BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

In the previous round I have shown a study proving that legalising prostitution would lead to STD's decreasing in popularity . I don't accept your guess as a valid argument equal to that of a documented study . Conclusion - Con has failed to address most of my arguments from R1 while I addressed everything that was worthy of addressing , Con's spelling was worse and his arguments were not detailed .
Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

Ok, im just going to say that doctors have malpractice insurance, and if say, 2% of 18+ people get prostitutes. That has no connection to rape, and if we assume that number, 2% s accurate, then over 5 billion people visit prostitutes. Then, say, 1% of prostitutes get an STD, then 200,000 stds can be blamed on prostitutes,so then if they are protected, it is almost exactly as likely to happen- government-supplied std information.
Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

'Ok, my argument was not over abortion, but i could debate that topic if you ask.' Not now. 'Contraception cannot be required, due to rights and laws. Stds are contagious even with the contraception. So unless you can make argument that thet aren't, that is nullified.' You have not proved that but it doesn't matter , I wouldn't advocate for such a policy to exist so I'm gone use a different argument I would also like to add that you have not used a single source in any of your arguments . They are purely worthless assertions . There is no evidence that shows STD's would spread faster if prostitution was legalised . One study shows this : 'But more interesting than that is this: The pair found that rape decreased by almost one-third, down 31 percent. Gonorrhea decreased by 39 percent.' - The study is referring to a loophole that decriminalized indoor prostitution in a certain part of America . -(http://www.laweekly.com...) . ' I refuted about all of those argument,' you have barely attempted to address any of my arguments that I stated in R2. 'and a doctor can be wrong' I'm not gone address what you said here as you have not backed it up with evidence , you would have to prove that a doctor is wrong in most cases when checking for STD's for that argument to even make sense as even if in a minority of cases a doctor was wrong the policy would help reduce the spread of STD's (again this is just a possibility not what I'm saying I would advocate for) . 'I never saw pregnancy argument refuted, so i need one of those done, ' What argument? please do elaborate .
Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

Ok, my argument was not over abortion, but i could debate that topic if you ask. Contraception cannot be required, due to rights and laws. Stds are contagious even with the contraception. So unless you can make argument that thet aren't, that is nullified. I refuted about all of those argument,and a doctor can be wrong, so that has been nullified. I never saw pregnancy argument refuted, so i need one of those done, and i deleberately make these short because they are compacted into just a few sentences.
Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

Ok, first off, STDS can be spread rapidly during prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion. This defies morality, and sex should be between loving, consenting adults, not just oversexed consenting adults. No man will have sex with a pregnant lady, so that drains her livelihood. Stds are very deadly and painful. Aids is an std which wiped out many, so i not only have made my case, but regrettably had to rebut my opponent in the process, sorry about that. Your move. Good luck
bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

Pro fails to rebut my argument:"Even if we assume her contentions prove that Christians would support it, it doesn't prove that they should support it. Stoning people is bad, so no one should support it. Just because you're a Christian and you would have supported it, doesn't mean you should"So in other words, i was making the claim that it's immoral to stone people so even if they would have supported it it doesn't mean they should have. It's like saying even if you would have been a terrorist if you grew up in X, that doesn't mean that you should have been a terrorist. Or in other words, just because something happens doesn't mean it's right. Should is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. Would however, is indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation. There's a huge difference. Con has arguments for why they would but not for why they should. She essentially ignores all points except for one small one.
bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

con is merely trying to undo the rules established in the debate. if you are fundamentalist or follow the bible etc, then you should support the things i said. con merely says not all people are fundamentalist so it's not required. the whole point of the debate though is premised on if you are. if we don't have the fundamentalist basis, i can't say a christian even should support it, as con later argues. again without that basis, the debate is kind of pointless.
bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

The reasoning against this is pretty simple. My opponents arguments only apply to fundamentalists. Not all Christians. Furthermore, my opponent doesn't recognize that many Christians wouldn't be Christians if this was the things they believed. Christians these days appreciate the love they feel from God and the happiness they have when they go to church. So now we know that many of the Christians in modern day wouldn't have supported it back then because it goes against what they actually believe. Even if we assume her contentions prove that Christians would support it, it doesn't prove that they should support it. Stoning people is bad, so no one should support it. Just because you're a Christian and you would have supported it, doesn't mean you should. I've refuted her contentions and supported mine, vote Con. And have a nice day!
bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

