BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity

Hi. Thank you for joining the debate. Honestly I am not sure how to respond to that. I was looking for a challenge and you presented more of a frustration about the idea then I have. You corrected me at the beginning about not being more specific but it looks like to me you were all over the place and I never could figure out what you were trying to say other than I hate this subject and would like to eradicate it. That I can agree with you on. I hate what it has produced but I try to be a little more civil. Let me debate myself for a minute and answer my own questions. First lets look at the universe. If you took human beings out of it all and everything else was left there would be harmony. The main reason there is all these problems is because people are dysfunctional. Why are they dysfunctional? Because of what they believe. What does most of the world believe that causes them to be dysfunctional? Guess? Ideas of ancient cultures who were trying to figure out what this is all about. My questions focus on christianity because that is what I am familiar with and those ideas affect alot of the population of the world. Should we care for people? Yes. Should we murder? No. Do we need a book telling us to do or not to do? I think we can figure out things on our own. What is sin? Who knows. It is what someones culture says is wrong. A lion that was created by God rips a dear apart and we admire lions. Interesting? What would happen if you did that? Would someone admire you? If the sins that would send me to hell are in the old testament then which one is it and if you are following the old testament then you should probably follow everything in it. What am I being saved from? Never could figure that out and most christians don't know. One says your saved from your sins another says you are saved from yourself another says you are saved from the wrath of God another says you are saved from the evil generation. If I was studying for 25 years on how to build tables do you think I would be an expert by then and there wouldn't be too much disagreement. The bible has been around for how long and christianity has been around for how long and most people don't understand the basics and there is so much disagreement. That in itself should tell you something. I do need to say I respect the maker of the universe and if he did have a son I would respect him also. I care for people and I care for myself and am tired of what religion and specifically christianity has produced in my life. I would never want to discourage anyone from searching for truth and from wanting to know more about the maker. I think it is important for all people to examine these ideas and make a decision for themself and in the meantime stand up for what they believe. The logic bell is ringing. Your up :)
Christianity

If christianity is so solid and right and so many people follow it then why is it so hard to logically understand it foundational principles? I was a christian for many years. I wanted to know the truth. I prayed and studied and searched and I was never able to figure it out. You would think that after 10 plus years I would understand even the basics. I know christianity very well so if you are going to debate me then you need to have a considerate amount of knowledge and familiarity with the first century culture and also be open minded. Most christians are so full of fear to look deeper which reminds me of tyranny. Here is a list of my questions: -What is sin? If there is a higher being that has rules and breaking those laws has consequences then what are those laws, how many are there, where do we find those laws and how do we verify that those laws are truly from him. -Consequenses? What specific law from the question above did I commit that requires me to burn in hell forever and ever? -If Jesus died for our sins then why did he die on passover and not day of atonement? -What are we saved from? -If your child was crying for help while being ripped apart by lions and you had the ability to stop it, would you? There are and have been many people in this world who are/were dedicated people who have gone through horrible and difficult things and they have cried for help and all they got was silence. If you acted that way towards another human being especially your children people would say you were cold, mean, uncaring and maybe even charge you with a crime but God who is supposed to be an example of a loving father can do it and it is ok and nobody ever questions it. I think this is a good starting point.
Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

Who are you to start a debate on this website, vomit out a bunch of claims (written in the grammar and spelling of a typical third-grader) with no arguments whatsoever, giving us 2,000 characters to answer them, all the while dripping with your own self-assurance? "Knowledge of syllogism?" Do you think this site is for people like you to masturbate to yourselves? Go back to posting your rants on Youtube comment sections, and don't clutter up DDO with your nonsense. The same goes for people like jat93 and every other user who comes on here thinking that the site revolves around them, when in reality they're so deeply entrenched in what Julian Sanchez referred to as epistemic closure that they can't grasp the magnitude of their own stupidity.Thank you.
Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

