BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans have capability of seeing spirits, like ghosts, angels, and God.

I don't believe in religion because I don't believe that God chooses a team, they are all fabricated and now with science we can explain everything, religion used to teach people that a flew is a curse and that earth was flat so yeah religion is definitely something that isn't true because God can not be mistaken in those facts. We don't have a soul we are chemicals interacting that is why when you take a pill of antidepressants (chemicals) you feel a change in your whole behavior and attitude . And I repeat if there is a special case that science didn't solve concerning souls, then the world would have knew about it .But no there isn't and as I said there is nothing a good psychologist can't solve.
Humans have capability of seeing spirits, like ghosts, angels, and God.

Well, it depends on which kind of resources do you believe in as a reliable history. What about religions? Are they all superstitions? Can you say that they are all creations of human minds? And even if so, what are they based on? I think we can't create knowledge. We put our and other experiences together, mix and exaggerate some parts and distribute it as a new creation but it is not. So I think when we have an imagination of soul and spirits and God and ..., there is a beginning for it. If you believe in soul, then I think the rest comes with it (ghosts, God and ...) and if not, then it's done, no further debate.
Humans have capability of seeing spirits, like ghosts, angels, and God.

Dear opponent, I'll try to keep it brief there is no supernatural phenomenon in our world , and there will never be such a thing, because through the whole history that we have evidence for, there is no evidence for a case that a person saw some supernatural stuff and psychologist didn't know what was the reason behind it .It is always psychological. There is nothing a good psychologist can't solve :) .
Jan/Feb 2011 LD Topic

In this rebuttal, I'm going to go through my opponent's case and then move toward the defense of my own. [Negative Case]Thesis: The case of the negative stems from the thesis in which argues that deadly force is not morally permissible because it cannot be with consideration the lack of the existence of objective morality. The problem rests in the fact that my opponent's argument explains that the affirmative requires some sort of objective morality in order to make a basis in the case. This would mean that my case would require a concept that my opponent argues doesn't exist, and in this scenario, the affirmative would have no way to be able to win this debate. Under LD rules, such an argument would be abusive. The entirety of my opponent's case attempts to lead toward the conclusion that because morality is subjective, nothing can really be called "morally permissible" solidly. This arguments rests on the idea that morality was not meant to achieve some objective purpose, and if I can prove this, there is some way to evaluate moral contexts in order to determine their validity and objectivity. Professor Bryan Benham from the University of Utah explains the purpose of morality as attempting the reach the objectives of promoting social harmony and ameliorating suffering. [1] While it can be argued whether or not this is a "good" thing in the scope of the subjective nature of what that means, nevertheless, the purpose of morality would be to provide social cohesiveness. The measure for which context of morality would be best would be which one achieves better these purposes, ones which are objective in nature. [Affirmative Case]
Jan/Feb 2011 LD Topic

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. If you do not have LD experience, or do not even know what LD is, I advise you to stay away from this debate. The debate will be structured like a normal LD debate, just without crossfire since there's no way to do that on here. Feel free to ask any questions you have in comments though, as that can serve as a cross-fire-ish area. Rules: 1. Standard LD practices. All LD cases, whether traditional or progressive, are acceptable. 2. Forfeited round equals automatic loss unless specified otherwise by the person who did not forfeit. 3. Standard debate practices. Drops equal concessions and all that good jazz. 4. When using cases, it is acceptable to post your case in a google document link if it exceeds the 8000 character limit. Any glitching of going over the limit equals automatic loss. All rebuttals have to be outside of a link and in the proper text box. 5. No trolling. Round structure: Round 1: Debate presented, pro/aff accepts and gives case. Round 2: Con/Neg presents case and rebuts pro/aff case. Pro/aff rebuts and defends. Round 3: Con/Neg defends and rebuts. Pro/Aff defends and rebuts. No new arguments in this final aff speech. Follow this round structure or die a horrible, painful death. With that, I await my opponent.
You Can Forfeit More Rounds in This Debate Than I Can

