BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
College should be entirely government funded

Such a matter is viable of course, however, please do take a closer analysis of the statistics. First and foremost, the education system is ranked, yet the applications that follow through it are not. For instance, America has 331 Nobel prize winners, yet Finland only has 4. That is nearly 83 American winners for just one Finland winner. Therefore, free trade and less oppressive government is what builds a true democracy and independent people. It is just when others proselytize it too much that problems occur.
College should be entirely government funded

Although such a matter is true in distinct fields, it shall remain as such. Even though the majority of the population is White (42%), there are still Asians (17%), Black (8%), and International (11%). With this amount of diversity, it is truly unreasonable to state that a university is discriminatory. Ironically, even during the Jim Crow Laws, many Blacks still resided in the South, thereby racism is truly awkward in the land of the free.
Mass Deportation and its Effect on the Economy

We are a group of students doing this for a college assignment. As a group we have come to the conclusion that mass deportation is not a viable option. If we go through with the recently proposed mass deportations we will have to figure even more money into an already strained budget meaning raised taxes or the more likely option of budget cuts which will not come from where they should like politician wages and military spending but more likely from welfare and education. Along with this fact, while illegal immigrants are in the country they can, and have been amassing debt in various ways such as credit cards, mortgages and student loans. Deporting all of the people who have gathered this debt will put a large strain on various banks and credit card companies, damaging our economy. This is not even taking into account that undocumented immigrants make up an estimated 8% of our workforce, doing the cheap labor jobs that few other people want to do. You also must take into account the children of these various undocumented immigrants who may actually be American citizens. What do you do with these children? Leave them here and put them into government run orphanages and foster homes, putting even more strain on the already cut welfare budget. Or do you send them back with their parents, into most likely economically poor and dangerous environments where they are unlikely to receive a proper education and become productive members of society if they manage to come back to this country once they have become adults.
Mass Deportation and its Effect on the Economy

First, why should the money that is used on deporting illegal immigrants come out of "politician wages and military spending"? Since you are concerned that the money for deportations will come out of welfare and education, have you considered the stress and strain these non-citizens already place on these important public services which are meant to serve citizens? They took out mortgages taking housing from homeless Americans and Student Loans, taking class space that should go to citizens. If they do "cheap labor" then how did they qualify? As for the labor, you make a false assumption: that others don't want those jobs. It's that employers won't hire citizens when they can hire cheap illegal labor.
It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence. This was an LD topic during January and February. I intend to have an LD styled debate, but be warned traditional LD debaters: I will (most likely) be running a K. If you don't know how to respond to a K, I suggest you either a) do your homework and learn how to respond to a K or b) don't accept this debate.8,000 characters. If you're running out of characters and need more, feel free to use google documents to post your arguments and just post the link to the doc as your round. 3 days to post an argument. If that's not enough time for you, then you may want to complain to Innomen to increase the max time for arguments to be posted.2 week judge time.3 Rounds of debating. Arguments will come in this order:1. Con presents rules of debate. Pro accepts and posts case.2. Con presents case and refutes pro. Pro defends and refutes con's case.3. Con refutes and defends. No new arguments. Pro defends and refutes. No new arguments.Yep, just like an LD round, minus the CX time. But you have three days to figure out what my arguments say. So it kind of works out anyway. As pro will go first, the work for defining terms will come down to the pro. If you don't, well....-snicker snicker snicker- let's just say you want to make sure you define well.Anyway, good luck to whomever accepts this debate.
Fighting

Not exactly Holen. Many boxers are trained to resist punches so they DON` T get knocked out. If you look at Mayweather's records and compare them to Pacquiao then you can clearly see the difference in that Pacquiao has been Knocked out 2 times on the contrary of Mayweather that has never even lost a fight and has a record of 41 wins and 25 K.O. so that proves us that Mayweather has the ability (or CAN) knockout Pacquiao. References: http://en.wikipedia.org.... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fighting

Thanks Pro for the opportunity to debate this. I would like to start by quoting Pro. "In a fight of Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Jr. can win by K.O." Pro used the word "can", regarding that Floyd Mayweather Jr. "can" knock out Manny Pacquiao in a fight. A definition for the word "can" is: - "to be able to do, make, or accomplish " I would like Pro to to agree that it is possible that Floyd Mayweather Jr. can knock out Manny Pacquiao in a fight. If Pro cannot agree to this statement, then I would like Pro to offer factual evidence that one person cannot knock out another under any circumstance. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Donald Trump is NOT a White Supremacist.

