BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chloe is a better dancer than Maddie

This debate is more for the sake of amusement than anything else! Please enjoy making a case for your favorite dancer! If you have not watched Dance Moms(Season 1~Season 3), please do not take up this debate. You are, however, welcomed to comment below. Chloe is a wonderful and talented young girl and very proficient in all sorts of dance. She has a natural elegance that made the audience fall in love with her dancing. THere IS a reason why she is fan-favorite besides the fact that she has great personality. Nia also has great personality, and yet she is not as popular as Chloe because Chloe has better dance technique( Sorry Nia fans, but it's true) . Maddie, on the otherhand, is the competition-kid. In a dance competition, the judges judge each dancer according to the scoring criteria on their score sheets, not necessarily how much they enjoyed the performance. Maddie knows how to ace that. She has those BIG, EXAGGERATED emotions on her face that made it look like she was in pain, and very consistent technique. While in a competition that might score well with the judges, it is unlikely that she would be the one selected for a part for something if she and Chloe were both dancing. At the end of the day. it's about the performance and how the performance made the audience feel. So all in all, I prefer Chloe as a dancer.
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah was one of the prophets of God

PREFACEPro has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mohammad Ibn Abdullah was one of the prophets of God, while Con takes the agnostic position on the issue. In other words, Con has to undermine Pro's arguments to win this debate, while Pro has to present proof beyond reasonable doubt that Mohammad was a divinely-inspired Prophet.* "Was" here is not used in the sense that he was and then stopped being a prophet, but that he "was" a prophet on Earth when he was alive.DEFINITIONSGod: The omniscient and omnipotent entity that created the universe.Prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration to carry out the message of God. Mohammad Ibn Abdullah: The man considered by Muslims to be the one who received divine inspirations that revealed the Qur'an.METAOnly members with a minimum of 5 completed debates can accept.Rounds: 4.Voting period: 2 Weeks.Time to argue: 72 hours.Argument Max: 10,000 characters.RULES AND REGULATIONSFor the first time ever, I'm going to base my debate on the NDRE Lv.1.5 (Strict), which basically stands for Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette Level 1.5 (Strict). This document was created by me and hosted on the DDO forums so that I avoid repeating the same rules in every debate.It is obligatory for my challenger to read the document(http://www.debate.org...) before accepting this debate. The document is split into two parts, "critical rules" and "etiquette standards."Additional obligatory rulesThe NDRE explains in articles A.1.8 and A.1.9 that the instigator of the debate can present additional rules in his opening statement. Here are my additional rules:R1- No acceptance round. Pro has to start arguing from the first round. R2- Burden of proof is solely on Pro.R3- The defintions presented in my opening statement must be followed.---As this debate fits the criteria of article A.1.6 of the NDRE, it makes sense to state the article here for emphasis purposes:A.1.6 If Con initiated the debate and didn't use his/her first round to argue, then Pro cannot argue in the final round but he/she must only say "As agreed."I wish my opponent the best of luck. I'll answer any questions or objections in the comments' section.
The Separation of Church and State: A fundamental misunderstanding exists.

Thank you for starting the debate. First of all, I'd like to point out that it is really entirely irrelevant as to what Jefferson thought the First Amendment meant, at least in the appeal to authority that you're trying to give, because James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (http://www.jmu.edu...). Your unsourced story about Jefferson has no relevancy in this debate. Now, on to your main argument: "The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin's Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion, such as we have historically seen in Constantine's, Rome. That's it! That's all that the 1st Amendment means." I agree with you. That's what it means, and that's what seperation of church and state means. The government's (or state's) influence is seperated from your ability to worship freely. It cannot tell the churches what to do (assuming they are breaking no laws). It can also not recognize any religion, and, consequently, church, s the official religion/church of the nation. just because the words "seperation", "state", or "church" are not explicity stated in the First Amendment, it doesn't mean that the seperation of church and state doesn't exist. You're trying to say that seperation of church and state means something more, but it really doesn't. I'm confused as to what more you think it means. Then you go on to talk about how secularists use it to keep the church out of government. Yeah. The government can't have a religion in it. That's what the Establishment Clause means. Yo also complain about these secularists not caring when the government oversteps its bounds over religion. Well, why does it matter whether they care or not? People care about what they care about, and it doesn't chagne what the Bill of Rights actually means. Even if it was important, it is still cancelled out because religious people will always be angry when the government oversteps its bounds into religion. It's a self-balancing system. But all of that is irrelevant. The issue here today is whether or not the First Amendment gives us the seperation of church and state. My opponent seems to think that the seperation of church and state means more than what it actually does, yet he has not actually said what it does mean. I have illustrated what it means for you, and shown you where we get it from. I will elaborate and clarify as needed as this debate continues.
Necrophilia should be legalized

