BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wealth is the means to Happiness.

I'd again like to point ur attention to the 2 important words.. wealth and happiness.. wealth I have described in my previous post.. for happiness, I'd say that its different.. far different from joy which is temporary.. Far different from an isolated incident of joy obtained through petty acts.. a longer lasting concept of happiness is what is referred to by the topic and material wealth and spiritual wealth form important necessities for it.. material to keep a person content with the physical needs of life and spiritual to provide him with the mental strength and peace of mind so necessary for happiness.. So, indeed, WEALTH IS THE MEANS TO HAPPINESS
Wealth is the means to Happiness.

Well I think u did not read the topic carefully.. Its wealth and not just money.. Wealth is a broader term that includes not just money and material aspects but everything spiritual as well, what I call spiritual wealth or wealth of character.. If u check up even the oldest of dictionaries, it mentions in its definition of wealth a close link to happiness.. for this I provide the link to the definition of wealth on www.dictionary.com Unless a person has his/her needs fulfilled materially- food shelter clothing, he/she cannot be permanently happy.. there comes the role of material wealth.. My opponent mentions that tons of rich people are unhappy.. well thats because they lack their wealth of character.. And on the other hand poor people {materially} may be happy if they have that strong wealth of character.. I can at this point also think of convincing examples of terrorists as unhappy individuals.. unstable personalities lacking the strength of character who gain but a little form of temporary joy with their acts of terror.. so my dear friends.. Wealth is certainly the means to happiness.. Whether it be material wealth or spiritual.. it depends from individual to individual..
Resolved: That ethical non-naturalism is a superior ethical theory to ethical naturalism.

Trying this out again.Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.DefinitionsEthical naturalism is the meta-ethical view that (a) moral statements are truth apt, (b) these statements are made true through objective features in the world, and (c) these objective features are reducible to a set of non-moral facts.Ethical non-naturalism agrees with points a and b of the definition of ethical naturalism but disagrees with point c. Ethical non-naturalism holds that the objective features of the world that make ethical statements truth apt are irreducible to a set of non-moral facts.Superior will be defined as being more warranted or better upheld. Common sense will dictate it's definition. If my opponent takes issue with any of these definitions, I will ask that he brings them up in the comments section or in a PM to me. I don;t want this to be a definitional debate.
The LGBT community is receiving societal delusion therapy. Delusions help gays cope with being gay

Societal delusion therapy is when a society develops a mass delusion in which serves as therapy for certain groups. In other words, having a false sense of reality serves as therapy to help the LGBT community cope with being who they are. Delusions help homosexuals cope with being homosexuals. Here are some delusions that benefit gays. 1. "Homosexuals are more like a race then anything else". This is clearly a delusion. Homosexuality belongs in the category with other taboo sexual behaviors such as incest and beastiality. Of course you can't tell gays that because you will be jeopardizing their delusion in which is the only therapy they have 2. " Homosexuality is not inferior to heterosexuality and homosexuality is no less significant than heterosexuality"... This is obviously a delusion. Nothing comes close to matching the significance of developing life, sustaining life and continuing the existence of life itself. 3. "There's nothing wrong with being gay".... This is clearly a delusion. according to CDC, 81 percent of all new HIV cases are gay and bisexual men and up to 90% of all new syphilis cases are gay and bisexual men. 25% to 52% of lesbians and bisexual women are infected with bacteria vaginosis. Gay people also have higher rates of depression and suicide but if they hold on to these delusions, that decreases depression. 75% of lesbians are overweight and pregnancy naturally reduces cancer among women. All of these issues hurt health issues of gays. 4. "Everyone who hates gays is secretly gay". This is clearly a delusion. Most ex- homophobes are heterosexual. Did they turn straight after they started liking gays? The claim is simply outrageous
Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

