BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Alright, here we go. I will first address omnibenevolence, followed by omniscience. The fact that God sanctions violent events does not mar His omnibenevolence. Simply because He has a desire to benefit all people does not mean that He always will. In addition to being omnibenevolent, He is also a just God. If punishment is due, then punishment is given. God created all men with a choice. If man chooses poorly, the consequences are spelled out. Yes, God did know who would and will go to Hell. He is omniscient, and knows all. Once again, He gave man the choice. He offered them eternal paradise, or eternal torment. He left the choice to them. Think about it this way. If you want to be loved, who do you go to for love? Do you go to a robot which is programmed to "love" people? Or, would you go to a good friend who sincerely cares for you? A robot would give you no satisfaction. Likewise, God gave us the choice to love Him or not. Consequently, as punishment for their wrongdoings, people damn themselves to Hell. In conclusion, God is both omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He has an infinite desire to do good. Does He always do that? No, for He is also a just God. He is all-knowing, my opponent concedes that himself: "Second, being omniscient, God knew exactly who would go to hell before creating humanity" This is a very hard topic to think about, and I do not encourage that voters take this issue lightly. Thank you for your time.
Same sex marriage should be accepted

Thank you for accepting! You said: "Same sex marriage isn't natural and its wrong. " I am guessing your answer for this will be God, but who declared that same sex marriage isn't natural and incorrect? By saying that same sex marriage is unnatural, it is like saying different sex marriage is unnatural. I mean, who decided that different sex marriage is correct, and that same sex marriage is not? You also said: "There just living a bad lifestyle". Homosexual people live just as bad a lifestyle as say, a heterosexual lifestyle. To be honest, somebody's lifestyle should not determine whether or not they can marry someone. They're heterosexual people in this world that lead horrid, cruel lifestyles. yet some homosexual live harmonious, caring ones. You said: "They just think and can stop being homosexual and actually like the other gender." People cannot just go and change their hormones! If somebody likes the same gender, they cannot alter that, as it is their mind's natural feelings! By saying the quote above, it is like saying that you can tell yourself not to be a heterosexual and to turn homosexual instead, because of what society thinks off you...
false exist, and god is false

First of all, unicorn do not exist. God is not false, because in his word, it states, " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except me. Joshua 14:6. Without God, there would be no us, without God there would be no comfort to which only He can deliver. My opponent will try and argue that there is no god, but will fall short to the plain text of His word.
false exist, and god is false

I'm not saying that God only exists in your imagination, I'm saying that God is not imaginary, God is real. You do not have to imagine God, he is not fiction. He died so that you and I can have a life with him. I'm not trying to preach the word towards you, I'm trying to get my point across. Everybody has a different definition of imagination. Yours is different then mine, but some things in life, you cannot treat as imaginary, this including God. You can have your opinions on if unicorns are imaginary or not, but one thing for sure that is not imaginary, is God.
false exist, and god is false

so unicorns exist in imagination and they are false is what I get from what your saying I don't have to imagine my TV, like I know you are light on my screen and I am typing these words and reading them right now are you suggesting what I imagine is alive? imagination is a dead nation, and sensory experience is life for balance is a metal ship I imagine comprised of more metal then a unicorn? story=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now stories are false belief=Be lie kNow=now nothing is information, and something is matter, like these screen you are reading on is physical where as the opposite of physical is mental, thing and NOthing if you have to imagine god right now, then god is not true, as true is matter now
false exist, and god is false

Yes, you can see unicorns in a movie, but the point I'm trying to come across to you is that they are part of imagination. You can imagine unicorns, but they are not alive in everyday places. In other words, they only exist in imagination. The movie you watched is called "fiction." Fiction is: literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people. I can show you God if you only allow God to be apart of your life. God is waiting for you, just let him in.
false exist, and god is false

