BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes that Hell exists

I first began by saying the bible, or any other religious book, did not have any accurate representations of what Hell could be. I then mentioned Hiland Lake, (which is definitely google worthy for a laugh or two). My next argument was, of course, Hinduism. The only valid evidence of there being a Hell would be karma and the act of a type of reincarnation. And while I did not exactly enjoy having to lean on philosophy, karma would be what would determine the fate of souls and such, and why "bad" things happen in life (because it is "well deserved" and Hell is merely the Earth). My last and final argument, was reincarnation, but not the sort where one would be a human one life then a dog the next. More so appealing to the science side of things, with life, death, decay, then life once more. This would be the cycle of all living things, keeping us in an eternal Hell (Earth). I'm terribly sorry that the debate sort of derailed, but it was still sort of fun. I enjoyed it, and hope that we can possibly debate again some time. Thank you, and I hope you also have a good day. Oh, and, on a side note... I don't think African women deserve to go through genital mutilation, I was only attempting to make a point.
This House Believes that Hell exists

I agree that the Hell which you argue for does make a lot more sense and that it is more plausible. However, in this debate, we are discussing the existence of the Hell from Christian or Muslim religions. Many people believe in a Hell of eternal torment and it is that Hell which we are debating on, not the Hell of the Hindu or Buddhist interpretations. I must stress that and so, though you have given quite a bit of interesting information, it is irrelevant for this debate and therefore, the Hell which you speak of is not really a separate place from Earth but it is Earth. So it's not really relevant here but thanks for the information :) Before I continue carelessly rebutting, let me move on to the short summary of my arguments, which is the highlight of this round. My first argument is entitled Evidence, which is something most advocates of Hell would not have. They do not have the evidence to support the claim of a Hell where you are eternally tormented. As you have stipulated, any claim only remains a claim until evidence has been shown to prove that claim true. Therefore, since there is no such evidence available of a Hell which eternally torments the souls of bad people, we have no reason to believe in a Hell where one goes through eternal torment. My second argument is entitled Physical Implications. The definition of a Universe states that it is the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy (1). This would also include a Hell as well. Since we can find absolutely no traces of a separate Hell and no phenomenon which can lead us to Hell, we cannot assert the existence of Hell and therefore, we, again, have no reason to believe in one. My third argument entitled Eyewitnesses seeks to argue that one cannot really describe a place which he/she has not seen. This is where I must say that I agree with you. It is clear that the Biblical account of Hell may not be accurate. However, since we are debating on the Hell of the Bible or the Koran, we cannot include the 'Hell' of Hinduism or Buddhism, as much as I want to, though. Now, as I was saying, it is really hard to describe a place, especially when no one has seen it. I cannot really describe the situation in North Korea because I have not seen it, though I can have a vivid image of what it might be due to news which spreads quickly. Therefore, I can imagine what North Korea would look like if it was warring with other nations but I can't really be definite about it. I do hope that this summary was good enough for viewers to be able to understand my arguments quickly.. I know I can be a little bit too wordy sometimes and I must request that you forgive me if I have been that way. I must say that, though you didn't stick to the definition which was stipulated before the debate started, I learned quite a lot and I feel that that is what debate is about. I felt that I could learn something from the other side and I feel that that is enough for me. Thank you for that load of information and a good debate overall. Hope that you have a nice day.
Abortion

Seeing as Cheerboo has forfeited his round there is not much left for me to say.In the end, even if the bodily autonomy argument were deemed to be insufficient on its own, it is clearly sufficient in situations where the mother's life is in danger. In that case, it is sufficient for the burden required in this debate.I do not feel Cheerboo upheld his proposition.It is clear that abortion should be not be illegal in ALL cases in the United States of America.As a closing note, I will say that I am sorry to see this debate end in forfeit, as I was very much looking forward to continuing the conversation and being challenged by any rebuttals. Regardless of the forfeit, I would like to thank Cheerboo for sparking this debate. And I would like to sincerely thank anyone who has taken the time to read it.
Abortion

