BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual acts are immoral

1. It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.My opponent argues the purpose of a gun is to kill, and therefore killing with a gun is moral. Now, the purpose of a gun is to kill, shoot at targets etc. It is also a sport, but its original purpose is to kill. correct. But, he forgets, the act of killing itself is inherently immoral. The act of sex, isn't, unless preformed outside of its faculty. Also, the gun could be used in self defense in the act of defending against an aggressor, as well as other things. May I add it is more likely to use a gun in self defense rather then in murder. [1] But that part was just a factoid ;) The point is the engagement between 2 people can be viewed immoral, if the faculty is failing. "But if you kick a baby, then its immoral. The point here is that for an act between two agents to be moral, it must be moral on both ends. But this is impossible in the case of homosexual sex, since it impairs the function of both individuals." [2]2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.My opponents argument is the penis is for urination and sexual intercourse, yet excludes the penis is also a tool for reproduction. It is used in sexual intercourse to make new children. If this organ did not exist, no new children would be brought forth. So, if you look at it, a penis is made for reproduction, and not sexual intercourse, per se, as the penis's job is to create/launch liquids to create children. So, if you look at it the penis's main function, in the end, is to create children through intercourse. My opponent then writes: "If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce then doesn't that mean contraceptives are immoral?" The answer: yesThen: "Doesn't it also mean that sterile men or woman who have sex are also immoral?"No, as under natural law the actual effect needn't take place. So, as long as the penis is being used the right way to create children, aka with a woman, we could assume it is using the same faculty. Also, being sterile is not the persons fault. If the person purposefully became sterile, then the answer is yes.Then: "Masturbation is immoral?"Yes totally and: "Wet dreams are immoral?"No, it is not voluntary. Also the penis must undergo this phase to obtain the ability to make kids, or preform the essence. and: "If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce, then doesnt that mean if one were to rape someone, and impregnate them, then it would be moral? "Rape is not voluntary, for rape to occur one side must be without consent. [3] And again: "Raping a child which happens to impregnate them?"Once again, it has one side struggling without consent. lastly: "Is that moral too just because you are using a faculty to it's proper function?"No, as it is not the proper function. C: Abortion is immoral 1. http://www.pulpless.com...2. Facebook (Tim Hsiao)3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexual acts are immoral

"It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function."This is questionable. If I use a faculty according to its function that it is moral? If I were to kill someone with a gun, knowing that the purpose of a gun is to kill, then it is a moral thing to kill? 2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function. False. Let's take a look at the function of the penis shall we? "Penis is the male organ for URINATION and SEXUAL INTERCOURSE."[1]Homosexual acts are sexual intercourse, therefore it is moral.If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce then doesn't that mean contraceptives are immoral? Doesn't it also mean that sterile men or woman who have sex are also immoral? Masturbation is immoral? Wet dreams are immoral?If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce, then doesnt that mean if one were to rape someone, and impregnate them, then it would be moral? Raping a child which happens to impregnate them? Is that moral too just because you are using a faculty to it's proper function?Thank you,SeelTheMan Sources1. http://www.beltina.org...;
There is such thing as free will

Before starting, let me elaborate. The debate is questioning whether God allows free will. By God, I mean the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being that exists both inside and outside of the universe. The rules are simple 1)No plagiarism 2)No name calling (we are not infants) You may present any point as long as it adheres to the rules. I apologise in advance if my grammar is not up to scratch, because my keyboard is quite slow to "catch up." I will be arguing that the concept of free will is non existent, and eagerly await the person willing to take up the role of Pro.
PC Gaming (pro) vs Console Gaming (con)

