BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal.

Porn makes women to be objectified for the pleasure of men pirating the vidss off of the internet or on sites that host free pornography. It's a very epxloited system where the money is not flowign well enough due to cyber corruption wher elittle teen boys can easily view the most hardcore porn ever.Prostitution is the beautiful art of using one's body to its fullest extent. It takes less training than pornography, isn't elitist to who is working wiht the richest director and is just a whore and client charing the highest form of pleasure known to mankind.Stop letting little kids watch 2 old men bang, just let the rich men compensate for their lack of time and attention to a wife with desperate white trash... Or trash of any other race.
Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal.

You're very confused my adversary. There is a clear difference between drug trafficking and human trafficking. There is a reason why human trafficking is illegal and its ironic on how you are in support of this. It seems like you don't know the victims of human trafficking who will be later used as sex slaves. They are minor girl, who need education. They are trafficked, by making this legal, you are spoiling the lives of thousands of children and helpless women. That statement is disgracing. 2) There is a reason why porn stars choose porn and not prostitution. Its because porn is easier to perform and its just acting, both the male and female know their duty and its in a safe environment. For prostitution, the women has to go where the customer demands which is a threat to her. DO YOU WANT SOMEONE'S LIFE THREATENED just because you think prostitution is better? I hence stand justified. Prostitution should remain illegal. There's a good reason why its illegal in over a bunch of places. Making porn illegal will cause an outrage in the society, by the general public and the porn stars. We don't need that. Everything is fine and it should stay that way.
Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal.

First its ironic on how you expect prostitution to be monitored by "licensed bodies". I guess you don't know what prostitution is buddy. To know whether right or wrong is going on you need to place an agent in the room where the prostitute is dealing with the agent. Which is against the rules of prostitution, hence your point is redundant. Whereas porn has all sorts of regulation and is also monitored legally. Also please refrain from using words like " imbecile" , its a debate, not your kitty party.
Free will is an illusion.

Lol nice speech. Firstly let me say thanks for accepting and I hope we both enjoy this. Let me just add that I never challenge idiots. It's pointless as no amount of fact will alter their opinion. It's all but impossible for an idiot to admit they are wrong and they can't grasp the explanations given. The point of debate is to enlighten, not to wipe the board with anyone or make them look foolish. In fact I often debate topics I have little knowledge of as this helps me understand them better. Now I could go the scientific route and show how brain scans have revealed when and where decisions are made as well as when we become consciously aware of those decisions, but I will honour your wish to use reason. Now you claim to be here by choice, but how would you know that at the moment you pressed accept, that you could have made any other choice? Yes it's possible that now you might make a different choice, but ask yourself why! What has changed? Are you more afraid of being embarrassed? Do I seem smarter? Unlikely! The only difference between then and now is your mood. Your mood determines what you feel or don't feel like doing at any given moment. But your mood is determined by chemical processes in the brain. It's affected by sugar levels, time of day, caffeine and nicotine, sounds, smells, and thousands of other factors. We do not choose our moods. Just because our moods change and our choices change with them, we believe we have free will. But answer me this, if I put you back at the moment you pressed accept, without any knowledge of what happened after that, and in the same mood you were in, do you really believe you could have made a different choice? Or was it inevitable?
Free will is an illusion.

I cannot reference sources for Free Will, as to me, Free will is internal, and nothing one puts on paper will qualify the majesty that is the human mind. I will be basing this from my own opinion, which I feel are the true fundamentals of a debate, I will us reason to try and show you my side - as I cannot prove it. Okay, to begin with, I would like to re-iterate that I do believe that Free will exists, however I would like to concede to Pro's statement that a lot of choices are pre-determined by the environment *i. e. Wolf chasing me, choice = Run*. However I counter-claim that a lot of scenarios are generated by a choice of free will, which basically just "snow-balls" to an emergency react situation which necessitates instinct reaction, the "Flight-or-Fight" reaction. Now I will re-enforce this with an example. This morning I had a request for a debate, I opened the request and viewed your subject. My first thoughts were 'Whoa, this person has raised this, they probably have solid defenses and counter-arguments that will make me look like an absolute spastic! ". I then clicked accept, "takka'd" away for a while and here we are. Why would I do this, if every instinct in my body were warning me of impending problems? (I associate public humiliation with Danger, as a side-note). Obviously I am here for debating, and I find it fun but that aside; My subconscious was warning me the entire time, and although I usually listen to that voice in my head, I asserted my own free will to consciously make my own decision. The simple fact that I am here debating the fact that Free Will exists, out of my own free Will, Should be ample evidence that it exists. I am a human, I have chosen something and that was not a choice pre-determined by some subconscious predilection - I can assure you that before joining this website I had not debated or practiced to debate in my life. I am Human, I am Omega, I am free.
Free will is an illusion.

