BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system.

First : I am not a debater, I have never tried a formal debate ever in my life but I thought I'd make good use of some additional free time of late and try my hand at a couple of debates. I have read some of your other debates and found myself going, 'Oh they should have argued this' or 'They should have countered that with this' so naturally I am here to debate. I like debating Christianity because it's an easy way to debate a deeper metaphysical issue: the nature of truth. To keep it simple... there are two major assertions I'll be making: My first assertion defines the epistemological origin of Christianity: 1) That Christianity is a subjective interpretation of the bible that differs from person to person and denomination to denomination. My second assertion defines the nature of these beliefs: 2) That all beliefs in Christianity are a matter of faith, just as other beliefs are matters of faith. That is to say that they are only subjective beliefs and they can not be known to be objectively true, only believed to be. From this I can go many places, but for the sake of focus and simplicity I want to see if we can agree on these two points in some manner, even if the words we'd use are different. From there I will present arguments founded on these points. I don't know if debates normally work this way but it makes sense to me that before we go into specifics we find a stable starting point.
Abortion

I negate the resolved, "Abortion." To clarify, I provide the following term. Abortion(Merriam Webster)-a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus Now before I begin, I understand this is a controversial topic, so I urge voters to vote without bias and only vote on the content. C1: Abortion is claiming many lives TFP Student Action "Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 57 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. That's 155 babies per hour. About 1 every 24 seconds." Since Abortion is claiming many lives, this is bad for us because it is not morally correct to end a life. Furthermore, everyone has the right to live and have a chance in this world. Abortion immorally takes away the lives of many people, thus we must negate. A1: Abortion is morally incorrect Matt Slick I believe he said it best, as explained: "The primary reason abortion is wrong is that God said that we are not to murder. But not all people believe what God says so let's look at it from a different angle. We are allowed to take life under the prescribed requirements of law such as self-defense, war, execution, etc. Each of these areas deals with Law. Self defense is justified because an antagonist is breaking the law (burglary, robbery, assault, etc.,), and we can use force to protect ourselves and our property. War is the legal declaration of hostilities towards another nation. Execution is the legal taking of life against someone who has committed a crime or crimes worthy of execution. In each case, the antagonists are dealt with for the wrongs they have committed. However, the baby in the womb has done no wrong, yet it is executed. It is executed but has broken no law! What crime has been committed? What law have they broken in their existence? None. Yet they are killed." Thus, abortion is incorrect. The baby has done nothing wrong, and yet it gets punished by getting its life taken away from him/her. Negating abortion will allow for the babies that are being aborted get their morally inherent universal life that they are deserved. Thus, I urge a Con ballot and happily wait for my opponent's arguments.
Interrogation (hard or soft)

I just realized that you only gave 15 minute debate times. Anyways, torture is not a neccesary evil. To believe this would mean to believe that society could not continue without evil, which I believe that society could survive solely on the forces of good. Other arguments...A. Torture is not effective.B. Torture is inhumane.C. Torture requires high amounts of moral judgement.http://www.livescience.com...I would like to get more indepth, but only 15 minutes you know.
Policy Debate: Clinton vs. Trump

Thank you for responding to my arguments. I'm sorry that I took long to respond to your argument. Minimum wage (http://minimum-wage.procon.org...) Minimum wage would also cause employers to lay of more workers. Employers will have to pay more because of the minimum wage is raised. It will make the employed have better wages but will cause others to be unemployed which raises our poverty rate. Also minimum wage would hurt small companies because they would have to pay more, because of this their workers that they employed will again raise our poverty rate. Health Care "Every American deserves access to high quality, affordable health care, not just insurance. Obamacare has failed on cost and quality of health care. It must be repealed. America needs a patient-centered health care system, allowing families and their doctors to be primary decision makers. Provide for the sale of health insurance across state lines." (https://www.google.com...) Donald Trump wants every American to have quality, good, affordable healthcare, and that's also what i believe in. Thank you for your response I hope for a good rest of the debate. :)
Policy Debate: Clinton vs. Trump

