BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm a better debater than you. Period.

I'm not from a-freaka. Since when did this happen. I'm fresh out of texas and I think my life makes sense now................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I'm a giraffe. I need to go. Live in the plains of a-freaka. With all the freaks. And all of my people. And probably get no scoped. ............................................................. After this debate is done I'm outt. For now............ No u suc. Just. You do. Chairs are going down on you.
I'm a better debater than you. Period.

No ur nawt. You're just bashing me cuz I'm a bird and you're an octopus in the ocean so you can't actually fight me so you're trying to get at me via debate.org. That's just low. How much lower can you SINK. Like. Do you ever just sink so low that you go into the pacific ocean and then suddenly... bam. You're on africa?... or the the moon...? I wouldn't be at all surprised. I would call you a big meanie head but you don't even have one so... Word.
God Exists.

What a shame. My opponent has failed to acknowledge my argument even after stating he would accept it in round 2. My opponent has then accused me of plagiarism when he himself has done so too. Truth be told, my opponent cannot argue with the evidence I presented earlier. The Kalam argument is sound and superb. My opponent realizes that there is no such rebuttal that can effectively be presented against this argument. In final response to my opponents arguments. (1) Plagiarism, and (2) Plagiarism. Those two arguments presented by my opponent are plagiarized. Then again, aren't all of our thoughts plagiarized in some way?I wanted a debate about the existence of God not an argument about plagiarism.I am thoroughly disappointed.However, I have faith that my opponent can still turn this around and present an argument to my Kalam theory.
God Exists.

My opponent has provided not even an attempt to refute my last argument. I have simply stated an argument, and idea. This idea came from Peter Kreeft, just as your idea came from Behan McCullagh. You have charged me with your very own offenses and for this, I am umbraged. I do hope this will be considered during the voting period as it is an excuse my opponent has provided, and it is time that has been wasted, in regards to this argument.There are no rules whatsoever that state I cannot use an argument. Because my opponent has failed to challenge my argument (one that I will continue to present, as it is my belief), I will hold it as it is until my opponent properly refutes it. I urge my opponent to provide a proper rebuttal.
God Exists.

More plagiarismI am not debating with Peter Kreeft. If Peter Kreeft cares to debate with me about the existence of God using the Kalam Cosmological Argument, then I happy to oblige, but he has made no such offer, and I take umbrage at the presumption that I should rebut the many paragraphs of Peter Kreeft where Con's own writing should be. Excessive quoting from a source, even with a citation, is another form of plagiarism. Plagiarism.org includes in a list of six types of plagiarism:"copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"See http://www.plagiarism.org....To reinforce my previous complaint of plagiarism, the second item in the list is:"copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit"If Pro is unfamiliar with these common rules of writing, then he should review that page. If he is familiar with those rules, then he should follow them. This is not an informal debate. This is a debate where the participants are judged according to common rules.So, instead of rebuting the plagiarized text, I will instead provide a link to a rebuttal of the Kalam Argument at DBSkeptic.com.http://www.dbskeptic.com...Evolution and GodPro states, "It is important to note that Evolution does not conflict with the idea of 'God'. There is no known cause in Evolution and 'God' gives this theory perfect 'Cause'."To repeat, the theory of evolution explains causes of life through known plausible mechanisms, and God has no plausible mechanisms. An implausible proposal of a cause is far from a perfect cause.Pro states, "I cannot say that it contradicts with the idea of 'God'. With this being said, Evolution is not evidence against God."To summarize the progress of the debate:Pro: We see God's intelligence through the complexity of all creation, including the cell.Con: The biological mechanisms of reproduction, mutation, variation and natural selection (not mere random chance) are sufficient to explain complexity of life.Pro: Evolution is not evidence against God.Pro has forgotten that he was the one who introduced the argument pertaining to evolution. I struck down that argument, and Pro is defending against an argument that I did not make.Back to the impluasibilty of God: ghostly intelligenceI would like to again remind Pro of my central argument from Round 1: "The implausibility of the objective existence of God follows from the incompatibility of the proposed nature of God with the nature of the known universe." I discussed the implausibility of an intelligent being without a complex system of matter and energy. Pro has failed to understand this point. In Round 2, Con misunderstood my argument as being: "God cannot exist because there is no way for us to measure His intelligence." I failed to catch this misunderstanding in Round 2, but, no, my argument is better understood as: "God cannot exist because his proposed nature is incompatible with the established pattern of observation that intelligence must emerge only from a complex system of matter and energy." I ask that Con review that portion of Round 1 and answer it properly.Thank you.
God Exists.

