BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child.

My full resolution is as such: a man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child as long as a woman can essentially do the same by aborting it. If a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she has the only say in whether she gets an abortion or not (as long as it's legal). If the man doesn't want to have the child, but the woman does, he's out of luck; he can either stay with the mother and child, or leave and pay child support. Either way, he has some sort of legal responsibility for the child without having any say whatsoever. But a woman can choose to abort and not have to worry about being legally responsible for a child she didn't want. I propose that as long as a woman has the right to abort, a man should have a similar right. P.S. I wasn't sure how to categorize this, so I put it in philosophy because it pertains to ethics.
Everyone of european ancestry should go back to europe

Everyone can take the 23 and me test or ancestry dot com. All people around the word who are say 90% or more European need to go back where they came from and stop messing about in other peoples countries, The same for other races, People just need to go back where they came from and stay there, Forever and not invade or bother others, Just work out thier problems with no interference from other races or cultures. Every Muslim needs to be sent back to a traditionally islamic territory, Atheists can go to iceland or north korea, And people of mixed races may live any where they want to.
The labelers always get it wrong.

My opponent fails to provide any sources on a religion "worship me I am the god on Earth". Upon investigation , and Hitler's motivation was to do the horrifying acts was in the name of god. Not to become god http://en.wikiquote.org... This debate is about calling people by their religion. Hitler is not remembered by calling someone a jew, but killing the Jews. My opponent states that everyone else killed people off religious motivations. Specifically "worship me I am god on Earth". If my opponent had looked at the source, there is NO religion "worship me I am god on Earth" that motivated them. Were some in the name of religion? Yes. Was it "Worship me I am god on Earth". No. None of those people are remembered by CALLING someone by their religion. I suggest my opponent looks thoroughly at my source. My opponent then makes the assumption that I will lose. Only time has the answer.
The labelers always get it wrong.

I am assuming that my opponent may be new here, judging on the fact my opponent does not understand acceptance. I apologize if my opponent chose not to have first round acceptance. I will be more careful next time. My case: I. The assumption that no one likes being called by their religion can be applied to both sides. In this argument, it is difficult to find reliable sources of personal experiences, such as if people like being called by religion or not. Therefor, I will be arguing purely on assumptions and maybe if I can find some source. If my opponent can find a reliable source, I observe the link and research accordingly. Now, it is highly possible people like being called by their religion judging the fact they have kept their religion all their life. Such as pastors or mormons. Also,some have done memorable acts in the name of their religion. Some are bad such as the holocaust, others are good such as Jesus spreading love. Why would they not like being called their religion? They have performed such memorable acts in the name of religion, so why won't they like being called their religion? II. Looking at the most evil people in history (and their acts), it is safe to assume that calling people by their religion is not the most evil thing anyone has done. Here are some people who have committed treacherous acts. Elizabeth Bathory Talat Pasha Josef Mengele Reinhard Heydrich Osama bin Laden Saddam Hussein Heinrich Himmler Adolf Eichmann Maximilien Robespierre Kim Il Sung Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Emperor Hirohito Nero Caligula Attila the Hun Genghis Khan Tomas de Torquemada Mao Zedong Ivan the Terrible Idi Amin Pol Pot Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Vlad Dracula As you can see, not ONE of the people who have committed perhaps the most evil acts in history are known by calling people by their religion. source:http://25mostevil.wordpress.com... Thank you
atheism vs. agnosticism

Hi there. Agnosticism is frankly, in my humble opinion, uncertainty. Declaring we will never know about the existence of a higher power. With it, comes the convenient added thought that there MAY be something of the nature of a higher power. I have three main points of argument. I will present them first with reference to Agnosticism and second with reference to Atheism. Agnosticism: 1) My first point is that Agnosticism is a diplomatic stance. Neither here nor there. Lacking individual, original opinion. To keep everyone and their opinion satisfied, sacrificing your own. The proverbial cat on the wall. 2) My second point is that it is an easy, almost a lazy way out. Instead of researching in depth trying to find The truth, not to mention reflecting spiritually on the concept of God around one and within oneself, it is accepting that we humans are not capable of finding out whether or not God exists. A defeatist attitude, to say the least. 3) My third and final point is that there is no point to the whole belief of Agnosticism. And I'll tell you why. Assuming we DO uncover this elusive secret someday, agnosticism would be totally disproved. And please do not find fault with my belief that we shall find the answer to the question of God's existence. I am only human. And to believe is human. Atheism: 1)Atheism takes a firm stance on the existence God. 'There is no such thing', is the definite, clear belief, full of clarity. 2)Atheism is not diplomatic. It picks a side, thereby, very much unlike Agnosticism, retaining something very, very valuable- an identity. 3)And when THE answer is revealed, which I believe will certainly happen, Atheism has a 50% chance of being right. That's better than the 0% Agnosticism has anyway. I urge the readers for a con vote. Thanks for your time.
atheism vs. agnosticism

