BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Texan Abortion Law

youngliberal either refuses to argue or does not have an argument against the pro-life stance. Given this, I strongly encourage you to vote Pro. Contrary to the cries of the typical "pro-choice" crowd, laws such as this do not affect the woman's body. They are protecting the baby's body. Allowing women to kill unborn life at will is a disgusting affront to the humanity of unborn children, and accusing those who are pro-life of "wanting to take our bodily rights away" is a monument to the fallacious reasoning of the left.
The Bible was inspired by God

it is plausible that the scribes or clergy members edited the text to remove contradicting stories improve the text. If this was true then they also would have changed things that didn't match up with the knowledge of that time. But these following verses don't match up with the knowledge of the time. Gen. 3:19 (for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return) it was only recently that people found out that the human body has the same molecular composition as dirt. Job 26:7 (He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing) At the time this was written they had no way of knowing that nobody or no thing was holding the earth up. Job 37:7( He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work) once again, people couldn't have known about fingerprints, or that they could be used to catch people, at that time. Isa. 40:22(It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth) The Hebrew word for circle in this verse means literally something with roundness, or spherical. This contradicts the thinking of this time. The King James Version was finished in 1611, way before people knew about this. Also you would first have to prove that this had actually happened. Here this is merely speculation, you have no idea if this actually happened. There has to be evidence that it was changed, otherwise the benefit of the doubt is given to it. The Church, which would have sought to maintain its authority The church had no trouble with this. The public wasn't even allowed to read the Bible (for some time the Bible was even chained to the pulpit), they would have had no worries about them finding a contradiction or something. Also, if they could just change it to fit their requirements, why were they afraid of the public reading it. If they did change it they the connection of bathing to health was nothing new. Of course it wasn't. Most people knew that bathing makes you cleaner. But nobody knew that running water that makes you completely clean. People didn't know that washing your hands in a basin does not completely clean them. Even doctors didn't know this until several hundred years ago, long before this passage was written, or the King James version was written. As I close I would like to ask you, have you ever read the Bible? If you have, how much of it have you read?
Environmental but open

wow, so I am "PRO" as in I was supposed to be "for" the environmental topic and you would be against it. I didn't catch when you said "To start my speech off, I'd like to restate our debate topic: Trees should be cut down. I am opposing this motion." My entire understanding of this debate was that I would be standing for the environment and someone else would be against me-___- Suffice it to say that this debate is a fail and I will forfeit you the victory because I was unclear in what I wanted AND I didn't catch it when you restated the topic. Blondie's mistake apparently... sorry for the waste of time-__-
Environmental but open

During the process of photosynthesis trees extract carbon dioxide from the air. They convert the carbon dioxide into useable energy in the form of glucose. Thus removing carbon dioxide from the air, furthermore, the process of photosynthesis has a byproduct of oxygen. Now we remove carbon dioxide from the air and input oxygen at the dame time. Needless to say the majority of animals on this earth use aerobic respiration (they need oxygen) to survive. Due to trees absorbing carbon dioxide they reverse the effects of global climate change and act as huge carbon sinks. These trees then sequester carbon in these huge "carbon sinks." It is true that more carbon dioxide and other gasses there are in the atmosphere the more global climate change will occur. However, cutting down trees produces carbon dioxide rather than getting rid of it.
Environmental but open

To start my speech off, I'd like to restate our debate topic: Trees should be cut down. I am opposing this motion. And so, without further ado, I present my argument: Do you know what happens when trees are cut down? They release carbon dioxide. So anyways, let me tell you something about global warming. We all know what global warming is, right? Then you must know that it is gradually heating up the Earth. Why it does it is not important, but HOW it does is. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. The more greenhouse gases there are in the air, the more it contributes to global warming. And if the earth continues to melt, the polar ice caps will melt, causing a flood of monstrous proportions to form. More bad things will continue to follow. I rest my case with this short argument because I'm too lazy to write up a huge one again.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

I would like to address the burden of proof claim. In this debate, it does not apply, as I have never made the claim that God does exist - the claim that I have made, is that the God of the Bible, according to the Bible, does love and care for all of humanity.Furthermore, the quote that you have brought to the table, is a statement of opinion from you, where you state that God does not exist, nor can be proven to exist - never have you request any type of information from me in that statement, much less proof.Lastly, I am not here to please you, or comply with your absurdity, I am merely responding for the people viewing this debate to see clearly that I am correct, and that you are wrong. I know this irritates you, but I will continue to do so, and have the last word.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

