BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black History Month is racist.

I know I'm a little late for this one. Sorry. I believe that declaring the month of February "Black History Month" is an extremely racist/discrimanatory gesture. racist [rey-sist] noun 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. discriminatory [disˈkrimənəˌtï¿½rē] adjective 1. Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Feminism killed Chivalry

Thanks for the debate.Burden of proof on Pro.Pro must prove that "Feminism killed Chivalry."In order to do that he must prove that 1: Chivalry lived, or is capable of living.2: Chivalry died.3: Feminism is directly responsible.Quite the burden to prove. Good luck to pro. As such Pro has not filled this burden of proof, therefore the resolution has no support.
Abortion

I am sorry for the wait reply.One side note.I might be more busy in the next days. I am on my schools robotics team, and will be busy. But, on the flip side , I will get more chances to get on DDO , due to the room having computers.-------------------------On to the debate.Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket.Now to this to happen, there would have to be a sharp increase in 'fake doctors'. Ron will have to prove this.Fast fact."6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child,"[1] Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. "Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%"[2]52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.[3]This is a powerful statement. There should be a way you can take care of a baby in most of the situations. Gov't aid anyone?Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them.Show me. UN laws, nation laws etc?http://www.abortionno.org...;[1] [2] [3]------------------------------------------Counter.C1.Fetus are human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte. When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1]http://prolifephysicians.org...
Abortion

The opening shots: Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket. Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them. Rebuttal?
Abortion

http://dictionary.reference.com...Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.2.any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.3.Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) .4.an immature and nonviable fetus.5.abortus ( def. 2b ) .This wil be used.http://dictionary.reference.com...I can't seem to neatly post this in. So im posting in the link.This will be about Human fetuss The Res. is Abortion should stay legal/Abortion is murder. Etc. I ask Pro delay his post till the last moment please.
Tobuscus/Toby Turner Rape allegations

I have read your arguments and have reread them. You make a statement 'I think Toby Turner didn't rape anyone'.. Which I believe forms the core premise of the debate. He didn't rape anyone. You think so you don't really know. To take for example your reference to the drug allegations--your evidence amounts to speculation, inferences, and conjecture all opinions. You have an opinion. You think you're right and your supporting evidence is more opinions. Now lets go to 'didn't rape anyone' Anyone. Isn't that getting a little too far into the spectrum of the unknown. What you needed to do to support this part of the premise is to present facts concerning Toby Turner's character and past history. On this there was nothing.
Tobuscus/Toby Turner Rape allegations

Lets see we have a woman who says on social media she was raped but doesn't report it to the police. Then we have two other women who also on social media say they were also raped by the same man but also didn't report the alleged rapes to the police. You go on to correctly assert allegations aren't the same as evidence--because they're made doesn't prove the rapes were committed. Now here is the problem. After acknowledging the allegations were made and outlining the manner of disclosure the women choose to use-- you jump precipitously to a conclusion these crimes never occurred. And what is the basis for your conclusion? The girls didn't report it to the police and they disclosed it on social media. That doesn't prove the rapes didn't occur. Your debate premise is these girls weren't raped or the one girl specifically wasn't raped. Since you framed it that way your obligation is not to merely raise doubts about the allegations but to demonstrate how they are actually false. So far you haven't done it.
Tobuscus/Toby Turner Rape allegations

Ok then, I won't be making any arguments for this one because the Con has yet to even counter my arguments. So that means I'm just going to counter his. -"Rape is one of the most under reported crimes in the country". Well yes, it probably is. Yet I honestly fail to see why you try to make this point. Making this point is actually SUPPORTING the fact that Toby Tuner didn't rape anyone because, making a Tumblr post is one of the the best way to make rape go public. But you say that rape is one of the most under reported crimes ever. Which means that since the "victim" did the exact opposite of what your research said, then it supports even more that Toby Turner didn't rape anyone. -"It is not uncommon for additional victims to come once one victim comes forward. " Yet it's not uncommon for people to also defend the alleged perpetrator. On youtube, 3 OTHER girls that were also once dating Toby defended him and said that he would never do something like that. We're not talking about 1 defender. But were talking about 3 of them. Also, the supposed victim of the rape would most likely never have known an ex-girlfriend of Toby Turner or would probably preferred not to talk to the ex-girlfriend of Toby Turner because there would definitely be some tension in the air. The additional victims of this case probably just wanted fame and attention just like the main victim wanted. -You also didn't even come up with any arguments of your own. Implying that you most likely have less factual evidence to support you claim that I. Anyways here's my defense.
Tobuscus/Toby Turner Rape allegations

Do you believe because the girl didn't report it immediately to the police she probably wasn't raped? Well fact is rape is one of the most under reported crimes in the country. Not reporting it immediately doesn't mean it didn't occur. As for the other two girls being abused by this alleged perpetrator. It is not uncommon for additional victims to come forward once one victim comes forward. The delay and the wait doesn't mean they're lying.
Tobuscus/Toby Turner Rape allegations

