BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The character, Patrick, should be removed from the show "Spongebob Squarepants."

Why in the world would you forfeit the previous round? Where did all your enthusiasm disappear for Patrick? Anyways, let me present another valid argument to remove Patrick Star from this show. Recall Squidward Tentacles, a citizen of Bikini Bottom and also the neighbor of Patrick Star. Now in the episode "Squidville", he moves to a town filled with his own peers, other octopi who share his tastes and outlook on life. What does this indicate to you? Well, Patrick's obnoxious behavior has irritated Squidward and invaded his personal privacy. By all means, Squidward is a responsible individual who has the right to live a happy life. But, with this monster around, living peacefully is impossible.
The character, Patrick, should be removed from the show "Spongebob Squarepants."

Thank you for your argument. However, using profanity or obscene language is not the best method to convey your message to a member. As mentioned by Con's argument, "Patrick is one of the main persons in the show." This is absolutely not true. The show can continue without this character, since Patrick Star is recognized as an obnoxious and quite enlightended citizen of Bikini Bottom. An example of Patrick's obnoxious behavior could been seen in the episode "Life of a crime," where Patrick and Spongebob steal a balloon on Free Balloon Day. Later on, they decide to leave Bikini Bottom and settle in the wild. When Spongebob offers Patrick a chocolate bar, Patrick assumes that Spongebob stole his bar of chocolate when there is chocolate smeared all over his mouth. Pause for a second. Are you kidding me? This character has become a symbol of pure ignorance. Cartoon shows have a big influence in a child's life, what in the world will a child think about this character? Let's create a scenario here..... let us envisage from a child's perspective: Child: Wow, Patrick is omg like super duper cool. When I grow up, I will want to impersonate my best friend and hurt his feelings. This is perfect!! I await for your arguments............
Mermaids are real

Of course I don't have a job. Most middle schoolers don't. Also nice catch on the "you're" that I did wrong. I'll try to improve. And if we are going to be stupid, and talk grammar. I'm not the one who uses quotation marks instead of commas. Ok, second. I said you were dumb because you thought that mermaids were real. That doesn't mean that my arguments are irrelevant. Third: I couldn't tell this was a joke. There are some pretty stupid people in this world, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually believes in mermaids. "Lastly: Everyone is laughing at YOU not me. Because you believe in mermaids. In conclusion, you obviously didn't make it clear enough that this was a joke, because everyone else who watched this, as you can see from the comments, also thought that you were serious. Thank you, Levi
Mermaids are real

Your opinions (including the commenters) are absolutely irrelevant to me until you learn the difference between your and you"re and an and a. Like no I am not a idiot, I would be AN idiot but I"m obviously not an idiot because I at least know basic grammar that we all learned in elementary school. And you cannot call me the dumbest person alive when you actually used the wrong your at the end of your argument. You probably don"t have a job right? Hopefully that"s why you"re on this website debating with some random person about MERMAIDS. I bet you are not very well liked if one of the things you do for fun is look up the definition of mermaids on Merriam- Webster just to prove someone wrong. Oh please all of you get a life! Jesus could you not tell this was a joke by the first sentence you read. Spend less time on this website and maybe more on your education or actually go get a life. I can"t believe this went on for 2 rounds and you were still going. And also I"m atheist not a Christian and why would it make me Christian if I believed in mermaids? Everyone I know is laughing at you and how seriously you took this obviously fake argument.
Mermaids are real

Okay. First off, I really hope that you are kidding. Otherwise, you are the dumbest person I have ever met. Oh, and by the way, that's not an ad hominem, because it's the truth, not an insult. Second: If Narnia is real I have two things that I want you to do there. #1 Take a selfie with a talking animal, and put it in your next argument, and #2 Take a selfie with a mermaid. Argument 1: "do you have something against people with one leg": My Response: No. They just aren't mermaids, because of 2 reasons #1 People that have 1 leg don't swim 50 feet below the water, they sit in wheel chairs. #2 People with one leg aren't magical. Argument 2: "Merriam-Webster is a lying, non-believing satanist": My Response: No evidence and no source. This is a complete opinion, and a ridiculous one at that. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. How can a dictionary be a satanist? Argument 3: "Have you seen Ariel": My Response: Yes, and it is FAKE. Plus, in this new movie that you are talking about, they will use CGI or they will dress people up. "Argument" 4: "I think not stupid": My Response: Nice ad hominem, but it's not an actual argument. Just a quick tip: You're arguments and things are full of fallacies. Thank you, Ben https://www.finfunmermaid.com....
Mermaids are real

