BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative action by race in education should be illegal

For the purpose of this debate, affirmative action will be defined as the practice of favoring minority students in admissions for education. It is sometimes referred to as "positive discrimination", which is an admission that it is discrimination with the assertion that discrimination is "positive" when it is against whites. We figured out a few years ago why discrimination isn't okay when it's against blacks; now I think it's time to figure out whether or not it's O.K. when it's against whites. Some people actually believe that affirmative action should be used to favor women in education, even though 57% of college students are female [1]. My opponent is not required to take this position in this debate. This debate will be about whether or not minorities should receive preferential treatment in college admissions. Questions go in the comments (ironically enough). I thank my opponent in advance for an excellent debate.[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...;
The universe was Created by God and not by evolution.

To begin with, neither side of this debate can be proven 100%. There is not hard evidence that will prove either side so my aim is not to prove anything. Instead, I will be able to show that a Creation theory universe is extremely improbable and that the Evolution theory is much more practical, logical and probable. I personally believe that the Creation theory is completely absurd and Evolution is actually scientific and logical. I am anxious to see Pro's case next round and their argument!
The universe was Created by God and not by evolution.

I believe that No matter what way you look at how the earth was created you will find you have to have faith in something, and by using the most logical observations will find the most practical and explainable way the earth became is by the Bibical creation by God in 7 days. I am looking for someone who believes the earth became though evolution and does not believe in God to try to convince me that the 7 day creation is not possible. Any one who is up to the challenge I will be more than happy to debate.
Rudy Giuliani has gone to far!!!

I was watching CNN the other day when I saw the saddest thing, a commercial for Rudy Giuliani. But this commercial was different. This commercial had another plot by Rudy Giuliani to bank on the fact that he happened to be there when his city was attacked. This new plot of his you may ask was that the base of the commercial was video from 9/11. Now he's gone to far until now that subject has been on hallowed ground no other candidate has gone as far as using the deaths of those people to his advantage and it makes me sick that he did. But what makes it worse is the fact that he's not even a great candidate he technically qualifies but he definitely doesn't have what it takes to become president he's just the mayor that happened to be there when it happened. Plus he wasn't even the one to start the search and rescue operations he came in later and I wouldn't be surprised if he went into hiding right after the attacks. And any mayor in his place would have done the same thing during the attacks.
Rudy Giuliani has gone to far!!!

Rudy's participation in 9-11 is debatable. He was a formidable leader, though mistakes were made. But, he isn't trying to lean on 9-11 as a crutch. If anything, 9-11 hurt his candidacy. If you listen to Rudy on the campaign trail and in the debates, he is very humble about his performance during 9-11 and does nothing but preach his pre-9-11 record. The years before 9-11 were phenominal. As I commented below, Rudy worked as associate attorney general under Reagan. Then he fought wall street corruption as a lawyer in NYC. He was a Republican who got elected in a city with 4-1 Democratic voters. Talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. overall crime was cut by 56%, murder was cut by 66%, and New York City—once considered the crime capital of the country—became the safest large city in America according to the FBI. New York City's law enforcement strategy has become a model for other cities around the world. When Mayor Giuliani took office, one of every seven New Yorkers was on welfare. Mayor Giuliani implemented the largest and most successful welfare-to-work initiative in the country, turning welfare offices into Job Centers, leading to the reduction of welfare rolls by 640,000, or nearly 60%, to the lowest level since 1966. reducing or eliminating 23 city taxes while turning an inherited $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus. Personally, I could care less about the 9-11 involvement. I think he was in the right place at the right time and did a formidable job. If anything it shows his leadership, at least on a heart and soul type of level. His amazing record before 9-11 is why I support him. He has proven that he can turn around a large executive office. Isn't that what everyone wants now? Rudy runs 9-11 ads to remind people what is at stake. I'm not sure the particular ad you are referencing, but it is meant to show voters that we are in a necessary predicament, not to gloat about Guiliani's involvement.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

First Of All, Thanks For Accepting. 1: The CIA, FBI, And NSA Each Had Separate Information. That, Linked Together, Could Possibly Indicate What Bin Laden Was Planning. 2: Like In Any Conspiracy Theory, If The U.S Did Have Information That Al-Qaeda Was Planning 9/11 Then Somebody Would Have Squealed. 3: If This Was Done For Oil, Why Are The Oil Prices Sill High? And Why Have We Gotten Very Little, If Any Oil From Iraq?
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

