BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bird cannot fly

I will just reply to what my opponent brings up. He provides me a link for the project he claims can produce objects with a high ability... I would excpt it to be some governmental website or something for such a useful thing that is considered "secret" since "the government makes birds fly" but it's on a public website on ebay for 29 bucks. Not only does it look kind of old but also since it is that cheap I am sure it isn't that good even on regular projector standards. My opponents next argument is that he means the world projects images of birds to "control" there people. I guess he is suggesting all are part of a NWO and working together to fool us but if this was true all of the countries would be allies. My opponent then complains about me using the word He which I apologize you were right I shouldn't use he cause you could be a girl, but that doesn't get you anywhere in todays round was just a misunderstanding. Again I showed my opponent I am not narrow minded and open to conspiracy theories that I will post again, big foot is real, I believe bush backed up a NWO and went to a secret school and did rituals, I believe in aliens, I believe that Thomas Jefferson did some evil party acts, I believe that the federal reserve is evil, don't tell me I am narrow minded cause I am not. I also believe JFK got shot because of his arguments against private banking and federal reserve. I believe they had a role in his assassination. Voters: 1. My opponent has yet to prove what the government gains in power from these so called "projector birds" cause if there is no gain this obviously isn't real. 2. common sense even says birds are alive flying birds are owned by some people and scientist have studied them, if it was projected as a image we wouldn't be able to have physical contact with the bird. 3. My opponent hasn't attacked any of my core arguments such as, my definition of a bird from bing, birds being alive for a while, no gain from government making fake birds, and that no bird can overpower a human.
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised.

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised would be exempt from compulsory vaccines. "compulsory (k!5;m-p$5;lR42;sor-ē) 1. Compelling action against one's will. 2. Required."[1] "vaccine [vak-sēn"] a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases." [2] "immunocompromised [imR43;u-no-kom"pro-mīzd] having the immune response attenuated by administration of immunosuppressive drugs, by irradiation, by malnutrition, or by certain disease processes such as the viral infection that produces the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." medical-dictionary [3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised.

Pro's position is that vaccines should be compulsory for everyone except immunocompromised people. I will not be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory (I take no position on that issue here). Rather, I will be arguing that Pro's exception fails to exempt people with legitimate excuses. For this reason, Pro's position should be rejected. Pro's exception fails to exempt people who have a contraindication for a particular vaccine. In medicine, a contraindication is "something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable". [1 - http://goo.gl... ] For example, gastrointestinal problems are a contraindication for aspirin [2 - http://goo.gl... ], as "aspirin causes gastrointestinal bleeding". [3 - http://goo.gl... ] There are many different vaccines, and each vaccine has a specific list of contraindications and precautions. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] According to the CDC, contraindications for vaccines include severe allergic reactions after a previous dose to a vaccine component, pregnancy, intussusception, severe immunodeficiency, encephalopathy, etc. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] If we were to adopt Pro's proposal, then we would be subjecting people to compulsory vaccination even though these vaccines would be injurious to their health. That's not a good idea. Sources: 1 - Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary - Entry for Contraindication - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 - WebMD - Contraindications for Aspirin - http://www.webmd.com... 3 - American Heart Association - Article on Aspirin - http://circ.ahajournals.org... 4 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Chart of Contraindications and Precautions to Commonly Used Vaccines For Childhood Vaccines - http://www.cdc.gov... 5 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Vaccine Contraindications and Precautions for ADULTS Only - http://www.cdc.gov...
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised.

Have fun. Vaccines save lives, its common knowledge. Therefore, everyone who can should get one. "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time" Liz Szabo, USA TODAY [4] The immunocompromised shouldn't be forced to receive vaccines because they are in too weak a state. "Immunocompromised patients are a unique group with special issues regarding immunization. Pharmacists need to work closely with these patients' physicians in deciding whether and when immunization might be appropriate. " [5] . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://www.medscape.com...
Who would win in a battle between superman and batman.

That was a disappointingly weak argument. Batman- Abilities Genius-level intellect Peak physical and mental conditioning Master martial artist, acrobat, detective, strategist, tactician, and escapologist Use of high tech equipment, weapons, & gadgets Master of stealth Master of disguise Proficient with technology Access to vast wealth and criminal records Trained computer hacker Excellent observational skills Photographic memory Expert marksman Superman- Flight Invulnerability Superhuman Strength Superhuman Speed Super vision, consisting of: X-Ray Vision Telescopic/Microscopic Vision Heat Vision Super-hearing Super Breath (including Freeze Breath) Eidetic memory Regeneration Longevity Other enhanced physical senses (including olfaction)
Violence is justified under some instances

Violence is absolutely unjustified under any condition. This can encompass a plethora of options: War, Structural Violence, Institutional Racism, and I would argue the Death Penalty as well. No matter how much society progresses, the idea of opposing beliefs will exist, and the idea that it's okay to do something(kill) in one set of beliefs may completely differ with another belief set. Violence unquestionably begets more violence; we see this across the world as the United States overstretches its influence over the world only to produce anti-American regimes, to which the U.S. responds with violence. It's an extremely cyclical and violent concept. Even during times slavery violence wouldn't have been the most productive method; the slave revolts like Ted Turner's run boosted lynchings ten-fold. No matter how valid violence might be theoretically, history disproves every instance. When was the last time you celebrated a Malcolm X day? Or Al-Qaeda day? Non-violent movements can be extremely potent and we should try to collectively produce a more peaceful society not by force, but cooperation.
Resolved: Barack Obama deserves a second term.

