BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is a Christian nation, and should be ruled by the Bible.

America is a Christian-Dominated nation: Among all adults, 78.4% portray themselves to be Christian [1]. These Christians are certainly not all under the same denomination, but they do still have the same Divine Beings- God and Jesus Christ. In America's democracy where majority rules, why does this not apply to religion? Under this "majority rules," why do we not run a theocracy based on the Bible as it has been proven that majority of the nation believes the Bible to be their Holy Book for their religion- Christianity? Bible Teachings [2]: The Bible gives many teachings over forgiveness, sins, authority, faith, and many more ideals. The goal of Christianity is to serve God, and through the Bible, they can do just that. The Bible gives people the motivation to do good that otherwise people would not begin to think about. Philippians 4:13- "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." This single verse shows the strength of the power and the belief of God, that with God, we are granted the strength, courage, and wisdom to achieve greatness. Conclusion: I know this opening argument was short, but I feel that it is sufficient. I know you may argue that America is not a Christian nation because it has more than one religion, but on this majority rule basis that we base our nation on... majority rules. Even if some may argue that the Bible is a book of fiction, it is a book that helps lives and strengthens morals, a book that unites majority of the nation, majority of the world, under one belief. Under one rule. Sources: [1] http://religions.pewforum.org... [2] The Bible Thanks, your go!
America is a Christian nation, and should be ruled by the Bible.

Those rules are perfectly logical, and I accept. I will note that in posting these here without including arguments, the debate has been shortened. While this is not beneficial, It does not ruin the debate, seeing as we have a character count of 10,000.We will proceed as outlined in R1, simply cutting out a round. Since America is not ruled according to the Bible, and my opponent is stating that it should, my opponent has the opening argument to present his case.
America is a Christian nation, and should be ruled by the Bible.

Not intending to attack your abilities, but it seems that you may have taken the easy way out of something as it is a known fact that America is a diverse land. However, I like the challenge and will be willing to debate this topic against you. But first, I will give my requirements of you for this debate which must be recognized and followed by both sides accordingly. Rule 1: Other religions are NOT to be brought up as the topic states that this debate is SOLELY over the question of Christianity. Rule 2: Use factual evidence and reliable sources for your information. Rule 3: The term "ruled" will be defined as, "the exercise of ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)" Rule 4: No personal attacks. Rule 5: Do not devalue the Bible, as it may be offensive to some viewers. Use the Bible as references of themes, morals, etc. Thanks! Looking forward to this debate!
The rule of "getting your driver's licence at least after you're 16" shouldn't apply to everybody

I think that getting your driver's licence only after you turn sixteen shouldn't apply to everyone. By this, I am mean that some people should be able to get it before their sixteenth birthday, and some should have to wait until after. (This can be determined by tests.) ----- my reasons: 1. Some people, when they turn the age of sixteen, are not ready to get their licence. They get on the road, and dangerous things may happen. They may also not be mature enough to drive, and want to do "crazy" things with their friends while driving. Waiting until they are mature enough to drive, may stop these risks. sixteen year olds have higher crash rates than any other driver. This rate could be lowered. http://www.rmiia.org... 2. It may be helpful to people under the age of sixteen. --example--- say, if a thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen year old had no other way to get to school, or to go places because their parents were not able to take them, or were at work. Yes, there are buses, but buses do not pick up/drop off people everywhere. ----- so if the person had their licence, it would make it that much easier for them. (This is, of course, after they pass some sort of test to show that they can drive) I will post more arguments in the second round. Thank you :)
My Poetry v.s Your Poetry: Contest 2.0

Poem 2 ConRun free.There is a light at the end of the tunnel.But youll only find it if you jump out of your kennel.Every winter will be pushed out by flowersand washed anew by the rain,then Sunshine and rainbows will greet in the glories of spring.But if it knaws at your soul and you cant thaw outYou'll be withered away by the tides of life,never again to be seen.There will be days where you pout, days when you mourn, and tons of days in between.But ride on like a warrior ready for battle.Your sword will defend you,your hope will preserve you,your courage will keep you safe.All you have to lose is conformity.So run free,live free,dare to seek happieness,and BE FREE.
My Poetry v.s Your Poetry: Contest 2.0

Poem #2 by Pro There is no heaven for me, Just darkness like everlasting sleep. You're not my judge, Nor my friend, I completely understand. Time isn't a trap, It just slows everything down. I think about regrets and soon in time, I'll drown. I've prayed to that guy in the sky Just too many times. So, thanks for saying the truth- I appreciate your honestly, And not your lies.
My Poetry v.s Your Poetry: Contest 2.0

