BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being constitutional is not as important as doing something that develops us better as human beings

Of course, every plot of civilized land ought to have some sort of order. Do not take this debate as me saying the constitution is not important, it is the most important document of our time. It is the document that sets the United States of America apart from other nations. However, the constitution is a little dated, and although it can be amended, it should not be the only law of the land. The constitution has the bill of rights. The bill of rights seem good in theory, but again, it was made for the time it was made in. I am for guns being available to law abiding, mentally sane people. However, the constitution mentions anyone should be allowed to have it, and that we should have them in case of a tyrant government. In the event of a tyrant government, which just about every president was in someone's opinion for the last sixty years. Nowadays, if someone disagrees with someone, they can just go and hurt another one. Sure, they get in trouble if they do, but it's a lot better if nothing ever happened. This is not a gun control debate. That was just a start. The bill of rights also has a very popular law that someone who believes another one owes them 20 dollars or more can bring them to court. They did not take inflation in to account, and now, court costs are higher than that. Yes, carefully analyzing the constitution may be a good way to live, but there are situations where the constitution does not support what we need. The way Christians look to the bible for answers seems to be the way we Americans should look to the constitution.
Being constitutional is not as important as doing something that develops us better as human beings

Allow me to start by thanking Pro for imposing an excellent debate topic. This should prove to be an educational and entertaining debate. Thesis: Careful following of the constitution is essential to the continuation of the American way of life; sadly, in recent history, we have broken away from the original intent of the constitution. The purpose of the constitution was to establish and limit the powers of the federal government while also protecting natural rights. Article one, section 8 of the US constitution delegates 18 specific areas in which congress has legislative authority. Everything beyond that which is specifically written in article one, section 8 or included as an amendment to the constitution was intended to be left to the individual states. To put it plainly, there is very little that the federal government was intended to have authority over. Obeying the constitution as it is written would have meant having a "small" government which manages basic needs while providing the states with infinitely more freedom to adapt to the times and implement the most effective policies for their particular state.
Being constitutional is not as important as doing something that develops us better as human beings

No foul language, good, reliable sources, and total respect for all sides of this argument. Thesis: Doing things in a constitutional only manner is no way of governing America. Doing things solely as the constitution states is not always the best idea, as it can easily slow us down as a country. On more than a few subjects, America is still fighting over topics that have been taken care of in other countries, and for a long time with some of them, too. We need to keep changing as the times change. It is inevitable that the population of America, and the world for that matter, is only going to increase. And as our size increase, so should our policies.
Worst Pick Up Lines #3

I am SO sorry I forfeited, I was terribly busy this weekend. In this argument I will type both of my lines for today, and my argument for last time.Today:I have a knife.... get your coat.My last argument:Good heavens angel! Did you fall on your face?!(Normally you would say, did you fall from heaven, because you have the face of an angel.)I hope I don't lose voters for my forfeit. Sorry once again. Back to you Lee001!
The finitude of the past of the universe does not necessitate that the universe came into being

Rather than waste my opponent's time further, I concede the debate. I confess to having not sufficiently studied the theories of time before; I was aware of the two main theories in summary form, but not in the detail that I went into this evening. It has been interesting, but left me with little room to debate. A - theory can be argued to require an indefinite period of time before any "first event." B - theory cannot, as all events are atemporally present. It does not even necessarily require the universe to have "begun," as the sort of closed manifold involved can be said to have no "outside," and therefore no superior framwork of events to give the term "begun" any sort of meaning. In short, I find I cannot meet my BOP in this debate; I apologize for wasting my opponent's time and that of anyone who reads this. I urge a Pro vote. -Chrysippus
The finitude of the past of the universe does not necessitate that the universe came into being

Many people believe that if the universe has a finite past, that that means it must have came into being. However, I believe this is a mistake. The burden of proof will be shared. .. I will argue that even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. My opponent will argue that the finitude of the past does necessitate that it came into being. ..
Should schools serve better luches to students

