BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

I have decided to challenge ModerateLiberalism to this debate challenge. After discussion in PMs, we decided that I would be affirming the resolution and he would be negating it. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need Unless clarified in rounds, assume definitions to be the standard dictionary defintion that best applies to the context of the resolution. This will be an LD debate. Normal LD protocols will apply, as will LD case framework. This does not mean that Value/Criterion formatting is necessary. The round structure will go like this: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Affirmative will present their case, Negative will present case and refute the AC Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: More rebuttals Round 5: Time to wrap it up. No new arguments. I ask that since this is an LD debate, that only people who are familiar with LD debate vote. It makes things a lot easier on the both of us. Good luck!
is war the solution to all the problems

Obviously I'm going to rebut his points and, because he has the burden of proof as the affirmation, you vote negative by default. First and foremost, PRO plagiarized the entirety of what he has laid out here today from this debate: . http://63.246.10.211/debates/Wars-are-necessary-to-end-conflicts/1/Everything he said was copy and pasted from R1 and R2 from that debate's PRO--even the last last line, which addresses the necessity of war, which is not our resolution but this past resolution in the link above. This is a blatant rules breach. So, there are four reasons you're voting CON: 1. PRO conceded in Round 1. 2. He only began his arguments in Round 3.3. He did not carry his burden of proof.4. He plagiarized.
is war the solution to all the problems

here are the points which con is asking for - Post War time periods establish a balance of power creating peace through necessity. Tried to bring peace and prosperity in the 1920's, but it didn't work. Wars forces economic growth through a nation's conquests . For the most part Wars are the aftermath of revolutions and rebellions. The mother of all nations is war. We tried to abolish war 85 years ago with the Kellog-Briand Pact (http://history.state.gov......), but humanity's more base instincts took over in the 1930s.... The fascists rose to power in the 1930s and the world chose appeasement. (http://www.history.co.uk......). Of course end result is World War II, and the Cold War tensions post World War II. The attempt to abolish war is nothing but a futile attempt. War is the arbiter of superiority, imbued with the seven excesses of Humanity. It decides the hierarchy of nations, the superpowers, rising powers, falling powers. The actions of the victorious nations are proof that might is right. The mass production of new innovations and creation of peace through fear of mutual destruction. The sheer irony of war is that fear of war and M.A.D. can end reduce a conflict to saber rattling and verbal sparring. So my dear opponent can you still bark that war is unnecessary when human kind failed to abolish it once?
is war the solution to all the problems

"i agree with the con but thats the fact i was telling the fact with which everyone satisfies and now i going to tell which everyone do not get."This statement is not written in coherent English. I haven't the slightest idea of what he's saying because he isn't writting cohesively or intelligibly. After he says, "I agree with the con," even though he is listed at PRO, that is truly all our judges need to see--you can vote CON from there.He goes on to provide an example of the development of Japan after WWII and claims this proves his statement. Which statement? In Round 1, he said war doesn't solve anything--which proves the point that I'm supposed to be defending. If he wants to pivot and address the affirmative position, he not only needs to make an argument in favor of the resolution, but he also needs to explain how an example he provides proves his point. Simply providing a link does not do that, because neither I nor our judges are required, nor should we be expected, to pour through his link for the arguments he intended to make. Overall, you're voting CON, because PRO has already conceded this debate.
is war the solution to all the problems

I accept. Resolved: Is war the solution to all the problems? Under this resolution, PRO will affirm this statement, arguing that war is the solution to all society's problems, whereas CON will negate. But PRO states in his first round that war is *not* a solution because it leads to a loss of lives and economic prospects--but he needs to b affirming the resolution, not negating it. You can consider PRO's remarks as a concession--arguments which directly support my case.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

I don't think we agree on anything. The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to environmental factors including but not limited to sexual abuse, experimentation, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, child abuse, ect. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8 According to Olantunji, homophobia is rooted in disgust, NOT fear. Fear and disgust are not the same. They come from two different places. As a homophobe myself, I'm not afraid of gays at all. My homophobia has nothing to do with "fear of the unknown" because what the largest twin studies show is what I assumed. Therefore, I knew more about the causes of homosexuality than people who weren't homophobes., in 2009, I was kicked out of an atheist forum because I said homosexuality could be caused by sexual abuse. Come to find out, I was correct all alone. I also assumed the causes of homosexuality may have something to do with childhood experiences. Come to find out, I was right about that too. I was always ahead of my time and I'm still ahead of my time. Homophobia is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. Maybe in another 60 years, the rest of the world will catch up with me. Homosexuality is inherently bad because the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior. Homosexuality increases the risk of some of the most deadliest illnesses including but not limited to HIV, cancer and syphilis. Any behavior that could stop an STD from being eliminated and trigger another STD epidemic should be downplayed and never embraced. This should be common sense. I don't care what gays do with each other but homosexuality should most definitely be stigmatized. In other words, I think it should be legal but discouraged because of the health concerns. I think we should be treated like smoking.cigarettes. smoking is legal but is also discouraged and downplayed
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

