BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
FanBoyMctroll is Just a Kid Who Needs a Life, And is a Loser

Eh, I'll present my arguments then By examining the profile of FanBoyMctroll one can see that he apparently has 47 friends on this debate site. Apparently an active social life 'on the site. A person is also able to view his activity upon the site and see that he is not on the site 24 hours a day, Implying that he has some sort of life beyond it. If one examines his profile age, It claims to be 62 years. As his name is FanBoyMctroll, One can infer that he created 'this profile primarily to amuse himself with behavior that would be less than socially acceptable. As he has been called out on it, A person could say he is winning his objective rather than losing it. In the forums FanBoyMctroll has talked about his job and his motorcycle before. All of this together ought imply that whoever created the FanBoyMctroll profile has a life beyond DDO, Has a job, A drivers license, Is not a kid. Has a life. And is winning enough to have a job, Hobbies, And amuse himself.
FanBoyMctroll is Just a Kid Who Needs a Life, And is a Loser

FBMT (FANBOYMCTROLL) is obviously a troll. He accuses random people of smoking crack and other things a claims that he's better than everyone. FBMT needs to stop, He cyber bullies people on the site, And is a sore loser. Every time someone tries to prove a point against him, He literally just says how they need a debating coach and other things like that. But in real life, He probably can't debate whatsoever, Because he just can't take the heat. I used to be in this really good the debate team, And I saw that the crossfires broke people because of the stress, And the constant battling. He can't handle real life and has to create a "successful" personality on the site, Where he blames other people for being socially unacceptable. I highly doubt his entire personality is true and that he's a guy whos parents were killed, And had to grow up himself. If he were really like that, He would've of learned respect. That's what he's missing. He's just a narcissistic kid who needs a real life. Also he barely lets other people debate with him. He says that he doesn't want trolls or "screechy girls" debating with him. But that just proves he's a hypocrite. When he allowed someone to debate with him he morphed into this screechy girl, Troll, No- common sense person. He was so mad that he was losing, He called Kvng_8 a n*gger. He couldn't handle losing, Even though he says that other people always lose. He's probably that kid who always won something because he either cheated or someone else let him win. GET A LIFE FANBOYMCTROLL! YOU NEED TO FREAKING STOP!
forgiving sins verse in John more consistent with Catholic interpretation

"if the priest decides to not absolve the person, their sins could be said to be retained." This clearly allows a Priest the authority not to forgive someone"s sins. This is in direct conflict with many passages in the bible and I have provided scriptures that confirm this." i have already stated that catholics do not believe that a priest can retain a sin unless it is in accord with God's will. so them retaining something is not in tension with God at all. again the forgiveness or retaining merely makes it official. "if you confess... God will forgive" as you essentially quoted the bible is still true. "Con should know why acting in accordance with God"s will is important. Violating -his will knowingly is sin. In protestant dogma a relationship with God is very important and this is impossible without knowing and acting in line with God"s will. - Con is taking an obscure scripture that was not translated well from the greek and trying to establish a doctrine that is not consistent with the bible. I will have more time to elaborate last round." the same could be said for why catholics believe they are in accordance with God's will when forgiving or retaining. again, no one is violating God's will here. i do not think that con has given a better hypothesis for the interpretation. the most obvious and direct interpretation of the verse is that the people have been giving the power to forgive or retain sins..... cause that's what it says. con is trying to paraphrase it to mean something else but hasn't shown why we should textually think that position is better. can he better explain the translations and structures of the passage etc? he has done an inadequate job on it so far. he's tried to give context to his position, but it's far enough removed from the text itself to call into question whether he's being fair to the text itself.
forgiving sins verse in John more consistent with Catholic interpretation

In Con"s opening argument she clarified the resolution, "catholics hold that a priest has been given the authority to forgive sins. if the priest decides to not absolve the person, their sins could be said to be retained." This clearly allows a Priest the authority not to forgive someone"s sins. This is in direct conflict with many passages in the bible and I have provided scriptures that confirm this. In emphasizing the word "retain" Con is saying that Christians have the power to send others to hell as they would still be held responsible for their sins. This is not consistent with the clear path to forgiveness I noted in round 1. Being in Line with God"s will is righteousness Con should know why acting in accordance with God"s will is important. Violating -his will knowingly is sin. In protestant dogma a relationship with God is very important and this is impossible without knowing and acting in line with God"s will. - Con is taking an obscure scripture that was not translated well from the greek and trying to establish a doctrine that is not consistent with the bible. I will have more time to elaborate last round.
forgiving sins verse in John more consistent with Catholic interpretation

