BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children born in the near future will live to an average age of 120 years or more.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5:22-23D "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "The following bible verses should prove that women are nothing but sex dolls" (Dagen 1:1) Dagen, those are biblical verses followed by your quote, used by you in a previous debate in order to prove a point, this infers that you believe what the bible states to be true. http://www.debate.org... I will list a few ages of biblical characters, Joshua 110, Moses 120, Joseph 110, Abraham 175, Noah 950. If you believe the bible is true and based on your previous debate, you do. Well then Dagen, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you to believe in the possibility of a 120 year life span in the future.
Children born in the near future will live to an average age of 120 years or more.

I chose to accept this argument because I am not excluding the possibility of your hypothesis but rather point out that it has no facts directly supporting it's claim and is at most a prediction which can not possibly be proved until it happens. Since this has not happened yet and cannot be proved it is not a true statement unless someone turns 120 years old by the time this debate is over. Which is also impossible since no one is 119 years old.
Should School Be From 9:00am To 4:00pm

When did I say that? I said parents have to leave early for work, so they can drop their kids off on the way. If the kids have to arrive later, the parents still have to go to work at the same time. This causes their kids to be dropped off earlier, and have them wait longer for school to start, which is detrimental to both the student, parents, and the staff, seeing as they're taking care of the child.Pro has failed to refute my arguments while I have provided lots of reasons as to why school starting later doesn't work. I ask the voters to vote wisely.
Should School Be From 9:00am To 4:00pm

To first point out, I would like to see opponent's sources for his claims.Secondly, we must think of the practical implications involved.First and foremost, parents often work extremely early. When they drop their kids off for school, they have to leave work right away. If school starts later, they would still have to drop their kids off early, which leaves them there for a lot longer than normal, and the school has to take care of them. Assuming there are two parents this should work out fine, however if there is only one parent or both the parents work (both of which are relatively common nowadays), it would cause a huge upset in their daily lives.In addition, imagine if a child has lots of homework. They now have less time to complete said homework. If they have less time to complete their homework they would feel a larger need to rush, and therefore not be as cautious about the quiality of their work. This could result in lower grades for them.Not to mention, if a child is in sports, or an after school club, they would have to go home even later to start their homework. This causes even bigger problems for them and discourages a child from participating in after-school sports or clubs. Even if we do decide to do this, it won't affect the student's health too much, as the brain will get used to waking up at this time, and waking up any earlier will be detrimental, as the body clock of the brain is set to when the person first eats. While it may seem pleasing at first, once you get used to it you will still be tired.While short, this is my conclusion: starting school early, while benefiting a teenager's body state, overall has very detrimental effects and is inconvenient for both parents and students.
Should School Be From 9:00am To 4:00pm

Waking up later in the day is scientifically proven to enhance the teens brain which makes them more likely to succeed in school. Sleep also helps your memory. After puberty, there is a biological shift in an adolescent"s internal clock of about 2 hours, meaning that a teenager who used to fall asleep at 9:00 PM will now not be able to fall asleep until 11:00PM. It also means waking 2 hours later in the morning. Teens need 9-10 hours of sleep so that means that they would wake up at 8:00am. How can we get enough sleep to have a healthy body if we have to go to school that early.
You should be a law to have to vist the docter at least once a year for free

I negate, on two levels. 1. I do not feel I should be a law because I feel I have more potential than a law would. If there is actually substantial need for such a law then I would offer the alternative that perhaps we should make the law without turning me into a law. 2. Such a law inhibit freedom of expression etc... While I think free health care is a marvelous idea actually mandating that I go to get my free health care sounds like government controlling yet another portion of my life. Government should not have control in issues such as this as mandated by the constitution. I would instead offer the alternative that free health care be offered once per year but not mandated. I now stand open for my opponents rebuttal.
Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity

Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity. Pro affirms the resolution, con negates it.Since this is the Spring UIL topic for LD currently, I would like whomever accepts this debate to be well-versed in LD debate and how LD cases function. This isn't mandatory in order to accept the debate, but it would be more beneficial to me so that I can prepare for the district tournament. Value/criterion or some burden system of some sort, frameworks, contention level arguments, the whole nine yards. Of course, this is only a preference, and anyone can accept the debate if they so choose to do so.Rounds break down as such:1. Pro presents case2. Con presents case and refutes. Pro refutes and defends.3. Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends.4. Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends.5. Con defends. Pro defends. Voters are presented. No new arguments in this round.Good luck to whomever accepts this debate.
HOMOSEXUALITY a political idea as opposed to a sexual preference

