BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Religious Right is beneficial to contemprary America

I will let my opponent start off with how they think that the Religious Right is beneficial to America. I will then proceed to counter their contentions. This is four rounds, so my opponent agrees to not argue on R4, meaning they end their rebuttals at R3. Also, would it be asking too much for my opponent to be among the religious right? Examples are to be fairly current, and centered around American, not international, affairs unless said example requires historical back up (i.e. The Constitution was drafted in 1789, and has been kept in America therefore it is an important document. NOT The Constitution was written by Christians therefore only Christians are Americans) The religious right (RR) is defined as (probably) Christians (no in particular denominations) with a more politically conservative (disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]) outlook. Notable contemporary examples being Ted Haggard, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Pat Robertson to name a few.
Faith is an irrational belief

The ‘Opening Argument’, ‘Original Post’ or ‘Proposition’ is this…..While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god?) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so. Intellectual: for the purpose of this debate depicts: “having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge based in logic” Logic: based on facts, clear rational thought, and sensible reasoning. Educated: for the purpose of this debate depicts: “having the benefit of experience or knowledge gained through fully accredited sources that demonstrate rational thought and sensible reasoning”. Yes accredited sources can be rebutted with other fully accredited sources. Faith: for the purposes of this debate is to put ‘trust’ in a person's promises without previously assenting to, or believing in that person's claim to such confidence’ (Catholic dictionary). In short, Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. Y: There is no evidence of Jesus Christ (the foundation of the Christian religion), therefore the Christian religion, belief in Jesus Christ is based in only in faith…. and faith is an irrational belief in something that offers no support in order to have been believed in in the first place. Z = Conclusion, Christian are irrational concerning beliefs about Jesus Christ. While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god?) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so. X + Y = Z The way I see it, to defeat the opening Atheist argument, all one has to do is invalidate the support and prove the premise is wrong about faith, or prove the inference wrong about the existence of evidence for Jesus Christ, or prove the conclusion is unsupported or invalid because of the premise or inference. Nevertheless, the default position is ‘STILL’ the Christian position that there is a Jesus Christ and the burden of proof is with the con. Have I missed anything, this is my first debate here….. : )
Superheroes Villians

But, she's fighting water! Water cannot be hurt nor moved as a physical object by physical means. If it could be, he loses! He remains in his watery climate wherever that is! Maybe GL would far better, but we're talking WW. If WW is not vulnerable by drowning(I believe her to be), she still loses--as she has her mind on protecting innocents and they die since Bench is unstoppable by Diana. Even though she can fly, she'd have no choice but to be in range for Hydro-man(if she can be drowned) and innocents are endangered without help! Regardless, of whether she can be drowned or not, innocents die even after WW gets there! Therefore, technically, she loses; if she can be drowned, she loses a lot worse!
Superheroes Villians

Wonder Woman would win because she has superhuman strength, speed, durability, reflexes, and longevity. She can fly. she is a master hand-to-hand combatant (trained by Athena, Ares, and Hippolyta. She utilizes magically indestructible bracelets, the Lasso of Truth, a sword, and a shield that was bestowed upon her from various Gods of Olympus. She is practically a God of War.
Superheroes Villians

Hydro-man(Spiderman viillain) beats Wonder Woman(Justice League)? Hydro-man is water personified(and mind control over nearby water, too) and Wonder Woman is incredibly fast; strong; and agile and a major challenge for most foes. However, she's fighting water! I argue that even Superman--despite his heat vision(could evaporate water somewhat, but could he evaporate all of it before enough gets inside of him to drown him) and freeze breath(could he freeze all of the water in Hydro-man's range? He's not exactly Iceman)--would have major trouble with Hydro-man and probably lose 4 out of 5 of their battles. Water is after all very hard to contain in real time. WW might as well be fighting a ghost that had drowning ability and killing innocents ability. Even if she has immunities to Hydro-man(which she probably cannot breathe underwater nearly like a fish), how would she stop him from killing innocents, since she has no means to attack him? Hydro-man might be the perfect storm for Diana, because any JLA member would give their lives for innocents and Hydro-man would be attacking them to win this battle; WW would be forced to stay within range of Hydro-man! Hydro-man might be able to win, through drowning WW and/or the murder of innocents! If he's in a rural setting with water, then she loses or it's a stalemate. The only setting that WW wins in is a desert-like region, because Hydro-man has no water. And why would he go there and how could Wonder Woman transport him there?! Would her lasso work on non-physical beings? I feel like Hydro-man--despite falling prey to Spider-man's(a lesser being than WW) genius--would own WW! In boxing, there is a saying that styles makes fights: Foreman KO's Frazier within 2 rds and 5 rds in their 2 fights; Foreman KO's Norton in 2 rds; etc. Ali endures struggles in 6 fights with Frazier and Norton in comparision, but KO's Foreman. I think the concept applies here, too. Spiderman is a genius who finds a way to defeat Hydro-man, WW would beat Spiderman easily, and, yet, Hydro-man beats WW. Hydro-man wins? What do you think?
Noontime shows are not a bad influence on children