Extend all above arguments. Here's the scenario: I issue a debate challenge. Another user accepts and thus becomes my opponent, in the debate. I contend, in the first argument, that it is possible for my opponent to forfeit more rounds in this debate than I can BECAUSE my opponent merely has to accept to enter the debate; I actually have to make an argument, and thus cannot forfeit the first round. My opponent, on the other hand, would be able to forfeit more rounds BECAUSE they can forfeit the first round. There is the argument that if my opponent were to forfeit as many rounds as possible, then my opponent and I would not actually be debating. This is not accurate. Even if my opponent forfeited as many rounds as possible, they would have still had the chance all along to actually make an argument. Thus, we would have still been in a debate because of the nature of this website. In conclusion, the acceptance of a debate by a second party confirms the existence of a debate taking place between the two parties. I believe that this applies in most, if not all, cases, and definitely in this case. Sources: debate.org
Bullies whose victim(s) commit(s) suicide should be prosecuted.

So, Are you saying that the bully intended for his/her victim to kill themself? No the intent of the bully needs to known. If the bully was making life hell for that person then that is sufficient intent. They merely taunt the victims and say mean things to them. If the mean things were like I am glad your mum is dead why shouldn't that be enough intent for pressing charges on the bully? They're just looking for ways to vent. This is supposed to be an excuse? Most people do not know the weight of their actions but they should still be punished because they should have known. Bullying is bad and I have seen enough bullying related content to realise it is bad but guess what bullies still bully even though the many videos they see people committing suicide. They know full well what can occur but still do it. Many bullies are victims themselves. They can suffer physical and emotional abuse from their familiesAm I saying they are not? I am saying for the act of bullying this child that has caused the child to commit suicide. That can and does occur. They look for some gratification and attention. I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that they are also victims to bullying. That type of bullying should also be punished. We shouldn't allow this to affect what the person did. The bully committed the actions knowing that suicide can occur to his victim. Bullying is never the only reason for a suicide. But it can be the most important one therefore the bully should be punished. The problem lies with the mediaThe media did not play an important role in a suicide if the bully is the reason why they did it. The bullies are unfairly blamed. I want you to name me a case. Since you are adamant that bullies are unfairly blamed.
Bullies whose victim(s) commit(s) suicide should be prosecuted.

So, Are you saying that the bully intended for his/her victim to kill themself? This case is an extreme example. Most bullies whose victims have committed suicide don't write death notes or tell their victims to kill themselves. Instead, They merely taunt the victims and say mean things to them. (I'm not saying that that's much better, But at least they aren't telling people to kill themselves. ) Besides, Most bullies don't even think about the consequences their actions can have. They're just looking for ways to vent. Many bullies are victims themselves. They can suffer physical and emotional abuse from their families. They can be subject to bullying themselves. So, They look for some gratification and attention. I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that they are also victims to bullying. Bullying is never the only reason for a suicide. In almost every suicide that has been attributed to bullying there is either evidence of mental illness, Or complicated family situations. The problem lies with the media. Many stories about suicides attributed to bullying in today's news publications are riddled with elements of yellow journalism. They use eye-catching titles (clickbait), Exaggerated content, Superlative adjectives lie 'best' and 'worst. ' They even leave important information out! They don't mention past histories of suicidal thoughts, Mental illness, And abuse by family members. So, In a way, In every case of suicide attributed to bullying, The bullies are unfairly blamed.
Bullies whose victim(s) commit(s) suicide should be prosecuted.

Thank you for making this debate and hopefully we both learn somethingIf we cannot know that the bully's actions were the only purpose for the victim's deathThe problem with this is that when the bully does commit the action we can ask and see if he intended ill-will. The case won't be this is the bully therefore he should be punished. It would I am guessing the court would find intent, Actions and see if it is reasonable to press charges on the bully. If someone commits suicide after being cheated on, Do we prosecute the one who cheated on them? If the court finds the action and intent reasonable enough to blame the person. If someone commits suicide after being fired, Do we prosecute their former boss? No. In the same way, If someone commits suicide after being bullied, Should we prosecute the bully? No. Sam answer above just in a different context. What I would like you to do is point an instance where I can see if this was unfairly blamed on the bully. If so and I cannot see your point of view.
Bullies whose victim(s) commit(s) suicide should be prosecuted.