To further the point which I was making earlier, the major school regeneration projects in the UK have failed to look at the improvement of educational standards in spite of the addressing of issues of good food and the high level of periphery provisions. The this has been the case with the healthy eating initiative which the Government has liked to introduce. The other matter which has to be considered is that lunch could be considered the least important of the three meals. If parents are well informed about what to feed their children, then the provision of school meals could be replaced with better training standards and the incentives to get a better standard of teachers into the profession.
Should schools serve better luches to students

I believe that schools should provide a better standard of food provision across the board. I am very fortunate to attend a school which has a very high quality of school meals at reasonable price. However, this should not be at the cost of educational quality. It has been the case that a large amount of money has been put into what could be called 'periphery services'. Now this all well and good but you need to make sure that the primary focus of investment should be on high quality education. But on the matter of food, a well nourished student will be far more responsive than one which is fed poor quality school meals.
There is no such thing as a biological virus.

Pro made no mention of the burden of proof and, While it is generally accepted that this falls on the one making the claim, I find debate are more fruitful when it is shared. Thus, I will be arguing that it is more likely that (biological) viruses do exist than don't. Similarly, My opponent will be arguing that it is more likely that viruses don't exist than do. If Pro would prefer to have full ownership of the burden of proof, He is free to take it.
Firearms

For R2, I will refute. 1. The definition of 'assault weapon/rifle' is constantEarlier, Pro stated that the term 'assault weapon/rifle' changes. This is simply not true. Both have clear criteria [1][2]. This means the muzzleloader or Garand, Which were never considered an assault weapon, Are not comparable to actual, modern assault weapons. 2. People kill people, But guns are made to helpIt is not likely that an average American decides to kill. But it is likely for that same American to be in an accident, Because it is precisely that: an accident. Cars are made for transportation, With some fatal errors. Guns are made for killing. On the list provided, Many of the causes of death are illnesses, And is therefore irrelevant. But, murder statistics show us that handguns and general firearms were the most popular weapon [3]. 3. Only 0. 9% of owners actually use it in defense [4][1] Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)[2] https://bit. Ly/2jVmym1[3] https://bit. Ly/2hXZIJ3[4] https://bit. Ly/2EHxu3u
Firearms

The idea that guns kill people would be true. Firearms are able to kill people or other organisms, But that idea would ignore other cases. If one were to claim that guns are responsible, Then think about cars or knives. The people are responsible, Like in the gun instance, However, Society blames the person more than the vehicle for instance. In contrast, With guns, Society is more likely to blame the gun and not the person. Is there a call for car control, When there is a big reck. Accidents rank fourth on the top ten causes for death in America, While gun violence doesn't make the list. , According to Medical News Today. ( https://www. Medicalnewstoday. Com/articles/282929. Php ) The idea that owning firearms is bad in general would be wrong. The use of weapons to protect oneself is a valid and truthful explanation. There will always be people that obtain something that is banned, And the loss of means to protect oneself against those people would result in more casualties than now.
Firearms

In this debate, I will mostly be arguing about the 2 Amend. 's obsolescence. 1. The 2nd Amendment was written to balance state and federal powers. Following their independence, Many were extremely weary as not to create a federal govt. That held too much power like the British. This meant that a fragile balance had to be struck between the state and nation (hence the entire separation between Federalists and Anti-Federalists). The 2nd Amend. Too, Was a balancing act. Madison, Who was influential in framing it, Described the guaranteed militia as an opposing force to the federal army. However, Following the many trials that the nation went through, The national identity began to outrank the state identity in many Americans, Diminishing the need for such legislation. 2. Tyranny is no longer a concernWith limited chars. Left, I will say that, Unlike the Weimar Rep. Or Rus. Rep. , The current political structure and climate makes tyranny in the US impossible. I will be refuting in Round 2.
Firearms