First of all, Narnia is real... But that"s a debate for another time I guess. And also do you have something against people with one leg??!?! Just wondering.. And just for your information, Merium-Webster is a lying, non-believing satanist. Have you even seen Ariel... idiot. And btw there"s a real life Ariel movie coming out so who do you think is gonna play Ariel if mermaids aren"t real? A human? I think not stupid.
Mermaids are real

The definition of a mermaid, according to Merriam-Webster is: "a fictitious or mythical half-human sea creature with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail of a fish, conventionally depicted as beautiful and with long flowing golden hair." Mythical means fake, or something that is told in false stories. Just because you have one leg doesn't mean you are a mermaid. If you have seen a mermaid: kudos to you, but as of right now there is not a single shred of evidence, besides an article from the Onion, that mermaids do in fact exist. As you can see this argument has many major holes in it, and makes absolutely no sense, unless you believe that Narnia is a real place. In conclusion, this is an argument that, 1: Has absolutely no evidence and 2: Has a horrible definition (just because you have one leg, doesn't mean that you are a mermaid)
Mermaids are real

Mermaids are real. Have you ever seen H2O? Ya that is what i thot. Only an idiot would think they dont exist. People born with one leg are a mermaid. MERMAIDS ARE REAL. ya ppl with one leg prolly shouldnt be thrown into a large body of water to see if they survive but i bet ya darn tootin if u did then THEY WOULD SURVIVE BECAUSE MERMAIDS ARE REAL SO SHUT UP! EOLUTION WE OVOLVED FORM FISHIES!
the bible is an evil book

it has become oblivious that my opponent will not make a counter argument so this debate can be considered a victory but first heres the bible on slavery. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. " Leviticus 25:44-46 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. " Exodus 21:7-11 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free. ' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. " Exodus 21:2-6 this debate was a disappointment because there were no rebuttals from my opponent and he failed to have an intelligent debate.
Resolved:Economic growth matters more than ecological issues.

I would like to establish that it's not a matter of they can both be done. We can do both, but I'm saying if a serious decision was to come in the future where you have to choose one side, it should go to the economy. I support this for three reasons, immediate effects, precedence, and morality. 1.Immediate Effects-The economy is could go down at any minute. The great depression and the housing market crash were examples of this. Climate change isn't going to have any serious damage for a decade. I'm not saying that we shouldn't focus on it at all, but the economy should be held to a higher standard. 2.Precedence-We can't fix the environment with a broken economy. You said the poor can do there part, but gave no evidence how. I don't feel the economically disadvantaged of the planet can do as much as the upper class. 3.Morality-As long as there are starving children, even just one, we are failing as a country by not allowing there to be more economic growth in the United States. We are choosing birds and trees over children and citizens.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

“..., does it matter if someone will find out? No it does not, it is still a moral consequence, revenge.” Well, Revenge is an action where person is trying to find pleasure through pain. If you justify this act then you are equally justifying all other horrendous acts like rape, murder, sexual abuse, lying, cheating because all these acts provide pleasure to people by giving pain. Do you think it will produce right moral consequences? Due to above reasons, principle of utility is having a drawback (as you also agree, it can produce terrible consequences, though seems to be moral from individual’s point of view). To sum up, I will say as Morals are metaphysical concept, morality is subjective depends upon the point of view of the moral agent. Moral consequences are the assumptions of human imagination and thus it is questionable. Moral relativity is also a reason why all action not necessarily leads to moral consequences. If every action was evaluated according to moral consequences then our society should have been perfect, but that is not the case. Actions are also performed out of obligation, duty, or passion by moral agent who does not care for the consequences to be moral. One of the main problems is presupposition of consequences to be moral. Hume asserts that cause and effect are constantly conjoined but never necessarily connected. Similarly, human action will definitely result into some consequences but not necessarily into a moral consequence. Therefore, it will be false to say that- “There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences”.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

