BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag burning is protected under the first amendment

To begin, I would like to state that I am against burning the flag as well. I would never burn the flag, nor would I even think about doing it. However, The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The part we will be discussing is the part that reads, "abridging the freedom of speech..." To begin, I will ask questions, which I expect to be explicitly answered and clearly labeled in your round of debate. I expect you to ask me as many questions as you would like. 1. What is the supreme courts job? 2. If the supreme court said that flag burning was protected under the first amendment, then would it be officially protected? To reaffirm, I hate flag burning, but I love the constitution. I believe that flag burning is protected under the constitution, and now you must prove that it isn't. Thanks
Competitive video games are a sport.

As the definition for sports goes, with comparing that to video games, there is no physical exertion or activity during video gaming other then the movement of your eyes and the clicking of the mouse with your finger. This definitely does not constitute exercise or any type of sport. A 350 lbs person could be clicking buttons on the keyboard or mouse, but that is not a sport. In sport athletes need to stay in shape for physical endurance not drink Red Bull to stay awake to stare at a screen. Video games being a sport is like calling Chess playing a sport, it's not a sport, it's an activity like air hockey or lawn bowling. In video games players just play competitively against each other on a screen, in a digital world, we are not even talking about the real world. That would be like saying, watching tv competitively is a sport. Lets see how many Netflix shows you can binge watch in 36 hours.
Competitive video games are a sport.

Hey, hope you accept my challenge, you seem to have strong opinions on the subject matter so I'd like to see your reasoning. By accepting you agree that- We're only talking about competitive gaming, where it's people against each other competing. Notable examples of competitive games are League Of Legends, CSGO, Starcraft, and Dota 2. The definition for sport will be: "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." (1) If you do not accept either of the stipulations, say so in the comments. If you do accept both, please write your first round debate. Thank you. (1)- http://www.dictionary.com...
The end result is superior to the process

Ever since the beginning of time, progress has been pursued, and through that progress, excellence has been achieved. However, some debate has arisen over whether the process is as good as or better than the end result. My stance is that the end result is superior to the process. I'll start by defining the resolution, and the burdens: End result: the final result or outcome of an activity or process Superior: greater in quality or value Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end Debater Burdens: I must show how the end result is greater in quality/value than the process; my opponent must show how the process is either A. greater in quality/value than the end result, or B. the two are of equal quality/value. Argument 1: Good goals should be pursued Obviously anything can be used for good or for evil. A hammer can be used to do harm or to construct. Likewise, you can have an end result that is evil, such as a robbery, or a process is that is evil, such as shooting someone to get something. Thus, the focus of the debate ought to be on good goals, and examining the value of the end result and the process in light of that. Argument 2: The process is only good to the extent that it achieves the end goal You may love your grandma. You may want to visit your grandma. Your grandma is the end goal. There are many ways–many processes–of getting to your grandma's house. But even if you have a new Camero, the process–the car–is still only useful if it brings you to your goal. The car–albeit cool–has no intrinsic value, while your grandma does. In the same way, the end result–the purpose–has more value than does the process of getting to that end result. The very reason the process exists is to achieve the end result–and there are many processes. A process may offer construction during the time it takes, but unless that process is used to further the end goal, the process is worthless. The end goal, however, remains the same and still has inherent quality and value regardless of if the process exists. Argument 3: The end result is superior to the process As we can see, the end result is most assuredly superior to the process. The end result is the purpose. The end result has more value than the process. The end result is the reason the process exists. The process, on the other hand, is only useful if it achieves the end goal. Otherwise, it lacks value and quality. Thus, the end result is superior to the process. I look forward to my opponent's response!
The Earth can be both spherical in shape and disc in shape.

As I see it if you belief in an all powerful God, God can do anything God wants. The rules of nature, physics, and geometry don't apply to God. Just as via religion young earth creationism and evolution are compatible, so is the Earth being flat and round simultaneously. Think about it God doesn't make any sense to us, because God is so much more complex than us. Religion is not supposed to make sense. Religion is irrational. We are force fed a bunch of ideas, until we just give up and accept without question nor evidence, and say "yeah, that's right!" This is what religion is about, believing what cannot possibly be real. Many believe God is omnipotent, so therefore such a God could simply bend the laws of nature and make the Earth both flat and round simultaneously. Both spherical and disk. Thanks for reading.
The Earth can be both spherical in shape and disc in shape.

