BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nutella is an aphrodisiac...

I made a mistake, I thought I was Con. I apologize. However, I think this would be a fun challenge to argue, so here goes: Argument One: Nutella Contains Aphrodisiacs Nutella contains chocolate, one of the sexiest, get-you-in-the-mood foods[1]. Chocolate also contains phenylethylamine (PEA) and serotonin, which are hormones that make you feel good, similar to the ones released when you're in love[2]. Chocolate is one of the few substances that actually make you feel like that[3]. Argument Two: Nutella is One of Few Aphrodisiacs According to many studies, aphrodisiacs are in fact all in your head, and do not literally exist as a substance for improving sex and sexual desire[3]. You would think that would hurt my case, but many people think of Nutella as a sexy food and use it similarly to products marketed for sexual purposes[4]. Hazelnuts are now also considered aphrodisiac[5]. Argument Three: Nutella Arouses Sexual Desire Aphrodisiac is defined by Dictionary.com as "arousing sexual desire." Nutella defiantly does that, especially in those with a huge obsession. As I pointed out, there are many things that make Nutella technically an aphrodisiac, as much as is possible. A few even have a Nutella fetish[7]! Sources: [1] http://www.sheknows.com... [2] http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... [3] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [4] http://www.urbandictionary.com...'ing also https://www.google.com... [5] https://b-and-t-world-seeds.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] http://www.cosmopolitan.com... Sorry for my mistake, I still hope to have a good debate. :)
Religion: force for peace

I believe that the pope orderd the crusades because he rightly feared the new muslim leader, also there was trouble brewing in Europe and the crusades united the kingdoms of Christendom agains a common foe. So in my opinion it was tactical rather than spiritual. After all, Jesus' message was peace and love and the popes' where not warmongerers. Also, wars are expensive and drain the countries resources. I do not believe that the pope did not consider the dangers of a hostile superpower, and a need to unite a simmering Christendom, when he made the descision to launch the crusades. Also the crusades did not play as big a part in our history as most people assume, as they are continuasly romanticised and lots of tales and characters come from them times, exaggerating their significance and existance. You list phrases in the bible that concern witchcraft, note these are in the Old Testament that is overturned 2000years ago by Christ: the belief in witches goes back thousands and thousands of years, though they are under different name and guise. You use this as an example of religion causing trouble. I understand, but this does not disprove my theory which I will explain in the next paragraph again, after I make this,point. We do not know what it was really like in them days, there is a book, written in the Middle Ages, called the 'devils bible' (by us). This book is clearley made by someone very powerful and it speaks of how to do incantations, spells and witchcraft, it also appears to worship satan. So devil worship and witchcraft when hand in hand and it was not always paranoia. Also the man who wrote the first book standing against the idea of witch hunting, Reginald Scot, said: In fact, there were very few trials of witches during the Middle Ages, and the Inquisition was often the accused witch's greatest friend and defender. Witch trials were overwhelmingly an early-modern phenomenon and Protestants were just as likely as Catholics to try, and to execute witches. My point is that one cannot say religion is harmful or un harmful because it is always there, we do not know what humans are like without religion. I'm talking on a deeper level, yer, you may know some atheist that are nice, but they are brought up in a country that has been Christian for nearly over 1000 years. Nobody knows what human society would be like without religion. Maybe by order of natural selection, the best attributes survive, and thus religious societies have been more stable and sucesfull. You do not talk about my point regarding religion as the only arbiter between kingdoms, which I remind you rule by power only with no mercy. Also I would ask you about my point regarding the young girl, what hope would she have? And why would anyone, in those times, give up power without a on influence to do so?
Religion: force for peace

My evidence that religion has not been a force for good: THE CRUSADESA short description from wikipedia: The Crusades were religious conflicts during the High Middle Ages through the end of the Late Middle Ages, conducted under the sanction of the Latin Catholic Church. Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade in 1095 with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. There followed a further six major Crusades against Muslim territories in the east and numerous minor ones as part of an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land that ended in failure.TERRORISTSA large number of terrorists are radical muslims who attack because of their beliefs. A good example are the two terrorists who flew into the twin towers. (Not meant to be stereotypical.)WITCH HUNTSIn the 1400s-1700s the major religious power; the christian church; began witch hunts. Millions of innocent people were killed because they were thought to have worshipped Satan, even though they didn't. People were tortured, and executed by the choping block or burning at the stake.CONCLUSIONOver the centuries religion has been the source of much conflict; from the crusades to the witch hunts millions of people; many innocent have died all because of religion. Therefore religion is not a force for peace.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion: force for peace