I think he would be if he could be. Having said that. I think a lot of people would be if they could be. But it's no longer de rigueur. Especially for the leader of the Free World. What ever that might mean. Tolerance is the buzz word. But tolerance is always on a knifes edge. And the big suit and the bouffant and the fake tan. Perhaps Don's an orange supremacist!
This Statement is False

The sentence "This Statement is False" is neither false nor is it true. You can see this very simply by first accepting the statement is true, but the statement say it is false. Then we look at the statement is as false, but if the statement that say it is false is false, then it must be true. This bring us to a paradox where the sentence is neither false nor true and it is widely known as the liar paradox. 1) 1) http://www.logicalparadoxes.info... and http://en.wikipedia.org...
difference between a Halloween party & harvest festival @ a church

Yes, I understand restrictions, but, you can honestly tell me that all the restrictions are obeyed? I don't think the issue is restrictions. The issue that I am referring to is how a "pagan tradition" can be openly accepted in what is to be a place of worship. "Halloween" has been detected that its origins are from Roman feast of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and seeds, or in the festival of the dead called Parentalia, making this a celebration to another God. This has nothing to do with a race or heritage, and it's not like saying "Indian people should not celebrate thanksgiving". Indians are not dressing up like their ancestors and hunting turkey or gathering fruits and vegetables, and white families are not dressing up like pilgrims doing the same. It's about what is considered holy and unholy. If churches are to be places of worship, and where people come to congregate in God's presence, then why allow that what is not holy practices into a church. No, I am not saying a sinner can not enter a church, all sinners are welcome, but, to have those that are considering themselves of the faith and partake of sinful actions in a church makes it not right. If Jesus did not have a problem with these types of actions then he would not have gotten mad when he came to the temple and saw people buying, selling, and trading. That's why he grabbed a rope and started chasing those people out saying " Take these things hence, make my Father's house an house of merchandise". Community outreach is good, and a big turn out is good, but, do you have the same turn out every service day or just on special occasions?
difference between a Halloween party & harvest festival @ a church

I don't think that this is really wrong. It is technically still fall "time of the harvest". I don't think its wrong for kids to dress up and go to church and get candy and celebrate on a national holiday. Of course every church is different so what they do my church may not be what they do at the church(s) your referencing to. I do know that a lot of churches set restrictions, so people aren't going dressed as scary and gory as other people might. It's almost like saying that people who are indian shouldn't celebrate thanksgiving. I think that if people want to celebrate on a holiday they will do it no matter what. I know at our church they celebrate there just because its a convenient place in the middle of town. All in all i don't think its really wrong. The people that do think its wrong are the people that don't come. Since there is often a big turn out i don't think there is really any problem with it.
Should Gay Marriage Be Legal

First I would like to state: The government should be out of marriage in the first place. The point of marriage is not to keep people as one, but to find out the kids of the couple, that is what all the government cares about. As I see that if the government was out of marriage then we would not need to worry about it being legal or not, but weather if it would be alright for gays to marry ( With what I do not care if they do or not ). Love is love but you do not need marriage for love if the only reason marriage is in the government is for the child. If you did not know, gay's can't have births. YES They can take in a kid, but he was already born. Meaning that the kid is already under the system.
Atheism Is Not A Religion

A religion doesn"t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), Some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Some non-theistic (Buddhism). I"d say atheists and their religion are "anti-theistic. " But their atheism is religious nonetheless. You have your own world view. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, Follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, They interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out. Muslims view the world that there is one god and Jesus is not his son or equal. You even have your own Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, There is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, It is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, Undirected, Purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Morality is subjective

