BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Supports Sex Before Marriage

I totally disagree with sex before marriage. Why? Sex is like a drug, when someone tries to do it, they want to do it over and over again, when they really do that it means that they gonna try to do it with the different ones, they will get bored with someone they have done sex with, and they do it with another ones. That's very danger for the people who do that, sex before marriage can destroy this country, first this country can be filled with people who are immoral, because they think that is the normal thing for them the opposite gender to do intim things or such, when they go there there gonna make many bad things happen, like the pregnant things that happen by accident, and then when they feel that they don't want to have baby, they will do abortion, where its the worst thing that is gonna happen. They feel that they haven't been ready to have baby, so they do abortion. Sex before marriage also really danger for the health of someone who so that, many diseases are caused by this. Based on research from who there are herpes granita, aids, etc for example. And there are also the psychology effects of sex before marriage, like easily feeling sad, helpless, insomnia, etc for example. That's why it's really important do married before do sex, because of marriage, that's gonna be barrier from people to do sex with many people, and when they want To married, it means they have been ready to have babies, that's Why marriage is really important to be done, besides it's really sacred it's also have many positive impacts. THATS WHY SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS REALLY DANGER AND BAD.
Trump isn't (and is far from) the worst president ever.

While Trump may not be the most polished person, Like Obama his inaction in the white house makes him an okay president in my books. In short, Unlike other presidents, He has not passed anything that was inherently very bad for the country. IMO the best president ever was Calvin Coolidge. You may now prove to me and the voters why Trump is the worst president in USA history and out of all the other presidents.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

Con has made some great points in his rebuttals, I was tired and realised my debate arguments were due soon, so I apologise for my lackluster performance in that. I have a final rebuttal, and Con may answer it if he wishes to. How am I supposed to enjoy Heaven, knowing friends, family, and even strangers are burning, eternally, For sometimes stupid reasons, such as wearing cotton or being a homosexual? I'm opposed to the idea of Hell in general, but I still think it would be better.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

My opponent has made some pretty weak points in his rebuttal. They can all be rebuted in multiple ways. Pro point 1: In heaven, you would get bored of everything being good. It would be agonizing mentally to succeed at everything. Pro fallacy: Pro does make a good point here. You can get bored of things that make you happy. There are also millionaires who have nowhere to succeed and can often become depressed. Though who ever said heaven would let that happen? If you honestly prefer a more cozy life with your family and a small house from your childhood then wouldn't heaven provide that? The bible states that heaven would be what makes you most happy, not necessarily what makes everyone else happy. Making money and succeeding in everything will not be what most people want. For an example, think about life now. What things do you enjoy? Your family? Girlfriend? Sports? Those unconditional lovers and competitive activities would most certainly be a part of your personal heaven. If you get tired of any of these things in heaven, you could merely just move on to something more pleasurable right? If you do indeed get bored of everything being so awesome then wouldn't that not be a good thing? So you would be experiencing a bad day of boredom. So according to your own statement, those bad times would make the better days better. As for hell, there would be no good days. So you would have nothing to appreciate. Therefore your own statement can be used to counter your argument. Pro point 2: Psychological pain is worse than physical pain. Con counter point: While there are varying degrees of both of the types of pains, let's use the two types already mentioned in this debate. Boredom and burning. Have you ever been bored? Most likely. Have you ever stuck your face in a fire? Hopefully not. While being bored because you have nothing to accomplish can be agonising, you most certainly would not prefer to go bathe in a burning house to pass the time. Being bored just means you want to do something stimulating, and hell would be the last place you'd want to go to do something. Heaven has everything you would ever want. Hell has fire. So once again I can use my opponents statement against him. If what you say is true, boredom is worse than burning, then wouldn't both be even worse?While heaven can undoubtedly get boring, hell would be much more so. You have nothing to do but burn and burn. So hell doesn't solve the problem. You'd still be psychologically depressed knowing you can never feel happy or love again. So of the two evils, hell seems to be the worse of the two.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

