BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marriage is about love, not gender.

Well these are two entirely different questions first of all, and second... people are just plain offended by the un-natural atmosphere that gay relationships create in any environment. (besides gay bars/clubs etc...) I myself have a homosexual brother that brings his boyfriend everywhere, and although my family tries to be as understanding as possible, it just makes everyone uncomfortable in public. And as for your second question about weather or not there is room for you in Heaven or not is tough to say because even though your selected lifestyle is considered sinful in the eyes of the lord, He is also forgiving. With that said Ive never herd of a homosexual that was truly a Christian. To be honest, if you want to better your chance of Heaven, I would forget the homosexual lifestyle and just work on building with the lord because it sounds like you might need too. Because just calling yourself a "Christian" and continuing to live a life full of sin, is just living a lie.
Magic The Gathering: The Most Powerful Fantasy Universe

Magic the gathering in my opinion is one of the weakest fantasy universes out there. One reason being that its not super well known card game/fantasy game. As a 90's kid i grew up in the era where games like Pokemon and yu gi oh were thriving. I hadn't even heard of magic the gathering until later in high school. I first seen a group of guys playing what seemed to me was just a card game but it later turned out to be magic. And in learning what it was i had also asked how to play and what kind of difficulty the game was. The kid who answered my questions was beginning to explain and it was a much more complicated game then i had expected. And thereafter i was never really to interested in playing the game. I continue to not hear to much about the game and the people who play it. Every now and then ill see a small group of people playing and or talking about it. But as far as i know its not nearly as popular as games such as Pokemon which took over the anime and video game scene immediately.
Magic The Gathering: The Most Powerful Fantasy Universe

I want to debate that Magic The Gathering is the strongest fantasy universe (Pro) Magic The Gathering has a superior story/stories compared to all other Fantasy universes along with stronger and more memorable characters. Con will argue against this and bring up valid points that argue against my claim. Con may choose any other Fantasy Universe or may argue in favor of multiple. Con must have a rich knowledge of the universes he debates and know the story and characters of that universe very well.
Islam does not call for the killing of apostates

There has been a lot of criticism of Islam by conservative media outlets, and one thing I see many of them claiming in their criticisms is that Islam requires the death penalty for those who leave the religion. This is completely false. My opponent will try to prove it true. (Before accepting this debate, please note that you have only 24 hours to reply to arguments. Thank you. ) Definition: An apostate is someone who leaves a religion. Rules: 1. We will only be using the Quran in this debate not the actions of Muslims or the sunnah or the hadeeth (The sunnah and hadeeth are the recorded actions and sayings of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Most are false and they are frequently contradictory on important subjects. That is why only the Quran shall be used in this debate). 2. Please do not go off on a tangent such as women's rights or terrorism in Islam. Those are completely different topics that do not pertain here. 3. You may begin your arguments immediately in the first round. It is not just for acceptance.
Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans

Inherently: Occurring from birth; within the very genetics of the group. Round 1: Introduction of the Affirmative Case (by Pro) Round 2: Rebuttals and argumentsRound 3: Rebuttals and argumentsRound 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments on either side)No semantics. My opponent insists on receiving the final word, so contrary to the common debate structure, Pro will begin his argument in Round 1 and I will refute it in the following round and so on and so forth.
Video games have positive benefits.

Non sequitur Con states video games have negative impacts, but that is not the topic of this debate. Something can have positive attributes while having negative attributes as well. So even if video games do have negative attributes that does not negate the resolution. For con to win he must show that video gave have no positive benefits at all. 1) Positive benefits Video games improve cognitive experience and improve problem solving capabilities. Video games help people react faster, have greater awareness , and even help people develops advanced problem solving capabilities. all of the above are positive benefits ( https://www.apa.org... ) resolution affirmed.
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

Alright you bring up some excellent points so I have to rephrase my statement of blaming the Parole board for all crimes, You have changed my mind in this debate. Jaywalking and shoplifting and drug use are not serious criminal offences. Jaywalking is just a misdemeanour charge rarely enforced by a fine. I blame the Parole board for all serious criminal offences such as rape, Murder, Armed robbery, Gang violence. All the hardcore criminals can not be rehabilitated. Jeffrey Dahmer had an blood relative, Grandparent who was a bank robber, Those criminal genes were passed down to Dahmer. His grandfather did spend time in jail and was released by the Parole board in Missouri.
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

While you may be able to blame some crime on people whose relatives are criminals and link that to parole and corrections, You said all crime. Jaywalking is a crime that many people, Including myself, With no familial or otherwise relationship to criminals commit on daily basis. As for more serious crimes, No one in Jeffrey Dahmers immediate family was criminal and he was one of America's worst serial killers of all time. Also while serial killers may be unable to change, Drug addicts, And shoplifters most likely can. It is true that changes should be made, But in the opposite direction of your suggestions. Norway has a recidivism rate of 20% and they focus on rehabilitation https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/amp. Businessinsider. Com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

