getting monopolized as many religious artifacts are sold, yet no one objects to such business. Even if God had existed to create the universe, it is a possibility that he utilized all his energy in creating this universe and therefore has stopped existing. Or he got defeated by the Devil, if we take his existence into account. There are many possibilities that involve God existing and not existing, but as we don't have evidence that he exists, I would say he doesn't exist.
flag burning

My opponent in the last round has merely said the same thing which he has said from the beginning of the debate. He writes: "I would like to Start by saying that giving a speech may offend someone or hert their feelings it won't make them want to pick up a gun and go to war even if it is a team flag it makes people wan't to go and shoot them. " My opponent brings no evidence to show why giving a speech is any less offensive then burning a flag other than pretty much his own subjective feelings. Even if we agree that flag burning is offensive, why does that take away a person's right to do so? Racists are offended by minorities. Does that mean black people should have to cover their skin in public? Nazis are offended by Jews. Does that mean that Jews should be barred from places where a Nazi might hang out just to make sure no one if offended? Of course not. People get offended. People get offended at stupid things. Burning the flag of the Miami Dolphins might be the stupidest thing to get offended by. My opponent ends be asking voters to think about what it would feel like if they saw someone burn the flag of their country. This is of course an appeal to emotion and voters should not take this into account when voting for a winner. It was my opponent's job to show why it was wrong to burn a flag and seeing as his arguments have been refuted, he appeals to the subjective emotions of the voters.
flag burning

I would like to Start by saying that giving a speech may offend someone or hert their feelings it won't make them want to pick up a gun and go to war even if it is a team flag it makes people wan't to go and shoot them. Now a speech someone may get a offended but they don't want to kill anyone. Now as I said about if you burn a flag and don't mean to offend someone you still know it will. Now as for the voters I would like you to just think think of how bad it would hert you if someone had burned a flag you support or even your country's flag and hounestly tell me that dose not make you wan't to fight don't you almost see that as a decrlation of war
flag burning

"as for gaining support and getting people fired up I can't think of an time when burning a flag gained support that was not already there or was wanting to join. "Argument from ignorance. You cannot think of an example therefore you are right? And burning a flag shows just how serious people can get about issues. "Plus as for the Idea of firing people up their is other ways of getting people fired up without burning a flag like giving a speech or something of that nature not destroying someone's source of love not something that people have bleed for. "Usually speeches are accompanied with flag burning but my opponent has not shown why this would be better other than not hurting people's feelings. I can tell you if I saw on television someone giving a speech against gay marriage my feelings might be hurt. Does that mean giving speeches is wrong because it personally hurts my feelings. "Now as for it not meaning to cause hate I will beg to differ on that you don't destroy a flag and expect no one to be mad about it. "Just because someone gets offended at something does not mean that that was the intended reaction that one wants when they decide to do something. My opponent has really simply reiterated his arguments about hate and respect and ignored my previous refutations. He has brought nothing new to this debate this round and I have again refuted the same arguments twice now.
flag burning

I agree that no one has ever died for the Miami dolphins but on the other hand people still honor that flag so why would you burn it and as for gaining support and getting people fired up I can't think of an time when burning a flag gained support that was not already there or was wanting to join. Plus as for the Idea of firing people up their is other ways of getting people fired up without burning a flag like giving a speech or something of that nature not destroying someone's source of love not something that people have bleed for. Now as for it not meaning to cause hate I will beg to differ on that you don't destroy a flag and expect no one to be mad about it. Even if they do not think it will get them to give up they still expect them to feel a great pain.
flag burning

I feel like I should define what exactly 'flag burning' is before I begin so as to keep confusion to a minimum. Flag burning: the act of burning a flag, especially the flag of a nation as an act of protest at that nation's activities.[1] Now I will respond to and refute my opponent's two contentions against flag burning. Contention 1: Respect My opponent claims that by burning a flag, you are "spitting in their(people who have fought and died for the country which the flag represents) faces..". I say that flags of specific countries are not the only ones which exist and which people may feel the need to burn. Flags can be used to represent sports teams[2], political and economic ideologies[3], or be used for fun on boats[4]. How many people have died defending the Miami Dolphins? Name one person who would have died in vain, if someone were to burn a flag used to represent the Dolphins. Contention 2: Hate My opponent claims that burning a flag only serves to create more hate and violence in the world and will not necessarily make one's enemies "give up". I will respond by saying that getting one's enemies to surrender is not always the purpose of a flag burning. A lot of the time it is used in protest. Usually to garner support for a cause or get people excited. I don't think anyone who has ever burned a flag expected their "enemy" to give up because of it. [1]http://www.allwords.com... [2]http://www.proflagsandbanners.com... [3]http://www.crwflags.com... [4]http://www.embassyflag.com...
flag burning