I can see a unicorn in a movie, so I don't have to imagine it when I can see it with my eyes, therefore its not a figment necessarily, so it exist at least in a movie, now where did any unicorn come from if not reality? anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now is imaginary, as I have to imagine it, so only personal physical experience of now is real, thus I have to imagine god if god was real, you would be able to show him to another person you are with right now
false exist, and god is false

Okay.. You need to learn a lesson.. Special affects do exist, unicorns are a figmentation of imagination. The definition of imagination is: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. God is not imagination" He is real, and is coming back to gain glory for his kingdom. I will say it again, unicorns are not real! Now please stop being immature!
34. The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

PFG makes one big mistake in his last round: he massively undercuts the ‘perm'/ Framework. This is a much bigger argument than he thought. I am still advocating the resolution, or plan, but you should vote on the perm. 1.Extend my non-mutually exclusive argument. This is the only thing he argued. He argues that the resolution is written in present-tense. True, the word ‘SHOULD' is. But what he fails to recognize is his OWN DEFINITION of ‘timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.' A timetable is a set of dates. That is NOT an immediate withdrawal. Therefore, the plan and the counterplan are not mutually exclusive. For example- June 1st, 2009 could be A. Have all troops out B. Have half troops out C. Fully implement the soft partition, etc. The perm is this: implement the soft partition, then leave, both at set dates. 2.The perm captures all the benefits of soft partition. Since we can do both, we can solve all of CON's advantages as well as my R1 advantages. 3.You must vote for PRO in this debate. I concluded that the counterplan is not mutually exclusive, and therefore both can be done. There is no benefit from doing the soft partition by itself, so there is no reason to vote CON. By voting PRO, we get double-solvency, or solve the problems much better. At this point, there is nowhere to vote but PRO. Thanks to PFG and the judges.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

Enforcing the dress code better is not impossible. There are guidelines in school handbooks. The handbook clearly tells the students what will happen if they don't adhere to the policy. http://plshs.paplv.org... (page 36-37) If enforcing the dress code is "harmful to people" then maybe students will actually look at what they are wearing before they walk out the door so they don't get hurt. Maybe if the student followed the guidelines they wouldn't get hurt. "Changing the nature of the rule or policy to be better enforce" is possible to achieve. Teachers have power to tell the student change. They could tell them "Excuse me but what you are wearing is not appropriate for school go to the front office and change." Simple as that. But yet my opponent says it is impossible to do so. I didn't know that it is impossible to open up your mouth and say no to kids who always get their way. How is telling a student to change impossible? I have seen many teachers tell other students to change but then look the other way when a popular person breaks the rule. If only the teachers would stop being biased and actually enforce the rule that has no meaning of being in the handbook if it isn't enforced.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

Again, my opponent makes no resonse as to how enforcing the policy "better" isn't actually possible to do because of the inherent subjectivity to it, as well as enforcing it "better" has no kind of brightline as to what constitutes "better". This means that it's impossible to actually do what she wants to do, meaning there's no reason to waste our time trying to do something impossible. Also, she tries to leverage the feeling of "having to change when someone else doens't have to" as something thats bad, but the harms of that don't even compare to the harms of slut-shaming, which was touched on in the other article. She's not warranting a) how this is actually harmful to people, or b) why it's worse than slut-shaming. But even if they are comparable, I'm the only one attempting to even sovle for the real problem (that she even admits) which is the bias from the people who are enforcing the rule, and not the rule itself.This is where my opponent and I are differing. We both are agreeing that the current state of affairs is bad. However she's advocating that we change the nature of the rule or policy to be better enforced, which I'm arguing isn't actually possible to achieve.I, on the other hand, am advocating that we go to the source of the problem, the teachers and admins enforcing the policy, and get them to learn exactly what they should be talking and not talking about so that the bias is minimized or taken away entirely. She's yet to respond to this throughout the entire debate execpt to agree that this is a problem, yet not one she's trying to solve. Until my opponent finally decides to respond to my arguments for once instead of just trying to repeat herself over and over again, I really don't have anything left to say.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