Here is how I'm going to prove to your rebuttal how the Parole board and corrections is at fault. Although you are right about crimes happening for the first time by individuals who have never been in the corrections or Parole system, I'm going to blame the criminal behavior of corrections institutions for that. The way I can explain best is, The parents of the sibling who commits a crime is a chain reaction. So the father from the trailer park is arrested for meth distribution, He goes away to jail, The dirty whore wife comes for a conjugal visit, Gets pregnant, The kid grows up, Meanwhile the father is released for the 50'th time on bail comes home beats the wife and the kid sees it, Than he grows up on welfare, Starts selling meth LIKE HIS DAD and ends up in jail himself. It's a chin reaction and the correctional services do not work as they just breed more criminals, As they network inside before coming out. The new criminals are a result of the parole board and corrections releasing their parents, The criminality is passed down through the generations. Just look at the Las Vegas shooter, His father was on the FBI's most wanted list, Than he goes and covers the concert goers in led. Like you mention, Dysfunctional families (trailer trash with criminal records) abuse once again criminal fathers beating wife's and children growing up to see it. Basically the trash of society that should be locked up for life, Are released by the parole board to go and affect future generations of children who will become criminals because that is all they know. Thank you parole board for thinking these people will change. They WON'T CHANGE, They will raise the next generation of criminals. You said we have not enough prisons to keep these people in. Well people need jobs, I say cut welfare and get people to start building more prisons, You will have a job and make money, So tax payers don't have to pay for you. Than we can have separate prisons for non violent criminals and the real bad ones. Contrary to your beliefs people DO NOT CHANGE, A criminal will always be a criminal, Then he will breed and have criminal children, That is the way it is. There are good people in the world and there are criminals, Lets keep the criminals behind bars and lets get rid of the bleeding heart parole board who are the most disillusioned group of people who think a criminal can actually have a second start. Yeah right try 50 new starts, Like the wife beater who says he will never do it again. Yeah right like I believe that. That's why the recidivism rate is at 89%. Stats don't lie Parole boards just add to the problem of crime because they release people who on the outside don't know how to function and will commit crimes again and end up back in jail. If we didn't have parole boards, We wouldn't have crime Your rebuttal sir
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

The first issue with your argument is a semantic one. You claim that ALL crime is due to parole and corrections boards. In order to get to a parole board or correctional facility a person has to commit a crime first. If parole boards and correctional facilities are 100% responsible for all crime than how do they cause the initial crimes for which people are placed in prison in the first place. There are a number of factors which can lead to criminal behavior such as anti-social personality traits, Criminal peers, Dysfunctional families, And substance abuse(https://www. Policeone. Com/corrections/articles/8552534-6-traits-that-lead-to-criminal-behavior/). While you might argue that criminals should just be locked up for life to avoid reoffending, Not only do we not have enough space in are prisons, But it is unfair and cruel to lock up a non violent offender who got caught with an 1/8 oz of weed with a serial killer for the rest of his life. It would make more sense to simply not allow violent offenders the opportunity to get parole: a policy which many states have. It is better to release people who are drug addicts for example, On parole because then you can rewuire them to submit to drug testing helping them stay clean. In summary, While there are certainly flaws in the current parole and corrections systems, To say that they are responsible for all crime is to say there would be a 0% crime rate without parole or prisons, Which is highly unlikely because there are many other contributing factors to criminal behavior.
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

I blame the Parole Board and Corrections/Prison Boards for all crime that happens. The recidivism rate of convicted prisoners is 87%. Why are we letting these people out of jail, So we can incarcerate them again 6 months later at th expense of more trials? The Police do their job apprehending these felons, The Judge and Jury put them away, And than the Parole Board grants them bail and the prison releases them. These people don't change, How many criminals have long rap sheets that stem from going in and out of jail. How many convicted criminals get out commit murder again, Robberies, Other crimes. I blame all crimes on the Parole board, These bleeding hearts on the Parole board think that criminals are rehabilitated and release them, Only to have them back in jail soon after. The Parole Board is as useless as weather man, They assume all people are good. Well 87% recidivism rate says otherwise. It's like the weather man who says there is a 90 percent chance of rain and than it doesn't rain at all. Parole boards, All the crimes are on you! Here is just one of millions of examples of the Parole Board being useless and dropping the ball https://www. Boston25news. Com/news/rhode-island-man-convicted-of-killing-boston-officer-released-from-prison-again/732144100 Actually here is 10 more examples why the Parole Board is at fault for all the crimes that happen! https://www. Monstersandcritics. Com/list/living/10-twisted-murderers-who-were-freed-then-killed-again/
I blame the Parole Board and Corrections for all the crime