The bible says it was dictated by God. 'Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!" 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' 'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)' Most people just say they would not stone anyone, nor support it, as if that is the proper response. Then they are unable to articulate why. If you follow the bible though as God's word, as most of these people do, doesn't that mean you would be compelled to stone and/or support it?
scrambled eggs come from roosters

-"I'll like to point out that my opponent failed to mention that the eggs don't come out of the bird scrambled. Failed semantics is fail. My opponent only mentioned that "scrambled eggs come from roosters". My previous argument still stands."- I would like to point out to my opponent that I did not use birds for plural I used bird as in one.. also I would like to say that a rooster is indeed a bird. Not a crustacean like others may believe but in fact a bird.- -"I look forward to my opponent's response."- logical I suppose
scrambled eggs come from roosters

-" Wikipedia never lies."- I lol'd -"Also, the eggs do not come out already scrambled."- I never stated that they came out of the bird already scrambled.. The egg comes from the bird and the egg then gets used to make scrambled eggs, Therefore the scrambled eggs had come from the bird. -"This is a freshly cracked egg from a hen " + "This is a scrambled egg " This is indeed true but I don't understand how this supports anything... As I stated before I never said that the bird layed the egg in scrambled form but that scrambled eggs come from the bird. I look forward to my opponents response
scrambled eggs come from roosters

My opponent states that eggs come from roosters. This is indeed incorrect. According to Wikipedia(and Wikipedia never lies. :P) a rooster is a male chicken(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Female chickens, hens lay eggs. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, the eggs do not come out already scrambled. They must be scrambled by a human being who is cooking them. This is a freshly cracked egg from a hen: http://www.faqs.org... This is a scrambled egg: http://hauslife.files.wordpress.com...
Illegilise all "medicines" not acreditied by scientific results. i.e. herbal, homoeopathy.

I hope that whoever accepts this debate will be able to deliver a good argument for the Illegalisation of non-scientifically accredited medicines. I would like to firstly give a better definition of what I mean by non-scientifically accredited. I mean any medicine or product which claims to be beneficial to your health, or wellbeing which has not been run through double blind tests or at least stringent single blind tests. The first round is for definition, acceptance and request for clarification only. Thank you.
911 why debunkers cant face the facts

Pro asserts that debunkers refuse to address three topics. I intend to establish that both of the primary agents devoted to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, NIST and Popular Mechanics, have addressed all 3 of the questions Pro puts forth. This will show that the topics have been addressed and so Pro's argument is invalid. I don't need to defend NIST or PM's findings or debate the minutia of chemical analysis vs. pictorial evidence. All I need to refute is to establish that debunkers have evaluated these 3 categories of evidence.
911 why debunkers cant face the facts

I would like to applaud you on your investigation skills and instead of verbally abusing the truth movement or attacking strawman arguments you have provided some rebuttal so that we may examine the science behind these claims . If all 911 debunkers behaved this way we could have good scientific debates on 911. I would like to argue that NIST hasn't properly shown scientifically anything to back their counter claims. 1. NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C . Independent experimenters have tried to melt aluminium and add office furniture carpets etc but have not been able to reproduce the statement NIST claims. NIST ignores other evidence such as molten iron spheres from RJ lee report. FEMA melted steel Many eyewitnesses University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, "I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center." 2. NIST claims steven jones has no clear chain of control for the dust samples , they argue that because they didn't control the chain of custody its not clear to them . Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate http://www.independent.com... NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosives , later when asked how they tested for that they replied they did not look for evidence of explosives therefore found none. NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite. The points above show that NIST has not fairly answered or contested the 911 truth movements points with any clear scientific experiments to back up their claims once again.
The Twin Towers destroyed in the 9/11 Attacks should be rebuilt

