BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Christianity a repulsive religion

I would like to debate the desirability of Christianity! I find it tedious to argue the existence of God or even the historical authenticity of the bible! It is irrelevant to whether or not I WANT to believe in the scriptures as truth! This debate does not require burden of proof or listed sources as it will simply be up to my opponent to evangelize while I give my own interpretation of what I am being sold! To be clear I am not interested in whether or not God or even Jesus existed. I will mostly be focused on whether or not I want said deity to exist! So I leave it to my opponent to give me insight into the purpose and necessity of becoming a believer! Tell me: Why should I want to believe?
Competitive Cheerleading is a sport

. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...And: Are clearly different things. And she agrees: PRO CONCEDES THE FOLLOWING:1. She absolutely gives no reason why this definition is favorable. 2. My opponent failed to define until the second round which is abusive to this debate in general as such you should always favor Round 1 definitions being that sport is a jest according to dictionary. com3. My opponent, thus far, has failed to satisfy the BOP that allstar cheerleading is the equivalent of a jest. 4. I did give a favorable reason: dictionary. com, First Round definitions, non-abusive, etc. .. . With those conceded as a truth we left with the inevitable conclusion of:PRO has not met the BOP to demonstrate how allstar cheerleading is a jest. SO Clearly allstar cheerleading, one of my all-time favorite activities to watch, is not a jest. DON'T MAKE A JOKE OUT OF CHEERLEADING!
Competitive Cheerleading is a sport

"Since allstar cheerleading does require skill and physical prowess, and is of competitive nature, it is obviously a sport"Given the definition offered in Round 1 we know this absolutely impossible. Cheerleading requires skill, physical prowess, and it can be competitive but this "is" not the equivalent to a jest.My opponent failed to define until the second round which is abusive to this debate in general as such you should always favor Round 1 definitions being that sport is a jest according to dictionary.com My opponent says: "A sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature. (as stated on your link) "She absolutely gives no reason why this definition is favorable. She only says it was on the same link well so was mine. My opponent, thus far, has failed to satisfy the BOP that allstar cheerleading is the equivalent of a jest.
Competitive Cheerleading is a sport

Obviously my opponent shouldn't be taken seriously since he/she does not know what a sport is. A jest? He/she knows very well what I was talking about when I said 'sport', but, I guess I will define it for you; A sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature. (as stated on your link) Since allstar cheerleading does require skill and physical prowess, and is of competitive nature, it is obviously a sport.
Competitive Cheerleading is a sport

Sport is defined as "jest" by:. http://dictionary.reference.com... And also by. .. .. .. .. .. my say. Neither a dictionary-definition nor a "contextually defined" statement was offered to this vital word of the resolution as such I decree this our definition of "sport. " :A jest. My opponent has stated that "Competitive cheerleading" is defined as "allstar cheerleading. " Now that we have meaning to every key term in the resolution we may proceed. Competitive cheerleading is a great physical activity as we see in the video, but my opponent cannot possibly prove today's resolution--that it is a jest. The two being one is absolutely impossible. One is a organized program. One is someone who makes you laugh. They are holistically exclusive of each other.
Competitive Cheerleading is a sport

This is about COMPETITIVE cheerleading (also known as allstar cheerleading) not sideline cheerleading! First I will tell you what allstar cheerleading is. Allstar cheerleading teams have routines which feature stunts, tumbling, motions, dances, and jumps. For certain stunts and tumbling, you get a certain amount of points. The points are out of 100, and the team who gets the highest score from the judges wins. Here is an example below (that's a senior coed level 5 team, which is pretty ba) http://www.youtube.com...
Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide

So I'll just be rebutting Pro's arguments since he needs to prove why every state in the U.S should outlaw marijuana.Major problem in schools (?)Pro didn't provide any examples of these so called problems related to marijuana in school, not to mention the lack of sources to back up his claim. He says that marijuana is causing major problems, but fails to outline what those problems are, and how they are related to marijuana. Tax RevenuePro pretty much negates his own resolution here, by conceding that significant and necessary amounts of tax revenue are able to be generated through the legalization of marijuana. By conceding that some area(s) do generate most, or all of their tax revenue from marijuana, he also concedes that those areas would not be able to collect the necessary taxes if the substance was illegal. Then, he goes on to say 'This is disgraceful." Which is pretty weird given that the fact that the tax revenue generated would be an argument for the legalization of marijuana, not against it. Pro's entire argument is based on the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, where he simply rejects a proposition based on how absurd it sounds, without really providing any reasons as to why it is absurd.
Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide

Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Thanks to Mr. Travieso for agreeing to debate this topic with me! I look forward to an interesting exchange :)1. First round for acceptance2. No new arguments in the final round3. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to use the following definitionsKalam Cosmological Argument- An argument for the existence of a deistic God that is generally framed as followsP1: Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existenceP2: The Universe began to existC1: The Universe has a cause of its existenceP3: If the Universe has a cause of its existence, that cause is God.C2: The cause of the universe's existence is God.C3: Therefore, God exists.God- an immaterial, eternal, and unimaginably powerful being which is plausibly personal.Unsound- describing an argument in which either the conclusion does not follow from its premises or in which the premises themselves are false.Good luck, Mr. Travieso!
At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as Catholics understand it

Greetings SkepticsAskHere, In this debate I will be taking the position that the bread and wine blessed by Christ at the Last Supper became his real and genuine body and blood (I can expand on this later). My opponent will take the position that the bread and wine did not become Christ's real body and blood as many Christians hold. The main definition which this debate will need is that of the word Eucharist: Eucharist: The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine. . http://www.newadvent.org......
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films. You have given no argument that humans are significant; let alone film critics.Humans are significant because we take the Earth -- which would otherwise be a bunch of wildlife, and turn it into a habitable place. Not only to we create conditions for ourselves, we create safe conditions for other creatures.You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films. And you do not need a professional chef to make food. You do not need a professional clergyman to pray, and you do not need a professional mailman to put things in mailboxes. Just because a job does not require extensive training, does not mean that it is pointless.
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

"Gee, thanks for the history lesson. You could pretty much replace any field or historically limited information with "film critics" and have the same effect. It does not enhance your argument, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and fill your box with facts insignificant to this debate."Yes, any field is insignificant. The universe is going to do what it does, whether we are here or not. We are all insignifiticant. My facts were completely relavent, as it shows the size and scope or the universe and how insignificant we really are in it. "Film critics are indeed important -- they show how we, as humans, took the art and creation of our fellow man seriously. If art isn't important to a society's impact, I don't know what is. Art, just as architecture or technology, is a sign of ambition and creativity."You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films. You have given no argument that humans are significant; let alone film critics.
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

"Film critics are not important, and are rather insignificant. We live in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and film critisim began January 17th 1912. This means that out of 13,700,000,000 years film critics have only been around for 100 years. Not only that, but they probably only have 100 years left as homo sapiens will probably be extinct by then. .. Professor Frank Fenner (. http://news.nationalgeographic.com......) . .. The universe however will continue to exist for billions of years after that (if not forever). This means, that if you played a 2 hour movie of the universe's history, film critics would barely make a spec of a frame. Also, our sun is only one star in a galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, in a universe that contains hundreds of billions of galaxies (and this is just the observable universe). "Gee, thanks for the history lesson. You could pretty much replace any field or historically limited information with "film critics" and have the same effect. It does not enhance your argument, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and fill your box with facts insignificant to this debate. Film critics are indeed important -- they show how we, as humans, took the art and creation of our fellow man seriously. If art isn't important to a society's impact, I don't know what is. Art, just as architecture or technology, is a sign of ambition and creativity.
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

Film critics are not important, and are rather insignificant. We live in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and film critisim began January 17th 1912. This means that out of 13,700,000,000 years film critics have only been around for 100 years. Not only that, but they probably only have 100 years left as homo sapiens will probably be extinct by then. "Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years" - Professor Frank Fenner (. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...)The universe however will continue to exist for billions of years after that (if not forever). This means, that if you played a 2 hour movie of the universe's history, film critics would barely make a spec of a frame. Also, our sun is only one star in a galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, in a universe that contains hundreds of billions of galaxies (and this is just the observable universe). Film critics are self-evidently not important. The resolution has been negated.
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

