BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism or Theism

=====> Debate Guidelines <======Rounds:1. Acceptance / Definitions2. Opening Arguments Only (no rebuttals)3. Rebuttals to Opponent's Arguments only (that is, we will rebut each other but not defend our own arguments)4. Defend our Arguments Only (that is, no second rebuttals, just defending our arguments from the previous round's rebuttals)For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concernsgeneral revelation, and hence forms of religion are irrelavent. We are debating a judeo-Christian type God. "Improbable" will be defined as less than 50%. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. Good luck :-) I have done similar debates here . http://www.debate.org.........;Both players forfeited my argumetns.
Abortion is right

It's not that you don't want the responsibility of someone as i did stress that girls that just do it to do it should not have that choice. But it's that if there was a girl in any of those situations they should have that choice. You're not "killing a baby", you're simply terminating a pregnancy. I mean you can't really "kill" something that it completely unaware of anything. If that "baby" as you think of it was to be brought into the world that day it would never sustain life. Therefor you're not taking a life on the account it would never live?
Abortion is right

I wouldn't want to give a life of passing around from place to place as you would not feel loved, but I do not believe in killing the baby out right. From the minute a baby is concieved(whether in rape or in consent) it is a living organism. You live because your mother chose not to abort you. If it didn't matter, then why do they have these tests to make sure a mother cannot accidentally miscarry because of the differences in blood types. A non-living organism doesn't have blood, yet an embryo does. You cannot abort simply b/c you don't want to be responsible for someone.
Abortion is right

well because i think that girls that consent and don't use protection and are well aware of what they are doing and get pregnant really shouldn't have the choice of abortion because they should live with the consequences of there actions. but i think abortion should be offered to someone that has been raped. and about adoption, in reality i think thats one of the worst lives you could ever chose to give a baby, to be passed around, put in different households? not to mention there are hundreds, thousands of babies that already don't have a home and you're going to add one more to it? why would you want to give that kind of life to something?
Abortion is right

No, the government should not be able to tell what to do with your body, however, abortion does more than kill the baby. It also damages the female organs and could seriously damage a young girl. There are other alternatives. If the child is really young, then there is always the possibility of a C-section. And no matter the age, there is always adoption. Why were only talking about rape?? Many girls who have sex outside of marriage have abortions too. According to your statement, it's only right if you were raped?? What about if you consented?? Either way, I think it is still wrong.
Abortion is right

Abortion is not wrong, you have to think about the people that are in the situation of being raped? If you were raped and a pregnancy was a result of that would you really want to have that baby?! What if there was someone that was raped by someone in there family and that resulted in a pregnancy, do you think they should actually have to give birth to that baby? Not to mention what if you were completely under age? a child having a child. In situations like that abortion is completely understandable. The government should not be able to tell someone what to do with there body.
Evolution should not be taught at school

1. You said that the only reason it's taught is cause of athiest scientists, however that is not true. Many Christians and other religions believe in evolution and will say that their God caused it to happen, the Catholic Church says you may believe so as long as you believe God did it. 2. Evolution does have evidence. Unlike present in your argument, evolution has more evidence then any other theory, fossils show us and prove so much, including the variety of species today. To say that evolution is just another theory would be impossible to say cause a lot of evidence supports it. 3. Schools don't have to teach it's true. Schools are just required by law to teach what it is, however they don't teach your it's right or wrong and even tell you that you can decide for yourself.
Evolution should not be taught at school

Evolution is just another theory and takes up class time. There is no physical evidence that backs up this theory other than atheists scientists who state that this had occurred some billion years ago. Because so many science teachers believe in this false belief, they often (according to my classes) try to convince the students into believing it. Yes, most people argue that it should be taught to show the theists know the other side of the argument so they can decide, but dose that mean than Christianity or Islam or any other religion should be taught to all the atheists so they can decide as well?John Lennox once said "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists."
Israel