Why noontime-shows ARE a bad influence: I believe that this is a debatable topic, it does have it's pros and cons but the thing is, with the noontime shows, the contents of some of these shows can be inappropriate. The content of these bad-influenced shows could indeed cause the children to have thoughts relating to the show. When they think about the unusual actions of the characters [twerking, swearing etc..] they act on it, It's only natural. There has been a study in the Philippines that surveyed 4395 students aged somewhere between 10 -18 years old about their opinion of adult-oriented shows. [Children CAN have access to these kinds of shows. Their caregivers also let them watch some of the shows.] The majority of these students watch shows such as The voice, Hunger games or the NBA etc... between 5 PM to 10 PM consistently to quench their thirst for entertainment. Curiosity and commitment are good to a certain point, but when they watch highly rated shows, movies etc.. children/students tend to stay up late, ignore the environment around them and start to focus on the easier and entertaining things. They can be addicted to watching shows and start slacking in other areas of life that are "boring" or "hard" like homework, or chores. [Sleeping late causes various problems such as loss of concentration, headaches/backaches, weaker vision, gaining weight, bad digestive system and much more.] In conclusion, Children aren't supposed to know the cons of these actions, slang's and gestures so they will show everyone what they saw/learnt thus, causing a domino effect on other children they expose it to.
Trump's EPA Director Selection

Trump's selection of Scott Pruitt as Director of the EPA is disastrous. Pruitt intends to reduce regulations in order to benefit the oil and natural gas industries with which he has strong ties. This is going to undo everything that the Obama administration has worked towards in order to create a more sustainable and environmentally conscious culture throughout the US and the World. With this choice it has become even clearer that Trump is only basing his decisions off of short run economic benefits rather than sustainable long run advancements. It is true that some jobs may be created through loosening environmental regulations and that companies may be able to produce more at lower prices, but future generations will have to struggle with diminishing resources and coastal damage caused by climate change. The blessing of Earth's beauty and sustenance for humans is not worth a $0.10 drop in gas prices.
Australia Day should be changed.

Your argument is acceptable but not true as you are stating what happened when really we are talking about why it should be changed. The points you have explained are mainly about 'defence' but it doesn't benefit your side of the statement as aboriginals were invaded and had to survive. A 'war' was introduced between the two enemies, how does this make the date acceptable to celebrate Australia? . A date that is suitable to be Australia Day is the 23rd of December. The Immigration Restriction Act that occurred in 1901 and is referred to as the "White Australian Policy". This is the day when our country welcomed non-white immigrants, making it a much better date than the 26th as it brings more pride into being Australian and living in Australia. This would make more sense and show Australia as a whole community that can celebrate the day together, rather than what we see now. Which is a feud between the people in our own country that happens on the same day over the same problem.
Australia Day should be changed.

I strongly believe that Australia day should stay on the 26th of Jan because its the day that Australia started to become a country. When the first fell arrived they were attack with weapons that belongs to the Aborigines. They had to defend themselves. You also need to keep in mind they they did not speak the same language, they had no way to compromise with the situation. When they British were attacked by the aborigines, do you expect them to just stand still and get shot or killed? or would you want them to defend themselves? They started Australia, we are the way we are today because of them. They made us a country.
Australia Day should be changed.