Honestly man, you do not sound like an atheist. We said the same thing, There has no perfect governmebt that had existed. To love your enemies, to love youe neighbour. Yesh since they are the 1st world country they are more likely to have more food I have heard , we have some history where women are being mistreated. Good thing to californi then, They should be accepted as a citizen.Your saying Bible didnt came from Torah, no wonder there are speration between Jews and ChristianHaha, alright alright. You thank God because you are an atheistThese translation makes it complicated. Eye for an eye literally means loss for loss not just "a loss'I'm not pretending to be a qualified scholar of Torah, dont worry. I think it is just right to show mercy to the Inmate.and we can give justice without doing violence.
HOMOSEXUALITY a political idea as opposed to a sexual preference

Man, death penalty contradicts to the ten commandment. Eye on eye means repaying evil by doing evil, the big deal is there's no good at it. Nonsense? Well your not a christians so I understand you. It's reality, if we have a perfect government then there's no chaos inside the country. My thesis is also about micro issue, i talk about the thoughts of lgbt in their daily lives. Haha What, you thank God because your an atheist? Okie I don't use HaShem anyways plus, the only thing in the bible that is only to worthy to follow is to love other people. Animal soul...thanks for the info, we all have animal soul.. Yes ofcourse I lack Hebrew language, I never studied hebrew and I'm not a Israeli. Yeah pun is a type of figure of speech. Don't know why Americans are taller considering they are the first world country and they get more nutrients at the quantity of their food. Those refugees are being accepted to some other countries, let the recuers explain it to them. Well even if he is a deity. Christianity is still healthy to believe in as it teaches others to love tough it have risks to make people do violence in the Old Testament. Man, it's not right to restrict lgbt to live in a country, they can hate the lgbt concept but they should'nt act their hatred for those lgbt is still a citizen.
HOMOSEXUALITY a political idea as opposed to a sexual preference

Wow bible favors death penalty?I order verses please ,I don't think bible supports eye on eye such as capital punishment but only supports 'Turn your left cheek; don't repay evil for evil'.We have an imperfect government where leader can do wrong about giving laws for they have imperfect wisdom such as reforming capital punishment. I understand that you recognized homosexuality as a sexual perversion and the only right sex is for opposite-sex engaged couples. Ofcourse not all Jew in blood are Jewish in religion same in a Christian country where not all are certain about god, You know it's not a suprise that not all Jews in blood believe on God for they search for a physcial god but they see not, some had tried to search for God in Torah but they saw nothing (atleast that's what they think). Animal soul, you mean people with mental disorders? I see, so Jews do not participate on slavering people. The poor class of society always has improvement, it's just their salary, even if they hard work they receive low income. We can't just accept that there's poor and rich when all are equal to hardwork, this is the real theft found in capitalism. I see , incest is wrong .wheels having eyes? I see, so the future generation can be seen by the things that are done in present times. Noah is still part of Adam's generation but you're right about their hardship. To be in exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state, or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return, the reason maybe a political issue. yes but being circumcised is not always because of religious beliefs. The God of the Father lives within our hearts and soul?can't god also be seen at science not only in our heart and soul? Yes you are right that. Is because the Government are destined to bring peace at a nation. Lgbt are most likely to be the refugees, sometimes They just rally but dont usually lead to violence, there are some state that doesnt allow lgbt so lgbt's are being oppressed. The god of hebrew bible doesn't favor killing such as death penalty, I base on the ten commandment s and the commandment of Jesus Christ to the rich man 'do not kill', you know, 1234 can be seen visible in this world.
Should all guns be banned

First off, the gun death number I used included suicides. The number of murders done used by lawfully owned guns is even less than that 7,000. it isn't rational to try to take away 300 million guns from the us population for such a small number of dealths. People would be extremely resistant, 73% of gun owners cannot see themselves not owning a gun.People who would be willing to turn in fire arms are the least likely to actually be an issue. getting rid of guns would likely just build resentment in the public.Safety:Guns are not safe by nature, and should be handled with respect. But they are necessary.The average time police take to respond to a call is 10 minutes. depending on where you live, this can be longer or shorter. In some areas it can take up to an hour.Ten minutes is a long time, and can easily mean someone's life. Without legal gun ownership it is very likely to meet death while waiting.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would love to deepen my argument and look for what I missed in round two, however my fever just got high so my head feels cloudy. Thank you for the debate.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.npr.org...https://www.creditdonkey.com...http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
Should all guns be banned

