BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legal Age Of Consent For Sex.

You do not have much of a warrant to your argument. Studies have shown that minors mature differently, and it is impossible to make the claim that anyone under the age of 18 is not responsible to do anything. I know many people under the age of 18 who have a greater sense of maturity or responsibility than people in their 30's, so why target the youth for being "irresponsible"? I also wonder what the punishment would be for minors having sex with each other under the age of 18? Do you charge them with statutory rape? There is little legal basis for your argument. This also begs the question of proof? How can you prove that anyone under the age of 18 is having sex? Only those who got caught would be punished. What would happen, would parents have to test their children for unfamiliar DNA to see if they are having sex or not? This could increase paranoia and hurt familial relations. I believe raising the age would only result in more minors having sex, which may seem to make things worse in your eyes. This is empirically proven when both the age to drink and smoke have been raised. These ages go up, and more minors engage in these activities to rebel. And if minors are not responsible enough to say yes to sex, whats next? Do we take their ability to drive away? Maybe they are not responsible enough to drive, because that could threaten lives of others. Its not maturity or responsibility that is the problem, its education. We tell our children that you shouldnt have sex until they are married, nothing but abstinence is preeched to the youth. I believe a better form of education that assists those who do wish to engage in sex would have numerous benefits, because they would know how to have safer sex, which would alleviate some of the "mistakes" or "problems" that come from sex.
Evolution (pro) vs. Creation (con)

I have to visit the hospital 5 times a week for over 2 hours each day due to a dire sickness of coughing up blood. I also have college and a part time job to attend to, along with helping my parents move. I don't have time to be on DDO for now, and would appreciate it if my opponent will accept a tie and we can resume this debate in perhaps a month. Thank You.
Israel is not as evil as people make it out to be.

I think we have had a misunderstand standing i am pro Israel. I don't want to argue that it was 100% Palestine's fault. I want to argue that Its more Palestinian's fault. You see i agree with what u said and what you said is my opinion as well. Maybe i did not make it clear what i was for sorry i would like to stop this debate. I would never argue agents Israel.
Israel is not as evil as people make it out to be.

I'm a Jew so I am arguing that Israel IS completely in the right. I think the following reasons prove it A1: What Gaza have done is put factories and tactical stations by schools and hospitals [1]. They then go on and say it was a 'mistake'. The UN never complains about Gaza killing civilians, they only care if Israel is [2]. We live in a world that is extremely Anti-Semitic [3] [4] and therefore it is almost certain everyone will over exaggerate to the extent in which you are calling them 'evil'. A2: No-one says Gaza is evil. So it's just fine firing rockets over the border trying to kill people, right. A3: All the commentators are maniacs. The UN are saying Israel should share the iron dome with Gaza [5]. Well then you go and share your F-22 Raptors with Iraq - why not? A4: All we ant is for the war to end and nothing to happen but Hamas refuses so people act like it is US that's refusing to protect Gaza. I will lose this debate simply because everyone is so anti-Semitic its pointless but I will try and keep some pride. Over to you! _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources Note: most of these are anti-Semitic because that's life. 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2. http://www.theguardian.com... 3. http://www.adl.org... 4. (example of anti-Semitism) https://www.facebook.com... 5. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Israel is not as evil as people make it out to be.

Before we start i would like to make it very clear that Israel is not completely in the right because it does sometimes overreact. I am arguing that Israel has not committed a "genocide" on the Palestinian people or that Israel has stole Palestinian land and if you weigh out the crimes on both sides Palestine has done more wrong than Israel. This debate take history into account as well so we are not just looking at the current situation we are also looking at the background of it to see who is in the wrong. You can begin.
A Reading of Genesis

I argue that a close reading of the King James version of the Book of Genesis demonstrates that God was not the sole existing entity before the creation of the world. For the sake of this argument, we will assume that anything written in the King James version of Genesis is truth. Furthermore, no other sources will be allowed. Only a close reading of the words of Genesis can be brought to bear on this argument. To win this argument, I will only have to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God. This "something else" can be anything. As long as I show that, according to Genesis, there was something other than God, I win. In Round 1, my opponent will accept. In Round 2 and 3, I will present my argument, and my opponent will have Round 2 and 3 to attempt to refute it.
A Reading of Genesis

I accept - some form of language may have existed I need not go off on a tangent of how god communicates. I would like to cite Pro's words in Rounds 1: "I argue that a close reading of the King James version of the Book of Genesis demonstrates that God was not the sole existing entity before the creation of the world." Language: Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. -->http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Language is not an entity my argument still stands. >>>Inferred argument<<< --If there's language there must be another entity for god to communicate to, right?-- i) No, there can be a language before any form of communication of that Language. Language can exist separate from any person or entity. If there were no humans would English still exist? Yes, but there would be no one to understand or to comprehend it. It would be an ‘unknown unknown'. In one sentence: Your reasoning has a false Enthymeme, existence of language = existence of life. ii) There is also another argument, God may just be lonely and schizophrenic so is just talking to himself. Why must he be talking to someone? Con has the burden to prove to me another entity exists or the burden to prove the existence of language equals the existence of another entity. Good luck.
A Reading of Genesis