I strongly believe that Australia Day should be moved. On the 26th of January we all celebrate the day that was once called the "First Landing" or "Foundation Day" when now it is reflected as the day of "mourning" by Aboriginal people. The main reason this statement has been argued over for many, many years is because of the suffering and pain that endured on Australia day. The history of our beautiful country is still remembered and treasured by all of us because we are proud of who we are and of how our country became. But this does not mean the same to all of the population of Australia as on that day in 1788, the Indigenous ancestors of our country were slaughtered, raped and abused severely. If you wouldn't celebrate this day if it was caused to your ancestors, then why should they?
Australia Day should be changed.

We are here today as AUSTRALIANS, we are one colony, we are one country. We are here today apologising for things that the BRITISH did. That has to mean something to then. We have done nothing wrong, yet were here apologising, we are using our time to offer the aboriginals peace offerings. When the first fleet arrived, they had different laws to the Aboriginals, and as I mentioned before they did not understand one another. When you say to celebrate Australia day on a more meaningful day, what day would that be? You could change it to June the 7th, what significance would that day have? This date makes our country stronger, it shows the battles of the British and the Aboriginals. The effort Australians have put towards aboriginals is large and the respect we show today gives others a great view on us. The 26th of January should be the date we celebrate Australia and being Australian, this involves all of our history and cultures together as one.
Australia Day should be changed.

Why not celebrate a significant day that represents Australia as a more accepting community? Not many people even know what really happened on the 26th and think of it as a "day off" where they can gather with their mates and have a good time. So what difference does it make if we change the date? We can still do what we do today when celebrating Australia Day, but instead of having our Indigenous people upset and people arguing over this topic. We can be proud and reflect on what a great country we are. If we change the date it shows that us Australians want our country to be a better country. Our development towards treatment of aboriginals, asylum seekers, homeless unemployed, prisoners, women and veterans are not very impressive but once we make these changes we can create a better environment and society for Australia. Lets celebrate the wonders of the country rather than being reminded of the negatives, January the 26th should be remembered but not celebrated.
Australia Day should be changed.

Today, we have a day specialised to apologise for everything we have done to them. We have offered them a home; we have offered food and shelter, they have the rights to vote, they are treated as equals, yet they don"t believe we are trying to fix anything. They have said no to everything. Here we are as Australians, apologising, trying to make everything right when they are complaining about everything we have done. Why should we walk the extra mile, when the Aboriginals wont even take the first couple of steps? How are we supposed to improve the situation when they expect us to walk in the dark to find a solution that they wont be happy with? Although you said that the date should be changed because of the 'white Australian policies,' some people today still do believe in that law. What good will it do? If we were to change the date, what meaning would it have? You want to change it to the day to when the 'white Australian policy' ended, the problem is, its still going.
Death Penalty should be eliminated

At the rate the United States is at, Prisons wont become overcrowded due to the recall of people with the death penalty. Ever since 1976, 1,418 people have been executed, and the number is greatly decreasing. In '99, 98 people were executed. So far in 2015, 24 people have been executed. Along with the 1,719 state prisons that the USA has (not including the 102 federal prisons), prisons wont need to be built because of inmates being sentenced to life without possibility of parole instead of the death penalty. Another reason is the death penalty is applied at random. Out of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, roughly 120 people are sentenced to death, that's less than 1%. So murderers, rapists etc. don't all go to jail. Only the ones whos name is drawn out of the hat do.
Death Penalty should be eliminated

I believe that death row should be eliminated for the following reasons 1. For an execution to take place, its costs the tax payers. It is significantly more expensive to execute someone than to put them in jail for like without possibility for parole. 2. There is no proof that capital punishment reduces crime. States without the death penalty typically have lower murder rates. The south has the highest murder rate with 80% of the U.S executions. 3. Bad lawyers also play a role in this. A lawyer is obviously the one that shows or proves that you were innocent. If an innocent person has a bad lawyer simply because that cant afford a top of the line, this could lead to wrongful conviction, simply because of a lawyer.
Death Penalty should be eliminated

I believe that Capital punishment is a reasonable method of punishment for those who committed crimes against another's life. (murder, intended maiming or mayhem that causes the later death of a person, etc) When you murder someone, you are ending any opportunity they have to enjoy whatever part of their life they have left. If they are younger, they may never marry or get a job or have children or enjoy their life as an adult. If they are adults, it is a crushing feeling to lose a loved one and know they will never be able to speak to you, or enjoy your company, and vice versa. There is no excuse for the deliberate ending of ones life. People who murder are not soulless; they too have feelings, but the pain, depression, and misfortune inflicted upon the loved ones or relatives of a victim is something that can never be healed, nor can the victim ever live again. In order for this horrible crime of causing death to be repaid, death must also impart upon the offender. Justice must take place.
Animal testing

