BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing gay marriage

Since 1) I'm not particularly religious and 2) religious debates tend to escalate into shouting matches between Bible verses and empty "Legalize Love" slogans, I'll adopt strictly secular arguments for this debate. However, I might cite the general history, establishment and purpose of religion if it clarifies any of my points. I'd like to begin by posing a few questions, organized into categories. By no means do I expect an individual answer to each question, just an explanation for each general inquiry. The first two cover two subjects you brought up "marriage and love " and the third is a general societal trend. Once I have your opinion, I'll be able to more effectively respond. 1) What precisely is "marriage" and what purpose does it serve? Why do societies, religions and governments recognize it? Why do we stress it as a lifelong commitment? Why do we limit it to two individuals? 2) Where does love come from? What are the roots of attraction? Why do people overwhelmingly prefer marrying someone of the opposite sex, of the same race, of the same political orientation and of the same religion? If "you can't help who you fall in love with", is love a random process? Could I call up Kate Upton and ask her to fall in love with me? How do we discriminate between suitable life partners? What are the factors by which we evaluate if another individual is suitable for marriage? 3) How do you explain the fact that marriage rates are the lowest they've ever been in American history? Since marriage can now have multiple definitions " a union for procreation, a business partnership, a declaration of love " and since we've tried to break down so many barriers " interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage, international marriage " why are so few people actually interested in getting married?
The State(government) is more evil than good

Definitions:Evil- less morally right than morally wrong Good- less morally wrong than morally right Government- Any large organization with the power to make and enforce laws within a given territory, that has more power than the people. Morally Wrong: More Loss of life than Protection of LifeMorally Right: More Protection of Life than Loss of Life. Morally Wrong: More Bodily Harm Inflicted than PreventedMorally Right: More Bodily Harm Prevented than Inflicted (except when loss of an individuals life is what prevents said individual from bodily harm)Morally Wrong: More Harm to Society than Benefit Morally Right: More Benefit to Society than HarmMorally Wrong: More Rights (property, speech, press, basically all of the Constitutional Rights) violated than necessary, or creating an environment where it is necessary to remove rights when the situation could have been avoidedMorally Right: Protecting these RightsI welcome whoever accepts and wish to have a great debate. Good luck.
Lift soda ban from schools!

Soda bans are in place because schools recognize the problem childhood obesity represents and more and more are deciding not to contribute to the problem. The standard soda ban is a ban on sales of soda at said location it does not ban individuals from bringing soda from home. Pro’s argument about hyperactivity is not the focus of a soda ban I have included a video on one of the more recent places to enact a soda ban, Children's Mercy Hospital. It cites the medical issue that result from childhood obesity . http://www.youtube.com...
To poop or not to poop, that is the question..

Caution! Frequent use of the words "poop" "pooping". Viewers discretion is advised. Ok. Smoking Kills Ok, you have said that you can smoke when you poop. Smoking kills because it introduces tar and other harmful substances into your lung system and then causes those substances to deposit in your airways which in effect, restricts airflow - which can cause breathing problems and sometimes death. In some cases, it can cause a cell mutation in your lungs- possibly then creating lung cancer. Lung cancer can Kill. Pooping in that sense is therefore bad because it is providing more possiblities for you to contribute to a possible death. http://www.youtube.com... Why people don't nag you when you are pooping: Have you ever wondered why no one will talk to you while you are pooping. Because it would be awkward for that person. Many people view pooping as a matter which is regarded in a sense of privacy. Many people also dont find pooping to be the most pleasant of experiences. People wont generally talk to another person when pooping because it's just considered basic manners and common within both people This is all for now.
vegetarians are better then carnivores

vegetarians are better than carnivores because we don't kill innocent animals just for food and we don't breed animals just to slater them. Chickens are trapped with no room to walk or move. calf are tied up so they cant walk or move just so the meat is tender and that is just wrong because all living creatures deserve freedom. And if you are a Christian than you should not eat gods creatures and in the 10 commandments it says you should not commit murder and that is what happens murder. Why not eat your neighbor your uncle because there is no difference they both feel pain. SO STOP EATING MEAT AND STOP THE KILLING!!!
Free Tuition at Community and Technical Colleges

