BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you win a loser contest does that make you a winner.

My Foe said that I was name calling. I was expressing the fact that you are loser. I never said any ones name or said it directly to anyone so that is false. Also, they were being very rude about saying it took them all day to read it. My point was very clear in one sentence. There are 5 rounds and I believe that as long as you get your point across there shouldn't be a character limit and judging by it. Just because you copy and paste almost everything you put down on your debate arguments doesn't mean you can do this. Now anyways, losers are not winners in the contest because they are a loser for a reason and why would anybody be in a loser contest if all they do is "win win win no matter what?"
Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without referencing a religious framework.

Format: Three rounds, first round: PRO will state position, CON will state contrary position (no argumentation). Second round: PRO will make first argument, CON will make first counterargument. Third round: PRO will rebut CON's argument, CON will rebut the rebuttal. No restrictions on format otherwise. Assertion: Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without reference to a religious framework because people are capable of observing the impact of their actions on themselves and others and selecting actions that have the least detrimental impact on themselves and others. I recognize that my assertion may be refuted if my opponent can show that (1) people do not have the capacity to distinguish the cause of a detrimental effect as their actions, and thereby need a preconceived definition that makes those actions wrong or right (2) people can not adequately observe the impact of their actions on others in such a way as to avoid doing harm or (3) people would be compelled or inclined, despite their observations, to act in a manner harmful to themselves or others without a religious framework to rely upon. Definitions: Interpersonal- being, relating to, or involving relations between persons Moral- expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior , conforming to a standard of right behavior Decisions- determinations arrived at after consideration Referencing-consulting, relying upon or referring to Religious - of, relating to, or devoted to an organized body of beliefs or observances Framework- a basic conceptional structure (as of ideas) Any word not defined should be treated as it would be defined at this site, http://www.merriam-webster.com... , considering context and ordinary American English usage of the term. My thanks in advance for my opponent's acceptance of this challenge.
Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without referencing a religious framework.

Certainly Taoism, Confucianism and Chiang and Zen Buddhism are religions but are not really heavy on "supernatural justification." My opponent is destined to become a great religious scholar, but in Eastern religion. Start with the I Ching. Does my opponent wish to argue that there exists a moral teaching not found in any religion? I hope so. Or perhaps that any religious moral teaching can just as well be taught without the religion? Tod Lindberg does just that http://www.amazon.com... with a religion with which we may be familiar. What if an immoral person in an immoral religion switched religions and became moral? One could argue that the religion therefore had nothing to do with the morality. But it could be argued that the immoral religion was necessary to make a point. Now I will read my opponent's first round arguments. Up to and including argument 1, replace the word "religious" with "any" and we have an argument that no moral code, religious or otherwise, is necessary. This is not particularly about religion though. As for argument 2, just because morals are "propounded" does not mean they will be observed. Many of your "born again" testimonials are from those who needed religion. This proves both that the religion in question is not necessarily for everyone, but that it does work and was necessary in some cases, typically involving drug abuse as well as other kinds of abuse. Argument 3, we are back to arguing more against any moral code than particularly a religious one.
Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without referencing a religious framework.

I assume that "Person" can also mean a corporation or a lynch mob. But I don't need that. I intend to show that: At least one person, corporate or otherwise, is immoral with or without a religious framework, or at least one religious outfit is immoral wherein the religion is not itself the sole cause of the immorality. If a group of people are immoral then at least one of them is. Therefore there exists at least one immoral person who cannot exercise morality at all with or without a religious framework.
A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

This is the round two debate of the Tournament of Champions. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate, the gracious judges for their time, and the host(s) of this tournament for creating a great forum for debate. Although this is an LD resolution, it will be debated in a more loose format. Definitions Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good. Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another. (Merriam-Webster) Ought: Indicates moral obligation or duty. Death penalty: the killing of a person by judicial process. (Wikipedia) ======== What is a Just Society? A just society is not necessarily a society that is always morally right (otherwise there would be no need for punishment), but is instead a society that is committed to working towards moral uprightness. I contend that a society with the death penalty is not acting true to the commitment to justice. ======== Contention 1: The Right to Life Every person has a fundamental right to life. When the government executes a convicted criminal, it is revoking a human being's right to life. Criminal or not, no one may justifiably revoke such a fundamental right as this. Because of this, I have never understood the death penalty; why is it that people have their right to life revoked simply because they commit a crime? This logic does not follow. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty The average cost of implementing the death penalty instead of a life sentence is about $100,000 (. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). This additional expense is unnecessary; in addition, I contend that it is unjust to force the taxpayers to pay this additional cost when life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty. ======== Contention 3: The Execution of Innocents Usage of the death penalty runs the risk of executing innocents. 135 prisoners on death row were found to be innocent (. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Courts generally do not continue to investigate cases in which the convicted criminal was already executed, so there is no telling how many innocent have been wrongly put to death. In 1987 a study by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet found that at least 23 innocents had been wrongly executed (. http://www.justicedenied.org...). This is too high a price to pay for a technique that is no more reliable than life imprisonment.
The existence of evil does not disprove God's existence