First, We must define "suicide. " Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. Next, We must define "murder. " Murder is the act of intentionally causing someone else's death. If a bully's victim commits suicide, How do we know that it iss because of the bully? There are other factors that can come into play in a suicide: family strife, The death of a close friend/family member, Terminal illness, Etc. If we cannot know that the bully's actions were the only purpose for the victim's death, Then (using the examples mentioned above) we cannot try the bully without also trying the other family members who may have argued with them, The family of the friend who died, And the doctor who delivered the bad news. If someone commits suicide after being cheated on, Do we prosecute the one who cheated on them? If someone commits suicide after being fired, Do we prosecute their former boss? No. In the same way, If someone commits suicide after being bullied, Should we prosecute the bully? No.
Hitler was an Atheist, not a Christian

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. " [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3] "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord"s work. " [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936] "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. " [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46] "Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord"s grace smiled on His ungrateful children. " [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I] "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941] Your turn, and good luck!
Hitler was an Atheist, not a Christian

It seems like my opponent is confused which side he's arguing. Nevertheless, I'm still going to argue for my side. Since Pro's arguments are arguments that are supposed to be Con's, I will give him another chance by using his 2nd round arguments to be my arguments. Also, I will provide the source of these quotes and letters from Hitler. So Pro's 2nd round arguments are pretty much my arguments (now with sources) for the second round. (Pro's arguments) [1] [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936] [1]Sources [1] . http://scienceblogs.com...
There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

Okay you conceded "in real life" but just to make it official, I will reiterate your main 3 points and the results of this debate: #1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate -- I think that's kind of di #2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site -- Again, I think that is one's right. It's di #3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves -- My solution "solved or changed" this as your Round 1 asked your opponent to do. There are also other possible solutions but for the sake of brevity I will include only one. Anyway, like I've said, with my solution there won't be less MEMBERS joining but less ACCOUNTS which will be more fair in terms of voting.
There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

#3 "Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.org" I find it highly unlikely that people don't have $1 to spare according to my solution/idea. Even if they don't (then what are they doing online?), they can borrow it from their parents or friend along with a debit/credit card. "If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up" Not less MEMBERS, less ACCOUNTS. And not because of the money, but because of the verification. # 1&2 "You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting" My point is that people can vote any way they want (especially if they're paying for it)... that's what is FAIR. Plus, part of my idea calls for a way for voters to have to at least somewhat explain the reasoning behind their vote. Not to mention, even if people vote at random, they would probably only have 1 vote to throw away -- not multiple to use against others.
There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

James, you shouldn't say things like it "will 'never' be fair" while debating -- you cannot prove that it will NEVER be fair. Anyway I agree that all 3 of your points can and do occur; however, if I come up with a way to make voting on this site fair than you would have lost the debate. Here's one idea: While registering for a Debate. org account, each individual should have to provide either a debit or credit card confirmation. This would eliminate the creation of multiple accounts by one person. If one chooses to use more than one card to sign up for 2-3 accounts (say one of their debit cards and one of their credit cards), not only would it be easier for the Webmaster to detect, but it might also be "fair" if each member has to pay $1 to join. If someone is willing to pay $1 for an extra vote, some may deem it okay because they're actually paying for something as frivolous as one lousy vote on Debate. org. For those members under 18 or who do not have their own credit/debit card, obviously they can ask a parent or friend to borrow theirs for the one time usage/fee of $1. My younger brother and all of his friends aged 5 - 15 all use their parents' card to sign up for extra tools on the online game site Runescape, so obviously this is a practical idea that can and already is put into use on other sites. It's not an issue. Plus, that site charges $5 a month whereas this site can only have a tiny, one-time fee with the only purpose being making the voting more fair -- not making more money for the site. However, assuming that there actually are 4,000+ members on this site, that would be $4,000+ more dollars that go towards the Debate. org team which may assist the owners in speeding up the new feature implementation. I s'pose that has nothing to do with the voting so I digress. Now as far as my opponent's #1 and #2 problems, I have a few ideas. First, just as with the debate tournament on Facebook, perhaps people should have to provide at least a brief explanation explaining why they voted the way they did. There can be a necessary 25 character minimum while submitting a vote the same way there is a character minimum for debate rounds and comments. If people have shallow reasoning behind their vote, other members can either choose to ignore it, or do something more vindictive like shallowly vote against that particular individual. The choice is theirs and that makes it fair. Second, if someone wants to vote solely based on the resolution, that's really di I'll admit that these ideas aren't perfect, but they ARE fair. Even if it burdens a small minority, the fact that it might greatly benefit the majority of site participants AND the Debate. org team make it fair.
There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

