BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I can put a positive spin on any situation

No problem, I'm ready.1. 1. You walk down the street and a drunk driver hits you. You are paralyzed for the rest of you life.I assume I went to a hospital, meaning that I probably paid medical bills, meaning I gave wages to nurses and doctors so they can buy food and pay bills.2. There is no afterlife and we live for no purpose whatsoever, everything we've accomplished is meaningless once Maybe it's meaningless once we're dead, but it was meaningful while we were alive. For a short period of time, we made a difference.3. Every day hundreds of African children starve to death because their government is too corrupt to act.More food for us!4. A soccer trainer's wife got cancer and all the supporters started insulting him and his wife because they thought it was funny.The other team probably won and made lots of money because no one was supporting the original team.5. You have to bring your family to the airport but on the way you see a mcDonalds and arrive too late at your family just to see that their house has burned down.You had a pretty good burger and fries!6. Everytime I'm in an important meeting my back starts to itch and I can't reach it.The itch is telling you that you don't have sepa (a disease where your nervous system doesn't work), a disease that has killed around 50 people 7. You can't get a job because your face is distorted despite you have a good education.If you're that ugly someone's bound to pay you for some MTV show or Ripleys Beleive it or Not.8. People born in the year 2000 will never know good real music and are forced to listen to Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj.If they can listen to music they are not deaf, and can experience all the other wonderful sounds on our earth.9. A young girl was raped and couldn't have an abortion because it was illegal in her country. Now she had to quit her schooling and make money like a prostitute.Well there's the obvious advantage but I can't say it without seeming so heartless I won't be able to live with myself. I suppose that the child gets a chance at life without being aborted!10. When a woman had a child she locked it up in a closet forever and now the boy doesn't know how to walk, speak etc.Mom and dad saved money on college tuition.
I can put a positive spin on any situation

Well played, sorry about the last rule, I read over it. 1. You walk down the street and a drunk driver hits you. You are paralyzed for the rest of you life. 2. There is no afterlife and we live for no purpose whatsoever, everything we've accomplished is meaningless once dead. 3. Every day hundreds of African children starve to death because their government is too corrupt to act. 4. A soccer trainer's wife got cancer and all the supporters started insulting him and his wife because they thought it was funny. 5. You have to bring your family to the airport but on the way you see a mcDonalds and arrive too late at your family just to see that their house has burned down. 6. Everytime I'm in an important meeting my back starts to itch and I can't reach it. 7. You can't get a job because your face is distorted despite you have a good education. 8. People born in the year 2000 will never know good real music and are forced to listen to Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj. 9. A young girl was raped and couldn't have an abortion because it was illegal in her country. Now she had to quit her schooling and make money like a prostitute. 10. When a woman had a child she locked it up in a closet forever and now the boy doesn't know how to walk, speak etc. Good luck.
I can put a positive spin on any situation

Okay that's one rule broken already. I quote: "Con presents 10 situations per round."Maybe I wasn't clear but what I meant to say was that Con must present 10 situations per round. Anyway, back to the debate.The advantage to the happenings at guantanamo bay was that it is taught as history at school and our teachers tell us it was bad. By reflecting on the negative occurences in the USA, we can learn that it is wrong and hopefully prevent it from happnening again!
I can put a positive spin on any situation

I will be debating that I can put a positive spin on any situation, meaning that I can point out a positive, no matter how trivial. The con will be presenting me with situations (they cant be more than two lines) and I will point out the positive in each one. RULES:1. The situations which Con presents cannot be more than two lines long.2. The situations con presents can be self-tailored or can be more abstract, eg: War, famine.3. In the case of abstract cases (like stated above) the pro has the right to create hypothetical situations surrounding them.4. The con cannot simply write, as a situation: "A situation that has no positives whatsoever", or anything along those lines.5. The con cannot take what the pro has written and futher tailor it in future rounds. Example: Con says "homework" and then pro says "It helps kids learn", con CANNOT say in a future round, "homework that doesn't make kids learn". Basically, Con has to come up with new situations. 6. Con CAN rebut my points, I can defend mine.7. The Con can't use the argument of it not being a positive as the negatives outweigh it. Pro is simply pointing out one possible silver lining.8. Con presents 10 situations per round.I'd like to ask Con to present his situations in ROUND 1! Go.
God hates homosexuals.

