BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

Clarification: By this, I mean that a dog has snapped at a human (or something similar) , not if they have full-on ripped a person apart. If a dog is bloodthirsty and definitely out of control, it should be put down. 1. All dogs can be trained. It is possible to train every dog, although it may be hard, and take up a lot of time. Any dog is trainable, if you can put in the time and effort. 2. Most of the time, dogs are not deliberately vicious, except they were trained to do so (ie, guard dogs). Dogs are generally friendly and sociable creatures. Dogs generally attack because they are scared and/or approached by someone they did not know. 3. If the injury is not life-threatening, there are several ways to control a dog. A muzzle, for example. Putting a dog down (willingly ending a life) is an extremely cruel and drastic measure, and in several cases probably not needed. I look forward to my opponents response.
Technology Creates More Problem Than It Can Solve.

When you are out to dinner and you see a group of friends, who are all busy texting and checking their phones, or when it's a brilliantly sunny day and the kids are inside, playing on their xboxes or their computers, it is easy to give in to the thought that technology has great potential for harm. No less worrying is the impact upon the environment, as you rightly mention. I should like to argue that new technological advances can be environmentally sound and help us to deal with some of the problems we have caused our planet so far. However, I firmly believe in progress, I believe that we are collectively better off with our technological advances than we would be without them. Technology is primarily defined, by the Oxford Dictionary as "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry". We cannot stop the clocks, we cannot start walking backwards, what we can do is slow down a lttle, turn off the lights once in a while, take the time to consider how the technology impacts upon the quality of our lives. We can and should think of technogy as a tool, this tool can be used for good or it can be misused and abused. Just because we can be on the computer 24/7 does not mean that we have to, we can make choices, we can exercise some self-control or restraint, we can develop a sense of self-disclipline. We control the technology, it does not control us. I think it is up to us to ensure that technologies are used ethically and with some degree of caution, as well as with some of our hard-gained wisdom. Okay, I think as this is the first time I've clicked on "accept challenge" and I don't really know how it all works, I will leave it there for my opening bid. I hope that's enough. I look forward to the next round.
Technology Creates More Problem Than It Can Solve.

Technology Creates More Problem Than It Can Solve. It's True.Worldwide, We Can See Technology Causing Many Problems, Issues and Critics. But Tech Dose"nt Have any Appropriate Way To Solve Those Problems, It Just Knows the Way To Create Something. For Example, Nuclear Fission Power Plant.Though It Produces Electricity and Meets the Need of 1000"s, It Pollutes the Nature Crucially which Inturn Is Causing Problems For the Same Citizens the Tech Is Supply Electricity, Helping them without Realising That The Technology Cannot Solve The Problomatic Results!
Christianity is a peaceful relegion

"i am saying, no religions are peaceful... it requires war for religion to exist" cool bro, this makes no sense you haven't given any examples or anything, you have simply stated your opinion. I'm starting to think that you are the one rambling on. the debate was that Christianity was a peaceful religion, you were supposed to argue against that by giving examples on why Christianity was not a peaceful religion. you simply are stating your opinion.....back it up with evidence.
Christianity is a peaceful relegion

health is good, and evil dosnt exist in reality so if christianity never existed you couldnt get knocked out? your ramblings are insane the imaginary examples you have provided do no good for me to tell you what the cause of his actions are.. it isnt real.. but lets say that, his colleagues loves teasing him because they believe he is gay, religion.. bit extreme example here yes it is always the case that it is religion that is at fault.. in any case.. i am saying, no religions are peacefull... it requires war for religion to exist
Christianity is a peaceful relegion

so what you are saying is that 1: good and evil do not exist, due to the evolutionary perspective that there is no good or evil, only nature and survival of the fittest. humans made up the concept of evil and that really, anything is ok because the fact that a stronger human is "surviving" religion makes up the concept of good and evil so if there was no religion, then there would be no concept of good and evil. the fact that 4 terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and flew them into buildings is not survival of the fittest. Suicide is not survival of the fittest. or 2: religion causes ALL evil in the world. If a man goes on a shooting rampage in an office because he hates his work colleagues, or his boss, and is mentally unstable, it is religions fault. If I get drunk and accidentally run over someone while driving drunk on the way home, It is religions fault please make a proper argument and not just post a statement and this debate is about christianity, not all religion
Mercy vs. Strict Justice