To begin, I will present the same passage that my opponent proffers: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light': and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. " My opponent claims as follows: "Start 1. God Created Dimensions, 2. Heaven 3. Earth On Earth 4. Void 5. Darkness 6. Spirit of God 7. Water. " I, on the other hand, claim and argue the following: Start: 1. God 2. Language Created Dimensions: 1. Heaven 2. Earth On Earth: 1. Void 2. Darkness 3. Spirit of God 4. Water I claim that my opponent has forgotten one key element that existed at the start: language. Furthermore, I do not have to prove what language, as long as I can prove that some kind of language existed, some medium through which God speaks. To be more precise, I claim that the words "let," "there," "be," and "light" exist at the start. For the purposes of this argument, I will use the word "language" to designate these words. The proof that this is the case is the following passage: "And God said, ‘Let there be light': and there was light. " Before God speaks, however, Genesis never states that God created language or that God created these words. Because the Book of Genesis does not state that God created language or these words before speaking, we must assume that before the "beginning," before the creation of the dimensions "heaven and earth," language already existed. I thus conclude that before the "beginning," at some point before God begins the creation of the world, God existed with language simultaneously. Because language is something other than God, I claim that something else existed. Unless my opponent can prove that language IS God, I do not see it can be stated that language did not exist simultaneously with God at the start.
A Reading of Genesis

Thank you. 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:1-2, . http://www.biblegateway.com... KJB is in English only so no Hebrew secret meanings. Objects. Start 1. God Created Dimensions, 2. Heaven 3. Earth On Earth 4. Void 5. Darkness 6. Spirit of God 7. Water.
Abortion

As much as feminists would want it to be the issue of abortion is not about choice you made the choice to have sex with your partner now pregnancy is a consequence , In fact women after giving birth can obv give it to adoption which is a great alternative to abortion , If you dont want to raise the baby dont kill it , give it in adoption . I am against abortion because i see it as no different than murder it doesnt matter if it is early abortion the outcome is the same a baby isnt going to be born , it will die . It does not matter if it is unconcious a 3 month old baby is also unconcious this doesnt justify murder . I didn't write too much because I would repeat myself , i await my opponents response .
A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson.

Pro stated, “You have provided me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that.” No two humans are alike therefore, no two teachers are the same. Con gave “a great example,” according to Pro, which debunks Pro's debating point that “A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson.”Pro stated, “You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers?”“Politically biased” statements are simply based on one's “beliefs” and “opinions.” Besides, all public schools are controlled by the government. From a government controlled educational system, what does one expect, but political biases, especially in American History! Pro stated, “You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts.”Pro addressed that point. I will state it again, it is logical, and a fact that “beliefs” and “opinions” are found less in mathematics followed by physical science compared to other subjects. Pro stated, “You made a great point but it had some faults.”Pro failed to point out those “faults,” therefore, Pro's claim is simply his “beliefs” and “opinions.” Pro stated, “Nice to know someone who debates properly.”Thank you for those kind words. Pro must realize that one's “religious beliefs or personal opinions” are inseparable from a person. Relative to a teacher, the way they act, teach, and interface with a student are all a function of their “religious beliefs or personal opinions,” and they could be so subtle, where the student does not realize it. The fine art in teaching depends on personal “beliefs” and “opinions” relative to their interest and passion on the lesson at hand.It is not so much about the teacher's “religious beliefs or personal opinions,” as it is about the subtle application of government institutional propaganda controlling teaching methods complemented by text book biases, which are far more concerning in manipulating the direction of society.
A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson.

You have provived me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that. The teachers I'm talking about only talks about how God is so great. You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers? You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts. You made a great point but it had some faults. Nice to know someone who debates properly.
A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson.

Let me start by agreeing with Pro, that teachers are “not perfect.” However, all teachers do have a “belief” and “personal opinion” on the best way to teach a subject. On the subject of "religion," I attended a Parochial Catholic School and the nuns were expected to apply their “religious beliefs,” especially on the subjects of religion and bible study. That was the type of education my parents wanted for their children. On the other hand, my science teacher was a bit of a maverick. The nuns focused on Jesus and the bible, where my science teacher focused on God. My science teacher's “personal opinion” was, since God created everything, therefore, the physical Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method was a way to read God's handwriting. In essence, the Laws of Nature were here before the birth of Jesus. His “personal opinion” about the handwriting of God being more accurate than man's written scripture about God, was an enlightening moment. Since teachers are "not perfect," those prophets (the ones who write scripture) are also teachers, and therefore, they too are “not perfect.” In summary, from my science teacher's “personal opinion” was, for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all.I was very fortunate to have a science teacher who gave his “personal opinion” on the difference between the handwriting of God, relative to man's handwritten scripture about Jesus and God.I will advise Pro to be aware of institutional biases in “beliefs” and “opinions” that exist throughout all educational systems. The subjects having the least bias in “beliefs” and “opinions” would be mathematics followed by physical science. All other subjects are a function of “beliefs” and “opinions” not only by the “teacher” but by the authors who write the text books you study from. My advice to Pro, is to understand “beliefs” and “opinions” are an inseparable part of humanity. And in saying that, while doing your homework, use the internet to challenge your teacher. Not to spite your teacher, but to enjoy the zenith in learning the spectrum of “beliefs” and “opinions.” This zenith is the nursery in the genesis of your “love of wisdom,” Greek translation: philosophy. Your philosophical evolution is a function of a teacher's “beliefs” and “personal opinions.” Where everyone, is a “not perfect” teacher.
A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson.