My opponent's rebuttal can be summed up as follows: he started this debate with a political tone in mind, so I should simply go ahead and make the moral assumptions he wants to have a meaningful political debate instead arguing with him over the fundamental question of why anything should happen at all. Regardless, I think that my argument is still untouched. Pro again makes an unsubstantiated moral assertion: that I should change my argumentation to reflect his intentions. He provided reasons as to why I should do so (that it would be "counter-productive and misleading" to continue to argue from a metaethical standpoint), but this seems to beg the question. My opponent's argument assumes that there is good reason to not derail the debate with semantic quibbling, but no real moral imperative is argued for; hence, I see no reason not go right ahead and continue. I have still shown that my Pro's arguments do not meet the resolution. None of my opponent's reasons show that Palestine should, in any real sense, receive autonomy (which is itself giving him the benefit of the doubt, as the title was worded as a question and no definition of "Palestine" is given) and therefore the resolution is effectively negated. As of now, it sadly appears that my Pro has deactivated his account. I hope that he will be back as I have enjoyed the debate thus far. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.
Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

As much as I'm impressed with my opponents's knowledge in the field of Syllogism: I wish not for a mistake in the wording of this question, divert a debate firmly rooted in political sediment to a philosophical discussion on axioms, inferences and premises. He accepted this debate on Palestine; Taking the debate off like this on a tangent is misleading and counter-productive to my initial intentions. If my opponent wishes to have a discourse on philosophy I will happily oblige, but only on another debate clearly outlining such in its title. However I will present the 'framework' he wishes, which to be fair to him is a valid gripe: for if this topic is to be of any intellectual coherence it must have an Archimedean point for it to be analysed from; For me this is that "Exceeding state oppression on a group of peoples' must be assuaged, in the name of liberty and social emancipation" (This relates to their lives inherent value both collectively and individualistically); In this case I see the granting of deserved sovereignty the way to achieve such. I hope this ethical criterion satisfies my opponent. In my view the Palestinian people have both a philanthropic, cultural and historic right to be independent of the regime of Botha. .. oh wait no Benjamin Nenanthyu (Freudian slip). I avidly await my opponent's response, and implore him to not lead this debate down a road of jargon which will be in dissonance with the overt political tone of this piece. "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. "- Albert Cammus
Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

Greetings. I, first, will concede all of Pro's political claims.My argument will be divided in two; first, an explanation on what makes an inference valid, and second, a application of this to my opponent's argument.Premises are statements of something we take as self-evident or simply assume. An inference can be made when all the premises follow through properly. An example:Premise 1: All men are mortal.Premise 2: Socrates is a man.Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.A statement is valid not only when the logic is correct, but when the premises are themselves truthful. When making ethical statements, the validity of such a statement is dependent upon some fundamental value. Hence, the justifications are hierarchical; the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ad infinitum. Such statements as "killing is wrong" require the support of broader ethical assumptions, such as "human life has value."What Pro has not done here is proved the validity of a self-evident imperative from which a proper ethical framework could be derived. If we go down the chain of justifications, we have to reach an axiom eventually, but we don't really have any reason to accept that axiom as true or non-subjective. Therefore, it seems my erstwhile opponent must demonstrate his particular frameowork to be valid before he can prove that Palestine deserves autonomy.I await Pro's response.
Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)
Sports should be made compulsory at school

I'm living in a school where sport are made compulsory at school. It's not very nice for a person who physically have no strength, yes, there is nothing to be shame, I'm one of them and I'm the worst student at sport. If it is made compulsory at school, it will be count as a requirements to be in a good grade which is just not equal between who tried badly to learn every subject but bad at sports ( like C- ) and someone good at it. Second, the one who is good at sport usually carries out as a star and someone bad at it sometimes was carried out as a joke. ( I like Shellton in the Disney's the replacement character :D ). Thirdly, I don't know what do you means sport (football, basketball, ... etc), but if you mean a specific sport game or every types of sport, it would be a disaster. Finally, sport is just a game to entertain yourself, it would be a lot of more freedom for people to choose or not participate. If it is compulsory, may I choose League of Legend sport game for my health ???
Barack Obama is trying to copycat the Antichrist/Mahdi