There may very well be no hope for serial killers, And many states already give murderers life without parole or even death. Even if we did know the extent to which genetics play a role in serious crimes (we currently do not), There is a clear ethical issue. If we accept that serious criminal behaviour is hereditary, This could lead to the government preventing the family or descendants of serial killers from reproducing, Which would be unconstitutional and immoral. As far as how the parole board comes into this, While I agree that these serious criminals should not receive parole, I still do not think the parole board is at fault for the crimes these people commit. Many serial killers and armed robbers have kids long before they are caught, And it would be immoral to track people with certain genes, So this type of crime is inevitable with or without a parole board. Considering the fact that genes can be recessive and not all people with serial killer genes will be serial killers, Eugenics would be the only solution, Although that would in my opinion be almost as immoral as serial killing. Good debate.
Find the mistakes to my impossible equations.

Con has stated that I divided by zero and this is what created my infinite, however this is not the mistake, as all infinitives can be deduced by Planck's Constant, an imaginary number in which K X K=-∞. This constant therefore reduces infinitives to finite numbers. In this case it is not the lack of Planck's Constant that is wrong, as the constant is applied to equations without necessary appearance. Also con has not specified in which location I am incorrect in the following: "There is not one, but two. (stating that 1 does not equal 2) There is none, but two. There is none and two. Therefore 0=2." Keep looking mate.
Find the mistakes to my impossible equations.

In this debate, I will be arguing that 0=2 and that 1+1=∞. There is not one, but two. (stating that 1 does not equal 2) There is none, but two. There is none and two. Therefore 0=2. H=Change in HE=(Hm)cc E=0m Therefore, H0m=(Hm)cc H0m/cc=Hm 0m=0 (H0)/cc=Hm Therefore, H∞=Hm Therefore, 1+1=∞ The rules of this debate are as follows: Con will locate my errors in each of the progressions. He will have two rounds to do so. On the second round, I will either confirm or deny con's answers. On the third round, I will confirm or show con the answers. Con's third round, however, will count for nothing as I will have said the answers beforehand.
Find the mistakes to my impossible equations.

Con has failed to locate the mistakes in my progressions. The mistake in my first progression is that none means 'not one', therefore "There is none and two" is a possible phrase, but this does not conclude that 0=2, as none is not equal to 0. The mistake in my second progression is that, although energy contains 0mass and is literally a particle with no mass, this does not mean that energy is purely nothing. E contains 0m, but is not equal to 0m.
if both healthy baby and mother can be saved, abortion should not be allowed

i couldn't comprehend your first post, and i'm sure no one else could.... so that makes two of us. here is another try... try reading your first post and see if it makes sense. cause it don't. explain to me what it means. do you mean the forced birth of the baby? do you mean "include" the forced pregnancy of the mother, in terms of requiring rapes by force that require the birth of the baby? most abortions can occur before the baby is "healthy" and can be safely removed. that is legal and i have no quelms about it. if the mother is under 18 and raped, we shouldn't allow the baby to die for it... if the baby is healthy-- there's no reason the baby would have to die in this situation. i wouldn't squabble too much and understand though, if you simply disagreed, and it was on the specific point of allowing abortion for those underage, and raped, even later in pregnancy.
if both healthy baby and mother can be saved, abortion should not be allowed

do you mean the forced birth of the baby? do you mean "include" the forced pregnancy of the mother? most abortions can occur before the baby is "health" and can be safely removed. if the mother is under 18 and raped, we shouldn't allow the baby to die for it... if the baby is healthy-- there's no reason the baby would have to die in this situation. i wouldn't squabble though, if we allowed her to abort if underage and raped even later in pregnancy.
if both healthy baby and mother can be saved, abortion should not be allowed

in cases where mother wants abortion (or to be free from the baby), but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option. after six months of pregnancy or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother or trivial reasons, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
if both healthy baby and mother can be saved, abortion should not be allowed

Do you mean the forced birth of the baby? This is anti-abortion, I am arguing for abortion being allowed. Do you mean "include" the forced pregnancy of the mother, in terms of requiring rapes by force that require the birth of the baby? Yes, that would be included in your abortion-ban."most abortions can occur before the baby is "healthy" and can be safely removed. that is legal and i have no qualms about it." I am afraid that I don't understand how you can have no qualms about that if you are anti-abortion but I also think that a Baby and fetus have been confused here."If the mother is under 18 and raped, we shouldn't allow the baby to die for it... if the baby is healthy-- there's no reason the baby would have to die in this situation." You forget the harm you're doing to the poor little girl."I wouldn't squabble too much and understand though, if you simply disagreed, and it was on the specific point of allowing abortion for those underage, and raped, even later in pregnancy." But this point of disagreement tears your debate apart?!While I appreciate the passion of Pro throughout this debate, I do not appreciate the lack of reasoning put forth.
Abortion