Hello there, today we will be talking about a pretty big problem that was in the YouTube community. It was that a famous YouTuber called Tobuscus, apparently raped his ex-girlfriend and now his ex-girlfriend made a Tumblr post about how Tobuscus raped her. I am on the pro side and I think that Toby Turner didn't rape anyone and the Tumblr post that girl made was just a made up story. So here's why I think the story was made up and Toby Turner(Tobuscus) didn't rape anyone. -First of all, Toby Turner was accused of rape ALLEGATIONS. An allegation is a claim put a person but there isn't any concrete proof to support that claim. Which means that there isn't any concrete PROOF that Toby Turner actually raped anyone. -Along sisde the Tumblr post made by the ex-girlfriend, there were also 2 other girls that also claimed that Toby Turner abused them to. The way they proved was by screen shooting a DM conversion with Toby. Now, there are several very obvious problems with this DM conversations. The first problem with the DM conversation was that apparently, the person KNEW that Toby Turner gave her a drug by slipping it in her drink. She claimed she can't "function at all" because of the drug Toby gave her. First of all, how does she know that Toby even gave her a drug if he slipped it into her drink? Also, what exactly does she mean by "she can't fuction properly"? Does it mean that she can't eat to well, she can't move her arms? She's being to broad. I also want to point out that it's pretty easy to edit a DM conversation via photoshop or inspect element. You don't even have to know coding to change text using Inspect Element. I've seen little kids doing it before. Also the way that those girls are making Turner sound like is a total idiot and hypocrite. It really does seem like they're TRYING to make Toby Turner look bad. Plus, those two other girls could've been paid by the so called victim or they could've teamed up together so that they could try to get more attention. They could also be mad about Toby moving on/breaking up with them because they may get more attention if there boyfriend is someone famous. This is what happened with Nicole Arbor and Matthew Santoro( if you know the situation). -Another thing I don't really get is why didn't the rape victim file a report to the police so that they can solve the problem? Did she really think that posting about it on Tumblr would really help her problem? Plus, most people who get raped usually try to keep quiet about it. This is really suspicious. .. . Anyways there's why I think that Toby Turner actually didn't rape anyone at all. But I have MUCH more evidence than this though. I have yet to go over the actual Tumblr post itself. :)
Gay marriage should be legal

"Marriage is not about giving someone your last name, nor is it about procreation." Incorrect, it is."Marriage is an institution originally created for the purpose of procreation" Correct, it is."Many couples do not have children and they are still considered married." Many female ostriches haven't laid eggs, are they not female ostriches with that purpose anyway?"Some wives do not take their husbands last name." Good for them, but my point of a family name still stands as a double-barrel name is taken by the children." Some children are given their mother's last name." Same problem with gay marriage as children who would take father's names, there isn't one mother ever."Many of the traditional "rules" of marriage no longer apply in today's society, so changes and exceptions are made." No justification has been given for these changes."Marriage in America today is about family and love" Proof? None."The government should not be allowed to dictate what constitutes as a family" Well if not the government, then history right? History supports heterosexual marriage only."Any two people in a committed relationship can be a family, kids or no kids, and that should be recognized." I recognise this."Families today do not always consist of a mother, father, and 2.5 kids." I've never seen 0.5 of a child but if it exists then I suppose my opponent has a point."While some people may consider that the ideal, that is not reality in America today." Except Republicans got 47% of votes last election."Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, your personal views should not have dictate another families' rights." What about the views of 47% of the nation?"Gay Americans are not going to just go away if they can't get married, so I see no point in continuing this futile practice of denying equal rights to fellow citizens." Procreation and population control.
Gay marriage should be legal

Marriage is not about giving someone your last name, nor is it about procreation. Marriage is an institution originally created for the purpose of procreation, but as we all know, things change as we progress in society. Many couples do not have children and they are still considered married. Some wives do not take their husbands last name. Some children are given their mother's last name. Many of the traditional "rules" of marriage no longer apply in today's society, so changes and exceptions are made. Marriage in America today is about family and love, and the government should not be allowed to dictate what constitutes as a family, or fail to provide equal rights and benefits to families based solely on the sexual orientation of it's members. Any two people in a committed relationship can be a family, kids or no kids, and that should be recognized. Families today do not always consist of a mother, father, and 2.5 kids. While some people may consider that the ideal, that is not reality in America today. We need to adapt to this reality, not ignore it. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, your personal views should not have dictate another families' rights. Gay Americans are not going to just go away if they can't get married, so I see no point in continuing this futile practice of denying equal rights to fellow citizens.
God probably doesn't exist.

