BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

"Pastafarianism is just as plausible and realistic as the Abrahamic religions"Misleading someone causes suffering if they discover they were misled, which means that the less plausible the better for someone, since suffering is good. You are simply dreaming of a world, that is better, which is bad."to imagine another, more valuable world is an expression of hatred for a world that makes one suffer... The" philosopher" continues to repeat, "'My kingdom is not of this world'"" This is a longing for another world in which one does not suffer. It is to escape from this world; to create another" false world" This" quest for another world", is the result of unproductive thinking" [1]Pro has not shown how being realistic is a positive quality, so his point is worthless."The Pastafarian deity has better morals then the Abrahamic deity, according to religious texts."Yes, stonings that increase both the suffering of the stoned people's families, but also aims to increase the suffering of the stoned people by sending them to hell. Frankly, this argument has only helped my case."Unlike Pastafarianism, the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions portray a violent god."A violent God makes humans feel pain and death, all of which directly increase the amount of suffering."the God of the Bible has killed 25 MILLION people"Assuming each of these people had a direct family of four people, this is over 100 MILLION PEOPLE the Bible's God has increased the suffering of. This isn't even including injuries, mind you!"Additionally, God will (apparently) personally kill at least 87 million people (and presumable the rest of the world) in the rapture"Excellent."where presumably people will be tortured for eternity."I don't know about you, but I hate being tortured. This would greatly increase my suffering."Pastafarianism contains no stories of a violent God. Instead, most fables concern the jolly adventures of the pirate Mosey."So Pastafarianism directly tries to stop all future elevations of humanity, and resents all that came before [2]? I'll pass.1. "Nietzsche and the Later Wittgenstein" Journal of Nietzsche Studies 26 p. 55-632. http://www.lexido.com...
Donald Trump is better than Barrack Obama

Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, I think that he has proven to be better than the former president Barrack Obama. I will be posting four reasons in this round and the next as to not bombard you. I will not post any new arguments in the closing round as I wouldn't want you to. The Economy" Donald Trump's Economy has proven to be way better than Barrack Obama's. Obama does deserve some credit because he managed to pull us out of a recession, But in terms of economic output, Obama had the slowest economic recovery since WW2. Meanwhile, "economic growth under Trump has averaged a 2. 9 percent growth rate, And will likely top 3 percent this year. That"s considerably more than the 1. 5-1. 75 percent growth rate predicted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco when Trump took office" (USA Today). Unemployment Job creation is a major part of the responsibility of a president. When there are fewer jobs, There are more people on government assistance. This is a huge burden on the working class. During Obama's 8 years in office, He created over 11 million jobs, Had an unemployment rate of 4. 8% and increased the median household income by 5. 3%. As of January 2018 (only 2 years in office) Trump created nearly 2 million jobs, Had an unemployment rate of 4. 1% and weekly earnings grew by over 1%. Border Security Illegal immigration is a huge threat to America's economy, It's order, And the people's safety. Illegal immigrants make up nearly 4% of America's population. Trump has began cracking down on illegal immigration and has shown a great passion for keeping the American people safe. He has implemented a plan for a border wall in order to further secure our borders. Before now, Very little action has been taken on this issue. Obama was not passionate about border security at all. In fact, He approved that $310 million be spent on "free" legal advice for illegal immigrants. Foreign Relations. Since Trump has been in office, He has improved relations with many countries, A popular one being North Korea. North Korea has been very hostile toward America in the past. However, Trump has managed to open up communications with North Korea and there has been conversation about North Korea taking steps toward denuclearization. This is something no other president has been able to do before. I'd have to say, Trump has some mad negotiation skills! I look forward to reading your argument!
Donald Trump is better than Barrack Obama

Hey fellow debaters. I am searching for an opponent to take the Con side that Donald Trump is better than Barrack ObamaThis debate will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 will be Acceptance/greeting. You can also put here anything you want to clarify such as from which standpoint you will have. ***Please do not put any arguments in this round. Round 2- Opening argumentRound 3- RebuttalsRound 4- Closing argumentsI look forward to this debate! Thank you!
batman vs superman

yes yes, your argument for the DCU is fair enough, but you forget one thing, Superman wasn't trying he was attempting to communicate with Batman to help save his mother and when the fight broke out he only acted in defence, using strength and feats he knew Batman could survive, and his strongest acts where used out of anger when batman infuriated him to the breaking point, but at that point it was too late, he was playing defense too much to the point of falling into batman's trap, in that fight BOTH of them underestimated their opponents, and yes batman is an exceptional fighter someone I'd personally like to be able to fight as well as some day and he can go toe to toe with an alien comonly thought to be a godly being, but as you said in the comics super man GAVE batman the kryptonite SO he would be able to beat superman if he went out of hand, indicating they beleive batman would requite kryptonite to defeat superman, and without that batman would have no hope of surviving a kryptonian eye lazer
batman vs superman