I too greatly enjoyed this debate. It looks like it will be the same as with all stories that prove that people can do more than what is expected of people. Martyrdom. I forfeit this opportunity to use my last round to protect my position of free will, because I Chose to do it. For your information - I do not want to do this, I would prefer to use all these characters to keep talking about this subject - and It is not logical for me to use no argument - to make my argument. This is my proof that Free will exists - I took stock of my options, I saw the response I wanted, (I can PM that too you if you want, as I want to keep talking with you on this subject). I saw my Logical response - I then chose this option. Well played good sir, you have opened my perspective on this matter, and I thank you. I hope you have an excellent weekend :)
Free will is an illusion.

Can you honestly say that at the time you answered my last question you could have said no? Or maybe? Or not answered at all? Then you do not know yourself as well as I do. It's impossible for you to lie or avoid answering. Your moral values are of a very high standard. This is in fact what makes most of your decisions predictable. And don't get me wrong. It's not lack of intelligence that makes our actions predetermined. It's our level of intelligence that determines individual choices. As you said, most people would choose the green button unless they were suicidal. And there's your proof. The fact that they are suicidal or not determines the choice they make. Having choices doesn't mean you have free will. Having the freedom to make those choices without anything influencing your decision is free will. But every action has consequences. There is no decision we make, no matter how small, that doesn't influence our lives in some way. No act that doesn't help or hinder us in achieving our goals. No matter what those goals may be. So I am in no way stereotyping anyone's behaviour as I believe we each have very specific past experiences. What I am saying is that those very experiences determine the choices we make. If Micheal had no experience in his past of opening a can of whoopass, had never seen or heard of it and was passive by nature, the thought would never even occur to him. You see the point I was trying to make with my last question is not that I can predict your answer, but rather that you can't change your answer. No matter how much you want to, you can't make yourself believe that free will is just an illusion. Will power can not defy logic. Finally, doing what you want, is an emotional response. You want to do something because you like it. Doing what's best is a logical response. If the compulsion to do something you like is stronger than the compulsion to do what's best, you will give in to your desires. If you are addicted to anything, you will know what I mean and its our past experiences which eventually determine which one wins. So the next time you get really upset and begin to rave like a lunatic, stop. Think about this debate and laugh at yourself for being a slave to determinism and let your logical mind take control. Thank you for an interesting and fun debate. I look forward to many more.
It is possible for an all knowing all powerful god to make him or herself not exist.

"It is not necessary to present a scenario in which a god would want to terminate its existence. It is necessary to show only ability. Can the god do so if it pleases? A desire to exist does not negate the ability to not exist. It merely means that such ability would not be exercised. Although this can be argued to be lack of ability, such an argument invalid since its equating desire with ability two things which aren't codependent." It is necessary, and I'll show you why. Since you defined this being as having the ability to do anything it wishes, then you have to show that it is possible for this being to wish this. I contend that this scenario is impossible. It is impossible for this being to ever want to destroy itself. "Likewise just because the god has no desire to destroy itself does not mean it hasn't the ability. It only means its sense of purpose (to exist) is stronger than any potential to not exist. Certainly such a being may never chose to kill itself but that doesn't make such an occurrence impossible only unlikely." You're forgetting your definition. If the scenario where this being would want to destroy itself is impossible, then this resolution is negated. "I state that there was no need to argue a paradox because there is no way to prove to any logical ends either side. A paradox is by its nature self-contradictory. There is no way to prove or disprove its point with available knowledge. Hence should I provide an answer to the paradox there would be an equally logical and plausible way to show the opposite of my statement. Therefore I believe it best to argue the first point which if true (and I maintain it is) would effectively neutralize any argument of an all powerful being not being able to destroy an all powerful being." I'm really not sure what you're saying. "With that said I will explain why the paradox would not hold through. The being is all powerful. There isn't a thing more powerful. It has no boundaries but those imposed by itself. It can effectively do what it pleases, therefore there is nothing stopping it from destroying it by its desire to exist. Also since there is only one the argument that an all powerful being cannot destroy an all powerful being is invalid since it isn't a case of one being destroying another. It is a case of one being destroying itself, and to say that, that is impossible is to ascribe a fundamental limit to the god's ability thereby making it less powerful than another force which can not be since it is all powerful." No, the paradox still holds through with it being a singular being. The being is all-powerful. In this vein, it is impossible to destroy this being. However, on the flip side, this being, being all-powerful, would have the ability to destroy anything it wants. So, the paradox lies in the idea that this being cannot be killed, yet it could kill anything it wants. For example, if I am immortal, would I be able to kill myself?
It is possible for an all knowing all powerful god to make him or herself not exist.

