BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Without Jesus Christ life is ultimately futile.

You state that self propagation, serving others and any other activity that benefits others can refute the futility of life 'without Christ'. How exactly does self propagation give your life meaning? Does your own life somehow 'transmit back' meaning to your great, great, great , great, great Grandfather? Then why should your descendants bestow meaning to you? Your uniqueness is actually lost the more descendants you have,(as each successive generation intermarries with other family lines. .) so the opposite of your statement is true. As for serving/benefiting others etc, is not any endeavor ultimately meaningless if everybody you help and all their descendants (and everybody they ever help and so on) eventually die? As I will show, acceptance of Jesus Christ IS ETERNAL LIFE and so cannot be separated from giving the above activities (pro-creation, charitable works etc) real, eternal meaning. In considering your next statements, headed "Life WITH Christ is STILL futile. " A simple explanation of what heaven actually is, is all that is required to explain your understandable error. Heaven, simply put, is to be in the presence of God. The problem, Tarzan, is that we cannot send you straight to heaven. . Because God is utterly Holy, and cannot by His very nature have sin in His presence. Every one of us is born into sin and continues to sin. . If you don't believe your sinful then you have not heard the criteria (another thing we have Jesus to thank for. .) If you have ever looked at a woman with lust in your heart, lied or called your fellow man a fool :) then you, just as I, are guilty. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ROMANS 3:23 We are all naked before God, He sees directly into our hearts, all the petty vengeful rivalries that dominate our inner lives. The solution to this nakedness is simply to 'clothe' ourselves in righteousness. ( In this life people mask themselves with 'self-righteousness' :" that terrorist/dictator etc is a vile, evil man. ." is really "they are bad so I am 'good' " ) There is only One who is righteous before the Father, His Son. SO. . If life without the promise of heaven is futile AND we cannot enter heaven without being clothed in righteousness AND, if there is only One who is righteous, Then it stands to reason that without Jesus Christ life IS ULTIMATELY FUTILE. In this sense, the goal is to help others properly clothe themselves for when they stand before His judgment seat, as we ALL must. We work toward this goal with God's help and the Spirit of Jesus in our hearts, to win others for the Kingdom. . I make no bones about it. . I'm doing it RIGHT NOW. . Every man has a seed of eternity in his heart, a seed that is watered WITH TRUTH. .
Without Jesus Christ life is ultimately futile.

There are two ways to attack this silly notion: 1) Life without Christ is not futile. 2) A life WITH Jesus Christ is STILL futile. Futile (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Adj. 1) incapable of producing any result; ineffective; useless; not successful 2) trifling; frivolous; unimportant. ************************************* 1) A Life without Christ is not futile. One of the fundamental purposes in any organism's life is to prolong its genetic material. A successful organism is one that advances its genes into a new generation. Unless my opponent is willing to hold that belief in Christ has anything to do with my virility and ejaculatory capacity, procreation is easily enough to fulfill the resolution. Furthermore, measures of success are up to an individual. My opponent has no grounds for asserting that his definition of successful, useful, or effective is correct. I may consider my life to have been effective if I serve others in any capacity. I may consider my life to be useful if I accomplish anything that benefits others. Belief in Christ is completely immaterial to both of these points. ************************************** 2) Life WITH Christ is STILL Futile. There is no real purpose that can be the result of living, even with Christ. Consider: * If the goal of life is to glorify God, we can simply go straight to heaven and spend more time glorifying God in a much more effective way. * If the goal of life is to get to heaven, we can simply go straight to heaven. * If the goal of life is to help others, we can do so much more effectively as an immortal spirit that could contact people still on earth. Thus, it is clear that there is no purpose in being alive on Earth that cannot be more effectively served by intervention by God. This qualifies as being ineffective, and thus futile. ******************************** Responses: >> "It is only by entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that our lives may acquire meaning." That's your opinion. I am of the opinion that you have a strange notion of meaning. >> "Without the Grace, ( unwarranted mercy ) atonement ( reconciliation with God ) and the promise of eternal Life that Christ alone can offer, we have only the futility of temporal pleasures and diversions." There is nothing inherent in the Grace of God, Atonement, or Eternal Life that in any way changes the pleasures we have here on Earth. Our temporary Earthly pleasures are still temporary regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife, or whether or not one believes in Christ. >> "I assert that nothing in this earthly life, if it is apart from Christ, holds any value in and of itself." Again - your opinion. Not compelling argumentation. ******************************************** I have shown at least two ways that this resolution can be negated. My opponent has put forth no evidence other than his own assertion that "nothing in this earthly life, if it is apart from Christ, holds any value in and of itself." This is obviously just his personal opinion. I have no relationship with Christ, and I do not view my life in any way futile. NEGATED.
morality=reason+intent