I believe that firearms should be legal in the United States without many or more restrictions, Because of the second amendment. It is the only amendment in the constitution that says it will not be infringed. Yet it is the amendment that is changed the most and argued constantly. People may say that the constitution was talking about muzzleloaders, But those were assault weapons to the people without them. In addition, The term assault rifle changes throughout history. The M1 Garand was an assault rifle of WWII, But in current day isn't considered a threat as much. Who determines what is a true threat and why. One could easily cause harm with a 22lr as an AR-15.
The Existence of God (Christian God)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.
omniscience and omnipotence equals no freewill

not going to use 8,000 characters. everything will be taken in clear black and white. commonsense must be needed, thanks. use your brain! ;) If God is all-knowing then He would have already known if you were going to Heaven or Hell before He made you in the first place. He knew every single action you were going to commence before He created you. He knew if you were going to love the world before He made you. How can you say you have freewill (addressed to believers), if there is a source of omniscience and omnipotence? should it not be commonsense? If God is all-knowing, why does He get "mad" or "angry" if He already knew if he was going to hate Satan? Thats like me knowing tomorrow I am going to get fired (assuming i am all-knowing). Why would i get mad if I knew way beforehand? The fact Christians are OK with predestination is ridiculous! If God loves you, why would He bother making you knowing you were going to go to Hell? what if youaare born in a islamic family? hmm? I am open-minded and nonjudgmental so please relax. I became agnostic after living through a harsh baptist school 6th to 12th.
Michael Jordan is not the best NBA player of all time

"So many people are quick to point out that "Michael Jordan was the best scorer of all time. " First, Which people are quick to point out that "Michael Jordan was the best scorer of all time"? Kareem Abdul Jabar is regarded as the best scorer of all time because he's the NBA's all time leading scorer. "Compiling all his career numbers, Jordan averaged around thirty points a very impressive feat, BUT another player who averaged 30 points was Wilt Chamberlain who also scored 100 points IN ONE GAME where Michael Jordan, The so called "Best scorer of all time" scored a career high of 69 points. " Once again, Michael Jordan wasn't seen as the "best scorer" of all time. He's seen as the best player of all time because of his impact on both the offensive and defensive ends of the floor, His efficiency, His ability to lead a team to championship success--usually in reference to his ability to takeover and score in the last few minutes of a game, And ushering in the modern NBA, Which became less "center-focused. " Not only that, Michael Jordan was able to have a substantial impact on both ends of the floor, Being the only player in NBA history to with both the NBA's Most Valuable Player and Defensive Player of the Year in the same year (1988. ) Michael Jordan was also able to elevate his game substantially during the playoff runs. Unlike Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan's numbers would go up during the playoffs, Not down (i. E. Michael Jordan averaged 33. 4 points in the playoffs, While Wilt Chamberlain averaged 22. 5 in the playoffs. ) As for Wilt Chamberlain's "100 point game" it was quite a feat, But context must be given. First, He competing against one of the worst teams in the league in the Knicks, Who were without their star center, Phil Jordan. Second, Wilt Chamberlain attempted an NBA record 63 shots (Bleacher Report. ) And despite competing in a league against just 8 other teams, Wilt and his teams were only able to acquire just two championships, While Michael Jordan was able to acquire six in all six attempts competing against 29 other teams. Michael Jordan was clearly a better player than Wilt Chamberlain (though Wilt is no scrub) and his impact, His numbers, And his success demonstrate it. Michael Jordan's resume clearly informs his being the best of all time.
Michael Jordan is not the best NBA player of all time

Michael Jordan is without a doubt one of the best players of all time BUT HE IS NOT THE BEST. Now I will say that he is definitely the most influential player of all time, No one shaped the game like he did, No one was more of an icon than him and no kids looked up to any basketball player quite like they did to Michael but he was not the best player. So many people are quick to point out that "Michael Jordan was the best scorer of all time. " but that is simply not true. Compiling all his career numbers, Jordan averaged around thirty points a very impressive feat, BUT another player who averaged 30 points was Wilt Chamberlain who also scored 100 points IN ONE GAME where Michael Jordan, The so called "Best scorer of all time" scored a career high of 69 points (IM NOT SAYING THIS IS NOT IMPRESSIVE) which is also an amazing feat in it of itself but is nowhere close to Wilt's scoring ability.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