PREFACEPretty debated topic among gamers. Please only accept if you are serious! I really don't want some person that accepts and then forfeits every single round after! Should be a good debate =)FORMAT Round 1 Pro: States RulesRound 1 Con: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Presents ArgumentsRound 2 Con: Presents ArgumentsRound 3 Pro: RebuttalsRound 3 Con: RebuttalsRound 4 Pro: Rebuttals and ConclusionsRound 4 Con: Rebuttals (Con is not allowed to rebut to anything stated by Pro in Round 4) and ConclusionsRULES No trollingNo ForfeitingFormat I have stated must be followedBreaking any rules will result in a loss=====================================================I look forward to a great debate!
Show Me The Money

Just one problem, when you say "...we could assume that the members of religiouly based organizations are not illogical and have considered the advantages of their positions and can itemize the advantages when questioned..." Almost all religious based organizations are illogical and inconsistent in their thinking. If they where not illogical, then all religions and religiously based organizations would agree in their doctrines and theology's. But that is not they way the world is. If all religions were true, that that would violate the law of non-contradiction. That is because all the major religions disagree with each other on multiple key issues. Therefor, only one religion can be correct. This may seem dogmatic, but there is no other option.
Show Me The Money

If the truth was unknowable, then all faith would be blind faith. If that was true, we could never reason, because that deals with logic. For logic to be knowable, it would have to be demonstrable. But the only way to demonstrate it is to logically prove it. You cannot prove logic with logic unless you assume logic exists in the first place. Therefor, having faith in logic is demonstrable, because you must have faith/assume it to be true in order to prove it is true. To have faith is to believe in something without physical experience. I have no physical experience of the concept of the law of non-contradiction, but I assume it to exist. Then I use logic as so If there are laws of logic, then we can reason in a logical fashion There are laws of logic Therefore we can reason in a logical fashion In this example, I used the properties of logic in order to prove that we can reason. But before I could do this, I had to assume that logic exists, and apply it in a deductive fashion. My faith in logic is demonstrable, even though it is circular reasoning. That is because without logic, you couldn't prove that they don't exist. If you tried to, then you would use logic, and prove its existence. This is one example of a demonstrable faith. Faith based on absolute truth. Because the only way to say that it isn't absolutely true is to use logic, thus proving it to be absolutely true. Their are faiths that are demonstrable, and provable. Whether or not people are convinced is a different story. For example, if someone didn't believe in the immaterial, they couldn't believe in the laws of logic, because the laws of logic are immaterial concepts that govern reality in a law like fashion, preventing contradictions from happening. Without the immaterial, logic couldn't exist. So the only way to argue that the immaterial doesn't exist, is to use the immaterial concepts of logic, thus proving it true. The belief that there are things beyond the material world is a faith.
Show Me The Money

I will attempt to "show you the money" so to speak. In your next response, please also reiterate what you want me to argue for, so I don't misrepresent my position. --"Objectively, a secure base of faith depends on demonstrable advantages." This is the only information I have from my opponent to debate against, besides "Show me the money". Being/determining objectivity is difficult. That is because people are inherently bias. A secure base of faith does not depend on demonstrable advantages. The advantages do not demonstrate if the base of faith is correctly placed or not. Lots of false faiths have many advantages. Being a part of ISIS contains many demonstrable advantages, but many would argue that it is not objectively correct. Also, just because a base of faith is secure does not make it true. Having a secure faith could mean that the faith has not been questioned correctly, or is misunderstood. For a base of faith to be secure, it must be based on absolute truth. An important question to ask is, what is truth? Truth is not subjective. Truth is absolute, so therefor objective. The very definition of truth requires it to be objective. Because if it was subjective, it would no longer qualify as absolute truth. Therefore, objectively, for you to have a secure base of faith, it depends on if it is fully based on absolute truth. If not, then it is subjective, not objective, and would no longer be the objectively correct base of faith. It would no longer be true, it would no longer be a faith based on reality. Truth pertains to reality. Before I go any further, I need to know if the path of reasoning I am taking is relevant/accurate to the topic. I need to make sure that when I "show you the money", its is in the "correct currency" so to speak.
are cats or dogs better.

