BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is not real

God is not real. For the ease of argument we will be debating about the Christian God The Bible The Bible serves as the word of God. As God is omniscient, we can infer that the Bible is completely correct using the rule of inference. Assuming that the God in question is benevolent and omniscient, why would God create Lucifer, supposedly the greatest enemy of God, if he knew beforehand that Lucifer would become a fallen angel? Why would God only create Adam in the beginning and wait for him to complain about being alone to create Eve? Why would God allow Satan entry into the Garden of Eden if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient? In the first few pages of the Bible, we as the reader are already presented with a cesspool of problems, all of which are contradictory to a "benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient" God. Apple as knowledge The apple in the Garden of Eden represents knowledge. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden, they were ignorant to the point where they did not even know they were naked. When Eve eats the apple, after being tempted by Satan disguised as a snake, she suddenly realizes that she and Adam are not wearing any clothes. As a result, they are cast from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's orders. Why would a benevolent God refuse knowledge to his creations? Benevolent or pure evil? In the Bible (which we assumed was 100% true), God states that those who accept him will join him in Heaven and those who don't will burn in the depths of hell. While my opponent and I are both fortunate to have access to resources that allow us to learn about God, what about those who don't? What about the people residing in countries where such knowledge is not available? Exceptions to this rule are not present in the Bible, thus we must assume that those people, regardless of circumstance are doomed to hell. Why would a benevolent God allow this to happen? The only logical explanation to all of this is that God is simply a figment of one's imagination. A creation of one's mind.
Flag burning should be illegal.

I like how your present the issue, it is interesting to say the least. However you act as if freedom of speech in itself is not enough of a reason. Thus I will focus my speech on this point while adding in other points. Reasons for flag burning to be legal. 1. The constitution. You can dislike flag burning all you want, you can call it Un-American or anti-patriotic all you want, but at the point when you tell someone that they can't burn a flag you are the Un-American one. Even if I hated flag burning to its very core I would still have to support the right to burn a flag. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of expression. You being a conservative advocate for less government control, to advocate government control on this issue is to go against the principles of conservativeness. I sight the 1st amendment as the foundation of this point. 2. It is a more preferable form of protest than most. Where as our politicians are bombarded with angry letters from citizens daily, our soldier are slandered by the news, our president is hated across the world; flag burning doesn't actually do anything except for burn a piece of cloth. It has no harmful effects on anyone except possibly the burner if they are not careful. This makes it much more preferable than forms of protest such as crime, true arson, parades (potentially clogging traffic), and many others. Even civil disobedience has draw backs that flag burning will never have. 3. It fuels the American economy. Who produces the flags? We do. Let them burn our flags all they want. To burn, they have to buy. If someone is stupid enough to burn an American flag let them do it. 4. Takes power from our enemies. Look at all the people America despises that burn our flags. You've all seen it on T.V, Iraqi's parading the streets burning American flags. Wouldn't be nearly so fearsome if American protesters were already burning their own flags would it? When the government puts a stance on flag burning such as, "We don't care, burn our flags" it takes power from the act of flag burning. Everyone remember the story of Brer Rabbit? "No don't throw me into the briar patch!" And of course he was thrown in because the bear thought it would hurt him. But it was all a trick, Brer Rabbit wasn't hurt at all. Same thing in this situation, we trick everyone else into thinking that we don't care at all and they'll stop doing it. Thanks.
Flag burning should be illegal.

I have heard many a debate on both sides of this issue, although I am not a huge bigot on the issue i still feel that we should not burn any type of flag whether it be American, Russian, Chinese or even the Confederate flag. The biggest argument I hear from supporters of flag burning is the freedom of speech or their freedom of expression. Yes that is true every American has the right to freely express themselves, BUT I was to Understand that it wasn't at the expense of other Americans. Often these flag burning displays are to show hatred towards Soldiers, Political leaders and groups affiliated with the flag. I find it also troubling that someone one resort to arson to advance their freedom of speech. I compare flag burning to KKK groups burning crosses or hanging up dummies from trees simulating lynchings. I will go more into detail after I see if my opponent has a good reason for debating other than it is his freedom to do so. Can't wait to hear from my opponent or for the voter. Sincerely, SPC Rautert, Fred J ASAR
Anti-bullying should be promoted more at schools