Problems With Necrophilia1) Desecration of the Dead- Necrophilia is extremely disrespectful for the dead. In a traditional sense bodies (barring an autopsy or suspicious reason for death) go straight from a short stay in the morgue to a funeral home for care and then burial. Bodies spend very little time in transit from the place of death to burial and this is for a couple of reasons: sanitation and respect. If one were to "donate" their body to "love" as you put it you would have to get consent from the family of the deceased before engaging in such a vile practice. Also, necrophilia has nothing to do with love but is grounded completely in sexual desire. If you truly loved the deceased you would give them a decent burial and let them rest. 2) Unsanitary - Necrophilia would be extremely unsanitary. Bodies are buried or burned for one main reason: they begin to decay. Bodies begin to decay quite quickly. Once the heart stops beating the body's cells die quickly, usually within 24 hours. [1] At this point you would then by "making love" to rotten meat. This unlocks a whole range of health concerns from disease, decay and the spreading of such unfavorable conditions. 3) Consent- When engaging in sexual activities you must gain consent from the other person or else it is considered rape. In this case a dead body cannot give consent and therefore should not be allowed to engage in sexual activity. In the very best of cases this consent could be given to the family and direct relations of the deceased but I don't think that this practice would be very popular amongst the grieving.4) Sexual Laws- It would not be difficult to keep necrophilia grouped with other sexual laws such as no sex before 18, no sex without consent etc. These laws are in place for a reason and necrophilia is grouped in with such laws on purpose. Other sexual laws exist to protect people from being taken advantage of and unfavorable or disrespectful sexual practice and necrophilia is all of these things.5) Donating to Science vs. "Love" - You distastefully compare donating your body to "love" to donating your body to science but there are very key differences between the two practices. When someone donates their body to science is it generally felt that their body will be put to use to benefit the common good and to further learning and understanding about human science. However, when donating your body to "love" you are benefiting no one except the person who wishes to make love to your rotting corpse. The two are completely different. Families of people donating their bodies to science are accepting of this fact and usually proud where as I don't think any mother or son wants to think about their loved ones rotting flesh being used a sex toy for perverts. Sorry to put that so harshly but that is how it is conceived by the masses. In conclusion:- It is disrespectful and offensive- Necrophilia is unsanitary due to the nature of rotting flesh- Bodies cannot give consent- This is in line with other sexual lawsNecrophilia should stay blessedly illegal.Thank you. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Earth will not remain Habitable for ever.

I read to much, I am up to date with the idea Earth is on a time limit. But what is to say Holly wood has not already shown the way. Colonizing other worlds is going to happen and what is so impossible to think this is the real first earth? And what if the human race is already done it. Moved from planet to the next. I am not going to add God in the debate, he has his own time line.
pokemon is NOT satanic

that's just grasping at straws. when I battled girintina it said "bishan" as a roar so I looked it up and guess what, ITS A LOCATION IN SINGAPORE with your logic giritina is Chinese and really Pikachu's tail being a saitanic z? what's next the car tire being a satanic o also ladybugs r red and black and rhinos have horns none of them are demons but tbh even though harry potter's evil I think GOD's willing to look passed that if you just give HIM your heart but if you go back and look through all of Pok"mon's songs they talk about love, respect, honor, being a hero, pulling through, all things satin doesn't want us to achieve the BIBLE says "why would satin divide its own army a kingdom divided against it self will fall and a house divided against it self cannot stand and if satin fought satin there soon wouldn't be any satin left" and people in pokemon do baleef in GOD watch island of the giant pokemon and brock brings up the story of Noah in the manga one person said GOD created pokemon on the 7th day I mean we know HE rested but still they bayleef in GOD also spoink and grummpig are swines that get power from pearls theres a cave in heartgold and sole silver who's Japanese name means Zion the SAME mountan GOD spoke to Moses on pokemon gets inspiration from MANY different cultures meouth is baced off the chinees cat statues so yah one or two may be BACED OFF OF something bad but that doesn't mean they are and pokemon have been known many many MANY times over to not act the way pothers of there speases act so don't try saying all gengar r evil or what ever
pokemon is NOT satanic