Opening Comments:This debate is concerning the existence of God. It is to be assumed that God does exist. And therefore, the burden of proof is on the Con. Requirements:1. I will be referring to the Christian God in the Biblical sense, but the argument will be solely for the existence of God.2. It is to be assumed that God does exist.3. The Bible is assumed to be true. (If you would like to challenge the authority of the Bible it must be done in round one acceptance) 4. Arguments must be organized and presented in a linear format.Final Note:I find it undeniable that God exists. If you do not believe, then it is your obligation to defend your belief. I challenge the Con to prove that God does not exist. If the Con cannot prove that God does not exist, the Con loses. It is that simple.With that being said, Con, take your stand.
Mental health is just as important as physical health

I would like to stress the fact that I do care about mental healthcare. But when you look at the statistics it says that 26.6 % of the american population has mental problems, while 35% of Americans suffer from physical problems, and don't really think it is a problem. I think we should logically put more importance on the healthcare where most people are suffering. You also mentioned in the previous argument that people fake mental illnesses. According to mirror. com, a survey was done on teenagers said it was "cool". But the majority of teenagers 61%, said it "should be taken very seriously". said it was "cool". But the majority, 61%, said it "should be taken very seriously". This means that my opponent is just basing his arguments on his experience. His arguments are inaccurate. I hope you as the voter read these arguments objectively.
Mental health is just as important as physical health

I appreciate that you care about these people, and they need more help and importance. But this is a debate on importance. There are more people that are physically hurt everyday, and you can look these statistics up. According to the Kim foundation, you can see that only 26.7 % of Americans suffer from mental health. While 35% of Americans are suffering from physical pain. Logically, we can conclude that we should put more importance on physically hurt people. Now, don't interpret my argument into something that it is not. I believe that we should give mental health importance, but I believe we should distribute more importance over physical health because there are simply more people that suffer from it. I do agree that people should stop saying that it isn't important because it is. But I believe physical health should be given more importance because our topic was about importance.
Mental health is just as important as physical health

I couldn't disagree with you more. I respect that you think more people suffer physically however you don't know how many people are mentally suffering and too scared to speak up due to the fact they think that they won't get any help because they have been brought up to believe that it isn't "important enough". How would you feel to feel like that? Physical and mental health should be given the same equality and should be treated in the same way. At the end of the day, they both can potentionally end in deaths or life changing activities so both need help.
Mental health is just as important as physical health

Mental health is just as important as physical health and it really bothers me how so many people fail to realise that. From past experience, I've broken my arm and been sent home from school but then I've had a mental breakdown and just been forced to stay in school with no help whatsoever; both situations affected me badly but because there was something physically wrong in the first, it got treated more seriously. However, this doesn't make sense as quite often, mental problems have physical effects too and I wish everyone would see this instead of labelling it as attention seeking. Of course it doesn't help that people do pretend to have mental illnesses because they think it's "cool" and "quirky" which definitely does not make it easier for the rest of us to get the help that we truly deserve. There have been many cases where bad things have occured because the hospitals and such have not provided well enough for people with mental health issues and I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the matter as this is a subject that I feel extremely strongly about.
government should run exactly like a business

I know Pro is new to DDO. I don’t know whether or not he meant to set the debate time for five minutes, but let me quickly state a quick claim or two as to why government should not run EXACTLY like a business. While I do believe that government should be efficient, if it ran exactly like a business, and citizens were in fact given the rights of employees, they would not have civil liberties protections, as is the case when the majority of people go to work (unless they own the business outright). In a debate over the summer Con addressed this issue along similar lines, it [the proposition] argued that civil liberties (specifically the Second Amendment) should not end where the work place begins. I lost that debate because most people [voters] felt that property rights trump all other rights. In reality, if the government ran EXACTLY like a business, I guess that would mean the president would act as CEO with congress acting like middle managers, and the people would effectively have the same rights that a single shareholder would have in a company with shares that are the equivalent of the US population. But let me say emphatically business, some businesses do run quite effectively, provide great products, and shareholders values. That said I would not want to run the government EXACTLY like a business.
Abortion Violates the constitution

