BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are the Gifts of the bible real

Though you say the gifts of the bible are real, How can we be sure if we do or don't have them. Many people say they have them, and many more say they have never felt it. If that is you statement, then I would say that it is invalid and that it cannot be used. Everything in your bible scripture states that some people cannot feel it, because they are "Ignorant." The scripture states that the only way to know if the gifts of the bible are real is to feel them through the holy ghost. If we cannot feel the holy ghost, then there is no way to truly feel the ways of the bibles gifts. My argument for this is that the gifts of the bible are made up by people and completely fake. http://www.raystedman.org...
Bias Is Human Nature

When we receive the biases of those who take care of us, that's not an example of a randomly generated bias. That bias was not innate in that child - that child had to "learn" the bias. This is contrary to pro's standpoint. Pro thinks that humans NATURALLY have biased opinions about everything. Not true. Humans gain their biases ARTIFICIALLY, ie through outside means such as, but not limited to, upbringing by parents or surrogate parents. That's where biases come from. I still await pro's argument, because he hasn't made a proper one yet. The onus is on the one bringing the absurd claim to prove it. The absurd claim here is Pro's case. Even if he does make a proper argument in the last round however, I think it will be too little, too late.
Bias Is Human Nature

But humans are taught by those who take care of them and receive the biases of those that take care of them. And as the specie that we are (homo sapiens sapiens) we naturally raise our young and teach them. And if you decide to use the argument that there are those without parents my rebuttal is that we still require someone (or something) to take care of us in order to survive, think about it a baby cant survive without food and a baby cant hunt and doesn't have the instincts (or the body) to fend for itself.
Bias Is Human Nature

This debate is all about what qualifies as bias. After all, humans are capable of making both biased and objective judgments. My core contention is that biased judgments originate from other people and not from the individual themselves, while my opponent is arguing that humans always make biased judgments without basis. This is simply untrue. It's not supported by any psychological study. People always generate biases based upon their experiences, as opposed to generating biases randomly. That would be akin to denying the fact that Labor Party supporters are generally left-wing, because if the biases were randomly independently generated, one might expect people who are biased toward the Labor Party to have a 50% chance of also being left wing. So how are biases generated? Well, my mother grew up in Hamburg, with German food. This caused her to acqire a taste for German food. Therefore she has a bias towards it ie when given the choice between German and Spanish food, she will choose the German. This bias influences all the people she eats with in a number of ways. It could make them want to try it. It could disgust them. They might be indifferent. The bias was not spontaneously generated in her or her friend's minds. She created the bias. Some things, however, are not biases in this sense and are thus not what this debate is about. These are survival or animal instincts. This is because these are not a bias, but a basis for producing bias. Let me give a hypothetical example. My mother gets food poisoning. This causes the instincts to produce a anti-German-food / anti-that-particular-restaurant / whatever bias. Without that event the instincts would remain stagnant. Bias does not come naturally. Bias comes as a result of experience. I await my opponent's case.
Bias Is Human Nature

My opponent here has done two things. First, he's tried to win at least your "who had better sources" vote. Second, he's tried to confuse you about what natural means. I have three responses. 1) Children don't always react in the same way to their parents. This is known as the butterfly effect (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). If the bias to learn from one's parents were natural one might expect these biases to be homogeneous in children. 2) That's not an argument for natural bias. Natural bias comes as the result of a person's nature. It is well established that a person's nature is not totally determined by their nurture (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). My argument is that the part of a person's nature that determines bias is 100% artificial, and that natural bias therefore does not exist. I'm really stealing this argument from John Locke's "Tabula Rusa" idea (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3) You still have to prove the second part of your contention (that humans therefore naturally have biased opinions about EVERYTHING). You have not done so.
God is not good.

A key part of Christianity and Judaism is that God is good. God's will is divine. I don't see how God not creating the people he killed is relevant at all. Just because some of God's actions do not agree with modern day culture does not make God evil. In fact, because God creates the rules the differences show that modern culture has swayed from the path of God and goodness. [0] As you can read God is good. 0. https://www.biblegateway.com...
God is not good.

Sending Bears to Murder Children - 4 Kings 2:23-24 Turning Lot's Wife to Salt - Genesis 19:26Hating Ugly People - Leviticus 21:17-24Trying to Kill Moses - Exodus 4:24-26Committing So Much Genocide - God drowning every single person on the planet besides Noah and his family is pretty well known, but he also helped the Israelites murder everyone in Jericho, Heshbon, Bashan and many more, usually killing women, children and animals at the same time.Ordering His Underlings to Kill Their Own Children - Genesis 22:1-12Killing Egyptian Babies - Numbers 16:41-49Killing a Dude for Not Making More Babies - Genesis 38:1-10-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------He is not a good god that deserves worship.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://commonsenseatheism.com...http://www.alternet.org...
Resolved: The United States should invade Iran.

