BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Read the Constitution

I accepted this debate because it took me all of ten seconds to figure out that con here is a complete idiot. So lets get right into it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For any stupid people out there, this is basically saying that the right to carry a gun or a weapon is unable to be infringed"I hate to break it to you skippy, but a well regulated militia is NOT necessary to the security of the state, especially the United States.... This isnt the 1700's where wars were fought with muskets and bayonets, technology has advanced so far that nations as massive as the United States can protect themselves 100 times over from outside threats with absolutely no need for militias at all. The second amendment is flat out wrong in claiming that a militia is needed for the security of the state.... The US has been the military superpower of the world for 60 years now, and militias havent been relevant since the Civil War years "This will probably never change, since you need 75% of the house and senate vote to amend the constitution, and it must pass through the supreme court, and be approved by the president of the United states"LOL.... You idiot you dont need to amend the Constitution to pass gun control laws, there are close to 300 gun control laws already on the books: http://cnsnews.com...All of these laws directly curtail or limit the regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns, and none of them went through all the hurdles you imagine that gun control laws have to go through. Firearm registrations, assault weapon bans, handgun bans, magazine capacity limits, and restrictions on conceal-carry and open-carry laws all currently exist from state to state despite your beloved Second Amendment...... Why is this? Because the Second amendment, like any other amendment, isn't immune to alterations..... The Constitution and all of its amendments are open to interpretation which allows for things like speech and right to own a gun to be curtailed even though they are still 'protected'..... So gun control isnt banned due to the second amendment. There are hundreds of gun control laws on the books, Amendments arent infallible and are open to interpretation, and most people even agree that there should be limitations to owning guns, such as background checks or limits to which types of guns should be owned.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

"i know the light on my screen, thats it, it Means the emotion i feel is not true." Still doesn't make watching TV evil. "belief=be lie"- Really? That's a very far-fetched connection, and it still doesn't make sense."love for power is evil, so evil loves power."- This fails to support or add to your previous point that "love is the root of all evil, love is belief," as you make assumptions without proving their truth. Is the desire for more truly evil? What if someone poor wants a higher standard of living, thus making him more powerful in society? Is that inherently bad in any way?"i see it living is false, and life is true"- You're not adhering to the debate's topic, and you're providing no evidence to support ANY of your arguments.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

Rebuttals "Live=evol."- What? Are you saying that living is evil?"yes movies are non sense, you dont know them, i know the light on my screen and the sounds i hear, so watching a movie is like watching stories inside the head of another person"- Again, what? This doesn't add anything to the debate and is completely irrelevant."im saying watching tv is evil, as i dont know."- This contradicts your earlier statement, as you had stated that you are aware of the program's lights and sounds."love is the root of all evil, love is belief."- Another baseless argument. Where's your proof that love is evil? I'm starting to think my opponent is a troll, as he has apparently had two other debates over the same topic presented here, all with the same nonsensical posting.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

live=evol yes movies are non sense, you dont know them, i know the light on my screen and the sounds i hear, so watching a movie is like watching stories inside the head of another person, so that my speakers are like the sounds in his head i cant be resonable if i dont know, unawarness is the only sIN, and if i know, then i dont have to believe im saying watching tv is evil, as i dont know. love is the root of all evil, love is belief shoot
any action not based on a natural need is evil

I will start off with some definitions.DEFINITIONS1. Action- a thing done; an act.2. Natural- existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.3. Need- require (something) because it is essential or very important.4. Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent.ARGUMENTSLet's first go over what most people agree are natural needs, that is, things one needs to survive daily. These things are food, water, shelter, and garments. Other secondary needs include education, healthcare, and sanitation. These can essentially be deemed as good, the antithesis of evil.Going by the definition of evil, that is, anything immoral, unjust, or malevolent, you are essentially stating that any action that doesn't work towards any primary or secondary need is wrong. This is undeniably false. Say one decides to watch television, or play a videogame; this doesn't achieve any of the natural needs, but it is not harming anything or anyone, and it's in no way immoral. What of the preacher who teaches religion? That doesn't fulfill any natural needs, but it's not immoral or malevolent.
I do not know a lot about existentialism.

Well, my original comment about this debate (that it was retarded) stands. In that case, I'll use this round to explain my RFD. Pro's 2 sentences did not contain any noticeable s/g errors, so I'll vote "Tie" on that category and the before and after categories. As far as conduct goes, I think it's a pretty obvious vote in the Con's favor. I also had a relevant source; Pro didn't. Points to Con for that, and for arguments since Pro has accomplished absolutely nothing in this debate: no contentions offered, no contention refuted.
I do not know a lot about existentialism.