First of all, the teacher is not perfect. He could accidently tell the students something wrong based on his personal opinion. I know plenty of teachers like that. Also, when a teacher applies his religious belief on his teaching, it could be very offensive to the students. If a person is not a Christian, and the teacher talks about how God is so perfect, the student will feel very mad. Finally, the student could think (for example) Democrats are bad just because the teacher said that. Some students believe everything the teacher says and they will lack the choice to choose. I know these are very obvious reasons but they are necessary.
Religion causes wars, unrealistic expectations and segregates people

Resolution - Religion causes wars, unrealistic expectations and segregates people To clarify, the OP has taken Con on the resolution, but affirmed it in the original post : OP - "I would like someone who is religious to tell me what good comes from being religious, I understand faith is a good thing I have faith but I'm not religious! I believe religion causes wars, prejudice and other unwanted hatred onto others!" It appears that Con is Con against Religion in general, but Pro on the resolution. In any case, as the debater who opened or instigated the argument Con needs to sustain the burden of proof for the above resolution.[1] The only statement made in regard to the resolution is a simple statement of assertion that the resolution is true, as there is no warrant for the claim it has to be automatically disregarded [2]. One can not simply make an assertion and claim it has to be true simply on a position that it has to be that way, this is at best an argument from personal incredulity.[3] I await justification from Con to support the resolution, as it stands the resolution is negated as there is no evidence or even argument given to support the resolution. [1,2] http://debate-central.ncpa.org... [3] http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. My opponent needs to clarify a democratic society, but based on my own perspective, the democracy should be allowed to end at some point if it becomes too harmful or creates a negative impact on society. Please explain your question further. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2. No. (omnipotent- having unlimited authority or power) Are you talking about the Christian God? 3. Sometimes. (I suppose you mean "the Bible") It may be a good basis for morality at some points, but it may not be a good basis for morality at other points. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Most of them are. Because I have a different perspective about what the BIG ISSUES are really discussing, they may not always be completely accurate regarding my actual opinions on the matter. 8. No. 9. Yes. I have respect for almost all U.S. Presidents, simply because it takes great effort to try and act as President. 10. shuttlecock- the object that is struck back and forth in badminton, consisting of a feathered cork head and a plastic crown. If this is the right definition, then I can't answer because I have never seen or played with a shuttlecock.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. In a democratic society, should the democracy be allowed to end at some point? 2. Is God omnipotent? 3. Do you think the bible is a good basis for morality? 4. Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything? 5. Do you sin? 6. Can God create a more powerful being than himself? 7. Are you answers to the BIG ISSUES your actual opinions? 8. Did you hear about this site from a friend or family member? 9. Do you have respect for Franklin Pierce (14th President of the United States)? 10. Do you like shuttlecocks?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. I have seen it several times, but I do not watch it regularly. 2. In general, I like to read. I like to read warning signs and signs that they have at stores so I am informed about potential danger or something like a discount sale. In reference to novels, I like to read a selective amount of them. I usually only read books that are required by school, but occasionally I read articles and magazines. I like to read things that appeal to me, generally. 3. I am a Christian. I believe it would be positive for people to practice my religion, but different people have differing viewpoints on different things. If my religion does not work for someone, then he/she probably will not practice my religion. All in all, I think people who are willing to practice in my religion can go ahead. I like getting my Christian views out to others, but it is ultimately their choice to listen or reject my views. 4. I believe people should have a religion if they want to have a religion. I may try to influence people with my religious perspectives, but it is all about opinion and preference. 5. Yes. 6. Yes, to a certain degree. 7. I believe that nationalism exists/has existed, but I do not support nationalism, although you may need to clarify. 8. graffiti- markings, as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted or sketched on a surface art- the quality of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance I believe some styles of graffiti are types or art. I would need examples and scenarios to clarify. But no, graffiti is technically not art, because they have different definitions and are not exactly the same. 9. No, I do not use plastic water bottles. 10. No, my parents and I do not drive hybrid cars.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Do you watch the t. v. show "Around the Horn"? 2. Do you like to read? 3. Do you believe people should practice your religion? 4. Do you believe people should have a religion? 5. Do you have an unusual talent? 6. Do you believe in patriotism? 7. Do you believe in nationalism? 8. Do you believe graffiti is art? 9. Do you use plastic water bottles? 10. Do you/ your parents drive a hybrid car?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

I affirm the resolution, "I will not contradict myself in this debate." contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of http://dictionary.reference.com... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant for this debate, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A question may not result in an inherently self-contradictory answer. If this is the case, Pro wins.