Gettin' back in the game. R1 is only for acceptance, and if you have questions, please address them in the comments first before accepting. R4 is for final arguments and conclusions. BOP is shared. PRO will affirm the resolution and argue that Obama deserves to be reelected. CON will negate the resolution and argue that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Resolution is crystal clear - So please, no semantics. Standard debating ethics will apply. I expect the voters to be unbiased and vote responsibly and not be sidetracked by their party ideologies. Thanks. Good luck to the future contender!
The Son is Eternally Begotten from the Father

To beget means to produce an offspring of same nature with the parent. The Son is begotten from the Father, eternally. Why begetting? It is because a father produces an offspring and not a mother. [ Hebrews 1:5] Why is the begetting without beginning? It is because the Father who begot the Son has no beginning that is why the Son has no beginning just as humans beget offspring that has a beginning because humans have a beginning [ John 1:18]. When was the Son produced as an offspring? There has been no time when the Son wasn't produced. The word "produced as an offspring" means " to cause into existence as an offspring." Therefore, the Son is alive as long as the Father is alive because the Father is causing him to exists. There is no time when the Son was not caused to exists just as there is no time the Father did not exists to cause his Son into existence [ John 5:26]
The Bible Teaches God is a Trinity

I would like to challenge you to disprove my evidence that the Bible teaches that God is a trinity. First round is for acceptence only. For the purposes of this debate both participants will accept that the whole Bible is the word of God and is the truth. The Burden of proof is on Pro to prove the trinity doctrine is supported by the Bible, and all Con has to do is to critique the Scriptural evidence I present, even though he is allowed to give Biblical evidence against the trinity as well. The Bible is the 66 books generally accepted as inspired by God.
CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities

Imminent threatIn round 2, Pro said, "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."But then, in the next round he argues "How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice."He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.Low rates of crime on campusPro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.Legal ownersIt's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students "overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away. SummaryMost college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.Thank you tajshar2k for this debate. (1) http://concealedcampus.org...;
CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities

Pro said: "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."This is a concession. If it's fine for a university to ban guns, then that directly contradicts the resolution that CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges/universities.The only exception Pro admits is when there is "an imminent threat". I will discuss this exception further below.Pro said: "I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW."It's not okay to change the resolution of a debate halfway through. This debate is not only about state bans, but about whether CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges and universities, which includes all the laws and regulations in relation to that.An imminent threatPro has conceded that it's fine for guns to be banned on college and university campuses when there is no imminent threat. However, I suggest that when there IS an imminent threat to the safety of staff and students, it would be far better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals.Further, I suggest that when there is an imminent threat to safety, that students and staff should stay away from campus until it is resolved. 2nd amendmentThe 2nd amendment is not an unconditional right. Prisoners, the mentally ill, children, etc., are not allowed to carry guns and there are restictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own (1). Furthermore, most states have restrictions on taking weapons to places such as daycare centres, schools, hospitals and government offices (2).As was pointed out in United States vs Miller, the 2nd amenment only guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms only in "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (1)Therefore, exceptions to the right to bear arms are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Pro has conceded this point already when he said that it was fine for universities to maintain bans on guns when there is no imminent threat.(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...(2) http://www.salon.com...
CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities

I thank my opponent for this debateLet me start of with my rebutallsCurrently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns. I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.The overwheming majority of college presidents and students don't want guns on campus.The source you provided only applies to the University of IowaIt would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult The article is only saying that it makes the lives of cops harder. But, what if the shooter is stopped by a CCW owner? The life of a student is more important than making a cops life easier.I will now argue that CCW is beneficial at colleges.Gun bans only prevents legal gun owners from possessing guns Laws that restrict CCW only prevent legal gun use, because those who intend on using a gun illegally will ignore the rules anyway. In the link below, It shows how gun bans didn't work in stopping the killer. So another point, that CCW can prevent huge killing sprees from taking place.http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...2nd AmmendmentThe right to bear arms is in the 2nd ammendment. If all 50 states allow CCW, why should the rules be different when it comes to College?
CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities

Currently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it (1). The overwheming majority of college presidents (2) and students (3) don't want guns on campus. It would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult (4). Therefore, the language "should be allowed" actually means laws should be changed to force colleges to submit to having guns on campus even though it's against what most staff and students want. It's a bad idea. (1) http://www.ncsl.org... (2) https://www.insidehighered.com... (3) http://iowawatch.org... (4) http://www.ou.edu...
Recess shouldn't be banned.