Okay let's get what I am trying to say straight. School dress codes aren't enforced equally. I am not talking about the policy in general. If a school has the policy it should be enforced or not be there at all. My reasoning behind this is that if a girl is told to change and the girl next to her has shorts shorter than her she will feel like a slut. Also if guys can run around in bro tanks and girls can't wear a tank top it makes the girl feel lower than the guy in a bro tank. This is why I am saying that the dress code should be better enforced. The enforcers are just sexist and biased.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

It would help if parents cared what their child wears. Also why does the school system have a rule/policy in place if they don't enforce it? http://ic.galegroup.com... Even though a girl is sitting down doesn't mean her butt isn't showing. The process of checking the short length wouldn't be obnoxious like the skirt length checking, it would be quick. If the butt is out of the shorts then the teacher would ask them to change.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

But if a girl is wearing shorts that have her butt hanging out it will distract people. Also if a popular girl could wear booty shorts but a average girl can't wear shorts that fall to her mid-thigh it will make the average girl terrible. I understand that you can't chase every girl/boy down with a ruler but the teachers should look at what the students are wearing in their class room. If they have rules that aren't enforced they should just get rid of them.
Schools dress codes should be better enforced

I accept. I'll be arguing that schools should enforce the dress code as they see fit. I'll first respond to her argument than construct my own.His/Her Argument: People are inconsistent in applying the standard First, this is an inevitability. Unless you're advocating that we have people screen students as they walk in the door with a ruler, it's almost always going to be a "Does it look okay" kind of thing. Which means it's always going to be subject to personal opinion and beliefs. Saying "We should enforce it more strictly" doesn't actually mean it's going to get enforced more strictly. Second, that doesn't actually mean we should enforce it more strictly. If people aren't actually enforcing the rule fairly, that doesn't mean we should make the rule harsher, rather just get them to enforce the rule in the first place. Third, hell, I'll even contest that this rule is something we should be enforcing in the first place. The amount of time and effort we'd need to put in to enforcing the rule more strictly would be a much larger distraction than the smaller skirts will ever be, meaning a larger harm to the educational process and a bigger reason to not enforce the rules more strictly. Like, if anything you're argument sounds like a rant against a specific teacher/coach than against the rule in general. If that's the case, I'm sorry that this is something that happened to you, but really that's not a problem with how the rule is being enforced, but rather who's enforcing it. And that's not something you can fix by changing the rule itself. Neg Argument One: Impossibility To begin with, what someone considers to be "too short" and "too long" is pretty close to entirely subjective. Short of pulling out the ruler, what I consider too short could be just fine to you, or vice versa. And if there's no way to actually impliment it objectively, then it's kind of impossible to really impliment it more than it already is: it's still going to hit the same problems it's hitting now. Moreover, there's no actual brightline on what "stricter" even means. Does that mean you just put the teachers through a five minute meeting telling them to do their jobs? Or to set up security guards in front of every entrance to the school, armed with mean looks, rulers, and bada** sunglasses? The lack of a brightline on what we should call "stricter" enforcement could lead to a slippery slope into just absolute tyrranical rule of the school over the student. Furthermore, making the rule better enforcved doesn't actually solve the problem of getting it better enforced. If teachers aren't being objective in their application of the rule, then making the rule harsher isn't going to make them enforce the rule, if anything it would deter them from having to do the paperwork.
Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