This round is for my closing statement. I used to be curious about the reason why I knew something was right and wrong. I used to see kids pick on each other at school and I wondered why they really had any real reason to be moral. I literally could not think of a single reason why everyone felt the need to be moral. And it wouldn't have mattered what society I was born into. Then I recalled the Bible verse Romans 2:15 which states that God wrote the moral law on every person's heart. That truth hit me like a ton of bricks. We all know the moral law yet we at many times fail to recognize that there is a lawgiver. It is kind of like acknowledging the existence of the book and not the author. It is always interesting to me when people who see morality as subjective compare different societies. They feel like they can say that one was immoral and that one was moral. The funny thing is that those people are appealing to the objective moral law to determine which society is more moral than the other. They aren't just using there societies standard...why not? Well, even societies recognize their own mistakes. And we can only due this due to the fact that there is an actual moral law. We would not make excuses for our behavior if there was no objective moral law. I thank my opponent for the debate. I agree that this has been one of the better debates that I have been in.
Morality is subjective

Well, I would just like to make a simple closing argument. I do not think objective morality exists now. I believe that a widely agreed upon (yet still subjective in theory) morality exists today. If the society we lived in never deemed murder immoral to begin with, it would never be seen as a problem (but I personally would not want to live in that society). This idea seems preposterous since this goes directly against the views of our society. Our society teaches us our beliefs, and we draw our morality from our beliefs. The Romans only ended the persecution of Christians since Emperor Constantine had a personal experience with the Christian faith. Many Romans disagreed with the idea of legalizing Christianity, but ultimately accepted it since they had no power to refuse. While moral responsibility may be taken away through subjective morality, people are still held accountable for their actions through the law. The law is also subjective to an extent, that is why there are so many different political ideologies. I agree with my opponent on the idea that evolution does not provide for objective morality. I would also like to state that humans are technically also animals, so we do not necessarily have to follow any moral code. "Let me get this straight, at some random point in the past, humans created a moral standard and it just so happened that all of their subjective opinions happened to agree with each other?" Yes, but it happened over time, not at once. I can't think of a single person that would say that Hitler was right that isn't mentally insane. But my point is that all societies recognize that Hitler was wrong (even Germany). To say that neo-nazis are all insane is a huge assumption to make. They seem insane to use since their morals clash with those of our society. "In other words, the society we grow up in does not force us to believe their standard of right/wrong." Technically true, but people often do follow their society's morals. It's been a great debate, I had a lot of fun. This debate really made me think, and I can't always say the same about most of the debates on the site.
Morality is subjective

First I'd just like to say that I'm impressed by how well thought-out and thorough my opponent's argument was. Well done. I will begin by saying that while there is a widely agreed upon moral compass that has been around for thousands of years where the ideas of murder being immoral comes from, this moral compass did not always exist. We cannot know what is absolutely wrong or absolutely right, only what our society deems as absolutely wrong or absolutely right. The ancient Romans famously slaughtered many innocent in the colosseums for sport. They needed no excuse when they threw ancient Christians into a pit with a lion in it. Were these people insane? No, they were not. How could this group of people see, tolerate, and even encourage such an unjust act? The answer is simple: their society had different morals than ours does today. "We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them." See, within our society we have certain things which are seen as immoral, and are widely agreed upon so much so that they seem objective, but this was not always the case. Animals have no moral compass, and provided we evolved from animals, we have no moral compass. We humans have created one so there can be order within a society. This morality has been so ingrained in our minds over generations and generations of belief that there is no need to question it in our modern society. We know that Hitler was utterly wrong because our society's morals see him as wrong. If things had gone differently, and Germany won the war, we could very possibly be living in a world where all of Hitler's actions were seen as right. We still see people who believe that what Hitler did was right, however, they are a fringe group, since most of our society agrees that what Hitler did was wrong. I have been brought up in a society that tells me that Hitler's actions were wrong, but if I were brought up in a society that taught me that Hitler's actions were right, I would end up believing them.
Morality is subjective