My dear opponent has brought out a fact, which I do not want to make mockery out of. Yet, as required by the rules of the debate, I have to present my argument. Quoting her, (I am merely quoting, voters, please do not count the mistakes in grammar and spelling against me) "hundreds of geniuses on each side have been arguing for 100s of years these people are smarter then you and I so why even bother thinking about it people smarter than you say differently so why should you go with your opinion over theirs. This makes more since to me than to say I know that all these brilliant theologians who have been working on this 4 100s of years are wrong." My point. No one is born with an estimate of how smart one is, or how smart one can be. Agreed? But my opponent thinks else wise. She has an accurate idea of how smart she is and questionably, how smart I am. According to her, our level of smartness is much less than, and yes, I quote again, reluctantly, "all these brilliant theologians". My perception of her mindset is one stemming out of profound concern. It seems to me, that the only reason my worthy opponent is speaking out in favor of Agnosticism, is that there have been several theologists who have been debating over this issue through the centuries. "And if they haven't reached a definite conclusion, why should I? Agnosticism is the thing for me." seems to be her pitiable thought process. Defeatist, to say the least. I urge my opponent to truly believe in what she chooses to believe, and not to follow something blindly just because she presumes her mental faculties to be inferior to someone else, no matter how learned he or she is. Thank you again for your time. All sarcasm is in good humor and is to be taken in good competitive spirit.
atheism vs. agnosticism

1)Your 1st point is not a logical argument. what is wrong with being diplomatic or uncertain. 2)with regards 2 your second point. Your claim that its a lazy way out is baseless. Furthermore I believe it makes more since to say the following, hundreds of geniuses on each side have been arguing for 100s of years these people are smarter then you and I so why even bother thinking about it people smarter than you say differently so why should you go with your opinion over theirs. This makes more since to me than to say I know that all these brilliant theologians who have been working on this 4 100s of years are wrong. 3)copied from wikipedia: Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claim especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims unknown or unknowable. I am referring to the position that it is unknown not unknown. Thus point 3 goes down the tube. (It wasn't much of a point any way.) certainty is only good when it is really certain but as I showed in bullet 2 this is not the case.
are tomatoes double agents

It looks like Pro has forfeited. Pro's CaseI have nothing to refute. Con's CaseExtend all arguments. Here is why you should vote certain points to me:Conduct You should give me conduct points because I haven't forfeited where Pro has. I haven't done anything to breach conduct, Pro has--forfeiting. Therefore, you should vote conduct points to me. Spelling and GrammarJust leave this as a tie. Spelling and grammar hasn't impeded any voters' ability to understand the arguments, so just leave this as a tie please. ArgumentsI have refuted all of Pro's arguments and all of my arguments are unrefuted. PRO has failed to uphold his/her burden of proof, as (s)he doesn't have any arguments, so I should get 3 points for better arguments. SourcesI have used 3 reliable sources where Pro hasn't used a single source, so I should get the source points. Summary I have refuted all of Pro's arguments and PRO has made no attempt to refute mine.
are tomatoes double agents

Rebuttals"Tomatoes are believed to be vegetables that escaped from area 51 and took the place as a fruit so that more people would like them. "Any sources for this? Also, that has nothing to do with the resolution. "I believe that tomatoes are russians spies who want to destoy us all. "That is just your unwarranted opinion, and doesn't pertain to the resolution. "They are one day going to rebel against us and stuff us into fancy bottles if we don't stop their growing popularity and their goals of world domination behind their red evil skin. " That is an unwarranted assumption. Also, that has nothing to do with tomatoes being double agents, which you are arguing for. Finally, we already know that tomatoes are not alive, so they cannot do any of things you are assuming they will. ArgumentsI have no further arguments. My lone argument is still unrefuted, with no attempt to refute it on PRO's part. Tomatoes cannot be double agents if they aren't alive. ConclusionMy opponent has made many arguments that have no sources nor do they pertain to the resolution. Tomatoes cannot be double agents if they aren't alive. My opponent has made no attempt to refute my lone argument, and so far has not upheld his/her burden of proof.
are tomatoes double agents

