BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That the US should implement additional protectionist policies

Amidst reports of a growing trade deficit, increases in outsourcing, and complete devastation for the US economy, there is a need for a serious debate about the implementation of protectionist policies. While some believe that protectionism will make our economic worries disappear, I think otherwise. DEFINITIONS •Protectionist Policies: Laws and regulations designed to help the economy through tariffs, quotas, and discouragement of imports, outsourcing, and foreign investment.[1] •"should": economic or political incentive •Trade Deficit: A situation in which a country imports more than it exports •Outsourcing: The relocation of jobs from within one country to another country, often in search of cheaper labor. These jobs can be manufacturing or service positions. I will be arguing to keep the status quo, my opponent will be in favor of implementing new, additional protectionist laws. My opponent may present his or her case first. [1] http://www.britannica.com...
Hockey is better than soccer

Okay first off thanks for debating. Now I'm going to say that hockey can be played year round. Nobody really plays on the ponds anymore. I play all the time in the summer. And ice rinks aren't as cold as you think, they are usually kept at 50degrees and the ice is cooled from below. You where saying that only being able to use your feet makes soccer harder and more unique and I do agree, but hockey is similar. In hockey you can use your hands (but only to bat the puck out of the air) but we also have to control a smaller object far from our body with a stick. We have to be able to know where it is on our stick without even looking at it, and we are doing this while we are on skates. people generally do not realize the amount of coordination you need in hockey. Also the power, agility, and explosivness needed is unbelievable. My last point for my argument is that hockey is faster and more entertaining. Because hockey is being played on skates, it is very fast. Shifts are short so every player comes out fast and powerfull. The ice rink is way smaller than a soccer field. This creates more action near the net and way more shots on goal. The goalies are constantly making huge saves and making big plays. In soccer there are less shots and less action. The physicality of hockey also makes the game more fun. I do think some of those cheap hockey fights are stupid but they are fun to watch some times. So that's all I'm writing for this round thanks again for debating!
Hockey is better than soccer

I think that soccer is the better sport. Why? Soccer can be played all year round, hockey is usually played when the weather is cold. Soccer is a game that is played using your feet only, this increases many skills, such as running, dodging and many, many others.Also, soccer helps you realize what a great blessing it is to have 2 hands because you cannot use your hands, it allows you to realize that many people don't have that blessing and that you are very lucky to be in your condition. Although hockey takes WAY longer to learn, also hockey can be a very dangerous sport, many severe injuries have been caused due to rough play in hockey, and the ice is very cold so players must wear many layers of clothes to keep them warm, which keeps them from moving freely, which causes them to lose the game. Soccer, however, is played out in the sun, and players wear very comfortable soccer shorts and shirts, also the soccer shoes are very comfortable and allow the play to run around without slipping and kick the ball in the correct way. Hockey rinks cost tons of money to make, they also take up land and trees need to be cut down to make room for it. That is bad for the environment. Soccer can be played anywhere, no need to build a rink, just find a place on the grass, or anywhere with a large space, and PLAY! I'm not saying I don't like hockey, and that it is a bad sport. I am just stating my opinion, I mean, everyone has an opinion and I truly respect your opinion that hockey is better. My sources are: http://www.smu.ca...
Jesus was a false prophet

"Explanation: from Mathews 21-28 Jesus foretells his death and resurrection and in fact his death happens..." No, the son of man coming in his kingdom, means Jesus coming in his kingdom and fulfilling the messianic era. That would mean his coming back and establishing his millennial kingdom. "To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed." Daniel 7 This is clear it talks about Jesus coming in his kingdom, not his death on the cross. Next you bring up a bunch of scriptures saying there is no other god... well Jesus 100% deity 100% man... He is 100% God but also 100% man. Now my opponent to prove that Jesus was god showed from the Hebrew scripture Isaiah 9 Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. First it does not refer to Jesus. Let us look at the continuation of Isaiah 9: The Lord sent a word against Jacob, And it has fallen on Israel. 9 All the people will know" Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria" Who say in pride and arrogance of heart: 10 "The bricks have fallen down, But we will rebuild with hewn stones; The sycamores are cut down, But we will replace them with cedars." 11 Therefore the Lord shall set up The adversaries of Rezin against him, And spur his enemies on, This is a continuation of Isaiah 7, where Israel and Syria will be defeated. (See the king Rezin of Syria), and compare to Isaiah 7: ow it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it. Because Israel (nothern kindom) was still in the land, G-d send someone. Many people were called after G-d, and it does not mean that this individual will be a god in the flesh. That son born to us (Judah) was Hezekiah. Furthermore, that born was already born when that prophecy was said due to the tense of the verb: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, http://www.chabad.org... The other statment were from the New Testament and are not Authoritative for this debate. Finally, my opponent did not refute this false prophecy of Jesus: said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." My argument still stands, Jesus was a false prophet as per the Hebrew Bible.
The Redskins Name is Offensive

