BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

Which has the higher benefit wait for sex till after marriage or sex beforehand? No sources or articles needed, prefer personal opinions,ideas and thoughts Voters should Vote based on which argument they felt would be beneficial from an OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT, not a bias vote based on personal experiences. Round 1 Acceptance State your Stance Simply in short form initially we will get into deeper understanding of your stance in Round 2 also ask a question at the end Round 2 through 4 Depth of your stance. Counter arguments with a question at the end Rd5 No more New arguments, stick with only what has been previously presented, so make sure you make as many different arguments as you can beforehand. Closing Statements. I am Pro....My stance is that it is more beneficial to have sex after marriage(I am not indicated a command or should) only what I believe is best practice Question: Will you use a cop-out stating an analogy that you have to test drive variable X to see if it works?
connect four

Rules: This game will be played through Pm's or comments, whichever the opponent wishes. First to accept gets to make the first move. The winner of two of three games will be declared the winner of this debate. Have fun, good luck, and no asking your siblings for help. Looking forward to this. Copy and paste this: |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| Inspired by a previous debate.
Evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism

I am debating triangle.128k on this topic.I will be arguing that the Earth's age is thousands of years old and that creationism is a more plausible explaination for the variety in species we see today whereas,Triangle.128k will be arguing that the Earth is billions of years old and a more plausible explaination for the variety in species we see today. Structure:Round 1: Acceptance + DefinitionsRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3-4: RebuttalsRound 5: Final Rebuttals and explain why we did better than our opponentDefinitions:Young Earth Creation: A literal interpretation of genesis that the Earth and heavens were created in 7 days by God, combined with the belief of the Earth being 6-10K years old.
should violent video games be sold in stores

In recent studies, "Violent video games, is one of the factors seen as the possible cause of high shooting incidents in schools". Should the games be sold in stores? I do not think so, but if they are, I believe that you should at least have to be a certain age to have access to these games. Some people in the military use violent video games as part of their training. Are those the kind of games we want to allow teenagers and kids to play?
should violent video games be sold in stores

I do not believe violent video games should be sold in stores. It has been proven in most people that violent video games boost aggression and bad behavior. I guess that you could say it depends on what frame of mind you are in whilst playing on them. If you are angry then you may pick up on some of the actions and use them. People tends to learn some bad words from violent games and they able to apply it to the real world. Children nowadays shout at their parents which is not a good thing. Students actions change after amount of time playing these games. Violence in school can occur. Addiction to these games can affect someone, and how they interact with people. Violent video games put ideas in a persons head that can really change a person negatively.
Will there be a third world war

Both of our previous world wars did not start by a civil war in another country that is unheard of. See for example World War 1; although its backgrounds are extremely complicated, we see two main causes of it. 1) the rivalry between Germany and Great Britain, and an almost arms race, and two is the defense of an ally after an assassination. However, World Wars do not start by a civil war; in the case of WWI, an assassination flared it. In the case of WWII, aggression flared it. There have been no examples in history that world wars start because of civil wars. “if the US vote to take military action against Syria then Putin's Russia say that they will support the Assad regime. ” Nonetheless, the probability of the United States intervening is almost unthought-of, as the US of A are already overwhelmed by huge problems of their own. Also, the Syrian Problem is not much of an international problem and none US related. “This would inevitably lead to warfare between Russia and the US. ” This will not happen because the US of A will not intervene. “Many countries with treaties to either country would be obligated to help "defend the liberty"of their allies. This would effectively cause the Third World War. ” Again the US of A is not intervening. “By the way proof is all around,you just have to open your eyes. ” This is not proof. You have shown no evidence to believe you, just faulty reasons why it may happen. So as you see, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Will there be a third world war

For my first argument I would like to draw attention to the events currently unfolding in the Middle East particularly Syria. With Putin's connections to the Assad regime and his mebership on the Un security council he can effectively veto any attempt by the Un to impose military action. However many countries do not need the approval of the UN. It has just recently been noted that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons to subdue the rebel forces. Due to the Geneva protocol the use of chemical weapons is strictly prohibited. The protocol then goes on to state that any country using chemical or biological weapons will be viewed as an "outlaw state". This is the law being used by Obama to go after Assad. So how does this relate to the possibility of WWIII? Well if the US vote to take military action against Syria then Putin's Russia say that they will support the Assad regime. This would inevitably lead to warfare between Russia and the US. Many countries with treaties to either country would be obligated to help "defend the liberty"of their allies. This would effectively cause the Third World War. By the way proof is all around,you just have to open your eyes. However,I will refrain from mentioning the illuminati agenda that requires war in this debate as I feel it would not be taken kindly by voters.
Hitler was the Jewish Messiah