In order to argue about this, we must first define morality. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality is defined as "Some codes of conduct put forward by a society." This essentially shows that morality is nothing but a set of codes, however, it also states that morality is also put forward by a SOCIETY, which is defined as so: "The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." Using this, we can see that it is impossible to put a specific equation on such a broad subject such as morality, when it is so broad that nearly every community in the world will have a different one. To one society, their morals may be based upon honorable death in an arena for a simple crime such as stealing,while another may believe that you have a right to take whatever you wish. Henceforth, it is impossible to accurately depict morality in a function as is attempted here.
morality=reason+intent

Please, when arguing, I would think that you should be more specific with subject you are defining. What do you mean by "It states what it is it dosnt show anything." What doesn't show anything? What do you mean by "is it wrong to reason with rape?" I am going to assume your question is asking if rape is wrong. Of course rape is wrong. Non-consensual sex takes away from the base human right of a "pursuit of happiness". Is that even a question?
Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased

Thank you 16K for havinhis debate with me. MINIMUM WAGE AND WELFARE Minimum wage pays less than welfare in 35 different states. http://www.cato.org... currently the minmum wage is 7.25 an hour. http://www.dol.gov... Here is what welfare pays in a few different states: State Hourly Wage Equivalent Hawaii- $17.50 Alaska- $15.48 Massachusetts- $14.66 Connecticut- $14.23 Washington, D.C.- $13.99 New York- $13.13 New Jersey- $12.55 Rhode Island- $12.55 California- $11.59 Virginia- $11.11 http://www.statisticbrain.com... It's more beneficial for a lot of minimum wage families to quit working and collect welfare. The fact that minimum wage jobs pay less than welfare ecourages people not to work. The government mandating a minimum wage increase would incentivize working. the minimum wage increase should be enough to equal possible welfare benefits from not working. The government spends close to a trillion dollars a year on welfare spending. http://www.cato.org... This is money that businesses could be paying people if they were incentivized to work. These stats don't even include the people who are working and having to be partially subsidized by welfare. If there were a minimum wage increase, government could stop sunsidizing these corporations so they can pay less than a livable wage. REDUCES POVERTY LEVEL Raising the minimum wage reduces the poverty level. There is pretty much a consensus among economists about this fact. http://www.washingtonpost.com... A study by the University of Massachussets says; "higher minimum wages moderately reduce the share of individuals with incomes below 50, 75 and 100 percent of the federal poverty line" https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com... Here are a few of the benefits that the congressional budget office found would result from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion. Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law). Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold. Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent. https://www.cbo.gov... CONCLUSION Raising the minimum wage helps out poor people by bringing them above the poverty level and raising it enough can dramatically reduce the amount of federal spending on welfare as well as incentivizing people to work. I hand ove the debate to my opponent. Good luck.
Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased

==Definitions== Minimum wage: The minimum wage will be defined as the minimum compensation a worker will receive (from his employer) for preforming different forms of labor. The minimum wage is enforced by government laws. The current minimum wage, in the USA, is $7.25 an hour. Increase: In order to avoid semantics (for example, someone arguing it should be increased by 0.001 cents an hour), I will specify: the person who accepts must support *at least* an increase to $10 an hour. Though, they can argue for an increase of much more if they wish. ==Rules== 1. No semantics or trolling 2. An forfeit will be considered a concession. However, if my opponent were to message me (or hopefully vice versa) with a valid reason as to why they could not debate, I would either 1) ask voters to ignore the FF, or 2) ask voters to leave the debate as a tie, and we could resume the debate at another date in time. 3. All arguments should be in the debate. Sources can be placed elsewhere, but a link to access those sources must be present in the argument (e.g. an external debate, link that debate at the end of an argument). 4. If you have any questions before the debate, post them in the comments 5. BOP is evenly split ==Structure== R1: Acceptance. PRO presents his case. R2: CON presents his case, PRO rebuts. R3: Rebuttals, PRO concludes his case R4: CON rebuttal and conclusion, PRO writes "No round as agreed upon" and nothing more.
Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased

Sorry 16k. I've been just selecting debates that would be challenging and I think I can win but it's not a good enough reason to accept them. I just can't focus enough to debate this topic, as it doesn't interest me. I apologize for accepting and wasting your time. I'm going to try and just do debates my heart is into, even if it means I debate significantly less. Once again, sorry for wasting your time.
The Values of the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party