I thought you already conceded. Oh well, either way, I shall continue.REBUTTALS "Actually you just bragged and how would that ban their freedom outside of school you have alot of freedom you don't have to line up to go back in at home you can do anything you want outside like bring your electronic out side and you have more freedom like at school you have a perimeter to follow but at home you really can walk anwhere you want ( if your parents are not strict lol )" Before I even point out how your whole argument is a run on sentance (S&G points) I shall refute this argument. I didn't "brag" about how it would ban their freedom. Also, though you can go outside at home, various parents as you agreed are very strict, and don't allow such to occur. However, at school, there is a specific perimeter, and a variety of supervisors to ensure the safe well being of all students. "o yeah thats my opinion and do not say it make the cause of obese go up cause it dose not lol......" Here is where you are wrong. Children do tend to get obesed while skipping recess. These days, education boards have been lowering times for important subjects such as physical education. Because of such, children need another way to excersice. Regardless if they are reading a book, or running, they are still getting exercise. Even teachers agree. Here are somethings, including obesity that will occur with the abscence of recess. Reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease Increase self-esteem Help prevent obesity Lower blood pressure Increase test scores for school age children Enable students to learn/practice good character traits [1] As you can see, not only does recess prevent obesity, but a lot of other things such as cardiovascular disease, self esteem and more. Now, in school, kids get the chance to go outside. Plenty of children aren't permitted to go outside after school hours. This is why recess is both helpful and required. Now please, in further debates, refraind from doing a run on sentance with no punctuation. It was quite dificult to understand your contention. ---------- In conclusion, recess is important because it relieves stress, orevents obesity, and aids in various other areas as well. This improves test scores, and overall well being in students. Banning recess would stress kids, and contribute to various health hassards. There is no valid reason to ban recess. Source:[1]http://www.learnnc.org...;
Recess shouldn't be banned.

Actually you just bragged and how would that ban their freedom outside of school you have alot of freedom you don't have to line up to go back in at home you can do anything you want outside like bring your electronic out side and you have more freedom like at school you have a perimeter to follow but at home you really can walk anwhere you want ( if your parents are not strict lol ) so yeah thats my opinion and do not say it make the cause of obese go up cause it dose not lol......
is 2 hours of electronics bad for you

Con never showed any evidence for his claims, and his responses contained poor grammar. Once more, although people have shown evidence that electronics are bad for you, seeing electronics have only been shown to be bad for people with high epilepsy or other diseases. Therefore, a normal person who plays electronics for two hours would take little to no damage from the electronics themselves. https://www.globalstudentnetwork.com... https://wehavekids.com...
is 2 hours of electronics bad for you

Most children that become violent when they're older is not solely because they played violent video games. Most violent people usually have a psychological disorder, or some form of abuse. Also, your argument was that two hours of electronics is bad for you. I could play 30 minutes of Call Of Duty, which is a violent video game, but It wouldn't be bad for me. You say that 2 hours of ANY electronics are bad for you. This include televisions, video games, and other visually electronic devices.
Koopin is a dangerous threat to his siblings and therefore, should be arrested by DCF

I thank my opponent adversary for accepting and hope that he is far far away from any place of law establishment. I will accept the "brother, sister" argument as that is fairly what I meant. NOTE: The numbers in brackets denote the number of the video in the long list at the bottom. For instance, [6] would be the sixth video from the top. ========= Contention 1: Koopin cannot be trusted to provide the correct milieu for the upbringing of his siblings. ========= The contention speaks for itself. If a child cannot be brought up in a proper environment, then his future is at jeopardy. For example, if a child looks up to his older sibling for guidance, he will follow his example. As koopin has stated many times over and over again, he is the eldest currently living there and we can see that he is clearly not setting a good example. [9] Through this video, we can see that the use of weaponry is prominent as he even made a video with his siblings about guns. How disappointing. By subjecting his siblings to this type of milieu, he is endangering their future and possible upbringing. According to US law, if a person cannot properly raise a child in a proper environment then he or she is deemed unfit for such care. Therefore, Koopin need be detained. He also condones violence with melee weaponry as seen here: [6] As well as possible infections being spread through a demeaning manner such as this: [8] Koopin even admits, its an "INFECTIOUS" scab. ========= Contention 2: Proper Hygiene ========= [1] I believe the video can speak for itself. Dishes piled high in the sink, possibly infected with some bacterial virus, the large amount of filth on the surrounding necessary areas. As for this video, [7] it shows a Christmas tree in the background of Koopin, this video was posted 10 months ago. As November is the 11th month of the year, it is safe to assume that the tree was up until around late January. Also, as we can see through the actual debate, (http://www.debate.org...) it was also updated 10 months ago with video, confirming my belief. You can also see the filth of the house growing larger in this video as well. [6] ========= Contention 3: Nourishment ========= Here, Koopin cannot simply ever provide proper nourishment: [1,2,3,4,5] The video evidence speaks for itself. ========= Conclusion ========= There is no doubt in anyone's mind at this point, that Koopin is clearly a menace to himself and unto his siblings, which is why DCF needs to stop him before he can do even more damage. Please vote PRO for the sake of the children. Spay and Neuter your pets. [1] http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://www.youtube.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com... [4] http://www.youtube.com... [5] http://www.youtube.com... [6] http://www.youtube.com... [7] http://www.youtube.com... [8] http://www.youtube.com... [9] http://www.youtube.com...