it's good to see you back 2-D. you often have great arguments. i'm not sure why con is going on about priests, i'm not trying to establish anything specifically about their existance. all im trying to establish is that the verse is more akin to the catholic understanding, that men were given the power to forgive sins. con argues they were merely given the ability to be in lines with God's will. why would God do that? what does it matter if they forgive, not forgiven, in line with God? and it might be seen as kosher, pardon the religious context there, to say if you forgive, know that it's already established that they are forgiven. but what is the point in saying 'if you don't forgive, knowt hat it's establishe thatthey aren't forgiven?" " It is not consistent with the bible to say that men would have the power to take infallible action to forgive/retain sin on God"s behalf so the forgiveness must be determined by God." catholics do not view themselves as being able to forgive or not unless it is in accord with God's will. there's not an issue of them forgiving when God doesn't etc. forgiving by a man merely makes it official.
forgiving sins verse in John more consistent with Catholic interpretation

Here is the verse in question: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." John 20:23 catholics hold that a priest has been given the authority to forgive sins. if the priest decides to not absolve the person, their sins could be said to be retained. how would you interpret it in a way other than that? from an evangelical perspective, a person couldn 't really be said to forgive sins, but even if they could, how does said person retain sins? not spreading a message is at best withholding forgiveness, not retaining forgiveness. from a personal interaction perspective, a person doesn't have the authority to forgive sins, at least on a more objective scale, but even if they did, how does a person have the authority to retain a sin against someone? maybe on a personal level the forgiveness could retained, but the verse would lead one to believe it's being retained on a more objective scale, as with God. otherwise what is the point of telling someone they can retain forgiveness when God has forgiven them?
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I don't recall stating that all countries should dispose of the nuclear weapons they currently possess. Perhaps my opponent is paraphrasing? Observations: 1) All of my arguments were dropped in the first round, therefore they stand and cannot be refuted in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. 2) My opponent did not present a value, nor a criterion. 3) By standards, given the above, my opponent lost this debate after the first round, no further debate is required. For entertainment value, I will continue: My opponent's sole argument seems to hinge upon deterrence by possession of nuclear weapons. No new evidence was allowed nor presented., therefore I have nothing to attack. DEFENSE: My C-1 a Rebuttal: Tens of thousands can die in either a conventional or nuclear battlefield. My opponent would have us believe that if every nation possessed nuclear weapons, there would be no more conflicts. If that is the case, there would not have been a need or desire to develop better weapons. Yet, here we are. C-1-b: Accuracy is generally reliable so long as there are no electronic malfunctions. Fallout and weather are unpredictable. Having served in the military for over 20 years I can vouch for this from experience. To say there is no potential for collateral damage is insane. If it is unspeakable to order a launch, why have them in the first place? C-2: Stipulated C-3: My opponent is stating that it is not possible for theft of a nuclear weapon. Although highly irregular and improbable as it may be, no system is infallible. Further, regimes have and continue to be overthrown. If a radical were to overthrow a legitimate government that possessed nuclear weapons, they would then be in control. There are radicals that would use them without regard to their own safety. Thus the argument of deterrence is invalidated. The facts of the case are these: 1) If no one possessed nuclear weapons, no one could use them. 2) Nuclear weapons serve no purpose for common good. 3) There is inherent danger in the manufacture, transportation, storage, and use of nuclear weapons. 4) If nuclear weapons were used, there would be unspeakable damage to people, animals, property, and the environment. JUDGES: These are all facts, they are all dropped, and they are all undisputed. I thank my opponent and respectfully request a PRO ballot. Thank you.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Rebuttal: My opponent states that all countries should dispose of their nuclear weapons. I disagree. The more countries that have them, the less likely a war will happen, and thus the less likely that tens of thousands of lives will be lost. Also, how does a country like the United States dispose of all its nukes? It has enough to blow up the world multiple times. There are simply not enough nuclear reactors to get rid of all the weapons in the US. Opponent's C-1: A. My opponent proposes to leave the option of war open. Tens of thousands of soldiers can die on the battlefields. Weak countries can suffer under the oppression of strong countries. Justice and peace will never be maintained for long if the possibility of war exists. As my opponent stated, conventional weapons have killed more people and have done more collateral damage than nuclear weapons ever have. Objectives can generally be achieved without the declaration of a devastating war. B. The accuracy and effects of nuclear weapons is also very predictable. When a pilot drops an atomic bomb, or when a president launches a ballistic missile, he knows where it's going to land. He knows that anything near the site will be destroyed and the land near the site will be rendered unusable for decades. There is not an unspeakable potential for collateral damage when nukes are used. Nukes were invented as a quick way to destroy the enemy. Truman knew that, we all know that. If a nuke is used, the only thing unspeakable is the cruelty of the person that ordered the launch. Opponent's C-2: That is very true. Opponent's C-3: A. Accidents do happen, but they are the exception, not the norm. B. Exactly what is the probability of an inside theft job occurring? How would you transport a 20 ft nuke to your house? Any completed nuclear weapon would be in the hands of the leader of the country. His possessions are under the best security in the country. What is the probability of getting through that? My opponent's rebuttals defeat each other. For my C-1, my opponent states that the only incident in history when nuclear weapon were used is the US bombing Japan. This effectively shows that countries that possess nuclear weapons are perfectly capable of not using them. Pakistan has not nuked India. The US and the Soviet Union did not start nuking each other during the Cold War. My opponent then states that there is an opposite administration called North Korea. Based on my opponent's first rebuttal, North Korea is perfectly capable of not using nuclear weapons. His rebuttals are therefore controversial and should be ignored.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Rebuttal: My opponent has stated that both the USA and Russia should give nuclear weapons to other countries. I disagree. the fewer available, the less likely they are to be used. Assume a fanatic acquired a nuke. The results would be catastrophic. My opponent did not state a value nor a criterion, therefore there is none to challenge. Opponent's C-1: Nonconcur. Only a small percentage of nations possess nuclear weapons, and the only incident in history is the USA bombing Japan with them. Further, other nations which have nuclear weapons in their arsenal have not used them in conflicts, even when they were defending. As far as the global economy, if nations spent less on defense, they would have more to spend in other areas. The monies would till be spent regardless so I'm not sure that the global economy would be greatly affected. Opponent's C-2: While I agree that nuclear energy is a possibility, there are still kinks to be worked out. Nuclear waste is not as easily disposed of as burying at near the reactor. Unfortunately, this contention, while a valid concern, does not directly relate to the stated resolution. Opponent's C-3: Nonconcur. For every administration, there is an opposite. Therein lies the possibility of a radical personality obtaining power and using nuclear assets. Thus far, to everyone's relief, North Korea has shown restraint. BUT, is it better to risk many nations having nuclear weapons over fewer? Unfortunately, my opponent has dropped ALL of my arguments. Therefore I extend all of my arguments to this round as undisputed facts. I respectfully request a PRO ballot. Thank you.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