Well, my opponent has yet to offer any evidence proving that he does not know a lot about existentialism. Without any contentions, I have nothing to refute and nothing to base my argument on. To avoid having this debate be a complete waste of space, I decided to check out my opponent's profile for some clues that I could use in my round. The only somewhat (not really) relevant thing I came across was that my opponent is an atheist. Although there is no denying that many theologians have made use of existentialist themes in their writings, it remains a fact that existentialism is much more readily and commonly associated with atheism than with any sort of theism. Not all atheists are existentialists, but an existentialist is probably more likely to be an atheist than a theist [1]. Now while Pro being an atheist does not prove his familiarity with existentialism, we at least know that his religious beliefs do not stand in opposition with this philosophical doctrine. This is hardly a good argument for my case, but an observation nonetheless - which is more than I can say for my opponent. [1] http://atheism.about.com...
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

== Re-cap / Conclusion == As expected, my opponent has forfeited the last 2 rounds and thus did not address any of my 9 presented arguments. However, I have countered all of Pro's points and then some. Also, Pro has not cited any sources whereas I have listed more than 10 reliable ones for the audience. Forfeited rounds and allotting for only 30 minute intervals between rounds is bad conduct. I encourage votes for the Con.
Genetically Modified Organisms

If you are a person that is against Genetically Modified Organisms, then you are saying that you don"t want Genetically Modified Organisms foods like "rice with built-in Vitamin A that can help prevent blindness in 100 million children suffering from Vitamin A deficiency" or "an apple with a vaccine against a virus that causes childhood pneumonia." (According to http://www.actionbioscience.org...). Genetically Modified Organisms is a selective breeding process where the "organisms genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering." (According to http://dictionary.reference.com...). I think my topic is important because GMO can help out farmers a lot and helps out human life. GMO can help farmers because farmers don"t have to spend a lot of money on pesticides. GMO also helps out human life because GMO foods can prevent blindness and help stop genetic diseases, like childhood pneumonia. I strongly believe that genetically engineered foods should be used because it can really help out human life and help out children that suffer from blindness or childhood pneumonia. If you are not a supporter of Genetically Modified Organisms then you are saying that you don"t want to help out children around the world that suffer from blindness or childhood pneumonia and some of those children might be your own. I just want you to consider the following and think about all of the children that are killing because you are not supporting Genetically Modified Organisms.
Genetically Modified Organisms

GM foods can help prevent Disease in developing countries, but what if a new strand of disease were to develop from these GM vaccines? What if our bodies were not ready or had not developed immunity to some of the side affects of these GM vaccines? These are questions we have to ask ourselves, yet we still don"t know the answer. If more testing and research is done on these crops and the genes put into them there would no longer be concern over what they could do to us. The reason I say "do to us" only is because we are messing with evolution. Some of the plants and animals that we are messing with have adapted over thousands of years to live and thrive in its environment. What happens if you put a glow in the dark tuna back in the ocean? It becomes a very easy target for other fish. With the tuna out of an area"s food web, the whole system would fall apart. This is the major concern with GMO"s. Is what we are doing really right? Should we risk destroying what evolution has created? This is what you must ask yourself before you choose a side on this debate. We may save peoples life right now, but we could destroy the lives of tomorrow.
Genetically Modified Organisms

Actually if you think about it it is going to be a lot easier for underdeveloped countries like Ethiopia to compete with the US, China, and the continent of Europe because since GM crops don"t need a lot of water, farmers in underdeveloped countries can grow and maintain GM crops a lot better than they are right now. Also, the US already gives aid to underdeveloped countries, like Ethiopia. Instead of the US giving underdeveloped countries 100 million dollars worth of grain, the US can help these underdeveloped countries set up GM crops. This way the US is giving aid to underdeveloped countries and at the same time helping out the agricultural industry of underdeveloped countries. Now the GM crops are affordable for everyone, even countries that have really bad economy's. You would control the amount vaccines people consumed by making the GM bananas expensive, so then people would only buy the GM bananas that have vaccines in them only when they really needed it. Another, way you could control the amount of vaccines people consumed is by marking the bananas so that you can tell the difference between a GM banana and a regular banana. Again, I think that GM crops would help out human life because GM crops last a lot longer, GM crops also cure diseases like blindness and childhood pneumonia, and GM crops would be easier for farmers in underdeveloped countries to grow them because GM crops would not need a lot of water. If you weigh the risks and benefits, the risks are really low and the benefits are really high. Yes, there is going to be people out there that overdoes on medicine but a whole population isn"t going to overdose on medicine. Also, there is going to be millions of lives saved from diseases like hepatitis and polio. In general the benefits are a lot greater than the risks. If your country is suffering from diseases and there is a way to stop it, wouldn"t you do anything to help save lives of people that are suffering? Well I would, especially lives of people in my hometown, Ethiopia, that are suffering from diseases. I would like you to just consider what GM crops can do to help out human life and ask yourself "why not"?
Genetically Modified Organisms