My apologies to my opponent and the readers for assuming my opponent would forfeit. Apparently this website allows users to finish their debates even after their accounts have been deactivated. Rebuttal Pro badly misconstrues my statement to imply that I suggest we should not stand up for our allies. I obviously said no such thing. I stated that hatred is not a justification for war. There has never been an accepted reason established in history of mankind that justifies taking lethal action against another person or group for their emotions. Pro then states that Iran keeps getting stronger and it would have been easier to take over them 30 years ago. Every nation on earth has the right to grow stronger, that is how civilization progresses. Pro has provided no reason why this justifies war. Conclusion While any politically educated person recognizes that Iran is a country that we must be concerned about, Pro has clearly not made any serious attempt to satisfy her burden of proof to show why we should invade Iran. With that said I will not waste any more of the reader’s time as I feel the conclusion here is obvious.
Resolved: The United States should invade Iran.

If we d not attack them, than they will cetainly harm us or our allies. When you say that their hated of israel is not a reason to be prepared to war them, you're saying we shouldn't stand up for our allies. Think about it, how much easier would it hae been to take over Iran 30 years ago before they had such a powerful military? they just keep getting stronger! eventually it'll ome to war, and better sooner with the U.S. as the sole superpower than later, when it might not be. Vote Pro!!
Resolved: The United States should invade Iran.

My opponent appears to have closed her account and thus I will not waste much time. I will simply point out that she has provided no valid reason for the US to invade Iran. She states that Iran is dangerous but does not explain how. She states that they execute homosexuals but fails to explain why the US should be responsible for dealing with this issue. Finally she states that they hate our ally Israel, which it is obviously not a justification for war. My opponent has made an utterly poor attempt to satisfy her burden of proof, and did not make any attempt to consider the consequences a decision such as this one. Being that she has closed her account and will obviously be forfeiting the rest of the debate, I see no reason to go further and will leave this in the voters capable hands.
Resolved: The United States should invade Iran.

org. Being that my opponent as the instigator did not properly clarify the resolution, the privilege becomes that of the challenger to provide reasonable clarifications to ensure a principled debate. As such, I provide the following: Invade: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: to enter as if to take possession(1) By should; we are debating the best course of action for the US in the immediate future, based on information we have available today. Burden of Proof: My opponent states that I must make the first argument and she will refute it. However in any debate the burden of proof is on the instigator to affirm their resolution. Argument The act of one country to invade another takes valuable resources and national focus that could be utilized in other areas. To make this decision responsibly a country must have valid reasoning for doing so. The absence of such reasoning constitutes a decision that those resources should not be spent on invading the country in question. Therefore since in this debate so far we have an absence of such reasoning, the US should not invade Iran. With that I pass it on to my opponent to hopefully provide strong reasoning that will lead to a good debate. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense.

Since my opponent neglected to define the terms of the resolution, I will take the liberty of doing so here. Cyberbullying will mean "the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person (as a student) often done anonymously"[1]. Cyber bullying is also done between two children or teenagers as opposed to cyber stalking or cyber harrassment involving two adults or one adult and a child[2]. Criminal offense can be defined as an act punishable by law. Ought will mean should. As per my opponent's rules I will allow him to present his case first in the next round. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.starw.org...
At age 6 I was born without a face.

He provides no evidence, and thus does not uphold his BOP. (2) Born means "brought into existence" (. http://tinyurl.com...). He cannot be "born at age 6," because to be 6 is to have been born 6 years ago. PRO provides no affirmative arguments or definitions, so you must prefer mine. Therefore, you vote to negate.
Health Class

Human health is fraught with so many preventable problems that we ALL should spend much more than one hour a day studying it. Biology touches on the elements of human health, only, briefly. Health class is designed to fill in the blanks. Again, considering the staggering volume of preventable problems, those blanks need filling. Furthermore, I have to study health WAAAAAY more than what you learn to just teach ONE hour of exercise. What you are "suffering" though in health class is the tiny tip of a giant gift and you are getting it for free. I do not have that luxury
Scooby Doo Encourages Drug Addiction