As Con, I will argue that not only should states be allowed to own nuclear weapons, but also that the United States and Russia should give some countries some of their nuclear weapons. I provide 3 reasons that support my opinion: 1. In a world where every country has a weapon of mass destruction, war is not an option. 2. The uranium in nuclear weapons can be used in nuclear power plants, producing clean electricity. 3. Owners of nuclear weapons are perfectly capable of not using them. Contention 1: In a world where every country has a weapon of mass destruction, war is not an option Be it biological, ballistic, or chemical, any weapon of mass destruction wards off assault from other countries. The reason is simple. No invader wants to run the risk of getting 3 quarters of his army destroyed in a very short moment. In a world where everyone owns weapons of mass destruction, no one would even consider war. The world would be more peaceful, and everyone could stop spending billions each year on military. The global economy would be much better. Contention 2: The uranium in nuclear weapons can be used in nuclear power plants, producing clean electricity In a world where coal and natural gas are disappearing rapidly, alternative energy sources are ardently needed. Nuclear energy is one of those alternatives. It's available everywhere, unlike solar power and wind power. The main problem with nuclear energy is how to deal with nuclear waste. To solve this problem, 3 things can be done. The first is to build breeder reactors. These reactors can run on fuel that normal reactors can't. They are also more efficient. The second is nuclear reprocessing. This reduces the amount of nuclear waste and puts the useful materials back into the reactor. The third is burial of nuclear waste near the site of the reactor. This removes the difficulty of finding a burial spot for the waste. Contention 3: Owners of nuclear weapons are perfectly capable of not using them This was obvious in the Cold War Era. The United States and Soviet Union didn't dare use nuclear weapons on each other, or each others' allies. This type of self restraint can be employed by all owners of nuclear weapons. After all, if everyone had nuclear weapons, who would dare use them? This completely solves the problem of certain countries using them to destroy large amounts of people and property. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.popsci.com... my world history textbook from school
Liberals can be prolife.