It took me long enough to challenge you... sorry for the wait!! This debate will be over the following resolution: In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a technical or community college. Rules 1. No new arguments in the final round. 2. The debate is over the resolution above since it will not fit in the title due to lack of characters. 3. 2000 elo required to vote. Structure R1: acceptance R2: constructives R3: rebuttals R4: rebuttals and conclusions
The illuminati is real and controls us

Shame, I was hoping this was a real debate.All arguments that you made are either irrelivant or simply nonsensical-If we combine willriley with weishaupt we get willrape. R-I-L-E-Y with S-H-A-U-P-T = 2 letters from Riley + 2 letters from Shaupt. Rape is a 4 letter word. 2 + 2 = 4.Willrape? Willrape?A founder of any group seeks to influence other people. Debates influence other people. The illuminati is infuencing you right now by partaking in this debate to convince you that it doesn't control or influence you.Just because something influences you dosen't mean that it controlls you. Also, we can debate something that is obviously not real, and it dosen't make it real just because we are debating it. The eye of the pyramid is the symbol of the illumaniti.Actually, its a Freemason symbol, not an illumaniti one. The Illumaniti's symbol is actually the Owl of Minerva. My opponent has failed to fulfil the BoP.Thank you.
The illuminati is real and controls us

Willriley = 9 letters long 9 letters long = Weishaupt So Willriley = Weishaupt Weishaupt is the last name of the founder of the illuminati, Adam Weishaupt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... A founder of any group seeks to influence other people. Debates influence other people. The illuminati is infuencing you right now by partaking in this debate to convince you that it doesn't control or influence you. If we combine willriley with weishaupt we get willrape. R-I-L-E-Y with S-H-A-U-P-T = 2 letters from Riley + 2 letters from Shaupt. Rape is a 4 letter word. 2 + 2 = 4. 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 1 is the currency value of the $1 dollar bill. Currency controls our everyday life by granting us influence and power. The dollar has the eye of the pyramid on the back of it. The eye of the pyramid is the symbol of the illumaniti. Illuminati confirmed.
Fatal Bible Flaws

Oh for pete"s sake. See that"s why christians like you do NOT have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic because god religion, the bible and you does not require a single ounce of it. "I will be arguing that the Bible has no flaws." How stupid are you? I mean where exactly do they grow you for specimen samples? "*All NIV" Well the NIV is an abomination. So that"s a super massive fatal flaw right there. When you get the correct version... Go from there and contact me again, but not until then. Even so that"s proof right there that your bible has flaws because your god would never use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible with translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies with dead languages after dead languages with absolutely no possible way to trace things back to the original so you, the pope, all pastors, all priests, all ministers, all rabbis, ev-ry-bo-dy gets it wrong. So since this is true, your bible is not evidence of any kind. To further prove it, you prove that the version you use is the proper version to use and that ev-ry-bo-dy understands it and that is not misinterpreted in any way as you clearly do. K?
Fatal Bible Flaws

(taken from The Secular Web) DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God. DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God. 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love. PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true. 1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets. JE 8:8 The scribes (copyists, editors, teachers) falsify the word. 2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them). (Note: Not every word of God can prove true if God deceives anyone at all; teaching from the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. In other words, the first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.) LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.) MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This passage and many others indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus put forth in the Bible are therefore suspect.) MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and/or drinking poison; this kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life. It should also be noted that the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at MK 16:8; as the footnotes to The New Oxford Annotated Bible put it, verses 9-20 cannot have been part of the original text of Mark.)Indeed since these are true Fatal Bible Flaws, the bible is unreadable. So that brings this debate to the RULES: Prove that the bible IS READABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE by thus countering the fatal flaws as correctly listed above. There will be more fatal flaws/ mistakes in the bible as it is supposed to be perfect, and so is its god, Sorry they ain't, in which you as a debater would be required to counter as well. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to participate in the voting process.
"What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?"