I think flag burning is wrong no madder weather its for your flag your burning or your enemy's, you should at least have the respect of your enemy not to destroy there symbol take it down and tuck it away or do something else but don't destroy it. I wish to state two points to start this debate. My first point is that someone honors that flag people have fought and died for that flag and by destroying it you are spiting in there faces saying that their deaths are in vain if its your own and weather its yours or not some people honor that flag or have honored that flag which brings me to my next point. If you destroy the flag of someone it dose not make them want to give up it just causes more hate and more violence..
End the US presidency

Thanks for a good debate. On your first point, the problem with voting for unknown candidates is exactly my point. We need to know the people we vote for as much as we can. Let me put it this way, while in office they have the power to learn quite a bit about us and our activities. In order to hold them accountable for how they use this power and the information they gather with it, we need to know as much about them as possible. The above paragraph also speaks to your third point. Whether in the hands of the Executive or Congress, sensitive information has many avenues of misuse. It does seem to be the case that if more people know about it then there are more chances for leaks and misuse. However, I think it remains to be the case that the best way for us to ensure the appropriate use of this kind of information is to end the presidency, decentralizing power and dividing it amongst representatives in Congress and among the states. This decentralization of power coupled with increased accountability would place more power in the hands of the people to affect political change. If I were to commit to a specific idea about how to handle sensitive information I suppose some kind of convention of state governors for this purpose could work, but ultimately this may lead to the same problem of over centralized power. However, with those powers spread among 50 states the threat of centralization seems less significant, at least at the moment. I've enjoyed this debate.
End the US presidency

Greetings from Germany, 1.About my First Point, the government has its problems with elections when it come"s to electing someone unknown ( with that I mean , you going to vote for your Friend, because you know him personally and he isn"t a Politician ) 2. About the 50/50 Vote and your idea with NOT PASSING THE BILL ... I agree, that's a good solution. 3.I don't know it that counts as a argument, The President takes daily files from the CIA or FBI and from the NSA and the Files in it are for only one Person assigned: The President. Why just only he gets the files? Because , when the Files are on the wrong hands or "Many" hands then it would have a leak to the Citizen and imaginate if the file contains a Nuclear Weapon Program and the People reads it on the News Papers... It would have a bad end. P.S I Live (as I said) in Germany and our time is 01:20 so you can expect my Answer only in 1 Day. I"m looking forward for your Answer.
End the US presidency

Greetings. Thank you for accepting. I don't quite understand your first point. Perhaps you could explain. Congress is elected by state citizenship. That would continue even without a president. On your second point, I do agree that interested parties will continue to attempt to circumvent 'government by the people' by buying votes. However, since the media would have no president to gossip about in a given news hour, their focus as pertaining to politics would naturally fall on Congress. This would, as I've said, turn the spotlight on Congress and make it harder for Congress to conduct 'business as usual' when it comes to corruption. While corruption would continue, it would require even more creative maneuvering to keep it out of the media. Even then there are leaks and other sources the media will use to make the news. As for your argument concerning the 50/50 split vote scenario, I would personally like to see any vote that is closer than a 60/40 split placed in a referendum to the people in each state. However, if ending the tie is the goal I believe the best course of action is to NOT PASS THE BILL. If Congress cannot agree, and no one can be convinced using alternate means within the law they will simply have to start over. I am all in favor of Congressional inaction. I look forward to your rebuttal.
End the US presidency

