BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do you think gaming systems should Shut off after a few straight hours of being used

I strongly beilieve that gaming systems should go off automatically after being played a few hours straight because most gamers lose track of time which can be very dangerous. Sitting for too long when playing hours at a time per day can really stop your circulation and eventually cause death. I mean, you would think that the older gamers would have better judgement. . or so i thought. . http://www.aol.com... Besides, we need to focus on spending time on more important things like homework and physical activity that can actually be a benifit to us. . http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Abortion should be an option

For my first argument i would like to focus on what appeared to be your main support for why abortion should be an option, which was that babies can be a huge burden on the life of women. This is a statement in which i can agree with 100% but after saying this i would like to say that having a child does not have to be a burden(except for the 9 months of pregnancy) due to the fact that their are many options as to where the child can go once being born. One of these places can be with a family. I completely understand that sometimes family members may be the ones pushing for an abortion or not accepting of a child but even then there are other options. The next option would be to put your pre-born child up for adoption. This method would allow you to choose parents that you deem to be right. Lastly i would like to say that if putting a child up for is too hard to go through, with then you can drop a child off at Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses as part of the safe haven protection laws. In conclusion i would to say that if a person wishes to abort a baby they should first attempt to go through one of the processes above. If the instigator wishes to ask me to counter one of her other arguments or explain my argument further i would be happy to do so. Definition: Safe-haven law- Laws that allow an unharmed infant to be relinquished to the proper authorities( Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses), no questions asked.
Abortion should be an option

Abortion is a controversial thing in modern society. Personally, it doesn't make sense to cause an uproar. A mother has every right to do what she wants with her baby. She created that life herself and she can easily take it away. Are you going through the pain and suffering of having 20 pounds out your vagina? If the mother sees she is not fit for a baby then she has every right to do so. Then, hordes of people starts whining "Oh no the fetus has so much potential!" and "The fetus couldn't decide for itself!" without knowing the whole story, and she's a stranger to the whiners! All there is as a debate is "sympathy". "Sympathy" is not getting you anywhere logically because it is running on emotions, not logic. Those who run on emotions and morals are blinded from seeing what is best and what are facts. They don't know her, they don't know how she is mentally, she is nothing but a stranger to them. Then, all these "slacktivist" starts causing an uproar because they "totally knows what's best for another woman's child!" What the slacktivist don't realize abortion isn't just black and white. It's extremely circumstantial. Such as rape, underage, can't afford, birth defects, irresponsible mother, having a baby that will endanger your life, a stop to a career, overpopulation, and the list never stops! Maybe 1 out of the 10 aborts for the heck of it. If you stop making abortions an options what about everyone else? Another final point I'm going to add, if you're against abortions, what are you gonna do? Huh? You're throwing this financial weight on a female that is really don't want we should expect you to do something right? Unless you are going to support that baby until adulthood you have no right to say because that baby is not yours and has no ties or connections to you. You're doing nothing but yelling over a keyboard. Thanks for reading all of this, I'm a total amateur at debates but this is something I feel very passionate about. I'm very excited to hear what you guys have to say!
United States Drivers Need to Periodically Retake Road Test for License Renewal

Just the other day I saw a driver try to make a left turn without yielding to oncoming traffic. The opposing driver, who had a green light, honked his horn at the driver that was turning left. Interestingly the driver turning left was outraged and kept making angry gestures at people while inching more and more into their lane as they passed by; apparently he thought he had a right away as I saw him turn without yielding at another light.I rest my case.
United States Drivers Need to Periodically Retake Road Test for License Renewal

I will be arguing that non-commercial drivers (most commonly a class D license) in the United States should be required to retake a road test every 3-5 years in order to renew their driving license.I plan to argue the benefits of having United States drivers with a standard license prove they can drive safely on the road. I will also exemplify justification for issuing a law requiring all drivers to do the test, no matter of age.Please keep within the scope of the United StatesRound 1 is for acceptance and short outline of future arguments.Round 2 is for opening arguments, no rebuttal.Round 3 is for Rebuttal and new arguments (limit of 2 new)Round 4 Final rebuttals (no new arguments), and summary (if you choose to). Any questions feel free to message me or comment before accepting, or during any part of the debate.
Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

