BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
YOU need Jesus Christ.

I am alive ,but that argument is redundant. This is not a debate on if "God" is real, but a debate on if humans need god to survive. If a debate on "God" being real is something you want count me out. For the same reason I got into this debate with you, it is not my place to say you are wrong for having faith. Just as it is not your place to say it is wrong that I not have faith. The inquisition tried forcing religion on non believers and that went well huh. To answer where I get my morals it was ,ironically, Jesus who made the golden rule. "do on to others as you would have them do onto you" Where ever in the bible ?:?? Just because I agree with a statment made by a character in a book dosen't mean I agree with the whole book I will gladly answer your questions yes, yes, and yes. That is because humans are, after all, animals. I need to correct a statement I made in my opening argument when I said "it is unamerican" I failed to look at your profile until after and learned you were British. Since you are British unamerican does not apply. "Life is perception"- My grandfather
Present arguments that show what's wrong with "interracial" relationships/marriages

Yes, So give some arguments on why so called interracial marriages and relationships are wrong. We'll go over them one by one. I'll most likely have a lot questions dealing with your position. Take it step by step, Deal with one argument at a time. Be very clear in the choosing of your words. Let's try to learn something by the end of this. The "pro" position in this case means that I"ll be questioning your arguments. So that's the only valid interpretation any individual can express in their correspondence. Once again, Let's try to learn something by the end of the discussion.
Same-sex Marriage

Now look, I'm not exactly on one side or the other on same-sex marriage. But I believe that people should have that right. Furthermore, being gay isn't a decision. No gay person will tell you "Well, I just woke up one morning with a sudden craving for d***.". And as for the god thing... Look. Even if ol' spaceman spiff is actually up there, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two frozen s***s if gay marriage becomes legal. If god created all life on earth, and cares about all of his children, then in all probability, god probably cares about humans at the same extent he cares about, say, a cricket. So I don't really care if it becomes legal, all I want is for people to drop it.
Same-sex Marriage

I've heard the "gay people only raise gay people" argument before. Because, you know, straight people only raise straight people. And no, it's not natural, I'll give you that. Even I think about that sometimes. But it's no reason to ban it. Since when do we ban something due to it being unnatural? Because I can list a bunch of things that are unnatural -Flipping a switch and a room becomes illuminated in light. -One species controlling an entire planet. -A black box that if we click it, we can communicate to other humans globally. -A stick that if you click it, a tiny ball of metal will come out and KILL whatever it's pointed at. Most art forms are unnatural. Do we ban them? No! Being gay is no more unnatural than taking down a tree to process materials for paper so that a student can write an essay on the environment.
Same-sex Marriage

Let's talk about 'The Psychological Development of the Child' how do you think ? if child have 2 father or 2 mother is it normal ?! is it natural ?! is it GOOD ?! i don't think so.... gay lifestyle means they want to adopt childrens to raise them like a future 'homosexual'. Let's just think about future generations !! i don't think you have any argument wich will make me think 'oh really, let's accept it' i will not say it ! do you know what's going on in Europe ? in Paris, France scientist killed himself in front of the 'L'arc de Triomphe - The Arch of Triumph in Paris'... this scientist was nobel candidate... and he killed himself because of sodomy... saying only few words 'WAKE UP FRANCE' Do you know what's going on in Eeast Europe ? in Tbilisi ? in Kiev ? do you know what's happening around the world ? you don't like my T70;1 argument so this is my answer for it : Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. NO ONE WILL ACCEPT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, WE HAVE MANY REASONS FOR IT
Same-sex Marriage