I'm going to cut straight to the point with little introduction or background. I think that my opponent's idea is nice, but impractical and contradictory to his aims. As a resident New Yorker and a witness to the towers falling, I can honestly say that the 9/11 tragedy was a very jarring event. However, I don't know any New Yorker who feels that we should dwell on such matters in an obsessive and negative way. It's not our style. We don't do things that way. Here are my opponent's suggestions: 1) Be aesthetically similar to the Twin Towers, but be built to be stronger and able to resist attack. It goes without saying that they should be stronger and able to resist attack, however, why keep them with the same design as they were decades ago? The block design is ugly, to be quite frank, and the outgrowth of a generation that was limited by the restrictions of engineering and architecture. I don't propose we use the freedom tower design exactly, but it would be more aesthetically pleasing than the twin towers. 2) They would be 25 to 30 stories higher. Why? 3) A 9/11 memorial park wold be in a plaza located between the towers. It would feature a "wall" of the victims name similar to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. 4) A 9/11 memorial and museum would be located at an observation deck atop one of the towers. 5) On every anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, all office functions of the tower should cease for memorial services and tributes. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Outsiders and their obsession with 9/11 don't understand the NY mentality. Suck it up, and get on with life. We mourn, and we grieve, but we won't let things keep us down for the rest of our lives. A memorial should be set up, but we can't dedicate the entire plot of land as a memorial. It's impractical. Here are my opponent's other arguments: A) WTC was a symbol of capitalism and freedom, thus we should rebuild it. No. We should not rebuild old and ugly buildings because of nostalgia. We should build new and pretty buildings which will even more overtly assert capitalism and freedom. B) I'm not arguing that we shouldn't rebuild. We should just build something else. C) I have no idea what my opponent is getting at. First he says he wants to build the old trade towers. Now, he's aiming to build something new. How is it "moving on" if we just build the same towers, except a bit taller? We want to remember, but we don't want to obsess and cry about it day after day. This brings me to the proposal as for what to build. I propose that we take the modern day designs of the freedom tower, and structure it together with a few more towers into this shape: . http://www.mraceman.com... To me, this represents the New York mentality to the fullest. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
The Twin Towers destroyed in the 9/11 Attacks should be rebuilt

On September 11, 2001 our nation suffered a great tragedy. Hijacked airliners bought down two of our country's most impressive buildings: World Trade Center 1 and 2. Now, eight years later, Ground Zero looks much like it did in 2002. Progress must be made. It has been "somewhat agreed" that the new building to be built at Ground Zero will be "Freedom Tower" or "1 World Trade Center". This is an artist's rendition of Freedom Tower: http://en.wikipedia.org... Instead, I am proposing we build buildings similar to these: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The following buildings would: 1) Be aesthetically similar to the Twin Towers, but be built to be stronger and able to resist attack. 2) They would be 25 to 30 stories higher. 3) A 9/11 memorial park wold be in a plaza located between the towers. It would feature a "wall" of the victims name similar to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. 4) A 9/11 memorial and museum would be located at an observation deck atop one of the towers. 5) On every anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, all office functions of the tower should cease for memorial services and tributes. This is why I believe we should do this: a) Why did terrorist attack the World Trade Center? They attacked it because it was an icon of capitalism and freedom. They attacked it because it was a symbol of AMERICA. If the White House was burned, would we not rebuild it? These buildings have a significant part in our national persona and I cannot imagine a New York, or an America, without the Twin Towers. b) It would show terrorists that we are resilient. It has been 8 years since 9/11 and we have not yet to rebuild. To rebuild what they destroyed would have a psychological effect on Islamic extremists stating that: We are stronger than you and we will rebuild what we destroyed. c) The "1 World Trade Center" is stupid. By building something new we state that we have "moved on" psychologically. The cry after 9/11 was "We Will Never Forget". Let's keep that promise. If we rebuild the Twin Towers every time we see them we will remember, and we will not forget. I thank whoever accepts.
The Bible is OK with slavery

The topic of this debate is whether the Bible is OK with slavery. This debate is NOT impossible to accept, although there are restrictions. If you do not meet the requirements but feel like you would be a good opponent, then let me know in the comments.In this debate, slavery will be defined as it usually is: Owning people as property.I can tell you right now that the bulk of my argument will be quotes from the Bible.If you're going to go with "you can't account for morality", then reread the title. This is not about whether or not slavery is moral.
Free will is an illusion that does not exist

