BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American Confederacy had the right to secede and the Union should not have invaded.

{Chuckling} I see your naivetï¿½ is typical of an Americans that has been only taught the one-sided propaganda that is dubbed "history" in the artificially patriotic US educational system. Now let me rebut your arguments. First of all the notion that the North was a group of anti-racism crusaders. This is bogus, taught to justify the onslaught that followed, resulting in the death of 400,000 American lives and 200,000 Confederate ones. (aprox). The North was no where nearly as economically dependant as the South on slave-labour, and managed to exploit their workforce in other methods. Or do you beg to differ that the unionless factories of New England were really that much more respectful of human rights than the cotton plantations of Virginia? The Emancipation Proclamation was purely a war measures act, meant to encourage Negro disloyalty in the South just King George's Knell against the 13 Colonial slavery was meant to inhibit the Revolution's control of her slaves. After the Union had conquered, apartheid in the South still continued for a century. So much for "rights" you talk so admirably about- tell that to the freed slaves who continued to work for their former masters at the same pay, if not lesser pay (due to economic catastrophe caused by the war). The war hurt everybody, and not even Negroes really escaped the burdens it brought with it. Yet we should look at the South's rebellion just as we did the 13 Colony's so many years ago. There were groups of citizens that were unhappy with their political rights and wished for greater independence from their masters (London, than D.C.) and so they rebelled against those they viewed as tyrants, Lincoln (only had 40% of the vote) and George (unelected). Slavery was an issue in both cases (both times people were concerned about the abolitionist movements in London and D.C.), but the biggest one. Both times, it was political alienation. Rights are a malleable idea and in 1860's perception they were different ideals than we have today. In those days, as it today in North America (except Cuba), is the principle that every citizen should have the equal democratic right to vote, be heard, and direct his or her country anyway they see fit, even towards separation. (though what counts as a citizen has since expanded) In today's civilized world Canadian military wouldn't be sent in if Quebec voted to separate, would you? That is because most people respect the democratic rights of citizens to do as they please, thus defining the accountable form of democracy we know today.
No Facts for Evolution

Micro-evolution has been observed many times before. It is proven fact that one species can develop new traits and habits over a process that takes many, many years. There is no disproving this. What gets skewed by creationists -and people who chose not to believe in evolution in general- is that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a much larger period of time. Many examples prove evolution, like the famed Darwin's Finches (thirteen different species of one single finch, being a certain variety of tree finch), the Pod Mrcaru Lizard (originally from an island separate to their new home of Pod Mrcaru, known for rapidly evolving and adapting to their current home.) and years of fossil data. While on the subject of fossil evidence, understand that if one single fossil were to be found out of place compared to many other organisms, the idea of evolution would crumble. But, as you can see, no such thing has been found. Evolution is a very fragile subject, but nothing thus far has disproved it. Not one single thing. The science we have now is vastly superior when compared to the "Science" used by the ancients writing the bible. You can't just use your God for what you don't know.
No Facts for Evolution

I'm going to ignore the fact that you just evaded your actual debate topic. (Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with sedimentary rock layers. That may have something to do with the Earth's beginning, or maybe even the Earth's age, but not evolution.) Anything can be proof for anything if you take it in the way you want to. I do believe that the different layers of rock prove the idea of an old Earth, far more than one roughly 6,000 years old. For instance, lets think about how new layers of rock are formed. The Earth's crust splits open just enough to let magma through, then cooling it down and creating more stone. This process takes a very long time to make any difference, and you can see that in various rock layers. In the Grand Canyon, you can see these perfectly. Not only do you see the many layers of rock that the Earth has made, but also the years and years of erosion created by the river passing through it. Erosion does not simply happen overnight, but over years and years of gradually wearing down the sediment. These rocks have been aged many times, and most scientists will agree that it is roughly 250 million years of age. The average young-earth creationist will say that it is roughly 6,000, but I would rather trust years of science rather than a singular book written by people from thousands of years ago with no previous background of geology/science.
Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

Peyton Manning is a better overall Quarterback. Just because Brady has won more superbowls doesn't mean he is the better QB. Winning Superbowls is a team accomplishment, Tom Brady does not win the Super Bowls by himself. Adam Vinateiri played a big role, as well as the entire patriots offense and defense. Peyton Manning is the only quarterback in the entire history of the NFL with 4 MVP awards. Peyton Manning won a superbowl without a defense. Peyton Manning revolutionized the Quarterback position by mastering the No-huddle offense. Tom Brady's patriots have always had a consistent defense with standout versatile players like pro bowl linebackers Teddy Bruschi and Mike Vrabel. All Pro defensive lineman like Richard Seymour, and Vince Wilfork. Their secondary was also loaded with talent Ty Law and Asante Samuels are among the best cornerbacks of our decade. Tom Brady's Superbowl Success is caused mainly because he was on a better team
God is real