I'm going to keep my final argument short and sweet. 1. The Antichrist does not believe himself to actually be God. He does "exalt himself over the nations" and claim to be God, even though he himself knows otherwise (he is after all a liar). Obama has not "exalted himself over the nations" (this one, perhaps), and Obama has never even hinted at himself being God. I've asked you repeatedly for this direct reference and you've failed to provide it. In order to make your argument you need a definitive source that clearly shows Obama to be motivated by believing himself to be either the Antichrist or Madhi rather than just being a totalitarian dictator. That direct link has never been produced. 2. 1 Thessalonians 5:2 clearly states that no one knows when the Lord will return. Since the Lord will return to battle the Antichrist, and we don't know when the Lord will come, we don't know when the Antichrist will come, therefore guessing about Obama is premature. 3. All of your inferences and assumptions are based on nothing but conjecture. Anyone can twist vague references to suit their own theories, which is all you've done. The fact that Obama's symbol is "the sun setting over the west" is a key point you've made, when I could come up with a dozen different explanations for it (looks like a blue and a red/white picnic blanket to me, so I suggest Obama likes to picnics under the blue sky). 4. Just one final time; the Antichrist and Madhi will not be shy about who they are. If Obama was attempting to emulate either of them he would have to be open about it in order to do so. The simple fact that he makes no claim to being the Madhi or to being God (as the Antichrist would do) means he's neither, and he's not following one of the most basic activity requirements of either, so he's not doing an emulation of either. He's just a left-wing radical obsessed with power.
Barack Obama is trying to copycat the Antichrist/Mahdi

Obama is imulating the ideological construct of the Antichrist/Mahdi mentioned in Christianity and Islam. ISLAM- Al-Mahdi- In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule for five, seven, nine, or nineteen years before the Day of Judgment (yawm al-qiyamah / literally, the Day of Resurrection) and will "rid the world of evil." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... According to Islamic tradition, the Mahdi's tenure will coincide with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Mahdi will "break the cross". The Mahdi's sign is "the sun setting over the West". This is what Obama's symbol is. -- In Christian eschatologies, Jesus, the Christ or Messiah, will appear in his Second Coming to Earth to face the Antichrist, who will be the greatest false messiah in Christianity. Just as Christ is the savior and the ideal model for humanity, his opponent will be a single figure of concentrated evil. The Antichrist "has a form of godliness, but gets his power from a 'god of war'". The Antichrist gets this power from an "antichrist prophet". Muhammed, the great prophet of Islam", rejected Christ as the 'Son of God'" antichrist by Biblical definition. -- Obama bombed Libya and was behind the Egyptian takeover, and also put Jordan under heavy sanctions, as is the triune area Antichrist goes after in the Christian Bible. So, he went after the nations antichrist goes after in the Bible and used the symbol of the Islamic Mahdi as his symbol. * And...the followers of Antichrist and the Mahdi behead Christians. This is literally true as ISIS beheads Christians in mass and genocides Christians in the Middle East. * The Antichrist destroys by peace. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. (And used "peace" to pull out of Iraq.) Then ISIS manifested, the European Immigration crisis occured as per Obama's plea to Europe to take in asylum seekers and refugees. * The Antichrist Gets power from a "foreign god of war". Obama pets Islam every chance he gets. * Iranian prophecies have been grafted onto Obama as a messiah to the Muslim world. "According to a Hadith that describes a "Promised Warrior" a tall black man will assume power in the West and herald the fall of the West and the victory of Islam to conquer the world, and Hussein is in his name. https://swordattheready.wordpress.com... In college, Barack was known as Barry Soerto according to classmates. At some point he changed his name to his birth father's name, including Hussein in the name. His father was an anticolonialist. http://www.newsweek.com... * Obama's logo matches the symbol of the Islamic messiah. (Mahdi) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Here is a link showing the characteristics of the Antichrist and the Mahdi. Obama is purposefully trying to imulate this person. http://www.answering-islam.org... * So...he is almost out of office....but doesn't think he is finished... Obama is bidding to become Secretary General of the U.N. http://www.breitbart.com...
All Subjects in School are Important

I believe that all main (non-elective) subjects in school are important. My arguments for each are: Math: We need to learn how to do mathematics in everyday life and for projects only done occasionally Science: All humans need to know how the world around them works. I recently spoke to someone who didn't know how many natural satellites the Earth has. They know now, but it is still appalling. English: We must learn to speak our national language fluently and without grammatical errors. This is simply because they make writing look sloppy. History: "Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it," George Santayana Foreign Language: We live in a world where countries are far more interconnected than ever. Speaking another language helps people to be successful in that world.
las vegas should have a professional basketball team.