Hey, sorry about how long this has been taking, I've had family stuff going on. My first point will be on the concept of Heaven, as described by the Bible. "Heaven is designed to be a personal paradise where everything and everyone would be to the individual's favor." But wouldn't it get boring of everything being good? Aren't those bad days the reason we appreciate the good days all the more? Succeeding at everything would become agonising after, say, an eternity. I'm not saying that Hell is just some grand place, it would certainly suck a lot. My second point is the concept of Hell, using your definition once again. "It's sole purpose is to provide a punishment to those who sin. As such, it takes advantage of out brain's natural fears of anything dangerous to our body." So, Hell is a purely physical pain. Since Con cannot yet give a rebuttal to my claim of Psychological pain > physical pain, I won't bring that up. Instead, I will point to a simple fact of life as we know it. If you get punched, it's going to hurt. Get punched again, and it will hurt more. However, eventually you reach a peak, and stop feeling as much pain from it. I feel the same will come about in Hell. If you take of as the "most pain potentially imaginable" version, you would still eventually grow to accept it. That is all I have, and I await Con once more.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

To start off I would like to make a few things clear. I am an atheist and my interpretation of heaven is coming from any biblical references to it. Since heaven has not been in any current (nor has hell). All evidence will therefore be pulled from the Christian heaven and hell contained in the Holy Bible. My two arguments Hell is designed to induce physical pain by burning. Therefore, since this hell is made to tell the brain that the individual is under much stress. Heaven is designed to be a personal paradise where everything and everyone there is to the individual's favor. To begin, hell is depicted as a horrendous environment. It's sole purpose is to provide a punishment to those who sin. As such, it was intended to take advantage of our brain's natural fear of anything dangerous to our body. Since hell contains fire, demons, and lava in some interpretations, this would go to show that these painful things must be avoided and a person must follow the path of a Christian. The point here is that hell was made to make us miserable. It does this my putting our brain in a state of intense pain by burning. As we know, pain is a system developed to protect our bodies. So a reaction by the brain is to try to escape the source of pain to escape the danger. However if the danger is everywhere, then we'd have nowhere to go. So our brain would constantly be trying to figure out ways to escape this danger in vain. That would mean that in hell, we would hardly be able to think, much less go insane. So it would just a an experience of physical pain that halts all operations in the brain that would be able to make it pleasurable at all. So, it's all bad all the time. Now we move on to what heaven is. It's a place of perfection that is meant as a reward to those who remained faithful and holy. This also takes advantage of the brain's reward system, Dopamine. By getting doing desirable things, your brain makes you feel good by releasing dopamine into your system. Since heaven is intended to be a reward, it would make sense to assume that our we would constantly be experiencing pleasurable moments that would allow our brains to continuously release dopamine. How this is accomplished is determined by the individual's own likes and passions. Since heaven is made to make us feel good and rewarded, and hell is intended to make us feel pain and punished, it would be logical to infer that heaven is the better of the two scenarios.I await your rebuttal.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

NOTE: I just realised I lack the kind of Debate Etiquette that I should have. I seem to just say it like I would in real life, and I apologize for that. I also say "I, personally" a whole bunch. Cool, a guy. Good luck to the con. So, I'll just cut to the chase, I think that Heaven would give me psychological pains, and would probably make me insane. You see, many versions of the Bible describe Heaven as perfect, and everyone and everything there is perfect. I, personally, think that the reason people have an ingrown will to survive is so that we can get better at what we do. You can't get better than perfect, so I would have no reason to be "alive", but couldn't kill myself. Imagine trying to do anything competitive that you enjoy doing, whether it be a sport, or gaming, or your job of of involves that kind of thing, but all the competition is useless, because everyone is perfect at it, at your exact skill level, and you can't strive to be better. That would drive me, personally, insane, or at least depressed. Hell, on the other hand, is physical pain. Nothing more, and nothing less. Yes, I'm aware that it's a whole bunch of pain, and it never ends, but neither would eternal depression / insanity. So, yeah, that is why I think it. I await Con's argument.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

This is my first debate, so I might suck. Just a warning. So, I am an Atheist, and many times people have told me that "You'll regret it when God comes and leaves you for the Devil", or "Bet you'll wish you believed when you go to Hell. ", and you probably get the gist. I want to say that In my opinion, Hell would be a much better fate than Heaven.
Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