I disagree. God has shown hatred multiple times throughout the Bible. Examples of this are: Lectuvus 20:23 Lectuvus 26:30 Deuteronomy 32:19 Psalm 5:6 Psalm 10:3 Malachi 1:3 Romans 9:13 These verses simply prove that God has the ability to hate and, therefore, doesn't express unconditional love for all. They don't particularly prove that God hates homosexuals. There is evidence, that God, of the Christian faith, hates homosexuals. By definition, an abomination is "anything greatly disliked or abhorred" (according to dictionary.com). Referring back to Lectivus 20:13, it states that homosexuality is an abomination. Therefore, God hates homosexuals. Also, in 1Corinthians 6:9, it states that homosexuality is such a horrendous sin that homosexuals won't be allowed into heaven.
God hates homosexuals.

Okay, so we have narrowed it down to two possible Gods: the Jewish God and the Christian God. And yes, there are differences, such as the Jewish God is one single entity as one God while the Christian God (unless you adhere to Arianism) is three entities making up one God. There are other differences, but since you have opted for the term "Bible" and not "Torah", then I shall assume you mean the Christian God. Presupposing the tenants of Christianity, one should note that the religion revolves around two main concepts: First, that Christ was born of a Virgin (which has no bearing on this argument) and Second, that Jesus died for the sins of every single human who has ever lived and will ever lived. Essentially, the theology believes that Man was barred from Heaven after the events of Chapter 2 in Genesis. Jesus died in order to lift this prohibition, thus suffering and dying in the place of all of mankind. Jesus, according to Christianity, is God. Thus, God died for the sins of Man.Homosexuality is considered a sin in Christianity[1]. This is evidenced by the Bible Verse Pro provides as well as several others. Taking this and the Christian reasoning for the death of Christ, we know that Jesus (God) died for homosexuals as well as all other sinners.The Gospel According to John states "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13)[2]. Now for the second wave of my attack.Christianity also condemnes hatred. Christianity, as well as many religious philosophers who were not Christian (such as Spinoza) state that God is good. All that comes from God is good, as that God is good. (Simply put, God is good, so nothing he wills can be evil. So everything he wills is good). "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them." (1 John 2:9-11) [3]. Thus, it is to be believed that hatred is a sin. Sin is evil, thus God cannot hate, since he cannot sin since he cannot be evil.Since all that comes from God is good, then that includes homosexuals. Now, this does not mean that God accepts the act, but he does not hate the persons committing the act. Hence the sin is punished, and according to Christianity, the death of Christ was the act by which sin was made forgivable.So no, according to Christianity, God does not hate homosexuals.[1] http://www.allaboutgod.com...[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Systemic Racism is non-existent.

I argue that systematic racism does exist and this is clearly shown in the US justice system. African Americans are far more likely to go to prison for drug charges than white citizens. According to the NAACP "African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, But the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites. " This clearly shows systematic racism in the US justice system. In addition, A study conducted by the National Registry of Exonerations showed that African Americans people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder. All of this together, Clearly shows that the US had quite an extensive systematic racist justice system. My opponent said that he was against Affirmative Action because just because a group of people was discriminated at one time, Doesn't mean that it is discriminated against and is at a disadvantage. I would argue that when a group of people gets discriminated against, Even after society tries to stop this discrimination, Not only is there irreparable damage like death e. G. Lynching, But also damage that will continue to follow that group of people like the modern day KKK is still harassing African Americans. Also, That group of people never fully rehabilitates because of few people who still discriminate against them e. G. KKK.
Systemic Racism is non-existent.

Systemic Racism is not real. I'd like to ask my opponent to name one law, One legislature that gives any race an advantage over another race. Now I'd assume that my opponent would like to take up the position saying that this country is geared towards white success and that black people don't have as much of a chance in this country. I'd assume no one will accept this debate and talk about Asian privilege, So I ask you, What privileges are afforded to white people that are not afforded to black people? The only one that I could think of that gives any race an advantage over another, And this isn't even necessarily a legislature, But more like an effort for employers, Is any policy that has to do with Affirmative Action. I'm against Affirmative Action. I believe you should have to earn what you get in this country. Sure your group has been discriminated against in the past, But you aren't a victim now. So, Work for what you get. I appreciate any opponent arguments. Good luck to Con :D
21 Questions: A Complex Guessing Challenge

1. What type of drink is your favorite drink? (e.g, soda, alcohol, fruit juice, tea)- VIOLATES RULES. 2. What is the drink's main ingredient? - Could be sugar 3. At what occasion do you usually drink it? (e.g, formal parties, dinner, morning walks) - Morning walks?!? I'm not 85, lol, its available at anytime. 4. What is the taste of the drink?. Sharp and bitter 5. Where is it usually stored? In a box? In a can? In a plastic bag?- VIOLATES RULES. 6.What are the procedures needed to prepare this drink? - Go grab the necessary ingredients and equipment. 7.What is the color of this drink? - Most often yellow No. 1 and 5 violated the rules bc it was tech. more than one question, 3 was boarderline. Il let u off with a warning but don't do it again!
21 Questions: A Complex Guessing Challenge

