BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless...

bible- but you arnt, as a believer looking after them. your saying that its the govt job to do that. and ok, show me where in the bible it says we can use the government to administer charity as a replacement for church charity. you cant. -------------------------------------- but in the example of jobe it shows how hardship and suffuring brings him closer to god... and you call that evil? our reason for being created IS to have a relationship with the lord. therefor anything that helps this i would say is a greater good beyont your understanding. also, jesus endured lots of suffering, so are you saying jesus was sinnful? that's obsurd! --------------------------------------- simmple put, the bible tellsus that we as human beings have a sinnfull nature. enough said. and also, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what im saying and of what zizek is saying. the point is is that without suffering, one cannot ever have a chance to fullful there desire for a greater level of happyness. and because jobe had sufferd all that, he just apreciated all of what god gave him just that much more ------------------------------------- I~look, god is all powerfull. im sure if god saw prophit for us in taking away all suffering, he would have accomplished that long ago II~ 1. it would encorage people, but has no garenty... pluss people are greedy, we are driven all by self motivation wich by deffinition is greed. 2. in the bible it says "all fall short of the glory of god". all,! so if a baby is born? not accountable, but is still short of gods glory. all are sinnfull. III~ 1. systems are monitored but still fall subject to abuse... 2. i was saying that what u had said was the exception. IV~ um its not leagal now, but they do it illegaly.... how is this fixing that? it isnt V~ extend my argument about how people are inatly greedy here. VI~ but over time like a sponge the govt will soak the power back up VII~ there is no inate desire, but there is a superficial desire. sins are desirable, and we all have a superficial desire to endulge ourselves in sins. but to be a christian by deffinition is to not walk the way of the world. to not endulge in our own desires but that of gods, witch by far is the hardest road. therefor to be a christian is to endure suffering. VIII~yet without the help of this majical tax reduction your debating me online? ok IX~ but then corupt polititions would just make waste of more of the revenue. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. govt allready deficit spends into the trillions, you realy think there going to stop now? i doubt it. 2. but as i have proved, even if this point is true, you never actualy explained how this does this. you just said that i does. --------------------------------------------------------
The user Lifeisgood is a narcissist.

Now, for the final argument. "His defense is atypical of the justice system in the United States." That is because this debate is very atypical of cases presented to the U.S. justice system. In this debate, my opponent must prove that I am a narcissist, something to do with my character. He has attempted to provide evidence to show this. I have shown that this evidence does not necessarily mean that I am a narcissist. "Yet, he failed to make his intentions known at any time. Every single time he has posted something narcissistic, he has done so without any smilies or emoticons like everyone else on the forum. He only apologizes after I call him out on it." I have had several reasons for not giving emoticons like other people. 1) I am afraid it will ruin the joke. I have found jokes to be much more humorous when one has to think for a moment about the statement before they figure out how it is funny. Just putting a little ‘:p' thing after every joke I made seemed to ruin the humor. 2) I honestly used to think that it was stupid to use the emoticon things. I was new to the internet when I first joined, and I thought I could adequately express myself without them. It just seemed redundant for statements that were obviously not serious. My problem lay in the fact that there are really people out there like that who ARE serious… "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant may be apologetic now, but that is only because he knows his guilt. He is simply saving face. I have made a damning prosecution of the defendant, which he failed to defend other than "I didn't mean it... I wasn't serious." For all the above reasons, Lifeisgood is undoubtedly narcissistic, thus Lifeisgood is a narcissist." Your evidence, as I have previously shown, is not at all ‘damning'. None of it conclusively indicates narcissism. I have presented my case. I have nothing more to say. Voters, make your decision.
The user Lifeisgood is a narcissist.

My opponent's defense is as follows: 1) I was emotional, I didn't mean it. 2) I wasn't being serious. 3) I was being silly, I didn't mean it. 4) I was joking, I didn't mean it. === Voters- You are the jury of this debate. I, Nags, am the prosecutor. And my opponent, Lifeisgood, is the defendant. His defense is atypical of the justice system in the United States. "I didn't mean it... I didn't do it." Yet, he failed to make his intentions known at any time. Every single time he has posted something narcissistic, he has done so without any smilies or emoticons like everyone else on the forum. He only apologizes after I call him out on it. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant may be apologetic now, but that is only because he knows his guilt. He is simply saving face. I have made a damning prosecution of the defendant, which he failed to defend other than "I didn't mean it... I wasn't serious." For all the above reasons, Lifeisgood is undoubtedly narcissistic, thus Lifeisgood is a narcissist. I rest my case.
The user Lifeisgood is a narcissist.