Ok. This response will contain two things that both have the potential to destroy your case by themselves. First: In your response you said this: "A rape victim or an incest victim would have to keep their child." This is utterly false. have you ever heard of the term "Adoption?" How about "Foster care?" You talked in your response about the options of bringing the boy to the orphanage or the police station. these can be incorporated into the analogy flawlessly: They compare perfectly with adoption. In your effort to destroy my analogy, you have illustrated a woman's options after a birth. I believe I have said enough on this point. Second: Even if, by some occurrence, the rape/incest victim would have to keep her child if he/she was born, that is no excuse to kill the baby. You said, "There's really no similarity between a rape victim having a child they didn't ask for and your analogy." But there really is. What if, for whatever reason, (Who knows why), The man's ship will never go back to shore. Does that make it okay for him to throw the boy overboard? In the same respect, If for whatever reason a rape victim could never depart from her child, does that make it okay for her to have him/her killed?
Abortion

No,the man should not throw the boy overboard. But what you forgot to include, is that the boat will land somewhere eventually, and the man could take the boy to an orphanage or to the police to report as a found missing child, their contact with each other would not be permanent. A rape victim or an incest victim would have to keep their child, not knowing how to take care of it. There's really no similarity between a rape victim having a child they didn't ask for and your analogy.
Abortion

Okay. To respond to your argument I will begin with saying that I am by NO means condoning rape or incest. They are terrible crimes and the aggravator should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, the victim should be shown wholehearted compassion and receive as much love, time, and therapy as she needs. Having said that, I want to give you an analogy to go with your argument. A man owns a boat. He takes a trip on this boat into the middle of the ocean- weeks away from shore. He has food and water to sustain himself. One day he discovers a little boy locked in a closet of the ship. The man did not willingly allow the boy on the ship (just like a rape victim did not willingly allow the pregnancy to begin). The boy was kidnapped by someone and put onto the boat, and he had no choice in where he was going (Just like babies in the womb have no choice). Is it okay for the man to throw the boy overboard simply because he did not want the boy on his boat? Even if the man is unable to care for the boy for whatever reason? No, he is not. No matter how you argue, it is murder to kill an innocent for merely your own convenience. Murder is murder, any way you twist it.
La Paradoja De La Piedra Se Niega

Mi oponnet se equivoca aqu" cuando afirma que el poder de omniportance no puede desafiar la l"gica. Como he buscado la definici"n de omniportance y afirm" que es el poder de tener ultamate y poder ulimated y siendo Dios como. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Por ejemplo aqu". La Biblia dice que Dios cre" a todos los animales y le permite tomar uno de estos animales, por ejemplo, y el elefante. Las formas de elefantes m"s que un coche y es imposible que un solo hombre para levantarlo. Tambi"n podemos aplicar esta teor"a al hombre. Si esto era verdad el hombre no podr"a crear coches. Para los coches son m"s pesados R03;R03;que el capasity levantamiento de pesas del hombre. As" que mi opponet es obviamente incorrecto. As" que con eso se puede ver que no hay contradicci"n aqu" presente sin dejar puntos de mi oponente restante, por lo que por favor voten Con.
La Paradoja De La Piedra Se Niega

Gracias por aceptar! Espero que lo disfrutemos! ¿Puede Dios crear una piedra tan pesada, que él ni la puede levantar? 1. La omnipotencia no incluye el poder de desafiar a la lógica Supongamos que Dios pueda hacer cualquiera cosa, excepto desafiar a la lógica. La respuesta es “no,” porque desafia a la lógica crear una piedra tan pesada que no puede estar levantada por él que puede hacer todo. Pero Dios todavía es omnipotente. 2. La omnipotencia incluye el poder de desafia a la lógica En este caso, Dios puede desafiar a la lógica. ¡La misma lógica de la cual La Paradoja en sí misma depende para tratar de demostrar que Dios no puede ser omnipotente! Es obvio que en este caso, La Paradoja se niega a sí misma. ¡Gracias por debatir conmigo!
An Authoritarian Model Of Government Is Superior To A Liberal Model.

I understand your pain, it has happened to me. My closing arguments are as follows: It is understandable for a person you agree with to make all of the decisions, but what if that person is not what you believe. What if the power corrupts the person in charge? Poor leadership and decisions have caused the fall of many empires. Why shouldn't the people get a choice in the matter? At this point I will keep it fair because of what happened to my opponent and stop here. Vote Con. Thank you