Pro failed to tell me how this will be achieved. And I don't think it will as first of all, bullies are usually determined and won't back off simply because the teacher told them to. Pro failed to explain what he meant by good behaviour. For most students they do not learn anything more in anti bullying as it is more of a campaign. Pro failed to explain what you meant by knowledge about what you should do. I do not think it will decrease the number of victims because, as I have said, most bullies understand what they are doing and choose to do it anyways and has a good enough reason for doing it. Again, Pro failed to explain how it will decrease the number of people committing suicide.
Anti-bullying should be promoted more at schools

Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among all aged human beings. Bullying is repetitive bad behavior resulting with depression, lower marks, loss of friends or even suicide. People bully because they feel the need or loss of power, so to regain that feeling, they need to sabotage somebody else that is weaker than them. No one likes bullies, and I mean no one. Forms of bullying is teasing, name-calling, inappropriate sexual comments, threatening to cause harm, taunting, being physical, social bullying and ignoring people. Everyone has been bullied, whether it was at school, at college, at university, at your job or a conference. Everyone has been bullied. http://nces.ed.gov... has statistics that say worldwide 28% of students in years 6-12 have experienced being bullied. Research at http://www.stopbullying.gov... proves that cyber bullying is growing. However, because of rapid change of social gaming for kids, it is getting harder to design surveys that accurately capture trends. Anti-bullying should be promoted at schools because it will teach children how to deal with bullying and hopefully decrease that 28% world wide to below 10%. There should be adds on television about how to deal with bullying. Everyone should help. Is it better seeing a fake burger add or a decent advertisement indicating the struggle that our children have and websites they can go for help? We should help everyone and reduce the amount of deaths each year due to suicide. Overall, promoting anti-bullying will make our society a better place, and our schools an enjoyable environment. No child has the rights to go hiding under his\her bed for the sake of not wanting to be picked on at school. Kids should be learning things, so how about we start with a life skill?
Selling FastFood should be banned

Unfortunately my opponent has been on but has not posted an argument. I will post a simple argument against this resolution (it will technically be a strawman, since my opponent did not make an argument, it is my only chance at making this debate something). 1) Fast food does not cause obesity or disease (or death for that matter), too much of it does. Despite what many may want you to believe, your body needs fat, and carbs, and salt, and most everything else (there are actually very few things that you actually shouldn't have ANY of). The important thing is having the proper balance and amount of all those things (and that balance depends entirely upon the activity of your life style). 2) Fast food does not need to be unhealthy. There is no requirement that fast food must be "unhealthy" in the traditional sense. In fact, McDonald's sells apple slices, scrambled eggs, milk, and a number of other "healthy" options [1][2]. 3) Regulation is better than outright banning, if any action is needed at all. Flat out bans on minor thing (and even medium level things) have a history of not working out so well. Sure Prohibition did lower alcohol consumption in the US [3], but we know that other side effects sprouted up that we at least on par with the problem, if not significantly worse (I assume no source is needed for this?). Regulation allows for a narrow scalpel, rather than a wide hatchet to deal with an issue. It allows to restrict just enough to correct or less an issue without completely removing the option for people that still want it. Such regulations can be the posting of nutrition amounts (which has been done, though they can be made more readily available), limiting portion sizes per meal, requiring "healthy" options without restricting the "unhealthy," or even subsidizing places that specialize on only healthy options. I hope my opponent comes back for the last round. Thank you, [1] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [2] http://pbdietitian.hubpages.com... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3)

The Battle of SalamisYear: 480 BCFleets: Greek City-States (Eurybiades + Themistocles) vs. Achaemenid Empire (Xerxes I) The BattleAt this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.Had the Persians won?They would have likely changed history by defeating the Greeks here. As it would have effect Greek progress in civilization and thus change progress in the western world.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3)

Well, I'm not one to decline a debate challenge. I ACCEPT.I know you said no sematics, but I think it's only fair to define important, as having the greatest impact on the course of history. I don't think that will be a big issue in the debate, but it's just a common framework we can work with. I also assume that by battle we mean a military engagement. Rap battles, for instance, or the cold war, may be important but not battles.I wish my opponent good luck. LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!
Most Important Battles Challenge (3)

Hello, this is 1Historygenius, the Master Historian of this website, and YOU have been challenged to my third most important battles challenge! Rules:We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each person. The voters will decide who has the more important battle for that round. Who ever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles. No semantics or trolling!
Multiplication and division are opposites

I guess my opponent completely ignore the rules. Not only is he not following the rules, but it seems he is taking the CON side of the resolution, which I'm representing. This is very unfortunately. If there is anyone that would like to take this truly serious, please send me a message, and I'll challenge you using this very format. If PRO is really serious about what he just posted, I like him to explain, how exactly his equation proves that multiplication and division are the opposite.
Multiplication and division are opposites