Poem 1 con Why be so dull, why look at the clock,when the only thing it tells us is "tick, tick, tock"?Time is a dictator,enslaving us all,Entrapping our lives into life's busy throng.But when you're feeling down,just break through your cell,break through the roof, and jump to the clouds.Why be a slavewhen Heaven awaits?Why, why, why you ask,I dont knowso dont come to me,'Cause I wont be the prison guard,I wont be a slaveI wont be the tractorbulldozing your thoughts. I'll be in the poppy fieldresting with my dog,free from the worriesof of everything and all
My Poetry v.s Your Poetry: Contest 2.0

Poem #1 by Pro I walk dark streets and roads, All I see are peoples' bones. Every friend is just a lie, the voices are only in my mind. The roads are getting darker ahead. Just a few more years now- we'll all be dead. The world won't last for eternity, So, I should beat my insecurity. Soon, it'll be to late- society will unlock our obscurity. Find the key to this hidden lock, Time is accelerating, tick tick goes the clock.
Should kids go to school

Yes kids should have school because if you don"t you will not be smart and you will not go to college and if we don"t go to school we not know much and if we did didn"t have school we would not be smart and you will not have joe if you didn"t go to school or if you didn"t have school in this world and you wouldn"t know how to count money or know how to do mouthing els good and you wouldn"t know how to read like big things and big paragraphs about other things like cats,dogs,and othe things like hats and other things
Christians should not own and drive tanks

1) Christians are allowed rights to own Tanks due to private property clauses rooted in the Bible. Genesis 1:28 (KJV 1900) states: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [1] Mankind (and Christians), therefore is allowed ownership over all things originating from the earth, and through God has been given the rights to own property, including tanks and armored vehicles. Individual rights to property and the existence of private property is further reiterated in the VIII Commandment Thou shall not steal. - The Ten Commandments (#8) I have therefore proven to PRO that the Bible does indeed include a biblical basis for the rights of all mankind to own property, and therefore mechanized vehicles and tanks. PRO must now prove where the Bible does not allow the ownership of tanks. 2) Christians should be allowed to own Tanks for self-defense. All Christians should be allowed to own tanks for self-defense. The best example of this is Pope Francis's Popemobile; a reinforced Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUV capable of withstanding small arms fire and some high grade explosives. Protection of the Holy Father by an armored vehicle was deemed necessary by the Vatican after the failed assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II who was shot four times while driving through the streets of Turkey. Another example of where Christians should be allowed to own tanks for defense purposes include ISIS genocidal campaign against Christians civilians living in Mosul -where ISIS themselves are said to be equipped with Soviet T-72 tanks [2]- and in Nigeria where hundreds of Christians are said to have died by Islamic extremists armed with military grade equipment [3]. 3) Christians should drive tanks because Tanks and armored vehicles are cool. Pope Francis's Popemobile -which for all intent and purposes is an APC- is rumored on the internets to be the sexiest and most exclusive luxurious driving vehicle a person can possibly own - beating out online polling for the Hummer, Limo, Batmobile, Ice Cream Truck, Lamborghini, and the Golf Cart. Tanks also happen to be virtually indestructible, and make for some awesome off road adventures. Sources: 1 http://biblia.com... 2http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... 3http://www.thenewamerican.com...
Christians should not own and drive tanks

This is a topic very near and dear to my heart, so I would appreciate no ad hominem attacks. Should Christians own tanks? I say no, they shouldn't. There's no reason for them to own a tank, number one, and, number two, it might cause weaker people to stumble in faith. A personal story: I started attended First Baptist Church of the Resignation from 2007 till about 2009, and I had a lot of fun there and learned a lot until the pastor drove his tank to Church one day. He drove it right over my little Dodge Neon and crushed it to pieces. I couldn't believe it! He was such a good pastor and there he is, driving a tank to crush my poor car. How was I going to get to work? Plus, he drove over a lot of other peoples cars with that tank. It caused a big schism in the Church and many people left the Church because of it. So I think we can all agree that Christians should neither own nor drive tanks, but I realize we live in a democracy and other opinions are out there. If you think Christians should own a tank, I would like to know your reasons why. The burden of proof is on you, as I've given anecdotal evidence of why owning a tank is for a Christian is not a good idea. The Con must prove the following: 1. That Christians are allowed to own tanks according to the Bible 2. That there are good reasons for Christians to own the tank 3. Even if they own it, that there are good reasons to drive it
One can both be an agnostic and an atheist