I could easily take this debate into cases of rape, or incest, but I will resist the low hanging emotionally-charged fruit.I would like to remind those following along, however, that I only need to argue that abortion should not be illegal in ALL cases.If there is even one case where abortion should be allowed, then I have met my burden. However, I will actually attempt to go beyond that, and argue that abortion should be legal in any case where the child is not viable outside of the womb.I would also add that we are not debating morality, but legality, so any notions of what someone 'should' do from a moral standpoint are irrelevant in this case (I don't claim that Cheerboo was saying anything like that, just wanted to clarify the point).Cheerboo's argument rests on two claims as I see it, the first being explicit and the second being implicit.1) Life begins at conception.2) A fetus has a right to it's mother's body.I will take each of these on their own, but my argument will rest mainly on the second one.1) LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.I will argue that EVEN IF this premise is shown to be true, it is irrelevant if the second premise is shown to be false.That said, not only do I not grant that life begins at conception, but Cheerboo seems to agree that it is not proved:"since there is no record of when life begins I believe that life begins at conception"I will agree with the spirit of the first half of her statement, there is no record of when life begins.Seeing as we can both agree on that, we are left with only an opinion that she 'believes' life begins at conception.Without argument to back that up it is nothing more than a bare assertion. Therefore the following statement, that having an abortion is akin to murdering a child, is unsupported.Regardless, I will argue that my next point will make the issue of when life begins irrelevant to the abortion debate.2) A FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO IT'S MOTHER'S BODY.I put forth the idea that we all share a fundamental right to bodily autonomy.A fetus has no 'special rights' to claim ownership over the resources of it's mother.If a child requires a blood transfusion or a kidney transplant we do not force parents to give up their own blood or organs for the sake of their child, even if they are the only ones who are a genetic match. Regardless of what we may think a parent 'should' do for their child, we do not, and cannot, force parents to sacrifice their own bodies for the sake of their children. To do so would be to violate the parent's rights to bodily autonomy. Our bodies are our own, and no other human being has a right to lay claim to what we may or may not do with our own bodies. We do not force people to become organ donors through legislation, regardless of what we feel people 'should' do. Bodily autonomy is the right of every person.The fetus has the same exact rights as a born child does, and as the adult mother does. And those rights do not, and cannot, include laying claim over the body of anyone else. Therefore, unless the child is deemed to be viable outside of the mother's body, it is her right to seek a legal termination of her pregnancy if she so chooses to.
Abortion

I gladly accept. Thank you, Cheerboo, for setting up the debate. I will defend the position that abortion should NOT be illegal in all cases in the United States of America. I feel it's safe to say we both know what is meant by 'abortion,' but just in case I will make it clear that I am assuming a common definition to mean "a deliberate termination of pregnancy." Although you didn't state it specifically, I'll also assume that Round 1 was intended only for acceptance and allow you to present your arguments first. I look forward to the discussion.
The Olympic Games should be abolished

Really sorry about that! Didn't realize I'd be in MD over night. So here we go with my opening arguement. The Olympic games, to many, are a patriotic exercise in international bonding between nations and good old fashion American fun. However, if you look deeply at the root of these games, they are an utter abomination to our nation, inspiring a plethora of fiscal issues, forming national hatred through competition between nations, creating pointless pollution / human traffic, and causing an ever present threat of terrorism. Point A) During these downtrodden economic days, wasteful and unnecessary expenditures can really add up and in turn, create colossal problems. Let's start with the median base cost of the Winter Olympics (hereon referred to MBC), approx. 6.95 billion US dollars. This number entails planning, opening ceremony development, architectural funds, minor construction, additional supplies needed for athletes, and so on. But you may be thinking, "Hey, I bet all of the tickets they sell makes up for it, Right?" Wrong. While many recent figures, such as ones from the '84 Olympics, claim a profit was made, they do not consider employment funding for the estimated 30,000 miscellaneous workers, which is separate from the MBC and obviously increases costs SIGNIFICANTLY. So as you can see, the Olympic Games are an unnecessary economic burden on the world. Point B) When you have 190 million people visiting one small, confined area all at the same time, serious pollution and traffic issues arise. In terms of pollution, all of these cars pose legitimate carbon emission threats considering they can be on for hours and hours during commutes. Not only that, but the emissions can stay in the air for months, risking the cardiac and pulmonary health of all inhabitants. With human traffic, we see other dangers, resulting in gigantic waiting times for not only tourists, but also residents, which seems hardly fair to me. This can possibly be fixed by improvements in infrastructure and public transportation BEFORE the games, but that will clearly bump up prep costs by big numbers, making a virtual loose-loose situation for all. Point C) Terrorism. It is a word that is thrown around a lot these days, but what risk does it actually present? At the Olympics, an "ideal" location for an extremist due to its huge population density, it presents a risk greater than most could comprehend. During the 1972 Munich Massacre at the games, which was one of the least professionally executed terrorist attacks in history, 17 died. Worse, what if someone were to simply fly a plane into an Olympic stadium similar to the 9/11 attacks? It could be catastrophic, considering 3,000 died in September, and considering the 80,000 that will be able to fit into a single stadium this summer. And to bump up security will, again, cost a large, large amount of taxpayer money. So tell me. Who benefits from all of this?
Just like a black hole obliterates particles in a 2-D space-time so is plasma everywhere in the sky.

