BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society

"I hope that I'm able to reason with you because believe it or not I support you. " no worries least we found common ground. Thanks! Sorry about our heated back and forth it will never happen again. Its this guy on here named omar which i don't like so its some ppl on here who will tick me off and they will give me the reminder of him "Why degrade pleasure and the oldest profession? I just hope that you stay away from the trappings of drug use and STD's" I don't know man, I don't know. And no worries i won't do any drugs im just a drinker (occasionally) i understand and agree with your paragraph about your bestfriend. "One thing for sure and this comes from experience. . . DO NOT overdo it! When you talk about your life and problems too much, This pushes people away which is the very last thing you want! Recognize when you are doing it. If you are doing it and back off. " - Ok i'll keep this in mind "No no no you silly. Its not you "making" fun of someone. Granted, A very select few do deserve this. Most don't. Its you having fun ---with--- someone. See the difference? " Oooooooh ok Havent seen The Atheist Experience worth looking into, Thanks for your recommendation. Take care!
The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society

I hope that I'm able to reason with you because believe it or not I support you. Yes, That's exactly to---the---letter what I thought you did was either run a prostitution business or be a prostitute or both. Why degrade pleasure and the oldest profession? I just hope that you stay away from the trappings of drug use and STD's. Am glad you have someone to talk to. I do. But they, Unfortunately, Live in other states and are thus long distance. But like I said, They'd die for me. Now my best friend who lives an hour away, Sure we get together about once or twice a month, But he doesn't understand what I go through and constantly says "don't worry about it". There are genuine friends that are in many people's lives, Probably yours, That are this way. But you want them regardless. One thing for sure and this comes from experience. . . DO NOT overdo it! When you talk about your life and problems too much, This pushes people away which is the very last thing you want! Recognize when you are doing it. If you are doing it and back off. No no no you silly. Its not you "making" fun of someone. Granted, A very select few do deserve this. Most don't. Its you having fun ---with--- someone. See the difference? Now here's me and this is me only. Please do NOT BE ME! I have an extreme distaste for those who do not have an education or intelligence on the subject(s) that they profess to have knowledge upon and they really don't, And yet they pretend that they do. And because they don't they invent excuses for that specific subject and or flat out lie. When this happens, Which happens quite often, They will soon have no genuine friends or loved ones if it keeps up (hey they may not now) and their teachers will ALWAYS mark that paper with an F. And it is my right to degrade, Dehumanize and belittle them or walk away in which I sometimes do with my brand of sarcastic, Dumb, Idiotic, Original, Gone from this universe, Blah blah black sheep have you any fool insults. This is something that is taught in college. Do you watch The Atheist Experience? If not, And I know you probably don't, It just might be your cup of tea and to your liking indeed. It is a show run out of Austin, TX every Sunday at 5:30 EST hosted by 2 atheists where people from around the world can call in and talk about various religious ideas. Sometimes the hosts are gay/ lesbian. Today, And it is so very odd because Phil Session is gay and what was gotten into was how god does not support those who are gay, Something you were questioning. Matt Dillahunty is the second host and he is a great debater. He has the uncanny ability to reason. If you would like to listen to the entire call, It really is a good intelligent one, It starts at roughly the 53:30 mark. Or if you are interested in just the part that I think you may be interested in, It starts at 1:19:30 (yeah its a longgggg call! ) Well please tc and have fun -Michael
The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society

"Do you really think that your god is only going to single out men and not include women especially when your god degrades women as being MUCH lower in class throughout your bible? THINK! " - Ok, I understand "Not---if---you---tell---the---truth. I'm very good in knowing if you tell the truth or not. " - I run a prostitute business "Now if you have someone to talk to, It makes things a lot easier and better. " - I have that. I hope you have the same thing "Yes it is. I've read some of your debates. " -? Give me an example of me making fun of someone else's life and making fun of deceased family members i never do anything like that. Unless i read what u said in a different context? Explain. Again i do throw insults cuz ppl piss me off but i don't go below the belt and talk about ppl family and stuff thats just off limits. "hands are in horrific pain" - Okay. Lets cut the debate short then. You tc too
Wikileaks