Okay, I have a technique where I go through every argument someone else uses and counter them. 1. I don't like the sanctity of marriage argument. The sanctity of marriage was demolished a long time ago by straight people. Straight people get married all the time because of dumb reasons (one got knocked up in high school for example.) and I don't see everyone losing their minds on them. But when two dudes decide to stick a ring on each other, everyone has to go nuts. 2. Natural law? If humans respected "natural law" we wouldn't go through "natural" forests to build cities. 3. Yes it does, but a single parent adopting a child ALSO denies said child of a father or mother. 4. What's a homosexual lifestyle? Gay people aren't women, they don't go shopping or wear lipstick or stereotypical things like that. I have a gay friend, and I had no idea he was gay until a week ago. You know why? Because he was completely normal. 5. Again, with argument #1, morality in marriage has also been destroyed by celebrities and dumb people. 7. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to use this argument, but it's clearly not going away. Marriage is just stupid now, it's basically an excuse to have kids. 8. Acceptance? Do you have any idea how hard it is for gay people to be accepted? I don't either, because I'm not gay, but I can guess it's not easy. If people know you're gay, you're considered the worst thing to happen since hitler. All because you woke up one morning and thought "Screw women." 9. Sexual revolution doesn't sound like a thing that exists. It might, but I'm just a teenager so what do I know. 10. The god argument. That can never be an argument, because America has actual laws against enforcing religion. Saying that gay marriage offends god is a reason to ban gay marriage is not considered a legitimate reason. Now I just want to say, I'm not exactly pro gay marriage. That is to say, I'm anti-marriage altogether. Marriage should not be so socially enforced as it is today. Getting married doesn't prove anything, and two people don't love each other more because of it. It's just a lifetime of "Did you get eggs at the grocery store? Why not" and "Oh great. The In Laws are coming over for dinner". If I was on death row, and the warden gave me a choice of the electric chair or marrying someone, I'd tell him to get me a steak and to fire up the generators.
Same-sex Marriage

10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed 1. It Is Not Marriage 2. It Violates Natural Law 3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother 4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle 5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right 6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union 7. It Defeats the State"s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage 8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society 9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution 10. It Offends God
Should grades be abolished

I agree with you, the grading system is a joke; children experience too much stress as a result of it especially when given too much homework. A lot of times I'd to do the bare minimum due to the amount I had, so it was pointless being graded every time. The combination of too much homework and grading can cause students to lose interest. However, the reason why children are so anti-homework is because they want to avoid being told off. They simply don't understand that it is for their benefit. By being given a grade they can see how well they are doing, and can know how much more effort is required to get the final grade they seek. If grades were simply abolished, no-one would take homework seriously. The solution is to give students the option to get their homework graded by putting a sticker inside their book, or to place their work in a separate pile. They deserve respect. The only subject where grades should be compulsory is Maths because grading is mathematical, and a maths teacher can get students excited about getting their homework graded. I think most children would want their homework graded if they knew it was for their benefit, if they got low grades they would be more likely to ask for help. I look forward to your response
Government Surveilance

Government surveillance is a controversial subject. I, however, am on the cons point of view. What about privacy? The idea of government surveillance violates the fourth amendment directly. The United States citizens have a right to privacy. The government cannot commit unreasonable searches. While they would be going through our calls, texts, emails, and internet searches they would be violating that amendment. Not every single citizen in this country is a suspect of a crime. They have no reason to search us. If they are allowed to break that amendment, how far will they go? What else will they do to control us?
Government Surveilance

1. The 318.9 million people that currently live in the United States are not all guilty of a crime. The only reason these government searches are allowed is for suspicious crime activity that goes through a judge. What are they going to do? Accuse every single United States citizen of some sort of crime? 2. How have you not noticed? They control what news is released, how much we know about our government, who can marry another human, where you can and cannot smoke, when you can and cannot have a gun/defense weapon, how much women are paid in comparison to men, how much money we are expected to give to them out of our own income, and they even tried to control who can come into our "free nation"... Need I go on? 3. Sure, our privacy is breached by hackers. But there's nothing we can exactly do about that. By allowing the government to search through our texts, emails, calls, and internet history, we are giving up our privacy. We're making ourselves vulnerable. There are things you can do to prevent hackers and anyone who wants to steal your private information, but once the government has their hands on it, there's absolutely nothing we can do. No one will have privacy except within their own walls. 4. The same way they always have. It's worked so far, hasn't it? Forensic departments and police are there for the important stuff. They don't need to know every single person in the United State's private information to find criminals. They can keep going the same way they always have.
Government Surveilance

I accept and will present my arguments in Round 2. I ask my opponent to answer a few questions (please answer in Round 2). 1. It's your burden of proof to show why these searches are unreasonable. So... why are they? 2. You insinuation of a big brother government is hilarious. Please explain how the government controls my life. We voted them into office (the US is a democracy remember), so how do they control us? 3. In a society where the internet is becoming more and more prevalent, how is the idea of privacy going to be protected outside of the scope of governmental actions? Isn't our privacy already breached by other ways? 4. If we eliminate surveillance, how do you propose the government stop violent crime? Thank you, and I expect your answers in the next round.
Legalization of medical marijuana