PrefaceI've been wanting to have a good debate on this subject for some time. I think this is a unique and interesting topic, and I anticipate with pleasure the discussion that will ensue. You must have 2,500 ELO to vote on this debate.Full TopicMercy bears richer fruit than strict Justice.Topic OverviewThe full topic is based on a quote from Abraham Lincoln. But, because it is a abstract, it requires some explanation. Simply put, this topic is asking the question of whether justice should be restorative, rehabilitative, etc., or whether it should be punitive, retributive, etc. Debaters should therefore focus on the difference between "soft" justice and "strict" justice, and which ends up producing the "richest fruit," or the most justice. Moreover, it is asking a question about broad principles, and not just about mercy vs. strict justice in the criminal justice system, in governance, etc.TermsMercy - kindness, clemency, or forgiveness of someone who could be treated harshlyBear richer fruit - to produce more benefits or better outcomesStrict Justice - an approach to justice that emphasizes the need and appropriateness of punishment in response to wrongdoingRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is Shared: Pro argues for Mercy, Con for Strict Justice10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to famous; I am looking forward to an excellent debate in an intriguing format!
Which gender is better

You are right SOME men have it easier then girls it"s a common stereotype that men don"t do As much work but you know most girls get away with being lesbian wile gay men are shamed upon because what? The sex men have isn"t as pleasing to see as lesbian sex but not the point of this debate your right women do hold the baby"s but so do men they hold the sperm sacks and like girls if you hit there (for guys) there genitalia they may not produce sperm but (for girls) if you hit the stomach of a fully pregnant girl the Kid will die at a time men may have overly abused women but now we work on it but do you remember that rhyme boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider which was yes made by a girl and it sexist but people think boys can"t go through sexism but man-splainig is sexism and a lot more things I feel women should be treated like a man they should have same wage and so on and so fourth
Which gender is better

Guys have it easier than us girls. That's pretty simple. You don't have to wear as much clothes. And you also don't have to worry about literally destroying your pants and underwear once a month! The girls carry the baby and the guys are just there to sometimes not even help the woman. Sometimes there isn't much you can do if you have someone in your life who is expecting, but it's probably way easier to be a guy. You can get away with waking up 10 minutes before you have to go somewhere and be able to get away with it, all you will have to do is pick up a shirt and pants that smell decent and go. You will probably never get to experience what menstrual cramps feel like or what it feels like to have kids. It's terrible.
Which gender is better

Ok we all argue about which gender is better but really we are all equal and I can prove it girls make kids but without males women would die out without men because men hold the key to having kids and men can"t live in a world with only men since we don"t have the proper body parts and all girls aren"t good at one thing like if one girl is super good at math doesn"t make all girls good a math if you think that you are dumb and the same for guys and both genders made two HUGE problems like if girls weren"t made we wouldn"t have sexism and if we didn"t have men we probably wouldn"t have rape in the end some boys are better then some girls and some girls are better then some boy"s but there is no gender that"s better then another gender and we are all equal
Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

The questions I posed regarding rape, my opp does seem to have the initial same answer as me: Is it the unborn baby's fault the woman got raped? My opp's answer: Absolutely not My answer: Absolutely not We do agree on this 100%. The question now becomes, if it is not the unborn baby's fault the woman got raped, why make it suffer? If my opp wishes to claim that said unborn baby is not an actual human I would as what is it and is it living? how does he know, if he answers no? Would aborting the baby change history and totally erase the rape in every way, shape and form? My opp's answer: No it wouldn't My answer: No it wouldn't The only difference in my answer and my opp's answer is my answer is a resounding "no" and my opp's answer is "no but..." Does the unborn baby deserve a chance to live and be loved and cared for, regardless of how it was conceived? My opp's answer: Yes, the baby deserves a chance to live My Answer: Yes the baby deserves a chance to live Again, the answers are virtually the same except my answer is "yes" and his answer is "yes but..." We essentially agree in theory, however, my opp proceeds to create cop outs rather than conceed. On the subject of adoption, My opp does not seem to understand things. But even after the child is born, the rapist could then step in to legally block the adoption. Not exactly. There are many variables that come into play here. Was the rape reported? If not, then one of two things is true, either the victim was afraid to report it, which is totally understandable, or it wasn't actually rape. For the sake of the debate, let's go with the former. If the rape was reported, was the guy caught and locked up? Most likely yes. This could be more traumatizing than carrying the baby to term. But the guy is now locked up. When he gets out, the birth would have likely happened already and the adoption papers signed. Regardless of whether that has happened though, I am going to ask my opp a VERY important question. What judge/jury in their right mind would really let a sex offender have access to a child that they allegedly took part in creating? Very important, serious question that needs an answer Finally look at this paragraph from my opp: Put yourself in her shoes for just a minute. A man violently forces sex upon you without your will. You are then forced to suffer physically, mentally and financially as you struggle through pregnancy with the child you never asked for. You are then forced into a lengthy and expensive court battle to try and get the child into adoption. Finally, you are forced to pay money to your rapist for the next 18 years, all because he raped you. The lack of control and hopelessness of ever having freedom would (and does) force many to suicide. This is clearly the logical fallacy argumentum ad passiones. Facts must be used, not silly emotional appeals.
Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

