BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In terms of the Christian God, we are all agnostic.

Since this site is officially running on ". org" I can debate regularly from school now. That's right. I'm back! But on to your case. I accept all framework brought before me and will now move on to my case and, given that space isn't an issue, will move on to refuting my opponent's case. Good luck! Resolved: In terms of the Christian God, we are all agnostic. I negate. Now that that's seestablished up. .. I'm afraid that, since I am going to Harvard for their annual Speech and debate tournament, I cannot make my first rebuttal. I hope to do so in the R2, however. I will ask my opponent to extend all of his arguments in order to move this debate along smoother upon my return. Sorry and thank you for your patience.
One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

Would one of the things that the Republican congress didn't do is is garner the PBA ban? A ban that was vetoed several times by then President, Tricky Willie? Would another do nothing action of the Republicans be the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research? How about the fight to maintain parental involvement in regards to medical care of our children - via parental notification and consent laws that the Democrat party has fought to sever? In a nutshell, we are talking about personal conviction here - not party voting record. We are talking how a person, any person, can support a party that has continued to support and further the agenda of abortion rights. A party that garners support of world wide of Planned Parenthood and their pro abortion agenda. A party that wants government funding of NOT medically necessitated abortion, but abortion upon demand. A party that fought to get federal employees abortion benefits - partly paid for in tax dollars. As a person who claims to be Pro-Life, the decisions to maintain these policies by voting for these individuals, who although a small majority is showing signs of change towards Pro Life belief, continue to be the advocates of Choice in America. One can say that they personally do not believe in abortion and would never have an abortion. However, if they continue to vote for people who are Pro-Choice, what stand are they ultimately taking? It is through their voice that abortion is advocated and it's agenda served. It is the individual who would claim to be Pro Life in a crowd and yet cast a ballot for abortion behind the screen. If you personally have voted for a Pro Choice candidate, then in effect you have chosen other issues as more important than life - thus it is impossible if not delusional to claim to be Pro-Life. It would be like a girl stating she is Pro life and yet when faced with the decision, choosing abortion for the same reasons you chose that candidate despite their choice belief. No one can serve two masters - and as a party, democrats are Pro Choice. The line is, if not clearly drawn, there as clear as a state border - it is discernible. When you elect pro choice individuals it is through their office that abortion continues, restrictions are voted against, limitations removed, and abortion rights expanded and continued as a legal option. So regardless of what we espouse to others, our actions truly show our stand. Denying our involvement doesn't cover that involvement. A master has been chosen in these cases - as with those who chose the Roman way over Christ's via action - even while claiming their Jewishness or Christianity - they served Rome by action and vice - as the Pro Life Democrat serves the Pro Choice agenda by the same. Thanks for the exchange - I have enjoyed your POV, although I see no weight in it and still firmly hold my belief that by supporting/electing/appointing those who are Pro Choice one by default cannot and is not Pro Life.
One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

Although Democrats for Life sounds like a great group and a good group of life supporters, the fact remains that the mainstream candidates running for election and holding office are pro-choice democrats. Unless, as a pro-life individual you refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate, your political affiliation is perpetuating the continuation of abortion as a legal option to pregnancy. Abortion as an option to pregnancy is not pro-life. If the issues that sway your vote for a pro-choice Democrat are regarding the economy, education, employment, and the like are heavier on your heart than the cause of Life, then in effect you are making the same decision, for the same reasons, and same result as a woman who chooses to abort due to income, her education, her job and the like. In this, one cannot be pro-life if they are assisting with the continuation of abortion on demand. To say that you don't believe in abortion and yet place people in office who promote, support and advance the cause of abortion is a dash of hypocrisy with a cup full of self denial of the consequences of choice. True enough, there are pro-choice Republicans. And, to date, they hold no real power within the party and would be hard pressed to garner any real power. The party platform and dedication to human life and the respect of said life will always carry more weight than a blip in our party line. Many Republicans, such as myself, believe that abortion should never be an alternative to pregnancy - abortion on demand. Many of us believe that only medically necessitated abortion should be performed. This would include and pretty much be limited to after rape care, life and death choice, and cases of the most extreme such as a dead/dying pre born child. I would not and could not ever vote for a Pro-Choice candidate for any office, knowing that in the end, my vote may lead to the death of a pre-born child. Hence, my stance on the issue is consistent with my action - life first and foremost. For one to claim life yet vote for and install in positions of power those who will advance, advocate and support abortion on demand is nothing short of lying to one's self - that person has enabled abortion and therefore is ProChoie.
One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