This will be fun. I'll show you that Pokemon is indeed Satanic. First, let's look at the fact that there are over 700 Pokemon right now, though we'll be taking a look at a certain Pokemon. Namely, Vivillon. Here's the bulbapedia article: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon) Obviously, I want to to note that this Pokemon's number is 666; well known as the devil's number. It scatters colorful scales as it flies, stated by the Pokedex. But let's delve into the scales' ability; they're able to calm people, making then unwilling to fight. This can be seen at the end of Episode 12 of the XY anime, "To Catch a Pokemon Smuggler", https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... "Dolan whips out a net to capture Vivillon by hand, but his hand is lassoed by none other than Officer Jenny. Dolan refuses to give in, even when threatened with an Electro Ball, but Vivillon rains down its scales, which have an effect of quelling one's combative spirit. Dolan gives in easily." And there's gotta be plenty of Vivillon flying around, showering the land with these calming scales. This is used by the police to remove any suspicion of Satan's evil plot to rule us with these fictional monsters. So be wary when you're trying to catch that Pokemon. You just might be falling for his trap.
pokemon is NOT satanic

pokemon is not evil here's why, the people who made pokemon didn't know magic was bad they where just looking 4 elements to use 4 the game grass fire water etc. but phichick is not the same in the pokemon world as it is in ours its even been shown 2 b scientifically baced at times grass types can be trees and flowers ghost types arnt ghost but sometimes like garentina has no connection to ghosts at all cobalion is not made of steel but is a steel type for having a hart of steel but what your overlooking is the fairy type they where introduced as kind of a guardian angle how can an angle be a demen the point of telling you about all thouse types that r out of place is 2 point out dat just couse a pokemon has a lable doesn't mean that it's 100% in the anime when ever ash and his friends think they see a ghost but its really a ghost type they say it was nothing so it must not be a ghost and Pikachu's tail being a z how stupid can you be its A LIGHTING BOLT BECOUSE ITS AN ELECTRIC TYPE you see it on pokemon all the time magmorter looks like it has flames electabuz has black electric marks on its belly
pokemon is NOT satanic

I would like to take a closer look at Vivillon. It's a final evolution, and has calming scales. We also use Pokemon to battle each other. Vivillon uses these scales to calm people who are against pokemon battles, which are promoting animal abuse.My opponent also talks about worshipping a volcano and how Arceus isn't actually a god. Well, 1) This is irrelevant. We're focusing on Satan. 2) Arceus literally emerged from an egg out of nothingness and created the whole Pokemon universe. This is literally Genesis. You also say Pokemon aren't idols? Pikachu's the most famous, and some are... famous for unintended purposes.And if Pokemon was made on a Holiday, nice. Though it doesn't stop anyone from linking it to anything. And my audio's poor quality? You do know I posted bulbapedia (the official Pokemon wiki) and a website about exposing Satan, right? There's no audio to be heard. You're probalby talking about the following link from you, though.[After watching it] Ash is trying to find land, and Brock points out Noah had a bird find a stick. So someone named Noah is canon, probably Noah's Ark. I'm... actually pretty surprised. I think this is the only time they bring up actual Christianity. I think the next bible reference was Arceus's Genesis."and about mount Zion it's completely relevant it's a literal mountain called Zion cowensadense I think not"So it's a reference. Actually, wouldn't biblical constructs show a link to Christianity, which then links to Satan? How did I not notice this before?"aslo check this out, how the heck can this be satanic and can you explain why your name's Pikachu"Woo! Braixen! Cute Pokemon! Lovely dancing! In fact... this is actually completely relevant to the debate! I don't think I'll watch the whole thing (maybe when I finally catch up to the XY anime, I'll watch the clip in the actual episode), but I'm pretty sure they just dance. And this is exactly the kind of thing Satan does: give us great animations of dancing and other distractions to mask the fact that they're forcing animals to fight.And my name's PowerPikachu because I used to watch a Youtuber called SuperSkarmory, and I wanted to base my username off of that. I do admit I'm a big Pokemon fan, but this doesn't mean I can expose Satanic links. (I'm a rookie conspirist, and I'm not going to do this full time.)
pokemon is NOT satanic

the resin why I said garintina said bishan is to show that anyone can just make links to stuff vilveons dex no. might be 666 but that doesn't make it evil it just means they have over 800 pokemon so naturally SOMEONE had to take that spot. now, saten won't make good look good it'll try to trick you into thinking god is bad and bad is good. it'll try to make you think that doing the wrong thing is doing the right thing the people who attacked during 9-11 thought they would be reworded in the afterlife, Spartans thought is was wise to kill the weak so only the strong lived that's NOT what pokemon does. U want to know what REALLY isses me off, when people call arceus a god. no one worships it or anything it just made part of the multiverse 4 crying out loud and mew and mewtwo are stronger than arceus. many cultures in pokemon mistake pokemon 4 idols all the time but there NOT. in one episode ash and Pikachu respect a family's wishes by praying to a VOLCANO in another they here that an ANCIENT city worchipped all pokemon including psiduck but guess what in an early manga they said because pokemon where made on a holoday (day 7) they where not to rule or be ruled by humans as for your link its poor audio but here https://youtu.be... and about mount Zion it's completely relevant it's a literal mountain called Zion cowensadense I think not also its been proven that gengar are reincarnated humans NOT clafairy's shadow aslo check this out, how the heck can this be satanic and can you explain why your name's Pikachu https://youtu.be...
War with ISIS