Thank you to my opp for the compliments I suppose under those circumstances in which my opp gave, That might be acceptable regarding deformities, however would my opp concur that these days most things detected in the womb, could be fixed. My opp also answered as I thought he would to all three of my questions. We agree that the abortion does not change the fact the rape happened. We agree the baby deserves a chance to live and be loved and cared for. And we agree the unborn baby is not at fault for the woman's rape. So why does my opp proceed to make rebuttals for that which we agree on. Is adoption not an option? Think about it: the mother carries the baby for nine months. I have no idea how quick nine months goes by for ANY pregnant woman, let alone a rape victim, but it certainly is not forever. An innocent baby gets a chance at life. A couple who cannot bare children can then get the baby they've always wanted. And the rape victim can then begin her healing. Perhaps even while pregnant. What the rape victim has is called PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder[1]. There is a form of therapy called Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavior Therapy specifically designed for PSTD patients [2] which has helped war veterans[3]. The mother can get involved in this type of therapy and be healed. If she does it while pregnant, then perhaps she will decide to keep the baby. If not, then all three parties in the above paragraph win with the adoption. Would my opp say that adoption definitely sounds like a better option? As for the third reason my opp gave, I do not really understand how that pertains to the debate. What it sounds like to me is superstition and paranoia. I don't even know how to respond. It just is not applicable. 1. http://www.mayoclinic.org... 2. http://tfcbt.musc.edu... 3. http://www.cbtforsoldiers.org...
Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

There are a few glaring problems with my opp's arguments 1. In cases of severe genetic or developmental deformaties First my opp does not provide what qualifies as "severe genetic or developmental deformities". True to his credit, he mentions determination that the child would only live a short time. How short? A week? A month? A year? 6 years? A child could live a pretty good life in just a few years. Yes, there is pain involved (i can attest to that, more on that in a bit), but not every moment is pain (as I can attest) Why or how can I attest to this? I was born with Spina Bifida. That is a neurological birth defect that causes me pain. My parents didn't abort me. I can walk. Doctors didn't think I would be able to walk, and at 27 I started doing MMA. I am now 29. I am by all intents and purposes a productive memeber of society, as are several other people with Spina Bifida, even the ones who do not walk (google Gabriel Gigout).[1] Doctors did not know I was going to be disabled until I was born. We have enough technology now to determine things and even in some cases fix them before birth now. There is no reason why someone should abort a baby due to a deformation. 2 In casesof rape This is a favorite of mine. In order to defend this position further, my opp would have to answer the following questions 1. Is it the unborn baby's fault the woman got raped? 2. Would aborting the baby change history and totally erase the rape in every way shape and form? 3. Does the unborn baby deserve a chance to live and beloved and cared for, regardless of how it was concieved? If my opp answers yes to question three, my point is proven. If he answers no, he is tasked with defending his position as to why not. In order to properly defend his position on rape, he would have to answer all three questions. Avoiding answering even one of the above questions should destroy his rape contention and thus, point goes to me. I am not justifying rape or trying to be insensitive to rape victims, but these questions are common sense moral questions that deserve answers. Even when I debate my liberal friends about abortion, they shut off when I ask those questions I eagerly await my opp's rebuttals 1. http://www.gabegigout.com...
Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

Thanks to kingcripple for the topic, I'm looking forward to this.Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral - Arguments againstThere are certainly cases, in my belief, where abortion is immoral. However, these are not strictly limited to the endangerment of the mother's life. I will lay out two other situations where abortion is moral.1) In cases of severe genetic or developmental deformities, to save the child from sufferingIf it is determined that the child would only live a short time, and would experience severe pain and suffering outside the womb, then it is humane to abort the fetus before its full term to save it from this suffering. If we can know with reasonable certainty that the child's quality of life would be short and horrible, then I see no moral reason not to save it from that fate.2) In cases of rapeOne can make an argument that someone choosing to having sex is morally obliged to carry, support and care for any child that results from that act. After all, the people involved knew of the potential consequences beforehand. This argument does not apply for those who did not make the choice, however, and instead had the sex act forced upon them. By carrying the child of their rapist, a woman not only is traumatized in the act itself, but every single day for the subsequent 40 weeks. In compassion for the mother, it is moral to abort the child and end her suffering.
Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