I will be arguing that the problem of evil does not disprove God's existence. The problem of evil is usually presented something like this. "Evil and suffering exist in the world. God is supposed to be morally good and all powerful. If God was morally good then he would want to stop people from suffering. If he was all powerful then he would be able to stop suffering. Since God doesn't stop suffering from occurring, therefore he must not exist. " I will be making the following arguments. 1. We cannot know whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering. We live in a certain point in time, and cannot know what will happen in the future. For all we know the bad that happens now may be the cause of great good later. 2. Without God all the evil that happens is without cause. The problem of evil is mostly an emotional one. It seems unfair that God would allow suffering to happen to us. However if God does not exist, then we can be certain that the evil things people do will go unpunished, and that the suffering people go through will not be rewarded, which seems much more unfair. I look forward to hearing my opponents objections.
Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest

I'm glad you would be able to make the choice to keep the child. But not all women feel this way, sometimes the pain and trauma is too much. The truama and pain of the rape would continue through the pregnancy, always being reminded of that incident. In some states, the rapist can gain rights to custody of the child. Even if a women decided to choose life, she may be subjected to putting her child in the hands of the man who attacked her. That's not positive for the child or the parent. The adoption system in the U.S. isn't the best either. In some state homes and orphanages, children grow up unadopted and lose their self esteem and develop disorders and don't have a sense of belonging. In the case of incest, the child is at a high risk for defects and disorders, something that would bring pain and suffering to both the mother and the child. A large number of rape victims are also very young, girls aged 11-13 can still get pregnant, but are in no condition to carry a child
Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest

I understand what women must go through, but shouldn't they love the baby also. I know what rape is like, I've been raped, it's hard to get over, but if I had a child from the attacker, I would keep it. I also know keeping the baby from the attacker is a crazy idea, but I think the baby, deserves the right to live, like I said you could either, have the baby, and give it up for adoption, or let someone else carry the baby, and raise it up as their own. Some people wants the baby, and if you don't want it, it could always be someone else's. If I had an baby from my attacker, and had an abortion, I wouldn't be able to live with myself after that. And I think, other women would feel the same way, that's why I think it should be illegal.
Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest

It's impossible to understand the trauma that rape victims go through. Imagine every shred of your safety and security being torn to shreds behind a dumpster in the middle of the night. Imagine the pyschological impact that is imparted after such a vicious attack. While the life of a fetus matters, so does the life of the mother. The mental damage caused by rape and incest is someting that takes year to recover from, and some don't even make it this far. It is not murder to allow a woman the right to choose when they've been violently attacked. The government shouldn't force women to carry the product of their attack to term unless they want too, which a completely different story. I appluad the women who are strong enough to keep the child, but I don't frown upon those who make their choice of abortion when the pain and suffering is too great. In the case of incest, it is highly likely that the cthulu will have birth defects and disorders, making it unsafe for the life of the child.
Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest

I don't think abortion should be legal because no matter if it is unwanted, you should give it up for adoption. Or just let someone else carry it. You killing a baby is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. Also its taking away a chance for someone who wants a family. Abortion is basically murder. Even an morning after pill, its the first stage of an abortion, which is still killing a baby. I know most people don't want a child, and it should be your decision, but still a kid is a kid, no matter how you got it. I also think that if you can live with killing a baby, you don't have an heart. I'm sixteen years old, and I believe abortion is bad, and unfair to the new life that you are bringing to the world. you should let them have a life just like you got one. I know I'm to young to understand, but I know what loosing something could do to you. And you wouldn't want to live with murder for the rest of your life.
Vegetarianism