The evidence for the world being round scientifically and evidence based is ample. I'm not disputing that. Your missing the main point. Many people believe in an omnipotent God who created the universe as seen in monotheism. These people claim God has always existed. This makes no logical, scientific, or evidence based sense. The reason this is because as humans we are unable to understand God. God is infinite in everything including complexity. As homo sapiens who evolved from apes we cannot possibly understand God. Therefore, any attempt to understand God via logic, reason, science, and evidence is non-sequitur. The train of logic does not follow the premise. Think of the characters in a video game trying to understand the player playing them and the world within which the player is in. There is no feasible way for those characters to understand the players. Finally, an omnipotent God can do anything he/she wants. The rules of physics, geometry, and reality itself are just illusions to God. So, yes the idea of a supreme being bending the rules of geometry and physics is well within the bounds of monotheism.
The Earth can be both spherical in shape and disc in shape.

The Earth cannot be both at the same time and there is far too much evidence to suggest that the Earth isn't round. Ships sink in the horizon, the higher you are the further you see, time-zones, photography from space etc. So for the planet to be both, there would need to be equal evidence for both. In addition, how would people separate the two Earth shapes? Would religious people see a flat earth and non religious people see a spherical earth? If religion is about believing what cannot possibly be real, why acknowledge that and continue to preach lies?
The Westboro Baptist Church should be classified as a hate group

It is very easy to ignore a harmless group of delusional religious fanatics if one considers the source. As long as they do not resort to violence, I truthfully couldn't care less what they do, and I dismiss them accordingly. I consider them fools, yes, but as long as they remain only dissenters with loud mouths, no real harm is done to anyone. Sure, some "feelings" may be hurt; I submit that people should grow thicker skins. I personally find a society of whining hand-wringers disgusting and puerile; perhaps we should simply mind our own businesses. Further, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has already adjudicated this case, and has affirmed Westboro Baptist's Constitutional right to picket funerals, even those of children, while holding their ridiculous placards, and chanting "god hates f*gs", "thank god for dead soldiers", etc, etc, ad nauseum. That said, the late Fred Phelps, emeritus head lunatic of Westboro Baptist Church, said that his god "hated f*gs" - not he nor his congregation, and according to Christian scripture, specifically Leviticus, the god Elohim does consider homosexuals abominable in its sight, which can be interpreted as "hating" by a deity, which is beyond the scope of this argument. Therefore, the fanatics of Westboro Baptist Church are simply practicing their form of religion, distasteful or not, which is a right all people have under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Pointedly - how does one determine what "hate" is, and who should be the arbiter? Every human being on this planet hates something, from beef liver, to other people, to entire nations. Why should any particular group be arbitrarily classified as "haters" by another group who finds their stance distasteful? Resentment or loathing of one group's stance by another group can be considered "hate" as well, and thus begins a vicious circle of recrimination, based only on emotional opinion. I personally find any group that has an agenda to force their worldview down another's throat odious, but I do realize that they all have the right to their opinion, whether they are of any race, creed, or sexual preference. One could attempt to counter that the loonies of Westboro Baptist Church are "immoral", but history has proven that morality is a relative construct, based on societal normatives. Conversely, the parishioners of Westboro Baptist Church believe that homosexuality is "immoral", whatever that is or may be, based on their parochial worldview. Quite simply, one man's hate is another's dissent.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be classified as a hate group

Who cares? Religion of any type sucks, but people do have the right to believe as they choose. All people have the right to hate other people, or to hate ideas they do not agree with. It's human nature. Hate is also protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. You could classify the Ku Klux Klan, NAACP, the Red Cross or Unitarian Universalists as hate groups if you want, and it will make no difference in the scheme of things. They will still exist, they will promote their ideas, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Further, classifying the superstitious cretins of Westboro Baptist Church as a "hate group" only reveals the hatred of those who wish to classify it as a hate group. I recommend simply ignoring them.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be classified as a hate group