(Para los americanos: http://translate.google.com...) Ay dios mios! Empecï¿½ este debate con intenciï¿½n cï¿½mica. Ha-ha-ha. Yo no soy serio, pero mi oponente es muy serio. Yo debo perder, pero voy a intentarlo de todos modos. "RESPONSE: Having parents who drink coffee often, or seeing a fictional coffee addict like Godot from the Phoenix Wright series drink it all the time - this might encourage kids to drink coffee. However, it does not encourage them to do every addictive thing in the world. No kid is really going to think "Well, Godot drinks a lot of coffee, so I think I'll go shoot myself up with some heroine and start smoking." Likewise, no child sees Scooby eating his dog treats [Scooby Snacks] and thinks about rolling and smoking a fat blunt. It just doesn't happen. It's a complete non-sequitur." Yo no hablo Inglï¿½s. Permï¿½tame ir a "Google Translator"... ah. Los niï¿½os piensan subconscientemente. Ellos ven sus padres tomar un cafï¿½; cuando son adultos, ellos tomar un cafï¿½ tambien. Ellos ven Scooby Doo comer Scooby Snacks; cuando son adultos, ellos comer heroï¿½na, cocaï¿½na y ï¿½xtasis. Este hecho es evidente. "RESPONSE: This would almost be a meaningful point, if Scooby Doo were a drug-smoking hippie or a hard drug user. He is not; he is a dog who eats dog treats. The show does not mention drugs at all - a kid would have to be thinking about drugs independently of the show to even make some fuzzy connection between the show and marijuana, or any other drug." Usted estï¿½ incorrecta. Scooby Doo dice, "Scooby MARIHUANA Doo!" La televisiï¿½n es en la dï¿½cada de los sesenta o setenta. En esos aï¿½os, las drogas fue rampantes. Scooby come las drogas "Scooby Snack" como un perro! La asociaciï¿½n es evidente! Todos los niï¿½os van a hacer la conexiï¿½n. Gracias! Votaciï¿½n pro!!!
Scooby Doo Encourages Drug Addiction

(Originally from my blog: http://musingsofjoe.wordpress.com...) I've always known the show insulted intelligence. The conclusions given to the mysteries were always flamboyantly fallacious. The dialogues, in an attempt to be both witty and profound, were laughable in their stupidity. What was worse: A talking dog, with the vocabulary of a Pokï¿½mon, always ended up saving the day for completely unknown and erroneous reasons. I abhorred the show. Bored of the indolent animation and bored of the contrived story lines though, I've since given up on the show. As the epiphany hit my six-year-old head over, I realized Scooby-Doo was, um, lame. I remembered today my days squatted in front of my television set eagerly waiting for the next episodes. What shame! If only I had the powerful analytical skills I have today. Sigh. I have a point though. Not only do I realize the idiocy of the show, I now know the true intent of its creators: To get kids addicted to marijuana! And why not? The main characters are all hippies from the 70s, an era in which drug usage was common and rampant. Scooby, as he gobbles and pleads for more Scooby Snacks, teaches kids an addict's life is acceptable. Scooby-Doo even makes references to marijuana when he speaks his own name. "Scooby DOOBIE Doo", the kids viewing the show hear him howl. But therein lies the problem. Kids cannot be expected to treat the respective sides of a television screen as separate entities. What happens when little Jill starts believing it is okay to be a drug-smoking free-loving hippie? What happens when little Johnny not only smokes pot, but also moves on to harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy? Some would argue that I am condescending to kids, that I am being overly pessimistic about the impressionability of these young, precious minds. To that? How dare they encourage the downfall of America's children, and subsequently the downfall of our great empire! They must hate America. Because Scooby-Doo is a hazardous show. It teaches kids bad story-telling. It promotes hard drugs like heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy. And seriously now, who could argue those drugs aren't bad?!
morality=survival

"so if you died you didnt survive..." *The more you know* "any real situation is matter" Again, this is nonsensical and has no relevance to the question at hand! "is it healthy for kids in some cultures to drink battery acid?" No? "trust=dull defence mode=giving away my responsibility, my ability to respond" Stop with these crappy arguments. They make no sense whatsoever and make you look stupid. Tell me if this makes sense to you: 'Trust equals boring defence condition equals giving away my duty, my capability to answer.' I replaced some of the words in your argument with other synonyms and replaced '=' with equal. As you can see, the above makes no sense at all. "i have trouble grasping why you think feeding your kid battery acid because the moon is made of cheese is moral sin=sin" Ok, you are either a special from of retard or trolling. Either way, you have proved that you are unable to make logical and comprehendable arguments. Personally, I think you know that I'm making better arguments than you and that your losing, so your resorting to "full retard" and post completely non-sensical arguments. I warned you that if you didn't make a some-what intelligent post this round, I would leave, and because you failed to do so, I am leaving. Goodbye, this debate has been a major waste of my time and brain power.
morality=survival