Given the hilariously vague opening statement of my opponent, I am forced to simply define my own ground for this debate in negating the topic of 'vegetarianism'. I will do this, with a very particular slant: I will negate that Vegetarianism is a moral imperative. But, I will not disagree that if you don't want to eat meat you should have that right. Most theories of rights tend to assume that human beings have rights that other creatures do not. For example, if I am sick I can commit bacterial genocide by taking antibiotics to remove the infection, but if I take the life of a single person I have committed a truly heinous action. I argue that this distinction is derived from the vastly different cognitive capabilities between humans and animals which create different desires that must be preferenced accordingly. This leads to animals not having a fundamental right to life because their cognitive capabilities do not allow them to understand the abstract concepts of life and death. To do so requires the uniquely human concept of self-awareness to allow one to understand existence and the possibility of an end to existence. So, animals do not have a right to life and their desires are worth less than our own so eating meat is morally OK. This reduces vegetarianism to a matter of preference making it no more weighty a decision that deciding which flavor of ice cream to order
Vegetarianism

this is your argument? You copy and paste something from a website that promotes vegetarianism/veganism and that's it? You have got to be kidding me. You failed to provide anything close to a respectable opening statement, failed to provide a second rebuttal and then failed to deal with my arguments at any point. If anyone is reading this, it should be clear that my opponent has nothing useful to say on this topic and I have no idea why he started this debate. Case close. This is an easy one.
Vegetarianism

Look, by being "against" vegetarianism, I only mean that I am not one. I am also "against" the Patriots, but I would never argue that people don't have the right to root for them. I am against Vegetarianism because I do not think it is a moral imperative to be a vegetarian, reducing vegetarianism to the personal decision to eat bad food. Here's the point, I have defended a consistent CON vegetarianism stance. If this position was not acceptable, why not try having a thesis statement longer than one word or an opening argument longer than 2 sentences? Also, why not try actually making arguments? I'll debate something real when you do.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay

I'll respond to my opponent's remarks individually:*If my opponent finds issue with my US map, I would ask he find a different one to compare. However, it is very clear - even without the map - that the United States does not have many gay areas like Equestria does.*My opponent makes several interesting points about underlying plot details beneath the surface of MLP:FiM. Yes, it is true the entire plot of the show is not gay, and the characters are not gay at all times. However, is the subtitle of the show not "Friendship is Magic", an undeniably gay slogan? Like many shows and movies, MLP:FiM reveals the main point of the show in its slogan, and you can recognize the main objective from it. Let's compare this to other works of fiction with plot give-aways in the title:*Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is about the empire striking back on the rebels for destroying the Death Star*Home Alone II: Lost in New York is about the main character getting lost in New York*The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring focuses on the forming of the Fellowship and their early adventuresThis is a clear trend towards giving the main purpose of the plot is given away in the title. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, being a gay title, gives away a generally gay plot about the magic of friendship. At the very least, one could argue the plots my opponent presents are the show telling you "If you want to be gay, don't do X. If you are doing X, here is how to be gay again". In that case, it would be a self-help show on how to be gay.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay

I concur with my opponent's definitions.Additionally, my opponent does a very good job in providing comparative images to show that, after a cursory examination, MLP: FiM appears to be more gay than real-life ponies, environments, and villains. However, his arguments show only that: a cursory examination. They only show one instance, and one (most likely deliberately rigged) axis of comparison between MLP and the real world. Furthermore, as my opponent conceded, they only show gay-ness in comparison. It would likely be abusive for me to attempt to place alternative BoP on my opponent, though, so I shall attempt to refrain from doing so.In refutation, I argue the following (please note that this turns my opponent's arguments. Cross-apply it to them):My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a show that, while having the façade of gay-ness, is actually insidious and utterly non-gay underneath its gay exterior.I offer the following rationale:MLP, according to [1], is "at heart a 'self-help' show." That means it deals with such decidedly non-gay issues as "being ostracized," "losing [one's] friends," and being overly tolerant to a personally-damaging fault. Furthermore, MLP deals with issues like bigotry (in the case of the episode Bridle Gossip [2]); spreading rumors ([2], [3]); disregarding one's responsibilities ([4]); and pride ([5], among others), among many, many, many other "ideal-teaching" lessons. All of these lessons are dressed up in the outward façade of gay-ness that my opponent has provided examples of, however this does not mean that the entirety of the show MLP: FiM is gay.My opponent's arguments deal solely with the outward appearance of the show (names, places, characters, art styles, etc.) and do not even mention the rest of the show's constituents (e.g. plot, life lessons, character personalities).In addition to the decidedly non-gay issues brought up under a gay façade, FiM's characters are also portrayed in a very mature way: they deal with real-world problems, and their personality flaws are relateable to many watchers of the show. Examples of personality flaws include: antisocial tendencies (exemplified by Twilight Sparkle); insecurity (Pinkie Pie); impatience (Applejack); envy (Rarity); pride (Rainbow Dash); and detrimental timidity (Fluttershy). One character in particular, Pinkie Pie, may be suffering from a medical condition known as Disassociative Identity Disorder or Mulitiple Personality Disorder (extrapolated from data on Pinkie Pie's character page [6] and the WebMD page on DID/MPD [7]).These topics are most assuredly not gay. Any exterior appearances of gay-ness are outweighed by the show's inner lack of gay-ness due to its discussion of mature, deep topics. Therefore, the resolution stands negated.Citations:[1]:http://www.roundstable.com...;[2]:http://mlp.wikia.com...;[3]:http://mlp.wikia.com...;[4]:http://mlp.wikia.com...;[5]:http://mlp.wikia.com...;[6]:http://mlp.wikia.com...[7]:http://www.webmd.com...;Thank you~-IX
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay

I agree to stick with 'gay' or a similar term as the only definition used (using the definition of 'bright, lively' or 'brilliant in color' would be incredibly unfair. :P). I propose Dictionary. com's third definition for "gay" be used (having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy. ) or, barring that, the first definition in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary (happily excited: merry: in a gay mood; keenly alive and exuberant; having or inducing high spirits; a bird's gay spring song). Now, defining whether or not My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay is rather simple: it must be proved to be generally gay, fitting with the supplied definitions. Now, let us look at some real-life ponies: These don't look too gay. Lets compare them to MLP:FiM ponies: As we can clearly see, real-life ponies look significantly less gay - they are not nearly as gay as the ponies from MLP:FiM. The colors and demeanor of the MLP:FiM ponies, in particular, give the impression that they are much more gay than real ponies. Therefore, we can say that the average MLP pony is more gay than the average real-life pony. This is significant, because most people would agree ponies are not humans so comparing the average pony emotion with the average human one would be unrepresentative of gay-ness in the context of a pony. As you can see, the MLP ponies are on average much more gay than real ponies. Now, we can go on to scenery. Here is an example of a real-life map of a major country, the United States: That doesn't look too gay. Let's compare this to a map of the pony country Equestria: The quality is quite a bit reduced on it, but even with that this still looks much more gay. The colors and atmosphere of the Equestria map are much more gay and, in turn, suggest the MLP:FiM country of Equestria is much more gay than the real country of the United States. Now, let's move on to 'bad guys'. Here are some real-life bad guys: As you can see, none of them look very gay. Let's look at an MLP:FiM 'bad guy': At a close glance, this villain appears to be much more gay than real-life bad guys. The black and blue look much more gay than the black-and-white of Hitler and Stalin, and she appears much more happy than any of the three 'bad guys'. These represent only a cursory examination of the overall gay-ness level of MLP:FiM. I have left out important aspects which are obvious, such as title suggesting gayness (Friendship is Magic) and the gay-sounding names of the main characters (Rainbow Dash, Twilight Sparkle, Pinkie Pie), the overall gay appearance of the main characters, or the much gayer house. However, even a brief glimpse of its material shows that MLP:FiM is very gay, at the very least in comparison to the nature of real-life ponies, environments, and bad guys.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay

This debate is on the resolution "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay". Pro (myself) will be arguing MLP is gay, while Con (my opponent) will be arguing that MLP is not gay. BOP is entirely on Pro.Rules:*First round is for acceptance*Second round is for opening statements (no rebuttals)*Third round is for rebuttals/new points*Fourth round is for closing arguments (no new points)*No personal attacks*Violating the rules results in forfeiture
Roblox sucks

You aren't making a good debate, so much as listing points. With Roblox, it takes what one can do in Minecraft and gives anyone the power to do whatever they please. Minecraft offers nothing more than building, and going through strenuous tasks of downloading maps and ip's. Minecraft costs a lot of money, and Roblox is completely free! To compare, you pay "40 to build a castle, or you can pay "0 for a variety of different things like obby's, puzzles, quizes, and roleplay. In Minecraft you will ALWAYS get one person who is decent at a game and the rest of the game full of 8 year olds screeching and disrupting play. Roblox is a peaceful, relaxing game. If you choose it to be.