It is not necessary to present a scenario in which a god would want to terminate its existence. It is necessary to show only ability. Can the god do so if it pleases? A desire to exist does not negate the ability to not exist. It merely means that such ability would not be exercised. Although this can be argued to be lack of ability, such an argument invalid since its equating desire with ability two things which aren't codependent. For example if someone was in a room with nothing but a pencil and a paper. That person would have the ability to use the pencil to write and/or draw on the paper. However if that person has no interest in doing that it doesn't mean that the person lacks the ability to do so it only means the person has no desire to do so. Likewise just because the god has no desire to destroy itself does not mean it hasn't the ability. It only means its sense of purpose (to exist) is stronger than any potential to not exist. Certainly such a being may never chose to kill itself but that doesn't make such an occurrence impossible only unlikely. I state that there was no need to argue a paradox because there is no way to prove to any logical ends either side. A paradox is by its nature self-contradictory. There is no way to prove or disprove its point with available knowledge. Hence should I provide an answer to the paradox there would be an equally logical and plausible way to show the opposite of my statement. Therefore I believe it best to argue the first point which if true (and I maintain it is) would effectively neutralize any argument of an all powerful being not being able to destroy an all powerful being. With that said I will explain why the paradox would not hold through. The being is all powerful. There isn't a thing more powerful. It has no boundaries but those imposed by itself. It can effectively do what it pleases, therefore there is nothing stopping it from destroying it by its desire to exist. Also since there is only one the argument that an all powerful being cannot destroy an all powerful being is invalid since it isn't a case of one being destroying another. It is a case of one being destroying itself, and to say that, that is impossible is to ascribe a fundamental limit to the god's ability thereby making it less powerful than another force which can not be since it is all powerful.
It is possible for an all knowing all powerful god to make him or herself not exist.

"The definition of an all powerful…being was "an omnipotent being of supernatural origin who can do anything he or she wishes." The most important part of the definition being "anything he or she wishes". Note is does not say "what he or she wishes". To say "what" would be to limit the beings ability to only its desires. However to say "anything" (when placed in context) is to say that the being can do whatever it may potentially desire that is, it has the ability to do something if not the desire." I don't think the semantical difference matters much. In order for your side to carryt hrough under your definition, you have to present a scenario in which the being WOULD desire to make itself not exist. Even potentially desire to make itself not exist, I'll even accept that. But I contend that there is no such scenario. In fact, I don't see how any such scenario is possible. An all-knowing being that knows of this teleology and its importance would never have a reason to destroy itself. Therefore, destroying itself is not ANYTHING that this being would ever desire. "As for the final argument, as stated it is a paradox which could be argued against however seeing that there is no apparent need, I will not address at this time." I'm confused as to how there is no apparent need to argue against this point. Since an affirming this resolution would be recognizing a paradox. But, the catch is, a true paradox, outside of mathematical manipulation, is an impossibility. Since the PRO creates an impossibility, it is NOT possible for an all-powerful being to destroy itself. I will continue to extend this argument until you offer a refutation. Your turn.
It is possible for an all knowing all powerful god to make him or herself not exist.

Thank you for accepting the challenge. First I will agree that the god would have a sense of purpose to exist. Secondly I will refute the following: "Since this all-important purpose exists to this being, the being has personal reason. With the existence of this reason, of this teleology, there is no desire in the being to commit suicide, as you are arguing. Since this being would not WISH to make itself not exist, then, by your definition, it could not do this, as it can only do whatever it WISHES, not what it doesn't want." The definition of an all powerful…being was "an omnipotent being of supernatural origin who can do anything he or she wishes." The most important part of the definition being "anything he or she wishes". Note is does not say "what he or she wishes". To say "what" would be to limit the beings ability to only its desires. However to say "anything" (when placed in context) is to say that the being can do whatever it may potentially desire that is, it has the ability to do something if not the desire. As for the final argument, as stated it is a paradox which could be argued against however seeing that there is no apparent need, I will not address at this time.
It is possible for an all knowing all powerful god to make him or herself not exist.