Topic ChangeMy opponent asserts that the "real question" is whether or not I agree or disagree with what the bible says about sex before marriage. Clearly, this is silly, as the debate's question is clear for everyone to see!However, even if we accept this sudden topic change, I have already shown that the bible is ambiguous at best about sex before marriage. Therefore, any opinion I had could be equally said to agree or disagree with what the book says, rendering the question absurd!Dirkson is in the dictionaryMy opponent has been so kind as to post the very entry she contests that my name is associated with. Sadly for my hopes of dictionary-immortality, my name is not present.ConclusionMy opponent has not contested a single point I made in my opening arguments and has stated that she will not argue with me on the subject. If that's not a resignation, I don't know what a resignation looks like!Vote con!Cheers,-Dirk
"What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?"

My debate is "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?" The real question is do you agree or disagree with "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?" I agree. And Dirk, I will not argue with you on this subject. Why do you ask? World English Dictionary immature (ˌɪməˈtjʊə, -ˈtʃʊə) — adj 1. not fully grown or developed 2. deficient in maturity; lacking wisdom, insight, emotionalstability, etc 3. geography a less common term for youthful And yes, that also was a copy and paste right out of the World English Dictionary. Look that up, you may find your name beside of it! ;)
"What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?"

There is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that precisely refers to sex before marriage. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, but is sex before marriage considered sexually immoral? According to 1 Corinthians 7:2, "yes" is the clear answer: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." In this verse, Paul states that marriage is the "cure" for sexual immorality. First Corinthians 7:2 is essentially saying that, because people cannot control themselves and so many are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married. Then they can fulfill their passions in a moral way. Since 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly includes sex before marriage in the definition of sexual immorality, all of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality as being sinful also condemn sex before marriage as sinful. Sex before marriage is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality. There are numerous Scriptures that declare sex before marriage to be a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves (Hebrews 13:4). Far too often we focus on the "recreation" aspect of sex without recognizing that there is another aspect—procreation. Sex within marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage. Song of Solomon and several other Bible passages (such as Proverbs 5:19) clearly describe the pleasure of sex. However, the couple must understand that God's intent for sex includes producing children. Thus, for a couple to engage in sex before marriage is doubly wrong—they are enjoying pleasures not intended for them, and they are taking a chance of creating a human life outside of the family structure God intended for every child. While practicality does not determine right from wrong, if the Bible's message on sex before marriage were obeyed, there would be far fewer sexually transmitted diseases, far fewer abortions, far fewer unwed mothers and unwanted pregnancies, and far fewer children growing up without both parents in their lives. Abstinence is God's only policy when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and, most importantly, honors God.
Mormonism is a Blatant Lie

I accept this challenge. Though I am not a Mormon, I will attempt to refute the assertion that "Mormonism is a blatant lie." I will respond to the presented evidence in favor of the assertion. Reason 1: Joseph Smith was a conman. Rebuttal 1: Ad hominem. The possible truth of a claim, whether it be religious or secular, is not contingent upon the motivations or character of the proponent. The claim out to be examined on its own merits, and if the claim is found to be false, only then may the motivations of the presenter be taken into account. Buy the Pro's logic, it would be valid to conclude that, because many atheists hate going to church, atheism is false. This, clearly, is fallacious. If one wanted to rebut atheism, he should attack the arguments, not the persons, in favor of atheism. Reason 2: Joseph Smith possessed ulterior motives. Rebuttal 2: While it is true that Joseph Smith benefited from the establishment of the religion, insufficient evidence has been provided in favor of the conclusion. That a person benefits from an idea does not prove that the person fabricated the idea for his own self interest. Many atheists benefit from not going to church, but that does not entail that atheists disbelieve in God because they do not want to go to church. Furthermore, though some Mormons have possessed sensibilities which many would consider racist in nature, that does not mean the religion is false. Many atheists are prejudiced toward religious people, but that does not mean atheism is false. *I am ignoring the statement "All religions are false," as no evidence has been presented for this claim.
U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

