BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flirting and chatting on online dating websites considered cheating when in a long-term relationship

Now, there is one extremely important term in this debate, and here is a fair definition of it: cheat - to be sexually unfaithful. It is understood that we are talking about someone who creates a profile on a dating website. This profile states that the creator is: a) single, b) LOOKING for short-term/long-term relationships, c) LOOKING for casual sex. Realistically, the creator of the profile is in a long-term relationship of about one to two years. Flirting and chatting with guys/girls on online dating websites is certainly NOT considered cheating. Remember that cheating involves being sexually unfaithful. Obviously, "sexually" refers to physical intercourse. Online flirting and chatting do not involve any type of sex or physical intercourse whatsoever. People in relationships flirt and chat with people at bars, but this in no way proves that someone is cheating because there is NO SEX.
Flirting and chatting on online dating websites considered cheating when in a long-term relationship

Using websites such as (OkCupid, plentyoffish.org, eharmony, etc) and creating a profile that has been created saying you are single and looking for short-term/long-term relationships and casual sex, when in reality you are in a long-term relationship with someone and have been for a year or two. Is flirting and chatting with guys/girls on online dating websites considered cheating?
Flirting and chatting on online dating websites considered cheating when in a long-term relationship

I will admit that, to many people, cheating is in the heart. However, saying that you are single and participating in the acts of flirting and chatting do not constitute cheating behavior whatsoever. It is up to my opponent to prove it, which my opponent has not. Take the bar example again. We'll say that a woman is in a serious and closed relationship with a man. The man, although she loves him, does not satisfy her general romantic needs. She would prefer if he simply complimented her more and tried harder to pursue her. Thus, she goes to a bar, says she's single, and flirts/chats with other men to obtain that desired feeling. This does not constitute cheating; she is still fully committed to the relationship, but seeks another sort of gratification. This can be directly applied to the online ordeal. It is mere fun to flirt/chat with people who you will never encounter in life, and that's the point. NO SEX.
Flirting and chatting on online dating websites considered cheating when in a long-term relationship

However, perhaps we need to look into detail, more about this relationship. The term cheating can be interpreted in many different aspects in several relationships across North America. Every couple have different views on what they consider cheating and/or not cheating. The dictionary definition does not always work. As with concern expressed in the comments about this debate, although some long-term relationships are considered "open" relationships, for arguments sake, lets just assume that this particular relationship is a serious and "closed" relationship. As everyone must know, creating a profile on a dating website while in a long-term relationship is strange to say the least, the fact that a person would create the profile making them pose as a single is suspicious behavior. What are your thoughts?
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

Second, the true religions are only the ones who can help lead you to Heaven. If you end up in Hell for all eternity, you obviously got poor information from a false religion. The Bible teaches that we must be born again by having a relationship with Jesus and confess he is God to be saved. (John 3:3; 16, Romans 10:9) They do not teach this: 1) They believe you must be a Jehovahs Witness and a good person to be saved or you will be cut-off for all eternity, and all the other religions (including baptists) got started by the devil. (Watchtower August 15, 1997, pp 3-4) 2) They believe the trinity is a pagan doctrine adopted by the early christians. (Should you believe in the trinity? pp 2) 3) They believe only 144,000 people go to Heaven and the good Jehovahs Witnesses will be resurrected and live on earth forever, (Life in a peaceful New World, pp 2-3) 4) They teach that Jesus is "a God. " (John 1:1 New World Translation; Their Bible) For them to be right, all the other religions will have to be wrong. Therefore, they cannot be part of the christian family. Thank you.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