Now I will present arguements for the existence of God 1. The Ontological Arguement Essentially it goes like this, because God exists, and God is a perfect being, he cannot only exist in the mind. If he only existed in the mind then we would have to conceive of a greater being that exists bith in the mind and in reality. god already is a perfect being, so this is impossible, therefore God exists in both mind and reality as there can be no being more perfect than him (or it, I will call it him). . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Aquinas 5 proofs arguement This goes like this, nothing moves without a mover in the same way that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Because of this God must exist so that the universe itself could come into existence. Since there can not be an infinite countback of movers, one mover must exist that has always existed. Therefore, this "forerunner" mover is God, therefore God exists. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Trancendental arguement Without God, knowledge could not exist, therefore their must be a god . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Now I will indulge in my own idea for this arguement) i would argue that abstract ideas could not exist, because God essentially embodies these ideas himself. Because he embodies these ideas, and because these ideas exist, God must exist because he essentiall Is these ideas. 4. The majority arguement Because so many people believe in God across cultures without communication with each other, God must inevitably exist. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Now I will proceed to say my own arguements. I would say that sheer force of the masses of humanity could create God, a collective belief in him creating a complex structure out of the will of others. Because of this, God must exist as he himself is the creation kf human bekngs and their force of will and faith.
High School Education should be simplified and focus on specialization.

I accept this challenge. My plan 1.Math should be taught all four years. There will be options of which four classes are taken. 2.English classes should focus on persuasive and expository writing as well as literature. 3.Science should be what it is now, 4 years with various classes to chose from. 4.Social Studies should focus on more practical government/economics type classes, but still teach history. 5.There should be some advanced core classes that provide college credit. 6.Core classes still build on each other with the exception of social studies classes. 7.Computer skills classes should be mandatory. 8.All else should remain as it currently is. Reasons 1.Math builds logic, a necessary skill. 2.Persuasive and Expository writing is useful and there are many benefits to reading. 3.Math and science is the basis of our technological society and must be taught. 4.Core classes will always build on each other. The reason we aren't teaching 3rd graders physics is that they have not learned the important information necessary to comprehend it yet. 5.Most jobs in America require regular computer use. 6.Most high school students have not fully decided their career and should be exposed to as many options as possible.
High School Education should be simplified and focus on specialization.

This is what I believe. 1. Math should be only one to two years. The students will learn only the basics. 2. English should focus on writing persuasive and expository papers as well as reading non fiction. In addition public speech should be taught. 3. Science should focus on anatomy and medicine only for people to understand what is going on in the body 4. Social Studies should focus on using historical evidence to relate it to solving modern day problems. 5. Career classes like business essentials and architecture should be taught and go into further detail. There should be more classes like these. 6 Career classes should teach at a college level and students should have opportunities to obtain college credits for these classes. 7. The core classes should not build on each other and could be taken simotaneousely . For example, a person could take government and history in the same year and not take any sciences. Reasoning: 1. People do not need to know some of this stuff. Why does an accountant need to know what is inside of the mitochondria of a cell? They don't. So do not make them learn it. If a student wants to pursue biology, then have them take a class specialized in medicine or something like it. 2. College is crazy expensive so people should get as much out of the way as possible while it is free. By offering college credits, the school encourages people to decide what they want to be when they grow up and can help out financially without hurting the school financially. 3. America has basically no hope of competing with Europe with regards to education, so stop trying. Concentrate less on the specific stuff and more on what is needed for an average person's life. Then teach specialization. 4. Students learn things that interest them better. If a student likes psychology, they will learn psychology better than a person who like business while the person who likes business will learn business better than the person who likes psychology. I know that some students are smarter and could provide exceptions, but I am simply generalizing. 5. Schools should focus more on problem solving. While knowing the parts of the cell may be useful for the next test, learning how to solve political problems will stick with a person every time they vote. 6. Schools should teach how to use what they know through writing and speaking. My plan for English and Social Studies explains this. How this plan will benefit us. 1. Everything learned will have value. 2. Less money will be wasted on teaching students things that are useless except for a few students. When debating, use logic with limited facts. I would like you to post your plan for education reform or if you would just want to keep it the same so we can debate plans. Keep education plans at a high school level. Round 1 is posting your plan, the rest is fair game.
It is more likely than not that God exists