Implying I wasn't already looking at the deeper conceptImplying I wasn't looking beyond your postimplying I was only talking about the United statesImplying I was trying to distract the readersImpying you weren't clear before but is emphasizing it becasue your last argument failedYou clearly said that you defined a state as a 'claimed political territory' by trying to deny my argument of the states you are implying that the United States is not a recognized political territoryYou brought up a definition, Judges his only argument is a definition and he used the same definition last round and I worked to disaprove it, he has nothing agianst me and does not do anything but establish what a state was. "Based on this definition but the states of the Union as well as the Federal government are types of States. The concept of State or the State have philosophical depth that you do not seem to grasp. You claimed that the there is no Federally owned land, but The Washington Post seems to differ."He uses the Washington Post which is entirly subjective and is written by a person not even involved in government. He doesn't even create his own arguments, judges are you seriously going to contemplete voting for him? He than says there is a philosophical depth I do not grasp but in my last arguments he used a blatant contradiction. I claimed that all land is owned by the states the only exception is the land the states allows to give to the federal government, and the District of Columbia
U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

It seems that you are the one who does not understand the deeper concept of state beyond the concept of the states that make up the Union. I never implied there was no federal government. You are attempting to distract the readers with a well worded but false argument. now let me be clear. state stāt/Submit noun 1. the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time. "the state of the company's finances" synonyms:condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position; More a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure. "water in a liquid state" informal an agitated or anxious condition. noun: a state "don't get into a state" synonyms:fluster, frenzy, fever, fret, panic, state of agitation/anxiety; More informal a dirty or untidy condition. "look at the state of you"what a mess!" synonyms:mess, chaos, disorder, disarray, confusion, muddle, heap, shambles; More PHYSICS short for quantum state. 2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. "Germany, Italy, and other European states" synonyms:country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation "an autonomous state" Based on this definition but the states of the Union as well as the Federal government are types of States. The concept of State or the State have philosophical depth that you do not seem to grasp. You claimed that the there is no Federally owned land, but The Washington Post seems to differ. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

A state is actually according to you a ,"nation or territory considered a organized political community." So because you are not recognizing the states in the United states you are implying that states are not organized political territories and you are implying that the United states of America, with no single motherstate just a bunch of equal states, is intrinsicly not a recognized political territory, you argument is destroying you own point.You then went to give me some synonyms and included in the synonyms," land, sovereign state, reoublic, confederation." All of those synonyms apply to the united States of America, and because the federal government owns no land, it is all owned by the states, so once again you are implying that the United States is not a organized political territory. Good argument, maybe next time it wont contradict.It is not impossible to figure out the market value of property, and I said this in my last argument you just reused my words in order to sway the judge in your favor. Judges look at my old argument, I clearly said it was not impossible. and in order to correctly calculate the market value will takie to much reasorces and time, state and local levels are not as time-consuming or reasorce consuming.You then concide," You said that state not federal governments should exercise eminent domain. I agree " so he is saying that he agrees that eminant domain should not be at a federal level, which was the topic of my first argument. And its very simple to make a ilitary base, the federal government goes to the states, says," Hi could we use some land to make a military base." the state accepts and uses its eminant domain powers to clear some room. But if the fed can use federal eminant domain they go into this area without the states permision.
U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

When I said State I was referring to the concept of the state. State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. "Germany, Italy, and other European states" synonyms:country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation "an autonomous state" Market value is not impossible to figure out the market value of you property is whatever potential buyers are willing to pay for it. You said that state not federal governments should exercise eminent domain. I agree however that is not the title of this debate. without eminent domain how would we establish government or military buildings?