1. What type of drink is your favorite drink? (e.g, soda, alcohol, fruit juice, tea) 2. What is the drink's main ingredient? 3. At what occasion do you usually drink it? (e.g, formal parties, dinner, morning walks) 4. What is the taste of the drink? 5. Where is it usually stored? In a box? In a can? In a plastic bag? 6.What are the procedures needed to prepare this drink? 7.What is the color of this drink?
21 Questions: A Complex Guessing Challenge

Yes you have 21 questions to ask me. The goal is to find out my favourite drink without asking directly. Rules: R1- You must ask your first 7 questions, (not guesses). R2- Next take your guesses based on my responses from R1 one, If you get it right, I will give you 50k points, but you have a 10 guess limit. Then ask your second set of 7 questions, but here I can only give one sentence answers. R3- If you still haven't got it, guess again based on my R2 responses. this time with an 8 guess limit. If correct, you earn 40k points instead of 50k. Then if necessary, go on to ask your third set of 7Qs, n this time I can give proper answers. R4: Your guesses based on my R3 responses. Worth 100k points but only 2 guesses. You can't repeat the same Q more than once. Answer revealed. 10k points= one comment in your favour in any of your debates, and bragging rights of course. Shout me in the comments if you get confused at any time.
i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

yes i am sloppy in writing, and post half thoughts many times- that only means i'm sloppy and don't want to take time to do more. yes i even admit i'm a troll, often. i have conceded one debate when my initial argument didn't look so hot. that doesn't mean i am dumb, it means i'm smart enough to realize when i've been beaten. a wise man knows ambiguity, knows limits to reality etc. if you read my posts, especially the long ones about God's existance can't be proven and abortion and alternative energy threads etc, you'll see some innovative arguments that i have never seen before. everyone else on this site posts the same old rhetoric. also, i claimed the top ten is all i had to prove, and given that by the numbers i'm probably better, i've got a cushion there. not sure where i'd be if we started making various assumptions about what the average intelligence is here. i'd note there are a lot of dumb posters if you notice, and many sign up and leave,,, so they too would add to the mix. the smart ones who stay might make it look skewed more to your argument. but, i'll be the first to admit, your speculation and mine is ultimately baseless if we start making assumptions. you have some good points, i have some good points. there's really no way to tell as of now.
i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

I will attempt to show that probability is in fact not in favor of my opponent being one of the top ten highest-IQ'ed people on this site. First, let us consider that you are talking about online IQ tests. Online IQ tests are very inaccurate when it comes to representing a person's actual IQ. For an actual IQ, you should get an actual IQ test. Next, let us consider the population of this site. While there are many who lack intelligence, debate.org mainly appeals to those who have very high intelligence. Not only is the average IQ of debate.org higher than the national average, but there are an especially high number of extremely intelligent individuals here. While you might have an IQ high enough to get you a top ten position in a randomly selected group of 3000, you'll find it much harder to accomplish the same here on debate.org. And finally, at least for now, let us consider your debates. You rarely capitalize properly, even with words like "I," you rarely add new information to the debate past round 1, and you often forfeit your debates. You almost always bring standard, hackneyed arguments, rather than being innovative and approaching things from different angles. If you were indeed one of the 10 smartest people on the site, you would almost have to be a troll, because your work is nowhere near the top ten. With just the information I and the voters have, the probability that you have an IQ in the top 10 on this site is far less than 50%. Therefore, your resolution is false. Please, feel free to argue against my points or bring more of your own.
i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site http://www.highiqsociety.org... http://www.testriffic.com... i got a 142 on the first test, and a 147 on the second test statistically, whichever iq test you compare to, that means i'm probably in the top 99.9 and given that there's a few over 3000 members, i'm at least probably in the top ten. probably the top five. http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...
Death Penalty

