BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god persecutes gays, Blasphemers, Adulterers, Those that work on the sabbath, Don't worship him etc

Since you paid no attention to the videos, Which are evidence, Like the sloth that you are, Because you cannot handle any truth of any kind especially when its slapped in your face, And since you cannot pay any attention to your bible and thus cannot answer 6 simple questions of true 100% immorality as put forth unto you in RD1, This debate is over until you answer them. Oh and darn, Yeah, 4 of the 6 questions are from the 10 commandments. So DO NOT tell me I'm taking the 6 questions out of context when you have no idea, None, As how to interpret your bible in which your god, Once again (and this is becoming REALLY boring) would not be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Duh. And you with your genie-us mind, Wow, You can't even think of one, Just one reason out of at least 50 reasons why your god would NEVER use text. Figure it out gumball in which you cannot even prove your god exists!
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment

In today's justice system, is rehabilitation or punishment more important? Personally I think rehabilitation is more important. In prisons, convicts should be educated and although there may be some education systems is some institutions, how good these systems are and whether they are effective in any way is the main question. Giving a convict an education, or at least a portion of an education, so they can jumpstart a career seems reasonable. Punishments that involve doing extensive book reports and novel studies would be better than giving the prisoner opportunities to work out at the gym for for hours on end. There are organizations where criminals in jail can do work to get money, which may seem absurd but what would happen if they didn't have that money? The ex-convict would have to commit crimes and steal again to get money for the basic necessities of life, like food and shelter. With the money earned in jail, they could buy an apartment and get a head start on becoming introduced back into society. The work is also cheaper, let's say, $2.50/ hour for a prisoner instead of $8/ hour for a person not in a prison. I look forward to hearing my opponent's debate and their point of view on this topic.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment

Well, this is a change. My opponent now wants to change the resolution? I cannot comply with this. I stand by my unrefuted arguments for the original resolution. In addition, I cannot shift to the new resolution due to the fact that my opponent would have no opportunity to respond. It would also be unfair to me in that I was tricked into a different resolution. I stand by my arguments. Voters, please judge accordingly. Thank you.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment

Alright, thank you for starting this debate. I will present several ideas why the resolution would not work. You, the voter, can either use them to build my case, attack his, or both. Good luck! Point 1-The resolution In this debate, my opponent says that we are debating either punishment, or, rehabilitation. This implies that we can only have one or the other. My opponent seems to combine the two. He is putting punishment (prison) together with rehabilitation. We must stick to the topic at hand, either or. Point 2-We must have punishment. Given the resolution, we would not have punishment if we had rehabilitation. This would be incredibly detrimental to society, as well as being unjust. Punishment deters crime. If we had no punishment, crime rates would take off. A potential criminal is much more likely to commit a crime if he knows he would not be punished for it. All of society would degrade into chaos in a faster amount of time than it would take China to lob a missile over here. No punishment=no society. Point 3-Rehabilitation is part of the punishing process As I am sure you know, most prisons have built-in rehab programs. Unlike my opponent would have you believe, the only thing for prisoners to do is not just work out. There are already many programs built into the system. These include Bible studies, working opportunities, recreation sports, and others. So, here is my logic. Opponent, please tell me if you find any flaws in here. -Rehab is beneficial -Punishment is necessary -Of the two, punishment is more important to society -We cannot sacrifice punishment for more rehab programs That concludes round one. For the reasons listed above, I can only negate the resolution, and urge you to do the same. Thank you.
What is the Anti-semitism

Anti-Semitism is a lethal weapon that Israel refers to to those who criticize it,But what is semitism,The Semites attribute to Sam son of Prophet Noah They are the Canaanites, the Hebrews(Israelis) and the Arabs so Anti-Semitism means hostility to all these,Right. It is not entirely the term invented by journalist William Marr that means discrimination against Jews, racial or religious,Although the Arabs are classified under the same classification But they also include anti-Semitism ,and now Israel using this reform to silence voices opposed to its repressive policy and As the US State Department defines it, you are anti-Semitic if you refuse to recognize Israel's legitimacy or hold Israel responsible for political tensions in the region. By the way Do you think this article is Anti-Semitic?
Rap numba 2