Alright. Thanks for starting the debate. This should be a challenge. Now, by your definition, this being would be able to do anything it wants. I accept all parts of this definition and ask that you stick to it throughout the debate. Now, let's look at what having such a deity would mean, and what we could deduce from it. The existence of this deity would mean the existence of some sort of teleology and some osrt of purpose. This god would have some sort of purpose behind controlling what it does. Given that, since this deity is all-knowing, it undoubtedly knows about the purpose and the teleology. So, this purpose exists to this being. This being would also know the importance of this purpose. Since this all-important purpose exists to this being, the being has personal reason. With the existence of this reason, of this teleology, there is no desire in the being to commit suicide, as you are arguing. Since this being would not WISH to make itself not exist, then, by your definition, it could not do this, as it can only do whatever it WISHES, not what it doesn't want. Furthermore, there is a second argument against your case if my first one is not accepted. Since the being is all-powerful, then it could not destory itself, as it could not destroy an all-powerful being. Now, of course, this creates a paradox. Since true paradoxes are impossible, then this scenario could not exist. So, you must negate this resolution.
Abbortion

I thank Con for starting the debate. Con provided a short and simple opener to this debate, and that's how I'd like to reply as well. Con asks "why would you rob someone of their most precious gift (life) ?". It sounds like a rhetorical question, but I think the answer actually matters a lot when it comes to why I think an abortion is justified. First off, I'm sure Con would agree with me that robbing a born toddler of his/her life would be unjustified. But we have to go one step further and ask why killing a toddler would be considered wrong. Is it because of the possible pain he/she would experience? Is it because it would cause suffering to the toddler's family? Is it because you're robbing a young life of all its potential? I'd like Con to consider all these answers and decide which one/ones would be the most important to him in this debate, or Con could add his own answers. By focusing on these areas I think we could allow for this debate to be more focused and on point. In the spirit of Con's short and sweet opening, this is how I would like to end my opening as well. I look forward to Con's replies.
Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.

"he is still not refuting the verses" Until you show me how these verses make my points erroneous, I have no desire to waste my time. "This my readers is a desperate act and I hope I am not the only person to see this, and believe me it is not the first time I have seen such an action take place." I suspect you're a troll, believe it or not. Point one – Physical Discipline "Thanks for repeating me" You refuted your own points? Swell. "as he seems to think Child Abuse is Physical Discipline" =/= "child abuse is frowned upon for good reasons but child abuse does not equal corporal punishment." How did you get that idea is beyond me. "Anyway all this is irrelevant he proves that he is against it and thus I am correct as he himself if a Modern Day Christian." I am not against the Bible ?!? "I support the banning of physical discipline…" (The rest is not needed as it just tries to say the bible is self contradictory)" This is my chief proof that my opponent is a troll. I have stated previously that the law does not change but the way we apply it changes due to changing times. "1) Law itself doesn't have to be changed for the way it is apllied to change. 2) Old Testament was for the Jews. 3) Proverbs is a poetic book... I suppose if it were a law instigator, I should walk with a straight back: "Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once." Pro. 28:18" Point 2 - Slavery "I knew that I said that at the beginning and last round, it is clear my opponent is unable to give me any reason why I or the readers should think otherwise when it comes to the claim that Christians oppose the Bible." What are you trying to say ? Didn't you just quote "Are suggesting that one may not have another choice ? That may be true but suicide due to poverty is worse than enslavement. Readers please note that we're not talking about slavery which Early Americans bestowed upon black people but we're talking about a whole different genre of slavery (in a positive way, obviously)". "This is to try to deter the debate onto a subject of morals" Obviously a moral law which produces more good is supported by all people (with few exceptions). "but if he wish's he may concede this debate beforehand." To a troll ? No, I have pride. Point 3 - Murder My opponent ignores this one ?!? Anyhow I feel that I am being trolled here.... Please vote Con because all you need is read the first round to refute every word that guy says. Thank you.