There's been a lot of controversy over Wikileaks: an international media non-profit organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks [1]. Recently Wikileaks has come under fire for releasing controversial material, such as classified videos and documents from the U.S. military, and evidence of politicians acting less than scrupulous, even to the point of having enough evidence to possibly warrant resignation for wrong-doing [2]. Everyone from Barack Obama to Glenn Beck has been condemning this website (hey they agree on something!). Even the politicians are finally coming together on one issue; Senator Joe Lieberman's introduced bipartisan legislation to amend the Espionage Act and criminalize Wikileaks that way [3]. Newt Gingrich quipped, "Information warfare is warfare, and Julian Assange is engaged in warfare... Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant. Wikileaks should be closed down permanently and decisively" [4]. Former presidential candidate and popular Fox News journalist Mike Huckabee proclaimed the appropriate punishment for Wikileaks founder and contributor Julian Assange is execution [5]. Of course I completely disagree; I think Assange should be praised as one of the best journalists in the world and believe receiving a Nobel Peace Prize is more appropriate than the death penalty. However I know there are a lot of "intelligent conservatives" here and regardless this is a bipartisan issue that has upset people on both sides of the aisle and all over the world. As such, I would like to debate the merits of Wikileaks with someone who believes Wikileaks and/or Assange should be terminated. While the law will most certainly be pertinent to our discussion, saying "it's against the law" is not a sufficient argument and in fact an appeal to authority when determining the merits of what should be. Nevertheless I don't mind what contentions my opponent uses. The first round will be for accepting this debate, and Con can post any comments or questions he or she wishes for the Pro though I accept full responsibility to make the first argument (unless my opponent wants to). I will also accept the burden of proving Wikileaks should continue to exist and be available to the public. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://lieberman.senate.gov... [4] http://www.politico.com... [5] http://libertymaven.com...
Obama is destroying the country

Your source is an opinion piece. The only fact that can be established from the piece is that Obama either lied, embellished or was mistaken about Obama care. This doesn't show that Obama care is a net loss for society. It also doesn't show that Obama is destroying society. Even if we can show that Obama care is bad, it in no way shows he is destroying the country. I remind everyone the burden of proof is on pro and despite my dancing around, pro hasn't proved anything.
Faith is virtuous.

You have missed my entire point; if virtue cannot be judged by what is right and wrong (morality) then virtue is nonexistent as it is directly linked to morality. If virtue in nonexistent than it cannot apply to faith, which is something I am guessing CON is debating on purpose because if that is true it would make my argument invalid but as morality and virtue are directly linked to each other he cannot argue such a ridiculous claim!The sins in the Bible are the counterparts of the commandments if the commandments are moral because sins are bad, then the commandments are in fact moral, and therefor if the Bible which accepted as the word of God endorses such commandments than those who believe in it are virtuous and therefor as a rule the subject of 'Faith' is virtuous! Especially if faith is believing something that is moral.
Faith is virtuous.

I accept the terms of this debate and side that Christain Faith is Virtuous as which faith was not defined.The definition of Virtuous is Christain faith is as so "Virtue is more than just doing the right thing when it is convenient. It means having the fortitude to make right decisions in every area of life, regardless of opposition from outside influences" (What is the Biblical Value of Virtue?).The Bible's commandments The Ten Commandments No worshipping gods other than God. No worshipping human creations. No disrespecting God's name. No working on the Sabbath. No disrespecting parents. No killing. No adultery. No stealing. No lying to harm another. No wanting another's spouse or possessions. You might also find it helpful to remember: TheologicalVirtues CardinalVirtues CapitalVirtues CapitalSins Faith Hope Charity Prudence Justice Temperance Fortitude Humility Liberality Fraternity Meekness Chastity Temperance Diligence Pride Avarice Envy Wrath Lust Gluttony Sloth I will argue these are virtueous
Faith is virtuous.

ResolutionFaith is virtuous.The spirit--an ironic word choice--of the debateTo have people demonstrate why believing things without proof rather than beliving things with proof is virtuous. Definitions (changeable in comments as long as Pro and Con consent)Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Virtuous - having or showing high moral standards, generally good.Pro has the Burden of Proof and 30,000 characters to demonstrate that faith is virtuous, and rebuttal anything from Con.Con is Rejecting The Resolution and only has 20,000 characters with which to rebuttal.Buena suerte! Except I reject the claim that suerte even exists...may your good fortunes be deserved.
Saudi Arabia is not that bad of a country

My opponent has not given a detailed enough argument, so my refutals are going to be short. TheocracyThe cons of Saudi Arabia which i've brung up, much of these aspects apply to other islamic theocracies.Religious FreedomA country should give basic rights because it's a human right. It is immoral to give a hard time to others over minor religious beliefs. People are still humans, some may have different religious beliefs but it's not a good reason to give cruel treatment to a person for that. While extremist beliefs are understandable, there's no reason against denying another live human being with feelings and emotion the freedom of thought. Furthermore, it may be likely for Islam to be false. If Islam were proven to be false, the middle eastern theocracies would have wasted their whole time.Another point is that international law by the UN defines human rights as this: [1] "Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination." We can clearly see that by treating muslims superior to others in middle eastern theocracies, they are violating international law. TortureMy opponent gives no proof of the statement that lashes aren't recgonized as torture. Even so, it's common knowledge that they can be painful and damaging to health. Further more, it's not right to torture and threaten one's health over expressing free speech. Raif Badwan has been suffering from poor health concerns from the lashes he recieved in Saudi Arabia. If Islam really wasn't right, then he was simply tortured for no reason at all. [2] Women's rightsAs I mentioned before, human's rights apply to everyone, not just men. International law set by the UN says that both genders must be treated equally. Giving women less rights also effects social/economic efficiency. The women back at home working could easily be helping the economy or whatever, but instead they're stuck at home. http://www.un.org...http://blogs.reuters.com...
Saudi Arabia is not that bad of a country