First off, in the evaluation of this debate I would submit, for your consideration, a utilitarianism framework. We are thus able to achieve the best outcome for the highest number of people. The first reason for stopping future Israeli settlements is Palestinian human rights. Israel has, throughout their expansion, had a very poor record when it comes to Palestinian human rights. Israel consistently abuses, mistreats, and uses excessive force against Palestinians who have the misfortune of living on land it decides to occupy. [1] Second is an attempt at peace. In your opening arguments you are quick to write off the continuing violence as a problem that, in conjunction with the Muslim religion (which at this point is pure speculation). Interestingly, however, you omit and misrepresent the fact that the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was an initiative proposed by Arab countries. The current settlements are developed strategically in a manner such that it continually subdivides any land that could be remanded to the Palestinians. The fact is the reason peace hasn't occurred is because Israel is not interested. They had an opportunity in 2002 and ignored it all while continuing to build settlements. The best way to pursue peace is simply to stop building these settlements. In response to your arguments none of them really give us a reason as to why it is Israel should continue building settlements, where as I give you at least two reasons they should not. The deal you mention wasn't proposed by the Israelis at all, it was rejected by them. I condemn all terrorism and to the extent that those organizations are terrorist in nature I would condemn them. In the interest of equality, however, I should note that it has often been thought that Jewish terrorism in the region may be something that is widely under represented. It is found that when Israel was in a situation similar to that of the Palestinians they were committing similar crimes. [2] All that being said, even if you accept everything mentioned as true you still cannot piece together any reason for expanding settlements further. If anything the constant terror threat should encourage Israel to centralize itself more for its own protection. In the interest of all people involved in this conflict we're going to negate the fact that Israel should continue this aggressive expansion. 1. https://www.hrw.org... 2. https://cup.columbia.edu...
Israel

the settlements are not the obstacle to peace. numerous times, most recently in 2002, Israel has offered most of the west bank and other huge incentives, like control of Jerusalem, in summits with numerous leaders of the Arab world, for peace between the nations. and consistently were turned down. this is because, in conjunction with the Muslim religion, the Palestinians, hamas, Hezbollah and fatah all deny Israel's right to exist. most of them have no interest in peace, because they just want to see Israel destroyed. furthermore, in a situation like this, normally the requesting party (the Palestinians) would make an offer to the larger party, Israel. the reason why this has never happened is because they have no interest in peace. even when Israel withdrew from Gaza, as a way to appease the people who live there, it became a bastion of terrorism, launching rockets and making home made bombs and terror tunnels, just to kill Israelis. their actions include: stabbing, kidnapping, suicide bombing, firing rockets at civilian areas, truck bombing, shooting, and even hiding in civilian areas so that they cannot be bombed. they lost the right to the west bank when the Arab nations attacked Israel, and lost. before this discussion goes any further, please condemn hamas, the plo, Hezbollah and fatah, and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" who slaughter women and children.
Valentine Morgenstern was correct in trying to eliminate demons and downworlders in TMI

A valid point though however there and multitudes of shadowhunters in hiding. They are disguised as our everyday Mundanes, they would be who shall be called to war if the Nephilim were to lose. And you of course always have the Iron Sisters within the Adamant Citadel and The Silent Brothers of The Silent Cities to aid if need be. They would be under the protection of their domains and are known to be the best fighters and hardest to kill. They would not fight the war unless there was dire need and even still they would almost defintely survive.
Valentine Morgenstern was correct in trying to eliminate demons and downworlders in TMI

I'm not suggesting that you must start a war to have peace yet many times throughout history it has worked. I am not a person that is all for a war but in times of crisis action must be takern. The nephilim are getting slaughtered daily and throughout the night by these creatures. Putting a pen to a paper is to often not enough. And who's to say that these downworlders will not at sometime turn against them. They already have knives at eachother's throats as it is. These people could lead normal, pleasing lives if it weren't for such a threat. Jessamine Lovelace; "I wish to have a normal life. One in which I will not be kept up by my Mother of Father choking down holy water". It is not right that these beings are being forced into leading these lives. If they try to hide the rune removal is torture upon their bodies and sometimes death. Yet their blood may still reveal them.
Valentine Morgenstern was correct in trying to eliminate demons and downworlders in TMI

The accords may have been broken many times but they were all just small fights. However planning to get rid of all of them at a peace signing! That's much more then simply breaking the accords. That's first, not right. Second, basically starting a war. How is starting a war going to keep mankind safe? There are some downworlders that pose a threat to the law and to humans. So punish those ones. There are so many more that follow the law and accords and no reason to kill them.
Valentine Morgenstern was correct in trying to eliminate demons and downworlders in TMI