"then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that they will that is if god is a true god in which he is not because nobody can prove that this god even exists." In which you neatly avoided. So I did state that the BOP to prove YOUR god is upon you. I'm not stupid. And I do know my own special sneaky ways to get arousal from bad debaters. Or leave. I'm not here to please you. I---don't---care. Now onto the main subject and let's see if you can prove that YOUR god loves and cares for the ENTIRE human race in which the bible specifically points out that this god clearly does not and hates just about everybody that has ever lived and the bible is the only evidence you have. OK I'm ending this debate. All you are doing is playing childish games because you are childish. You have in no possible way proven that YOUR god cares for and loves the ENTIRE human race. Bye bye 3 year old.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

Here is an exact quote of what you wrote in your opening statement "the rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race."Nowhere do you indicate that I need to prove the existence of God, you merely state that I need to prove that the God of the Bible, according to the Bible, loves and cares for all of mankind.This is precisely what I have done. If you wish to initiate another debate that revolves around the existence of God, you may do so. In this debate, this is not a requirement, as you didn't say so.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

Well we both know that the god of the bible first of all you must prove even exists. That BOP is always, no exceptions, upon you. Then you must show as per the rules of this debate that this so-called god of the bible loves and cares for the ENTIRE human race, not just part of it, which the bible clearly shows that this god hates just about everybody that has ever lived. In signing up for this debate do you intentionally wish to lose a debate? Or don't you know anything at all about the god according to the bible? Wow. You are sadly mistaken. The god of the bible did not plot his own execution for the sake of mankind. You'd better check up on that.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

It may not be obvious whether or not gods from other religions love, or care for, all of mankind. When it comes to the God of the Bible, this is very obvious. In fact, it is obvious to such an extent, that I do not see why anyone would even put forth this question. Do you intentionally wish to lose a debate?In what other religion is the story centered around a God spending 4,000 years plotting his own execution, for the sake of mankind?
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race. And since this god doesn't, then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that they will that is if god is a true god in which he is not because nobody can prove that this god even exists. And why be evil and hate in the first place rather than bringing in peace, harmony, love, care, kindness etc? Nah. So either way its a losing proposition for those that believe. But have at it. And another question that remains is Why believe? dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Believing the Mormon doctrine is unreasnable.

I hope that my opponent is safe, in good health, and that his reason for forfeiture of this round is due to being unable to get to a computer. Perhaps this is because of the extended July 4th weekend, and he is currently out of his regular dwelling vicinity, and unable to get online. Regardless, due to the unfortunate lack of a rebuttal, I must defer to my argument above: Mormon doctrine is perfectly reasonable within the context we have set, and it's followers are no less rational for believing in the Mormon faith than any of the aforementioned religions, including Christianity in general. So, as it stands, Mormonism is entirely reasonable.
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I affirm the resolution: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents. DEFINITIONS Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. [1] Concern: A troubling, potentially harmful situation. Pharmaceutical: Of or relating to pharmacy or medication. Patent: A document granting an inventor sole rights to an invention [2] ======== Contention 1: Patent violation in the case of public health concern is consistent with the spirit of patents. What was the original purpose of the patent? A report written shortly before the 1844 French Patent Law read: "Every useful discovery is, in to Kant's words 'the presentation of a service rendered to Society'. It is, therefore, just that he who has rendered this service should be compensated by Society that received it. This is an equitable result, a veritable contract or exchange that operates between the authors of a new discovery and Society. The former supply the noble products of their intelligence and Society grants to them in return the advantages of an exclusive exploitation of their discovery for a limited period." [3] In essence, the purpose of the patent is to protect the inventor. With a patent, others cannot profit off of one's own invention without permission from the inventor. This protects the inventor. But a government violation due to a public health concern does not jeopardize the inventor's ownership rights. No one is profiting off of the use of the patented material, so the inventor remains safe. ======== Contention 2: Human rights take precedence over property rights. This contention is straightforward. When the life or health of a person is in danger, it overrides an inventor's property rights. Life is undeniably more important than property. ======== Contention 3: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -Spock When a single person or a few people own a patent, this is of course significant. But when a public health concern threatens the populus, it is necessary to put aside the needs of the few in order to help the many. It is the government's responsibility to help as many people as possible, even if sacrifices must be made. For example, during wartime, the government will sometimes institute a draft. A draft is harmful to those who are drafted, but in the end it is worth it when the entire country is made safer by the efforts of the draftees. A temporary violation of a patent is nowhere near as severe as a military draft, so it is easy to see that the proper choice is to violate the patent to save the nation. *** I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. [1] http://www.medterms.com... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://www.ladas.com...
batman is better then superman