I accept this argument. First of all, we have to establish an axiom. This axiom is something that we both probably agree with and that is that Homosexuality like many other things, is an inborn nature. Homophobia is something that comes from fear. Fear of something that is different then what we "the individual" believes to be normal or good. A bigoted person is anyone who hates, fears or refuses to accept members of a particular group of people ( such as racial or religious ) especially to those groups of people are not inherently dangerous to those around them or spread messages of hate and intolerance themselves. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. Sex, relationships and marriage is love;which is precisely what this is all about. Everyone has the right to love whom they want and how they want as long as it does not harm each other or those around them. To hate, to despise, to fear them and call their love wrong and sick is fundamentally and morally flawed as there is no reason to believe such a way. After all, gay people are not making straight people gay, because gay is not a choice but a simple matter of inborn nature. The same applies to bisexual, transgender and all of the other members of the LGBT community. Even if homosexuality could be medically attributed by a credible medical and scientific authority, to be peer reviewed and resolved within the scientific community, it in no way diminish my argument. They are still human beings who love each other and want to be together and no one should take that away from them or make them feel bad because of that.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals because homophobes are less likely to befriend gays in which decreases the chance of experiencing unwanted crushes from gays, unwanted friendship issues from gays and unwanted sexual advances from gays. Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al) Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. 'Straight crush stories' Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert 'Can I turn my crush gay' Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert '5 types of straight crushes' Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Expert
Protestantism is Right

Ok then, I'll take your word for it that you are 13 and let you off the hook. You want to set up a debate that clearly pits Protestantism vs Catholicism. I would recommend something like, “Protestantism is better than Catholicism,” so that con will enter the debate prepared to compare the two. You should be able to present a case to defend yourself against my own claims here. Your religion encourages you to understand why you believe what you do and be prepared to defend it in 1Peter 3:15. -- I do not think you have a strong case, all religions have similar standards of proof and evidence to support their beliefs. There is no reason to suspect either religion is correct since they use the same evidence and contradict each other. Even bolting Protestantism together is difficult since there are so many versions which are so different. It is easier to just point out flaws in Catholicism. There are a lot of issues to pick on since Catholicism has been such a unified group over the years. Look into the crusades, discouraging condom use in aids ridden Africa, disallowing women priests and their participation in Slavery and Nazism. You could also argue that Catholicism worships idols since they put so much emphasize on saints and Mary.
The abrahamic god exists.

Thank you for accepting the challenge. You say here that Satan tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. I have a few problems with this. 1) God is all powerful and therefore must allow Satan to exist. Allowing the incarnation of pure evil to exist is obviously contradictory to gods status as all good. 2) god is all knowing and therefore knew Adam would take the fruit. (if he didn't know he is not the abrahamic god.) 3) God put the tree there Another point that I'm sure will be mentioned is that god gave man free will. This simply cannot be true if you believe in the abrahamic god again because he is all knowing. This means he knows every action we will take. Because god is also in control of everything any evil that does exist must be controlled by him and allowed to exist. This means he is not all good and therefore not the abrahamic god. I Understand the definition of god completely and i also understand the definition of evil free will etc. This knowledge allows me (using logic) to disprove the abrahamic version of god. I ask my opponent if he believes evil or pain exists in any way? Because if so an all good god cannot exist. There were "sins" before Jesus, while he lived and after he died. What effect did Jesus dying have. I must also mention that the second part of my opponents argument does not go anywhere towards proving the truth of the existence of god (something he tried to imply that i did.) I am enjoy this debate and hope to hear back from you very soon
The abrahamic god exists.