Reading over your comment regarding the death penalty, I felt that it would be interesting delving into this. `To start, I would like to say that the only reason that the death penalty is so costly is due to the appeals. If we limited appeals to three, we could ensure the person's innocence. There could be more time allotted to these individuals, just so that they could get their arguments in order. Also any DNA located at the scene will be able to either acquit them or get them sentenced to death. Lethal injection is much too costly of a method as it stands right now. This is why we need to utilize another method that ensures that justice is carried through. The electric chair is a very clean and quick way to dispose of a degenerate. I'm not against just taking them to an execution with a hardened individual to just fire a bullet in between their eyes. Anything that can ensure death should be a viable method. Second, Retribution is a legitimate reason for execution. I wouldn't shed a tear for an individual who plotted to kill another one. There is no rehabilitation for these people. As a member of society that is trying to make this world a better place, it would be much easier knowing that these people aren't even alive to take up space. These monsters utilize the same resources that us human beings use, yet they aren't even human. People who are starving inside the U.S. could get their food and water. Third, in order to counter what you said about innocent individuals being executed, it won't happen with the prevalence of DNA evidence inside the courtroom. If someone didn't commit a murder, they wouldn't have to worry, because someone else's DNA will still be located at the scene. Also their alibi should be good enough to be considered valid by witness testimony.
Evolution is not a proven fact.

I know exactly what you're going through. It was a rude awakening, for me, when I first tried structured debates. You need to do some research and include links to your sources. There are many websites that give advice on how to debate. I hope to see you improve, so we can debate on more equal footing. Let's just finish the rounds out, so we can close this debate down. Just use some random jibberish then hit enter.
Evolution is not a proven fact.

Eh. Why not? I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate. This may sound strange to my opponent, but I feel that most Creationists do not quite understand the Theory of Evolution and thus they underestimate it. Hopefully through this debate I can show you what you are up against, so that you can get smarter with your arguments and learn to build a stronger case for Creation. Then again, perhaps I'll be the one who gets taught a lesson. So, shall we begin? Explanation of the Theory of Evolution: Long ago (according to Evolution Scientists) there was an amoeba. That amoeba reproduced a ton. Eventually, an amoeba was born that had a gene that was different. Now, this took quite some time, as such mutations are likely to be harmful or even deadly. But nonetheless such an amoeba appeared, and it had one good gene. This one amoeba did multiply and pass on its mutant gene to its offspring. Now, the original kind amoeba which did not have the mutation was still around, and this species coexisted with the mutant species of amoeba. Then, one of the mutant amoebae was born with yet another beneficial mutation. And so it passed on its genes to its own offspring. The amoebae with no mutations, the amoebae with one mutation, and the amoebae with two mutations all existed at once. This cycle continued, with new complex forms arising. Finally, an amoeba was born which had so many passed on mutations that it was no longer an amoeba. It was an entirely different organism. And so it went. After billions of years this cycle caused increasingly complex species of animal life to emerge. Eventually humans came onto the scene. According to the Theory of Evolution, that is how all life on Earth came to be (though I admit that my explanation was still quite simplified). Now, allow me to explain what a mutation is. When a lifeform reproduces, it passes on its genes to its offspring. In asexual reproduction it pretty much makes a copy of itself. But let's take a computer. A computer copies a bunch of letters onto a piece of paper. After copying the same paper enough times, eventually one will be made that is accidentally not quite right. It looks a little different than the others. You copy more papers from this slightly flawed copy, and eventually you will end up with a copy that is also not quite the same as the flawed copy. This is what a mutation is. Mutations have the potential to be beneficial or unbeneficial. It was the beneficial mutations that ultimately ended up as increasingly complex life forms. The harmful mutations caused inferior offspring, a line of species that would be too weak to survive in the long term. Evidence of mutation happens all around us; people with Albinism and Down Syndrome are mutants, in a sense. Whatever deviates from the Genes that you're supposed to have is a mutation. Think about it: mutations happen. Mutations are the key ingredient to evolution. There are also countless forms of animals, which are further evidence of the process of countless mutations, beneficial and unbeneficial. I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
Evolution is not a proven fact.

I see a lot of people, on this site, claiming that evolution is a scientific fact. I disagree. Con must provide scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution. Evolution, for this debate, will be defined as descent with modification. To clarify, con must provide proof that life can add chromosomes to it's DNA, through mutations, thus evolving into another kind of life. Kind, for this debate, will be defined as felines, canines, birds...etc. For this debate, adaptation is not considered evolution. Adaptation is the expression of genetic traits that already exist in DNA, and is not relevant to this debate. Con has the burden of proof, and will present his opening argument, along with his acceptance. I will add my closing argument at the beginning of round four, which will conclude the debate; with a total of three rounds. The second half of round four will not be used by con. Do not accept this debate, then try to change any of the ground rules. Doing so will be a automatic forfeit by con. If you wish to discuss changes to the debate format, do so BEFORE you accept.