Your arguments are sound and to be honest con, there is no need to worry about me ever being upset about forfeitures, I am very easy going :). To continue. .. The Redskins franchise certainly does not intend to make their name offensive. They are trying to choose a fierce, strong willed team name. They are simply trying to show their tenacity, and pay tribute to the fierce and strong willed Native Americans of the past. The Native Americans in my family and most of the midwest that I have talked to find it an honor, because generally their skin is reddish and they are fierce.
The Redskins Name is Offensive

I once again thank you for this debate and do not worry about the forfeiture :). First of all-many Native Americans remember it as an echo of their past. This is true 100% and I understand that. However, the term usually is quite detailed. Usually found offensive, that does not always mean every time. Secondly, Redskins could be considered a racial slur, yes. But they did have Redskins. All respect due to them and my Cherokee ancestors but, this is the truth. The term redskins was used to remark about them. I myself being a distant Cherokee by blood, find it an honor. Finally, the Washington Redskins franchise has already tried to be mellow about it. They have tried to befriend the tribes there. And they know what some feel about this. Therefore, the Redskins name is still not racist.
The Redskins Name is Offensive

For my first ever sports debate, I am challenging a debate over the Washington Redskins name. Is it offensive or not? I believe it is perfectley fine, but let me hear the other side out :). Who knows, you may win me over. I believe the Redksins name is fine, and is an honor to the native americans.I'm part Cherokee on my Mom's side as it is.Good luck, let's have a good debate :).
The Redskins Name is Offensive

I'll take this round to make just a few conlcuding remarks. My opponent puts a lot of stock in the fact that the Washington football team does not intend its nickname to be offensive, but instead intends it to honor Native Americans. I'm not certain that's true. Dan Snyder is a special kind of obstinate, as anyone who follows the turnover in his coaching staff knows, and the team adopted its nicname while under the ownership of an unreconstructed racist who was the very last team owner to racially integrate his team, and only then at the direct intervention of JFK. [1] The Washington team has not earned any benefit of the doubt. But even if what my opponent says is true - even if the name is not intended to be offensive - my opponent has no satisfactory answer for the fact that the name has offended, and continues to offend, many people, particularly within Native American communities. Intent does not matter in questions of offense. Whether a word is intended as an insult does not matter to the person who feels insulted. At most, one's intent is relevant to the offended party's decision whether or not to forgive the insult. But when one persists in the insult, even after being told it is offensive, it is hard to believe any protestations that the intent was innocent. In other words, if the Washington team really wanted to honor Native Americans, it would shut up and listen to them. [1] . http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com...
Atheism is illogical

Though its odd that we have the term "atheist" as I stated in round 2, it's seems impossible to be without it. Since religion has done so well in the past at monopolizing the zeitgeist, those who challenge religion are a rare and relevant group of people. It's only natural that we have a word for this group. In the future, when the simplistic accounts offered by religion of how the world works have been forgotten, all people will be "atheists". But along with the absurd claims of religion, the word atheist will disappear as well since there will be no need to distinguish between the religious and the non-religious.
Atheism is illogical

Well then I believe this debate is over. Apparently there is no such thing as an atheist and people just call themselves it for a lack of better terms. Perhaps there should be a designated word for this, other then agnosticism or atheism. And I did state the definition of atheism in my first argument, but that is besides the point, the debate is over. thank you con. The whole debate was much simpler then I conceived and a bit of a waste of time. Thank you anyway.
Atheism is illogical