The standard definition of the abrahamic god is 1) All Powerful 2) All Knowing 3) All good he must also be a conscious being http://en.wikipedia.org... It is impossible for this god to exist because He would not allow evil to exist in any form. Negative emotion exists as well as suffering poverty and starvation. It is also impossible for anything that is all knowing and All powerful to exists because all knowing means he knows what he will do next all powerful means he can change what he can do next. This is obviously impossible
Minors and Tattos

Minors shouldn't be able to get tattoos without their parents permission. A parent should know what is appropriate for a person of their age. Tattoos aren't something you can change anytime you feel like it; they stay on you for the rest of your life. There isn't only the problem of appropriateness to adhere to, but also not all teenagers bodies are done growing yet. If you get a tattoo and then grow the tattoo will become distorted and warped. Your body isn"t ready for the ink. If the tattoo isn't something your parents think is good for you at that time, then you need to wait. Teenagers need to think long and hard about the tattoo before they get it. If it is something important to them then they can wait until their 18th birthday. It is important to wait.
Minors and Tattos

The law forbidding minors from obtaining tattoos without parent/guardian permission needs to be changed. It is their bodies so they should be allowed to do what they want with it. Tattooing is their way of self expression, however they are being locked away into themselves.Tattoos hold symbolic meaning that matters dearly to all that "mark" themselves with one or more. Anything could hold meaning even just a simple little butterfly. The butterfly could be for their mother, who loves butterflies ,and died leaving them with nothing to remember her by. The tattoo is their a way of holding onto things that matter to them. People also get tattoos to tell who they are. It could be as simple as their name or something they believe represents them. To them a Celtic symbol could tell everything about them. It could translate to tree which to them tells how in the beginning they were simple ,but as they aged they branched out gaining new qualities and aspects. To each person every tattoo has a different meaning that tells much of who they are. In conclusion, minors should be allowed to get tattoos without parent /guardian permission. Tattoos are very meaningful to everyone ,so the represention they hold should not be held back by withdrawn permission. Everyone should be allowed to showcase their thoughts and feelings drawn out on their skin.
The Earth is mostly spherical.

In a stunning feat, Edl managed to defeat me in this topic a few days ago. Naturally, my humiliation has compelled me to ask for a rematch. This time around, I still want things to seem fresh. As such, I will not be making the same arguments as I did previously (mostly, anyway). Most importantly, I will not be spending all my time on gravity. On gravity, I'll say this. I'll assume there is *some force* that pulls things toward the center of Earth. Whether this is called buoyancy or gravity is unimportant to me. In the opponent's model, he will explain buoyancy as being responsible for the downforce experienced on Earth. I will call this downforce gravity. (Ie, I will not be making any argument of the type, "Gravity exists, therefore something else, therefore the Earth is spherical.")Basic Rules:1. BoP is shared. Whichever side presents the "best case" for the shape of the Earth will be voted the winner. 2. Arguments must be made in-round. (Referencing a source to substantiate a point is acceptable. Referencing an external argument is not.) The one exception has to do with videos. Videos can be very informative, but please keep the "total video time" for all sources in a single round under 30 minutes. At the point where you post an hour long video, you've moved from providing substantiating evidence to evidence that is a self-contained argument. (If you must post long videos, please reference specific time stamps that can be referred to. I assure you, neither the voters nor I will watch a 45 minute documentary.)3. No source is assumed "automatically" valid or invalid. All sources are open to further assessment. ---------------------------------------I hope the opponent will allow me a second opportunity to defend the notion of a spherical Earth. Regarding round structure, the opponent can either just accept in his opening speech or he can present his case. Regardless, I will be presenting my case at the opening of Round 2.
Islam is wrong

I'm sorry for the forfeit, I had forgotten that it's only 24 hours to answer for this debate. In any case, I'd like to finish this off with a rebuttal of my opponent's statements in Round 2. "Islam is an immoral religion" Who's to judge? By Islam laws, Islam is moral. "it is a religion of war a religion whose head was a paedophile ,a sex abuser ,a murderer" You can't judge the entire group off of the "head". Even if what my opponent says is true, it doesn't mean all Muslims are pedophiles, sex abusers and murderers. Stalin seemed to have been a pretty messed up guy, but does that mean all Russians (or all residents of the USSR) were insane? Of course not. This is faulty logic. Overall, no serious arguments were presented by my opponent to prove his claim.
Islam is wrong

I accept. BoP rests solely on my opponent. Since he has not provided any definitions, I will provide two definitions of "wrong", so my opponent can choose which he would like to use. After choosing which definition he would like to argue for, I ask that he present his arguments. 1 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law 2 : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect http://www.merriam-webster.com... I await my opponent's choice and arguments.
there is no such thing as hell.