Yes, yours is an opinion, and opinions are subjective determinations, often based on emotion, rather than facts. All is opinion, as humans are arbitrary creatures, but that is another matter. Basic human rights, e.g., freedom of speech, are not granted, nor are they rescinded by a majority. The right to dissent, no matter how odious, is guaranteed for everyone by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; it must apply to everyone or it means nothing. A governmental body classifying any group as a "hate group", would abrogate that right. In the case of Westboro Baptist Church, their right to behave like annoying, puerile lunatics has already been decided by the Supreme Court, in Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011). That said, rather then reiterating, I stand by what I have written earlier. Thank you for your time.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be classified as a hate group

Quote, verbatim: "Everyone from the WBC thinks God is a hater. With evrything that they have, they hate too much, they should be recongnized as a hate group" That is an opinion, not a fact. For one thing, you do not know that "everyone" in the Westboro Baptist Church thinks that their god is a hater. Further, what do they really have, other than a Church building and their personal property? In your opinion they hate too much, and for that reason, you state that they should be recognized as a "hate group". I again ask, who is to be the arbiter of such a pronouncement, and what possible penalties could be accessed against them for being such, without violating their First Amendment rights? Even if you or I decided to arbitrarily classify them as a "hate group" it will make little or no difference to the Westboro Baptist Church, and would only strengthen their charge that they are being "persecuted" by "heathens and atheists". As they are non violent, I think ignoring them is the best option. According to the Bible, which I think is nothing more than a collection of myths and fairy tales, the god of the Hebrews and Christians, Elohim, is in fact a "hater" of homosexuals, for whatever reason. Examples of this include verses in Old Testament books Genesis and Leviticus, and in New Testament books Romans, Galatians and Jude. One may consider that odious, but the fact remains that such admonitions are part of the Christian and Jewish faiths, which both religions consider to be the words of god itself. So do the parishioners of Westboro Baptist Church, for good or ill; in fact, the words of the Bible do indeed support their position. That aside, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to practice any faith they want to practice, without governmental interference. In addition, they have the right to think that their god is a "hater", based on their scriptures, referenced above. One man's hate is another's dissent - not only that, when it comes to Westboro Baptist Church, it is their belief, and beliefs cannot be sanctioned, let alone prohibited.
memory of joy equals good

Then your resolution is drastically incorrect, for memories of joy is nothing but good, and I cannot say joy is a bad thing. Learn to debate before writing something, because the dictionary says joy is a happy, elated mood, and happy means pleasure and contentedness. And as for your apple example, what about newborn babies? They haven't experienced anything, but I am pretty sure they would have their own taste. Suppose a 3-year old who has never eaten an apple eats it for the first time and says its good what is he comparing with? Suppose if apple is his first fruit, then what?
memory of joy equals good

im saying without memory of joy good cant exist if you pick up an apple, and say it smells good, you must compare the apple to something to say it smells good if you have never smelled an apple before or anything else that is good for that matter, you would have no contrast to say the apple smells good i dont have a good example yet belief is unresonable and knowledlge is resonable. resonable is logical, and the right way, is the moral way, is the logical way
memory of joy equals good

I don't get any of the argument that you have put up, so I shall take act on the resolution. Memories of joy doesn't necessarily make a person good. Even villains have their short moment of triumph, and what is that if not joy? If this goes in the direction the memory of joy is good then I am at a huge loss. But even old memories can provoke feelings of nostalgia, which can make the person sad that the past is gone and the present is bleak.
The cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being