Thank you for your reply. If you look at all the moral codes, all of them eventually will lead to moral consequences from actions. When you stated "It is equally possible that no one will find out if he murdered the rapist", does it matter if someone will find out? No it does not, it is still a moral consequence, revenge. The misunderstanding that you posted about the principle of utility, saying that there are some actions which the principle of utility would say is right because we would do whatever necessary to maximize the pleasure. The principle of utility says that we should do whatever necessary to maximize utility (good morals are conceived by human actions where pleasure outweighs pain). However, in an effort to reason in a utilitarian matter tends to have terrible consequences, and fails to make the most of utility. That is why we should not reason in a utilitarian matter, but instead we should instill those tempers and approaches, and stand for the utilitarian principles, that would tend to service utility. The seven circumstances are just guides. Now, as I stated before: every action will have a moral consequence. Whether it will be direct or indirect, on a smaller scale or larger, it does not matter because the end result is a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

"Notice that every society has different set rules on what morals are, there is not one set of rules of morals that is universal, except maybe murder" From your part of argument, I totally agree that there is no single right answer by which action can be called moral, as it will be different among different societies. Taking from there, I would say that is exactly what I"m trying to say that there is a moral ambiguity as there can be many consequences to an action; if that is the case then every action will not necessary lead to moral consequences as the consequences might be moral for one society but not for other or may be some society might not even regard it. Therefore, not every action would have moral consequence, depending upon societies" interest. Indeed every action will have direct or indirect consequences on the moral agent, however again it depends on the society"s moral law or person"s belief. As in the case of second example, where the husband himself takes law in his hand, which is not a right thing to do in our society, he performed that action without thinking of the outcome. It is equally possible that no one will find out if he murdered the rapist. Most of the time, man do not think for the consequences and do it out of duty or passion. Then, what follows is matter of assumption. It could be moral, not moral or nothing.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

You are assuming that "stealing" is morally wrong in some society. But what if every person can take other people"s belongings and all of them share their things in that society. Again, every action contributes to the society and that is through their actions which eventually lead to moral consequences. Because if they are not happy, and not thinking for the better of the people, then what kind of society would that be. In addition, stealing (if it"s morally wrong) is still an act that leads to moral consequences. You said that murdering a president or dictator would be morally wrong, so you are agreeing with me that this action does have moral consequences. If an individual decides to murder someone, the killing will produce a moral consequence against that society"s moral code which prohibits killing of another human being. We are not arguing whether an action is morally wrong or right but whether there is a moral consequence to every action. Notice that every society has different set rules on what morals are, there is not one set of rules of morals that is universal, except maybe murder. All the examples you provided all lead to moral consequences. A moral consequence does not have to be a direct conduct, it could be indirect as well. For instance, on September 11th, 2001 the World Trade Center Towers collapsed after a terrorist attack. The terrorists were identified as Muslims. The indirect moral result of this action presented itself when after the attack some Americans were being prejudiced toward Muslim people, assuming they were all responsible for the horrid tragedy. Muslims were called names, threatened, beaten; yet they were not responsible for the World Trade Center attack. Another example is when a female was raped and her perpetrator was caught but never convicted because of lack of evidence and the result of that was that the female"s husband was seeking revenge and eventually murdered the rapist. These two examples are examples of indirect moral consequences.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

There is a preservative permanency between the individual quest of personal benefits and the maximum happiness of the greatest number. Happiness is an amount of pleasures of any kind. You stated that "Sometimes actions are performed out of obligations, you don"t judge them based on consequences but on what is it, and how it appears to be". What action might that be? This statement does not show that there will be no consequence. Whatever a person chooses to do will have an effect on someone else. Whether it is on a minor scale or higher, it does not matter because at the end someone will be affected and will receive pleasure or pain. Whether you act on a certain situation or choose not to do anything, there is always a consequence. For instance, when you choose to ignore a person in need of help or not, that action will either way have an effect.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