That statistic is not available. I looked pretty thoroughly for it. Here's my educated guess on why it is not available: People don't die from the short term effects of Marijuana (no overdose either). They die from the effects of consuming marijuana over long periods of time (e.g. Mental Disorders, Cancer, Heart Disease, etc.). Thus, when a person dies from one of those, even if it WAS caused by Marijuana long-time use, it is not recorded as such. Since all you provided for your last "argument" was that one question, I will assume that you were unable to think up any real rebuttals for my points (or you were too lazy to do any more research). If medical marijuana is legalized, the government will be allowing doctors to prescribe poison for their patients.
Legalization of medical marijuana

Claiming that Marijuana is good for you is absurd. There is MUCH MUCH more evidence proving how bad Marijuana is for your brain. Marijuana is a depressant, just like Alcohol; both of them "calm people down" by permanently killing brain cells. In fact, they calm people down so much that they lose their sense of judgment entirely. They also slow down people's heart rates and breathing rates, causing extreme lethargy while intoxicated. People who smoke Marijuana are incapable of doing anything else for hours after they finish up their smoke. THC has been MEDICALLY proven to destroy brain cells, especially in the Hypothalamus and Pituitary glands, 2 of the most important parts of the brain. There is no use denying it. And THC is a NATURAL chemical in Marijuana.; no one has to add any for it to be present. This destruction of nerve cells is the thing that causes the calming/pain relieving affect. There are many far better pain relievers that do the same thing WITH OUT destroying nerve cells. Medical marijuana is a pitiful excuse to make marijuana more accessible for recreational use. Your statistic only applies to first time use, and very rarely do people only use marijuana once and never use it again. Repeated use causes that number to rise to 52%, which is much more than the numbers for heroine and cocaine (roughly 20%), and only surpassed by Alcohol (71%). I did not say that marijuana HAS cyanide in it; I said it has the same effects as cyanide because of the THC in it. Marijuana is a poison. None of your arguments hold up. They are mere excuses. Sources: (1) http://www.scholastic.com... (2) http://www.worldhealth.net... (3) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com... (4) http://addiction.narcononrehab.com...
Legalization of medical marijuana

Contrary to popular belief, Marijuana does not destroy brain cells. In fact it actually has neuroprotective properties, meaning protection (duh). The studies saying this were done on monkeys and were also proven wrong by many other studies. Even expert government officials have admitted THC does not kill brain and nerve cells, at least not in humans. Are you going to worry about all the pot smoking monkeys whose brains are shrinking? And while the effects are immediate, they are also temporary, they will wear off after the high has. The argument brought up about violence between the two is rather, well, idiotic. Cannabis calms people, it doesn't anger them. The government does not even track violence specifically related to marijuana use, due to how use of marijuana is not associated with violence. It is the prohibition of it and trade that is causing the violence, not the use. IF it is legalized of course the violence rate would go down. The link that it is similar to cyanide in damage is only true under circumstance. Like I have said before, cannabis only has chemicals that do damage like that because of the chemical fertilizers a handful of growers use, That would be the synthetic marijuana. An "ideal world" is irrelevant when we live in the real world. Only about 9% of users get addicted to marijuana, but it is widely considered not physically addictive because of the extremely minor with drawl symptoms. All of you're arguments are false Sources: http://archive.saferchoice.org... http://norml.org... http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.rawstory.com... http://reason.com... http://norml.org... http://healthland.time.com...
Legalization of medical marijuana

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. In an ideal world, Cigarettes would be made illegal, too. However, cigarette smoking doesn't affect how your brain functions and therefore does not pose a threat to society (unless you count second hand smoke, but the government has made efforts to minimize the effects of that through non-smoking zones). However, marijuana has immediate effects on your brain. It impairs coordination and judgement just as much, if not more, than alcohol, and crimes associated with alcohol (e.g. assault, reckless driving, rape, murder, etc.) happen even more frequently with marijuana users. It is such a powerful drug that most people get addicted to it within the first few uses. Even more dangerous than its short term effects are its long term effects. It is scientifically proven that the active NATURAL ingredient in marijuana, THC, actively destroys brain cells; over several years of marijuana use, a user's brain will SHRINK, and the user will never even realize it. Another chemical with the same nerve cell-damaging effect is Cyanide, one of the most well-known POISONS in the world. Marijuana is not accepted by the federal government of having any medical value. Medical marijuana is just an excuse to make marijuana more accessible to recreational marijuana users. There are far more effective treatments to glaucoma and cancer with far less severe side effects. Marijuana is poison with no medical value and should stay illegal. Sources: http://civilliberty.about.com... http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ncpoisoncenter.org...
Legalization of medical marijuana