Since my opponent did not define some words I will for him. Key Terms: religion: is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Cult: pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange. Subjective : taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias. Faith: is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. Jehovah's Witnesses: is a restorationist, millenarian Christian denomination. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 18 million. . True : consistent with fact or reality; not false; "the story is true"; "it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true"- B. Russell; "the true meaning of the statement" My Case 1. Religions are a subjective concept which differs between person to person depending upon the person's will, or location of where they were born and/or were raised. The facts of the matter is religion's and cult's are almost identical when it comes to what people believe and why they believe. Just because a religion is strange or abnormal does not make it not true or false. This is because if a religion is false you must prove 100% without a doubt, facts and evidence included that one religions is true. Till we prove the baptists are the true religion we must admit to some degree that its not, factually of course keep your faith will you who cares if you can't prove 100% truth however this does mean others are wrong its just not what you specifically believe. 2.Faith is faith, the weird thing about faith is people can believe it not based on a fact or something they can show you; But what they feel or just how they were raised. This neither makes it false nor true but a belief. 3.A normal religion for you might be abnormal to others, like lets say catholic's think baptist religion is abnormal or strange does that make it a cult? If you look at my definition but lets just say religions and cults are the same thing because they are. I will go ahead and say lets not fight semantics here thank you.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

Ok ignore my opponent as he has ignored me, Since he has not even address or even tried to understand what i was saying. In order, i will post the points in a ladder of my arguments for you to better understand if i clearly did not address this enough. 1. religions are a subjective moral system; 2 Thus these beliefs are different person to person; 3 thus people will view other religions different or reasonably strange; 4 thus no religion is a cult but a religion because all religions will be strange to others who have never heard of them or believe them. Ok seeing this we must conclude that religions are not cults, more over the word cult was made to insult other religions that don't look the same in their views. Yes we should all give other religions we don't understand the title of cult simply because we don't think the way we do. That can be conclude to a christian not understanding a Islam and calling them strange which in definition is a cult. However if this is true then all religions must be cult the word cult is subjective in itself. I did not ignore the title but the title is not the argument but the means in the title like religion and cult the whole point he just ignoring me to avoid my attacks.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

A couple misunderstandings on my opponents behalf: 1) During round three my opponent says that I only see the Jehovahs Witness religion as a cult. First of all, I never said that. Second, we are not talking about the other religions that he mentioned. Could all those religions be considered cults too? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the Jehovahs Witness religion is not a cult. 2) During round three he said that my facts on the Jehovahs Witness religion were irrelevent. My facts proved they are without question reasonably strange, which is considered to be a cult according to my opponents definition of the word cult. Therefore, they are not irrelevant. But since my opponent does not think those facts make them a cult (reasonably strange,) I'd like to further my case on why they are a cult: Awake 6/8/1968, p. 21 – Jehovahs Witnesses consider all organ transplants cannibalism, hence unacceptable. WT 3/15/1980, p. 31 – Organ transplants are not necessarily unacceptable. (Remember during round three that I showed they have stated they NEVER GO BACK ON THEIR WORDS and clearly they are doing so.) United, p. 166 – "It is a sin to run for office, sing the national anthem, salute the flag, or join the army." So according to them, we should have no government; therefore no leaders running this country with no rules. This is without question reasonably strange. Again, the title to this debate is "The Jehovahs Witness religion is a cult." To conclude this, I would like everyone to notice that my statements on why they are a cult (reasonably strange) got completely ignored during this entire debate. I do believe that I stayed on topic and have proven they are without question a cult, (reasonably strange) Thank you.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

My opponent is trying to make this a debate only on what a true religion is and is trying to ignore the title. But, since my opponent is ignoring my statements on how they are without question a cult, I'll also prove they are a false religion: In their own Bible, (The New World Translation) they say that whoever makes false prophecies are false prophets and those people do not serve God. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NWT The Watchtower claims to be God's prophet (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197) But are they true or false prophets? 1889 "In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved." (C.T. Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 98-99, 1889) 1894 "We see no reason for changing the figures nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, Gods dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." (Watchtower, July 15, 1894, Reprints p. 1677) 1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89) 1925 "It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work." (Watchtower, Sept. 1925, p. 262) 1968 "Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6,000 years of mans existence on earth is completed... The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out, and there are no resurrection hopes for those who are destroyed then. So, now more than ever, it is vital not to ignore that spirit of wanting to do more." (Kingdom Ministry, March 1968, p. 4 [note: 1968 + 90 months = 1975]) Why do all these false prophecies make them a false religion? Two reasons. One, they claim to be followers of God, but their Bible says they are not. Two, in their booklet (What does the Bible really teach p. 220) It says, "All religions who dont follow God are false religions." So why are they a false religion? Because their own literature says so. But again, according to the title of this debate we are talking about a cult. If my statements on why they are a cult continue to get ignored, then they stand. Thank you.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