There are no facts which refute the hypothesis of mental continuity. It's ridiculous to neglect the soul itself while concerning ourselves solely with what we work hard to acquire for its sake. Shock waves propagate and collide when north and south strings snap at a wormhole ‘throat' of an Aryal–Ford–Vilenkin spacetime and form relic compactified flat spacetime.
My God doesn't exist and neither does yours

Sorry Con, it seems you've misinterpreted the Round 1 objective. I never declared Round 1 to be an acceptance round. I think the best possible solution is for round 2 to be spent on your rebuttal to my round 1 arguments. I don't want to add more information than the character limit allows by adding new points in round 2. Please take round 2 to provide your arguments to my round 1, and we can finalize in round 3.
My God doesn't exist and neither does yours

First, good luck to my challenger. I've been interested in if this debate is even possible, so I am going to attempt it. I will be debating in favor that my God doesn't exist, and neither does yours. Requirements: 1) Both Pro and Con may not use any biblical references as to prove a God's existence unless they have been proved to be fact. Scientific evidence must be provided if biblical references are used to prove a God's existence. This includes scriptures, gospels, and any other such data from bibles across the religions. 2) Please keep it civil :) I'm very interested in this debate and if it's possible to take my side of it. We're all people and we're all in this together, so let's have a fun debate! Some quotes and my feelings towards them: 1) Genesis 1:2, "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was good." - Not only is the phrase, "and it was good", something as if it were being told as a story and not fact, from someone's point of view (which they could not have even possibly existed at this time to get this feeling or opinion), but, the creation of any living entity such as grass, can not exist without sunlight. Assuming this story occurs in chronological order, as the creation of entities seems to take place in the beginning of Genesis, then sunlight exists after the creation of grass, which as we know isn't physically possible. 2) Genesis 1:16, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" - Stars are created from what is essentially "space dust", or more scientifically regarded as masses of molecular clouds that are massively dense. This process takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years to complete. If this creation process took a matter of days, then there's no way this process could possibly complete in time for any sort of sustained life. 3) Genesis 3:8, "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden." "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" - The all-powerful super deity who created the sun and the moon, and all the stars in the sky in the blink of an eye, can't find a naked man and woman hiding behind a bush in a garden, a garden of which he created by the way, just seems too "human" like to me. It seems as if the teller of the story put their emotion into this more-so than what would of most likely happened if there was indeed an all-knowing, mighty God. So I'm curious to know if my challenge can provide proof of their God's existence. Beliefs do not apply, as I could rebut with my belief that my God will send laser-mounted gorillas on a rampage if anyone disagrees with him. There must be actual proof of a God's existence from my challenger. Sources: Holy Bible - King James Version http://science.nasa.gov...
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

I changed it. Just remember that my approach is suppose to be scienctific or of a scientist not a philosopher like William Lane Craig and other debaters attempt to do. So its a little bit different. I expect you to debate and argue under this context: I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable.
There are no negatives to moderate drinking

"I say it is a bad effect for the people that it happens to..." I believe that is an admission of the end of this debate. There are negatives to moderate drinking. It does increase your risks to some things. While it is completely agreed that it also decreases your risks to many things too, and that all in all, it is ultimately more benefitial to the average person than heavy drinking, or abstaining from alcohol all together. But that was not the reasoning for this debate. This was for if there are ANY negatives at all, not where the average lies. I will go ahead and allow my opponent to wray up his final summary, and request that he put his souce for his R2 into the last round so that it can be counted. Thank you,
There are no negatives to moderate drinking