"One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat" is easily debunked as a false statement. "...for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda" may have been an absolute truth in the past, but I intend to prove that current trends in the Democratic Party are to back away from such a stance. My opponent contends that every vote for a democrat is a vote for abortion. Conversely, then, every vote for a republican is a vote for pro-life. Both the national Democratic Party and the Democrats for Life of America seek to make abortion rare. The national Democratic Party's stated intention is to protect legal access to abortion, while simultaneously working to reduce the number by supporting social programs. While Democrats for Life of America also supports the implementation of such programs, in particular the Pregnant Women Support Act, they also strongly advocate for pro-life Democrats who support restricting access to abortion. This divergence highlights a crucial difference between the pro-choice and the pro-life viewpoints: while both groups advocate for reducing the number of abortions through social supports, pro-life groups also place emphasis on legally restricting access to abortion. Pro-choice groups maintain that abortion must remain safe, affordable, and legal. The party, under the leadership of Howard Dean, has softened their hard line stance in recent years, however, and has begun to support pro-life Democrats.[1]Any vote for a candidate who is a member of the Democrats for Life of America is not a vote for abortion. Therefore, not every vote for a democrat is necessarily a vote for abortion. In 2000, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition tried to launch a floor fight at the Republican National Convention, and came within three votes of doing so. Planned Parenthood had a G.O.P. outreach contingent at that same convention, hoping to help the mayhem along. [1]http://www.democratsforlife.org...
One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

With all respect, one cannot be Pro-Life and Democrat for it like trying to serve two masters. In this case, the master of politics more than overpowers the master of humanity. For each time one casts their vote for a Democrat, they too cast their vote for a platform that promotes, legislates and condones abortion. In the end, every abortion that is performed and will be performed tomorrow is only done so due to each and every vote for a Democrat in Legislature, for President or appointment of left leaning judges who are mostly appointed by agenda driven Democrats. What policies of the Democrat platform could possible out weigh the life of even one child? If, a person finds that there is a cause more important than the life of a child, can that person call themselves Pro-Life or anti abortion? Does not their choice and action make a much more accurate statement of their allegiance? In the end, regardless of declared statement of Pro-Life leanings, the blood of legalized abortion still stains the hands of any and all who vote Democrat - for they have chose to terminate life for a non-life threatening cause - that of their real master - that of their political servitude - the Democratic Party.
Best NFL football team

I believe you are wrong, sir. This question is a little tough to find an answer to, as you can't just state that, "This is the best football team." If we're talking all time, the best would have to be the Pittsburgh Steelers, since they have the most championships. However in recent history,(past 10 years) the most successful teams have been both the Steelers and the New York Giants. This is talking about championships, however if we look back at this season, the top 10 teams in the NFL Power ranking by the end of the season were, 1.Carolina Panthers 2. Denver Broncos 3. Seattle Seahawks 4. Arizona Cardinals 5. New England Patriots 6. Cincinnati Bengals 7. Pittsburgh Steelers 8. Kansas City Chiefs 9. Minnesota Vikings 10. Green Bay Packers. Therefore, the Packers aren't the best football team in the NFL.
American Gun Control

Rebuttals-My opponent's rebuttal of the self defense dropping case is almost completely anecdotal. She just explains why she thinks thats the reason self defense cases have gone down. Because she lists no other factual reason then her rebuttal has no case-My opponent fails to realize that suicide rates in high control states are LOWER than low gun control states no matter what item is being used. So this rebuttal by my opponent also has no effect. Her arguement about Japan also has no effect because ive proven states with low gun control have higher sucide rates across the board-Untentional firearm accidents are high for children and are a threat to many adults as well. A gun ban would eliminate these problems. I did not say that gun accidents were somehow killing everyone but instead i was making the case that these things happena and would not happen-The article does not say its biased. Its merely looking at mass shootings. When you look at random gun shootings everyone likes to blame Chicago. What people do not understand is that there are gangs that try to kill each other all the time. However looking at the graph the area where mass shootings happen is the south.-My opponents last remark is that gun control doesnt work. However i have proved that again and again having guns creates problems such as accidents, sucidies and does not affect defense situations. Con has not refuted my claims well and therefore has lostEven though my opponent had arguements in round 1 i still feel it is unethical to add new arguements. Its been a great debate Con even though it was cut short to 3 rounds!
American Gun Control