My opponent has yet again, put more information on the religion of Jehovah Witnesses, yet this is all irrelevant. This is because maybe all religions are wrong or have holes, yet my opponent only see's them as wrong what about Buddism, Hinduism, or Muslims? Do you believe them to be wrong then they also must be a cult right? Or am i wrong? Plus you must prove a religion to be true to have a false religion but the fact is no person can 100% prove a religion right My opponent has only proved one religion to have holes, but what about Christainity im sure people could start showing facts how the bible itself has holes. Cults and religions are the same thing, since all religions big or small others will think it is strange since my opponent did not attack the fact that religions are subjective and are dependent on where they were born or what they think. Since this stands, a true religion is impossible, and therefore leads to my side.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

The title to this debate is "The Jehovah Witness religion is a cult." My opponent defines the meaning of cult above as: Cult: pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange. The Jehovahs Witnesses have many beliefs that could be reasonably strange: 1) In 1969, they taught that Jesus died on the cross. (Kingdom Interlinier 1969 pp 47) Now they say he died on a stake. (What does the Bible really teach pp 52) 2) They claim that their Bible is 100 percent accurate, but there are contradictions they cant explain: There is more than one God. (John 1:1 NWT) There is only one God. (1 Timothy 1:16;17) 3) They taught that Jesus began his ministry in Heaven in 1874. (Studies in the scriptures, Vol. 4 p. 621) In 1914, they changed their minds. (Truth book, 1914 p. 87) How could all this be considered reasonably strange? In the Watchtower magazine from February 15, 1989, they say they are NEVER wrong about anything and NEVER go back on their word. But as I have shown above, at one point or another they did, but yet they still claim to be perfect. If that could not be reasonably strange, I don't know what is. Thank you.
The Jehovah Witness Religion is a cult.

For one I would like to point out my case was not directly attacked, at all. All my opponents arguments are based off the bible, and he starts of by say that a true religion is one that leads to heaven . Then he goes on to say that the Jehovahs witness religions says you have to be a witness and be a good person too get into heaven. So it is a true religion in your sense right. If its the case that then my opponent must prove jews and muslims as a false religion as well as others who have a heaven. Then he gives things that they believe will happen which really isn't needed as the debate is solely the fact that its a true religion, my opponent definition cannot exist because no person can factually prove that heaven even exists. For my opponent to win he would have to prove a religion to be 100% true which i know he can't. Therefore his definition must fall and we should use mine which is a religion is a set f beliefs, or morals which are set by a person seeing how he did not refute religions being subjective he must agree that they are and not all people believe in one religion. Clearly my opponent has burden to prove Christianity as the True religion and all others false till then we must look a my definition of a true religion which is that their is no such thing s a true religion. Thank you.
Science and evolution is an oxymoron

Since it was not specified whether R1 was acceptance only or whether we were allowed to also make arguments, I will assume it is acceptance only and allow prop the first words of actual debate, as the burden of proof is always on prop. Before we begin, though, I would like to get some housekeeping issues out of the way: Firstly, the different types of "evolution" my opponent referred to are not necessarily what scientists mean when they refer "evolution". When scientists talk about "evolution", they are referring to what prop called "macro evolution". They are also all vastly different ideas. Some of the wording prop used was grammatically-incorrect or misleading. It is for this reason that I would like to propose the following amended definitions: Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from the "big bang". Nuclear Fusion: all elements were produced from hydrogen by nuclear fusion. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds. Abiogenesis: life began from inanimate matter. Biological macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another. I am happy to defend any or all of these ideas as scientific claims. It is for this reason that I would request my opponent picks any number of these definitions and argues that they are not scientific claims; if, in round 2, my opponent chooses to drop any of these definitions, and to only argue that one or more of the others is not scientific, then I feel it would be mutually-beneficial for us to amend the motion to read "THB: [whatever prop argued is not scientific] is not a scientific claim", and would, if accepted by prop, ask any voters to accept this as the new wording of the motion. That way, we would allow the debate to be more focused on a single matter, or fewer matters, rather than jumping around between many different matters. I feel it would be beneficial to the debate for this to happen. However, should prop decide to argue that all of the above ideas are not scientific, I would of course be happy to counter argue that they all, in fact, are scientific.
Science and evolution is an oxymoron

Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. By evolution I am talking about: Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another with the exception of micro evolution which happens.
League of Legends vs. Defense of the Ancients (known as LoL and Dota respectively) Pro is for LoL

I will be arguing that DOTA is a better MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) than League of Legends. I would like to first refute the claims of Con. "Dota is 4 no mechonic scrUb l0rds and peepee heads" Obviously, this is ad homonym, as it is attacking DOTA itself (and the thousands of people that enjoy the game), without any proof that it isn't AS GOOD as LoL. (We will be arguing which is the best, not that the opposing side is the worst). "It's for no peepee heads" he claims. Funny, isn't it? I believe he's saying the game isn't for "those" people. This means he concedes to saying DOTA is best. I don't know what a "mechonic scrub lord" is. I'm assuming it's an insult, which is actually great for my case, because he's stating that DOTA isn't for low class people. My big argument comes in after Pro's Round 2 argument.
League of Legends vs. Defense of the Ancients (known as LoL and Dota respectively) Pro is for LoL

My opponent has abandoned this debate. I shall present the Wikipedia page for DOTA and quote some facts that will prove that my position isn't wrong. . https://en.wikipedia.org... "Since its original release, DotA has become a feature at several worldwide tournaments, including Blizzard Entertainment's BlizzCon and the Asian World Cyber Games, as well as the Cyberathlete Amateur and CyberEvolution leagues; in a 2008 article of video game industry website Gamasutra, the article's author claimed that DotA was probably "the most popular and most-discussed free, non-supported game mod in the world". DotA is largely attributed to being the most significant inspiration for the multiplayer online battle arena genre. Valve Corporation acquired the intellectual property rights to DotA to develop a stand-alone sequel, Dota 2, which was released in 2013. " This paragraph tells us that DOTA is so famous, it got a sequel, and official tournaments.
Should humans be logical or faithful orientated? (Against logical or for logical)

Since Pro hasn't stated any round structure, I'll briefly give an opening argument. Pro, I believe, is arguing that faith is more important to mankind than reason. The word "faith" has multiple definitions, including: 1. strong religious feelings or beliefs 2. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Due to Pro's wording, I will assume that they are referring to definition number 1. However, I will explain why reason and logic are more important than spiritual beliefs. While I cannot deny the massive amount of good religion has done for the world, faith unchecked by reason can cause widespread death and suffering. Look at pre-Enlightenment times, when modern science was nonexistant and religion dominated the Earth. There were numerous conflicts caused by blind faith, with The Crusades, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, and the Muslim conquests as just a few examples, that led to the deaths of tens of millions, if not more. If the Knights Templar had used reason to deduce that they could coexist peacefully with the Turks, or if the French Catholics and Huguenots had decided to live together in harmony, rather than allowing religious passion to control them, their lives may have been spared. Today, there are no wars fought based on religion. While there are still some extremist groups with ultra-religious ideology, they are regarded as terrorists by most everyone. We have moved past the age of blind faith, and now rely on reason to settle international issues. Let us now look at the definition of "reason": the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. It is easy to go through life mindlessly following the doctrines of your religion, but with reason, you can analyze what you have learned, form opinions, ponder about the world around you, and think for yourself. Rather than swallowing what you are taught without complaint, you can use a skeptical attitude to make sure that your ideas are supported by facts and evidence. In the words of the brilliant philosopher René Descartes, "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Con states: "Is it better for humanity to continue to play it safe as logical creatures, or is it possible for our species to evolve into a faithful race?" Please elaborate. What does faith have to do with evolution? And humans have been a "faithful race" for thousands of years, if by that you mean relying almost totally on religion to function. I am by no means saying that faith is a bad thing; it can be a source of strength and comfort to many. But reason is not only far more important, but necessary. I will now allow Con to present their counterargument. SOURCES:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;