I am trying to prove to the people that there is somthing as Hell, While I can clearly see your view on what reality is. I am confident the masses would agree thet the world population is beyond your infividual experience and is not reduced to one because you dont see anyone.That sort of logic makes me question the point of even debating? You are the only one debating we are not even real? What purpose to you have to convince other fake entities online on your point? They do not exist thus they are all lies. If everything outside of your experience, how does the world come in and out of existance just for you? How would you have electricity to use your laptop? Things happen beyond your experiences that make up reality.So back to proving the idea of hell to people. I cannot with a doubt prove that god exists, nor can I give you an experience of hell. as hell is concidered an after life experience. Howvever can make you wonder about the possibilty of hell and let you, and you alone think about the concepts of hell. 1) The relegious idea of hell One concept of hell is that there is a god, and that god created all of us. He also created an afterlife for us to go to after our deaths. Hell in this persepective is the abandonment of god. Thus we come to the realization that god exists after our death but we are left out of the party into eternal damnnation. Thus for people who belief in god, generally have a fear of hell.There are lots of arguments for and against it, people saying they saw the light from a coma and coming back from heaven. 2) The M theroryI cant explain it all. This idea is is that while we experience life as linear, in a 4th dimention we are actually in a circle, Our life is all written down and we repeat the cylce for eternty. Thus the way you lived your life will be a literal hell depending on the choices you made as you re-experience.3) Living eternally in your own mindanother theory is the conciousness cannot die with the body, and thus you continue to dream or relive your experiences for all eternity. Thus the idea of hell in this case is living with remorse or guilt or find the good experirence to remember.
there is no such thing as hell.

realiy is made up? alone=all one when i am alone, the true size of the human population is 1 possibiltiies are imaginary, lies exist kNow=now at the point i experiecne you physically is when you are real, you are light on my screen and a story in my mind beyond what i know is what i dont know if i make sense right now what clothes am i wearing? am i wearing a hat? there is no logic in fantasy, belief is illogical, as i dont know is true, belief is false, imaginary, possible
there is no such thing as hell.

Your argument is sole based on an individual experience, however that is a "2 Dimentional View of reality"What I mean is if YOU do not experience it does not exist, however reality is made up of everyone's experience not just your perception.For example I am typing on a Keyboard in texas. I am eating some noodles. since the words are meaningless to you because you cannot experience it first hand. My statement is a lie thus not possible and does not exist.However If you flew here right now you would experience that the beleif is not a lie infact I do exist. Does that mean I do not exist until you experience it? That does not make sense, and so does your arguementagainst hell. the inability to prove something does not exist does not logically disprove it's existiance because you have not experienced it. So once we get beyond that we can look at who or what has experienced hell to give us an idea of the possibility?In my 4th round I will explain the ideas of hell and how it is logical to belief that it exists.
there is no such thing as hell.

possibilities are imaginary, never real you reading these words is happening not can happen, or can not happen, is happening is god impossible? becsaue then to you god is a thing? memory=truth, not false and true know=(is)Physical experience=NOW=life=TRUE=matter=NATURE fact=memory of know=knowledge=truth=past facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now if imagination could become real.. then imagine something supernatural and make it real then. creation is impossible in reality its possible that you will get a stone in your head as you read this last word reality is absolute, not possible, and not impossible IMpossible is possible by belief there is no logic in fantasy, belief is illogical as there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die i a dream as i can only die if i am alive, and knowledge is the opposite of belief, knowledge is truth, logical, memory of physical experience belief=be lie, as i dont know is true
there is no such thing as hell.

I will use this debate to prove that there is without a doubt a possibility the hell exists. Here are the key points I will stick to:1) I cannot see, touch, smell, or feel Pluto. I heard it exists, it is said it exists but I have not experienced. Does that mean that it does not exist? There argument that one has not experienced something is not a valid arguement for something to not exisst. It just means that it has YET to exist in my limited perseption of reality.2) There has been plenty of evidents of hell existing in others prespectionsPeople in coma's speak of an afterlife.Multiple relegions from differnt cultures and regions mention it.Scientest and mathmaticians have worked on eveidence to prove the exisince of god, or at least the possibility.3) Pascals Wager4) Concepts of hell.I will go into more detail in the next round. By the end of the debate you will no longer deny the possibiliy of hells existance.