Human actions are generally evaluated based on its consequences. Actions are judged as per its consequences but it is not necessary that the consequences have to be moral. In this debate, I"m trying to argue, "There is a possibility that a human action can be without moral consequences." According to Utilitarianism, actions are performed based on its result, mainly aiming at pleasure and pain, and those actions which can result into happiness of maximum is considered to be right or say morally right. However, I disagree with that because: (1.)It is not necessary that moral consequences produced could justify the action to be moral. (2.)There are many instances where people seek pleasure through painful actions. (3.)In such instances, the consequences might be aiming at pleasure but the act itself cannot be justified as moral. (4.)Sometimes, people just overshadow the unjust actions because the consequence brought happiness to many. (5.)Thus, it is the actions which are supposedly moral or immoral and consequences will follow. (6.)If we look our daily schedule there are many instances where we assume that consequences would be moral but there is an equal chance that it might not be the case. (7.)Bentham provided Hedonistic Clause which provides the understanding how we should choose are actions, because it is not necessary that every action will produce a moral consequences. (8.)By the principle of sympathy and antipathy, actions are approved or disapproved not always tending to happiness or pain but because we consider it to be right or wrong. (9.)Sometimes actions are performed out of obligations, you don"t judge them based on consequences but on what is it, and how it appears to be. (Immanuel Kant's theory- The consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant.) (10.) Therefore, there is a possibility that actions performed can be without thinking of moral consequences as the consequences are not under our control. Just for clarification- moral consequences are the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

The principle of utility is that good and evil are utilities of pleasure and pain. It seeks the most pleasure and the least pain that result from a specific action. Every action has some consequence and it varies in scale, however there is always someone who receives pleasure and pain by an action. I argue that every human action has consequences by stating the following: 1. Morals are conceived by human actions where pleasure outweighs pain. 2. Pain and pleasure governs us in everything we do and say. 3. Actions either produce happiness or pleasure. 4. Actions are wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness. 5. Human actions consider the following when it comes to achieving pleasure: the intensity, how long it will last, how certain that the pleasure will occur, how soon the pleasure will occur, whether it will lead to further pleasures, whether it cross with any pain, and how many this action will affect. 6. No action is intrinsically good or bad, that is why we look at the consequences of that action to examine if the action was good or bad. 7. Human action is created on causes (desires) and effects (actions), and from that action there is a result, pain or pleasure. 8. Therefore, human actions have moral consequences.
Evolution is true and Biblical Creation is false

As you forfeited Round #2, I'm assuming unintentionally, I will simply make a couple small points I realized I missed in my Round #2 argument. For your Round #3, just refute my Round #2 and Round #3. Now into the rebuttles. "We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention."With this statement, you act as though human intervention is the standard for natural processes. Well, it's not. Hundreds of years ago, someone might have been able to say "Humans can't creat water, so water must have been created by God." Now, however, we understand chemistry well enough that we could, conceivably, take 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom and fuse them, creating water. As our scientific knowledge advances, we will some day be able to induce evolution on a scale that would normally take too long to directly witness, and then that whole argument will fly out the door. Just because humans haven't been able to do something yet does not make it some natural standard."The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose. Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose." What's wrong with the universe not having a cause? As I explained in my Round #2 argument, essentially, causality does not apply on the quantum level, which is where the singularity most likely came from. I would propose this to you: where did your God come from? If you say he's always been here, how is that even possible? How can you justify saying something has always been around? Even an omnipotent being couldn't will itself into existence, and we've never observed Gods popping into existence before, even on the quantum level. The difference between the Big Bang and your God creating it is that we have evidence that strongly points to the Big Bang, whereas you have an ancient book written by unknown sources. Also, just because we can't say that we are 100% sure of what happened in regards to the Big Bang does not give you permission to automatically insert God. Weather used to be attributed to God of various gods, then we discovered how weather worked and that argument disappeared. I have no doubt that we will, some day, be able to know exactly how the Big Bang happened.