Okay I accept,I will be arguing "9/11 was an inside job",under these definitions:9/11:September 11, 2001. On this date, two hijacked commercial airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. A third hijacked airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth went down in a field in Pennsylvania.Inside Job:A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.Truther:Person believing that the U.S. government perpetrated or allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.First argeement:U.S. government allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen! It is their job to stop this from occuring, yet they don't even know? Please sugar baby, stop with the excuses.It probably wouldn't of happened if the government was more responsible and stuff.Kinda suspicious...It's the government man!First it was aliens, now it's buildings.Shame on you.Second Arguement:My opponent is obviously involved with the government and is trying to brainwash the public!Just Kidding lol
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

To blame is to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong, I'm just saying they failed, because they did.They failed to prevent it, meaning they allowed it because they to permited it by neglect. "Osama was interviewed by a british reporter in 1998 and confirmed everything I just said." What interview? What british reporter? What publication? Are you hiding something about the the report? Then just don't be vague sugar plum.Second, I never said blaming the government for failing to stop 9/11 made it an inside job.If you look at my very first round I defined everything! "Inside Job:A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred."You can look into my 2nd and 3rd round and I clearly point out how its an inside job:"The problem with it not being an inside job is the fact the plane Al-Qaeda used was american, IN AMERICA!How could they be within the premises in the first place? They had to get in the plane and everything with some assistence!In my last argument you failed to rebuke, I showed 9/11, even by definition, was an inside job."Where did the crime happen? In AmerciaWhere was the person responsible working? In America (the premises where it occured)Al-Qaeda was in America, they worked in America, they had terrorist assistance in America.Steven Hawking has even confirmed this:"the plane destroyed the building whilst inside."I think he's smarter than you.And you have yet to tell me how on earth, Al-Qaeda even did this outside of America.You have yet to prove me wrong... nope...You never even gave that there was "Plenty Of Evidence That Debunks Claims By "Truthers". I Will Happily Debate And Show You That You Are Wrong."Never even did that, you just proved me right!So it remains 9/11 WAS actually and inside job by definition, and did not occur as an outside job or anything else."Thats about it. and asking for votes proves you have a suckie argument"Well they must be pretty good arguments to you since your only proof was that I asked for votes.How pathetic.I rest my casting.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

The capitalization thing is a bad habit. Anyway, your argument seems unorganized and with very little debatable subjects. Al-Qaeda attacked us because: 1# Osama was furious that Saudi Arabia choose to ask to United States to help protect them from Iraq in 1991 instead of al-Qaeda 2# They hated us because we supported Israel. 3# They believe that whoever is not Muslim is evil, and they view the U.S as a Christian state 4# They felt abandoned that we just left them after the soviet invasion of 1979-1989 Instead of blaming the government, blame the jerks who actually blew up the WTC and the pentagon and killed 3,000 people
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

I'm assuming you are using the same definitions? Rebuttal:"1: The CIA, FBI, And NSA Each Had Separate Information. That, Linked Together, Could Possibly Indicate What Bin Laden Was Planning. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda. .. The problem is that they failed to do so. This is not okay, we're talking. .. National Security here! "2: Like In Any Conspiracy Theory, If The U. S Did Have Information That Al-Qaeda Was Planning 9/11 Then Somebody Would Have Squealed. ". .. Okay. .. and. .. are you implying that the U. S did not? Because. .. to base your argument on that is argumentum e silentio. And if they didn't, they are still failing to prevent Al-Quesdilla ~whatever.3: If This Was Done For Oil, Why Are The Oil Prices Sill High? And Why Have We Gotten Very Little, If Any Oil From Iraq? And Why Do You Capitalize The First Letter In Every Word You Write? Title of my new book, you should check it out. .. Are these the titles of books you want me to read? I can't explain it, you can't explain it, nobody can't explain it. Also. .. what does oil have to do with it? Seems like a fallacy of distraction. .. doesn't really address the issue in question. C'mon man. .. that's just cold. Argeement:First off. .. Lets look at the facts. .. Not only one. .. but two, Hijacked commercial airliners just so happen to fly into the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! You can't explain that. .This suggest, something. .. possibly terrorism. .. And this just happens to be in the U. S. ? . .. you can't just tell me that's a coincidence. Somethin's up. .. You know what the opposite of a truther is? .. .A liar. *Disconsidering if truther is a misnomer. *Here are some very nice sites I recommend you visit, I'm sure you will learn something new and interesting! . http://oldwebsites.ltschools.org...http://www.writersblock.ca...http://www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com...http://www.grammarbook.com...
Should Monday be a school day

Yes I guess............. But we all have are own opinion..............But I guess you closer to right them me............so............since this is settled.........would you like to be friends just because............ then maybe sometime you would like to do something like this again or something.............P.S. not trying to be creepy...........and you don't have to say yes because I'm find with what ever you say..........so..........want to be friends........??????
Should Monday be a school day