Good day. Because my opponent is PRO, she/he has the full burden to prove that, beyond a shadow of doubt, tomatoes are double agents. Since she/he hasn't provided definitions, I will go ahead and do that myself:Tomato definitionA widely cultivated plant (Solanum lycopersicum syn.Lycopersicon esculentum) in the nightshade family, having edible, fleshy, usually red fruit. Tomatoes are native to and were first domesticated in northern South America [1]. Double Agent definitionA spy who pretends to spy for one government while actually spying for another [2].My opponent now has to prove that tomatoes are spys who pretend to spy for one government while actually spying for another. If she/he fails to prove so, I win this debate. "Reason 1 they taste really weird when eaten without being squished or added to"My opponent fails to prove that double agents also have the same properties. Until she/he can prove that double agents do have the same properties, this argument doesn't help him/her. Also, a double agent's definition is not "tastes weird without being squished," so even if double agents do have the same property, they still aren't necessarily tomatoes. "Reason 2 they are also round"Again, PRO fails to prove that double agents have the same property. Even if double agents were round, the definition of a double agent is not "round." Therefore, they aren't necessarily tomatoes if they both have the property of roundness. P1) If you aren't living, you cannot be a double agent.P2) Tomatoes aren't living [3].C1) Therefore, tomatoes cannot be double agents.Bam! Resolution negated. Vote CON. ... By the way, the tomato is a fruit. SummaryPRO fails to explain why his/her arguments mean that tomatoes are double agents. Both have very different definitions, so they cannot be the same. Tomatoes must be alive to be a double agent, but they are not, which negates the resolution. Citations[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]: http://www.education.vic.gov.au...
Is there truly one god

However, I was answering the 2nd question you gave to me in your second argument: "So are you saying there is more than one god or creator?". Excuse for attempting to get to the main question.Now, I don't believe that a creator exists. We are not connected in the way you state, because this creator you speak of never existed, does not exist, and never will exist. This fantasy you speak of is merely, in my opinion, a way for many to explain why things happen the way they do, obviously not citing the fact that science has already discovered most of those answers. If a child is born, you have someone to thank. If a person dies, you have someone to blame. It's a way for those people that believe to have someone always by their side, either to love or to hate. I suppose the idea of it is positively focused, but the false reality is not.Now, I'm sure there are other reasons for people to believe in religion, so I can't say these things for all of them, just the majority. You say that my understanding is limited by my belief, which is quite hypocritical. You say you understand that there is a god that created us all, and why do you believe this? Well, I said it right there: because of your beliefs! You say that if you speak to me like a 5th grader, perhaps my intellect can grasp the reality?! My intellect, I promise you, does grasp the reality. It stops me from thinking up false deities, like a creator of any sort. Your argument, I admit, is quite confusing. "...we are all part of the whole. We are supreme beings of a sort. When you focus on something then it start to exist until then it isn't there." You lost me at "...". You said you were going to explain as if I were a fifth grader, not as if you were.Also, you say that all religions have their origins (correct, obviously) and are mostly right. Wait a second. So you're telling me that this creator you are telling me about, has turned himself into however many deities there are, and submits different teachings around the world? How can all religions be correct? The idea is incomprehensible, because it is simply not possible. Your argument is basically you reprimanding yourself.
Is there truly one god

Clearly your understanding is limited by your belief. I will try to explain as if you were a 5th grader and maybe your intellect can grasp the reality.Does a creator exist? Clearly the answer is in the question. We are not talking about religion here. clearly all religions have their origin and are mostly right.When I say we are all connected is because when god created man we were all created in his image. Meaning that we are much more than a bag of flesh and bones for we are all part of the whole. We are supreme beings of a sort. When you focus on something then it start to exist until then it isn't there. we are all creators and part of the whole. We exist because god exist.
Is there truly one god

My words were poorly chosen, I suppose. I do not believe there is one god or ANY God. I would say we're all connected somehow, possibly by means of ancestors, but I do not believe there is any good evidence to say that this "creator" is in any one of us. You're opening statement in this debate consisted of statements such as "...we always have been and will always be." This, to me, is ludacris. We were created when the cells we developed from were created. We will die when they die. We are trillions of cells, not the host bodies for a Creator. This notion that there is a god inside of every one of us is just not believable. I find it strange that anyone would believe something like that. I don't think there is one god. I don't think there are multiple gods. I don't believe we were created by human intelligence. I especially don't believe, if there were such a thing, that a god would, by his own will, turn into other gods. This is just a desperate rebuttal to this classic argument with theism: It is not acceptable to say that Christianity is right, but all other religions are incorrect. If you were in Brazil or parts of Africa, you might believe in the Oludumare". If you were a Muslim, you would believe in Allah. If you were Hindu, you might believe in gods such as Ganesha and Shiva. If you were any of these religions, you would most likely downplay the religion that is Christianity, because you have been taught your religion prior. Stating that this god has turned into many gods by his own will, is just your way of maneuvering around this argument, unless you beg to differ?
Is there truly one god

Hi everyone, I would like to give you hope and tell you what I have been revealed by our creator. 1st let me start by saying that we are our creator's most treasured and beloved creation. We are all extremely valuable and we all hold the knowledge of creation inside each and everyone of us. God is inside everyone of us. We are all eternal beings, this means we have always been and will always be. When in doubt look inside of you and you will find the truth. It has always been there. Our true self exist beyond this existence. If you truly want to know god all you have to do is remember and let the truth come out and embrace your true self for we already know god and have always known him. Don't get caught on the lies of this materialistic world. We are already closer to our creator than anything else in existence but we must learn to look inside and trust for he exist within you. Peace and love be with you my eternal brothers. I truly love you all. We are all connected.
Neji Would Loose In A Fight Against Rock Lee.