Pro defines a true atheist as someone who knows for certain that there are no deities. I asked Pro to give me an example of an atheist of this type but has not so far. The atheist Pro refers to doesn't seem to exist. So if atheists don't exist then why do so many people call themselves atheists (as Pro wonders)? Probably the best answer is that there is simply a general misconception of the term. The definitions that dictionaries provide don't help much either. English gives us the theist-agnostic-atheist trichotomy and people think they have to pick one. This trichotomy obscures in theology what is common sense in all other domains. Namely that: Those who make claims have a burden of proof and that, to quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"."Atheist" is just the word people use to refer to those of us who recognize that religions make extraordinary claims and yet provide the worst kind of evidence for those claims. Notice that there are no words for those who don't believe in other extraordinary claims like those of astrology or alchemy. Yet, for some reason, those who are doubtful of theological claims get a special word. Even people in the "unsure" category of theological claims get their own name too. Why is this? Pro wanted to argue that atheism is illogical. His atheism is one that nobody seems to adheres to. Therefore, I don't think he has proven that atheism is illogical. Also, Pro didn't require that I use any particular definition of atheism at the start of the debate. I won't argue that his atheist is logical because his atheist doesn't exist and there is no point in defending a strawman.
Atheism is illogical

Rebuttal----- What I had perceived, the Con's main argument is that many skeptics call themselves Atheist, when they are not actually atheist. Simply because if they were atheist they would not be skeptical. This statement is very true. Why people would then proceed to claim themselves as Atheists I am unsure of. Perhaps I should narrow my debate statement to "true" atheism, or a "7" atheist as the Con referred to in Richard Dawkin's God Delusion. When I say true I mean by definition:in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In other words certainty in an absence of a God. From what "true" atheism is and what Con had explained, I can safely conclude that most people who claim themselves to be Atheists are not actually Atheists but a skeptic on the existence of God, with a ranging confidence of disbelief. It would be more understandable if the self-proclaimed "Atheist" would call them self an Agnostic, simply for a lack of better words. Now if the con would like to debate whether or not "true" atheism by definition is illogical I would gladly proceed. If not, I think we can both agree on the common misconception of the term Atheist and that "true" atheism is indeed illogical.
Atheism is illogical

It's not true, as my opponent contends, that Richard Dawkins argues that no one can prove there is a god. In The God Delusion, Dawkins coins the phrase "Temporary Agnosticism in Practice" (TAP). TAP is "the legitimate fence sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it". Dawkins claims this form of agnosticism is appropriate for scientific mysteries such as the Permian extinction. Dawkins argues that agnosticism of the existence of "God" falls in the TAP category as well. He goes on to say that the question of the existence of a god is a scientific one to which we may one day know the answer. In the meantime, he contends, we can say something meaningful about the probability of his existence. Dawkins also does not say "there is definitely no God". In The God Delusion he outlines a "spectrum of probability" designating levels of certainty in "God" from 1-7: Category 1 is a "Strong theist"; a person who believes he or she simply knows that God exists. Category 1's antithesis is category 7: A "Strong Atheist"; a person who says they know that "God" does not exist. Categories 2-6 represent the intermediary levels of commitment to a belief in a deity. Dawkins rates himself as a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there. ". Dawkins says of category 7 "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1". I agree with Dawkins on this. I don't believe I know of anyone in this category either. I believe that Richard Dawkins is a fairly representative atheist and that most people who call themselves atheists would put themselves in category 6 with Dawkins. It would be interesting if any of the atheist reading this would rate themselves as a category 7. Con said "How can an atheist argue that there is no definite way to prove a God exists and then say there is definitely no God? It's simply contradictory. " I have proven this wrong if by "atheist" Con means Richard Dawkins or any given atheist with a similar epistemology to Dawkins. I have shown that Dawkins does not rule out that there is a way to prove that "God" exists. I have also shown that Dawkins does not "say there is definitely no God". In order to regain his footing, Con will need to provide some representative examples of atheists who assert that: A "There is no definite way to prove a God exists. " and B: "There is definitely no God. " On a side note, Con said: "I just think it would be more rational to be skeptical on the existence of a God. " I think this is all atheism is. Note: All of the above references I made to Richard Dawkin's writtings on this subject can be found in The God Delusion in the chapter "The Poverty of Agnosticism". The first part of this chapter is on-line[1]. Unfortunately, you will need to obtain the book itself to read the complete chapter. [1] . http://books.google.com... (page 69)
Atheism is illogical