Thank you for your arguments.I understand that considerable gains have been made in terms of gun control, but there is still much work to be done. The Charleston loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to kill nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina has yet to be closed, and suspected terrorists can still buy firearms, which allowed Omar Mateen to commit the mass shooting in Orlando. No, the solution is not to ban guns, nor is that what Hillary Clinton is proposing. I do not dispute that guns can help stop crime, but the fact is irrelevant.The Supreme Court ruled that "reasonable regulations" on guns were perfectly constitutional. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) I think that preventing suspected terrorists from getting assault weapons is perfectly reasonable. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you?Hillary was referring to trade, meaning she supports free trade. This type of "open border" does not mean that immigrants can pour across the border as Breitbart imagines. Finally you say that Clinton's minimum wage hike will devalue our currency and ruin the economy, yet you don't give any evidence as to why. Many people in this country are suffering because of this--in most parts of the country people cannot live on $7.25 an hour. We need to raise the minimum wage to help these people out of the cycle of poverty and decrease income inequality. Since you have not given any direct evidence as to why the minimum wage hurts the economy, this point is void.So sorry my arguments have been rather short. I'm swamped with homework right now.Looking forward to your responses!
Policy Debate: Clinton vs. Trump

Gun laws Gun laws are not as loose as you think they are. You need a background check, an ID card, and have to buy from a registered gun dealer to purchase a fully automatic rifle. (https://www.quora.com...) Actually guns are beneficial for an area such as Houston, Texas comparing to Chicago, Illinois. In Chicago you can not get a concealed weapon permit and there are no dedicated gun stores, there were 1,806 homicides reported in 2012. In Houston on the other hand guns are bought often. There are 184 gun dedicated stores and concealed weapons are legal, in 2012 there were 207 homicides. That's a whopping 1,599 difference in homicides. (http://www.glennbeck.com...) Also not to mention the second amendment of the constitution. Guns actually prevent crime, not the opposite and should not be banned. Donald Trump sees it this way and will lead America into a safer country for all of us. Immigration (http://www.breitbart.com...) As said in the article above Hillary Clinton wants open borders. "May 16, 2013, Clinton said: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." Why should we keep open borders when immigrants (I'm not saying all of them) have a possibility to propose danger to us. America's first priority should be for our safety. Jobs and Economy https://www.google.com... "Inequality is too high, wages are too low and it is too hard to get ahead." Hillary Clinton wants to raise minimum wages. While that sounds like a good idea at first it would ruin our economy. If we raise minimum wage everything the amount of a dollar would go down, causing everything's price to raise. People who are originally homeless would need more money to get basic needs such as food, water, and clothes because it's more expensive and it's hard to find that money. Just because we raise the minimum wage doesn't mean we'll create more jobs.
Policy Debate: Clinton vs. Trump

Donald Trumps gun laws state that guns should not be banned. I stand firmly behind this for several reasons. Firstly countries like Switzerland for example require a gun in most households, as it turns out Switzerland is one of the safest countries to live in. Another example is Houston, Texas and Chicago, Illinois. In Chicago you can not get a concealed weapon permit and there are no dedicated gun stores, there were 1,806 homicides reported in 2012. In Houston on the other hand guns are bought often. There are 184 gun dedicated stores and concealed weapons are legal, in 2012 there were 207 homicides. That's a whopping 1,599 difference in homicides. Also not to mention the second amendment of the constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." banning guns would contradict the second amendment though possible to change the second amendment it was created for a reason. Guns actually prevent crime, not the opposite and should not be banned. Donald Trump sees it this way and will lead America into a safer country for all of us.
is it racist that white piece gets the first chance to move in chess game

You ignorant fool! The white chess pieces have oppressed and enslaved the black chess piece for over 400 games! Even after the great king chessingham lincoln supposedly freed the blacks, they were still slaves to the white piece. After the civil war between slave owning whites vs non slave owning whites, the 'SYSTEM' put the blacks down with the bishop crow laws stating that the white pieces always get to move first. Also, the term black is racist, call them dark wooden chess pieces, you know, just a bit more pc. Anyways, it is the institutionalized racism in chess that lets the white honky piece move first.
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