Though public opinion on abortion actually reflects a very nuanced debate, with opinions based around factors like the pregnancy's term and the reason for termination, there are really only two positions debated in the media: ardently for the unrestricted availability of abortion regardless of motive, or ardently against abortion under any circumstances " and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. And since these positions tend to cleave along party lines, a stance on abortion that shows a political
The United States Senate should be dissolved

Before I begin my closing statements and rebuttal, I would like to note that my opponent spends much of his last round saying I missed the point of this debate and that the point of this debate was to see if "the principals embodied in the senate are worth keeping". This sounds like an incredibly cheap cop-out to me - this debate was not about principles at all, but instead about whether or not the favorable aspects of the Senate outweigh the negative aspects of the Senate. In fact, my opponent explicitly lays this out in defining the winning conditions:The pro argument is won by demonstrating that undesirable effects of the senate's structure outweighs any desirable effects and should therefore, be dissolved as a political body in the United States.The con argument is won by doing precisely the opposite. In my arguments, I have done precisely that - I spent my debate arguing that the desirable aspects of the Senate outweigh any negative aspects. I urge voters to reject my opponent's incorrect semantical ploy - I did not violate any rule of this debate.Now, my opponent argues that changing the Senate's rules is an incorrect argument "adjusting the senate to be proportional to population would be redundant or pointless beyond the semantics of it, where as dissolution would not, as a real change beyond names assigned to bodies with certain tasks would be involved". This argument makes no sense whatsoever. Despite the clearly laid-out win conditions, which say nothing about absolutes, my opponent is trying to retroactively frame this debate to make it so that abolishing the Senate is the only way to fix any potential problems. This makes no sense whatsoever and should be rejected in its entirety.On the second argument, my opponent asserts that advice and consent does not help produce better bills. Although I would assert that having a separate body review things is a great way to ensure higher quality, this is essentially a he-said-she-said deal, so take that as you will.On the third argument, my opponent argues that impeachment responsibilities could be handled by separate committees in the House. To me, that is a miscarriage of justice. Why? Because a common principle in law is that the same body that brings charges should not be the body to review the law and convict you.At the end, my opponent again continues with his only argument - that one-state-one-vote systems and variations disenfranchise people and are wrong. I have already established that no prominent, international body agrees with this view, and in fact the most prominent international body, the United Nations, uses this method in the General Assembly.[1] The system is not a violation of democracy - far from it. And abolishing the Senate because of an imaginary issue like this is simply not practical, wise, or logical.To conclude - the Senate's practices of advice-and-consent and impeachment are vital and their existence far outweighs any potential issue with one-state-one-vote systems. As such, the resolution of this debate is negated. I strongly urge a vote for CON. Thank you.References:1. http://www.un.org...;
The United States Senate should be dissolved

Dissolving the United States Senate would be a short-sighted and impractical move. Unlike many other senates (such as the Canadian Senate), the United States Senate provides a number of roles that cannot be handled or replaced by a single house.One of the most important roles is impeachment. Under the current system, impeachment, like the court system, is split into two parts - the grand jury, handled by the House, and the actual jury, handled by the Senate.[1] This prevents a conflict of interest, because the same group that is accusing the individual of a crime cannot then remove him for that crime - instead, the case must be thoroughly reviewed by a completely separate group of people from those who instigated the charges. Further, the Senate is, by definition, smaller than the House - meaning that the process is expedited by not having 435 different people to potentially ask questions or the like.Another unique role the Senate provides is that of advice and consent - in other words, the House cannot pass a bill without Senate approval, and vice versa.[2] This role is uniquely important, because it means two different bodies of people must agree upon something, increasingly the likelihood that it is better. The two bodies must work together to pass bills, rather than giving all the power to just one body.These two roles cannot be equally used in a proper maner in a one-house system. By having such checks and balances, the stability of our political system remains and important things such as laws and impeachments cannot be rushed through.As to my opponent's point, his only argument seems to be that he doesn't like that the Senate is divied up by state rather than by overall population. I disagree entirely - while he would have a reasonable complaint if the Senate was the only house of Congress and thus people were being disenfranchised, it is not the only house. The existence of the House of Representatives - determined entirely by population - negates these complaints entirely. Within the world, both a one-state-one-vote system (like the UN General Assembly and the Australian Senate, or variations such as the Canadian Senate) and proporational representative systems (like the House of Representatives and the House of Commons) are used - no international court has ruled one-state-one-vote systems are contrary to a republican form of government, and even if courts did rule as such, it is not enough reason to abolish the Senate entirely. Why? Because you could adjust the Senate to be proportionally represented too. Simply put, this is an extreme reaction to a problem that most people would say doesn't really exist.References:1. http://www.senate.gov...2. http://www.senate.gov...