(Lincoln douglass format) Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. "We are deprived of strength where we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious; it may engender a total loss of life and vitality out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause pity persuades men to nothingness!" Because I agree with Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, I negate. The value of my argument is self-reliance. If we keep giving people things, they will not be able to fend for themselves. The criterion is maximizing self-reliance because people need to learn how to take care of themselves. My first contention is that when we start giving people in need what they need, when are we going to stop? We can't just keep giving them everything because eventually nobody will be there to give them what they need and they won't know how to help themselves. Buddha states that "The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." This is saying that the people that always are reliant on other people will never truly be free. They will not know how to do things for themselves. So, by helping them are we really helping them in the long run? Also, the graph above states that we have gone from a low of about 11% poverty rate to a high of 15% poverty rate. Since we are in a recession the poverty rates have raised dramatically. If we had taught people before the recession how to fend for themselves and not rely on other people, we might not have such large numbers of poverty because now there are very few people to give help to those who need it. This affects the people because they will not be truly helped if they keep being given everything they need. My second contention is that people are more interested in helping themselves, rather than helping other people. When it comes down to it, people are really just plain selfish. If it came to a situation where a person could either help themselves or another person, the person would help themself. Lawana Blackwell states that "Forgiveness is almost a selfish act because of its immense benefits to the one who forgives." This is saying that people are selfish, and even when they do stuff for others, it's for selfish reasons. So, if a man helps a homeless man out, it comes back to the man being selfish because he helped the homeless man to feel good about himself, which is selfish. On finestquotes.com over 40 quotes are about how people are selfish. This affects the people because if people are helping people for selfish reasons, they will eventually find a different way to satisfy their selfishness and will forget about the people they are helping. Thus, I negate.
Any age can love

To the Con, we do not need a evidence-heavy debate scene the theory of love is mostly subjective. 1. According to Dictionary.com: Love is define as a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person and a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. Love can be felt by anybody. Love can be felt by any age due to the fact that little kids can love there parents. One can have affection for there parents that nobody can argue. 2. On a religious stand point, as young as a 6 year old believes in God and God is love according to 1 John 4:16 : "God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." meaning that if God is love and we as humans have the power to love, we can at lease love God by any age. 3. Love for a friend is a powerful type of love that no amount of evil can break. When a child loves a friend for any reason. That child will stand by his or her friend to the end. Through the up's and down's of a friendship, love is the glue that can hold it together through the tough times. 4. First love. For example, a 13 year old can truly love there girl friend if the chemistry is there. Love is when u are willing to give up your last meal for your mate when there is not anything else to eat. love is when no matter how much drama or problems in one's life, one can still talk to that person with the whole truth without trouble Love is when no matter what the people say abut how unorthodox the relationship may seem, they can ride out the storm of life. Love does not need a age requirement and anyone can feel love, now matter what age. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.biblegateway.com...
Any age can love

Sure, I'll take this on.I will assume a few things while taking this debate:1) The BOP will be on the pro to prove that any 'age' can feel love. If I disprove his case, then I ought to win the round.2) Sources will be optional for this debate. If you wish to have an evidence-heavy debate, inform me in your next round and I will adapt like-wise.Next, I would also like to clarify as to what seems like a misconception of what my opponent thinks the statement "You are too young to love" means (note, this isn't an argument, only clarifying on the resolution, so I'm not breaking the rules of first round acceptance). The statement does not directly adress age, but rather the maturity, or rather immaturity, that comes with youth. My argument will take the form of a few arguments: 1. There is a certain level of maturity that one must reach in order to be able to "love". 2a. Love is too vague a term to be definable, regardless of the attempts to do so.2b. The definitions of love are subjective based upon a person's experiences in life. With that, I turn it over to the pro for the opening argument.
Any age can love

Hello, this is my first debate and I want to debate something that I believe and no amount of proof could convince me to believe differently. The old saying is "your too young to love" I DO NOT believe that at all and will never believe that. I want my opponent to prove to me that there is a "age" were you able to feel love. The first round is acceptance, the second, third and fourth round is arguments and the fifth round is you conclusion. there is no rules, you can bring up political, emotional or spiritual proof. Good Luck :)