I would like to respond to my opponent's further arguments as follows: "We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance..... We call them whores." Sex-workers, or "whores" as my opponent crudely terms them, have no choice but to advertise their wares in order to attract punters: if they don"t turn enough tricks they won"t get their fix of crack and, also, their gash-broker is likely to give them a proper slap. This is different from the educated, middle class young ladies who seek to intimidate conservative Christians and other prudes by flaunting their minges in public. "I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing.... Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. " But what about conservative Christians and other prudes? Don"t their sensitivities matter? "That depends entirely on the smell.... It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli." I"ve often wondered why ladies" tango batter smells like fish, but it"s never reminded me of the smell of broccoli"I wonder where my opponent picks up his women" "Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: 'Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS!!!!!!!!'" It is true that American citizens have, over the years, been forced to concede numerous human rights and I assume my opponent has in mind former civil liberties such as the right to own slaves, the right to hunt buffalos and the right to shoot any troublesome Indians one might encounter I am sure these rights are much missed by many Americans today. Therefore, it is important that the right to enjoys ones" own personal space down the pub without having some quivering quim thrust in one"s face doesn"t go by the wayside too. Thank you.
Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

" I have realised that there may be one very serious unforeseen consequence of Vagina Day, that is, the emergence of vagina vigilante groups. These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into "Pvssy Pride Parades" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. "We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance. .. .. We call them whores. "Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as "The Labia Liberation Front"; "The Gash Gangsta Girls" and "The Muff Mafia" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. "I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing. .. . Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. "Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? "That depends entirely on the smell. .. . It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli. "Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space"Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: "Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS! !! !! !! ! "I rest my case.
Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into "Pvssy Pride Parades" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as "The Labia Liberation Front"; "The Gash Gangsta Girls" and "The Muff Mafia" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? Well, how would you like that? You wouldn't like it, would you? Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space, and that's why I urge you to vote against my opponent's proposal. Thank you.
Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.
Is God complicit in the sexual abuse of children

"In respect of his acting to stop this (MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DID NOT ACT) The reason why He did not act is immaterial."Rather than refuting every aspect of Pro's argument, I shall focus on this part, as it is the Achilles' heel of his case. My opponent made no arguments as to why God's reasons are irrelevant, so I can only refute the statement itself.Allow me to give an example: On his way home from work one day, John sees his child as well as the child of his neighbor in immediate danger. He only has time to save one and the other will surely die. If he acts to save one, is he then guilty because he did not save the other? Are his reasons irrelevant? No, we can see that reasons for a person's non-action can mitigate or completely remove the moral guilt of the non-action.And this was a case in which the action was morally equal to the non-action, so we can easily believe that God has no moral guilt in his non-action if it serves a greater good, as I have claimed. "What is important is that God is the ultimate Head of the church, on that basis He is responsible for what happens in the organisation, remembering that children are in some aspect placed under His care when they attend any event organised by the church."This is some interesting ecclesiology. I would like to see some support for it from my opponent, although it is an irrelevant point given my contentions and rebuttals.My opponent did not refute my claim that God may not be able to actMy opponent did not refute my claim that it may be against the nature of God to act, and therefore he cannot.
Is God complicit in the sexual abuse of children

Hi in respect of God's omniscience (whether or not God knows) I wont refer to all bible verses but this one will do (there are plenty of others) Matthew 6.13 Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil the bible makes it plain that if you pray, God hears you He might not act BUT HE HEARS So a reasonable and factual statement to make is that there were/are repeated occasions when both offender and victim of child abuse both prayed.... AND THE BIBLE STATES THAT GOD HEARS so on this basis you HAVE to conclude that God knows/knew that the sexual abuse of children was taking place. To argue that God does not hear all prayers goes against doctrine/the bible. Remembering the prayers of both offenders and victims of sexual abuse was going on for decades In respect of his acting to stop this (MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DID NOT ACT) The reason why He did not act is immaterial. What is important is that God is the ultimate Head of the church, on that basis He is responsible for what happens in the organisation, remembering that children are in some aspect placed under His care when they attend any event organised by the church. So on point 1 of your reply.... my answer is prayer.. God is aware of the sexual abuse of children through both the offender and victim praying to Him. And that is is systemic within the churches on point 2 of your reply..... Why He did not act.... WHY IS IMMATERIAL The point is He did not act Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation where an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts that would render him liable.. heaps on the internet