Thank you theta_pinch. I will attempt to explain my argument position, vague though it might be. Despite the fact that religion has seemingly been the cause of conflicts worldwide, I would argue that it is (or was) essential for human social structures to survive. Also I would argue that wars that claim to be religiously driven, have often more important factors. So religion (as a social construct, ignoring the theological argument) has been ultimately an influence of peace, within and between nations. Though the latter much less. Religion, I believe, acts like a social glue. Ensuring companionship, love and loyalty to our fellows. I believe this could be a necessity as every singlegroup of humans creates one without exeption. Though this glue has a side effect, it repels other social groups. Typically, but not all the time it does this, but it is difficult to determine sometimes whether other factors actually outweigh the religios differences. I do not dispute that if a group of people 'don't know about our god and believe in some false god that isn't even even real' they are easier to hate. For example I believe the Quran says its okay to lie to non-Muslims and other things, this shows how a particular religious belief condones the beginning of a slippery slope of which we all know the outcome. But. I would argue that the main role religion has played, has been to protect societies from their leaders. Human domination seemingly has no limits, people strive for power and power can corrupt. Think, thousands of people working to the death for decades, just to build a house for a dead man (pyramids). Also look at the behaviour of leaders (not elected officials, but kings and emperors). As they gain more power they tend to follow a similar pattern. That pattern being; control, then raising the level once again to make the individual substantially 'other' from everyone else, then he becomes a Demi-god, then an actual god. The also tend to seek eternal life. Look at Kim Jon, the eternal president (god) of Korea. However, religions job in the past, has been to be a constant reminder to these leaders that they do actually have limits and they are not the top guy. Even Christian kings of England believed that if they said something, it was gods will, showing the temptation leaders feel even when they are aware of an overlord. Of course the church in time reminded the king that he was not a mini-god, a thing nobody else would typically dare to do. Modern atheist societies I think do credibility to this notion, I'm talking about Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, North Korea and Pol Pots Cambodia. These are all societies without a higher power, and the leaders where all leaders who essentially had nobody above them. I would also argue the Catholic Church in Europe, for the most part, encouraged stability amongst the nations of Christendom. Also that it did this primarily, if not entirely, by religious conviction and reasoning. I apologise for the time I took, I have been very busy and this first statement is somewhat rushed as I do not want to keep you waiting. Thank you for your response, hope to have a good debate with you
We are ALL going to hell. No exceptions.

I know this debate is just for fun.. but now that I started I'll finish. "Anyways, what I was trying to say is that everyone is going to hell after they die, because every other religion says so." > The religious are a bunch of crazy people with various types of distorted perception of reality. As such, most of the things they say is nonsense. This too, because hell doesn't exist. Look, by this same logic, nobody is going to hell, because I SAY SO. "I believe that no such place as hell does exist" > If you don't believe that hell exists then you can't believe that somebody can go there.. And you agree with me so this is not a debate in fact. "Every religion violates some other religion. Thus why we will all burn in hell." > Non sequitur. To use the same logic, The sky is blue. Thus we will not all burn in hell. Thanks for debating this most interesting controversial topic.
We are ALL going to hell. No exceptions.

I've seen many of your debates; I look forward to arguing with you. However, our ultimate point is one and the same, so we cannot argue, but we can try. Anyways, what I was trying to say is that everyone is going to hell after they die, because every other religion says so. Everyone thinks the athiests (including myself) are going to hell. The Catholics think the protestants are going to hell, the Protestants think the muslims are going to hell, and so on. Because everyone is declaring that everyone else is going to hell, how is it decided who has the RIGHT to? Which religion is right? A perfect by-the-book catholic will suffer eternal holy hellfire because of the Jews. The Jews will remain forever in purgatory because of the Muslims. It's a circle. I believe that no such place as hell does exist, so of course everyone says i'm going there. Every religion violates some other religion. Thus why we will all burn in hell. (in theory)
We are ALL going to hell. No exceptions.

"I never said that I BELIEVE it. I said that I MAINTAIN it." >Maintain = to keep up; to preserve; to declare or affirm a point of view to be true 1/ assert: state categorically 2 1 en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maintain 2 wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The argument still stands then. "If they are speaking nonsense, and have no sway over the destination of our souls, and YOU have no sway over the destination of MY soul, does that mean you are speaking nonsense too? If you are speaking nonsense, how does this make you capable of a reasonable debate. I could argue that everything you say is false now! ha!" >Nonsense is not equal to false. Talking about God or Hell or Heaven is always nonsense, in some sense. Both of us are speaking about nonsense in this debate. This whole topic is nonsense. The difference is that you make even less sense then me because you affirm and assert this idea that "we will all go to hell" and have the impossible mission of bringing some convincing evidence that it is not nonsense and that it is true. And you did not bring any , but only state and restate the idea. Thus I don't have anything more to say. Nobody is going to hell, no exceptions.
We are ALL going to hell. No exceptions.