At this point, I don't know whether your trolling, or have a massive difficulty in your ability to write down your ideas without looking like a total retard. Nevertheless, let me brake down your semi-English argument: "die=give up my morality" So? "how is it more right in one culture.. matter is matter" Matter? What do you mean matter? "Substance of the universe" or "a situation under consideration?" Please define. Besides, I never said matter wasn't matter regardless of the definition. And yes, some cultures think some virtues are better than others. If you really have trouble grasping this, do a but of research on Ancient Rome or Greece. "trust=form rust(sIN" Umm...trust equal form rust? WHAT? And what does "(sIN" mean? Typo or newly discovered element on the periodic table? I completely realise the above is made up of mostly Ad Hominem attacks but it sounds like your regurgitating your arguments over and over again and they are slowly making less and less sense. (P.S. Actually, I just looked at your profile and your other debates and I truly suspect your trolling. If you don't make an intelligent argument next turn, I'm leaving.)
morality=survival

Again, your ignoring the examples I'm giving as to why choosing to do something "right" rarely insures your survival in a truly life-threatening situation. You keep repeating the same argument in different sentences and I keep refuting them with the same counter-arguments. Morality is subjective. What is right in one culture may be horrendously wrong in another. For example, Ancient Spartan Greeks used to leave their newly born children on top of mountains to die if they were weakly. Obviously this would be beneficial for their survival as it would eliminate the weak from the strong, but in today's standards this would be considered immoral. Moreover, being entirely immoral and having friends are two ENTIRELY different things. Again, your ignoring my previous argument as to immoral people such as thieves and murders still having friends that even help them do such immoral things burglary or murder. Having a companion has little to do with morality. The only time morality impacts your social life is if two people consider a certain thing differently (morality-wise). In an apocalypse, this would not matter at all. Though trust is beneficial to survival, morality encompasses many many other matters that are subjective to each individual.
morality=survival

"sure morality can hinder your survivability, in a given situation.." So you admit that morality =/= survival? "morality is logical, opposite is illogical, belief" No, and I pointed out in my previous argument that morality isn't logical in all scenarios. It can be in certain scenarios, but not enough to merit the claim that "morality = survival". "you can remove right and wrong from a situation where there is just no head and tail for what is the right thing to do, and so its not about morality" Firstly, try to use punctuation and properly review your sentences before posting them. Otherwise, I have no idea what your trying to convey in your argument. Secondly, you say that "you can remove right and wrong from a situation", which is rubbish since the very definition of morality is: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." "having friends can ensure your survival" That has nothing to do with morality. Even some animals can have "friends", yet are devoid of morality. Simply having affection for someone does not mean you are a moral person and has nothing to do with morality. You can have many friends and abandon them as soon as times get rough. Even immoral people such as thieves often come in pairs to aid their objective (steal people's money/valuables.) Take a fictional zombie apocalypse for example. Morals often hinder logic in tough decisions, which is why games like Walking Dead are such difficult and mentally dependent games. Imagine going through an apocalypse where morals dictate your actions! You would be dead within days! Therefore, morals do not equal survival. Morals could aid survivability within our species (otherwise we wouldn't evolve with such capabilities) but morals do NOT help our survivability in seriously,life threatening situations.
morality=survival

Firstly, the claim that morality = survival is flawed from the beginning. I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, whether you mean the definition of morality and survivability are interchangeable, or whether morals aid survivability completely. I will go with the later. Secondly, my argument is that morality does not necessarily always aid survivability, and in fact can hinder it. Though we humans evolved with the special capability for empathy and compassion which subsequently translates into morality (which is further molded by culture and ethics of our individual environment), this does not mean we always survive better in life-threatening situations with such capabilities. For instance, say a bear attacked a primitive village and a baby was inside a shelter and about to be eaten. Obviously, the mother of said baby would no doubt feel obliged to go after and "save" the child (which is dictated by subjective morality). However, logic would dictate that doing so would put both her and the baby in danger of death. Would it not be better to leave the child to its death and for the mother to continue breeding? though this is the most logical approach and insures survival, such an approach would be considered immoral and even sexist. Even such facts of nature such as "survival of the fittest" would dictate that we murder the weak to insure the survivability of the strong, which animals have done for many many years. The problem with such reasoning is again morals, which would hinder such quality of the human species as a whole. Finally, morals also dictate many things which are completely outside of survivability such as swearing, sexual references and/or explicitness, anger, and even name calling. To say such moral restrictions would bolster survivability would be ridiculous. Therefore, morality does not equal survivability in either definition or action.