Marijuana is only harmful under circumstances. It is when growers add chemicals to it making it harmful. If the argument you are making is that is it poison then you should be arguing for cigarettes to be made illegal. Cigarettes have many more chemicals added on by manufacturers compared to the minimal amount usually added by cannabis growers. Where have you found that it was harmful and a "poison"? Synthetic marijuana is harmful but naturally grown is very beneficial.
The Earth is flat

For whatever reason, some crackpots pick a "proof" that the Earth is flat, don't try to disprove their "proof" or don't ask someone else to try to disprove it before accepting it (flying in the face of logic) or are too dumb to understand the disproof. *sarcasm on* I mean, heaven forbid you made a recurring error and now base your beliefs on that error. It must be a conspiracy. Yes, surely it's just that no one noticed that any of the images from space, before computers could render them, were hand painted (or another equally suspiciously convenient and implausible explanation). Yes, it must be that all the smart people who believe in this stuff are killed, except for you; because you're a super genius, right; the smartest person on the flat Earth? *sarcasm off* Does all of this sound plausible to you? Because I can tell you one thing; it doesn't sound plausible to most people. What's my argument? First of all, if the Earth was flat, with the scientific equipment that we have, the Earth being flat would have been uncovered to the general public. Secondly, for it to not be uncovered, pretty much every official organization related to science and knowledge would have to be hiding the secret. What would they do that for? Money? What money would they get out of paying millions of dollars to build rockets and thousands of dollars to fake the evidence; when they could just let the world know the truth and earn money from the various religious events held because of the fact that God made the Earth's shape defy physics? You might argue that the conspiracy works because of the devil being behind it. If you argue that, you'll have to prove that the devil exists, in the first place, before having a plausible case for the devil running a flat Earth conspiracy. It'd be a laugh to watch you try. Anyway, your turn.
An omnipresent God is an atheist.

You do understand that your entire argument here is based on nothing but semantics right? Your argument: God makes up the majority of everything. God makes up the majority of us. Therefore, we are God Therefore, God is us. A few of us are atheist Therefore, God is atheist. Problems: 1. The fact that something makes up the majority of something else does not mean that it then becomes its sole identity. If I have a solution of 20% HCl acid, it is a solution of 20% HCl acid. By your definition, it would be water. Try drinking it and see what happens. After all, it's just water, and it's good for you, right? 2. Even if I granted you the first part, which I don't, since it was logically fallacious, the second part is a problem too. If we as a collective are God, it does not mean that God is us. The United States of America is a democratic republic. However, this does not mean that a democratic republic is The United States of America. 3. Let's assume that I suffer some sort of massive aneurysm and I grant you the first two. There's another problem. If we can give an attribute to a small part of something, that does not necessarily mean that it applies to the whole. My outermost epithelial cells are dead. By your logic, I am dead. By your definition, God is not only us, God is everything. This means that the group of "things" that can be atheist (humans) are insignificant compared to everything else in the universe. So no, just because people are atheist it does not mean that God is atheist. Even if all humans on earth were atheist, it wouldn't line up with your logic that God is atheist. So no, not quite as clear as you thought, and you're very welcome for the debate.
An omnipresent God is an atheist.

For the record, my first speech was written simply to set up a simple framework for the debate to prevent any semantics arguments or arguments of style, rather than actual philosophy. "Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why?" The resolution is: "AN omnipresent God is an atheist." The resolution does not say "God is an atheist." It is an omnipresent god. Therefore, there doesn't have to be any other attribute to said god. Most gods, in a wide spectrum of faith, are omnipresent: (Just to list a few: Christianity Islam Judaism Pagaen Wiccan.) You may choose amongst any of these gods, and assume that they have some nonbelievers. (Atheists, other religions, nihilists etc.) As you've defined, the smallest particle known to man is an atom and even further still, a god with omniprescence would exist within subatomic particles. Starting to get a picture? What are all beings made of? Atoms. We are entirely constructed of atoms. If a god is omnipresent, he is everywhere and inside everything. We must assume that there are small cracks, as in stone, within atoms that god must be in. He must be in the particles that make up the atoms, and so, God makes up the majority of the atom. That being said, if he makes up the majority of every atom, and these atoms make up us, then God is us. We are God. So now that we've shown that we ARE God, we must look back to what I stated above. There are atheists for any religion, disbelievers, so if there is one disbeliever ( a point you said that you would accept) then God, which we are, is an Atheist. I don't believe anything else needs to be said, as it's clearly obvious which side to vote for. The logic is clear, vote Pro. Thanks again, FB