"because I SAY SO." > you do not have any more claim to the fate of our souls after death than the catholics, lutherans, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. etc. yaddah yaddah yaddah (insert random obscure denominations here) If they are speaking nonsense, and have no sway over the destination of our souls, and YOU have no sway over the destination of MY soul, does that mean you are speaking nonsense too? If you are speaking nonsense, how does this make you capable of a reasonable debate. I could argue that everything you say is false now! ha! "If you don't believe that hell exists then you can't believe that somebody can go there" >I never said that I BELIEVE it. I said that I MAINTAIN it. "the sky is blue. Thus we will not all burn in hell" >We will all burn in hell regardless of the sky's color. (and it's gray today, so does that mean since it is NOT blue then we are all NOT not going to hell?) It is my pleasure to debate this most interesting controversial topic. I'll be here all week!
Opponents Choice

Thanks to my opponent for foolishly accepting my challenge. I would like to remain voters to note when voting on conduct that despite the condescending tone of my argument I do not swear at or insult my opponent. Now, I have to prove that it is right to kill someone. Definition of someone: someone - a person, somebody (http://dictionary.reference.com...) A person could refer to anyone from the set of all individuals known as persons. To win this debate I need to provide an example of when killing a person would not be bad. My opponents resolution specifically refers to any one person and not people in general. Robert Mugabe is the dictator of Zimbabwe. He has driven his country into the ground, leading the poverty and starvation. He also allowed ethnic cleansing to take place under his rule. Furthermore, he uses violence against political enemies seeking the better life for people in Zimbabwe. If he were killed, it is highly likely that life would greatly improve for many people. Therefore, killing him would not be bad. (http://www.parade.com...) I have successful provided an example of when killing someone (that someone being Robert Mugabe) would not be bad. Resolution negated.
Opponents Choice

Thanks to my opponent for actually providing something which resembles a rebuttal. "Any way you see it, killing is morally wrong." Actually, I just presented a way I see that killing would not be morally wrong. "Instead of killing him, you should put him in jail." I am not debating between killing him and putting him in jail. This debate is not about whether killing someone is worse than sending them to jail; sending him to jail was in fact never on the table. I am debating between killing him and letting him go about his merry way. In a utilitarian sense killing him is obviously the better moral choice. (1) Therefore it is not bad. "According to the ten commandments, thy shall not kill." It's actually "You shall not murder." (2) Murder means 'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.' (3) As long as he was not killed in a what that was inhumane, it would not be murder. Bringing down a brutal dictator is hardly barbarous. And that's assuming we even accept that the Ten Commandments are an absolute moral law, which I do not. Conclusion: I have proven that killing Robert Mugabe would not be bad. My opponent has failed to negate my arguments favoring this. Robert Mugabe is someone. Therefore the resolution 'Killing someone is bad' is false. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.biblegateway.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Alcohol advertisements should be banned

I am the opposition side for this debate of: Alcohol advertisements should be banned. I will be stating the reasons as to why alcohol ads should NOT be banned. Rules: 1st round: acceptance of challenge ONLY 2nd round: stating and developing main arguments 3rd round: restating arguments AND refuting 4th round: all final rebuttals and if desired, summarize arguments *My preference: if you're going to accept this challenge, I would like it if you have good knowledge or research well on this topic, and please don't forfeit!!!
Christianity and Evolution can coexist.

VotingImpotant Note:Please vote on what the debate is based on, and not your own personal opinions. Thank You!Once again, Pro is unable to provide counter arguements to keep thier arguments in the debate. Thus, my arguements are the only things that stand. Thus, only a Con vote is possible. Vote Con! Thank you Pro for providing this debate. For everyone who voted, also, thank you very much. Have fun everyone!
Christianity and Evolution can coexist.

As the Pro is unable to refute my evidence, I see no reason to which why Pro should win this debate. He leaves a case of two sentences. As for Con, me, has been able to counter all of Pro's case completely. He leaves round 2 empty handed, so I have many strong arguements still standing within this debate. So, the only voting option avaible is Con. Support my arguements My first arguement states that the bible and evolution contradict each other. The bible is known also as the story of Christianity. So, if evolution proves and disagrees with the bible, it is impossible for these two ideas to ever be possible in unison. Thank you!
Christianity and Evolution can coexist.