I will be proving that the universe was created by a God that is omnipotent and omnipresent. The creation of the universe and the creation of laws are all consistent with a designer.The Beginning of the UniverseWe know that the Universe has a beginning. The Big Bang model places the universe at around 13 billion years old. [1] Also, according to the law of Thermodynamics, the Universe would be in a state of dissolution if it was truly infinite.Anything that began to exist must have had a cause. Therefore, the universe, and all of the laws held within, had a cause. This cause it what we know to be God. Because our universal laws depend on this cause, and not the other way around, God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Fine-Tuned Universe"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." - Stephen HawkingThe laws of the universe are designed exponentially succinct in order to sustain the universe, and life on the universe. Here are a few examples:If the charge of the proton and the neutron were not exactly equal, there would be no hydrogen, and thus no galaxies. [2]If the amount of stars in the universe was reduced from 10 to the power of 22 to 10 to the power of 11, the cycle of expansion on contraction would have lasted about only one year. [3]The forces of repulsion and extraction had not been exact, the universe would have either collapsed in on itself, or splattered in such a way that matter would have never united. [4]The odds against the universe randomly supporting life are so numerous that it is more likely to be done through intelligent design than spontaneity. Laws of the UniverseThe laws of the universe are true, predictable, and consistent. Such laws as the law of relativity, the law of polarity, and the law of cause and effect are unseen forces that have a grip on everything in the universe. Furthermore, the laws of logic and morality exist in the world even though they are immaterial. If we lived in a world without God, it would be impossible to prove anything because there would be no objective logic, morality, or science. Consistent, non-material, objective laws have no meaning in a world that is materially random.ConclusionWithout an omnipotent, omnipresent creator, the universe would have had no cause to creation, minimal chance of supporting life, and no universal, objective laws. Therefore, it is likely that there is a cause to the universe, God.Sources:http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... http://www.powertochange.ie... http://www.religion-online.org... http://www.creationofuniverse.com...
It is more likely than not that God exists

I also suggest that we use the normal dictionary definitions of the words "omnipresent," "omnipotent," "creator," and "universe. "Omnipresent: Being present everywhere at once. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Creator: One that creates. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole. http://bit.ly...Seems like this will be a short debate with only two actual debating rounds. Good luck.
Resolved: The evidence supports the Abortion-Crime link

It's ok bruh. I will give a history of the debate. Fox 2000 analyzes Levitt's claim in the 90s that abortion reduces crime, finds no evidence for such an effect DL publish their theory in 2001. Lott and Whitley respond in 2001, saying abortion increases crime. Cook and Laumb 2002 find no evidence using basic time series data Rosenfeld 2004, using criminologist data methods again, finds no evidence Joyce published 2004 rebuttal DL publish their 2004 paper, responding to criticism and providing more evidence of the abortion-crime link. Zimring 2006 finds abortion increases high risk cohorts. Abortion cannot decrease crime. Fox 2007 notes DL's data is incomplete Lott and Whitley expand their datasets in 2007, using 6000 regressions, finds no abortion-crime link Foot and Goetz 2008 find coding errors in DL's data, abortion may increase crime when corrected for (and at best, has no effect) DL respond to new criticisms in 2008, again find a link between abortion and crime Joyce 2009 responds to DL, and again proves abortion has no effect on crime Joyce reviews the evidence in 2009, DL has not responded, debate is "over".
Resolved: The evidence supports the Abortion-Crime link

The DebateI don't how to say this, but I can't continue the debate.I got stuff to do and I will be very busy for the next couple of days.This was a good debate, I have never gained so much knowledge from a field I'm unfamiliar with, and bear in mind everyone that 16kadams was the one who recommended me this topic, everything from the theory, every motion, every idea is all his.He made the first move in our pm and I merely took the opportunity and constructed my arguments from a map of social theories. So all of this is due to him, If you enjoyed the debate, thank him.Lastly, I just want to say thanks to my opponent for giving me this opportunity and for educating me on a topic. Sorry 16k.
Resolved: The evidence supports the Abortion-Crime link