GMO"s are very dangerous because they are so expensive. It is easy for countries such as the U.S, and China, and the continent of Europe to grow these plants because our economy is better than the economy of a developing country such as Ethiopia. These genetically modified crops could ruin the agricultural economy of these countries because their crops would not be able to compete with the "superior" GM crops. Also if you used these crops as edible vaccines, how would you control the amount that people consumed? More people could die from over-dosing on these vaccines. Instead of helping a whole population you could harm it even more. Also how could you tell (for example) a GM banana versus a regular banana?
Genetically Modified Organisms

Biotechnology affects human conditions because biotechnology can help prevent or stop some genetic diseases like blindness or childhood pneumonia. Also, biotechnology helps the environment because farmers don"t have to use a lot of pesticides and when farmers don"t use a lot of pesticides than oceans, streams, lakes, and rivers are a lot cleaner. A main benefit from biotechnology is preventing or stopping genetic diseases like blindness or childhood pneumonia. Has I have already said in my introduction, rice with built in Vitamin A can help prevent blindness and and apple with a built in vaccine can help stop childhood pneumonia. Both of these GMO foods can help save millions of life"s around the world. Every since the weed killing happened in Europe we have been taking really good precautions. We have also been testing plants over and over again to make sure their is not any health risks. I have some question to ask you. What do you think of rice with built in vitamin A that can help prevent blindness in 100 million children? What do you think of apples with built in vaccines that can stop childhood pneumonia?
Genetically Modified Organisms

It may be beneficial to use less pesticides and weed killers on plants, but what happens if that gene gets into plants its not supposed to in the wild? This has already happened before in Europe. Dangerous plants such as weeds that are usually easy to kill could become immune to our weed-killers. GMO's are very dangerous because they lack testing. Inserting genes into plants without testing the effects can prove to be very dangerous if the gene leaks out into the wild.
Genetically Modified Organisms

Biotechnology affects human conditions because biotechnology can help prevent or stop some genetic diseases like blindness or childhood pneumonia. Also, biotechnology helps the environment because farmers don"t have to use a lot of pesticides and when farmers don"t use a lot of pesticides than oceans, streams, lakes, and rivers are a lot cleaner. One main benefit from biotechnology is reliance on less pesticides. When farmers don"t have to use a lot of pesticides, then farmers can keep oceans, streams, lakes, and rivers clean. When oceans, streams, lakes, and rivers are clean, then the drinking waters are a lot cleaner. When the drinking waters are a lot cleaner than more life"s are saved in underdeveloped countries like Africa.
Genetically Modified Organisms

How would you feel if the food you ate today destroyed your future? Unfortunately this could be a reality with GMO"s. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. GMO"s can be anything from cows to corn. GMO"s are made to benefit our environment, but are they actually harming it? I believe that there should be more restrictions and testing done on GMO"s. Yes GMO"s can be helpful, but its when something untested inside of them goes wrong, it could ruin the agricultural economy. GMO"s are already a threat to the agricultural business of developing countries because they are not easily affordable.
alcohol should be banned

Alright then, lets get started. All of my attacks on my opponent's case have remained untouched. Until she says otherwise, I can only assume that she agrees with me. I will now further my own case. Contention 1- Prohibition was a miserable failure. I will not go into detail here, as it would take up all of my characters to tell why prohibition has failed so. Please see my source for more on this topic. Contention 2- The banishment of alchohol created crime During the 1920s, the US tried to ban alchohol. This did several things. Create organized crime, and actually increase the number of drunkards, as well as destroy the ecomony. Alchohol produces revenue, jobs, as well as good 'ol free time. It works like gun rights. When they are prohibited, everyone wants one. By banning alchohol we would create a second mafia, further inhibit our economy, as well as increase crime rates. For these reasons I can only negate the resolution. Thank you. http://www.cato.org...
alcohol should be banned