I am questioning how the division in the country became so great. I am questioning how democrats view republicans, as a whole, as radicals, since that seems to be the tone. I am questioning why political figures have become so polarizing. I am questioning why the media continues to stoke the fires of emotions within people (oh, that's for another debate). While my opponent is questioning republican values, after living under a democrat president for 8 years, who started his stay in office with a filibuster-proof congress and passed practically anything and everything a democrat could want, I question democrat values as they affect the general population. Thank you to anyone for reading a lively debate on this topic.
Standardized Test Prep Classes Should be Offered in Public Schools

Yes, while I do agree that Standardized Test Prep is important, it is impractical to implement them into Public Schools. The average school day only has 7 hours, and each minute is important for the classes that you are taking. Let's say that there are prep classes, in order to assess if the classes are actually working, you would need them to take the actual test, like the SAT or ACT, which takes several hours to complete. In order for them to take the SAT or ACT, you would need to neglect several school days in order to do this. Additionally, where would you get the test prep from? This would take money, money that most schools can't afford. Their budget is already too full, and handing out another 2500 or so SAT prep books would be too expensive. TDLR; Not enough time Not enough money
Standardized Test Prep Classes Should be Offered in Public Schools

While test prep classes for the SAT and ACT are available, only students who can afford those classes get the opportunity to succeed. By offering test prep classes in public schools, which will cover material on the test that is not learned in schools, as well as get students familiarized with the test format, students from all families-those who can afford test prep and those who can't, will be able to succeed and feel better about important tests such as the SAT, ACT, and AP Tests.
votes

one can tell right from wrong even if one is already decided the atheist and the theist are atheists and theists, yes, but the atheist may become the theist or the theist, atheist even if the atheist is only an atheist and the theist only a theist, one must have the valid position, and one must be the valid judge the agnostic is an agnostic like the atheist is an atheist and the theist is a theist all are equal judges the word is the final arbiter
chewing gum at school

The nearest semblance of a resolution in the above is : "gum chewing should not be allowed in school." This is presented as a context free absolute. The following are reasons to allow chewing gum: A student may be ill in a manner that in the future is best treated by medical gum: http://www.hospital-int.net... You cannot stop students from chewing gum. You never will. The mere attempt is far more disruptive than tolerating chewing gum.
chewing gum at school

Why gum chewing should not be allowed in school. Okay, so most kids like chewing gum. Some kids think we should be allowed to chew it in school. I disagree with these claims. I think chewing gum would be a bad idea to have in school. If gum chewing was allowed, not all kids would be chewing every second of the day. Say a class was taking a test and a particular girl was not chewing gum but the person beside of her was. The girl taking the test becomes distracted. This is because many times people are not only chewing their gum, but also smacking. A gum smacker is not only distractive, but is annoying. The test taker is now distracted and annoyed, so her test score will be much lower. Gum chewing is extremely unsanitary. The wrappers will pile up in classrooms and hallways. Also, when kids are done with their gum, they don't want to get up in the middle of class and go throw their gum away, so they simply stick it under their chair or desk and leave it there. If you have ever felt sticky, hardened, ABC gum, you already know how gross it is. That is just like asking for kids to get sick! Viruses spread when a kid touches some gum that has already been in another kid's mouth! When kids get sick, they may miss school, thus making their grades even lower. Some people claim that gum chewing will boost your test scores. The fact is, not enough research has been done to prove this is true. What gum chewing does do is distract you. You blow bubbles, play with your gum, and the gum accidentally falls out of your mouth. These are all examples of distractions that happen when kids are chewing gum. Finally, there is no reason that kids need to chew gum in school. There is plenty of time outside of school to chew gum. If kids really like chewing gum, they can choose to spend all of their extra time outside school chewing away. So, why spend money on stuff you chew for a little while and throw out? Why spend even more money on it so you can chew in school too?
Equality, gay marriage

I'd just like to describe my stance and clarify that I am not encompassing all of the lgbqt community or their supporters just a tragic large number of them. My question of debate is: Is equality really what lgbt is fighting for, or is it a change of the upper hand? 1) Lgbt isn't just taking their right to marriage, they are trying to have marriage in a church (majority of which disagree with gay marriage). This is an attempt to belittle the churches rights to their beliefs. 2) Anyone who does not support gay marriage is labelled bigoted and intolerant and ignorant. This is hypocrisy in itself because they are belittling the right to opinion and freedom of speech. Meanwhile they say their rights aren't being allowed and its not just.
David Moyes is a good manager