== Clarification == For those unaware, there has been a supposed link between abortion and crime rates. The argument can be found in Freakonomics and Levitt and Donahue 2001. As the theory goes, as abortion becomes liberalized, crime rates will decrease. == Rules == 1. Forfeiting a round will be counted as a concession 2. Arguments should be visible within the debate, sources can be placed in an outside link if needed 3. PRO will have the BOP to prove that abortion decreases crime rates 4. No semantics 5. No trolling == Definitions == These really should not be clarified, as they are common knowledge and/or were referred to in the clarification section. Rules 4 and 5 also pretty much protect me from any trolling malice (looking at you, imabench ;D) == Structure == R1: CON sets up the debate, PRO states his case R2: CON presents case and refutes PRO's contentions R3: PRO refutes CON's case and defends his case R4: CON refutes PRO's points and defends his case, PRO writes "no round as agreed upon", or something unrelated to the debate (like how Thett3 posts random song lyrics). I have made the debate impossible to accept. Show interest within the comment section.
Resolved: The evidence supports the Abortion-Crime link

http://www.youtube.com...My impression of you and roy Global Warming Debate (http://www.debate.org...). Roy- "If I want to post 30 seconds before the deadlines, I will, because I don't race against time...time race AGAINST ME!"16K-"There, I finished my full fledged argument, lets look at the time...Oh i still have 2 days 23 hours and 59 minutes...Should I post???Nahh I'm pretty much relaxed the whole time, not once am I ever frustrated,I'll post tomorrow."
Labour Unions in the Public Sector Should Be Abolished.

Labour unions enter a workplace, a business and poison the employer/employee relationship. They persuade people, within a workplace or field of work, to work together instead of competing against one another, driving down productivity and driving up prices. This is passable in the private sector because the marketplace will push back, preventing the union from becoming too unreasonable. (ie. How the Hostess bakery, who produces the Twinkie, went out of business because they couldn't afford the union's demands) In the public sector, however, no such check exists. Taxpayers do not have the ability to decline to support a public sector "business". If the union pushes public sector wages up but not the quality of their performance, and I decide to not pay for their service any longer, I will go to jail for tax evasion. What is more, there are case studies which illustrate that introducing a degree of competition into the public sector has positive results, and also that there is a conscious effort from within to "game the system". In the documentary film "The Cartel", New Jersey public schools experiment with the concept of vouchers. Each student had an amount of tax-dollars associated with them which follows them to whichever school they decide to attend (including some private schools). The teachers were forced to compete against one another, to drive up the quality of their performance, in order to attract new students and the funding they brought with them. In the end, the teachers union resorted to the kind of behavior you see in "The Sopranos" in order to restore their scam. Labour unions stifle internal competition and, therefore, should be abolished from the public sector.
Resolved: Ethics are not universal. September Beginner's Tournament Round 1

That1user forfeited this round. I will make my arguments. He lost his conduct point or his whole debate. Human flourishing and happiness are synonymous. One is what we mean by the other. So, what kind of person are you called to become if the goal is happiness, which I believe it is? The answer is, an ethical person. The road to happiness lies in living a virtuous life. Sometimes this requires the suppression of immediate personal satisfaction or happiness. This is in service of a larger goal, one which if achieved leads to happiness in the deepest sense. Most religions have a key commandment that provides a guideline for living and, remarkably, those guidelines are consistent across borders. They place good, decent and ethical human relations squarely at the center of things. • Confucianism: What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. • Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. • Hinduism: Do not do to others what would cause you pain if done to you. • Jainism: One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated. • Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to others. • Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. • Sikhism: As you think of yourself, so think of others. • Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good that refrains from doing to another whatever is not good for itself. • Humanism: Act so as to bring out the best in others, thereby bringing out the best in yourself. • Islam: No one is a believer until you desire for your sister or brother that which you desire for yourself. • Christianity: Do to others whatever you would have done to you. These Golden Rules, while different in their emphasis, are rules in so far as they orient behavior and lay out obligations, but they are not rules for particular situations. They are guidelines that are more like pointers on a compass or lines on a map. When you encounter these master rules, you are much like the civil engineer who has learned how to build bridges in general but must still figure out how to build this particular bridge in this particular place given the unique set of circumstances that the terrain presents. Whatever bridge is finally built must conform to engineering standards, no matter how innovative. What is the underlying standard of ethics, whatever the unique application? It is a concern for treating others compassionately and fairly. Each of the Golden Rules addresses the inherent equality of all human beings and the need to treat them with the same consideration that you demand for yourself. The key guidelines make two psychological assumptions about human nature: that humans are capable of putting themselves in someone else's place and that they want to be treated compassionately and fairly. Since both assumptions are found consistently across cultures, it is reasonable to say that despite the very real differences that exist from place to place and from era to era, they nevertheless address a fundamental and universal truth.Thank you.