Warming up? There's no warming absolute zero.You're not a badass, don't try to be a hero.I, on the other hand, am exactly like Nero.I'm a fvcking badass, just like Shapiro.Wait, was that a rap? Your flow is terrible.Your skills are so bad it's not even bearable. My raps are divine, like a Biblical parable.Your skills are so broken, they're not even repairable.Between you and me, your skills aren't even comparable.You would blow my dad, you fvcking slut.Even since he's a corpse, you'd still lick his nut.In a run of trails for top whore, you would remain uncut.If your rapping skills are to judge, you probably don't even have a butt.Bow to you? Fvck that, I'm the true lord.If I were to kill you, people would give me a reward.You have no skills, your attempts are ignored.It's time for you to be put to the sword.Get ready to face the power of the horde. If this is any indication of how the round will go,just take this white towel and go ahead and throw.This sh1t is serious, it ain't no damm show.Nobody will hear you when the snow begins to blow.
Rap numba 2

well well well who is it i see... you rymthes cant even make clown giddy with glee you say I am going downhill im just warming up you need to chill throne what throne the one i threw you off your raps are so old your making me cough Yes this is my rap you see so shut the f*ck up and bow to me You would be begging if it was me you had. well to bad youve done made me mad.heck just for that i might even go blow your dad! now now dont you worry. it will be you that i will burry. good luck cuz you sure as hell suck :)
Rap numba 2

Well well well, look who's back for more.I'm not suprised because you're just a little fvcking whore. Rhyming against you is so boring, it's practically a chore.It makes me so tired I'm tempted to snore.But if you're so needy, I'll go to war.I'll rend you into pieces and turn you into gore.In the end, 100 to 0 will be the score.Your boat is already sinking, go run and find an oar.You had one chance to escape, but I just shut the door.Your skills are nothing, mine are better than Thor.And when I'm done with you, all that will be left is foolish lore.How dare you even approach my throne.This time I ask that your raps be your own.Don't even have 16kadams dialed on the phone.There is no more hiding, your cover has been blown.Last round was a game, but this time it's no drill.There won't be enough left of you to cover a landfill.Your screwed, b1tch, you're heading downhill.The threats I make I intend to fulfill.This time, there's nothing preventing me for going in for the kill.
Rap numba 2

B1tch, please, you have zero ability.Your raps are unorigional, you have no flexibility.Fighting me is a matter of futility.You winning against me is zero possibility.My wrath is awe-inspiring, it's pure volatility.My raps are steel, yours show fragility.I'm a fvcking beast, I come with sheer hostility.I hate so hard there's zero civility.Trying to me, b1tch, is absolute futility.Your 13, just go to your fvcking room.Stay in your sh1tty self and wallow in gloom.Actually, no, just get to work, b1tch. Here's a broom.Rapping against me sealed your doom.I strike so fast I let out a sonic boom.I already knew how old you were, I put you in the womb.And I'm gonna be the one to put you in a fvcking tomb.On your knees, b1tch. It's time to meet the true God.I rule over everything, all bow before me awed.The fact you deny my supremacy is simply odd.Your attacks are nothing, just a weak little prod.I'll beat you down with a giant fvcking rod.And when you're on the ground, I'll give the order to the firing squad.
Rap numba 2

What the the h*ll? That rap was wack, it wasnt that good, like spinach for a snack You are below me, like Danny Devito to Shaq, and to quote Yoda, padiwan, skills you lack. My skills are like a monster, like a f*ckin simile, your skills are bad compared to me like zero to infinity, you need some skills from above, like some divinity, You talkin like a grade "A" nerd, you must protect your virginity. you'll never win the girl, there aint no cherry that you poppin, just go back to your mommas house, and do some baby shoppin. My wrath comes down like lightning, it sure as hell is shockin, Your momma has to cradle you in her arms and rockin. What the f*ck was with that the more the merrier pic? that didn't take much wit. there really was no point in that, i think you can admit. you better back off while you can, ima pop you like a zit, I cut you up, rip you in half, untill your body splits. People ease into my rhyme, they're nothin less than cushy. You tryin to get away from me, my skills make people pushy,and yes in fact I do have a tushy? are you that much of a wussy? at leastme and you have one thing in common, we both do have a p*ssy. you got nothin on me! you can never win! i be playin around you easily, like a violin! you really annoyin me now, you sure show some chagrin, you never can beat me, im the greatest theres ever been!
We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right.

I only found 2 statements that actually support your stance. "You really have gone off the deep end, have you? All I'm saying is that the United States as a whole should drive on the left, that's all." I gave you a hypocritical situation, I didn't "go off the deep end". "Sweden's "Dagen H" had lots of chaos when they switched from driving on the left to the right in 1968." Thank you for proving my point that the United states as a whole should NOT start driving on the left. "We might, we might not. You never know."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< We won't because of the statement you agreed with below. What about the drivers out there? How would they learn to drive on the left if there is no road to practice driving on the left in? "Good point."
We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right.