First, the government would not do unreasonable searches. They would only search your house if they had reasonable suspicion. That would not be a violation of the fourth amendment. In order to deter criminals to carry guns, we need a good threat. If anyone was caught carrying a gun we would sentence them to 10 years of federal prison and a fine of $250,000. That would have a better deterrent effect. In terms of crime rates, I am not arguing that crime rates will disappear. Obviously, if there were no guns, crime rates would almost be nonexistent. But that's not what I am saying. If you believe that crime rates would be lower with guns in the equation, then why do the states that make guns illegal have significantly lower crime rates? Can't criminals obtain guns illegally there as well? you said only 36,252 people die from guns a year. Even if some criminals get their hands on guns, others won't because they will be deterred by the 10-year federal prison sentence if caught carrying a gun. You said in 80% of gun crimes, the gun was obtained illegally. This may be true but that means that if we abolished guns, that number would lower to around 29,000 which is a significant difference. Those 7,000 lives matter. It is not only right but the responsibility for the government to do all they can to protect the citizens of the US. It is our job to make sure the amount of deaths per year is as low as possible. You also didn't mention a significant amount of my other arguments in the first round. These include the problem of self-defense and the rate of tragic accidents.
Should all guns be banned

Firstly, safety isn't the only issue. The violation of long held rights being a big one.In your plan you wrote this, "The government would pass a law saying that they have a right to go through your house at any moment and search it."This means not one, but two constitutional rights would be violated. The second and fourth amendment."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is the fourth amendment.Your plan also relies on trusting law enforcement and the government to not become corrupt. The reason the second amendment exists is because america had just been born out of tyranny. It was a measure against the government, to insure freedom.Should any government have so much control over the people, that it is the only one that can ever fight back?Killing people is already illegal.In almost 80% of gun crimes, the gun was obtained illegally.All banning guns would do is grow the black market, and only the safe gun owners would ever hand over their guns.Six months in prison isn't a long time, and is unlikely to be a deterrent to someone willing to risk death or life in prison to kill someone.Only 36,252 people die from guns a year. More people die from secondhand smoke, at 53,800 deaths per year.America borders mexico, which means smuggling efforts would be easy as heroin. We would always have problems with guns, but the people who are responsible gun owners are left without.https://www.washingtonpost.com...https://www.cdc.gov...https://www.cdc.gov...
Images of abortion are helpful in the abortion debate

I apologize, I have been really busy and haven't been on here. There are disturbing images that could be used in any debate. For instance, not everyone supported the legality of the War in Iraq. So.... close-up pictures and videos of the corpses of children who were gassed by Saddam Hussein could have been shown. Horrible idea, isn't it! We already knew what he did, we didn't want him having anymore WMD's. But the first thing that would have entered anyone's minds when they saw this prominently displayed would have been, god that's really insensitive! Did they have to put that in the paper? On prime-time television? On a billboard? We are censored from disturbing images because not everyone can handle it. What's a child supposed to think when they see an aborted fetus? Especially when it is followed with a caption calling it a murdered baby? Or will there a caption underneath calling it non-viable fetal tissue? There are plenty of adults with emotional disorders who don't need to suddenly see that either. Not to mention the fact that, truth be told, we don't want to worry about being repulsed everywhere we go by someone's campaign. That is why store-owners were losing business when they had to put up pictures of diseased lungs, and the law forcing them to do so was struck down (1) Whether you smoke or not, would have stood in that check-out line again? I doubt any place of business would want to be within ten miles of a picture of an aborted fetus! Where will those pictures be displayed? In which mainstream papers, etc.? I have seen a picture of dead woman in a gas station restroom, and of women who died in their homes from illegal abortions. Pro-Choicer's could just as well use those images to argue part of their stance. But it would be a tactless move in my opinion. It might make your average Pro-Lifer feel sad for a moment, but would not change their minds one inch. Neither do images of abortion change the views of Pro-Choicer's. I feel that though emotion drives people on the side of any issue, reason and logic shape and decide it. If it's found reasonable and logical to strike down Roe v Wade, it will happen. I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind that smoking will be illegal soon - without the charred lungs in our faces. (1) http://www.nytimes.com...
Images of abortion are helpful in the abortion debate