yes im counting the DCU as cannon for this debate in that do i need to say batman beat superman butt and outsmarted him. not only that he literally planed were he would get punched and how he would end up in that building were he place the spear. now people count batman out in the fight because he "doesn't have powers" witch he technicality doesn't but that is what makes him awesome . he can do the same job has all of the other super heroes fighting crime with out powers . now he is not helpless of coarse besides his cool gadgets and his car and plane , he also is trained in EVERY martial arts and he trained in the league of assassins. he also he has kryptonite thought some may call that cheating not any idiot can have some and defeat superman you still have to be skilled like how batman planed superman demise . now not in the movie but in the comics you see superman the man of steel him self give batman the kryptonite in case he turned bad. because he knew batman could defeat him with the kryptonite . so batman a man with no powers a mortal who is trained his whole life to being smart , and getting buff and yet he can go toe to toe wit a GOD
A Flat Tax is a good idea.

Well let me start out by saying you have already made my main argument for me 1. Flat Tax helps the rich more than people who could actually use it. 2. While it does simplify the system that does not matter because it will be abused by the rich and our current government 3. The non-rich who this should benefit, those living below the poverty line that is, will not be helped more with this system than with the current tax system.
Drug Legalization

I may be dwelling into another debate here, but I oppose your suggestion of the death penalty because it is ineffective as it gives the criminal a quick and painless escape out of life. If anything, keep them alive and force them to give back the goodness they had taken from the world. Also, I also disagree with some of the other absurd and irrelevant comments you have made, but I do not wish to digress further. Halting drug trafficking as I said earlier would increase the value of the drugs at best by lowering the supply. And what exactly gives government the right to micromanage our health too? When we involve government into social issues and allow them to control our personal lives, we are left with nothing but special interest groups. In this dystopian system you propose, you would call up congress and have your special interests forced upon me against my will, while I would do the same thing at your expense. Involving special interests in government will only result in misery for everyone. The federal and state governments spend tens of billions of dollars each year to fund the "War on Drugs". All of your RECENT statistics are describing the current drug economy and they happen to reinforce my argument. They show that there are still many people committing crimes under the influence of drugs even with the "War on Drugs" in place. Lastly, I will sum up my main arguments: 1) Prohibition increases the value of drugs, which HELPS the black market and drug industry. 2) Prohibition of alcohol was ineffective in the 1920's 3) Coastguard and police lose their lives because they are forced to fight armed drug dealers. 4) Government controlled by special interests is bad for everybody. 5) Ending prohibition would reduce government spending, and increase revenue. 6) Ending prohibition would allow us to focus on real crimes. 7) Drug usage IS a problem (including marijuana). And prohibition will not solve it. 8) We can only solve the problem by recognizing failure and approaching the situation honestly. I thank you all for taking the time to read my arguments.
Drug Legalization

Just throwing it out there, I like the Coast Guard comment. That's what I wanna do with my life. Just funny you said that. Anyways, if we stop the use of drugs, the crime rate will go down. People under the influence of Crack/Cocaine, Meth, etc... are more likely to commit crimes. If we would pay more attention to the halt of drug trafficking other crimes would lower. Okay, I know someone who stole stuff to afford Cocaine. Do you see? We CAN stop the majority of the use of drugs and I'm not including Marijuana. Half the people that do drugs are under pressure or get the idea of doing it by watching others do it. (Again I like point 4 because of the CG) Anyhow, the govt. does have a right to help us lead healthy lifestyles, like gay marriage, homosexuality gives you a higher risk of a disease, abortion isn't healthy mentally. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... I think we should force the death penalty upon someone who distributes drugs because most of the people that use them, die or get very sick. And wish they were dead. THAT my friend would lower drug usage/distribution.
Gay marriage