"Well I just believe we shouldn't precisely because we'll never achieve that goal." We might, we might not. You never know. "What about the drivers out there? How would they learn to drive on the left if there is no road to practice driving on the left in?" Good point. "And on a technicality 'We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right.' could incite chaos." Sweden's "Dagen H" had lots of chaos when they switched from driving on the left to the right in 1968. "Let's say we all agree with you and us debate.org people go out driving on the left. We'll all cause chaos in the roads we drive in." You really have gone off the deep end, have you? All I'm saying is that the United States as a whole should drive on the left, that's all.
We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right.

"All I was saying is that we should be driving on the left, that's all." Well I just believe we shouldn't precisely because we'll never achieve that goal. "(e.g., (re)teaching people to drive on the left as part of getting your license)" What about the drivers out there? How would they learn to drive on the left if there is no road to practice driving on the left in? There is no effective way to achieve what you want to achieve therefore we shouldn't be driving on the left And on a technicality "We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right." could incite chaos. Let's say we all agree with you and us debate.org people go out driving on the left. We'll all cause chaos in the roads we drive in.
We Should Drive on the Left Instead of the Right.

I think the United States should have never used the Lancaster Turnpike's rule of the road (Spurring most of the world to do the same), as it is much safer. Since most people are right-handed, if they drove on the left-hand side of the road, it would be easier for them to navigate traffic and give (appropriate) hand signals. Driving on the right side of the road used to have a practical purpose (People using Conestoga wagons and had to use their right hand to whip their horses, but didn't want their whips getting entangled with the cargo, so they sat on the left side of the wagon and requested that traffic pass them on their left side), but now is no longer necessary.
The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective.

I know this makes me looks stupid, I guess I was just confused by the title. Again, Im sorry. You may have been surprised I was debating PRO when I had a picture of Rush Limbaugh. lol. I definitely agree with you and you made some really good points. Its good to see that there are people that think the same as me on certain situations and are strong conservatives. But you totally debate someone else on this topic (that actually disagrees with you) I'm sure you would win.
The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective.

To my opponent: You are PRO; therefore, you are trying to prove that "The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective." My opponent has made three points endorsing my case: -Conservatism was not what caused the recession -Liberal policies can be blamed for the housing crisis -Even though George W. Bush was a Republican, his policy was not conservative This leads us to vote CON. Any argument my opponent can make in later rounds would only contradict what he's already said. For these reasons, I concede my opponent's argument, and he concedes the debate. 1. Conservatism was not what caused the recession. Recessions are natural and beneficial if not caused by the government or attacked in a Keynesian manner. This recession would destroy a few failing companies and open the market to new companies and small businesses that will perhaps be more successful. In this manner, by opening up the markets for expansion, the markets grow and improve. Conservative policies were not followed. Republican leadership failed to reverse key liberal policies: -Fannie Mae (created by FDR) -Freddie Mac (created by Carter) -the Clean Air Act, off-shore drilling bans, etc (other) -the loans the government forced the banks to make to 'help the poor' (Carter) As we can see, when liberal policy is not reversed, the economy can be stinted from natural recovery. The third element on the list created high gas prices as OPEC was free to monopolize and control gasoline prices. This lead to the fail of many American auto companies, which were at the time focusing on safety rather than economy. This international monopoly was aloud by a country destroying its own competition. 2. The other elements lead to what is now some sort of 'mortgatge crisis'. Again, liberal polices were to blame, and we can not link these outcomes to conservatism. 3. Even though Bush was Republican, he was not economically conservative. This is evident through the bailouts, the regulations, and his failure to undo the liberal policy that would corrupt our economy. I thank my opponent for defending my case and effectively forfeiting the debate. I hope next time he will read the topic for which he is defending before defending it in future debates. Now what to do with the remaining rounds?
The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective.

Sorry this took me so long to respond. First of all we will not be saying president Bush did this or that, though he was a conservative all his actions may not have been conservative-like. To begin with it was not the idea of conservatism that lead us into an economic disaster it was liberalism/socialistic points of view by major democrats. For instance president Oboma voted for, extending the time that people would have to make their mortgage payments. Well, the major businesses were not going to let this go without a ketch. So, what happened was the major businesses added on more and more interest to keep things even, and of course, the people could not pay off there debt, thus causing these large businesses to loose a lot of money. But with conservatism, the idea is, that people take responsibility for there actions and the government stays out of the way. Also liberals love to tax, tax and tax some more, this causes businesses to cut back on workers so that they are able to keep there numbers in the green. This is exactly what is happening now, big businesses are having to cut back on workers to stay in the green numbers, some businesses have been hit so hard that they have had to close down. This then starts a chain reaction, since all these businesses are doing terrible, the stock holders begin to pull out so that they won't loose any more money (I for one don't think that is the best way to handle it, but it happens). So, this is what happens when the government gets to much control and excessively tax businesses. This is why there are so many local businesses that have left New York, since its so liberal up in that state, the taxes are so high. A lot of those businesses that have left New York are now down south where things are more conservative and government stay out of there way. Nothing good comes from government over involvement (socialism/liberalism), the only countries that are still strong believers in this idea are North Karea, Russia and China; but even then, everyday Russia and China are pulling more towards a conservative democratic democracy. Why? Because its the best possible way to run a government. So many times, liberals such as Jimmy Carter, who totally based his ideas off of a liberal government, got our economy in trouble. But, who cleaned it up? It was Ronald Regan, a strong conservative, who based his ideas off of aggressive conservative ideas. Thank you, Charles15
The Abrahamic God exists