I have a cat, his name is Jax and he is almost a year old now. Jax is awesome. He uses the litter box and he is easy to take care of. However, he is not a dog, and never will be. Cats are not nearly as "domesticated" as dogs, meaning that they have a way more instinctive way of living. There is not much wrong with that, IF you teach them right at an early age. If Jax doesn't get played with enough, he will sprint through the room, attacking shoes, boxes, and anything else that he thinks will run. For an animal that people say is easier to take care of, this can be a hassle to handle when trying to sleep. Jax also has his own agenda, if he wants to love you, he WILL love you. But if he doesn't, he really doesn't, and often will not let you pet him. This is how cats are across the board, most of them will only take our crap for so long. Dogs are truly man's best friend, they live to serve their master. That being said, you call for the dog and he will come. You discipline the dog, and he will learn. Dogs have more more capabilities to help their owners. How many service cats have you seen? Exactly. While cats may prove to be easier to take care of, dogs will always be more versatile and enjoyable to keep around.
Gender is separate of sex and there are more than two genders

Gender: The state of being male or femaleSex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functionsGender and sex are not separate. Reason is sex is the biological identity of an individual and gender is the way we perceive sexes to be. These systems that are different between male and female are required in order to tailor ideas, Actions to the sexes. Males have more testosterone then women on average. We can deduce from this is that men will be more hairy and have increased muscle mass. Society then would say men would do all the carrying. Females have more estrogen then. This means they are more likely to keep their hair on their head then men. Society would then comply to this by women shaving their head for charities. One such example is Katy Perry. Society created male and female to differentiate between the two. Sex has given gender reasons to create these structures which help find out more what a person is on the basis of asking them or first impression. Without it pronouns would be required to change given to the persons liking. We created gender systems so that we can deal with more important issues. Without it the hiring process will take longer. Doctors if pressured into changing science to suit the persons gender would find it difficult to speak to the individual due to the requirements people who say they are not male or female. Pronouns would be required to change which does not help get straight to the issue which is why the person went to the doctor not because the person wanted to see if the doctor would correctly address them with their specific pro-nouns. There are only 2 genders. Reason is either you are born with a vagina or a penis. If lets say you are born intersex. After some time has past about 18 years you will be given the decision to remove one of the organs. If lets say intersex people do not have problems with their genitals then the answer would be the genital that they do which defines their gender. The reason is estrogen is more common with women and testosterone is more common in men. How do we find out? By their genitalia. If there is more then 2 genders then multiple research would be required to find out every different type of intersex and categorise them accordingly. This does not help scientists go into more important issues instead they are spending their time categorising every single different type of intersex person. This is not helpful in making societal norms and if there are more then 2 genders then society will have to adapt. This would require legal documents like a passport to be changed which requires time and money which could've been better put into something more important not one someone's flippant gender. I can't say I identify as an attack helicopter since I do not have the attributes like one. The more we open the door to this more of a problem it gets defining what is. No one is a furry since they do not exist apart from the Internet.
The Penny Should Die.

Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: "Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That"s so much." Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But" It"s never been done before! We"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!" Well, that"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.
L-M Classic: Clockwork v. Mongoose