And many times to this day have the accords been broken. They are merely words set upon paper to which have been signed and disregarded. The world is to dangerous a place as it is we need not add downworlders and demons to the mixture. I bring up the case of Miss. Clarissa Morgenstern/Fairchild. Her mother Jocelyn Fairchild kept her daughter from this world in fear she would be harmed. Little success came however when she was brought into contact with a iodelon demon at club pandemonium. This bringing harm to her, her family, the New York institute residents and her friends.
Valentine Morgenstern was correct in trying to eliminate demons and downworlders in TMI

Mr. Morgenstern was correct in trying to rid the world of these creatures to ensure the mundane and nephilim population would be safe in the future and present times. These creatures break the covenant laws every single day. The laws are set to keep us safe though they are just words with little to reinforce them. Spending time in the Silent City cells is not enough. These species can not exist and continue to cause the destruction of a bloodline with few carriers as it is.
Roblox and minecraft suck.Fortnite is much better.

Quite funny, indeed. I say this because you claim that I am a "109" year old in my bio, I did do that, but it, like you said, is false. However, this one thing does not mean I can't be trusted. I stated my sources, so you can trust me! Also, Con seems to digress from the main question, or debate: "Roblox and minecraft suck.Fortnite is much better." What is even more alarming is the fact that Con states I should not be trusted, when he, Con, in his bio, is actually, supposedly a "112" year old. Irony? Hypocrisy? I think yes. Anyway, since you have not seemed to respond to my actual round of debate, and just strayed much off topic, I certainly think I win. Cheers, I guess you really can't do anything anyway.
Roblox and minecraft suck.Fortnite is much better.

Again, PRO (Sorry, I called you Con) repeats his claim from the previous argument. AGAIN, this has nothing to do with the current debate: "Roblox and minecraft suck.Fortnite is much better." So, if all you are going to do is repeat your claim and give no actual rebuttals, then, I suppose, that I win! Goodbye!
State's should fight to lower the drinking age

You are welcome for this debate and I will also enjoy debating this. Now, down to business indeed. My opponent first commits a straw-man fallacy as he argues that it is legal for a drinking age limit to exist, citing the U.S. Constitution as showing that the states have the right to rule over whatever the national government does not. If you notice, nowhere in my first round argument do I say that it is not legal for an age limit to be in place. I stated that the current age limit is unjust because there is no warrant for it being just. Furthermore, the national government as shown here (http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov...) controls the drinking age limit. Thus, in light of the information I have presented, my opponent's whole attack on my first argument should be ignored. Concerning my second point, it must be considered an argument as it fits definition 3b of Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). However, I will be fine if you ignore it and hence concede it. :) My opponent's first paragraph that "attacks" my second argument actually supports it. This whole paragraph reaffirms my second and third bullets. So, I must thank my opponent for this affirmation. My opponent then attacks the rest of my argument with three main point which I will address. 1.The government would change the law back rather than take the course of action I asserted. 2.I can't say everything would be better because everything would be gone. 3.The higher power would send everyone to hell meaning they would be in a worse place. 1.However, as you stated, "the only thing stopping some from drinking is the law, and their fear of breaking it, causing a massive encores in the crimes as a direct result of the lowered age." Thus, the changing of the law would not have an effect on the situation as those that caused the chaos would not listen to the law. Thus, even if the government did change the law, it would not prevent the chain of events that I have set up. 2.First, not everything would be gone. The earth would still exist along with some life (i.e. cockroaches). Moreover, things would be better. Almost all man-made problems would be removed by nuclear war. Isn't fixing problems in a situation making a situation better? Moreover, nowhere did I say that nuclear war would make everything better, rather I said that it would help create justice. Hence, we can see my opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy 3.Once again, my opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy. I did not say that people would not be in a better place, I said that justice would be served. My opponent has conceded all the characteristics of the aforementioned God. Thus, he concedes that this higher power would make the most just decision. As the whole point of the argument was to show that justice would be served, my opponent has conceded this part of the argument. Moreover, my opponent cannot prove that all people would go to hell, so any future concerning it must be ignored. With both of my arguments successfully defended, I must ask that my TWO arguments be extended and will wait for my opponent's rebuttal.
State's should fight to lower the drinking age