Thanks for accepting :) C1: marriage is a institution that relies on procreation What I am saying in short is: it is one reason for marriage. In Washington state they had a case in their SSM ban, they held 5-4 that the law was consitutional and one reason was procreation. (1). It furthered the states interest in marriage, up bringing of children. One of the justices said banning SSM raises procreation rates, making more children. She also claimed that was the reason (one of them) that the state recognizes straight marriage. (1) Another argument you will press is "marriage is love not procreation". To a normal person yes, but if that was the case then why would the state recognize marriage? There would be no benefit, no reason for the state to recognize it, therefore there is a reason, procreation. The most common discussed state reason for banning SSM is procreation, that is the reason the state is hesitant to agnolage it. (2) C2: health risks of gay sexual behavior Please no wordplay here, I mean MSM men having sex with men and the risks. Gays accounted for 53% of the new aids/HIV infections in the US, and in 2006 held again 53% of all of the virus in total. (3) now why is this significant? Because the total gay population is America is 10% at most, or under. (4). So let's use the census estimate, 2-3%, that 3% has more then half of the aids virus. Now are they more likely to get the aids virus or is it a myth? They are more likely. MSM where 44 times more likely to be diagnosed with the aids virus then other men. (3) C3: slippery slope Let me use a few examples: Guns: After the passage of the 1991 Brady bill the pro gun controllers celebrated their victory. The NRA lost their threshold and the amount of guns in circulations declined, the momentum against guns increased. It had an effect on people's minds. (5) Perfect example. Now an SSM example: In 2003 Canadian courts allowed SSM in Ontario, after that is quickly spread to all of the other provinces. (6) Also polygamy advocates say the only criteria for marriage is love, well in that case polygamy should be legalized etc. Once marriage is no longer 1 man + 1 woman then the definition changes, and there's no way to stop the other marriage forms. (7) C4: the economy 1138, that's the amount of provisions used on marriage that are basically benefits. (8). In the UK there is a 150ï¿½ tax return. (9) but in the US it just consists of benefits, but how is this bad? 1$ spent here is one dollar not spent on a tax return or well fare etc. it wastes a dollar. This is said by Michael Steele a GOP chairman, it hurts small buisness as a penny on marriage = a penny not in Healthcare. (10) Conclusion; No SSM! Ps: Debating via phone took 2 hours for only 4000 characters :p. remember don't refute...yet next round. Your turn pro. Sources: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com... (1) http://www.avemarialaw.edu... (2) http://www.cdc.gov... (3) http://www.gallup.com... (4) http://www2.law.ucla.edu... (5) http://www.religioustolerance.org... (6) http://www.frc.org... (7) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (8) http://m.guardian.co.uk... (9) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (10)
Atheist Jesus

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I assume that since you are taking the Pro side, you are saying that God is an atheist.The definition of theism is, "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world". Atheism is defined as, "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (1, 2)Saying that God is an atheist for not believing in the existence of a god is comparable to saying I don't believe in humans because I am one. Theism isn't the belief in a "higher power" as you say, but that there is, in fact, a god. I'll take a little liberty in saying that God most likely acknowledges his own existence as a god, and is thus a theist. I think this is pretty open-and-shut, but I look forward to my opponent's response nonetheless.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Earth is Overall, Flat

No, you do not see where I am going with this. My arguments will strongly hinge on one single philosophical argument.You see, this surface will be definitely considered "flat": And logically this could also be considered "flat" overall: And also if one person only has one single acne his or her face will definitely still be considered "flat". Now, where am I going with this? You may ask. Well, you see, there has been proven by many scientists the possibility of us being in a four-dimensional universe surrounded by a black hole.See: http://www.techtimes.com...Think about it carefully. All I have to do is to prove in some kind of perspective the Earth is overall "flat".We, three-dimensional creatures, see a two-dimensional figure as "flat", no matter from what perspective. (Side view would be nothing because it's only 2-d)And logically a 2-dimensional creature would see a one-dimension figure as "flat" from all perspectives.Front perspective: Side and top would be nothing because the line goes nowhere in all directions.Therefore, logically, a fourth dimensional being, when seeing our Earth, it would appear to be flat no matter what!We can now safely go to our conclusion. Earth would look and be "flat" in comparison to the fourth dimension.Onto you, con.
The Earth is Overall, Flat

My opponent rebuts quite interestingly. This is the first time I've debated a first-timer who didn't forfeit, so this should be very interesting.My 3 objects in the beginning were to clarify what "overall flat" meant, just in case it wasn't clear.The 3-D "flat" object: yes, we are assuming the surface has a few small unseeable bumps but is otherwise mostly flat.The chair: Wrong. This will also be considered "flat" due to the surface. If I move my hand over the surface and feel no noticeable bumps, then the surface of the chair is flat. Flat=smooth? If you have a smooth face it will be level in comparison to another. Think about it carefully. This will probably not be considered flat under normal circumstances: However if you view it from a giant's perspective, it will be pretty flat with the exceptions of a few tiny barely noticeable bumps.Earth appear to be flat:Yes, it is entirely possible the world is fourth dimensional, which makes it possible that the earth is "flat".In addition as I said above, if it's mostly smooth with little tiny bumps, it doesn't matter if it seems to have a load of random mountains and structure that makes it seemingly impossible for the Earth to be smooth. In fact, Earth on average is smoother than a billard ball! [1] (Yeah, I know, I trailed off last round. I lost my train of thought and couldn't be too sure where I was going to)Therefore the Earth is going to be flat due to its level surface, which overall is smoother than the billard ball and therefore is flatter than the billard ball, technically.To be more clear, here's an example of a "overall flat" surface: s://patternsthatconnext.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="395" height="398" />It has folds and bends but can probably still be considered overall level, since nothing seems to be really above anything else. Now, what if I fold it into a gigantic sphere? Is this now "overall flat"? It does not seem to be "overall flat", since the surface curves so much, but if you think about it carefully, this is kind of like earth. We are so tiny that the earth curves at a very very little rate. Imagine what it seems to a tiny ant. Yes....it's now level for everything. No matter how much you crawl you won't get to that tiny "curve" of the earth, you are too small to consider it "not level". Similarly, if you were a giant running over earth, the curves would be very obvious and you would not be running on a "flat" surface. However, since I proved in some perspective--the ant's perspective--the earth is definitely overall flat and not the other way around.Onto you, con.[1] http://www.curiouser.co.uk...
Christmas has become too commercial.