Thank you for this debate. I am disappointed that my opponent did not state if we were arguing in a Spippuden or Pre-Shippuden scene, but for this debate I will assume that we are using both examples. 1. You have stated that Lee is more fit than Neji. I do not see what this has to do with Lee beating Neji in a fight. Neji's fighting style dose not require him to be strong, it its more important to be agile. I also dont understand why you say Neji lacks self confidence, as that is one of his main traits, being very self confidant and bringing others down. Neji never wanted to be leader of his clan. He simply want's the branch house to be respected. I am disappointed that I do no have more room to write. I look forward to your rebut
Neji Would Loose In A Fight Against Rock Lee.

This Debate Has The Content Of The Manga/Anime "Naruto". I Think That Rock Lee Would Defeat Neji Hyūga In A Battle. Lee Is Clearly More Educated And More Mentally Fit Also Physically. Were Neji Lacks In Self Confidents And Higher Superior Training. Rock Lee Is Also Known For "NEVER" Giving Up. In Witch You Can See That Neji Just Thinks His Destiny Is To Be The Leader Of The "Hyuga" Branch.. Witch Later In The Shippearan He GAVE UP On.. Witch Shows His Lack Of Self Convidents Witch You Would Need To Become A Great Ninja, Witch Lee Has Lots Of..A Little Too Much Maybe!! I Look Foward To Your Reply Christina, See You In Class ;)
Neji Would Loose In A Fight Against Rock Lee.

Thank You For Finally Replying :] I'm quite Unhappy on how you tried to make me look unprepared by quoting "my opponent did not state if we were arguing in a Spippuden or Pre-Shippuden scene" Witch Is Un-true because on Tuesday in class you had asked me this question witch i Clearly Stated That It Was A Pre-Shippuden! But Nice Try :] I Did NOT Sate That Neji Was Weaker Than Lee I Simply Quoted That Lee Was More "Mentally Fit" Witch Means He Has More Confidence For Himself. And Being Fit Has Everything To Do With A Fight! And I Would Love To Know Where It States That One Of Neji's Main Traits Is Self Confidence. Thank You "Andthisis" For This Debate! :] My Sources (naruto.wikia.com) (naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Naruto_Uzumaki)
Woman should be allowed to be topless in public.

Hello, WrickItRalph, Happy to debate with you today. I am L. 1. Men have a different body type than women, Which is why it's allowed for them to be topless. It's been the norm. 2. I'm afraid this is necessary. Yes, There are many different double standards between men and women but this topic is cut and dry. 3. I assume we won't be debating the legality of this then, Correct? My initial question was going to be if we were debating the legality or the morality of this. It seems we are going to the morality direction. I understand that it's legal in some places. Someone in the comments said it's legal in Canada, And you also expressed that it's legal where you are from. Don't you think it speaks volumes that women aren't comfortable being topless in places that it's legal in? Perhaps they don't want to get cat calls every second or to get sexually harassed. Women (not all women) are quick to scream sexual harassment and men are already seen in this bad light of being oversexualized perverted demons. Perhaps women simply aren't comfortable displaying their breasts so they wear a bra. 4. You have admirable reasons for women's right but you are going the wrong direction. When you say public, Do you mean beaches or parties and things of that nature? If so, I can understand that. I am unsure how broad your statement of "public" was. I know of nude beaches. Those are justifiable since it's just adults and plus, People have the choice to keep on their clothes. So, Some instances they can be allowed I suppose. I don't really care what someone decides to do or reveal their body, It's their choice. In other instances such as walking down the street on a hot day, Jogging, Going swimming where children may be present, Mowing the lawn, Attending a water park (where men can get away with being topless and are allowed to be topless) women shouldn't be topless in those particular situations. In places where it is illegal, It counts as public nudity. Reason is women's breasts are usually blurred out on television and on pictures. It is generally concealed to where at least the nipple isn't visible. If you aren't arguing the the fact that you think it should be legal throughout everywhere, Then dismiss this point. I'm not sure if you want to bring legality with the morality as well. Please let me know. Concluding question: Do you think little girls should be topless? I await your response. - L.
Woman should be allowed to be topless in public.

1. Men are allowed to walk around topless. 2. This is an unnecessary double standard. 3. This goes deeper than just laws. Even in states where it's legal, Woman still don't do it because they are shamed and ogled at every turn. 4. Not only would this be a big step for woman's rights, But it would help us work out some of the issues that most societies have with body shaming. Open Floor.