Thank you for this debate and i will enjoy having it with you. Before i Begin i do have to say wow, you took it to the next level WAYYYY to the next level, but now to business. First of it is completely Legal for there to be a drinking law it is a power granted to the states under the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively" this means that anything not said in the Constitution and is allowed to be controlled by the states, that's why every state has a different drinking law, they decide what age they feel is responsible enough to drink, Therefore there is no "injustice" so lowering the drinking law is not causing "Justice" now for the more crazy one, which i'm not sure that can even be called an argument, or that i should even respond to it. The Number of drunken related deaths would increase as a direct result of lowering the age because it would allow people who normally didn't have open access to alcoholic beverages would now have unrestricted access to it, rapidly increasing the chances of the younger kids, of being drunk, which would not only stunt development of them but it would increase the # of teen Pregnancies, and car accidents, the only thing stopping some from drinking is the law, and their fear of breaking it, causing a massive encores in the crimes as a direct result of the lowered age. The whole idea of a nuclear war is just stupid, because a more likely idea is i don't know, maybe change the law again, and you know if were all dead you can't say that everything would be better because everything would be gone, and I personally am a Lutheran so in my eyes God would send all of the now dead sinners to hell, so i could argue that their condition would be considerably worse than before, regardless of their drinking habits. Well thats what i've got so far and again thank you for this debate and your one argument.
Public Prayer Should Not Be Allowed In School

First I would like to touch on my own arguments, and then I would like to refute my opponents arguments. My first argument was that of having the first amendment that gives us the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now although you can over exercise these rights, I think it is important for us all to still realize that we do have those rights. Now my opponent has not continued to argue against this point, as we both agree that we have these rights but we must not over exercise them.Now my opponents rebuttal to this argument was that of wasting time class, and although most students are offered a study hall not all students actually have study hall free they are either studying or have elective classes during their study hall. Now I do agree that it could potentially be a hassle. But you must accumulate to the students, based on their religious beliefs. For example Muslims where the hijaab (the head garment), and at our school we are not allowed to wear any headware at all, but because it is her religious beliefs they cannot stop her. So then it shall be the same way with prayer. Because many believe they should pray daily, and multiple times daily.Now I want to go through and hit on my opponents points. His first point was that of "The Point of our Educational System." He focused that the point of the educational system is to learn and be able to further our lives in a positive way. But I believe that if you are stopping kids from praying in schools you are in a way taking away from their learning, because by allowing them to pray in school you give the opportunity of diversity, and the ability for a students to be the person they are and not conform to the world in fear of judgement.His second point was that of "Religious Schools being Offered." Now I brought up the point of money and he agreed that they are a little more pricey but it depends where you live, and where you wanna go. But what about those students who don't have a religious school or Christian school around them to attend, then are you just going to tell them sucks for you?And his last point was "The Diversity of Religions". I do agree that there is a high diversity of religions but I want to hit back on the example of the Muslim girl, if we allow her to wear her head dress, and that is religious thaen we should allow students to be able to pray at school.
Public Prayer Should Not Be Allowed In School

Sorry let me clear up some things about this topic. Public prayer should be allowed to be in schools, I'm not saying that it should be mandatory, but you should be allowed to pray in school. When I say school, I am talking specifically about public schools. I agree with your statement, that we must not overuse the rights that we have been given. For example with the gun, just because we have a right to bear arms, doesn't mean we can go shoot up a school. And I agree with that completely, but I also believe that you should be allowed to be open about what you believe, and if that means praying at school then so be it. Now you brought up the idea of Islam and Christianity and how they have many different forms of prayer and the rituals that each practice are completely different. Now although I do agree this, lets understand that most often in public schools students are given a study hall, or as we call it academy. There stands the opportunities for students to take time and pray if they so choose too. Now I feel that many are confused on this debate. My argument is that students should be allowed to pray in school if they so choose. I do not believe that it should be mandatory because as many know, each person believes in their own religion. But to tell a student that they are not allowed to pray before their meal, or to pray when they are having study hall, is absolutely outrageous. It is then violating our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion. Now I would like to rebuttal my opponents arguments. His first argument was that of the point of our educational system. " Let us look at the educational system and what it does for us and our countries. We are expected to learn in a facility like this, we are expected to show up and soak in information that will better our future." Now I do agree that the point of our educational system is for us to learn and to be able to succeed in life after high school, but do you realize what they are teaching us in schools. They teach about religions, and about science. So does that mean if a student doesn't agree with evolution then they should just be able to walk out of the classroom? They would not be allowed in public schools. Also my opponent brought up the idea of Christian schools, but what if the student can't afford to go to a private Christian school. Does that mean that because of their economic struggles then they should be stopped from being able to pray in school, even though if they went to a christian school then they would be able to pray. That is just outrageous. That is why public prayer should be allowed in schools.