Thanks for Pro and for her swift reply. CON's CASEPro says that both Captains sacrificed their ships, so this is non-unique. Pro never does challenge though that Kirk's action, not the one Pro discusses, but the one I provided, illustrates Kirk's headstrong nature. Picard is much more evenly balanced, and Pro never offers arguments to the contrary. PRO's CASE1. Pro drops the attractiveness is subjective, and thus it is a poor way to assess which captain is better. Pro cites two "polls" to counter mine. Firstly, Pro's source No. 2 is not a poll--it's methodology is described thusly: "We've made these choices based on overall fan reaction, impact on the franchise, character relevance to the best moments in the films/series, and significance in the Trek universe, as well as our own arbitrary favorites. You might be surprised that a few of your own faves didn't make the list. " When Pro tries to out-poll me, Pro implicitly accepts that the fan's approval of captains is an important, quantifiable way of measuring which is better. Since Pro's source isn't a poll (because it's based on non-poll factors) it doesn't outweigh my poll. Regarding Pro's source 3, while this is an actual poll, it only has 15,000 votes instead of my poll's 50,000--and Pro's poll is specific too a zombie attack whereas mine is about who is the better captain overall. Thus, prefer my poll.2 + 3. Pro does not defend these points. They are in contradiction, and so cancel out.4. Pro says that cheating is a novel approach, but that doesn't obviate the point that I made last round that, "If I can make the rules of the game whatever I want, then of course I can win. It is much more a test of my personal skill to attain victory in the face of difficult odds and unfavorable rules. "5. Pro drops this as well. It's moot.
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

Thank you for those points! And good luck to you! You said Picard had to sacrifice his ship. So did Kirk. Kirk and company feign surrender and activate the Enterprise's self-destruct sequence, killing the Klingon boarding party while the Enterprise crew transports to the planet's surface. [1] You may think cheating isn't something someone should get a reward on, but others disagree. It's thinking out of the box and shows that Kirk tries to make the best out of every situation. Kirk also saved the world from a probe looking for whales. I'm positive Picard never did that. Kirk is the top character in all of Star Trek according to this poll. Picard comes in a dismal third place, after Spock. [2] This other poll also states Captain James Tiberius Kirk would survive the longest in a zombie apocalypse. [3] I thank Con for a lovely debate and I hope that maybe we can debate again in the future. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.ign.com... [3] http://www.startrek.com...
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

I would like to see some episodes where Kirk makes a hurried decision and it turns out to be a bad one, just for proof. On your point two, I think a captain needs to be a bit authoritarian because he is in charge of the whole starship. He needs to take command and be in charge. So it isn't necessarily a bad thing. And he never overused his authority, and valued his and others freedom. Also, Kirk did usually try to consider all options. He also valued life more and tried to choose the option that would save more lives. In the TOS episode "Whom Gods Destroy," a shape-shifter named Garth shifts into another Kirk. Spock is trying to figure out which is the real one. The real Kirk says to stun both, to ensure the safety of the Enterprise. [1] Thank you for some good points, and remember, only rebuttals this round. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

I'll keep my arguments roughly in the same vein as Pro's for this round--I'll go into more depth later. I thank Pro for this debate. 1. Picard is much less rash than Kirk--Kirk tends to rush off and make ill-considered decisions whereas Picard tends to carefully evaluate all options. 2. Picard was more diplomatic and inclusive in his decision-making and not as authoritarian as Kirk in his leadership style. Frankly, I think these two points are sufficient to show Picard to be a better captain. I look forward to discussing these points and Pro's in depth in later rounds.
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

Thank you for accepting and posting your acceptance. I'm looking forward to it as well. Remember, the points can be a bit ridiculous and funny, but just follow the rules I set and have fun! Remember, no rebuttals this round, just points. 1. Captain Kirk actually has hair, and he's actually cute (I'm a girl, by the way). Many people say Picard was handsome, but I think they are only being nice. 2. Kirk breaks the prime directive sometimes to help others. While Picard would rather just watch them die, than break the prime directive. 3. Picard let Wesley go down on a planet, where he breaks one of their only rules and gets the death sentence. He tries to get him back with no avail, so he rescues an annoying ensign and then also breaks the most important rule in Starfleet, when he could've left Wesley to die and followed the prime directive. Kirk would've done the latter. 4. Picard gets outsmarted by an acting ensign. Kirk outsmarted almost all of Starfleet by winning the Kobayashi Maru. 5. Kirk became an admiral when we has 37 [1]. Picard never made admiral. Again, thank you for accepting, and I'm looking forward to a great debate! [1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...
Captain Kirk is better than Picard

*-*-*PLEASE READ ALL*-*-* To accept, you must have some basic knowledge of TOS and TNG. If you don't know what that is, you probably shouldn't accept this debate. I tried to make this debate impossible to accept, but if you are somehow able to, please don't. I don't want any forfeits if you can help it, so please be able to post every time! I will give you 3 days to post. First Round: Acceptance *ONLY* Second Round: Opening Arguments & Statements *ONLY* Third Round: Rebuttals Fourth Round: Closing Rebuttals & Conclusions Please follow these rules! This is my first debate that I created, so I'm a little new and slow to all of this. Sorry!
An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god, and free will can't coincide.