I thank ahead of time to who ever accepts the debate. I am not debating the truthfulness of other religions but solely on the fact that atheism is illogical. Atheism-in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Richard Dawkins is a renowned atheist He argues that no one can prove there is a God, he often references to a God as being a Spaghetti monster or a flying teacup. He rejects all existence of a supreme Deity. My main argument is that Atheism is contradictory . How can an atheist argue that there is no definite way to prove a God exists and then say there is definitely no God? It's simply contradictory. I just can't understand how an atheist can bash other religion for lack of proof and then say there is 100% chance of no God with lack of proof as well. It is true that no one will ever have enough proof to prove a God does or does not exist. I just think it would be more rational to be skeptical on the existence of a God.
Why am I so much better than everyone else? Cons argument - I get all da bitchez. Pros-magic

First, prove that you have all the female dogs in the world. About 32 million dogs are in the world, show me a video or something to prove it. Second, it's physically impossible for you to have every female dog in the world. I mean, I have many friends and they have female dogs. I even have a female dog named Lucy. Third, if you're talking about the human girl "bitch", it's not possible. For example, show me a video of your "spell" attracting every female around you. And since you said "bitch", show me a video of you having sex with one of them.
Existance of God

~~Defense~~D1: Actually, my opponent's first 'refutation' can be turned both ways. He says that the Universe was caused however, what caused that cause? And what caused the cause of the cause? It's a never ending paradox. But in my case this paradox does not occur. This is because gods/goddesses are timeless. This is because it is it that created time itself. This means a god can't be bound by the restraints that time places on things. Therefore, a god is has no beginning nor end because beginnings and ends are restraints that are brought forth by time. My first case still stands.D2: The answer to my opponent's next question is free will. We were gieven free will and we screwed it up. This is the cause of imperfections in our and other species. For example: Let's say the first humans were perfect. However, they began to do things that was negative to their health and this caused negative health conditions. When they had offspring then these conditions were passed down to those offspring and the offspring's offspring. It was bad choices that caused the imperfections in health that we see today.D3: No, because as I stated in my first defense a god was not caused. ~~Rebuttels~~R1: Already covered in first defense.R2: Who said he wants too? Who says that Christianity is right? We are not arguing about the Christian god; we are arguing about the existence of a god. Even if one proves Christianity false (and they have), this does not rule out the existence of a creator. Also, the very fact that the Universe is in perfect alignment is a perfect sign that there is a god.R3: We are not arguing about Christianity, we are arguing about the existence of a creator. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Existance of God

Deathbeforedishonor, please do not post any arguments in the last round. I am sorry I was unable to post my argument, I was in Gettysburg and did not have time. I also have to leave soon and the debate expires in six hours, so I will shorten my arguments. Here are my main arguments:1. How did "God" come into existence? As has been said about the big bang theory, something cannot come from nothing.2. If a god really does exist, why doesn't he show himself? If he truly wanted everyone to rid themselves of sin, he would give a message or sign that he is real so that nobody would want to sin.3. A kind and loving god as has been described by the Bible would not send "sinners" (including atheists) into eternal punishment to pay for their crimes. Instead, he would bring everyone to heaven and try to rehabilitate these "sinners".Refutations: C1P1: Something cannot come from nothing, correct. So as I stated above, how did God come into existence? C2 Intro: If "God" wanted perfection, he would've created perfect species to inhabit the earth. How come, then, did he not?C2P3: If "chance" is not a credible cause, then neither is a god. Wasn't your God created by chance?
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

Thank you for your response. God does not accomplish evil when humans sin. If that is your philosophy then Ted Bundy's parents would probably be rotting in jail right now whether they were innocent or guilty of any crime. Or maybe we could charge Ford with a DUI if someone crashed one of their vehicles while drunk. If we take god's work and twist it then it is we that are guilty not he. In fact that is god's essential purpose, to guide his work. He creates and watches over his creations to make sure that they follow the rules. There are higher powers than god, these powers are not gods in themselves but higher laws of nature that simply are. It is like gravity, we obey it without question because we cannot not obey it. When you come right down to it, life with or without god is superfluous, the very existence of the universe is. God simply exists with the rest of it. Theologians attempt to justify his existence because they have beliefs to support. Attempting to bundle religion all together and assign it a few concepts is hardly the right way to go about judging religion. My opponent's argument has left no room for the many religions world wide that worship or believe in a monotheistic god. All of these, as I have shown with Mormonism, have different ideas about who or what god is. My opponent has shown only that his idea of a monotheistic god is illogical, not the actual concept subscribed to by actual believers.