I will begin by going over the definition of humanism and feminism. Humanism: An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. The ideology of humanism covers all human matters. It protects men, women, animals, our planet, our technology, our sciences, the actions we humans do, and so much more. Feminism claims to be for equality, but if they were for equality, why is it that Feminists and the M. R. A. (Men's Rights Movement) are so opposed to each other? The M. R. A. fights for equality, and feminism CLAIMS to. So if they really fought for equality, why wouldn't they be allied? I'll just leave that initial argument there to start up a conversation.
War game Scenario: Russia(pro) versus The United States of America(Con)

Please do not count that forfeit against my opponent as I believe what my next move will be is plenty since he forfeited. I'll just do a summary of my moves. Russia breaks through American cyber defenses. All American satellites are now under Russian control and brought into range to be shot down by ASATs. Along with that, The Stuxnet comes in with a massive host of powerful trojans with it. The power grid is shut down causing the largest blackout in history. Radar and communications are jammed. Russian sabatoures manage to destroy 10 airports. Russia send in the Russian Sea of Okhotsk fleet along with the Bearing and Chucki sea fleet to attack the Pacific fleet of America. They start in Alaska supported by aircraft. With the cyber attack and radar jammed, they don't stand much of a chance. Russia makes an agreement with Bahamas for 50 million to station aircraft there. with no radar and being crippled by a cyber attack 100 Russian planes do a swift strike on Washington. Many government officials are killed. They later are able to attack the fleet at Hawaii they don't suffer many losses as compared to the Americans. The east coast of America is put under a blockade in what is known as the siege of America. However they don't invade, they just slow any possible advance. A minefield is placed making all ships going to or from California are stopped or destroyed. The Russian navy goes back to the the threat vectors although some decide to reinforce the Black sea and the Baltic sea. Sorry for the lack of details, I am on a bit of a time crunch.
War game Scenario: Russia(pro) versus The United States of America(Con)

MANPOWER Going beyond military equipment totals and perceived fighting strength is the actual manpower that drives a given military. Wars of attrition favor those with more. Total Population: 320,202,220 Available Manpower: 145,212,012 Fit for Service: 120,022,084 Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412] Active Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 1,100,000 LAND SYSTEMS Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 8,848 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 41,062 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 1,934 Towed-Artillery: 1,299 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 1,331 AIR POWER Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 13,892 Fighters/Interceptors: 2,207 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 2,797 Transport Aircraft: 5,366 Trainer Aircraft: 2,809 Helicopters: 6,196 Attack Helicopters: 920 NAVAL POWER Aircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 473 Aircraft Carriers: 20 Frigates: 10 Destroyers: 62 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 72 Coastal Defense Craft: 13 Mine Warfare: 11 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM) Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 7,441,200 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 19,000,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 20,680,000,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL War is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 155,400,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 393] Major Ports and Terminals: 24 Roadway Coverage: 6,586,610 Railway Coverage: 224,792 Serviceable Airports: 13,513 FINANCIAL (in USD) Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $577,100,000,000 External Debt: $15,680,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $150,200,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $16,720,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i. e. invasion).
La Iglesia Catolica No Es La Verdad