christmas - The annual Christian festival celebrating Christ's birth, held on December 25. [1]too - reflecting something that is excessive (my own definition) commercial - prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit, or success [2]"Christmas used to be solely about celebrating the birth of Jesus"This statement, in short, is false. The Christmas we know, December 25th, was strategically placed to incorporate countless other holidays that would take place at the same time. A winter festival was the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included the fact that less agricultural work needs to be done during the winter, as well as an expectation of better weather as spring approached. [93] Modern Christmas customs include: gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; and Yule logs and various foods from Germanic feasts [3] From this we can clearly see that not only does Christmas coinside with many other festivals across many different cultures but that we even borrow the custom of gift giving from the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. Throughout history Christmas and the time it has occupied has become to mean so much more than just the birth of Jesus. Christmas Not Just for Christians AnymoreChristmas is no longer just for Christians, even if the Christians want it or wish it to be. The Holiday is a federal holiday that is celebrated by Jews, Christians, Atheists and agnostics alike. Since much of the actual religious content has been bled from the season it leaves the partakers with nothing left to do than give gifts as tradition taken from the glorious Roman Saturnalia. So while you, someone who clings to the Christian stock in Christmas, might think that the holiday is "too" commercial for your religious beliefs the feeling is not uniform nor mutual. Too: Subjective The word "too" is a subjective term. A pair of jeans that is "too" big for one person might not be "too" big for another etc. Since too is a subjective term it is hard to gauge what is "too" commercial and what isn't especially given Christmas' convoluted and complicated past plus the secular nature of it today. Some people may think that Christmas is indeed too commercial while others may think that Christmas isn't commercial enough. Given the subjectivity of the subject you cannot make the blanket statement that Christmas is "too commercial". ConclusionDue to the complex past that Christmas displays and the secular nature of the holiday in modern times it is impossible to say that Christmas is "too commercial", the resolution is too broad and too subjective to be true and is an opinion that cannot be argued due to the fact that there are no guidelines for religious holidays and how commercial they should or should not be. Thank you. [1] Google Definitions[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro Life

A- You cannot prove that abortion and murder, especially when there is scientific evidence to show that they don't have any sense of what is happening. B- You said that they would have a right to life at the beginning, but then now the burden is on you to prove that life begins at conception, which there is no evidence for. C- If the parents aren't ready, so they don't keep the baby, or the baby is given up for adoption. You cannot say that they will have a wonderful life. Under the law, life begins at birth, so the mother has the right to control her body. D- When you say protection, I assume you are talking about condoms and birth control to prevent pregnancy. You cannot expect every man and woman no matter how poor to pay for these. Birth control is expensive. Can everyone pay for it? No. So you can't expect everyone who has sex to use it. E- You seem to imply that people that get abortions feel entitled to it. This is a last resort for these people my friend, you cannot deny them a certain privacy right.
Pro Life

There is multiple reasons why i am Pro-Life and here is a few of them 1- The process is brutal. All forms of abortion a brutal. Vacuuming, Chopping the baby up and pulling it out, every single form of MURDER to these babies are BRUTAL. 2- Of course they have a soul and a life right at the beginning, there is no way they wouldn't. They also have most of their senses too including pain and hearing. That is why studies are shown that your child becomes more familiarized with you if you talk to the baby while it is in the womb. It also has control of its body It can kick it can move therefore it can feel pain. 3- It is the mothers responsibility to take care of these children. Whether it is keeping the baby or giving the child up for adoption either way the baby gets to live a wonderful life 4-There is a reason why there is such a thing as protection so women don't have to make these decisions. Protection is here for that sole purpose. 5- If you are ready to have sex doesn't that mean you are adult enough to deal with the repercussions. Take responsibilities for your actions don't kill another life because you made a mistake. I conclude Argument Number 2.