Rebuttals (Apologies if these rebuttals are short) Introductions: "Saudi Arabia is a middle eastern country which is under theocratic rule. Theocracy is proven to be a bad form of government, secular nations have often shown that they do better. " No proof is given for this statement. Neither has there been evidence to show that the correlation was because of theocracy. Reliigous Freedom: "A country should not prohibit such a basic right to individuals. " While such is agreeable, you fail to prove why a good country should prohibit basic rights, this assertion was not followed with a reason as to why this should be present in an ideal country. Torture: "Saudi Arabia is known to torture people much like in medieval Europe. For example, an Australian in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to 500 lashes for "blasphemy" [1] This isn't uncommon either, A saudi blogger known as 'Raif Badawi' was sentenced to 1000 lashes for insulting Islam. For this reason, his wife and Children have even fled to Canada. [2] He was also sentenced to 10 years in jail for such a minor thing. " Lashing as a means of punishment is not recognized as a form of torture by the UN. Whether or not public criticism of the state Religion should be a punishable crime is subjective, and whether or not said criticism is "minor" is also subjective. "Simply making a joke about Islam could have dire consequences, a good country shouldn't allow for such torture against this little of a thing. " Once more, this is another subjective assertion. As said previously, Whether or not public criticism of the state Religion should be a punishable crime is and whether or not said criticism is "minor" is also subjective. As religion is strictly upheld in Saudi Arabia, undermining of it is seen as a crime. Women's Rights: "Women in Saudi Arabia suffer from discrimination and unequal rights to men. A good country should dictate equal rights to both genders. Women in Saudi Arabia suffer from discrimination and unequal rights to men. A good country should dictate equal rights to both genders. " This argument is once more based of a personal belief. Whether or not the ideal country is to treat both genders indiscriminately is up to opinion, in Saudi Arabia, it is seen as the sufficient use of gender roles.
Saudi Arabia is not that bad of a country

1. EconomyLebanon is a much smaller country so it's not the fairest sense to compare it to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has grown it's economy by oil, however renewable energy sources are improving. Due to increased efficiency of renewable energy sources, reliance on oil is likely going to shrink. This chart shows how much progress the EU alone has made on renewable energy. The US and many other countries are also making progress with more efficient renewable energy. With this, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries may not last. Second, the economy really can't outweigh the human right violations. 2. EducationPro insists that King Saud university is ranked #8 in Asia. However, from his sources we can see there are many ranking systems. On other charts, King Saud is shown as much less than the 8th best university in Asia. 3. Immigration Immigration in Saudi Arabia isn't that high with only 10% of immigrant workers. We can also see the diversity rate in Saudi Arabia is not very high, the religious diversity is even worse. You would be brutally oppressed if you aren't a Muslim in Saudi arabia. In Israel, we can see that the diversity rates are much higher, and there are many non-Jewsih people in Israel. Any non-muslims in Saudi Arabia likely never tell anybody seeing as they would be oppressed, as they can't worship in public either. Human RightsSaudi Arabia has a bad record of human rights under international law. In a country like Israel on the other hand, we can see that Israel has anti-discrimination laws. Israel also has laws respecting religious freedom as well as political and legal rights. In my previous argument, i've mentioned about the freedom restrictions in Saudi Arabia. Such restrictions on freedom wouldn't make it the best place to live.Sources:https://freedomhouse.org...http://www.pbs.org...http://he.moe.gov.sa...http://breakingenergy.com...http://www.carbonbrief.org...
Saudi Arabia is not that bad of a country