I will be supporting that we take a background role in the fight against ISIS Firstly we have to understand the rise of ISIS. Many political anaylsts and experts understand that the rise of ISIS can be contributed to George Bush, he removed Sudamn Husseisn creating a power vacumn in where the Sunni extremist group ISIS took power. We also have to look at the fact that war costs money. The Iraq War Air Conditioning alone cost 24 billion dollars. How much would it cost for free college? 24 billion dollars. Its better to spend that money on Americans and not killing people. We also have to understand that swooping into the middleast will cause America to draw into a econonomical quagmire that could lead to another recession like the one we saw in 2008 And finally war just creates more war in the middleast. All was reasonably in order due to the dictatorships of the middle east
War with ISIS

On November 11, an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, attack in Beirut killed at least 43 people. The following day an ISIS bombing in Baghdad killed 18 and an attack in Paris killed at least 129 people. Hundreds more were wounded in these attacks. ISIS also recently bombed a Russian plane, Metro jet Flight 9268, after it took flight from Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, killing all 224 people aboard. That is a good enough reason to go to war. The world could stop these terrorists by putting troops on the ground and fighting for our country, our allies, and our freedom. Just as summer turns into Autumn, Autumn to Winter and Winter to Spring, this attack is also part of a cycle, and there is a good chance it will be followed by another in the near future. Islamic fundamentalist organizations such as the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) are trying to overpower Western democracies on our own soil, and we must act urgently to halt their advances. This, sadly, is the new reality faced by the Western world. It constitutes an incredibly difficult challenge, no doubt, but if we address it at its roots, we can break this cycle of violence, death and fear.
The date for Australia day should be changed

Despite many freedoms Australian's have, Australia day definitely does not reflect coming together with the indigenous, in fact quite the opposite. We can not ignore the fact that the date is the day the British colonised NSW, we can not ignore the fact that thousands of aboriginals were killed and many more stolen if they appeared to be white. Today Aborigines are still disadvantaged in our society because of problems that colonising Australia introduced, for example diseases associated with alcohol use is almost double that of the general population, not to mention the fact that 60% of aboriginal children are behind non-indigenous students by year one. Does this sound like something we should be celebrating? It doesn't seem like freedom.
The date for Australia day should be changed

The Australian national anthem even has words that represent that way that Australia is. It calls on rejoice as we are young and free, it also includes the word home. Above everything, it is freedom that we are celebrating, which is why Australian's are free to spend the day how they want. Our country is lucky as not many countries around the world get the kind of freedom we have. The national anthem tells a story of what Australia is today and words like rejoice, young, free, home say that we are a country representing all. So why should the date be changed if it represents our freedom and happiness and us coming together with the indigenous? Why should we get rid of a day that has been the date of January 26 for many, many years?
The date for Australia day should be changed

The foundation your argument and many others in favour of Australia Day is based upon is that it is a day for celebration and unity. However, every year radio stations and tv programs act as a force to divide our nation in a great debate about the date change. If the reason for celebration is unity of our country shouldn't we celebrate on a date that reflects the views of everyone? While apologies have been spoken to the aboriginal people and supposed "land rights" have been given, land is still seen as something profitable as reflected in the NT minister's decision to support the Uluru climb despite backlash from Indigenous communities (SBS news article), the continuation of celebrating on this date is the nail in the coffin.
The date for Australia day should be changed

Yes, the aboriginals were the first on the land and should be respected but the date change is likely to divide the nation rather than unite it in the way the apology did. There is no right or wrong way to spend the day which is a blessing. People have their bbq's and see their families but others may want to celebrate it a different way or even on another day that Australia isn"t celebrating. It is completely up to them. There would be great conflict if there were a date change as everyone in Australia and around the world know that January 26th is Australia Day. It has been like that for many years, so why change it now? As we have apologised to all the aboriginals it is time to come together and show our happiness through January 26.
The date for Australia day should be changed

Australia Day or "Invasion Day" as many know it does not necessarily need to be discarded but instead we should reflect upon the date which it is held. January 26th is the same day that in 1788 Captain Arthur Phillip colonised New South Wales, a very upsetting date for many Aboriginals, marking the start of so much pain and suffering that came to them. While it may be true that 85% of Australians are in favour of Australia Day as a celebration this does not necessarily tackle their views on the date which it is held. It is also important to understand that the original custodians of the land only make up 2.4% of Australia's total population, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, so when using percentages it undermines them.
The date for Australia day should be changed

According to a poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs.", 91% of Australian's are proud to be Australian's. 85% of Australian's also believe Australia day is a day for celebration. Australia day is a time where everyone should come together and celebrated our multicultural and heartwarming country. We are all citizens, not just customers and deserve the best experience in Australia and that is why we celebrate Australia day, to celebrate our achievements. January 26th marks the beginning where the indigenous and those born here celebrated the nation we call home.