My side will argue that a Gun Ban will save lives and be better for citizens. We wont be arguing for unconstutionality however.1. It wouldnt affect personal defense situationsPeople using guns for personal safety is extremely rare. A study recently conducted that out of the thousands of gun murders only .1 percent of those killings were cases where self defense was being used. A few years ago the Department of Justice: Bureau of Statistics released that in between the years of 2007-2011 the chances of guns being used in self defense were .8 percentThat means that since the recent study the chances of using a gun for self defense has dropped down .7 percent in recent years. The case for personal defense has no impact since the amount of cases of personal defense are far outnumbered by the cases of guns being used for crimes and murders2. Sucides would be reducedIn a 2010 study over 38,000 americans committed suicide. What was their weapon of choice? Over half of the victims used guns. Guns are painless and quick. Many americans do not commit suicide because they are afraid. Now of course my opponent will claim that people who want to commit suicide do it with any option. Actually if there is no gun then the percentage of killing themselves reduce drastically. For Example using a knife to slit your throat. If you want to commit suicide with that instrument than you only have a 70 percent chance to kill yourself. Unfortuantley with a gun its over 99 percent. Also the fact remains that if your household has a gun you or your family have more than a 400 perent chance to commit suicide. 16,857 fire arm deaths in states with low gun control and 4,578 in high control areas. Not only this but the sucide rates for non firearm deaths stayed approxiamitley the same at 9000.3. AccidentsA gun is something that is extremely dangerous. One accidental click of the trigger and you could maim,kill or seriously hurt someone in the vicinity of that shot. Childhood deaths are in the hundreds because parents dont know where the gun is at or if its loaded. Many parents load their guns because they fear they dont have time not to have the clip already in the gun. Because of this childhood deaths are simply the norm. Not only that but the amount of gun accidents is set to overpass the amount of automobile accidents in the near future.4. Gun Bans WorkAn interesting arguement from conservatives is that Chicago is the worst place in the country and its because of gun control. However this is very misleading and is far from the truth. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...If you scroll down in this article you will see 2 graphs. The first is the obvious one the conservatives are pointing at. Its death and injuries past January 2013. However if you scroll down further you find the graph that does the real talking. Its mass shootings deaths and injuries. As you can see the MASS majority of these shootings happen in the south the most dangerous one being Renegade mountain, Tenessee. Back to you ConSouces:. https://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...http://pediatrics.about.com...
American Gun Control

Gun control can be defined in many different ways. Background checks, banning automatic or semi-automatic guns, or the banning of guns altogether all fit under the range. I decided to argue to banning fire arms to make the topic more specific, and that is a perfectly valid argument. Anyway, thank you very much for accepting the debate. As Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's vice-president once eloquently said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, his argument certainly has a good point. Police carry weapons, but when they are minutes away at a station or across town, the criminals come out of nowhere fast. In a gun-free zone, or a world without easily accessible firearms due to heavy restrictions, the few minutes it takes for the police to reach the destination, lives could be lost. Russia has some of the tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to gun control. People only own nine guns per 100 people in Russia, while America has close to 100 guns per 100 people. Yet, in 2009, Russia had 21,603 murders and America had 13,636 (see link). Especially considering that America is approximately three times more populous than Russia, it is safe to say that guns to not have as much correlation to violence as some previously thought. Tightening gun control laws in America would most likely have a similar effect, and we could unfortunately see a spike in the murder rates. This is why gun control laws should stay just the way they are, or if anything, even be loosened. http://www.npr.org...
American Gun Control

Gun control, defined as the banning of fire arms, is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment clearly states that it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they inserted this into the Bill of Rights. We need to be able to legally defend ourselves. People who feel that they are above the law, essentially criminals, will go to any means to see their goals come to pass. That could mean obtaining guns on the Black Market, or finding their own means of violence. Stabbings, beatings, and bombs would simply become more common. There are already laws set in place to control violence, and if criminals don't follow these, it would be ridiculous to believe that they would follow the new potential laws.
Is Jesus God

The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, "I am God." That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus" words in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." We need only to look at the Jews" reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: "You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming"deity. When Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one," He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth " before Abraham was born, I am!" Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).
We should ban assault weapons