Rules: 1- Present a proof that they are the opposite, (or not the opposite (my role) ). Or come out with a better argument than your opponent. 2- Keep it simple. 3- You must explain yourself, why it is so in words as well, and not just in mathematical statements. 4- PRO must start the first round with his argument (first round is not just for acceptance). 5- One can rebut others argument at any time. However, you must present a reason in why, and not just answer with "irrelevant". 6- There should be no sources of any kind. You are allowed to research and even present what you find, but you must understand and agreed upon this source, and be ready to answer the logic in such of findings. By presenting outside sources, this will be seen as your own, and you will be expected to defend as such. 7- The last round of this debate is for rebut only, and no new arguments are allowed. Voters should disregard any arguments on the last round, and if such is detected a point of conduct should be granted to the opposite side, unless both sides breaks this rule. If you agreed upon those rules, you may accept this debate at any time and present your argument(s). Please, try not to forfeit your round, if you expect not to have time to present your argument soon enough, reply to the comment section saying so, and even if I have my argument ready, I would be glad to withhold for a later time, in order to give you more time to get prepare. Thank you! ___
Trigonometry

The tangent of x is equal to the sine of x divided by the cosine of x. Anyone got a problem with that? Similarly the cotangent of x is equal to the cosine of x divided by the sine of x. AND, EVEN MORE AMAZINGLY, sin (90-x) is equal to cos x!!!!! Can you tell I'm a student who's actually learning something from his schoolwork? ;P Feel free to debate that too if you like.
Trigonometry

Most of the voters will probably understand that I wouldn't debate pure fact. That wouldn't be debate. However, when things are disagreed upon, I decide to take one side of the debate. I didn't address your arguments because they were fact. Instead I showed a new realm, where conventional rules don't apply. All you said was, "The tangent of x is equal to the sine of x divided by the cosine of x," and others like that. You didn't address where. I showed that this statement is not true all of the time. This is what is asked of in debates. In short, I did what is known as winning a debate.
Trigonometry

I can't really use your theta symbol, so I'll just use "x" 1. sin(90-x)=cos(x) This is where I use the power of... NON-EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY! The most well-known non-euclidian geometry is spherical geometry. It takes place on a sphere. Here is the triangle which disproves point 1: a triangle who has points on The North Pole, 0"N 0"E, and 0"N 90"E. This triangle has 3 right angles. From your definition, cos(x) = adj/hyp. Since all three lines are equal (they are all 1/4 the circumference of the Earth), cos(90)=1. However, sin(0) is defined to be 0. If sin(90-x)=cos(x), then 0=1. This is a contradiction, so sin(90-x)=cos(x) is false. 2. sin(x)/cos(x)=tan(x) Back to our triangle: from it we can determine sin(90)=1 and cos(90) = 1. But, tan(90) is undefined. Since 1/1 doesn't equal undefined (it equals one), sin(x)/cos(x)=tan(x) is false. 3. cos(x)/sin(x)=cot(x) Using the same reasoning as before, you get 1/1 = 0, which means cos(x)/sin(x)=cot(x) is false. I hope you have a good response to this, Pro.
Trigonometry

Okay. Someone accepted. Now, most trigonometry problems involve a right triangle like so: Yes. Now, by definition:sin(θ) = opp÷hypcos(θ) = adj÷hyptan(θ)= opp÷adj[1]Now, what do we get when we devide sin(θ) by cos(θ), substituting?We get (opp/hyp) divided by (adj/hyp). In Algebra, we can multiply (or divide) the numerator and denominator of an expression by the same non-zero quantity without changing the value of the expression.So, if we divide both the top and the bottom by hyp, then we get opp/adj, which is the definition for tan!!The cotangent is just the inverse of the tangent, which means it is basically .So instead of being opp/adj it becomes adj/opp. Which, of course, is what we get when we divide cos(x) (adj/hyp) by sin(x) (opp/hyp), because we can eliminate the hypotenuse just as in the tangent's case.Did I say anthing else? Oh, yeah. Sin(90-θ) = cos(θ).This is true because:Sin(90-θ) is actually the sine of the other angle in the triangle. I can prove this as this is a right triangle, which has a 90I0; right angle, and every triangle only has 180I0;. Therefore, the other angle must equal (90-θ).So, instead of taking the value of sin(θ), we're actually taking the value of sin(k), calling k the other angle. Sin(k) would equal, looking back at our diagram, adj/hyp, as θ's adjacent side is k's opposite side. And of course adj/hyp constitutes cos(θ).I don't see how you can counter this, Con, but good luck trying!![1] http://www.algebralab.org...
"Should Islam (or any religion) be BANNED?"