"giving a basket ball team to las vegas would give it money. " las vegas has no trouble at all making money from tourism to gambling and is one of the largest cities in america, and does indeed have citizens that pay for their homes. point being they don't necessarily need money, so a basketball team that does not meet the cost of maintaing the team will in effect cost more to have. "giving a basketball team to las vegas would give people a reason to go to las vegas besides gambling and partying. " you are assuming that it would garner a large enough audience to compete with the casinos and other gambling facilites and tourist attractions, as i have that it will not maintain an audience. first, we must keep in mind we are talking specifically about a basketball team, not football. the nba has had a gambling scandal involving refferies as recent as 2007 involving Tim Donaghy, so yes they would have trouble monitoring gambling. next, the argument that las vegas has citizens just like any other city. The estimated population of the Las Vegas metropolitan area as of 2008, was 1,865,746. [las vegas, nevada - wikipedia] as of 2008, 11.2% of the population was below the poverty level. also, the median household income was $56,432 dollars. in this current economic slump, it is safe to assume that the majority of these people living in las vegas will not care for the basketball team, for they simply will not be able to spend the money on it and supply all of their needs. Las Vegas also has a high percentage of residents working in 24-hour occupations, many of whom work nights and weekends when most games would be played. [sports in las vegas - wikipedia]. as for my third point, i agree, it stands on shaky legs, however, the cost of paying the salaries of those employed at a facilty as well as maintaining said facilty would put more of a dent in the federal budget of las vegas than it would make, as competition would be fierce to gain an audience based on my two aforementioned points. ..
las vegas should have a professional basketball team.

C1: giving a basket ball team to las vegas would give it money. C2:giving a basket ball team to las vegas would give ppl a reason to go to las vegas besides gambling and partying. attacking my opponent his first piont falls because there is all ready gambling in las vegas and they monitor it fine, many ppl said the same thing about oaklands football team but there gambling problem on sports is fine. my attack on his second point is that las vegas doest just have travlers it has citizens too and there is so many ppl in las vegas the basket ball team will gain fans. his 3rd and final point falls because they can always use the rebels staduim or build a new one and it is going to benifit las vegas because it will provide jobs.... thank you
las vegas should have a professional basketball team.

i disagree for 3 reasons, 1.las vegas (aka sin city) would have too much trouble monitoring illeagal sports gambling 2.because las vegas is a major tuorist attraction it would be extremely difficult for a basketball team to gain an audience and 3.the city lacks sufficient facilties to house a basketball team...i will expend upon these three points in round 2, and i hope you put up a good argument dude...
Medical Marijuana

MArijuanan does WAY more than damage lungs, but I'll get there later. Ok you said alot about sources, but since you forfeited the round I assumed you gave up on the debate, furthermore, I can provide sources if ou would like, if you allow me to do this it will even out the fact you forfeited a round. My opponent claims that people can still obtain drugs albeit illegally, but I contend that rate would be much less than right if it was not legal. If it was a normal prescription drug, then people could easily smuggle it or fordoctors into prescribing it for them. Furthermore, they wouldn't need to hide and buy itfrom drug dealers, they could walk into a pharmacy and buy it for a lot cheaper price. http://abcnews.go.com... Tihs is the source showing pain can be beneficial. He talks marijuana alleviating sufferring, but the truth is many people could simply use it to alleviate their "daily problems." For example, you could get a headache and just go to the pharmacy and get some marijuana. The resolution debates using marijuana for anything related to th medical field, and pharmacies that sell marijuana are related to the medical field. Smoke "The most obvious harmful effect that I can see from medical marijuana is the damage done to one's lungs when smoking the drug. This is of course a fair concern however, one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways, which do not significantly damage the lungs." OK, marijuana is ILLEGAL because it damages the lungs ALOT. This is why tobacco and nicotine are not illegal. Furthermore, marijuana increases the possiblity of alzheimers and strokes, mood swings, seizures, and depression. To say it only damages the lungs is ridiculous. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug) He talks about the vaporizer and other forms of ingesting marijuana that don't damage the lungs, however, marijuana does ALOT more than damage the lungs, as I have stated above, he never addresses the other side effects that are found in the marijuana plant's properties itself. He talks about marijuana relieving cancer and aids. All marijuana does is temporarily relieve sufferring and make you feel great, and then it sends you into a state of depression, also found in my above source. Cancer and Aids patients die alot, so marijuana doesn't actually help them. Furthermore, if you give it to a weak cancer patient who is in alot of pain but can still live it could weaken them in the long run, the same with aids. And once again, pain is GOOD sometimes because it relieves stress and signals to the body that something needs to be done. conclusion: He makes a bunch of "no sources" arguments which I can't understand considering he FORFEITED a round which I thought he would never even post to.