The governor did not pull the list of weapons he proposes to ban out of the air. Instead, he took an existing list that is currently subject to extra regulations under state law. That list was created in 1989 and is similar to the list of weapons banned by the federal government from 1994-2004. (The effort in Congress to restore that ban appears to have stalled.) The governor's bill would also ban weapons that contain two or more military-style characteristics. Critics complain that those characteristics are cosmetic " that they make the guns look scary but don't mean they inherently fire more rapidly or more accurately than semi-automatic handguns or some kinds of hunting and sporting rifles that are not part of the proposed ban. Indeed, the kinds of weapons in question are not fully automatic; that is, a gunman would have to pull the trigger each time he wants to fire, rather than firing a burst by holding the trigger down. Automatic weapons are already highly regulated and have been since the 1930s. And in general, the limiting factor for how quickly a semi-automatic rifle can fire is the same as it is for a handgun " how fast the shooter can pull the trigger.Yet, such weapons show up again and again in mass shootings. According to Mother Jones magazine, which has cataloged every mass shooting in the United States since 1982, about a quarter of all mass shooters had assault weapons, and more than half had assault weapons, high capacity magazines, or both.
We should ban assault weapons

I can name many mass shootings that did not occur with AR type rifles. Including, but not limited to, the 2011 Norway Attacks, many of the post office shootings, Columbine, the Sikh temple shooting, the list goes on. Relatively few of these mass shootings occur with so called "assault weapons", and as for overall crime, only about 1% of crime takes place with them. Also, not a single actual study has shown that the 1994 assault weapons ban had any effect on crime. There is simply nothing that distinguishes an AR-15 from a Ruger Mini 14, for example, (which is specifically exempted in Feinsteins bill) other than appearance.
We should ban assault weapons

In 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington region for three weeks by firing bullets at innocent people in parking lots and at gas stations, ultimately killing 10 people and wounding three others. They used a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, one many variants of America's most popular assault weapon, the AR-15. In 2006, Kyle Aaron Huff used a Bushmaster when he opened fire at a post-rave party in Seattle, killing six before committing suicide. In 2007, Tyler Peterson used an AR-15 to kill six people at a homecoming party in Crandon, Wis. In 2012, a gunman opened fire at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., killing 12 people and injuring 58 others. Police say James Holmes used a Smith & Wesson version of the AR-15 that was equipped with a 100-round drum magazine. And in December, Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM-15 in his massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 children and six adults.
Wet Grass is Evidence

No, wet grass is evidence that it MOST LIKELY rained. see, there are many other possibilities of why there is wet grass on a large area. Maybe a tsunami hit recently? Maybe a massive flooding that lasted days finally went away and all the grass is wet? Yes, it can point to it raining recently, but there are other possibilities. consider everything. But if you had to take a chance, then, yes, wet grass is evidence, although you cannot conclude that it rained for sure, you cannot be 100% sure about it just because of the wet grass.
Wet Grass is Evidence

Affixing words like "Solid", or "Concrete" in front of the word evidence doesn't change the meaning of evidence, those words are adjectives elaborating the magnitude by which the evidence supports a conclusion. You said, "...but it's still a clue.." Clue is defined as a piece of evidence or information used in the detection of a crime or solving of a mystery.[1] A piece of evidence. Con says it is not evidence and then when trying to describe what it is, uses a synonym for evidence. I did not say that wet grass was 100% conclusive, absolute proof, irrefutable fact that it rained. I stated that wet grass is evidence that it rained. Just as it could be evidence for a mass watering. Discerning which explanation is the "truth" is a step of hypothesis comparison. A step that comes after the argument is presented as what the evidence implicates. Con conflates the facts with the explanation. There can be many explanations for the same evidence. That does not refute the resolution of this debate. That the factual observation that the grass is wet, is a truthful premise that supports a logical conclusion that it rained. The only property the wet grass needs is that it correlates to raining. That wet grass is a likely trace of interactions when it rains. Just like a smoking gun is evidence a bullet was fired. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Wet Grass is Evidence

Oh, why, this is an interesting argument you started. So here we go, wet grass isn't really evidence that it rained recently. It is evidence that it raining recently is a possibility. see, if the grass is wet, it could mean that someone simply hosed it on, or there is also a small possibility that everyone in a city hosed their entire yard for some reason. It isn't Solid evidence, but it's still a clue that obviously points to it raining recently (Only if everything is wet, as well).
Wet Grass is Evidence

Evidence is defined as: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. http://dictionary.reference.com... OR as: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The observable fact that the grass is wet is evidence that it rained last night. Post in comments if you want to accept debate. Serious debaters only please.