========== DEFINITIONS: ========== Lifeisgood - http://www.debate.org... narcissist - The term narcissism refers to the personality trait of self-love, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image or ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. http://en.wikipedia.org... ========== CONTENTIONS: ========== 1) Take a look at this thread: http://www.debate.org... and look at 90% of LIG's rebuttals. His rebuttals are basically: "You are intellectually inferior to me, your opinion if sh!t." There are many instances of LIG's narcissism, but this is the most glaring (Page 5): I wrote: "**Do you understand how much of a narcissist you are sounding like? You are basically saying 'I won, the voters are stupid, and I'm always right... So, duh, I won (by a landslide).'" LIG responded: "You asked for a reason. You interpreted my response in a negative way, that is all. I was not trying to be arrogant. I can't help it that I'm always right." >"I can't help it that I'm always right." Wow, that is pretty much the definition of narcissism. 2) Lifeisgood and I originally had a debate on Abortion (here: http://www.debate.org...). He messaged me on August 19th to discuss Abortion further. The message in full is here: Part 1: http://i30.tinypic.com... Part 2: http://i27.tinypic.com... The two most glaring instances of narcissism in the message: "First of all, why are you in favor of abortion, even after your pwnment in our previous debate? Why are you still convinced?" "Anyway, are you afraid to discuss the issue of abortion with me?" Each of LIG's posts are just oozing with narcissism. I have no other comments, the evidence is quite clear. 3) LIG just made a thread on his narcissism here: http://www.debate.org... He makes a good case for his own narcissism: "Sometimes (perhaps frequently) in my comments, I say ridiculously arrogant things, or just plain silly, nonsensical, statements." "What's worse, I seem to have thoroughly convinced Nags that I am an arrogant, intolerant idiot who thinks he's always right." "People who don't know me well get the impression that I some sort of extreme narcissist." ===== I have nothing else to say for now.
Reality shows should be banned

I do not have demographic evidence but I have experience of being around young teens and I can see who watches these shows. (ri) By having these shows on TV it shows young teens that this is an okay way to act in front of people. (s) This does create bad behavior. (s) The term "reality" is completely false, because in fact (ri) they are not reality. it is all made up nonsense which does not create any form of intelligent effects (re/c)
Reality shows should be banned

Firstly, (ri) I'd like my opponent to consider whether or not she has evidence supporting the claim about the majority demographic. Secondly, (ri) my opponent puts forth a weak claim by saying the bad behavior "could" have an impact; (q/ri) I don't see how you determine this, there is no account of the cause of bad behavior (s), and this is my opponent's bop. Thirdly, (ri) I'd like to maintain my earlier claim that banning reality television shows would provoke a serious burden because (s) my opponent has not explained why these shows are the single target of her argument. Fourthly, but new to our argument, (ri) my opponent hasn't provided reason to think reality shows are "reality" shows; personally, I've never seen them that way (ri
Reality shows should be banned

Banning these shows will remove any negative impact they might have on young teens who are watching them (ri). Young teens are a majority of the people who are watching these shows (q). Seeing bad behavior could in fact have a negative impact (s) the audience who is watching these shows can see how "famous" they can become off of being Italian, cursing, drinking and partying every night (s) These shows are not a good influence on viewers (c)
Reality shows should be banned

I understand your claim that these shows may display bad behavior (ri). However, (q) I don't think supporting the ban with the concern for children necessarily gives reason to ban them (s); there are further considerations required (ri), for example, are children the only audience? (s)--second, is it the case taht seeing bad behavior has a negative impact? (s/ec?)--I think reality shows provide an excellent resource (ri), to see why people shouldn't act in those ways (ep). However (q), I realize that you may not agree (ri), because you may say that only those who judge for themselves are able to see that this is bad behavior (s), and, perhaps, that they are good people for not being that way (ri); but the risk is worth it.
Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now let me say that when the south was wealthy I did not mean they all were and I never meant they all stood to gain from slaves. Also I didn't meant to make the south sounds as though plantations and nothing else I'm from Charlotte for one thing. But Let me say a few things here. 1. That 5% as you say would obviously fight to keep slaves and also since they are the upper crust would thereby make the rules. More money more pull on politics fact of life. 2. The slaves would also fight for slavery related reasons but to free themselves and some northerners would as well and even some southerners, so that 5% would obviously be much higher. 3. You brought up the poor representation well what about this. Do you not remember how the south could partially count slaves in as their own votes thus giving them more pull beyond just their money. These reasons as well as how you admitted that slavery did have indirect cause in the other causes of the war would all add up to slavery being the main cause in the end. But Let me say by this point it is to the voters who is right and who is wrong. Also thank you yummycod you have been a lot of fun and very challenging to debate with and so it made it difficult to debate. You put up a darn good debate old chap and I hope we can debate again, except next time let's get closer to something I'm better at ;). So thanks again and good luck.
Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