“yo intento a limitarme a refutar la idea de esta iglesia ser o no la legitima representante de la religion cristiana, sin adentrar en la question de la veracidad del cristianismo.” Gracias! Eso es lo que intentaba hacer. Mateo 5:17 Este punto niega a lo que acabas de decir :\ Es por eso que lo deberíamos rechazar. Afirmar que ni hay una veracidad del cristianismo me parece ser un juegito de palabras. Dejame saber si tú no estás de acuerdo. “los registros biblicos no suportan la tese de que la Iglesia fue fundada por Jesus” En realidad, sí lo hay. Jesus dijo a Pedro: (algo así) “Eres Pedro, y en esta piedra yo voy a hacer mi iglesia.” La intención de Jesús se hace más clara cuando uno se dé cuenta que las palabras “Pedro” y “piedra” son las mismas en el idioma en que la historia fue escrita. “no hay ninguna evidencia historica que confirma la existencia de uma estrutura ecesiastica centralisada el Papa antes de la adopcion del cristianismo como religion oficial de Imperio Romano.” Si hablas de una estructura física, no sé por qué tenía que existir un edificio para demonstrar que la iglesia es la verdadera iglesia de Jesucristo? Pero si no hablas de un edificio, el versículo que ya te he dado te lo demuestra que San Pedro fue el centro de su iglesia. “No le parece una gran coincidencia que el lider de la Iglesia en el Imperio Romano era el obispo de Roma?” No... en absoluto. Es porque la mayoría de los cristianos estaban allí, por supuesto. La iglesia ni podía sugirse en otro lado. No tiene nada que ver con el Imperio Romano. “Porque hay un solo Dios y un solo mediador entre Dios y los hombres, Jesucristo hombre” Entonces ¿quieres que yo crea que uno no puede pedirse oraciónes al otro? Porque todos los cristanianos hacen esto. De todos modos, ni importa. Porque los santos ni son mediadores entre Dios y los hombres, sino mediadores entre Jesucristo y los hombres. Tú ves? :) “la figura de Maria, que en el catolicismo tiene un papel muy cerca del papel de las diosas de la fertilidad en varias religiones.” No importa. Quizá siera hecho para que Maria sería más familiar a los paganos, y así la religión sería mas fácil aceptar para ellos. “Tambien es importante notar que varios elementos que existen en el cristianismo actualmete fueron adoptados mucho despues del siglo I.” Esto tampoco importa si fueron adoptados por la misma iglesia de Jesucristo. No es como si rechazieran a nada que Jesucristo enseñaba. “Por ejemplo, la naturaleza divina de Jesus fue afirmada solo en el concilio de Nicea, en el ano 325 (9), mientras que los sacerdotes solo fueron obligados a mantener el celibato en 1563 (10).” Y estos niegan a algo que Jesucristo alguna vez enseñó? Si no, ¿por qué nos importa? “Todas estas evidencias ponen en duda las afirmaciones de la Iglesia Catolica como la única verdadera y legítima representante de la fe cristiana.” ¿Ponen en duda? Quizá, si no fuera por el hecho de que yo los acabo de demostrar a ser irrelevante o falso. Pero lo que tienes que hacer no es simple poner en duda, sino comprobar :) Gracias pro debatir conmigo, y espero que el major gane!
The Government should outlaw guns.

Considering that my opponent was unclear from with regards to exactly what 'outlaw' means, I am not sure what my stance should be. Does outlaw refer to ownership by citizens? By usage of any and all types? Does it mean the police and military cannot use them? Does it mean we choose to enter conflict with all nations who do use guns? What does it mean? Considering that my opponent began this debate, I am simply refuting her implied position that the government should not control the usage of guns. By doing so, I simply create a position for myself that it is possible to control the usage of guns without widespread damage to society, and without conflict with the constitution. In addition, if my opponent wanted to find an argument as to why guns should be outlawed, she had an implied version in my first argument. "A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58. Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons. " There was no substance in my opponent's argument. It was completely based on fear-mongering along with a weak attempt at arguing constitutionality.
The Government should outlaw guns.

My opponent chose to not shut up about my arguments. The topic of my debate has always been the same; losing our rights to carry guns will result in catastrophe. As said before, the nation will probably react the same way it did when the government took away alcohol during Prohibition. They will get upset when someone takes away any right to do anything, including carrying guns. You haven't really argued why guns SHOULD be outlawed...shouldn't that be the position of my opponent?
The Government should outlaw guns.