Faith is just an excuse to believe something WITHOUT evidence!Many people think an Agnostic is the same as being an Atheist. There is a difference and they are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, be an Agnostic Atheist.You can also be an Agnostic Theist. The opposite of Agnostic is Gnostic. You can be a Gnostic Atheist or you can be a Gnostic Theist.Agnosticism is based on what you know, while Atheism is based on what you believe.In order to be an Agnostic, you have to admit you don't know for sure. Sincenobody can prove that there is no God and not enough evidence exists that canprove that there is a God, it would be fair to say that every person who values evidence, is an Agnostic. Sure, there are people who claim they know that there is, or isn't, a God. That would make them Gnostic. If you claim you know for sure,you'd need evidence to back that claim up.Atheism is the lack of the belief in a God. If you believe in a God, you are aTheist. If you lack the belief in a God, you are an Atheist.If you don"t believe there is a God and claim you know there isn't a God, youare a Gnostic Atheist. If you don't believe there is a God, but admit you don'tknow for sure, you are an Agnostic Atheist. If you do believe in a God and admityou aren't sure, you are an Agnostic Theist. If you believe there is a God and youclaim you know for sure, you are a Gnostic Theist.Most Atheists are critical thinkers and rely on evidence. Without evidence, youcan't know for sure. That's why most Atheists are also Agnostic. There are Atheists who actually do claim they know for sure that there is no God, so not all Atheists are Agnostic.Because of the social stigma associated with the word Atheist, many Atheistcall themselves Agnostic.
Man of steel is terrible

I would like to make the argument, that the new Superman movie (Man of steel) is a waste of time and effort. I am aware that the movie got mixed/average reviews and did EXTREMELY well at the box office (which doesn't mean artistic or critical success) but in my opinion, it's overrated and a horrible piece of a** s**t. Why? because it's nothing but pointless action! Sure, the action is good, the effects are great etc. But that's all there is! There are some story arcs that get going and then just stop (Like with Lois Lane). In that respect, the film is rather lazy. Again, it is obvious that a lot of effort went into it, but I would have really liked to see some more development out of a new superman film. That's exactly what I was looking forward in this one: character development and good action. I got 1 out of 2 and I am not pleased. The first two movies, while goofy, still had enough enjoyable moments with the characters and groundbreaking effects (at least for the current time), which really pisses me off because the common compliment of the film from all critics universally was: An advanced and new look on superman's human and demi-god emotions. And I could not disagree more. Clark Kent has no personality and I mean NONE. The only good thing that can be said about him is that he looks good in blue...nothing else. And again, same problem as the Amazing spiderman, the actor doesn't FIT! In the first two movies, the comics and the animated series (which was awesome) he was a clumsy socially-awkward hard-working guy with superhuman abilities, that created not only a good twist, but also good comedy (which man of steel TOTALLY lacks). You might make the argument that with comic book adaptations you have to make changes and I understand that but...to completely scratch his personality and character and replace it with...Henry Cavill??? Disclaimer: The action scenes were amazing
That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses

Currently in our society, there are millions of people suffering from terminal diseases like cancer and heart diseases. Those people know that they are going to die, but has to endure the excruciating pain of the illness. Because the pain is unbearable and continuous, they will want to end their lives. Those people see no future and therefore should be able to end their lives by assisted suicide. It is not humane to make people go through this extreme pain and suffering, when it is evident that they will be cured of their diseases. Therefore, it is evident that euthanasia should be legalised for people with terminal illnesses.
That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses

Objection! The American Medical Association appears, in the following statement, to subscribe to the euphemism of "double effect": "The intent of palliative treatment is to relieve pain and suffering but the patient's death is a possible side effect of the treatment. It is ethically acceptable for a physician to gradually increase the appropriate medication for a patient, realizing that the medication may depress respiration and cause death". One wonders whether "double effect" really means "double standard". It seems that the debate is actually about who gets to have input into decisions regarding death. Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas: "is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering? "under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all? "is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die? At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and value of human existence. Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death?
People should stop avoiding the fun topics on DDO.

Well it still seems odd. What I am trying to say is that to me this site is suppose to be used for well debates. I guess it might be okay if there was one every now and then just to be funny but I don't think there should be tons of them just because "they need a laugh". If they want a laugh why don't they just go on the millions of other sites on the internet that are centered around comedic stuff? This website is a place of debate, not just another place to mess around.
People should stop avoiding the fun topics on DDO.