Sorry for the gaffe (I'll probably mess this up too)__Rebuttal__Without using any outside laws from the constitution, there is no law prohibiting murder. There is however the "inalienable right to life."Of course, this only applies to men. According to the Constitution, the legal voting age and citizenship age is 18 and the age of consent is 16, meaning that a baby is not a man (adult male) by either definition. By its literal definition, the baby is not alive for over a decade and a half after its birth. Back to you Pro.
Abortion Violates the constitution

Thanks, Pro.__Rebuttal__Con's argument states that abortion is always against the constitution. I will be attempting to prove that this is wrong, using this loophole in his argument."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."To understand the meaning of this excerpt, one must first look at the time's condition."Men," according to dictionary.reference.com, is "an adult male."Women were not allowed to hold an economy until 1839 and could not vote for almost a century afterwards. The constitution was adopted in 1787. (Source: Wikipedia)So, this means the argument does not cover women, and possibly non-citizens (the only voters at the time were property-owning, aged over 21 white males. Meaning only a percentage of population.So unless my opponent can refute this or come up with another amendment, his resolution is negated.
Abortion Violates the constitution

=Definitions= 1. Created: "to bring into existence" 2. Endowed: "to provide with something freely or naturally" 3. Life:"the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" Also definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -> http://www.merriam-webster.com... =Arguments= The preamble to the constitution states: [1] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The constitution says that "all men are created equal", not "all men are born equal" this means that at conception all people are guaranteed the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a new being is brought into existence, Even at the earliest stages of development, a fetus has it's own unique DNA [2] so the argument that it is part of the mother, and thus her body to do as she pleases is not an argument that holds any water. By aborting an unborn fetus we violate the right to Life, (as they are killed) Liberty, (as they are not given the chance to defend themselves) and the pursuit of happiness (as they cannot pursue anything since they are not alive.) Thus since we alienate the unalienable rights, we violate the constitution. Sources- [1] http://www.ushistory.org... [2] http://www.utilitarian.net...
Humans are Wicked by Nature

Thank you for the debate and the vote of confidence in my credibility. My opponent must keep in mind that weapons were designed, in part, as a defense mechanism. Most actions, using a large-scale view to better qualify the sample size, were taken for the belief that a country was helping a certain cause. However, it has always been up for debate which is in the right, which is good, etc. Gunpowder was invented when Chinese chemists were attempting to create the elixir of life, not to find a way to destroy it. I live in the state of West Virginia. Without gunpowder, we would not be able to produce the 70+ percent of energy that gunpowder allows us to access and allow us to be the coal capatial of the country. For my way of life, gunpowder has done me more good than bad. Just because some other nutter finds and alternative use for it does not mean that it is a bad thing, nor that the creators were bad because of his misuse of it. We can not be grouped as a society because of other's actions. This resolution states the absoluteness of every human's wicked nature, which, with all due respect, my opponent can not possibly prove. Perhaps it should have been reworded to a probablity.
Humans are Wicked by Nature

I hope my opponent's forfeit of the previous round does not undermine his credibility, as he has made some good points and intelligent arguments. I would like to conclude by saying that looking back, humanity has done some very wicked things. From the millions slain in war to deforestation, overfishing, overhunting and just the nature of some of the things we have thought up, humans are wicked. Think about it, the Bible itself says we are born in sin. We are born into sin, we are inclined to sin, and yet we must try not to. Again, thank you for the debate, and just think, haven't we done more bad than good in this world?
Humans are Wicked by Nature

Thank you for the debate. My opponent states that humans are wicked. To define wicked: "the practice of being morally wrong in principal or in practice. " However, my opponent states in his next sentence "(humans) are more inclined to greed than benevolence". My opponent fails to realize that you can not judge a book by it's cover. In other words, you can not judge everyone by the majority. There are humans who have been made into saints, holy men, hero(in)s, etc. My opponent also states that "we" who have siblings WILL be mean and nasty to them for the joy of it. My opponent exaggerates in this. If not, then I ask him to prove it, reasonably, of course. When we have money, he says, we are reluctant to spend it. There is nothing morally wrong or wicked about saving money, and I fail to see the issue lying therein. Nor do I understand his next point of children playing with toys. My opponent, with all due respect, has failed to prove why humans are wicked by nature.
Humans are Wicked by Nature