Thank you for responding so quickly. I still believe that you have the burden of proof because you need to show me why God does, or probably does exist. By stating that I have the burden of proof is essentially asking me to prove non-existance. I can't really prove that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the giant fire-breathing ones), and minotaurs don't exist, so why should I be the one proving that God exists? Therefore, in a debate I feel that it would make more sense for the proponent of God to attempt to prove His existance than asking a non-believer to prove he doesn't exist. Also, I specifically stated it in the rules. My definition of God is what I wanted Con to prove existed. I was arguing that 'The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority' probably doesn't have actual being.1. God is the creator and ruler of the universe, and source of all moral authority (pro's definition)2. God exists if it has actual being (pro's definition)3. It is impossible to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and source of all moral authority, yet not exist4. Therefore God must exist1. This definition of God is what you are attempting to prove to me. You fail to provide any proof that he exists; you simply state it as fact.2. I agree.3. I would agree if you actually proved that God existed. 4. See above.
God probably doesn't exist.

First, to clarify, I will not argue for an omnibenevolent or omniscient God. Also, as the title of the debate is "God probably doesn't exist," my opponent needs to prove this, as pro, to win the debate. That is his burden of proof, not mine - without compelling reasons for the non-existence of God, pro cannot win the debate. Even if he refutes all my arguments, that is only reason to believe that "There is no compelling reason to believe in God" as opposed to "God probably doesn't exist," which he needs to affirm. If pro fails to affirm the topic at hand, then I must win because no arguments for the motion have been raised. Just because I am trying to prove something does not automatically mean I have the burden of proof. My opponent is also trying to prove something - the motion - and he has the burden of proof because that's what the moot calls for. As per the rules, however, I will leave my last round blank. My argument is very, very simple. It was invented by Rene Descartes and is stated most clearly in his 3rd-5th meditations. I have adapted it below for my opponent's definitions:1. God is the creator and ruler of the universe, and source of all moral authority (pro's definition)2. God exists if it has actual being (pro's definition)3. It is impossible to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and source of all moral authority, yet not exist4. Therefore God must existTherefore my opponent's own definitions already do prove God. All that is left for me to do is sit back, relax and watch my opponent rebut himself.
God probably doesn't exist.

By Pro, I believe that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. God - The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority Exist - To have actual being (should be pretty obvious...this is mostly to avoid crazy semantics)Con has the burden of proof, because they are attempting to prove the existance of God. For this reason, I will let Con start their argument in the first round, but I just ask that they leave their very last argument blank, so that we each have the same time for debating. I also request that my opponent state if God is omniscient and/or omnibenevolent, just to make the it go more smoothly.You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof for God's existance. "Genesis says that God created the universe, therefore he exists!" = BAD"This supports Genesis, because ______________." = GOOD If you have any more questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you!
God probably doesn't exist.

I did not give evidence due to the fact that I wanted my opponent to give the evidence. Not every debate has to be exactly the same, and in this debate I wanted Con to show evidence. You did not proof that my definition of God must exist, you simply repeated the same argument in each round. You claim that no matter how you look at it, I must show evidence for the resolution, despite the fact that I clearly stating in the introduction that I wanted Con to attempt to disprove it. I never disagreed with my definition and I repeated the same things in each round. The first two premises in your argument lead directly into your third premise, so if I were to simply disprove one, your argument would fall apart. You claim that either my definition is valid or God is imaginary, but when I look at the dictionary definition of Minotaur, 'A creature who was half man and half bull. '. I doubt the dictionary is stating that the minotaur exists, but it is rather giving a description of how mythology portrayed him. 'Presume God (creator/ruler/moral source) did not necessarily exist. My opponent needs to explain how this is possible. ' Easy. There is no creator of the universe/source of all morality, or it is another deity rather than the Judeo-Christian god. I am not arguing that there isn't a god/gods, but rather that the God as depicted in the Bible probably doesn't exist.
God probably doesn't exist.

I must apologise for my slow reply. I felt the need to take a long nap. Understandable, I feel like that some days too. But, back on topic.If you think that's not fair, you shouldn't have set up a debate that requires you to do so. I thought that someone might try and pin me with the burden of proof, but I specifically stated that you would have the burden of proof in this case. It doesn't matter who would normally have it in a debate (even though I am still not convinced that I should have it) because I wrote in the introduction. By accepting the challenge, you agreed to my rules and conditions, which includes the fact that you have the burden of proof.Second, my opponent now abandons his first definition! This is a blatant contradiction which must be penalised!I never abandoned my definition, I still stand by it. This definition is still what I am trying to show probably doesn't exist. God = The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority(who may or may not be real) It seems a little hypocritical that you blame me for abandoning my definition of God, while you go ahead and adjust it to further prove your point. Descartes argument still falls a little flat, because you claim that 'the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority' may or may not be real. This doesn't inherently claim that a source of moral authority/creator of the universe necessarily exists, it just explains what God would be if he did exist. To be honest, I didn't think this would turn into a semantic argument.