I admit that teachers would have more time to grade stuff and relax, but I don't really think that is an excuse. Teachers signed up for being teachers knowing that they would be stressed a lot, just like any other job. But, that's normal. Anyway, the teacher job application requires them to be "friendly with students" How can they do that if they only see them 4 times (or less!) a week?As for the students, they would be more relaxed due to the shortened school week. They would be less likely to pay attention in school, to do their homework, to do their school work, and other bad consequences. Sure, they might have more fun in the short term, but in the long term, about 10 years from there, they will do badly in college because they didn't study when they were young. Does that sound good for you?
Should Monday be a school day

No Teachers and kids need time to be out of school. Teachers: Teachers are probably stress in school and when they have homework to grade it's even harder,but if there was at lest one day less of school would be one less day of worry. kids: Kids love to be in there favorite stuff like sports some sports are during school and it's harder to do homework during the sport. Kids also love to relax, That could be watching T.V. or playing a sport. Who kid would say no to less school......P.S. not all but most kids would.
Should Monday be a school day

There is a problem with having 4 days in a school week. This is a really bad problem: Summer vacaction starts later.The school year has to contain a certain amount of days in it. 190 teaching days, if I am correct (https://www.bing.com...). So, if the school week is shorter and we get Mondays off, then the school year will have to become longer, adding 10 extra 4 day weeks of school. This really stinks! We would lose a whole month of summer vacation, approximately! Intolerable!Also, for those that don't like Mondays and hate waking up to go to work, go to school, making breakfast for the people going to work/school, think about this. If we get Mondays off, then everyone has to do the above on Tuesday, effectively making it the new Monday. :PTaking all the above into accord, the school week could be shortened, but it is not the greater interest of the video game players and the school haters to do so.
Techno "music" shouldn't be considered as "proper" music

Greetings. I would first like to address the notion of what my opponent would have you believe is "proper music" - basically, audio that one would be able to comfortably listen to, without engaging in any other activity. This is, unless I am mistaken (and I humbly doubt I am) is what his argument revolves around, as the dance club example is essentially the same. Although I could merely dismiss the argument as opinion, I will instead seek to prove that his ideas on "proper music" are greatly flawed. He would like you to think that nobody can possibly just enjoy techno/dance music, without having something else to do. Well, this is completely untrue. For example, one can go to a techno/dance music concert, which is just the same as a concert of any other music genre, where people are there to just to enjoy the music and have a good time. Secondly, and perhaps the nail in the coffin for my opponent, is the fact that there are *600 billion* or so people on this earth. The idea that not one single person, out of all these people, is capable of simply enjoying techno/trance music if not engaged in another activity is simply comical. Lastly, I myself, as a fan of everything from A-Ha to Ludwig van to ZZ Top, could, if so inclined, choose to do nothing else and merely listen to the song that was playing. Yes, even my extensive trance collection. However, many would agree that this is simply not the best way to listen to music, and certainly not the measure of what makes a musical genre valid or not. I have included one of the greatest techno singles of all time, and, if anyone chooses to do so, feel free to start the track and immediately turn the other way so as not to see the video; whatever you're into. :Phttp://www.youtube.com...
Techno "music" shouldn't be considered as "proper" music

Lately, I have had people sending me links to techno songs to listen to. Now, I know that people have different tastes and opinions, so I'm not trying to prove that its rubbish, but that it shouldn't be considered proper music. Now, by proper music this is what I mean: I would sit in my room, and listen to... Appetite for Destruction by Guns 'N' Roses (for example). And I would do just that. Sit and listen with nothing else on or doing anything else (reading, typing, chatting etc...). However, I doubt that anybody can listen to (for example) Jumping All Over The World by Mc Scooter in the same way. Sure some of his songs are great when your at a party with friend's in a club or what not, but techno music is simply that, background music, and not proper music that you can sit down and listen to. Another good example is: Have you ever been in a club and a group of people have stopped dancing, chatting to strain their ears and listen to the song that's playing. No.
Semi-Automatic Firearms should be illegal for Civilians - Exception is with permit