My opponent chose to jump to a totally different argument. This is one of the problems of failing to be clear in the opening statement. Very well. 1) The second amendment is an amendment to the constitution. It can be repealed, through a two-thirds majority vote in the US House and US Senate, followed by ratification in three-fourths of the state legislatures. If the government were to outlaw the usage of guns for non-hunting purposes, or any purposes, they would simply have to go through the amendment process and create a 28th amendment repealing the 'bear arms' portion of the 2nd amendment. This would be legal and 'constitutional'. 2) There is still a lot of controversy surrounding exactly how unconstitutional the banning of handguns would be (District of Columbia v. Heller being one example). So we could argue constitutionality if my opponent so desires, but considering the number of legal cases over time relating to this issue, it would probably require a lot more than one or two arguments on debate.org. In addition, I doubt that anyone on debate.org (including myself) is an expert on constitutional law. So this is a relatively infeasible stance. 3) People will 'throw fits' whenever most laws are passed. How many people? What types of people? Is there any long term value lost as a result of these 'fits'? And is it what's best for society?
The Government should outlaw guns.

My opponent was very unclear with regards to the meaning of the outlawing of guns. Very few if any nations outlaw guns altogether. Some nations, such as Japan, outlaw guns for all purposes except for hunting, which is heavily regulated. I'll assume this is what my opponent means. The purchase of guns for non-hunting purposes (handguns, rifles used for protection). "The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good." >> This is simply a hypothesis by my opponent. There's no fact or empirical evidence here. "If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose." >> This is the same thing, except it includes hyperbole. My opponent has failed to prove how the outlaw of guns for non-hunting purposes would result in more crime, or heavy black market sales. A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58. Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons. Unless my opponent can prove this is not the case, her stance will remain unsupported.
The Government should outlaw guns.

My second debate...my first of which I was thrashed by the commentors...so here goes. The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good. If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose. That being said, go for it Pro...
Judaism is a false religion because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah"

First I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide rules for the debate as well as definitions. As such I will take the liberty of inserting a few key ones. All of the following definitions are from Merriam Webster. (links provided, however in order to prevent the hyperlinks from activating and messing with my typing I seperated the h with a space, remove the space to use the link)False:1) not real or genuine 2)not true or accurate; especially : deliberately untrue : done or said to fool or deceive someone 3)based on mistaken ideash ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...; Religion:1)the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2)an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods 3)an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or grouph ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...My opponent has tried to declare Judaism a false religion becuase the religious leaders were misinformed about the roots of the word. He has provided no sources beyond a quote to prove the correst background, and has no sources to prove that Rabbis do not know this background. Due to the lack of evidence we can safely ignore his claim.Furthermore, his claim does not even prove that Judaism is a false religion. By the definition of false we see that is must not truly fufill the requirements to be called false. The definition of religion is a belief in god/s, an organized system of belief, and/or an important interest to a person/group. Even if Rabbis didn't know the background of the word "Torah", Judaism still meets all 3 of the definitions for religion.I would also like to remind readers and the Pro that due to the Pro's attempt to change the status quo and affirm the resolution that they bear the Burden of Proof and therefore that I need not prove the Judaism is a true religion but merely that is cannnot be proven false.Finally in the Resolution it states "because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah". Therefore any contention that does not directly relate to the failure of Rabbis to know the origin of the word ought to be ignore by voters.Good Luck to the Pro.
Judaism is a false religion because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah"

I'm sorry you feel this way. It could have been an interesting debate.Also, I would like to tell you that what I did was a reasonable debate case. You want to get back to the original topic? My case was on the original topic. I did nothing overly semanatic. I didn't use crazy definitions, twist either of our words, nothing unreasonable. All I did was examine the resolution and state whether it was true or false. This time it being false. If this is not what you wanted to debate, I have two suggestions for you1) Make a more accurate resolution. There was no way for me to know you wanted to debate a Jew (there is no reason for this either, but to each his own). The resolution was also a factual one, ____ is _____ becuase _____. That is the layout for a factual resolution.2) Debate on a Jewish forum. If you only wish to debate Jews, go to them. This website is for people to openly debate or challenge others to a debate, not to focus a particular religion.I thank the readers for finishing this horribly off topic debate (Pro, off topic not becuase of semenatics. Because you stopped debating). I'm sorry we all had to deal with this.