BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vaccines do not cause autism

I will take your point into consideration. The entire controversy begain in 1998 when Andrew Wakefield created a fraudulant paper stating that the MMR vaccine causes autism. This paper is severely flawed in a number of ways: Wakefield only used 12 children in his study, claimed that 9 of them got autism after the vaccine, credited people who did not even take part in his study, and created a new syndrome called "Autism and Bowel Disease". The paper is proven discredited, and Wakefield lost his license. Moving that out of the way, I will present my argument.Anti-vaxxers have a tendency to believe that somehow, vaccines contain harmful substances in them such as mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum that is linked to autism. Although it is true that these substances are used, the amount is negligible compared to the amount that naturally occurs in our bodies. For example, a newborn baby has 50-70X more formaldehyde than ALL of the vaccines you will get in your entire life. These substances are only used to boost immune efficiency or prevent infections from occurring. Also, all 9 studies done by the CDC show no evidence linking any of these substances or the MMR vaccine to autism. Furthermore, studies have been shown saying that autism is developed in the utero BEFORE vaccines are introduced.I will look forward to you finding one person who got autism due to a vaccine.Works citedhttp://www2.aap.org...http://www.publichealth.org...http://www.fda.gov...
Vaccines do not cause autism

Definitions: Miriam Webster defines cause as "something that brings about an effect or a result". As such the negating party is simply required to demonstrate that vaccines can bring about autism in some way not necessarily directly. BOP: The affirmative makes the claim that "vaccines do not cause autisim", this is an absolute claim implying the affirmative must demonstrate that vaccines cannot bring about autisim under any circumstance while the negative must simply demonstrate a single circumstance in which a vaccination can result in autisim.
Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S

In ending this three round debate, I urge the voters to side with Pro. Side Con has made no effort to rebut any of the points made in Side Pro's first speech. Perhaps I have convinced Side Con of the necessity of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. In any case, voters should side with side Pro, for putting forth a position and remaining ready to defend it. Only one side has presented a truly powerful, uncontested argument in this round. That side is Pro. Thank you.
Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S

As my opponent has not responded to any of my points, I assume I have won this debate, unless my opponent chooses to counter in Round 3. Since the purpose of debate is to convince the other side, and not the voters, of which side of the resolution is correct, perhaps Side Con has been convinced by my argument. If so, voters should justly vote for Side Pro. If my opponent chooses to return in Round 3, he must respond to all of my previous arguments, which still stand. With that in mind, I draw this speech to a close.
Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S

Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.
Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura

The Bible DOES teach that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christian. Con, sorry, but please define what you mean by "self-referentially absurd." And for readers unfamiliar with the self-puffing "scholarly" Latin phrase "Sola Scriptura," it refers to the idea that the Scriptures are all a man needs to help him learn Christian beliefs and practices. I will argue: 1. that the Scriptures (meaning the 39 Old Testament and the 27 New Testament writings) DO TEACH Believers to rely upon them as the highest teaching authority and 2. that the Scriptures are irrefutable for Christian teaching and doctrine. All other writings (meaning extra-biblical writings, exposes, musings from "Saints," etc.) are commentary ONLY. As commentaries, they are helps, not authority. Disclaimer: The Scriptures teach that a man can lean about G-d w/o ever reading a Bible or Scriptures. He is everywhere and in all. Ephesians 4.6. If that is true, then a man can study/contemplate/ponder anything and everything he sees and parse-out truths about G-d: a Christmas tree, a war, a football game, a factory, a running river, clouds, airplanes, etc. The idea is that because "He is everywhere and in all," all MUST reveal G-d. Id. The handiwork of G-d, according to King David, reveals his existence. (Psalm 19.1-4 shows that Creation (NOT Scripture) declares G-d.). From the outset, I am persuaded that this, in the most basic sense, is more accurate than the idea of "Sola Scriptura," nevertheless, I accept this debate: the Bible DOES teach Sola Scriptura. -MSP
THBT IT Education is critical.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, thank you for reading this debate. I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting, and wish him/her good luck. My rebuttal will begin next round. My argument will revolve around one of the most successful theories in economics today, free-market capitalism. I'd just like to provide a short explanation, borrowed from the famous economics expert, Milton Freedman [1] Take a pencil. The state has never had any control over inventors. Nobody told an inventor 'make a pencil'. But it was invented anyway, and now anyone who wants to can go into a stationary store and buy a pencil- or to be more precise swap their expertise for that good. In order to show why almost any argument my opponent can make is invalid, I need another analogy. Let's take the car. If you have a driver’s licence, you can drive a car. Do we require knowledge of how a car works? No. If I was driving a car, and it broke down, I would not have the first idea how to fix it. So with computers! So, do we really need to learn exactly how they work to use them? I’ll leave that with you to decide. I will develop this more next round. [1] Capitalism and Freedom, Freedman,Milton 1962
THBT IT Education is critical.