I would like to open by saying that we, as individuals have our own free will, and can make our own beliefs as we choose, however, we often conform to the beliefs of the society we belong to. These beliefs we have make up our morals. Simply put, morality is distinguished as the difference between right, or wrong, or good, or bad, etc. While there may be some views that are almost universally seen as moral, or immoral, these views are not automatic, they are not instinctual, and we must distinguish between what is an exercise in morality and what is simply instinct. Take the wilderness for example; there are no set or agreed upon rules within the animal kingdom, all animals are individuals, and are simply out for themselves and their young (if they have any). Animals (including humans) have only 3 basic instincts: sustenance, shelter, and sex. All actions and beliefs beyond these three instincts are voluntary, and performed solely by the individual. Therefore, we can see that morality is not a basic instinct of humans, since we are not required to be moral. Morality is not programed into our DNA, like the desire to reproduce. Morality is instead a conscious decision. We can see many examples of people having different morals. Throughout history the dramatic splinter between the Christian and Muslim worlds has split the two belief systems so far, that both sides have seen killing of the other side as moral. We can see certain Christians acting "moral" by taking the Holy Land from its Muslim occupants, and we can see the morality of certain Muslims through terrorism, where men sacrifice their lives in the name of their God by killing infidels (and themselves). One of the greatest examples of subjective morality is the case of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews, Slavs, and others in the name of the German People. Hitler came to power through the consent of the German people, many of whom he convinced that the German People were supreme over all others. Today we can clearly see that this is false, but the people of the time believed it. This is just a small amount of proof that morality is subjective, and that there is no universal meaning to what is good and what is bad.
Homework Should Be Banned

Homework, a school tradition that has been going on for hundreds of years. Now its the 21st Century, and many professionals have found a reason to ban it. My first point Education, according to a recent study conducted by Harvard Medical students. A test showed that their is no correlation to students educational profile. This shows that if my opponent finds a correlation to education it will be invaild. Also it shows that it will not improve test scores acorrding to CNN.com a credible source. A reporter/teacher states that actually students perform better as they don't get confused. This is why homwork should be banned because education is not improving4https://www.gse.harvard.edu...
Evolution

1) OK well can you give some examples of these transitional fossils? 2) One of your main arguments was that carbon dating proved that it could not have been a pet ape and it's owner. You said that the carbon dating dates it back 3.2 million years ago. Well one problem with that; carbon dating is only accurate at 60,000 years at it's most (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... which is a reliable .edu site, and http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org...). 3) I say that science textbooks are not legitimate sources because the writing comes from only one viewpoint. You said "And since he purports that some are forced to write "against their will" evidently some are not evolutionists." I don't know when I said this, so please explain what you mean here. 4) People are being born without wisdom teeth because of genetics. A trait of no wisdom teeth keeps getting past down, and as time goes on more and more people are born without wisdom teeth. Source: (http://www.thetech.org...). I do agree that micro-evolution exists, and I believe that it is all due to genetics; but that is not what we are debating here. 5) I have to reasons that explain why fossil records are not evidence of evolution: 1. Among the fossil records, there are fossils of animals like bats that have been dated back millions of years. BUT bats exist today, and there skeletons are identical to those of the million year old fossils. 2. The links. In fossil records, there are surprising absences of the jump from one cell organisms to multiple celled organisms; from invertebrate to vertebrae; fish and amphibians; reptiles and birds; and of course monkey and man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have spent the whole time refuting my opponents arguments, but now I will present one of my own. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. I do not have time to write anymore, and I will explain more about my argument next round.
Evolution

1) In answer to your claim that humans have evolved from monkeys, then why are there no transitional fossils? There has not been one fossil that exists between the supposed transformation between monkeys and humans. 2) But now your probably saying, "What about Lucy?" Well nearly all experts agree she is just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee. Also, isn't it interesting that her bones were found 1 mile apart from each other? And were assumed to be from the same animal because of "Anatomical similarities" (bears and dogs have anatomical similarities) (Source: http://www.forerunner.com...). Also, human tracks were found very near Lucy's body, giving the simple explanation that Lucy must have been someone's pet monkey. Also, it is said that Lucy's hips were trampled by some animal, which helped hide the fact that she was really a chimpanzee. So scientists cut up the hip bones, and made a plaster cast to arrange Lucy's hip bones to give her a more human-like appearance. See http://www.ridgenet.net... for more info. 3) I do believe that we were made by a creator, and I have a question: Who writes almost all of the scientific textbooks available? Evolutionists. This is because it is against the law to teach creationism in a public school, so a science textbook is not a legit source. 4) We are not evolving today, and many people have been born without wisdom teeth. As the population grows, so will that number, but it has nothing to do with evolution. 5) I would like more info on how fossil records in sediments prove evolution, because there are just fossils of species that are extinct now. Thank you con, and I am eagerly awaiting your response.