I have laid out three cases in which abortion would be moral without the mother's life being threatened:1) In cases of severe genetic or developmental deformities, to save the child from sufferingExample: A child who is developing in the womb with organs on the outside of its body, and its prognosis were it to live would be an excruciating child birth followed by no more than a day or two of life consisting of constant pain and suffering. - My opponent has accepted this with hesitation, saying it "might be acceptable". My opponent has not explained what reasoning is behind the hesitation.2) In the cases where the birth of the child would cause immense suffering or death to othersExample: An aggressor is holding the mother's other children or loved ones hostage, and will kill them unless the mother aborts the child. - My opponent has not argued against this at all during this debate.3) In cases of rapeMy opponent has spent the majority of his time arguing against this case. Unfortunately, my opponent has blatantly refused to discuss the arguments I have presented, instead dismissing them as 'cop outs'. In specific, the argument my opponent has refused to debate is:Premise 1: An unborn child morally deserves the chance to livePremise 2a: A rape victim morally deserves to be freed of being retraumatized by the rapePremise 2b: Being forced to carry the rapist's child results in daily retraumatizing the rape victimthereforePremise 2: A rape victim morally deserves not to be forced to carry the rapist's childPremise 3a: The only way for the unborn child to live is for the mother to carry the child to termPremise 3b: For a rape victim to not be forced to carry the rapist's child, she must have the choice to abort the childtherefore Premise 3: Premise 1 and Premise 2 are incompatible, and it is impossible for both moral requirements to be metPremise 4: In the case of conflicting moral requirements, the moral choice is the one which results in the least human sufferingPremise 5: Aborting a child before it has developed a nervous system, a brain, any consciousness or means of experiencing existence results in no human sufferingPremise 6: Forcing a mother to carry the rapist's child can result in daily and extreme human sufferingTherefore, from P3, P4, P5 and P6,Conclusion: The moral choice is to allow the mother the option of aborting the child while still undeveloped, which would result in zero suffering by the child, and would prevent great suffering by the motherI assert my argument is sound, and my opponent has given no arguments against it. ---In ClosingAs the statement being debated is "Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral" even just one of these cases being moral is enough to prove Con's position. I am confident that I have successfully shown Con's position.
The same secret organization assassinated Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the assassins did not necessarily work for the organization, only that they were influenced. Here is my evidence. Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. Both Presidents have 7 letters in their name. Both Presidents were concerned with Civil Rights. Both Presidents wives were 24 when they married. Both Presidents lost children while in the Capitol. Both Presidents were shot in the head on a Friday. Kennedy's secretary, Evelyn LINCOLN, warned him not to go to Dallas. Lincoln's secretary, John KENNEDY, warned him not to go to the theater. Newspapers revealed valuable information about the Presidents' location to the assassins. Henry Rathbone and John Connally, the men with the presidents at the time they were shot, were both seriously injured but not killed. The names Rathbone and Connaly both contain 8 letters. Both Vice-Presidents that became President were named Johnson. The names Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson contain 13 letters. Andrew Johnson was born in 1808; Jackson was born in 1908. Both were southern democrats and former Senators. The names John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald both contain 15 letters. Booth was born in 1839; Oswald was born in 1939. Both assassins favored unpopular causes, slavery and communism. Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and was caught in a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Lincoln was shot in a theater built by Ford. Kennedy was shot in a car built by Ford. Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln. Both assassins were killed before trial. One week before his death, Lincoln was visiting Monroe, Maryland. One week before his death, Kennedy was "visiting" Marilyn Monroe. This is clearly irrefutable evidence that there is a conspiracy here, therefore there must be some group behind it pulling the strings. Every 100 years they kill a president. I fear for the man elected president in 1960.
The same secret organization assassinated Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy

First and foremost, this is not a serious debate. If you are not willing to stoop to my level, you are not wanted here. First round is for acceptance, the rest are fair game. I am arguing that John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald were guided and directed in their assassinations by the same secret group/organization, whether or not they were aware of this. The Con will be arguing that they were not. Good luck.