Thanks to my opponent for making some important points, however I think I have been able to demonstrate that images of abortion are helpful in the abortion debate. To hide them only succeeds in hiding the reality of the act which does neither view any justice. It is important for those who support abortion to interact with the reality of the images and to build a robust defence for abortion that takes its violent nature into account rather than hiding from it. For those who think abortion is not morally permissible, images of abortion are able to avoid mere philosophical debate and move to a dialogue that acknowledges and interacts with the horrible nature of the images which are true representations of the practice. Of course philosophical debate is important but the images focus the importance of the debate away from primarily lofty discussion to the realities of an act that results in the death of a previously living, whole, growing and distinct human being. They force a debate to take place and move people from apathy to having to make a decision about whether this is the sort of practice that should be legal in our society. Please read my points before voting and I'm more than happy to discuss them further if your wish. Thanks for taking the time to read.
Images of abortion are helpful in the abortion debate

To quote you, "This debate isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong, it is whether abortion images can be helpful in the abortion debate." However every reason you gave for the images is transparently Pro-Life, and it is only helpful for your side. Is comparing abortion to slavery a new tactic I haven't heard of yet? I have been out of the loop. Yeah sure people used to be blind to the reality of slavery. People used to be blind to the suffering of walking talking human beings. But they are two so different topics. If you don't need to use these disgusting images, as you say, then I say don't bother. They are not going to change the minds of anyone on either side of the debate. The only people it could effect are women who just got an abortion and are not sure if they did the right thing. So it will upset them, and it will upset the Pro-Lifer's to be more emotional. That's all these images accomplish, upsetting people's emotions. I would like to add that I have all due respect to the Pro-Life movement, even though I am transparently Pro-Choice. I'm just saying people don't need to be more upset than they already are.
Images of abortion are helpful in the abortion debate

K, I am new here too and have never responded to a debate but here goes. I don't see how posting pictures of aborted fetuses does anything but gross people out. People who have had abortions will see them and think wow that's what I did and either not be depressed, only creeped out (I would hope they thought it through enough before they did it), or very upset (because they didn't think it through, and this will only serve to traumatize them). So if the purpose is to make people who didn't think about what they were doing feel bad, mission accomplished. But the real reason for these images, I feel, is for the Pro-Lifers - to make them more emotional about their stance. An effective tool to inspire them. I remember seeing "The Silent Scream" in Catholic school. I also remember several years later, after I left the church, having an abortion and not feeling bad about it, because I thought it through well before I did. and knew it was the best choice for all concerned. No one else was in my shoes, 'nuff said. These images are all about inciting emotion, and I would rather the debate be more logical. I would rather it be about when viable human life is seen to exist. Like I said, I have been Pro-Life and am now Pro-Choice, and understand and respect both sides. But they tried to put pictures of ruined lungs on cigarette packs - didn't stop people from smoking. I don't think it will work.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate

Sorry, I quickly copied and pasted something in from word before I posted. It clearly didn't register. This is why it seemed as though I misunderstood the KCA. ==old earth theory== it doesn't matter that I didn't argue that the earth is old, I didn't argue that the earth was old just as you didn't argue that time and space arose with the universe after the KCA. I won't bother with the points against radiometric dating however I will point of Redshift and background radiation. ==My final statement== I have chosen to forfeit this debate, not because I see rationality in Christianity (I don't) but because I have a very little chance of winning. You are clearly better than me at debating and due to my current lack of free time I haven't been able to debate very well.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate

I am only going to respond to the objection presented to my argument since providing more arguments or justification for arguments already presented would be quite unfair. Due to my opponent's busy schedule, I propose the following changes to the debate structure: R4: Pro may present arguments if he wants. I will stick to Rebuttals and defending my arguments. R5: Both sides rebut and crystallize their cases. ==Kalam Cosmological Argument== Pro clearly misunderstands the argument. Yes, it proves that there is a cause of the universe. But it then analyzes what some attributes of this cause must be. These attributes are the very description of a general theistic God. Note that Pro has not actually raised any objections to my justification for any of the attributes listed. So the argument still stands.