Ok so here is my biggest argument for this. Free will can never truly exists as we our eternally bound by different forms of desires. I shall prove this through 3 points. 1. Free will doesn't exist : For instance, i might walk into a store and see something that i want, lets say a videogame. Now i have two choices at hand i could either take the video game to the register and buy the game, or i could steal it. Though my opponent might try to say that this is indeed free will, my opponent fails to grasp the deeper complexities of this action. I know what would be the moral choice to make, and that would be to buy the videogame. However i am not making a choice utilizing my free, but i am conforming to a moral standard. Wether i chose to stole the game or not. free will is just an illusion to show that you are a slave to these two opposing forces, the good force and the evil force. 2.All people have these forces of good and evil in them. All they need do is conform to one. However the choice is still not there, even when we are choosing which side to follow, good or evil, there is no will to choose this. As we become a slave to our own desires and wants. Thomas Hobbes wrote in his book the Leviathan that all men are corrupt in nature and give into their desires and can never be tamed. 3. Wrapping it up. But even if you don't buy those arguments listen to this. Since we all have personalities, (for example i am a friendly person) then by being nice i am simply following my desires built from my personality. However when i choose against this mindset, then i am not really making a choice but i am falling back on that which is inside me all along. I am conforming either way, and either way i am a slave to myself, wether my good or bad self.The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans about the problems of human will when he wrote, "i do the things that i dont want to do, and i dont do the things i want to do." Either way you look at it we never truly make the choice out of free will, but from a sense that there are these forces within us that guide us. Wether we choose them to or not. I thank you for listening to my argument and i am anxious to here my opponents response.
Christianity

... I extend my previous argumentsNow into rebuttals:"Christians belive that God created the Earth in 7 days, which is why we have a 7 day week. "We also have the God Thor in the day Thursday's name, and the God Saturn in the day Saturday. This seems to a non-sequitur."If God is not real, why did every from the 16th century to below belive in God?"1. Argument ad ignorantum (I can't think of any other reason why X, so Y)2. They did? Hindus believe in God? I am pretty sure they existed 400 years ago, which seems to debunk this argument. "How was everything in the universe created by an explosion?" I never made that claim, and it is irrelevant to the resolution. "To me, this does not make sense. How did water come?" Even if I can't come up with a cogent answer to this, it does nothing to help demonstrate Pro's case. It's made worse that it's pretty basic chemistry, however. "How did windows come? How did food come?" See above.
Christianity

I. Preface Thanks for the open debate Pro. I will try and keep my arguments brief. I will make my arguments in this round and rebut in later rounds. II. Problem of Evil The Christian God is regarded as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omniscient being. The problem of evil attacks the omnibenevolent attribute of god. The argument is formalised as follows: P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist P2. Gratuitous suffering exists Conclusion. The Christian God does not exist. Gratuitous suffering - Suffering that is not coupled with any redeeming good. This argument is a trivial modus tollens by the law of the contrapositive. Therefore the argument is logically valid, and Pro needs to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion. In defence of premise 1, an omnibenevolent being is one of maximal goodness. An omnipotent AND omnibenevolent being would be both willing and capable of giving maximal goodness within the world. From this, we would trivially expect there to be zero instances of suffering not coupled with a redeeming good in the world. However we see plenty of evidence for this being the case, millions of children in the world die in great pain as infants.(1) Moreover, a large fraction of these children are both unbaptised and unexposed to the Christian doctorine. Therefore are 'unentitled' to receive redemption in heaven according to the Christian doctorine. We don't even need yo go this far, however. As even stronger arguments can be made for animal suffering. We only need to look as far as our nearest chicken farm to see millions of chickens living in atrocious conditions, with absolutely no redeeming qualities for them in this life. An even stronger case for animals not having access to heavenly redemption can be made too.(2) Thereby satisfying the evidential burden of premise 2. III. Model argument from evil This argument I have borrowed from zmikecuber. This argument uses the extra attribute of omnipresence against God's existence. P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist P2. Gratuitous suffering is possible P3. If gratuitous suffering is possible then there is a metaphysically possible world where it exists C1. The Christian God does not exist in one metaphysically possible world P4. The Christian God is defined as a being that necessarily exists in all metaphysically possible worlds (omnipresence) C2. The Christian God exists in no metaphysically possible world (including this one) The only new premise I have injected is premise 2, which is even more innocent than the P2 of the problem of evil. Since we only need to accept gratuitous sufferings' possibility for the argument for work. We can readily conceive of a world where gratuitous suffering exists. Neither is this world inherently contradictory or logically unsound. Therefore we have good reason for accepting as metaphysically possible. Conclusion: Back to Pro! References: http://www.who.int... http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...
Christianity

This debate is about the belifs of Christianity. The belifs of Christianity started around the time of Jesus Christ, which is also when the Bible was written. The Bible is almost a textbook for Christians, and it serves as what we belive as people. Christians belive that God created the Earth in 7 days, which is why we have a 7 day week. If God is not real, why did every from the 16th century to below belive in God? Because the events of what happened are still fresh in everyones mind.