To my opponent please excuse for I did digress also let me elaborate on held most of the agriculture. The south at that time was a mostly plantations and etc. while the north went more of a industrialist approach so as I said they held more agriculture, but sadly I digress more. Now on to your debate in saying my points where invalid well I brought up mostly largely well known things of the time. Also the south holding wealth wasn't meant as they all held some strong found wealth. This has never been so. No I meant those in power and ahead in society and plenty of them held a lot of wealth mostly because of slaves and would of course inquire and use their power to fight for it. Also sorry if it wasn't all the way there and yes it was my opening argument. Also the north indirectly held the capitol and held a northern president around at the time was more towards my aim. Now My rebuttals Look I will try to keep this together so stick with me. The sates where in contempt on the fact of competing almost like wild dogs, even the placing of the capitol was disputed. The south was built on slave labor and survived of it and before the tariffs held much wealth. The north used their cards right and competed elsewhere rather than on the plantation front. In the end though the two sides with their different approaches as to how to handle everything, just simply couldn't last. Yes the civil had causes beyond slavery, this I know. Yes some northerners and southerners where in it for other reasons. But Many slaves fought for the slavery and numerous white man fought directly for the slavery, but more so the slavery indirectly caused some of the other things that also caused the war and falls back onto the war is held in contempt as slavery being a main causer. http://americanhistory.about.com... Allow me t use this article as example. I will go from reason to reason. Reason 1. This one I hope is obvious. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. You see here the main reason cuts straight to slavery with one using slaves for the economy and and one hardly at all, and one commonly accepting the idea and one getting a away from the idea Reason 2. In this one as the largely north controlled government pushed for more control the south pushed for less for numerous reason yes but it's undeniable that slavery was a large hand in it. Reason 3. Well that goes straight to it doesn't it. So I will rest it there by saying I show that slavery directly connects or in someway causes the top 3 reasons of the war and in so is the primary cause.
Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

Thank you but not exactly true think of it like this All the excuse of the war still held slavery in contempt to begin with. Which brings me here. First counter Argument You see the south held many things to make it wealthy at this time seeing as it held the most agriculture at that time. It also held many a cash crop (predominantly cotton and tobacco) and cheap slave labor to handle it all. The south was before it all wealthy and had a strong enough back bone to raise father ahead. While the north mostly held onto the fact of holding the capital before all this even sprinkled on down. Do you perhaps remember in the late 17s how the states began to tariff one another , well of course you do, you yourself brought it up. So let me say this. The states where competing with one another. So by keeping all instated material in mind that yes many things came to mind of the angry Americans but they all fall back onto slavery. The north became manufacturing and used it's advantage of capitol government to try in weaken the south for the fact is when our nation began the south held more competitive cards falling back towards those slaves. So I rest on this the whole Civil War was for money and competition, the south needed the slaves to remain so profitable, while the north needed the slaves to not be slaves to get rid of that fact so to better compete. So in hindsight all the reasons fell back to who was in control and who wasn't and the slavery trade gave to much to the south and was the target and the reasoning to all the strife between said parties.
Self defence in Australia

Australia should allow the right for the public to openly carry some form of self defence weapon. Lethal or non lethal. This mainly includes small knives, Pepper spray, And handheld tasers. In order to have access to these items, The person must be over the age of 18, Have no previous criminal convictions and must pass a mental health assessment. The moment a person attempts to use one of these items incorrectly, They immediately loose the right to access the weapon.
Self defence in Australia