You agree that one cannot show that the cause is sentient so we are partially in agreement. However, your stated goal to "prove them wrong" is absurd because your assertion that "the cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being" is not falsifiable. Therefore, by definition, you cannot "prove" that the cause is not sentient. As I pointed out in the conclusion of my argument in Round 1, "Disproving it is equally as impossible as disproving the hypothesis that the cause of the universe is a block of wood." Setting out to "prove" something that is impossible to prove is absurd or "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous."1 Con wrote, "You pre-suppose it as absurd." In the interest of proper grammar, presuppose is actually a word and does not have a hyphen. Therefore, a more accurate statement would be, "You presuppose it is absurd, [...]" Presuppose means "to suppose beforehand."2 Your assertion that I presupposed that this debate was absurd is not supported by the evidence. If you will return to my argument in Round 1, you will see that I provided definitions and demonstrated that the assertion could not be falsified. Then I showed that claims that cannot be falsified are nonsense. Pro did not attempt to dispute any of this and instead continues to seek to "prove them wrong" and even threatens to start another absurd debate. Con wrote, "But many theists would disagree." I don't care who disagrees. If I start a debate with the assertion that "the cause of the universe is a block of wood" and seek to "prove them wrong," I would expect someone to point out that the statement is not falsifiable. The fact that a statement is not falsifiable (and therefore absurd) has no bearing on the ability of humans to "believe" it. Even if 5 billion people that believed a block of wood caused the universe, it would not change the fact that the assertion is absurd. Note: It is equally absurd to say that the cause of the universe is not a block of wood because this assertion is absurd as well. Con wrote, "This is why I wanted the debate, to prove them wrong." Exactly. And as I pointed out, trying to "prove" them wrong is equally as absurd as trying to "prove" them right because neither side can be tested. Con wrote, "not to have some troll post his opinion that it is pointless." This ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and does nothing to undermine my conclusion that the debate is absurd. Con wrote, "If you didn't think my rules are absurd, you didn't have to accept." In the interest of proper grammar, I think you're trying to say "If you thought my rules were absurd, you didn't have to accept." As I stated previously, "I accepted this debate to explore the subject." After exploring it and realizing that the assertion was not falsifiable, I don't see any other conclusion to reach. Debating this absurd assertion is absurd. Conclusion Con did not address my argument from Round 1 effectively. I encourage Con to admit that trying to "prove them wrong" is absurd and accept a tie. 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being

"I agree that this was "a big waste of time." However, I disagree that you have to make another debate. Making a rule that someone has a "burden to provide a case that affirms the resolution" when the resolution is impossible to affirm or deny is pointless."I agree that one cannot show that the cause is sentient, but the theist does. This was supposed to be a debate to prove them wrong. "I encourage Con to realize that the waste of time was not my analysis of the position but the absurdity of posting this debate in the first place since it's impossible to falsify any "cause of the universe.""You pre-suppose it as absurd, but many theists would disgaree. This is why I wanted the debate, to prove them wrong, not to have some troll post his opinion that it is pointless. "Saying that "this is an automatic forfeit" because I acknowledged that debating this subject is impossible is equally absurd. It's a tie because the assertion cannot be disproven either way."It's not a tie, because you broke the rules. If you didn't think my rules are absurd, you didn't have to accept. Period.
The cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being

I agree that this was "a big waste of time." However, I disagree that you have to make another debate. Making a rule that someone has a "burden to provide a case that affirms the resolution" when the resolution is impossible to affirm or deny is pointless. I encourage Con to realize that the waste of time was not my analysis of the position but the absurdity of posting this debate in the first place since it's impossible to falsify any "cause of the universe." Saying that "this is an automatic forfeit" because I acknowledged that debating this subject is impossible is equally absurd. It's a tie because the assertion cannot be disproven either way.
The cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being

Thank you Con for posting this debate. Personally, I'm not sure if the universe has a cause. If it does have a cause, I'm not convinced that it "must be a sentient/ personal being." I accepted this debate to explore the subject. Since the assertion presupposes "the cause of the universe," I will not waste time questioning it. Also, since my opponent did not provide definitions, I will attempt to do so. Sentient - Having sense perception; conscious.1 Personal - Referring to, concerning, or involving a person's individual personality.2 Argument #1 There are many hypotheses we could make about "the cause of the universe," but since none of them are testable (as far as we know) they are therefore not falsifiable. "Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism)."3 CONCLUSION The hypothesis that "the cause of the universe is a sentient/ personal being" cannot be tested. Disproving it is equally as impossible as disproving the hypothesis that the cause of the universe is a block of wood. Therefore, I will not waste my time trying to argue either side and request that the audience vote for a tie. 1 http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2 http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
The cause of the universe must be a sentient/ personal being

For the sake of this debate, we will assume that the universe did, in fact, have a cause. The burden of proof will be on my opponent to show why the cause must be a sentient/ personal being. Since the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round is not for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument). In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed" This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof. Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfiet. Good luck!