okay thank you for round one, I look forward to hearing your arguments in round two. just a couple of facts: 1) Drunken individuals are four times more likely to lose their temper and six times more likely to commit an act of violence. Alcohol is the major cause in thousands of suicides and murders each year. 27% of drivers under 21 reported that they drove drunk at least once last year. In 2001, there were 1482 alcohol related deaths of college students in the united states. These numbers would go down if we banned alcohol. https://mis.spps.org... 2) 40% of child maltreatment involves the parent abusing alcohol. http://www.childabuse.com... not only can the child be abused, but the spouse of the abuser can be abused, too. I know this personally. I don't live with my mother, but she and her boyfriend live together. He is an alcoholic, and every time he drinks, if he is mad at my mom, he becomes aggressive and throws things at her. This would not be happening to innocent people if there was no alcohol! These are percentages for wet county vs. dry county. There is 110% more crime in wet counties. 122% more murder in wet 96% more rape in wet 326% more robberies in wet 127% more aggravated assault in wet 61% more burglaries in wet 29% more thefts in wet 86% more motor vehicle thefts in wet 205% more arson in wet 142% more negligent manslaughter in wet 27% more simple assault in wet 120% more stolen property in wet 92% more vandalism in wet 90% more weapons violations in wet 29% more DUI's in wet 106% more drunkenness in wet http://drysharpcounty.org... Thank you again and I look forward to hearing your next round!
alcohol should be banned

Well, thank you for starting this debate. I will address your points, and then move on to my own. My opponent says that a few drinks can impair your judgment and coordination. This is why you are not allowed to drink it before driving! Aspirin can do the same thing-IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT. This example is due to a lack of responsibility on the drinker's part. Just because you have a quick drink does not mean you will get drunk. She also says in her second point that there are long term effects of alcohol are harmful. While this can be true in cases where people consistently get drunk, it can happen with ANY overdose of ANYTHING. When drunken responsibly, alcohol can actually be beneficial to the body. I apologize, I will post my arguments in round 2 due to time. http://www.cato.org...
alcohol should be banned

Hello. I thought this would be a good debate to try. Definitions: alcohol: intoxicating liquor. banned: to prohibit or forbid. I think alcohol should be banned for many reasons: 1) only one or two drinks can impair your judgement and coordination needed to safely operate a car. some short term effects of alcohol are reduced inhibitions, loss of muscle control, memory loss or blackouts, nausea, vomiting, headaches, hangovers, and stupor (which is acting seriously disoriented and confused). The longer a person abuses alcohol the closer they get to becoming an alcoholic, which is a person addicted to intoxicated drinks. http://ezinearticles.com... 2) long term effects of alcohol can include: liver cancer, women who drink increase their risk of breast cancer, memory loss, stroke, heart disease, changes in physical appearance, diabetes, and much more. http://www.infoscotland.com...; why would anyone want to drink alcohol and get drunk for a while, when these effects can hurt you for a long time, and possibly, forever? that was my argument and I have many more. I can't wait to see who my opponent is!
Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)

rebuttalsyes, evolution is backed up by science because it is a scientific theory, while creationism is not backed by science because it is a belief. creationism is not a science, it should not be taught like one. My oponent has failed to realized that i am not advocating this to be taught as a science. I am advocating for creationism to be taught as a footnote in our education system where we must understand this belief. Creationism is not the rejection of science, but it rather a different ideological perspective on things that is in a different faith based realm away from science. creationism is as real as you believe it is. Let me reiterate, my job is not to prove that creationism, it is explain why it should remain to be taught in our school system and to explain how it can be a viable explanation. If there are hundreds of millions christians out there who believe in this thought, why should it not be atleast mentioned? our school system is here to educate us. Creationism i must reiterate, should not be held to the same standards as a science, nor should it be taught in science class. It should be taught in classes like history etc where it is relevant because it has altered billions of peoples lives and their perception on things. Also the understanding of some basic creationism is imperative to understand the history of our world. (the constitution has the words "e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."). according to the interpretations of con's version of an education system, we should not teach our children folklore and we should create a whole education system purely based upon science. Does anyone else see the very lack of creativity that cannot be inspired?con has failed to address my final argument which i have repetively made, but here i will readdress them in an organized manner that i have proposed a "viable explanation"God has created all humans. That is a viable explanation for our existanceA)viable-capable of workingB)explanation-statement that makes something clearC)therefore, a viable explanation is an explanation that is= capable of working to make something clearD)God created all humans. This clarifies who made humans, how humans were made, and this is capable to convincebecause millions of people believe in this, and that is a fact.(brooo, why we got 3 rounds of rebuttals? we gotta rererebuttal then)