Did you know that Charles Manson was actually a Mason? (a member of the free masons) He only added an n because he was also a member of the knights who say 'Ni!' and he wanted pay respect to both. The U.S. government went after him because the U.S. government is controlled by the more powerful rival group, the Illuminati. The original founding fathers of the U.S. were nearly all Free Masons, (all except George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe, that is a myth) They promoted humanist enlightenment ideals such as race based chattel slavery and extermination of the indigenous tribes. They established the United States in order to enhance their control of the oligarchy, masquerading as a federal republic. Their secretive adversary, the Illuminati, was more business-like, and less into things like wild sex parties while reading the Jefferson Bible, and more into amassing power. Around the time of the industrial revolution, there was a change in power dynamics, and the Free Mason society was forced to relinquish their territory to the north, as the Illuminati gained control of the cutthroat capitalist carpetbaggers, and the muckraking union leaders. The Free Mason Society members migrated to the south, and soon became embroiled in secessionist politics. One branch of the Free Masons, the Knights of the White Carnation, were very influential in pre-confederate and confederate southern politics, and were instrumental in creating the political climate that resulted in the Civil War. In the Union north, the Civil War of the U.S. was orchestrated by the Illuminati in order to keep the Mason"Dixon line. (to keep the Mason d*cks in line! :D)
Taxation is theft

>Taxation is not 100% forced. By being a US citizen, you are already giving a small bit of consent to the government. This argument only stands for those who immigrate to the US, whereas natural born citizens didn't apply for citizenship and therefore did not necessarily consent to taxation. You cannot sign a contract without, you know, signing the contract. >You can emigrate out of the country [to live tax-free]. This argument rests on the premise that the government owns all land in its territory, which would void any claim to private property, which would in turn imply we live under a feudal system/communist system. In short, that's an invalid argument. I have a right to live on my property which I paid for, and do so peacefully without having to uproot and flee the mob (or the "government"). >Taxes are not only paid with the threat of force. This is blatantly false. Not only is it a fact that tax evaders go to prison (this requires force), it is also very plausible that the government's revenue would drop by over 90% if all threat of force were removed (most people do not enjoy paying taxes, and only do so because the system forces them to). The rest of my opponents argument demonstrates the practical purposes of taxes. I clarified in my previous argument, though, that this debate isn't about whether or not taxes are practical, it's about whether it is theft. It might also be very practical to loot a Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean it's not theft.
Taxation is theft

Taxation is not 100% percent forced. By being a US citizen, you are already giving a small bit of consent to the government. This is the trade that occurs when one becomes a citizen to any country. Specifically in the US, we give a tiny bit of freedom in exchange for a huge amount of security. They can tax you, as a result. If you feel that you need to live 100% tax free, then you can emigrate out of the country if you wish. Taxes are also not only paid with the threat of force. The government uses taxes to give back to the American people. The government builds roads, bridges and more; they provide healthcare to those with mental illnesses, and they pay teachers so that schools can keep running. By refusing to pay taxes, you are harming other citizens, such as teachers, the mentally ill, and those who got jobs working on these road and bridge projects.
Taxation is theft

The definition of theft, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is as follows: "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" The definition of taxes, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is as follows: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions" According to thesaurus.com, compulsory is synonymous with force. If a person or organization uses force "especially backed up with potentially lethal force" to remove someone's personal property, it is theft. If the mob comes to your home or place of business and tells you to pay a certain portion of your money to them and in return they will protect you or insure you, this is theft. Even if the mob is recognized by many people to be legitimate, it is still theft. Therefore, since taxes which are mandatory and only paid under threat of force, are theft. Even if you or I consider taxes to be beneficial to society, it doesn't change the fact that it is in fact theft. One might say that the difference is that a government might give back to its tax payers in the form of roads, military, police, education, justice system, etc. but that assumes that as long as a thief gives something back to his victim, it's not theft. The other primary argument is that people voluntarily pay taxes, since they fill out the forms and comply with the payment and use the products of government. The first part of this argument, that people fill out the forms and comply with the payment, is easily refuted by considering the drop in revenue the state would see if they were to remove the threat of force from taxation (tax evaders would not be punished). The second part of this argument, that people use the products of government, does not mean they are consenting since to do otherwise would be foolish (if you've already been taxed, there's no reason to turn down the practical benefits). I hope my opponent can refute at least one of these arguments to make this debate interesting, but I doubt it can be done.