So my opponent and I were talking about this 5 minutes ago and I decided to challenge her to a debate about it. My argument is that voting on this site will never be fair and therefore there is a hardly a point to keep track of win ratios or number of votes or anything like that. #1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate #2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site #3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves There is no way for my opponent to change or solve this so I'm pretty sure I will finally leave the 0.0% win ratio now :-P
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

1. I'm not completely knowlegable about this topic, But I would say no. I don't want a fetus to be some scientist's guinea pig just because it. Or the mother has problems. I would however support that, If the baby is definetely going to die at birth. 2. Yes, In short, Euthanasia is murder/assisted suicide. 3. I didn't call any women sluts, I simply said don't be one. If you have a baby and didn't want one you are: a. A slut who doesn't know how to make good descision in high school, College, Etc. b. Stupid. Use birth control! And, Guess what if you want a 100% chance of not getting pregnant, Just DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. And, Who the hell can't afford birth control? I live in NYC and the mom and pop pharmacy down the street sells single condoms for 25 cents or something. 25 cents or a possible pregnancy, You decide. In regards to life happens, I meant that you have to deal with what life throws and hurdles at you. In this case scenario, You can't just murder a human being just because it's convienient or nice for you. 4. Oh okay. The baby is part of the mother. Again, Does the mother now have four arms and legs, And in 50% of cases a penis? 5. Again, You can't murder someone just because it's convenient and puts you in a better position. 6. In regards to utalitarianism, The philosophy is a bt faulty in experiments like the train riddle. In many instances, Things like murder and theft are sometimes moral and justified. However, I believe murder and theft are always wrong. So this philosophy doesn;t really help prove your point. BTW, Mr(s). Subsistence Farmer, Get a gun to protect yourself. Funny story, One of my wife's friends used to keep a glock 19 on safety in the bottom most drawer in her nightstand when she knew sex was a possibility about 20 years ago when she was dating! :)
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

My opponent seems to throw away my first point. So, I'll clarify. What if a mother already knows one of the problems below is present, And wants to donate the fetus to scientific research? This can be according to trimester (certain research can't be done due to what trimester they're in). Second, My opponent states that they would rather be cruel than a murderer. Well, The child will die anyway. It's not murder to kill a child that you know will die soon. That's known as Euthanization, Which I will gladly debate in the last round. Oh and third. THIRD. D. A. M. N. Don't call women SLUTS For Christ's Sake! Women aren't "Sluts, " if the pill doesn't work, Or can't afford protection, Or have complications during pregnancy. Oh, And if Life just "happens", Then what makes abortion different? "Oooooooh, It's MURDER! " Well, Apparently, "Life happens". Also, People don't ask how's the baby doing because it's alive. People ask because they want to know its development into independent life. And, Because the woman is now somewhat interlinked with the baby. It is detrimental to a parent to know if the baby is dead or not, So knowing it is good also reflects on the mother's mental health. On top of it all, Abortion can also give opportunity to keep a reproductive system in check as well. By having an abortion, A woman might have a better chance to have another child, But at a different time. I'm going to summarize my points into one major point. My value. My value, Is Utilitarianism. This means that the net good is better for the people than to risk losing a larger amount of people to save 1 life. Utilitarianism is the overall good of the people. This is the most morally just, And reasonable solution to decision-making for people. It means that, Even if you know the decision will make people suffer, You can't always protect everyone, Utilitarianism ensures what you do is what does the most good to the most people. Now, Let's take a perspective here. Assume that you live in a small community, Ran by mainly farmers. That means that you are most likely a subsistence farmer, One that doesn't sell stuff for cash, Just enough for you. Now, You have a baby, Because of let's say, Date rape. What do you do? You can't feed another child, So what happens? Now, You have to live on, Most likely, Government funding, And might even have a starving child to take care of. Again, The child is suffering and the Affirmative is willing to let these children suffer. This goes against Utilitarianism, The net good of a community. This perspective above explains that the good of the people is lowered, But by abortion, You ensure that the community isn't at risk, Because you make sure that one child dies. Don't consider this a "sacrifice, " because it's not. This is more of protecting your, And your communities financial stability.