1. "...people don't want to be omnibenevolent (or at the very least want the choice to not be omnibenevolent)." An interesting point. However, this is not the only consideration to make. Imagine God had made every person with an innate morality and a compulsion to follow it. If this were to happen, each person would be the best possible person they could be, of their own volition. Does this remove free will? Only as much as our urge to eat removes our free will to starve. 2. "Suffering isn't purely negative it is a necessary evil for the gratification of success." What you are claiming is: 'pure happiness with no ambition' is worse than 'lots of suffering and more ambition'. I'm not sure if I can agree with this moral claim. If I were given the chance to replace every situation where I suffered towards a goal with a situation of pure, undeserved bliss, I would do so without a second thought. 3. We do not know, nor claim to know, what happened at the beginning of the universe. How the matter and energy got there is a question we have yet to answer. But the law of matter/energy conservation is a law we have observed as working consistently in the universe. What I'm trying to say is: why assume, of all things, that the creator of the universe is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and an intelligent, personal being? 4. "The problem with atheism is that it holds the same arrogance that it claims against those of faith. Athiests claim it KNOWS that there is no God." False. Atheism is very, very specifically the LACK of belief in a god. It makes no claims of certainty, by default. Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism are two different positions: the former being "I know there is no God" and the latter being "I do not believe in a God, but I am not prepared to say I'm certain." I am an Agnostic Atheist when it comes to the belief in ANY god, but Gnostic Atheist on the subject of the Abrahamic God because there are certain logical impossibilities in the Abrahamic God (this is what I'm arguing about). 5. Your analogy of stocks is interesting, but ultimately flawed due to your forgetting of one very important fact. It isn't just "I don't want to buy a stock because I'm afraid to lose money." It's more like, "I'm not willing to believe that this claim is true, because there is no proof for it." To refuse to believe in a claim because it lacks proof is a very reasonable position to have! This is why I refuse to believe in Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, and the efficacy of naturopathic medicine. Why, then, believe in the God of Abraham?
The Abrahamic God exists

I hope to have an insightful discussion with you! To address your first point, that being your point about the creation of the universe. "It is a generally accepted fact that the universe as we know it was created. " I do not know of a single credible scientist that claims this. As far as modern science has discovered, we have no way of knowing what lies beyond the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, so we are not really at liberty to make claims about what or who made the universe, if it was 'made' at all. At one point, you say "The law states that matter (and energy) can not be created or destroyed". Later, you also say "What the universe would need is a force capable of creating every particle in the universe and enough energy so those particles can transfer all the energy of the universe among themselves". Isn't that self-contradictory? And how do we know that only the God of Abraham could have created this? Who is to say it isn't a Spaghetti Monster? "If this higher power (hereafter referred to as God) is capable of creating matter it stands to reason he is capable of omnipotence. " Like I said before, this contradicts your own point about the law of matter/energy conservation. But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the law wasn't really completely insurpassable, and a being of sufficient power could overturn it. In this case, would it not be true that the being capable of breaking the laws of physics need not be omnipotent, but merely highly potent (powerful)? Finally, addressing your point about omnibenevolence, I'm rather confused by this point: "From all evidence, if one could guess at his motives, he meant well. " I'm not sure how it makes sense that God creating the universe necessarily makes him omnibenevolent. Even if his action was considered merely benevolent (and even then, I don't see why), that is nonetheless a far cry from true omnibenevolence! Now, to my points: 1. The argument of evil. P1: There exists evil in the world. P2: If God were omnipotent, he would be able to stop all evil. P3: If God were omnibenevolent, he would want to stop all evil. C1: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. P4: The Abrahamic God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. C2: The Abrahamic God does not exist. 2. The argument from poor cosmoengineering. P1: Suffering exists. P2: If God exists, he created the universe. (According to our definition of Abrahamic God) P3: God is all-knowing. P4: Following from P3, God must have known what would happen before he created the universe. P5: An omnibenevolent God would never willingly create a universe that he knew would contain suffering. C1: An omnibenevolent, all-knowing God could not have created the universe. C2: The Abrahamic God does not exist.