You cannot compare United of this season to its past recent years as there was a complete structural change to the club. Ferguson embodied everything in the club from promoting youth to running a lot of other jobs above that. I am saying that it is not an easy job to replace someone who has been at the club for decades and built the whole environment. Moyes may jave not been the right fit for United but he is still a quality manager who understands the game well and brings integrity to the job on top of that.
David Moyes is a good manager

They are not all "useless." The sudden change in manager and staff and playing philosophy to an ageing team which has been accustomed to Ferguson's long lasting style has negatively shaken up United. It would have happened with any manager to an extent, maybe not as badly as it did with Moyes. However, saying that David Moyes still is a quality manager and, due to the modern day climate of the game, couldn't afford a slow transition with the team. He built a good top 6 team at Everton with very limited funds and maintained it for +/- 10 years. That shows he has the capabilities to build teams, and without any help whatsoever at United, he struggled to immediatly make his mark, which requires reasonable amounts of time.
The Internet brings more harm than good

Hello, I am intrigued by your opinion. The idea that the internet would be better off not existing because some people look at porn is like saying: "Cameras bring more harm than good because they are used to take photos of pornography" The large amount of pornography is merely a sad side affect of the vast database that is the internet. This has little or no effect on big issues. I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that you are using the internet to communicate your ideas about how you believe the internet is harmful. Before the internet, how would you communicate this idea to anyone? I can see that you obviously take the internet for granted. I would like to point out how the internet has changed our world: -It is good for communication. You can instantaneously transmit something from opposite sides of the world. It can transport ideas and information faster than ever. If an innovative idea shows up on one side of the world, the whole world can no about it. -It is very important for obtaining information. Before the internet, the only way you could quickly learn some fact or another that you are curious about is to go to the library, and that information is extremely limited compared to the internet. Say I watch a movie and I recognize an actor. I could go on imdb in 5 seconds and learn who it was. -It has globalized the world. -It has helped the economy. Online business such as eBay allows people to sell stuff to each other easily. Using paypal, you can digitally transmit money from place to place. There is no doubt that the internet has made life easier, all over the globe. Sure, a couple of people look at pornography, but I think the advantages far outweigh this. Anyone, anyone with an internet access can come and look at these ideas we are now presenting. If you had it in your power, would you choose to not build the internet, linking the whole world, just because of porn sites? If it is so harmful, then why do you have an internet connection in your house to post these debates? And lastly, just for amusement: "the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled" -Sen. Ted Stevens
The Internet brings more harm than good

Good morning I bid to the Madam Speaker, righteous adjudicators, honourable timekeeper, my fellow comrades, doomed adversaries, and members of the floor. I am here today as the Prime Minister of the government bench to construct the debate on the topic the Internet brings more harm than good. The parameter of this topic is global. The Internet's definition by wikipedia is a "network of networks". The Internet has brought a lot of good points, but as with any tool, I would like to add that misuse has made the Internet bad. Remember, the Internet is a useful tool, but all that glitters is not gold. Firstly, the Internet is a place which is NOT safe for children. This is basically because of threats of pop-ups, pornography and scams that can trick the child. The Internet is not only an unsafe place for children, but also a bad influence to young teenagers. Pornography from the Internet is leading to the rise of a society of perverts, paedophiles and freaks, who are unable to contain their sexual desires. The number of rape cases this year in Malaysia alone has shocked officials and even the Prime Minister. Teenagers are the group targeted by the Internet. 28% of teenagers globally watch pornography. This might be a minority of people, but the way Internet has affected us in such a way is shocking. The bad effect on the younger generation, our future leaders, is undeniable. Do keep in mind that the presence of "net-nannies" and safesearch programs does not deter our children as 20% of the so called "bad" side of the Internet is overlooked by safesearch programs. However, 10% of non-harmful content such as "breast cancer" on the internet is filtered by the safesearches used to deter pornography. Clearly, we are unable to thwart the attempts of people to find what they want, as these days, even young children are IT educated and can build and dismantle firewalls with ease, as their parents struggle to build them to protect them. Pornographers have been going in overdrive due to the availability of the Internet, and it is used to spread the word of their porn sites. Following statistics by both secular and religious bodies, pornography is now more American than apple pie! 2006 and 2005 statistics show that the US porn revenue earns more than the top companies (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,Amazon,eBay,Apple,Netflix and Earthlink put together! I am now open to questions. With that, I thank you.