Some say that today, in the world of the Internet where everyone can cast their opinion that film critics/movie reviewers (which for the sake of this argument will be defined as people who consistently write essays detailing the sypnosis of a film, and their opinion on its value) are no longer relevant. I argue that this is not true, as the evaluation of art and its place in life to the writer that subjects the idea is still important. My opponent must be familiar with film criticism, and be against its existence in modern society.
Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

"Humans are significant because we take the Earth -- which would otherwise be a bunch of wildlife, and turn it into a habitable place. Not only to we create conditions for ourselves, we create safe conditions for other creatures. "This is circular reasoning. I asked what makes humans important, and the answer I got was that we have created conditions for ourselves. However, creating conditions for ourselves would only be considered important if it was presumed already that we are important enough to create conditions for. Thus, the above argument is circular and invalid. Also, we are left with no reason to think creatures are important. "And you do not need a professional chef to make food. You do not need a professional clergyman to pray, and you do not need a professional mailman to put things in mailboxes. Just because a job does not require extensive training, does not mean that it is pointless. "Perhaps. However, this is switching the burden of proof. Pro has to show that film critics are important, or still important. I showed that all the things we think are important, probably really aren't considering our apparent insignificance (we take up virtually no time or space on a cosmic scale). Pro's stance was not supported properly. I, at least had some kind of warrant regarding the age and size of the universe to suggest that film critics are not important. Conclusion ConductPro said "Gee, thanks for history lesson". This was necessary sarcasm that is not a good show of character. Also, he said "you don't know what you're talking about" which is a clear personal attack. Therefore, I urge a conduct vote to Con. ArgumentsMy opponent's arguments were fallacious, and my argument was not sufficiently attacked. Therefore, arguments should go to Con. SourcesI had a source, Pro did not. Thus, I believe source points to Con would be the most reasonable option.
Bill Clinton Was a Good President

Rebuttals: Yes, he did have constant scandals, but that doesn't mean stopping him from being the president. Since, he did have a lot of affairs, and didn't know how to be faithful, that doesn't mean he is a terrible president. A piece of foam insulation broke off from the Space Shuttle external tank and struck the left wing. Most previous shuttle launches had seen minor damage from foam shedding,[1] but some engineers suspected that the damage to Columbia was more serious. NASA managers limited the investigation, reasoning that the crew could not have fixed the problem if it had been confirmed. This has nothing to do with his "slash of budget." Every time a bank makes a loan, new money is created. In the run up to the financial crisis, banks created huge sums of new money by making loans. In just 7 years, they doubled the amount of money and debt in the economy. Meaning, people needed loans, and were not able to pay them back. This was not his fault, it was merely the misconception of people liking what they saw and buying it. Arguments: Under President Clinton, the EPA launched its "Common Sense Initiative" to make health protection cheaper and smarter by focusing on results rather than one-size-fits-all regulations.The President's Northwest Forest Plan is putting communities in the Northwest back to work, while conserving ancient forests. Clinton managed to remake the image and operations of the Democratic Party in ways that effectively undermined the so-called Reagan Revolution. His "New Democrat" Party co-opted the Reagan appeal to law and order, individualism, and welfare reform, and made the party more attractive to white middle-class Americans. The President's success in the Balkans will undoubtedly resonate well historically, as the administration helped end a conflict that threatened both the security of Europe and the viability of transatlantic cooperative arrangements. Cites: Arguments: http://millercenter.org... http://clinton1.nara.gov... Rebuttals: http://www.positivemoney.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bill Clinton Was a Good President

This should be interesting! Arguments: Under the presidency of Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million jobs were created in the first 2 years of his Administration. In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years. President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low income families,and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. Was the first to sign into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over 600 billion in deficit reduction. The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals. The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers. The Crime Bill also punishes criminals by expanding the number of offenses eligible for the death penalty and implementing the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision. And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles. Most importantly, he made education a priority. The Direct Student Loan Program, students can borrow money directly from the government at a lower interest rate and with many flexible repayment options, including the option to repay with a percentage of their after-graduation salary. Taxpayers will save at least $4.3 billion over five years. Signed into law Goals 2000, where 41 states received federal grants to raise academic standards. Cites: . http://clinton1.nara.gov... (for all arguments)
Bill Clinton Was a Good President