I would like to point out that this not simply a debate about the benefits of labeling the totality of existence as god. Pro has given a "Guarentee" that to not accept pantheism over atheism is the DESIRE to be selfish, the DESIRE to be individualistic, and the DESIRE to be ignorant to a fault. I commend pro for taking such a huge burden. In order to win this debate pro must demonstrate that labeling the totality of existence as god is more beneficial than atheism as well as showing that not labeling the totality of existence as god is based on a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. Atheism-lack of belief in a conscious deity or conscious god This distinction needs to be made because the Sun is technically "more powerful" than us, yet every atheists believes in the sun. Labeling a giant meteor that could destroy the planet as god, then saying "atheists don't believe in god, therefore they don't believe in meteors" would be a pure semantic game and this is NOT what the terms are referring to. Hopefully this debate doesn't turn into a semantic exorcise, yet I feel it will be inevitable. I look forward to what will hopefully be a fruitful debate.
Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

This debate is about which ideology/belief system is superior to the other psychologically, socially, culturally, etc. The debate is not in specific about the existence of God in any way, shape or form, but is about the superiority of the belief over the other. The burden of proof is on me, and it is the duty of Con to show me how my proof is incorrect or wrong.Superior in this sense means more beneficial/helpful to society, to mankind.The votes must come with a detailed summary as to why they felt the person the person deserved the points, which should consist of the minimum of eight-hundred characters. The vote must be impartial. Again, this is not about which is "true," but which is "superior." Otherwise, the vote will be considered a vote bomb.There can be absolutely no slander, insult to character, insult to the other's religion or any of the like.The first round is acceptance, the next round is myself elaborating on what Pantheism/Panentheism is and why it is superior, and then the rebuttals.To make things interesting, I am giving a guarantee that I will show by the end that to not accept Pantheism/Panentheism over Atheism is a desire to be selfish, individualistic to a fault, and ignorant.
Gaming and Feminism

Allright then. Between a mix if threats ive heard towards women from male gamers and stereotypes for liitle kid games where gurls only get cooking and babysitting games to play with not any adventure games, the "fake gamer girl" myth, and female chatlracters always being oversexualy objectified (which probably means the designers assumed the player is male) and given armor that would in no way protect anyone. And oh yeah the fact that there are games were the player can rape women and beat prostitutes. Thats the condensed version anyway.
Gaming and Feminism

i accept. by the way here are the actually dictionary definitions of those terms according to dictionary.com: Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Sexism: 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. 2 . discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
Gaming and Feminism

G'devening from Tacoma, WA. I am against the statement that gaming is that of a sexist culture and is not an issue that the belongs in the focus of modern feminism. Definitions: Feminism: The belief that women are subjugated, excluded, or mistreated by society or a specific culture. Video Games/Gaming Culture: The content featured through video games, (as in characters, settings, situations, or interactions), and their impressions on the player. Sexism: The conscious act of dividing and segregating based on gender, usually to the effect of one party's detriment.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.Looks like it should be an interesting discussion...1. What is your faith?I believe in religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism maintains that a divine reality (i.e. God, afterlife, etc.) exists and that humans can come into contact with it. However, it also maintains that all religions are valid interpretations of that one divine reality; that religions represent humanity's attempts at understanding that divine reality based on encounters in it. This naturally entails that no one belief system holds exclusive claims to the truth.2. Has that always been your faith?More or less. I'm "officially" a follower of Sikhism, and religious pluralism is one of its doctrines... though it is only recently that I've started to actually identify myself as a pluralist.3. Why do you believe it to be the truth?I have found it to be the most realistic theistic world view, being consistent with all the evidence available to human beings, be it theological, historical, scientific, or societal. I can go more in depth into this if needed, but seeing that this round was only meant to be an introduction, I will leave it at that, for now. I look forward to my opponent's responses...
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

I am a Jehovah's Witness, and very satisfied with my faith. I believe the true faith should be genuine, based on facts, and able to stand to scrutiny. I'd gladly have a pleasant and non offensive debate about what is the truth with anyone of any other faith. For the introduction I expect to see the answer to the following questions: 1) What is your faith? 2) Has that always been your faith? 3) Why do you believe it to be the truth?
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