My opponent concedes to every other argument except the one about the hemorrhagic stroke saying the moderate drinking has a bad effect (trait) on people (the 15-20% ) I say it is a bad effect for the people that it happens to and let's keep in mind that the moderate drinking is only a contributor not an actual cause; however I say that when weighing the risks of this against a extended life for those haven't started to drink I would say start drinking statistically speaking they should be fine and in reality they should be fine as well. While definition agreed has no baring on the state that person is in the pregnant women would be moderately drinking however the baby would not be because it's size is to small "moderate" it would be more like excessive drinking. The one with the medication would be moderate drinking the bad effect would be the medicine not the drinking. Size, age, and gender actually does matter. thank you Cordially, HPG
There are no negatives to moderate drinking

My opponent states, "...15 -20% are hemorrhagic strokes so in fact drinking helps the majority and only affects the minority of strokes..." I'll remind that this debate is not about the effects of drinking in whole or on average, but just to dispell the myth that there are no negatives to drinking. The fact that I pointed out that moderate drinking raises the risk of a particular type of stroke and my opponent has not been able to refute that claim, only adds to the fact. In regards to the other factors which contribute to the risk of stroke, those don't alter the fact that moderate drinking is, in fact, a contributor. The only arguments that could be attempted to be made would be that either moderate drinking does not increase the risk of a bleeding stroke (hemorrhagic), or that the increase of that kind of stroke is not a "negative" trait. For the other arguments regarding mixing with medication and while pregnant, I was originally going off of a semantic argument, however, I will drop those. Even though the term "moderate" only refers to quantity of alcohol consumed (and the definition agreed has no baring on the state that the person is in, i.e. doesn't adjust that number based on medication, size, age, or pregnancy), I will agree that the drinking of any alcohol while on medication, without the concent of a doctor, is indeed not "moderate" and so not applicable to this debate. Same applies with pregnant, or those other factors of age and size. I will assume that my opponent accepts the removal of this semantic loophole. However, if my opponent does not, he only need say so. I will now pass to my opponent.
There are no negatives to moderate drinking

I was assuming that my opponent was going to let this expire, but since they continued the debate, I will aswell. Moderate drinking, has many benefits, and health experts almost entirely agree that those benefits greatly out weigh the consequences of moderate drinking. However, for anyone to make a truely informed and accurate decision about drinking, it is very important to realize that there are still negatives to moderate drinking which one should consider before choosing that for their life style. 1) Moderate drinking, in many people, will increase their appetite [1]. This can lead to various health issues tied to over-eating if it is not recognized and accounted for. Also ethonal itself already have 5.5 cal per gram [2], so a single shot of 80 proof vodka has 96 calories. Moderate drinking can add over 1,300 calories a week, plus any additional food consumed which adds its own calories to that mix. 2) Stroke [3]. This is not one that many people expected to see, as a decrease of strokes are commonly associated with moderate drinking. However, it is important to know that not all strokes are the same. There are two kinds, those from blood clots, and those from bleeding. As alcohol decreases the risk of a stroke from a blood clot, it increases the risk of a stroke from bleeding. This is important to realize, especially if strokes run in your family. You really want to find out what kind of stoke you are genetically at risk for, so that you can take proper measures. 3) Any level of drinking can cause serious issues when mixed with medication. These effects can vary greatly depending on the type of medication you have to take. [3] 4) Birth defects are also linked to moderate drinking during pregnancy [3]. Though most common defect was stunted growth (the babies were found to be born smaller and shorter), increases in a veriety of defects was found from moderate drinking. [1] http://www.steadyhealth.com... [2] http://www.nutramed.com... [3] http://alcoholism.about.com...
There are no negatives to moderate drinking

The challenge was declined, even though it was said to be "scientific fact." If anyone else would like to defend Geo's comments, this is open to all. This is a challenge based on comments said in this thread. [1] For this debate, we will use the following definitions. negatives - "negative medical effects" so this tosses out any social and financial consequences. moderate drinking - "consumption of 14 alcoholic drinks per weekly, spread evenly throughout the week." This tosses out downing 14 beers on Friday night, while not drinking the rest of the week. Alcoholic drink - "a drink which contains approximately 18 ml (or .6 fl oz) of ethanol." A 4 oz glass of 14% wine would have .56 fl oz of ethanol (approximately 1 drink). A 12 oz can of 5% beer would have .60 fl oz of ethanol. A 1 1/2 oz shot of 80 proof spirit would have .60 fl oz of ethanol. [1] http://www.debate.org...