"No actually he blamed them as they were bankers for the German economic crisis. Since you are instigator and pro you need to prove your point. "This is a red herring, He was not referring to the economic crisis in that quote. Danny D or TalonT, Whatever your name is, You have not presented an argument as to why Hitler does not meet the criteria of the Jewish Messiah. It's okay if you're mentally challenged, Just say so. I'm quite used to handling retards at my job, And if you'd like I could even speak in ebonics to help you understand what I'm saying.
Hitler was the Jewish Messiah

"Notice how you quote says Marxian creed. So Karl Marx is pro commie while Hitler was nationalist socialist. He said the crown of the Jews is the funeral wreath of humanity meaning he think Jews will ruin it all. He said he would kill most Jews and leave the rest or the world to see why, MUSLIMS THE ENEMIES OF JEWS PRAIESE HIM FOR IT"You have not provided an argument, You've instead read and misrepresented the quote I provided. He was CLEARLY implying, In this quote, That he would be the one to help them instead of Marx. Provide me a quote of where he said that he would kill all the Jews, As I don't believe he ever said that. He just did it, What a driven man. Please provide an actual argument or I'll be forced to craft a strawman and battle that instead.
Hitler was the Jewish Messiah

"If, With the help of the Marxian creed, The Jew conquers the nations of this world, His crown will become the funeral wreath of humanity, And once again this planet, Empty of mankind, Will move through the ether as it did thousands of years ago. " - Adolf HitlerAdolf Hitler was truly an admirable man, One which I aspire to emulate in my daily life. His impact on me personally is only second to Joseph Goebbels, A man way ahead of his time. Adolf Hitler meets all the scriptural criteria for the Messiah besides "All of the dead rising, " in regards to that, I believe the Nazis would've created a method of resurrection if they were not stopped by the disgusting capitalist swine of America. Barack Obama is the antichrist and modern Jews are fallen angels.
Hitler was the Jewish Messiah

"I am not mentally challenged"- I don't believe you. "Hitler destroys the Jews instead of the wicked and does not become their king. "- This might confuse a racist like you, But not all Jews are the same. It's 2019, You should be more conscious. "The Messiah is also predicted to ride on a donkey in Jerusalem. https://yeshua. Org/jewish-scriptures/300-predictions-about-messiah/"- You have not justified these sources as criteria; therefore, Your argument falls flat on its face. In ebonicsHitlah was da savior of da jews, Niggah. My niggah Hitler mad brought em zionism, Straight poppin' in Is-town cuz. Ya gotta hit us wit dat justification fo' gucci arguments.
The United States should legalize all drugs

Con's effectively conceded, so I don't want to spend too much time on this. That said, I want to say a couple things. First, the harm principle isn't somehow opposed to utilitarianism. It rests on the concept of utility. So I don't understand why Con keeps opposing it to utilitarianism. Second, utility is subjective in the sense that pleasure and health are incommensurate goods. In other words, there's no objective mechanism for weighing pleasure versus health. So individuals must weigh these goods subjectively. The harm principle thus maximizes utility in the context of drugs, because the costs/benefits aren't measurable through objective means, and because drug use is a self-regarding act that doesn't cause harm (or pleasure) to anyone but the user. Anyway, vote Pro, because Con completely dropped my cost-benefit analysis, which clearly demonstrates how legalization is net beneficial to society compared with prohibition.
Atheist arguments are sound

Con asks for an example of a fallacious religious argument; here is one: The teleological argument. This is how it goes:1. The universe has physical constants which cause the conditions for the development of life.2. The range that those constants can be within and still support life is very small.3. The physical constants of the universe are therefore to precise to have been random chance.4. Therefore there must be an intelligent entity that designed the universe to support life.5. That entity is God.This has two fallacies in it; the first one is the assumption that because the conditions for life are improbable to occur naturally there MUST be an entity that designed and caused those conditions to occur. The second fallacy is the False Dilemma fallacy. The Teleological argument gives a false dilemma of either a highly improbable natural cause, or God as the cause (God commonly being defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity) when there is also the possibility that it was an omnipotent entity that isn't omnibenevolent (not God.)Here are two atheistic argument against God: the omnipotence paradox and the argument from free will. The omnipotence paradox goes like this: can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it he's not omnipotent; if he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it then he's not omnipotent; so either way he's not omnipotent. The argument from free will is another paradox which goes like this: God is omnipotent, so he can create a being with free will. God is also Omniscient, so he knows what choice that being with free will is going to make. If God knows what choice the being with free will is going to make; then the being doesn't have free will. If the being does have free will then God can't know what choice they will make. In the former scenario God can't make a being with free will because he will always know what choice they will make and therefore is not omnipotent. In the latter God can create a being with free will but doesn't know what choice that being will make, therefore he is not Omniscience. Therefore God can't exist as he must have qualities that are incompatible.
Atheist arguments are sound