We Need Someone To lead us, because. .. 1. A Congress cannot be elected by Millions of People wanting to see his Friend to be part of a Congress. Think over how much Votes would be for other Million People who are very Unknown. (Like to a Hobo. .. ) 2. I understand that"s easy to buy a Person ( that he does / Says something what I Order ) but what can we do about that? a Congress is still Payable to do a Law. (100 People Gets 50K and they set up a Law against abortion) 3. When a Congress are all talking about removing the Consuming Drug Law and a half are for it and the Other half are against it, then what can we do? There is a President needed. And a Citizen vote about the Law would make it clear that more than 60% are going to be against it. I am a German guy but I lived in the U.
End the US presidency

We do not need a president. We have Congress. They represent us. They make laws for us. They are accountable to us. The president, does, or should do, none of these things. Three things are likely to happen if we discontinued the American presidency. 1) We would no longer have one man standing behind a pulpit, as a symbol of one specific set of ideologies, dividing our country. We would only elect people from our home state that some of us actually know personally, to represent us. We would never again vote for just one man for the whole country that, by proportion, few of us know anything about. 2) Congress would begin to receive the spotlight of the media, making them more accountable. It would be harder for them to vote themselves a pay raise, for instance, without suffering the political consequences, i.e. getting voted out of office. 3. Possibly the most important, this action would secure the power of law making in Congress" lone hands. Those pesky executive orders that potentially make our president a king (remember what the American Revolution was all about?), would go away. The Supreme Court, as well, could no longer be stacked with appointees from one person (the president), from one party, unless the American people saw fit to elect a large enough majority in the Senate so that one party could have the appointee they wanted. A pipe dream though this may be, it is a good one. It would once again bring us the separation of powers for which we originally fought. So, that only those who truly represent us would be allowed to make laws for us. No executive orders. Maybe even one day, no judicial activism (a subject for personal research, not something I wish to expound on here). I look forward to the day when the American people are paying enough attention to make this happen.
Everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion.

I joined Debate. org just today, and this is my first debate here " so I may be a little rusty. *** There are a couple of things I did not clarify in my opening statement. Let me make it clear that it is neither my intent to debate the morality of abortion nor to justify it. I personally believe that I do not have the right to dictate to any woman what she will or will not do with her own body. While this is my belief, it is not part of this debate. The point of this debate is not the morality of abortion; rather it is about the misleading words that many use to describe abortion. I believe that I do understand exactly why some people use the euphemism "pro-choice". To better understand why, one must understand human nature. When a man of questionable moral fiber finds himself in support of an idea which is either unpopular or morally questionable (by the standards of the society in which he lives) he will disguise the idea so that society at large will not confront him and thereby remove him from his comfort zone. But, why does he use the word "choice"? Don't we make choices all the time; is not every minute of every hour of every day filled with infinite choice? I don't like the term "pro-choice" because it is too vague a term to clearly identify what is actually meant (i. e. pro-abortion). The use of the term "pro-choice" is clearly meant to misdirect. It is the same tactic that many politicians use when they are caught in either a lie, or a compromising position. My opponent said, "Those who oppose abortion also oppose one of two choices". In this he is correct " one of TWO choices " and, if this were a debate on the morality of abortion I would likely give in to this misdirection and chase that rabbit. He also said that, "opponents of abortion are 'anti-choice'", which more closely speaks to the heart of this debate. The only problem is that opponents of abortion aren"t "anti-choice" any more than they are "pro-life". The term that most accurately describes someone who opposes abortion is "anti-abortion". Conversely, the term that most accurately describes someone who favors abortion is "pro-abortion". I do rightly claim that everyone is for choice (i. e. pro-choice) and in your first paragraph you failed to adequately rebut my assertion. In your second paragraph you employ another bit of misdirection, the classic circular argument, by pointing to your first paragraph in which you claim to have explained why my claim is incorrect. However, you later (rightly) point out that I was not very clear as to my use of the phrase "pro-choice". Then you claim to, "offer a rebuttal to both possibilities". Your argument that, "certain euphemisms are used in appropriate contexts, and this euphemism is no exception," as the first part of your rebuttal answer is weak at best. In the second part of your rebuttal answer you defaulted back to the misdirection of a circular argument, by pointing to your first paragraph in which (as I previously stated) you failed to adequately make your case.
Everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion.