I didn't concede anything and I refuted statements that are untrue or can be considered evidence. If you are saying false information or untrue theories, I have the right to refute. You also recited that the animal's suffering is worth it. You are therefore placing yourself in a position that states that human importance is greater than all animals that suffer to improve our lives. Kill many to better one? If the procedure does not work right, aren't you now hurting or potentially killing multiple lives now? Even if you crack down on certain facilities that are treating poorly and making regulations more harsh among the testing groups, people will find some way to sneak past that. People are too smart these days, and most times don't use their wisdom for good reasons. You state that you will improve the quality of life with some of the medicines and vaccines that you are creating, yet transplants are taken from animals and given to humans, leprosy betters only humans, and insulin is taken from animals to better humans.
Animal testing

Since you are advocating for the medical development that fellow animals have shared with us, I counteract your claim. I will agree to the many things that animals have been test subjects for are 85% good. Yet then I wonder, what abuse those animals must have gone through. Dead animals must be used for organ transplants and a diseased or naturally dead or infected carcass I would hope not be used in a transplant. And the armadillo is not proven to treat leprosy. Insulin gets taken from the blood of animals. Back to the Con
Animal testing

Since he didn't really post a case of any kind, I'll just post my case and wait for his responses. == Case ==Before I begin, I want to be very specific about what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for animal testing in the development of medical vaccines or additional treatments to benefit both human lives and animal lives. I do not support, nor will I advocate for, the use of animal testing for things such as cosmetic purposes. This one is simple enough: think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone. The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[1]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish. It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows. Furthermore, the impact of animals in medical testing is incredible. The medical breakthroughs that have come as a result that have drastically improved the quality of life of both humans and animals. The road to a better life for both animals and humans is is through animal testing. Still explains[2]: "Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration . .. Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering. In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of . .. animals. . .. Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases. " == Conclusion ==I've shown that animal testing has lead to amazing breakthroughs, and continues to provide us with ways to not only improve the lives of humans, but the lives of animals as well. Getting rid of animal testing would be silly. == Sources ==(1) - . http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...(2) - . http://theconversation.com...
Roblox sucks. MINECRAFT RULES THE GAMING UNIVERSE!

You hated on Roblox, so why can't I hate on Minecraft, I only made my points clear. Your debate, you didn't even give one: Ok you made some good points on why you hate minecraft. But you didn't make any points on how you LIKE roblox! this is not a hate on minecraft debate this is a roblox vs minecraft debate. So go play roblox and then make you decision! I feel you would be glad to play minecraft with 9 year olds than play roblox with 5 year olds. And if you don't then i guess you should leave because this is not your debate. Thank You. Leave the debate?! Why'd you post this then? I'm starting to think you're trolling. You seem like a five year old, your lack of co-operation is disgusting, you can't even agree with someone on one of their points. Yeah, I'm going to be rude, what are you? Five? I can read and use better grammar than you, sorry, but this is the outcome. Fine, I'll write why I like Roblox. The Community. Even if some people will ignore you time to time. The community is kind, many of whom have good grammar. Many accepted others with them, allowed others to join along with them, accepted criticism and are pretty much... kind. Games. Many mini-games are made, many of which are enjoyable. Minecraft has many boring mini-games. Co-Operative. To reach their goal at the end, they'll help eachother. Seen the game Jaws on Roblox? Everyone helps eachother, whether its pulling someone on a boat or telling them Jaws is coming. There's many more... but I don't fancy listing them. Oh yeah. Mods in Minecraft don't count, since that's not the game. Making a world in Roblox is like making a mod.
Roblox sucks. MINECRAFT RULES THE GAMING UNIVERSE!

Ok you made some good points on why you hate minecraft. But you didn't make any points on how you LIKE roblox! this is not a hate on minecraft debate this is a roblox vs minecraft debate. So go play roblox and then make you decision! I feel you would be glad to play minecraft with 9 year olds than play roblox with 5 year olds. And if you don't then i guess you should leave because this is not your debate. Thank You.