First of all....______________________________________________________________PLAGIARISM ALERTPro has copied large portions of his Round 4 arguments from external sources without citing them at all:http://wol.jw.org...=%22the bible%22"The Bible is scientifically accurate... said that the earth 'hangs on nothing'" (Job 26:7).""The Bible is historically accurate and reliable... because it is a book from God."http://wol.jw.org...Entire section entitled "Hebrew Scriptures (OT) and Greek Scriptures (NT): From Cruel to loving and Merciful?".....................I will leave it up to voter discretion to determine what this violation warrants in terms of scoring.______________________________________________________________Aside from that... Pro has requested that I utilize this round *only* to present some specific examples of NT contradictions...I will be using the following source for all of them: http://infidels.org...1. Death of JudasIn Matthew 27:5, Judas hangs himself.In Acts 1:18, he bursts open and his insides spill out.2. Purple RobeIn Matthew 27:28, soldiers placed the purple robe on Jesus after Pilate had Jesus scourged b. Luke 23:11, Herod and his soldiers placed the purple robe on much earlier3. Empty Tomb (i)In Matthew 28:1, only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the empty tombIn Mark 16:1, it was only Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.In Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, it was "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." In John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene was the *only* one to see the empty tomb4. Empty Tomb (ii)In Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."In Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone"In Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."In John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.5. AscensionIn Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.In Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.That is enough to prove my point...I look forward to my opponent's final round.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

Con seems to have some basic knowledge of the Bible, but he fails to understand what exactly makes it the divine, extraordinary word of God. So I will talk with more detail about the statements he has made and add more."it's is a collection of over 60 books, written by a variety of authors over the course of almost 2000 years of Hebrews history, ranging in content from ancient mythology to tribal folklore to actual historical record to early Christian propaganda."More specifically, the Bible was written in over a 1,610 years. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end. Why? Because there was only ONE author. The men were inspired by the same God. The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and relates in some way to the unfolding of God’s purpose. The harmony of the Bible is impressive, but that is what we would expect of a book from God. In addition, it is historically accurate, scientifically accurate and even contains information far ahead of its time. "Pro must provide much more convincing evidence that the Bible is God's Word"Actually, I did not provide ANY evidence for the Bible in the previous round. nor will I get into too much detail about it in this round. But I can in the next round if it interests you. I could show you some examples of its historical accuracy, information far ahead of it's time, and fulfilled prophecies, along with it's practical wisdom. What about the Quran? Abu Bakr appointed appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to the gathering of whatever remained of the Quran, but too much was already lost at the battle of Yamama. In addition, 19 years after Muhammad’s death, Uthman ordered the original Quran to be burned and that every Muslim received a changed codex with many flaws, that same codex we have right now that has: missing phrases, missing verses, missing passages, and missing chapters. Even scholars carefully and personally chosen by Muhammad (four in total) believed the Quran we have today is unreliable! Why consider a book that Allah did not protect?Concerning Hinduism, it is a religion of polytheism based on monotheism, belief in Brahman, the Supreme Being, source, or essence. It is also a religion that teaches tolerance and encourages kindness toward animals. On the other hand, some elements of Hindu teaching, such as Karma and the injustices of the caste system, together with the idolatry and the conflicts in the myths, have made some thinking people question the validity of that faith. The central premise of Con's entire faith seems to be that it is "the most realistic theistic world view, being consistent with all evidence". I look forward to my opponent explaining why he believes it to be the most consistent view and what evidence he is referring to.
What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

1. What is your faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are the worldwide Christian society of people who actively bear witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind. They base their beliefs ONLY on the Bible. 2. Has that always been your faith? I was born in a Jehovah's Witness family. My dad, on the other hand, was born in an atheist place in Cuba. He didn't deny a God, but he didn't know anything about him or if he cared about us. 3. Why do you believe it to be the truth? My dad found a Bible on his university bed, read it, and shortly after was visited by Jehovah's Witnesses. We both came to the same conclusion after studying it. There is no other book as extraordinary as the Bible, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth found in the Bible. Interesting, so you see religions as roads converging to the same point. I see two roads; a narrow road and a broad road, a road that leads to life and a road that leads to destruction. And the Bible is the map that helps us find the right path. What I think we both agree on is that there can only be one truth. Either God is real or he isn't, either God is a trinity and tortures people in hell or he isn't a trinity, but a loving father that would not do such a thing. AND, of course, either all roads converge to the same point or only the narrow road leads to life, and few find it. As I previously said, I believe faith should be genuine, based on facts, and able to stand to scrutiny. This can not be said of the religions who will blindly believe in one or many Gods but not be able to explain why, or of those whose explanation is: "that's what I was born believing" or "that's what my parents believe". There's also the religions that have their own holy book. Many books claim to be from God, but they can not agree in many essential things. and I believe that if it is going to make the claim, it should demonstrate it. I believe there is no book as extraordinary as the Bible, and I will explain why with detail. But first I look forward to my opponent's response. :)
Ronald Reagan was a Bad President