I wish to start this argument off with my firm belief that humans are, by nature, and always will be, wicked. We are more inclined to greed than benevolence. Those of us with siblings will be mean and nasty to them just for the joy of it. Even when we have more money than we know what to do with, we are reluctant to spend it. Boys' fascination with guns and other toys of destruction. Etcetera. Of course, I know there is good in humans as well. In fact, I believe that is the rule to live by: Even though we are wicked by nature, we should try to be as kind as possible. We'll never succeed, but we'll made the world a better place. Your response?
Public High School Students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exa

Unfortunately, the resolution does not require any of the above to be answered. Because you did not post an argument, I am going to assume that you agree with me in that we should have a standardized Test. You said in your argument "If our society was free from these establishments we wouldn't need an education system so a standardized test would be useless." We can see clearly that we are not free from these kinds of establishments which are why we need an education system. Are you going to post an argument for me to debate? ROUND 2: No Further arguements
Public High School Students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exa

Unfortunately, the resolution does not require any of the above to be answered. I am assuming that because you did not post an argument I am going to assume that you agree with me in that we should have a standardized Test. You said in your argument "If our society was free from these establishments we wouldn't need an education system so a standardized test would be useless." We can see clearly that we are not free from these kinds of establishments which are why we need an education system. Are you going to post an argument for me to debate?
Public High School Students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exa

You haven't explained why we need education or why we need labor institutions. What if I don't want a capitalist economy? What if I don't want to work 9 hours a day? When somebody fails thats an advantage to you. You have less competition. Your always going to have poor people to keep the economy running. If everyone wanted to be paid decently then there would be no monetary system. So explain to me why we need: an economy, the state, monetary system, civilization? If our society was free from these establishments we wouldnt need an education system so a standardized test would be useless.
Islam is a peaceful religion

I am not a Muslim, but I wish to defend the religion that is smeared in this soceity since 9-11. First of all, the stereo-types that surround the Muslims is ignorant to say the least. To classify an entire religion based on a crazy group of radicals is absurd. The fundmental teachings of Islam reflect the same moral principles as found in the Torah (the Jewish Holy Book) and the Holy Bible (Christiantys Holy Book). In the Koran (the Islamic Holy Book), the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3). I wish for my opponet to respectfully disagree and not invoke racism in this debate. Thank you.
Islam is a peaceful religion

"Ok, lets get start again by saying the Koran clearly speaks out against premptive attacks but allows self-defense." Surah 2:190--- "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever you catch them." This proves otherwise. "They attack others in cold blood and some how take scriptures out of context to justify it." I have quoted a former Muslim saying "It is difficult to take the Qur'an out of context". You said nothing about this. "Now when the Christian kills a doctor they say 'I'm doing this for Jesus'." I think this whole argument is utterly ridiculous. God cammands peoples to be killed in the Old Testament, but only those who have done something judicially wrong in the New Testament. Allah command people to be slayed througout the Qu'ran. The two are not comparable. ANYONE who says that they are murdering in the name of God is a liar. "How about the many so-called 'Christian Terrorist organizations'?" Please, give me the scriptures that they think support their claims and I will more than happily refute them. There are none. I have showed you passages from the Qu'ran that support radical Jihadists (I am not quit sure that "Jihadists" is a word, but you know what I mean :D) "The 'full picture' of Islam..." If you actually look into the "Full picture" you will see that it is filled with blatent contradictions. You cant really accept it as a whole. The religion is fatally flawed, in my humble opinion. " Well it shouldn't because the Koran teaches tolerance for Christian and Jewish Brothers and Sisters." The Qu'ran teaches that all who fight Islam should be slain. Christians fight Islam. Jews fight Islam. Are you saying that this justifies slaughter? Not very peaceful. That should conclude. Thanks for the debate! Renzzy