Rules:1) Pro must argue in favor of the resolution that Atheist arguments are indeed, sound.2) No trolling.3) Pro must type in "I shall not make any further arguments, as agreed upon. "Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture. Definitions: Atheism: Lack of belief or disbelief in God. Sound: A belief that turns out to be true.
The Hunger Games Series did not resolve itself

The Hunger Games did not have a good ending because it went on too long and did not resolve itself. Example 1: Presenting President Coin as the main enemy after Katniss sympathizes with President Snow does not make much sense to me as the reader because Katniss has hated Snow for so long and changing the enemy to Coin is somewhat of a last ditch plot twist to keep the reader interested. Not to mention that the deeper plot from Coin was not developing, and was not seen until she supposedly killed Primrose.Example 2: Primrose Everdeen's death was not necessary to the story because although it provided a reason for Katniss not to choose Gale, it created some loose ends that were not fixed. It was somewhat like Rachel's death in "the Dark Knight" because the story was dragging and needed to pick up.Example 3: Katniss Everdeen never recovers after the rebellion. Although survivors from wars will never fully recover, Katniss' condition seems a bit over dramatic in comparison. Whereas most survivors of wars never fully recover from the trauma of battle, they move on with their lives to a somewhat normal degree. Katniss portrays herself as if she hasn't recovered in 20 years which is enough time to make progress for even the most damaged soldier. The Series had potential and the first book was great but the entire second book was unnecessary and the third book focused too much on her petty problems almost none of which were resolved at the end.
Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

As this was a direct challenge, if you don't agree with the con side of this argument you can just decline. a few rules before I state my position. 1. no argumentum ad hominems (personal attacks and the like.) 2. no new arguments in final rebuttals per standard debate rules. 3. standard debate rules regarding dropped arguments apply. The first rounds will just be for acceptance, after that comes arguments (and for the second speaker attacks on my case.) I believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances except for when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. I look forward to a civil discourse on the matter and I hope you accept.
Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

You poor, poor pundit. I already know that I will win, because I have decreed that I will do so, and therefore, by logic, i must. You republicans always seem to want sources, as if sources are necessary for a valid argument. they are not. I refuse to provide any, because, due to the unbearable amount of republicans in the nation right now, all articles online are written by republicans, and are therefore biased. You often point to articles taken right from the Trump website. seriously, why would he contradict his own opinions? Of course he will say that he hates mexicans and muslims. If you showed me a source where a DEMOCRAT accepted a republican opinion, then I would be impressed. a little incredulous, maybe, but nonetheless accepting that republican opinion as true. you cannot show sources where republicans agree with republicans. they always will. Abortion is also necessary to keep the overwhelming population down. currently, it is damaging the ecosystem, and, to quote the bad guy in the matrix, humanity is a virus that eventually kills its host. population control is a way to slow this down. If not given an abortion, mothers may produce offspring which have nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, nowhere to live. But of course you republicans pay no attention to third world countries. Why should you, when you have immense mansions and infinite disposable income? You make me wish to retch, sir. I swear, most of this site is republicans. if there are any good old democrats out there, could you please vote for me? i haven't seen a single democrat on here since i signed up six months ago, and it's starting to bug me a little.
Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

I concur, sir! your infinite babble will likely not be read by any potential judges. Many parents do not wish to leave babies at a fire station, because although it is legal, the firemen are probably busy and can't handle the bother of a child to take care of and put somewhere. Orphanages are rare, and usually have poor living conditions and low access to food. Many parents can't bear the hassle and paperwork involved, which can take months. I'll talk as to your "fetuses are alive" statement now. They may be, but their brains are underdeveloped and having an abortion is much less severe than killing someone outside of the womb. Plants are alive, and yet we kill quite a few each year. Why don't you care about that? I still argue that leaving a baby who can think in the hands of someone else is much worse than killing a baby who can't. I also still believe that yours is the standpoint of a republican who refuses to accept the fact that babies are expensive and the rich are driving the poor mad.
Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