So my opponent has been making the same mistake in his arguments over and over again. He provides a reason why heaven bad, but doesn't show how hell is worse. His points are to make heaven sound worse than most make it out to be, but he doesn't show how hell makes up for what heaven can't. If the debate topic was " Heaven is not all it's cracked up to be" then your points would hold more ground, but comparing a sub-optimal heaven to a worse hell does not make hell the superior choice. So, in his closing statement, my opponent threw in a last point to finish off his arguments. However, like most other points he has made, I can easily throw it back at him. Pro point: Heaven would be worse because you would have to live with knowing others are burning in hell for reasons that are not justified. Con counter point: There are two things wrong here. However one is debatable depending on how you would define heaven. That point being that if a person such as a loved one went to hell and you went to heaven, you would still be able to be with them. If heaven is in fact a personal paradise, Then it would make sense that your paradise would include that person. You wouldn't know that your loved one went to hell because you'd be spending time with him/her in heaven. Even if said person is only a "clone" of the one that actually is burning. This argument is up to interpretation as heaven could not actually let you be with some one in hell, but since no tests have been done, this is inconclusive. A more sturdy argument is one that my opponent just made. How can you be happy in heaven knowing others are burning in hell? Allow me to answer this question with another. How can you deal with hell knowing you and other people are burning in hell? My opponent's statement doesn't make hell better, it just makes both worse. In one scenario you're depressed because your loved ones are suffering, in the other you're depressed because your loved ones are suffering, but now you are too. I think I made a strong case here. Pro should have focused more on what makes hell better, not what makes heaven bad. Though, I doubt there were many actual arguments for that criteria. For the side he was on, he did a good job. Good Debate.
The cosmologicl argument is false

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, The universe has a cause. 4. If something causes the universe to exist, Then it is not essentially a part of the universe. 5. Thetefore, There is a cause of the universe that is not essentially a part of the universe. 6. If something is not essentially a part of the universe then it is not essentially physical. 7. Therefore, There is a cause of the universe that is not essentially physical. 8. The only non-essentially physical agents are persons. 9. Therefore, The universe has a cause which is a non-essentially-physical person. This is the extended version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument Another short version is: 1. The universe began to exist 2. If the universe began to exist, Then the universe had a transcendent cause 3. Therefore the universe had a transcendent cause. The universe can only exist in two ways: Contingently or by Necessity For the universe to exist Contingently is to mean that it was caused by something else. For the universe to exist by Necessity means that it exists by it's own nature. . . . That it would be impossible for it not to exist. Therefore, We know that the universe exists Contingently, Which implies that the cause is not an abstract object, But a mind that is beyond spacetime reality, Matter, And energy.
The cosmologicl argument is false

The Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that exists must have a cause. 2. The universe must have a cause (from 1). 3. Nothing can be the cause of itself. 4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3). 5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4). 6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe. 7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6). 8. God exists. FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, But then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise " and say that though God exists, He doesn't have a cause " or else a contradiction to his third premise " and say that God is self-caused. Either way, The theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, But is not explaining whyGod must be the unique exception, Otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, You can ask why the universe itself, Which is also unique, Can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, Or else can be self-caused. Since the buck has to stop somewhere, Why not with the universe? FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, But our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, Extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, Based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, Was developed by David Hume. COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, Like the Argument from the Big Bang, And The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, Are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining! "
Equal pay for women

The research you provided seems to be lacking the reason why she received a lower pay. Rather it sounds like it's defending my argument that women make less on all levels, whether that be as an employer or a business owner. Can you please provide the article link where you obtained this information? Although I appreciate your analogy, I would prefer if we could stay on track by focusing on the factual information. Women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20% below men's. Women make 80 cents to the dollar that a man makes. According to an article by Cornell University research, "When women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines - for the very same jobs that more men were doing before." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, men make more with jobs even when the female counterpart matches up with them with education, responsibility, and skill level. What piece of information would it take to prove to you that women do not receive equal pay?
Equal pay for women