I am here to debate against your statement and I will give my reasons. First off why is this in the Politics Section. This topic has nothing to do with politics in any way. you could have easily out it in the funny or entertainment section. Second of all, Would not it make sense that people who are here in the politics section are obviously here for more serious debates rather than humorous ones. Finally, what debates I want to be in are my own business! Like I said before, at the very least you could post this in a more appropriate category. Laughing may be good but so is giving your brain some exercise with a little thinking.
People should stop avoiding the fun topics on DDO.

I am in affirmation to the resolved. I argue that people should stop avoiding fun topics for a number of reasons. 1. They can be tailored to any humorous taste, even crude jokes. Here are some debates made for people who like crude humor: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... For people who like troll humor: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... For people who like logical troll debates: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 2. Laughing is good. It decreases stress, helps coping skills, improves blood pressure and flow, provides a burst of exercise, impacts blood sugar levels, manages pain, boosts your social skills, reduces aggression, energizes organs, and boosts the immune system [1]. If that is the case, would that not make DDO a much less pointless website if people stopped avoiding the fun topics? Sources: [1]- http://www.discovery.com...
It is Most Probable that and Alien Species Would be Hostile to Humanity.

so here we go I will provide my opinions in this a numerical fashion. 1. how advanced they are. If these aliens are so advanced to the point where they are potentially travelling billions of eons away and somehow come across us they are probably after more than just us. and should have been able to fashion some sort of language reader. 2. We must think like ourselves. if these aliens are as smart as us most likely even more, then they are again probably after something more than just our lives. They could just be explorers, looking to find what lies in the vast unknown just like us and hell maybe we could learn a thing or two from them about space travel.
It is Most Probable that and Alien Species Would be Hostile to Humanity.

I will be taking Pro on this one, and the opponent will be delegated as Con. I believe that given basic biological principles and mathematics, the likelihood is that an advanced alien species would be hostile upon first contact. First round acceptance ONLY Rules: 1 - No trolling 2 - No profanity 3 - Equitable conduct and opportunity 4 - Empirical evidence Definitions: Probable - (Adj) Likely to be the case or to happen. Extraterrestrial - (Adj) A hypothetical or fictional being from outer space, especially an intelligent one. Hostile - (Adj) Unfriendly; antagonistic. Thank you and good luck. Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

And yet there is zero proof that people would not try other drugs were marijuana not around. The simple fact is that human's are curious creatures. Suppose marijuana never existed, would people not try other drugs because the "gateway" drug was not around? No people would continue to experiment with drugs as they always have. People choose marijuana first because it is common knowledge that the drug is safe but as I stated earlier the elimination of marijuana would by no means stop people from trying other drugs, they would simply try them first. Portugal legalized marijuana and they found that drug use actually dropped among hardcore users. Keeping people locked up in prison costs more than therapy does so does it not make sense to decriminalize drugs and offer people therapy instead of wasting taxpayers dollars? http://content.time.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana may not be the most dangerous drug out there but it's a gateway to other worse drugs that cause MAJOR problems. It's a "gateway" to drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy.....etc. If marijuana is legalized then a lot more people will be using the really bad drugs that CAN kill you.SOURCEShttp://en.wikipedia.org...REASON FOR ROUND 3 FORFEITThere was a problem with the site that prevented me from posting my argument.
Marijuana should be legalized

The prohibition Prohibition of marijuana simply does not work. The war on drugs has been an utter failure costing the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to try and enforce prohibition and it has produced results that do not justify the costs. In the early 1920's there was a prohibition on alcohol which gave rise to such criminals as Al Capone who made a fortune from dealing alcohol in the underground market. That's what happens when a substance is deemed illegal, it doesn't disappear it only gets pushed underground where it cannot be regulated. Here's an example: How many drug dealers are convicted of selling alcohol or cigarettes? The answer is 0 and the answer is equally as obvious. Dealers are not going to waste their time selling people something they can go purchase legally in the stores. This would also help prevent young teens from attaining the drug since drugs dealers do not ask to see an ID before they sell something. The legal age should be 21, the same as alcohol. In the last decade the war on drugs has lost a drastic number of its supporters ranging from law enforcement to politicians because they have come to realize it is highly inefficient. In 1980 there were just over 40,000 people incarcerated for drug related "crimes" and today we have more than 500,000. "In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws." http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.drugpolicy.org...