Indeed I will go on. There's a fair bit to address in my opponents arguments. 1. He did not challenge my point that a fetus is scientifically alive and human, therefore I'm going to invoke rule #3. 2. My opponent states that babies could be "unlimited" (whatever that means.) if they didn't require food and medicine. However, my opponent fails to recognize that there are options other than to eliminate the child. For example, you could leave the child at a fire station no questions asked. If you can't afford to carry the child, you made a drastic logical error by participating in sexual reproduction. A possible solution would be to seek financial support from a local church or other charity. Most of them would gladly give you financial aid. 3. My opponent blames the "oppressive capitalist land which is controlled by republican like me" which is not only a broad and sweeping generalization, but the idea that capitalism is to blame is simply not correct. Capitalism exists mainly in the private sector which allows for people of all types to participate in the market economy and make money. Capitalism, in short, allows for tremendous upward mobility. If my opponent opposes capitalism he most likely supports socialism. If you want to see the effect that socialism has on keeping people from being able to afford to have families and support themselves you simply need to turn your gaze to Venezuela or the USSR. My opponent has unfortunately fallen into the trap of American exceptionalism. The belief that we can do what many others have destroyed themselves implementing is illogical. 4. My opponent makes the claim that Humans are biologically forced to mate. While we do have a natural sex drive, we have also developed other parts of our brain that allow for reason, logic, and executive decisions. The history of clinical frontal lobe study is long and rich and provides valuable insights into neuropsychologic determinants of functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). PFC is often classified as multimodal association cortex as extremely processed information from various sensory modalities is integrated here in a precise fashion to form the physiologic constructs of memory, perception, and diverse cognitive processes. (1) As we can see, we have the ability to reason which sets us above common animals. We can choose not to give in to our primal desires. (5) My opponent states that children force parents into poverty. And then they die. Slippery slope fallacy aside, my opponent again fails to recognize that there are alternatives to either eliminating the child or raising it yourself. The example I provided previously is valid here as well as the examples of foster care or an orphanage. (1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

Your standpoint is very republican. babies could be unlimited if they did not require food and medicine, both of which cost money, because we live in an oppressive capitalist land which is controlled by republicans like you. Abortions should not be unlimited either, and i admit, mothers should be responsible for their wild sexuality, but humans are biologically forced to mate, and can rarely choose otherwise, unless they have the will power of an elephant. either certain couples could choose not to do it, or the price of abortions could be slightly raised. you said that abortions should not be allowed unless the baby being born endangers the life of the mother. Endangerment is why all abortions happen. excess children can drive parents into poverty, which, in turn, causes them to die. If they were rich republicans, they would not need an abortion in the first place. Please, do go on.
Smoking should be illegal

Con said that she understood that nicotine is addictive, therefore showing she agrees with me. Con gave examples showing many different things that are addictive but we need those things but we do not need to smoke. Con did not directly address second hand smoke which hurts others as well as the environment. Choice? Studies show when you have an addiction to something you are less likely going to be able to make a good choice. Money? Con is stating you should exploit humans addictions to further fill up the governments pocket. Judgment? Smoking may not have many short term effect but the long term effects can be fatal.
Smoking should be illegal

First off I want to refute my opponents arguments “It is directly related to lung cancer” Lung cancer can be directly related to a numerous amount of sources such as asbestos, dust, microwaves, ect. Many things in modern society are directly related to human illnesses and injuries. Examples: 1.Bikes are directly related to bike injuries2.Sugar is directly related to diabetes Just because an illness or injury is directly related to something does not mean it should be illegal. “It is addictive” Yes, the nicotine in cigarettes is very addicting but just because something is addicting doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Examples: 1.The grease in fries is addicting but fries aren't’t illegal2.Internet and T.V is addicting but I guarantee your using it to continue this debate3.Caffeine in coffee is addicted but that isn’t illegal either. “Second hand smoke causes asthma” My argument on my opponents first statement should conclude my rebuttal on this remark. My arguments… Money Nicotine Tax is a huge income for the U.S government. Taxing cigarettes not only discourages people from buying them but also helps the government out financially. Choice Although Nicotine is addicting you still have a choice on whether or not you buy them. Prohibition tried to ban alcohol and that failed, the same thing would happen if you banned cigarettes, people would still find a way to smoke. It doesn't’t impair your judgment Unlike alcohol and recreational drugs, Nicotine does not impair your judgment when it comes to making decisions and reaction time. Nicotine is in fact the safest drug when it comes to short term use.