In my personal opinion IT Education is important as the world is evolving into a very technological era. I think that from children to young adults, IT should be a enforced subject. Most jobs nowadays involve using a computer, whether it being online registers for schools, or just simply emailing in any other positions. If the generations to come do not learn how to use a computer in the most basic ways, there will be even less opportunities for the young people, leaving university and struggling to find a job.
special rights vs individual rights

California is not the only state to allow this. You seem to be a little confused about transgender people they don't choose from day to day what gender identity they have. It was given to them at birth they same as my attraction to females and my identity as a male. How is it right that a boy who 100% feels and believes he should be a female doesn't get those rights? If they denied him or her the right to a certain bathroom then they would be denying him/her their individual right. That boy/girl has the same rights as your child and if you took that away you would be violating that childs rights just as you feel your child's rights are not being concerned . Having a different gender identity is no more of a choice than being gay, but they do have the choice to continue their ways with their true feelings or hide and hold it all inside which can cause many emotional issues. I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for offering me this debate and to anyone viewing this debate. thank you.
The Trinity

It comes to interpretation. There are no Bible verses that 'refute' the trinity as it is recognized by most of Christianity and, frankly, the church took quite a liberal position in positing the 'trinity' as they describe it. The trinity is an ideal that came along WELL after the Bible was completed and printed. It is an interpretation of the early Christian church, not taught in the Bible. At least not as it is now taught. That said, there are ALSO no Biblical verses that 'prove' the trinity as accepted by most of Christianity. The trinity as understood today was not Biblical in nature. At least it was not considered important enough to comprehend to be clearly described in scripture. The idea of a 'trinity' as is now accepted didn't come along until a few hundred years after the crucifixion. Considering just how important 'trinity' is to Christianity, one would think Jesus would have made this an emphasis of his teachings. To the contrary, he never claimed to -be- God. Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew and observed Jewish law and tradition. As such, Jesus himself never once made the claim of a 'trinity' as is currently accepted by the majority of Christian denominations. Indeed, Jesus often submitted to God his "father" which flies directly in the face of the idea of a trinity where God and Jesus are one in the same but in different forms. Jesus prayed long and hard and was completely submissive to God. That doesn't jive with not only the idea of a 'oneness' but it doesn't even indicate that Jesus and God are on equal footing, let alone one in the same. Jesus referred to himself as 'the Son of God', not as God. That's an important distinction in those times as the Son was clearly inferior to his father. If Jesus himself didn't clearly make the claim of being part of a 'trinity' then how can the interpretations of the church centuries later trump that? Remember, this is the same church that changed the Sabbath without biblical authority to do so. (The Bible CLEARLY indicates Saturday as the Sabbath and gives no authority to change as even the Catholic church acknowledged...after changing it). As there is no evidence that Jesus himself believed he was part of a 'trinity' as taught in Christianity and there is plenty of evidence he believed himself inferior to God, I believe it is impossible to prove the trinity as accepted by most of the Christian churches is not only accurate, but quite possibly heresy. Belief in the trinity is belief in Church doctrine, not in Jesus teachings. As we well know, when man attempts to interpret what is written, he often (usually) fails in his interpretation. The words of the only infallible man do not support a 'trinity' as it is accepted by many denominations.
The Trinity