I hope to debate again sometime soon, it was fun. P. S I personally don't believe he was THAT bad of a president but he had his. .. .. problems. (and you weren't so "original" with your arguments either sooo. .. ) There is really no point in listing any more arguments because there is no way you can answer back so I"ll just leave it to the public to vote. (plus not EVERYTHING was copy and paste) I respect your opinions and I hope you respect mine. Happy Debating, PianoMan
Bill Clinton Was a Good President

Rebuttals: Quick question, you mentioned that you were going to "talk about that in the next round," (about healthcare) but were you really going to just copy and paste from that clinton. pro con website? "If Lippman suggested the USA"s experience in Somalia had prevented Clinton from doing "the right thing", Sonenshine suggested the president should respond: "If we were truly spooked by Somalia, we would have turned away entirely, instead of committing 4,000 American troops and spending $500m to give the people of Rwanda humanitarian help." [1] "Clinton was aware of the threat of Al Qaeda and authorized the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. He sought to hunt down bin Laden after the Oct. 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden's involvement in the terrorist act. "I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," Clinton said in a Sep. 24, 2006 interview with Chris Wallace."[2] Arguments: President Clinton hosted the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in September, 1993, and the signing of the Israeli-Jordan Washington Principles in July, 1994 , historic agreements between the leaders of Israel and her Arab neighbors to settle differences by peaceful means.To enhance European security and stability, the Clinton Administration proposed the Partnership for Peace program, offering former Soviet republics and Central/East European states closer ties with NATO. Already, 22 nations have signed on, since NATO's adoption of the program in January, 1994 The Clinton Administration forged a bipartisan coalition to pass NAFTA, after concluding tough negotiations on side agreements covering workers' rights, the environment, and import surges. Exports to Mexico rose 23 percent in the first 11 months of 1994. Since, you were going to talk about healthcare, I will just go ahead and rebut all what you have to say now. Most likely, you will use this: Health care reform was Clinton's major goal when he took office but his administration was ill-prepared for such a large task and made several missteps. Republican opposition was insurmountable and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) declared on Sep. 26, 1994 that Clinton's plan would never pass. The failure is considered the biggest of his administration in part because it led to the Republicans regaining control of Congress in the next election but also because he expended a lot of political capital without getting anything in return. Considering it's from the website where you have been copying and pasting. I will just use the pro side of your argument! "Clinton sought to bring attention and action to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Funding for AIDS-related programs increased 150 percent during his presidency, and he was a leader in developing international initiatives to search for a vaccine. He signed the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996, allowing women to stay in the hospital for 48 to 96 hours after giving birth instead of being kicked out in less than 24 hours." [3] Cites: [1]http://www.theguardian.com... [2]http://clinton1.nara.gov... [3]http://clinton.procon.org...
That trademarks should be abolished

There are many reasons for trademarks and very few I can think of for them to be abolished. Trademarks prevent people from stealing from you. A lot of thought and hard work are put into inventing a product or service. It is only fair that the inventor can have their own unique logo representing their own work In addition to that, despite what people think, if something is worth evoking a trademark, it took a lot to bring it into existence. For those who did help bring it into existence, their little emblem will always be a representation of their success and accomplishment and a source of personal pride. Today's world is very commercial, but that is neither here nor there in regards to this debate. The point is industrialists, businesses, public etc. are all very centered around brands, marketing and identification. Trademarks are all a part of that. It is an important part of trade and industry. What's more it has become integral part of the lives in ordinary people. Not a huge parts but definitely have become intertwined with today's society. Despite arguments to the contrary that is O.K. Trademarks have no effect on how products are produced or (to a certain extent) marketed, meaning the trademark in itself is not the problem. Trademarks are designs intended to identify what is being advertised and that is good, there is absolutely no reason for trademarks to be abolished.