Main Arguments. 1. Economy The economy of Saudi Arabia is rated among one of the ten best in the Middle East. With a GDP of 748 billion USD, it is higher then both Iran (368 Billion USD) and Lebanon (44 billion USD), Saudi Arabia also sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, accounting for at least 20% of the world's oil. Making the country home a growing migrant working population. Saudi Arabia is also a major member of OPEC. Making the country one of the world's most influential exporters of oil. The economy of the country is strong, hence it attracts immigrants. Making the country economically prosperous. 2. Education Public Education in Saudi Arabia from Primary school to Post-Secondary is open to any Saudi citizen. As a result, student debt for University and College graduates is virtually non-existent. Compare that to student loan debt across the United States: As of 2010, King Saud university has ranked as #8 best university in Asia. 3. Immigration (This is more or less an extension of my first argument) Saudi Arabia is fairly attractive to foreign and migrant workers. At least 10% of the Saudi population consists of immigrant workers. Even if they are not citizens. Especially towards professional workers whom are provided with housing, generally tax-free salaries, paid education for the worker's children and a free ticket back to the immigrants home country. Many of these advantages are not seen by most migrant workers in the Middle East or other countries. Sources: 1. https://www.saudiembassy.net... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.expatsblog.com... 5.https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net... 6. http://he.moe.gov.sa...
Saudi Arabia is not that bad of a country

This debate will be about whether the country of Saudi Arabia is a good country to live in or not. I will be arguing that Saudi Arabia is not a good country, UtherPenguin will be arguing why it isn't that bad of a country. FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main argumentsRounds 3-4: Additional arguments and rebuttalsRound 5: Additional arguments/rebuttals and you must state why you did better than your opponent
Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

I'm sorry, I thought you could have figured out if I cited them or not. I guess it is hard to see if someone put quotations around something. I know what you are trying to do. Bolding words, so that when voters vote, that will be the first thing they see. Nice!! Also, it is honestly not that hard to figure out whether or not I cited. So, don't hate, appreciate! (sigh) In conclusion to all that I have said, Reagan was all in all a terrible president. He did not only lie to the American people, but had a lasting affect on the presidencies to come. During 1993, Clinton"s first year in office, the new Democratic administration pushed through tax increases, partially reversing the massive tax cuts implemented under Reagan. Finally, the debt problem began to stabilize, with the total debt at $5.7 trillion and heading downward, when Clinton left office in January 2001. As my opponent states how Reaganomics worked, it actually didn't.In the late 1970s " the economy grew at 5.4 percent in 1976, 4.6 percent in 1977 and 5.6 percent in 1978.But people didn"t feel very prosperous because inflation and unemployment were high. The unemployment rate was around 7 percent during those three years, and inflation accelerated, going from 4.9 percent in 1976 to an astonishing 13.3 percent in 1979. Cites: http://thinkprogress.org... (P.S. Pro, you should really take a look at this)^^^^^^ Also, can you understand what I am talking about?
Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

Obviously my opponent does not know how to properly cite... usually, people put a [1] next to their argument, then at the bottom, put a [1]- (link). Genius. Also, I don't see anywhere that I called him a female... but okay then... Nor did he even acknowledge him copy and pasting... he just excused me of copy and pasting, when I didn't because my source doesn't even include that actually sentence... it just includes the information I used to put that sentence together... Please include where it says that exact sentence in my article. It's nowhere.Again.. *sigh* once again, he puts articles up that are against Ronald Reagan, not to mention he COPIED AND PASTED. AGAIN. His last argument is the EXACT WORDS AS HIS HUBPAGES.COM ARTICLE.These arguments are plagiarized, BUT AGAIN, I will still rebut them."His administration had more documented corruption than any president in U.S history- At least 138 Reagan administration officials, were investigated, indicated or convicted of crimes. Sounds sketchy to me.Secretary of the Interior " Indicted on 41 feloniesAttorney General " resigned after investigations of corruptionSecretary of Defense " charged with Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned before going to trialTwo National Security Advisors " plead guilty to Iran-Contra crimes and pardonedThree high ranking CIA officials were convicted and pardoned for Iran-Contra crimes.At least 9 Reagan appointees were convicted of perjury, lying to Congress, obstruction of Congress or contempt of Congress.I don't think there will be any rebuttals to that!!!"This is nothing compared to the other Presidents in history. There are 4 other Presidents that had far more corruption than him, please, take a look. (http://www.mostcorrupt.com...)"After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan"s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only 8 years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the budget deficits, all 8 of the budgets passed by Congress had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan." (copy and paste?!?!?!)It is not Ronald Reagan's fault we are in this position... it's technically George W. Bush and Barack Obama who have added about $6 trillion to the debt in their 8/6 years. You say that it is bad he exceed $200 billion. They increased it by trillions.. not to mention that Jimmy Carter actually added $337 billion in deficit, so that article you have been plagiarizing from is wrong. [1]ConclusionI believe that I have won this debate because not only did my opponent copy and paste, he actually just failed to properly cite... I have proved Ronald Reagan was a better president because he created a great economy called "Reaganomics," he was likable by the people, he broke the iron curtain, and he stopped one of the most essential wars of all time. My opponent then accuses me of copy and pasting, but the articles I have provided never even said the sentences I put up... you can check them if you want.Thank you.Cites:[1]- http://www.dailykos.com...#(See, Pro?)