For serious takers only. This debate challenge is for Unitarians /Devil's advocate who is knowledgable of the Unitarian Theology.RULES: Only the Bible must be used for reference.Round 1:Arguments of Pro/ Rebuttal of ConRound 2:Arguments of Con/ Rebuttal of ProRound 3:No new arguments;extend rebuttal for both sides(must be irrefutable).Round 4:ConclusionNOTES: http://www.gotquestions.org...http://books.google.com.ph...ARGUMENTS OF PROThe Father is neither begotten nor proceeds but the source (Latin: principium) of all things ( 1 Corinthians 8:6).The monarchy or the source of the Son is the Father ( 1 John 1:1-3).only-offspring from the Father. - John 1:14only-offspring, who is God by nature, existing in the bosom of the Father. - John 1:18* The Son has no beginning of existence because the one who begot him has no beginning (John 1:1, John 5:26,Colossians 1:15).The monarchy or the source of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son:The [Holy] Spirit is " out from within" ( Greek: Ek) God [the Father]. -1 Corinthians 2:12 The [Holy] Spirit "proceeds" (Greek: ekporeuetai) from the Father. - John 15:26This shows oneness of nature between the Father and the Holy Spirit because both are in the same being. The Holy Spirit is in the Father for he is from the Father. Whatever we have inside us, it expresses itself from the inside out. It's never separate to us but is in our being ( MArk 7:23).Mark 7:23 evil things "proceed" (Greek: ekporeuetai)from within (i.e. the heart).Ps. 33:6 it is said of the Father, "By the breath of His mouth He made all their power." 2 Thess. 2:8, it is said of the Son, "whom the Lord Jesus Christ will destroy with the breath of His mouth."John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the Holy Spirit to his disciples.* The Holy Spirit has no beginning of existence because he came from both the Father and the Son who have no beginning of existence ( Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:14).
The Trinity

"The son of a human is human [by nature] The offspring of an animal is an animal [by nature] The Son of God is God [by nature]" You can type this as many times as you like, it's still not a logical progression. The son of a human is A human (not the SAME human) Therefore, by LOGICAL extension The son of God is A God (not the SAME God) Also, the Son of a human is a human in actuality, not "by nature". "Con said that all humans are gods by nature. The burden of proof is on him. The Bible never speaks of humans as equal to God in nature and only Jesus did claim to be so " Huh? Perhaps you should read my arguments rather than guessing. I gave you the scripture both from Jesus own mouth as well as what he was referencing: John 10-34-36 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are "gods""? 35 If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came"and Scripture cannot be set aside" 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God"s Son"? Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' Jesus himself quoted Psalm in defense of himself and as evidence that he did not commit blasphemy by saying he was Gods son as indeed scripture equates all as 'gods' and sons of God. "No one has ever seen God yet: the only-offspring who is God by nature;being in the bosom of the Father; this [one] he did show." ( John 1:18)" Why are you altering scripture? To win a silly internet debate? I checked 21 different versions of the Bible and not a single one contains the words "who is God by nature". Every version either states "Who is HIMSELF God" or some version of "at his fathers side" or "in his fathers bossom". Which brings us to another issue. Different translations have very different meanings of that same verse. NIV and NLT state that Jesus IS God, one in the same. KJ and most other version state some variation of 'God's only Son'. In any event, every versions states either that Jesus IS God in a literal sense, or that he is the SON of God. None of them sate 'by nature' or anything close to that. Anyhow, as it is clear you have no trouble altering scripture to fit your arguments and I have no desire to go back and cross check each of your quotes to see which (if any) you accurately quoted and which you amended, I will end it here.
evolution is not true!!

Evolutionists theory of how we were created, or evolved is than millions or even billions of years of go. dinosaurs ruled the earth. and one day a meteor crashed into the earth. destroying all dinosaurs, and living plan and animals. the meteors impact crated heat and fire, etc... which put pressure and force ipon a rock and somehow forem a living cell. which evolved into a larger cell, and finally into human, Millions of years later!!! now this might not be your view at it but lets talk. this theory is completely wrong. we did not form from a rock. think about it. heat and friction, and pressure n rocks formed a living cell!! My question is why doesn't still happen today. if that theory is possible, than why isn't there a godzila, or some other monumental animal alive today?? huh did you ever think a bout that. every thing you guys thought of happened way back then and you have no evidence up backing it up. Now The theory that God created the universe in His creative, and intulectual design is true. my evidence- is this. talk to me if you want to find out. cause i'm not gonna waist my time if no one is gonna read this!!! come debate me!!!
Air Force vs Navy (who wins)