If God is all powerful, and all knowing then he can never be faced with a dilemma. With his foreknowledge he can never be faced with a surprise. Everything that happens could only happen with his approval. This implies that you could never do anything against God's will because if it is against his will, and he know what the act you did was he could stop it. If he did not stop it it can only be because he wanted it to happen because God can't be faced with a situation in which he is either against an action but can't stop it or succumb to limitations as he is supposed to be all powerful.
An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god, and free will can't coincide.

Accordingly, Because God is the most high, and his judgments are to not be contradicted, but instead acknowledged, in the state of mind that, If God is the God we are talking about, his judgments are the manifestation of wisdom itself. -God can give freewill to anyone, even if logically it is bewildering. -knowing the outcome does not manifest the result. -God can not want something but allow it to happen. Like watching a child stuff his face with cake before eating his dinner. -Freewill without a Creator means math is the usurper of all decisions, leaving no decisions available. Amen. I love doing this.
Strict constructionist judges should not be appointed to the United States Supreme Court

As I said in the comments section, I've been working on computer issues for a while now. You seem to have forgotten a few very important aspects of the American legal system. Our system is meant to be one with checks and balances, so that no one branch of the government supersedes any other. The roles of each branches are set by our constitution. The role of the Legislative branch is to write the laws, the role of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws, and the rule of the executive branch is to enforce the laws. Knowing this, let us examine your position. You believe that simply because a small amount of our country (none of which has any real representation, by the way), a few judges, should be able to literally change our constitution and twist it the way they see fit. This can lead only to tyranny. Even if you might disagree with the constitution as it was written, it was indeed written and agreed upon by citizens. If citizens were to happen to become unhappy with the constitution they have another way of changing it outside of the judicial branch, they may use the proper branch- the legislative one. The judicial policy of constitutionalism, does not assume that laws are perfect as they are written, rather it knows that they are not the ones that might choose what is 'perfect' or 'right' based on their own political opinions. When something is obviously against what was originally intended, then their 'interpreting' it so that it has a different interpretation than it was originally is essentially rewriting the constitution, jumping over the all important stage of the legislative branch. The legislative branch, as to our current rules should be open to change- but only if it is done fairly. If the people through the legislative branch no longer like the first amendment, then they should vote to abolish it- however, if five judges want to interpret the first amendment as the right to sit down and shut up, they should be denied this privilege. The courts duty is not to create new laws, or modify laws so that they no longer mirror already written and constitutional law, but to follow the law, and follow the constitution- be sure that all laws follow the constitution as it was intended, not as they intend it to be.
Strict constructionist judges should not be appointed to the United States Supreme Court

Greetings, In this debate, I will be arguing that strict constructionist judges should not be appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Definition: Strict constructionism – legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that requires a judge to apply the text as it is written and no further, once the meaning of the text has been ascertained. In this debate, here are my main arguments: By appointing strict constructionist judges to the United States Supreme Court, only the original text of a law would be imposed. This is wrong. First of all, this judicial philosophy seems to assume that previous laws are already at perfection. It ignores the fact that better ideas may not have been incorporated into previous laws. While it is indeed possible that some previous laws are already at perfection, the point is, it is ALSO possible that many are not. Thus, in order to seek higher levels of perfection in government, strict constructionist judges should not be appointed to the United States Supreme Court. For the people being affected by the Untied States Supreme Court's decisions, it is therefore possible that they may be wrongly affected, due to a flawed decision on part of the Supreme Court. The strict interpretation used by strict constructionist judges is flawed. Judges should be open to change, rather than adhering to laws that, although may have been needed hundreds of years ago, no longer apply. Simply because particular policy choices are currently embodies in the law does not necessarily make them right. It is indeed possible that lawmakers came to an incorrect conclusion, and therefore the Supreme Court would be imposing a flawed decision. However, if the United States appoints more open-minded judges (i.e. judges that would be open to review various cases independently, more logically analytical, willing to debate vigilantly, and who can acknowledge the fact that all laws are not infallible), a greater chance for more beneficial decisions can be obtained.