How would you recommend deterring criminals. Police have been trying to work that out for a long time, Yet their efforts seem to be failing. The average police response time is 12 minutes. That is a very long time in a life or death situation. Allowing people to access these weapons so they can deal with the problem instantly. Do you believe that police officers should carry their taser when off duty? If you do, Then I would expect that you would allow other people to carry a taser. We can reach middle ground and agree that the people who wish to carry these weapons should complete a training session such as a certification. We will not be simply handing them out to whoever wants one. Imagine if someone had a taser during that Melbourne knife attack last year. That would have saved at the very least one life. And if this is what we have to do to save a life, So be it.
Self defence in Australia

Instead of weaponizing our public, Why don't we deter criminals before they strike. We can put funding into schools, Better train our police and re-design New start. What do you want? Members of our public walking around with weapons to harm criminals, Or for crime to be on the decrease without the need of weapons. As for so called "hot burglaries"? If you are inside your own home you have access to knives and the likes. The current law concerning knives says that you can not carry a knife outside of your own premises. With the pub scenario, Currently the person carrying the knife would be arrested. If these laws continued, It would not be clear who was at fault. One could say they were carrying the knife for self defence and only used it when necessary. But there would be little proof, Making these proceedings difficult. Lets deter these criminals, Not harm them.
Self defence in Australia

It may seem like Australia is doing well now. However, According to statistics, Crime rate is currently increasing. In a few more years, Crime will continue to increase unless we do something about it. There have been multiple times when a member of the public would have been better off using one of these tools for self defence. As for the criminals, There is not much stopping them from using a weapon right now. It is not hard to conseal a knife of any type. This law would, At least, Allow some form of protection for those who need it most. Gang related activity such as violent attacks are becoming a lot more common. These attacks will decrease once the public has the ability to fight back. Take a look at America. They have the right to self defence and have no problem with shooting an attacker. Compare that to counties like Europe who have a much higher percentage of what is called "hot burglaries. " Hot burglaries is a home invasion that takes place when the owner is home. The reason for this is because America allows the home owner to defend themselves. Someone going into a pub or bar when they are armed is no different to now. There is nothing stopping someone walking into the pub with a knife in their pocket. However, If a fight were to break out in a pub, The people inside would have an effective method of preventing it from escalating and may even prevent further injury and/or property damage. I am not saying people should be allowed to open carry firearms. All I am saying is, At the very least, Allow them to have some form of protection. Right now, They have nothing.
Self defence in Australia

We are doing great right now. I feel safe walking the streets of Australia and letting people carry weapons, Even if "only for self-defence", Would make me feel less safe. Even with all these checks and measures, It is safer for no one to carry a weapon then for people to carry a weapon for self-defence. Let me pose you a question. We have a civilian carrying a weapon for self-defence. They go to a pub or bar. They become intoxicated and use the weapon to injure another person. This could not be stopped. As mentioned early, Australia is going well, And there is no need to carry weapons on our streets.
Lolicon should be legal

"Why do you do this? " I refuse to answer. I know the answer, But I won't answer it. "Why do you hold these insane viewpoints? " I refuse to answer. I know the answer, But I won't answer it. "go f off and suck it" You have truly gone on the way of the doo doo. "You think your so tough" Show us your dick if you are so tough.
Abortion should remain a legal standing law.

Then, every other woman should be in jail. The 2002 peer review is too old. There has been new research contradicting that since then. People do need to take responsibility for their actions. Not every woman prefer to give away their child, then at a later time have that child hate her for that. Women who are "settled down," have abortions. It is not only for the poor. We cannot change how people think. The bottom line is that it is the mother"s choice, and this thing called abortion is legal and made available for those who think they should have it done. Thank you for your arguments.
Abortion should remain a legal standing law.

Thank you for your response/argument. The abortion law remains standing since Roe vs. Wade (1973). It has not been calamitous as you say. 1). Since abortion has been legal, abortion is not a crime. The mother is doing what she thinks is right for her and her baby. Note: Abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. 2). Persons lacking the necessary skills most likely performed the abortion, causing the mother to die, and violating the law. Research again. 3). See pro # 5 and # 7. 4). Not everyone is catholic. Also, a lot of women who are catholic still chooses to have an abortion. 5). Abortions nowadays are safe. Again, go back to the research. Abduction? Uh" not everyone think the way you think. 6). You have the right to your opinion. 7). My mother knew she was financially and emotionally stable, as well as she was capable of bringing a child into the world (fact). That is the norm for some people, but easier said than done for the rest. Refer back to pro # 7. We already have women in America having babies after babies who cannot afford to raise them without assistance, and then relying on welfare. Some taxpayers hate paying for children who are not theirs. Thank you for being a sport!