Supeman has had just as many hardships as batman so really they are botht the same except for the fact that SUPER HAS POWERS!!!!!!! He doesn't need weapon and gadgets to fight he is already an amazing fighter and hero. Batman is a sulking child with severe childhood problems Also superman actually has a job and making more people relate him. Superman doesn't just muck around all day getting rich by doing nothing. Batman has always seemed above the average person and you can't really relate to him unless you are a billionare. Superman (superpowers aside) is relatable and seems more like us. Not like a posh playboy. This makes him soooooooooooooooo much better then batman
batman is better then superman

Well batman may not be a superhero but he is still a hero. I see where u come from in saying that he does kill but you have to look at the reason why, batman has only ever killed in circumstances where the person has been putting others in danger. Batman teachers a better message in saying that if you fall in life you get back up and keep trying. He is committed in training to become his best, but for superman he just starts out with powers.
batman is better then superman

How can a super hero be super without superpowers? Batman isn'y really a superhero anyway only people actually have to have superpowers to be a super hero. it is ludicrous that batman should even be considered as a super hero. Anyway batman is not a superhero i mean seriously a superhero doesn't kill his enemies his job is to protect people not kill people. Batman is not a superhero because he destroys life. How can this be called 'super'.
batman is better then superman

Its true superman has super powers but the real hero's don't need that kinda crap, they use their own physical ability to defeat the enemy. Sure i'll be really nice to have super powers and all but do u really need them? No, they give a massive advantage to the superman and shows that he wouldn't stand a chance without these powers. well wat im trying to point out is that superman would be much weaker without these special powers and for batman, he would then fall under the same ability as superman and in this case he would win against him in a fight.
America needs more socialism.

The United States of America is facing a variety of economic issues. The country is currently 19 trillion dollars in debt which is quickly rising. 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth, which is a worse wealth distribution than France's wealth distribution before their revolution in the late 18th century. Kids are leaving college with a world of financial problems due to extremely high college tuition. All of these problems are caused by capitalism and corporatism, which are two concepts that have been taken too far in America. When I say America needs more socialism, I DO NOT mean that it needs COMPLETE SOCIALISM (COMMUNISM). America needs more socialism in order to solve these economic issues. Socialism can be defined as the public owning means of production, which are land, labor, and capital. The best way to incorporate more socialism in America is raising taxes on the 1%, significantly. However, this shouldn't be done to the point where it causes everyone's net income to be too similar. This would be a communist practice, and might cause lack of motivation to work hard in school and receive a high paying job. However, the taxes should be raised to the point where the 99% eventually becomes somewhere around 70%. Welfare could also help narrow the range. With a narrowed wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of rich business owners and corporations. Raising taxes on the 1% would also help decrease the US debt. Once that number hits around 24 trillion, the government will be forced to go into default and another Great depression would occur. Again, college must be paid off by taxes. All levels of education below college are paid off by taxes, so why not college? These large expenses are wasting the potential of smart and capable students with families of low income. Middle class families must face a great amount of financial problems due to high college tuitions. For example, my LA teacher will continue to pay off his college debt until 2024! That's ridiculous! In conclusion, incorporating elements of socialism would be best for the well being of the United States. The biggest reason for the amount of capitalism in the US is that people tend to support what best suits themselves. This is why it is unlikely that wealthy business owners would ever want to pay higher taxes. What they don't realize is that they make a very small portion of the US, and a government in an economic crisis affects everybody. Thank you for reading!
America needs more socialism.