Please do not find any of this offense. I do not mean to. Best of wishes to you! Let us have a fun and exiting debate round. Voters, please do not account personal religious views. Please just go with what is based on the debate. Thank you! Definition Theory-a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. A theory is an idea. This is a major key to prove why they cannot coexist. It is an idea that makes no sense. While the Pro is giving unproven ideas, I will be using scientific theories that are backed up with evidence. Believe-to accept as true or real. Now, the statement that Christians can also believe in evolution in obviously true. Anyone can believe in anything they want,thus that statement is down. CaseThe Pro is giving me a case, but with no back up evidence. He is stating that the two can exist at the same time, but provides to evidence. So, I can say that cats and dogs are the same thing, but this doesn't work because I have no supporting evidence. Also, he never states which parts of the evolutionary theory. This causes many problems. Because he has not stated which parts, there is no way for me to attack this. So, the Pro is being unfair and putting me at a disadvantage. Attacks1)The bible states in Genesis chapter 3 that sin entered the world after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The Bible also clearly establishes that Adam and Eve were both humans. The evolutionary theory states that evolution occurred for homo sapiens to come. For this to happen, Adam and Eve must have come from evolution. But this contradicts the bible. Thus, the fact that Christianity and Evolution can coexist is a false statement.2)There are evidence that some animals evolved over time to become what we see today. One animal coming from dinosaurs. But, the bible states that the Earth was created by God. If this was true, there is no way some modern day animals can be here. VotingIt is obvious that the Pro was unable to support his claim in his opening statement. I would highly rate an Con vote to this argument. QuestionsTo your question, I will answer. One can believe in more theories, but these two theories contradict each other. I await for a Pro response into round 2. If pro does not counter all my points, it stands, and I assume you are not countering my point because you agree with it. Thank you!
Decriminalization of All Drug Usage

INTRODUCTION Forgive me, but I should have been clearer, and usually in my debates, I set up a format for each round. My opponent, Ryan_J_Pratt, has went ahead with his rebuttals, and because I did not specify in which round we would do that, it is just alright. Let me also note that I forgot to cite my sources in the MLA format. As I have already broken that, I see no harm in continuing it, as it will make this easier. REBUTTALS On the first point… My opponent makes a fair point as to the discriminatory and bigoted history of many laws and social institutions. But this particular federal program, this War on Drugs, is a more recent example, and it was created as a direct response to anti-Vietnam demonstrations and the Civil Rights Movement for African-Americans and other disenfranchised minorities. The Electoral College is ancient and has existed since the beginning of this country. (I happen to be opposed to it, but that is a whole other matter.) But it is clear and evident and true that, yes, the War on Drugs has been devastating and has hurt more people than helped and that in recent history, as well as right at this moment, there is a massive social injustice against minorities both on the streets and in our justice system. I do not believe my opponent’s rebuttal to be sufficient here. On to the second point… Ryan says that “I [seem] to not understand the very real dangers of otherwise limited drugs being unleashed to a very wide audience.” Oh yes, I very much do understand the dangers of these drugs. However, it is the cartels operating underground and in the black market that are unleashing heinous, violent, dangerous, hostile, virulent drugs and narcotics in our cities and our streets. My proposition? Decriminalize, tax, regulate. This three-step approach can be taken towards most items. On to the third point… Forgive me for using the wrong terminology. In that section, what I meant to say and should have said is “decriminalize.” It is black market distributors and cartels that I want to go after, but they will disappear on their own without an incentive, being the decriminalization of all drug usage. Decriminalize. Then let us impose a sales tax. And let us regulate. There are thousands of chemicals in cigarettes, for example, which are perfectly legal. Okay, we must regulate them more. But not make them illegal. Methamphetamines and heroin and similar drugs have devastating effects; therefore, the best solution is to decriminalize, tax, regulate. My opponent’s argument is that the drug war “needs to step back, regroup, and refocus. The American government is totally capable of winning the War on Drugs.” Alright. How is it that we have not even barely won so far? What was the goal, wipe out all drug usage? Just look how that went. If we want these countless thefts to stop, and if we want the cartels to disappear, the solution is simple: Decriminalize all drugs. CONCLUSION I believe I have refuted my opponent’s points sufficiently. What reason is there to continue this futile, futile War? There is none.
Decriminalization of All Drug Usage

One of the most heated and consequential endeavours of our time is the War on Drugs, which I am in full opposition against. In this debate, I will argue in favour of the decriminalization of all drug usage, even though I still would institute certain punishments for the actual production and distribution of some particular drugs, like krokodil for example, but the private usage must not be punished. my opponent will argue in favour of the War on Drugs in general. Sources will be cited in the MLA format, and forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points. I look forward to a long, substantive debate.