According to an article by Business Insider, the data was analyzed by Rochester Institute of Technology, Women who are business owners make less than men who are business owners in the same market and field. This means that the gender issue still exists outside of "worker" conditions and asserts that discrimination doesn't always play a part since the female business owner still made less regardless of the presence of an employer choosing the wage. As for your claim, female should not feel like they need to turn down an offer for a job, everyone must navigate their options and make a decision based on what is available to them. No person should feel obligated to decline anything, unless they are not interested in it. To relate to a real world scenario, a fisherman or a fisher woman may be interested in the biggest fish in the lake, but if he or she catches a small fish, she or he has the right to decline it and keep perusing what they feel is their goal. Same holds true in business.
Equal pay for women

A woman should be able to receive equal pay. She shouldn't feel obligated to turn down the opportunity of a source of income because her starting pay wouldn't be equal to that of a man with the same responsibilities, skill sets, or education. A woman would be sacrificing more in this scenario and without knowing a woman's financial standing, it would be difficult to argue that she could be in the position to turn down income in hopes of finding an occupation that instilled equal pay amongst both sexes. My argument isn't whether or not women have the ability to negotiate, it's whether or not they make less money in jobs requiring similar responsibilities, skill sets, or education. Women are not just offered less at particular jobs, such as physically demanding jobs as you suggested, they are offered and paid less from a wide variety of jobs. A woman and a man can be equal in every category, except gender, and the woman will make less.
Equal pay for women

Perhaps, but women are entitled to turning down a job offer if the pay is not satisfactory or up to their standards the same as men. Also, women are allowed to negotiate wages just like men, although in certain fields gender makes a difference. Such as a gynecologist, it makes women feel uncomfortable being assisted by a male sometimes and a lower wage may be given to a man to discourage the occupation. In similar regards, a woman may be offered less at particular jobs that are physically demanding to discourage them from taking on jobs that are below them.
To Be Decided During The Debate

Contention 1: In which my opponent's interpretation of the resolution is analyzed. Basically, he says that definitions 2-4 relate perfectly, in that with the first it relates to God, in the second it is devoted to God and with the third it is venerated as if sacred. Unfortunately, for him, he is wrong. For the first, definition 2, my opponent misinterprets the meaning of divine. The definition implies that it comes from God, directly or indirectly. So if the Bible was simply written by some very religious men, we should not call it divine. Second, the bible is only partly devoted to God. As it was written and compiled by men, it reflects the interests of men, which are by default not entirely those of God. For the final definition, although the bible is venerated as if sacred, using this definition simply gives the resolution a new meaning, that the bible should not be venerated as if sacred. I can offer a contention on that as well. Contention 2: In which I contend that the bible should not be venerated as sacred. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are taught to worship God, and not to worship the works of man. For these reasons Jesus condemned the use of churches for worship, idol worship is condemned, and its ban is included in the ten commandments. Clearly a work of man should not be worshiped or venerated as if sacred. So if the bible is solely a work of man, than its veneration is bad. I contend that the bible is a work of man alone. It may have been written by very holy and important men, but unless God or Jesus sat down at a writing table and penned it out, it is simply a work of men, with differing interests of their own that are reflected in the text. I fit was written by God it would not have contradictions, or laws that today we know are immoral. God did not mess up, but some Hebrew priest or prophet did. Contention 3: In which I address my opponent's concern. My opponent says "The reason why many people are against the notion of flag burning is not that it is a waste of white cloth, wood, and blue/red dye. Similarly, when we are discussing the "Holiness" of the bible, we are not merely referring to a stack of documents. Whether the documents in the bible were written by man or not, it is taken to be inspired work. Thus, I ask that the *validity* of the Bible not be called into question, purely because this debate will turn into a squabble on biblical interpretation or worse, a debate on the existence of God, which is trite, boring, and quite unnecessary." I agree that the bible is not just a stack of documents. It is the most influential book in history, and it is the only authoritative account of Judaism and Christianity's beliefs. I simply contend that it is contradictory to consider the bible holy because works of men are not holy. I would argue much of the bible is valid, but by nature, a compilation of 60 some works on religion by 40 or so different men will be contradictory and flawed. Something like this is not and should not be called holy.