So, without further ado, I will begin. To begin with, I believe my opponent doesn't understand why exactly the euphemism "pro-choice" is used. Those who oppose abortion also oppose one of two choices, leaving only one (not terminating the pregnancy). That is why opponents of abortion are "anti-choice". On the other hand, supporters of abortion believe that a pregnant woman should always be allowed a choice between terminating the pregnancy, or having the child. It doesn't matter what she chooses, it matters that she be given that choice. Thus, supportets of abortion are "pro-choice". My opponent claims everyone is "pro-choice". As I've explained in the above paragraph, that is incorrect. It is also possible that my opponent meant everyone is universally pro-choice, whether the matter is abortion or something else (he wasn't very clear while stating this so I will offer a rebuttal to both possibilities). In that case, I must point out that certain euphemisms are used in appropriate contexts, and this euphemism is no exception. Why it is appropriate? I explained that in the first paragraph. Back to my opponent.
Everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion.

Anyone who uses the euphemism "pro-choice" when she is actually talking about killing a living thing is a coward. Everyone is pro-choice. Whether you decide to allow your unborn child to live, or you decide to kill it, you are making a choice. At least have the courage of your convictions; if you believe that the correct choice is to abort your pregnancy then stop hiding your actions behind a catch phrase. If you believe that having an abortion is the best remedy to stop your pregnancy, have the courage to call yourself what you are; "pro-abortion".
Famer's Story-writing debate tournament Round#1 cybertron1998 VS lannan13

Welcome to the second story-writing debate tournament. The rules and voting guidelines will be provided here: S&G will be awarded as usual Conduct will only be awarded to the side that forfeits least (cursing within the story is allowed as this is a story) Arguments will be awarded for the side providing the more interesting continuation of the story. Sources will be awarded to the side with better writing techniques and displays a better ability with writing a story. Both sides will produce a story starting with the Instigator. One story will be created, and must be continued on from both parties within the debate. For more information both about the tournament and the member's involved, please visit: . http://www.debate.org...
Old people & Racism

Id like to thanks my opponent for challenging me to this debate, && I upmost apologise for the late delivery My opponent suggests, that referring to black people as darkies, and coloured was acceptable because it was used in a different time generation. When infact saying someone is " coloured" is racist because it groups together all non whites, and it was used during segregation. But the main thing to understand is the intent of the person saying it, to elaborate more Civil rights leader "Martin Luther King " told the public of that time that " coloured" " darkie" IS racist and that people should understand, calling someone coloured is a racist and a deragotry offence. During this time this was when the older generation would of experience racial hatred more and of had a better understanding of it.. for the fact that the amazing heroics " Malcolm ex" Martin luther and rosa parks aswell as nelso mandela were around preaching the people whom of that time would of been young to grow into better people and know the differences. When in fact its the complete opposite the young people today have learnt the true termonology of how to adress someone of a different race. wilkipedia source <>: The term black people usually refers to a racial group of humans with skin colors that range from light brown to nearly black. It also has been used to categorize a number of diverse populations into a common group My opponent also goes on to say that when I am older the term " black" would be offensive, when in fact adressing somene as black has been accepted for generations, and so it can be seen that it will always be used as a correct termonolgy, as opposed to "darkies" and coloured" which has never been accepted and will always be known as bieng an offensive term of words. Coloured is projected as calling someone who is black a different type of colour, where it can be said " white people are coloured people too then!" darkies: ( speaks for itself ) A deragotry slang coloquial phrase, which is just calling someone casually "dark" source: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk... I thank my oponnent, and hope he sees a better undersanding of this I have fully extended my view and facts.
Old people & Racism

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for starting this debate. Let us proceed: RE:"Why do the majority of old people specially irish and scottish decendent , come of with the wrong termonology for black people for eg: coloured, darkie, etc and they think its more acceptable than calling black people black!" Not wrong terminology. Just terminology which was more commonly used at a different time (i.e. at the time when said old people were considered "young"). Sooner or later, my opponent herself will be considered old and there shall no doubt be young people much like herself who belittle her for calling "black people" black. Heck, there are probably people like that as we speak, given that the general consensus on the politically correct terminology is "African American." Basically, the point to be made is that there is no objectivity to the terminology for these matters. My opponent is no more correct than the generation she is referring to. Given that this is indeed the case, there is no grounds to consider people who use such words as "racist"