CONCERNING HIRO "Further notice that, because extending his powers to other people requires a greater use of concentration, all falterings including the above mentioned incident have only resulted in Hiro himself being whisked away." I would think that this would make it easier for him to mess up, because it is harder to do. Also, just because you do something twice without fail does not mean that you can do it all the time without fail. CONCERNING MASTER HAND http://www.youtube.com... See Video 1? He brought Yoshi to life. CONCERNING "NO-LIMITS" Okay then. I guess I'll just have to do everything before you have enough time to think. My opponent's entire argument about Agent K is absurd. The memory erasing occurs throughout all of New York City and part of New Jersey, not just inside the Statue of Liberty. Did you watch the video? As for Ganondorf's teleportation, it can let him escape his opponents if they find him. I would use Ganondorf to use his sword and black magic to try to defeat your team. I don't know how specific I would make this. I could also transform into Beast Ganon and run into you repeatedly. Notably, the Master Sword can only be used by the good guys. Master Hand can go through solid objects. http://www.debate.org... He can also fire lasers through solid objects. http://www.debate.org... "NEW STRATEGY 1 Step 1: The Green Lantern uses the Oan Power Ring to scan for any significant lifeforces in NYC, thereby locating the members of Team Mongoose. Step 2: Darkseid uses his incredible powers of teleportation to cast the members of Team Mongoose into the sun. All Team Mongoose members have left NYC: Team Clockwork wins." You are not allowed to teleport members outside of New York City. "NEW STRATEGY 2 Step 1: Locate Team Mongoose members using Power Ring. Step 2: Darkseid, Apocalypse, and The Green Lantern fend off Ganon and Master Hand while The Green Arrow uses a cryonics arrow to freeze Mongoose's secret agents Step 3: Darkseid uses the Omega Effect on Ganon and Master Hand. Step 4. Any members of Team Clockwork can kill the now-frozen secret agents." I use Gibbs to snipe the Green Arrow when he is in range. Also, the Omega Effect wouldn't work on Ganondorf, as you must defeat him with the Master Sword. Or, I could use my strategy: Step 1. Agent K presses the button. Step 2: TEAM CLOCKWORK, Gibbs, Bond, and Ganondorf lose their memories. Step 3: Agent K convinces TEAM CLOCKWORK that they are tourists, who are going on vacation in Mexico. Step 4: Watch TEAM CLOCKWORK go to Mexico. That will do for now. This has been fun.
Coolest YouTube Video

The challenge of this debate will to find the coolest/funniest/most shocking/etc YouTube video. The link will be posted as the "argument for the round," and there is to be absolutely no justifying by the debater as to why their video is the best. As I will be spending the first round explaining the rules, I will not post a video this round, but my opponent must. To have an even number of videos posted, the Con must not post a video in round 5. 4 videos per contestant, 8 total. Vote for the best.
Killing stupid people should be legalized.

Like I mentioned before, how much of a hypocrite you are. Even now, you remotely show a change. I believe you come from a pathetic world where idioms, and references are taken too literally. When someone says, "Hold your horses", you douche actually go and hold "Horses". I appreciate how tight grasp you have on the proposition I have set. With any scrap of rebuttal you possess, I pity you constantly being obsessed with it. But again, a stupid is as stupid does. And you have my sincerest apology for trying to terminate further comments. It was a mere help to protect you from insulting yourself; a tiny help indeed. And yes, I concord with your statement " I doubt there's much left to say on your part though.". You are imbecile, and you have substantiated enough to convince us all. Therefore, I have no words to prove your stupidity on my part. I am aware you will come up with another pig headed arguments. Only this time, you will slide off with it. Flow in your own imaginary arrogant world. And, hope a dog piss at you, and wreck your dreams. But please don't say it was raining.
Killing stupid people should be legalized.

I was referring to your initial proposition, to legalise the killing of "stupid" people. The background I have come from? What are you even talking about? "A rich mouth but a brain full of garbage". A statement that, yet again, makes no sense. Firstly, I'm not speaking to you, I'm typing, no it's not my mouth in the first place. And how could I talk intelligently if my thoughts were not? But truly it's fine, I don't need or expect you to understand a notion that requires actual deliberation. I think the title of this debate is a testament to that. "Enjoy" you say. Yes, I am enjoying watching you fail, and bask in your own idiocy. And it's not adios yet you fool, you still have another round of this joke to go. I doubt there's much left to say on your part though. You've already demonstrated how far your intelligence can reach. What a poor show.
Killing stupid people should be legalized.

You accidentally *chose* Con, not *choose* as you so pathetically put it. It's so classic that you're accusing others of being stupid. "Honest mistakes" is what every fool says. Just go back to your dimly lit bedroom and hide. Coming on a debating site with a topic as disgusting as this is simply piteous, especially as you show not an inkling of intelligence yourself. Ta-ta.