To attack an aircraft carrier, aircraft would have to go through an entire fleet of ships, which are all armed with anti-aircraft weaponry, plus the aircraft on the carrier. All the marines have to has to do is storm the airfield to destroy the USAF aircraft. If the USAF was to attack the Navy, the USAF will be detected by radar or by a Navy combat patrol. The carrier would scramble fighters, and the Task Force would open up with anti-air weapons like anti-air missles and guns like the Sea-Sparrow and the Phalanx CIWS anti-missile defense system (Close-In Weapons System) which is a 20mm radar controlled gatling gun which shots down missles and aircraft. All ships carry this making it even harder for the USAF to score hits on the ships. All the Navy fighters in the air have to do is to shoot down enemy planes, while the USAF has to escort the bombers, this gives the navy a large amount of freedom because it just has to fight, not protect. The USAF planes would be slaughtered before they could do major damage to the navy.
Air Force vs Navy (who wins)

The Navy does have the advantage of being a "Mobile Airfield", with numerous capabilities, we also have to look into the Navy's disadvantages against an Air Force. -If an Aircraft Carrier is taken down, an entire fleet of Aircaft would be destroyed. -A large amount of fuel is required to fuel an Air Craft carrier fleet, the Air Force could easily contain a fleet in the ocean. -Navy cannot lauch bombers or cargo ships. -The Navy's over-all power comes from the capabilities of an entire fleet. An Aircraft Carrier needs the support of the Destroyers and their attack ships. -The Navy is a very easy target, with the exception of submerines. My oppenent did bring up that Air Force is a support Role. The Navy does manage Marines and Seals, which is an advantage, but not against the airforce. Air Force Aircraft have the ability to stage pretty much on any land mass or wherever an Airfield can be built. I would say they have equal flexability. When the Navy deploys, they deploy to a region, just like the Airforce. The Navy Supports Marines and the Airforce usually supports the Army (Based on previous wars). The Airforce have almost 2,000 additional Aircraft, which gives them air superiority. I would like my oppenent to include a battle scenerio on his next response, wherein the Navy defeats the Air force. For debates sake, start the scenerio under the notion that all Navy Fleets are deployed on the waters, and Air Force bases are in their current locations around the world. We can break them into regions (Asia/Europe/Middle East/United States).
Air Force vs Navy (who wins)

While the USAF has many advantages, these are very small. The Navy also has 3,700, even though it doesn't have as many aircraft as the USAF, but the navy has aircraft carriers, which makes it harder to destroy, the navy aircraft. While the USAF planes are sitting in one place, the navy's carriers are moving around. Also the only place the USAF fights is in the air, the navy is more flexible. It controls the Marines which has 203,000 active members, and the Seals with about 2,500 active members. The Navy has 283 ships and is able to deploy nuclear payload anywhere in the planet, but more ways to do it than just with aircraft, the navy can use its ships and submarines also. Speed is great, but the USAF doesn't have the ability to fight a war, its just there to support other branches of the military.
Air Force vs Navy (who wins)

There are almost 5,500 aircraft operated by the United States Air Force (USAF), over 400 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, and 63 satellites. The Air Force also carry a variety of Air Craft ranging from Bombers (B-series), Fighters (F-series), Electronic (E-series), Ground Attack (A-series), and Cargo/Transport (C-series). The Air Force has the ability to strike targets all around the world within a short notice. The B-series Air Craft give rise for these types of long range missions. The B-series Air Craft also have the ability to place a Nuclear Payload anywhere on the planet. The Air Force provides ultimate flexibility and the reach is global. However, one of the most important aspects of the USAF is the speed at which an attack can be conducted, and payload delivery.
Air Force vs Navy (who wins)

Guys, this is intended to be an entertaining debate that would encourage people to use military tactics. Round 1: I will allow my opponent to pick either the Navy or Airforce to defend. Round 2: list all advantages of the branch your defending. Round 3: list all disadvantages of opponents military branch. Round 4: Opponent creates a battle scenario between Airforce and Navy. Pro responds. Round 5: Pro creates a battle scenario between both branches. Con responds. Remember guys, I am allowing my opponent to chose the branch they want to defend. I believe there is a clear winner between the two, but this debate is based on military tactics and use of Military technology. This should be entertaining!
The Virgin Mary (Catholic VS Protestant View)

Hello Jamais 23, let me just say thank you very much for allowing me to debate with you over such a sensitive and delicate issue concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is the third debate I've been in so far so please forgive me over any sloppy sentences and bad grammar. With that said I'll turn the show over to you if you'd like to start your arguments of why the Catholic beliefs in the Mother of our Lord are the correct interpretations. Once again I'd just like to say thank you and may God bless this debate.