As my opponent has gone off-topic multiple times in this debate, I will attempt to keep this round organized by listing my opponent's suggested changes to the process of buying a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm relative to the current process. My opponent's suggestions for requirements to get a permit 1) "people should be required to register with 4473 forms" 2) "the current requirements to get a firearm should be maintained" 3) "making dangerous, at risk mentally instable/ psychiatric problematic people prevented from obtaining semi-automatic firearms" These are the only listed requirements that my opponent suggests for getting a permit for being allowed to own a semi-automatic firearm, and suggests that they should otherwise be made illegal. Current requirements for owning a semi-automatic firearm 1) Successfully filling out form 4473 and passing the subsequent federal background check 2) Being 18 or 21 years old (18 for a rifle/shotgun and 21 for a handgun) 3) As part of the background check, having not been legally declared mentally unstable So really, the only difference between what my opponent suggests and what is already in place, is that people who can already own semi-automatic weapons would be given permits. How then does that further restrict the legality of semi-automatic firearms as my opponent suggests we should? My opponent says, "A permit should be required for any semi-automatic gun purchases because history has proven that permits and registrations reduce gun violence." I have already shown how this statement is incorrect because he suggests no new restrictions that aren't already in place and merely giving a permit to people who already can legally purchase a semi-automatic firearm makes no difference to anything. "I am saying that semi-automatic firearms that can also be fully automatic firearms should be illegal for all outside of the military because they are just to dangerous to the populace of a community." We are not discussing the legality of full-auto weapons and thus that statement is irrelevent and should be disregarded. Conclusion: My opponent has not presented any new restrictions to the ability to purchase semi-automatic firearms and thus suggests that people who can already purchase those weapons be given permits, despite the fact that those permits will in no way impact who owns a semi-automatic firearm.
Semi-Automatic Firearms should be illegal for Civilians - Exception is with permit

I believe that civilians should not own semi-automatic firearms. They have no useful purpose that can be filled by a less violent weapon/ action.Semi-automatic Guns: Guns that do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon.Civilian: One not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting forceFirearm: A weapon from which a shot is discharged from.Semi-automatic firearms are not a good idea in the civilian population. They can fall into the wrong hands. For example, mentally distressed civilians could gain hold of semi-automatic weapons, causing untold problems. This occurred in the Columbine Massacre. I will in the next round state my real points and such. Also, I do not mean by the title of this debate that "underage semi-automatic weapons," weapons such as paintball guns, BB guns, etc, should be banned. I just thought I should point this out.
Goku vs Naruto

My opponent will be arguing in favor of Naruto winning. Rules: No trolling, swearing, or insults. If you accept, you must do the research and no forfeiting on any round unless you give a good reason for doing so, and post your arguement for any missed rounds in the current round. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: State your case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Defend your case Round 5: Constructive Criticism and Final Words (No debating)
Goku vs Naruto

My case is that Goku would be able to defeat Naruto very easily. I will be covering 4 topics Goku's strength, speed, durability, and skills/techniques based on usefulness. Strength: In the Buu saga, Goku lifted 40 tons in 10x Earths gravity meaning he lifted 400 tons. Later in the movie Battle of Gods, which was stated to be canon by Akira Toriyama, he punched through King Kai's planet during a sparring match with Beerus. The planet had a radius of about 30 meters and yet 10x the gravity of Earth making its density and difficulty to punch through much more staggering than trying to punch through Earth, possibly exceeding the difficulty of trying to punch through a star. http://static.comicvine.com... http://static.comicvine.com... Speed: When Goku fought Tien in the World Martial Arts Tournament, Tien used a technique called the Solar Flare which is just a bright flash of light. When Tien unleashed the attack, Goku ran over to Master Roshi and grabbed his sunglasses before the light reached him. This means that he equalled or exceeded the speed of light. Due to Goku's training it is likely that he got even faster since even gods like Kami and King Kai couldn't track his movements and by the time we reach the Buu saga he must be massively faster than light. http://z.mhcdn.net... http://static.comicvine.com... http://static.comicvine.com... http://static.comicvine.com... Skills/Techniques: Goku's Saiyan blood allows him to recognize and adapt to many types of fighting styles only after seeing them once or twice. Goku can use Energy Blasts, an Invisible Eye Blast, Krillin's Destructo Disk which can cut through almost anything, his signature technique the Kamehameha, the Solar Flare, the Dragon Fist, and the Spirit Bomb. He is a Martial Arts genius and has fighting skills like the Afterimage Technique, the Dragon Throw a Full Nelson, and many other techniques that would take too long to name. Durability: Goku tanked a Kamehameha from a being that destroyed a galaxy over the course of a few years meaning he would need to destroy multiple Solar systems in one day and Dragon Ball galaxies are MUCH larger the real life galaxies only making this feat more impressive. He takes punches and energy blasts from planet busters on the daily. He even went inside of and absorbed the God of Destruction Beerus's God of Destruction energy sphere which is Beerus's most powerful attack. http://lounge.moviecodec.com...
Are minivans dying

Although it may seem like minivans are dying it is actually making a comeback! Of course in the beginning of the 2000s it had a bit of a harsh start but the sales are going up instead of down. Of course SUV's are bigger than minivans, but that doesn't mean that minivans are dying out. They're two separate things with two separate quarterly sales. As I was saying minivans are also a well-known breed of car and are iconic for being a trademark of a soccer mom. As long as they remain well known people will keep buying them, and there will most likely be more soccer moms in the future so I don't think we need to worry about minivans dying out any time soon.