Bs"dThat was just round 1, anyway, we need less socialism because all of the issues you presented were caused by socialism!Our deficit is a result of wasting all this money on socialist programs. People are poor and have no jobs because the government is making it impossible to start your own business, is preventing drilling for oil, and taxing the crap out of the middle class. Also, colledge shouldn't be payed off by taxes, college is so expensive because there is no competition.
America needs more socialism.

It appears that my opponent has forfeit and didn't provide evidence for his claim. bballcrook21: You are absolutely right about that section of my argument. I meant to say that raising taxes on the 1% could level the government spending that comes with socialism. I was tired and didn't know what I was thinking. Aside from this flaw in my argument, I stand by the rest of my evidence. I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Hopefully he will provide some evidence in the final round, but that seems unlikely. I am still new to debate.org and look forward to improving my debating skills (Note: Provide sources!! xD).
Immigrants

Hello Njqill, let's get this started. There is good reason to have this temporary Muslim ban. Over in Europe, after the countries there started letting Muslim immigrants flow in, it's been causing lots of trouble. Like I'm pretty sure you've been noticing the Muslim terrorists that have been bombing across Europe. And the overflow of immigrants might start economic problems later on. Also, if you look at the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, you'll see that they've been terrible to their own people and have executed many people under Islam's rule. And about Islam itself, basically the Islam version of The Bible, The Koran, actually tells Muslims to use violence against non-Muslims. Finally, those Middle Eastern countries with Muslims are filled with millions and millions of terrorists, so it's likely at least one of those millions of terrorists would attempt to go to the U.S which may cause some problems.
Immigrants

I think that the immigrants should not be treated the way they are now. For example, I will give the USA president (Donald Trump) who say that the muslims are terrorists and that they are dangerous for the country. But does he actually understand that there are people (muslim people) that work hard everyday just like, if not harder, than the american person. I know that immigration is not the beat solution. But these people run away from theur home for some reason. For example if Donald Trump doesn't want immigrants in the USA, then why is he bombing Yemen, Syria, etc. It is like we do something and then complain about it, like the innocent people are the ones who me need to blame.
If God is real, then he is unwilling

I gasped at this. I literally do not know how to respond to such a terrible statement, other than to pray for you and your loved one... that is, if you can feel love... My son, I would like to help you to achieve salvation. Every night from now on, recite this prayer to the Lord: "Oh my Lord God and my savior and father Jesus, I place myself beneath thee and ask only for your forgiveness, as I give naught but love to others, myself, and most importantly, you, Jesus Christ. Blessed be thou, who hath saved us and sacrificed all. Amen." Every morning, I recommend you consume the blood and flesh of Christ. Only through this may you hope to achieve forgiveness. Amen to you, my child, and may the Lord be with you.
If God is real, then he is unwilling

I can because I worship the one true God. He has spoken to me every time I pray in church and at nighttime before sleep. "Science" is blasphemous and goes against the Lord's word. It is just as sinful as things like murder, theft, homosexuality, rape, abortion, etc. There is no gravity, there is no space, there is no wind, there is no electricity, there is only God, and His beautiful creations. Science is a terrible sin and is blatantly false. There is more in religion than just the holy Bible with which to prove correctness. Pieces of Noah's Ark have been recovered and authenticated. The Lord Christ's face is emblazoned into the Shroud of Turin, and there was once a famous Mexican artist who presented undeniable truth that the virgin Mary spoke to him by the burning bush. Even your "science" has proven it. You cannot have it both ways.
If God is real, then he is unwilling

You cannot say "whatever our religions may be, know that the Lord God works in a mysterious manner." Because it is immediately wrong. All religions have different Gods. They work in mysterious ways, because they are not real. Thats how religion manages to get around that, You can say whatever you want, and get away with it. Science can provide an outlook on the universe, we can study it. And all religion has is a book. That science can already prove half of it wrong.
The Existance of Beauty

If I were to prove that sharks exist, I only need to show that 1 type of shark lives in 1 place. I would not need to find every type of shark, nor would I need to find them everywhere. The same applies for beauty. I only need to find one source of beauty for one location, to show that beauty does exist. For this, I can turn to myself and what I see as beautiful. By knowing that beauty exists to me, we know that beauty does in fact exist. What we cannot do, is prove the existance of objective beauty. But our original definition was a definition for subjective beauty (since objective beauty cannot be defined, as it does not exist).