Since we cannot add new info (Sources and arguments as such) I will just conclude by looking at your arguments 1. Popular opinion is of course important but we talking about whether Reagan was good or not as a US president. This requires looking at facts rather than the emotional aspect of a presidency. Hitler had overwhelmingly support even though he started another world war! The facts are that the Reagan administration was extremely flawed and it was fiscally irresponsible. 2. Ronald Reagan, again, did not end the cold war. George Sr. Bush did as ive already said Ronald Reagan angered the Soviets MULTIPLE times. Creating the Star Wars Program was one of those angers. He almost started another world war. At worst he may have started a nuclear war. Just because it ended up okay doesn't justify the initial action because the coin flip was too risky. And no, I did not concede that Reagan did well on the economy. He did terribly on the economy and as ive said in past rounds he tripled the deficit and raised unemployment from 7.5 to 10.8. And remember retracting support from dictatorships doesn't make you a better person if you helped them in the first place :) And most economist have denounced trickle down as a failure design. Forbes btw is not a reliable source My citations for number 4 are in my sources Support for Contras (that murdered more than the FSJN ever has) is like support for Al-Quedia to overthrow Hussein Dictatorship. It really. And like ive said in round 3 Osama bin laden.......is not a credible source. Shocker? Reagan still vetoed the anti-apartheid bill for no reason El-Salavador (Like ive stated in round 3) raped American nuns and still had no punishment You haven't refuted 8 And since I cant really address number 9 without bringing up new arguments its completely ludicrous to believe someone without proof. I am sitting on a unicorn right now. I am. Proof? No screw that I'm sitting on a unicorn and since you cant prove that I'm not and I cant prove I'm not......im sitting on a unicorn. And yes I did address contention 3 Well that was a nice debate. THanks for debating!
Social Responsibility

Judging by your answer, I would presume, you haven't been put in a situation where you could have helped someone in need or you were put in a situation and no one helped you in need, thus having a perception of being the wicked against your community. Imagine you are walking, not armed or haven't taken martial arts and all of sudden your victim of a robbery in a shopping mall, you screamed for help and everyone stood by and watched you become another statistic. However, put yourself in that same situation and a patron helps you in need, not only do you have the satisfaction of not becoming another stat, but the satisfaction that someone's got your back, the true definition of social responsibility and our responsibility as humans.
Social Responsibility

Humans just like our closet relative species, monkeys, are social creatures. Being in isolation is dangerous to the human mind. I believe as human beings we do hold a sense of responsibility to take care of each other by doing our part to see the society as a whole is relatively safe. Just like a group of meerkats and monkeys signaling danger when danger arrives, we too should fight against the wicked and help to those in need, it's our social responsibility.
I should learn the Cup Song

I wholeheartedly accept this offer and understand that my position is con. I approve the debate structure. Thus I am voting that "SlappyBag" (the instigator and pro of this debate) should not learn the cup song. Although the instigator has not made it clear what this said "cup song" is, I choose to define it as the combination of singing and tapping/banging of a rhythmic nature associated with the song "When I'm Gone. " by Lulu and the Lampshade's. The "learning" consists of both the vocal and percussion elements (in coordination with each other). Although this lack of definition was a bit sloppy of my opponent, I urge all readers to not judge him on this. We are not here to argue semantics, rather to simply come to a conclusion.
The existence of a God-Like Entity

My debate is as follows: Though I personally believe that a God associated with a variety of (in my opinion) ridiculous religious beliefs does not exist, I still argue that a God-Like entity exists. Furthermore, if you choose to join, please note the definition of "God-like entity" used in the argument: "An entity capable of creating anything, including itself from nothing". This argument is debating the existence of such an entity. This entity does not necessarily have consciousness or human-like characteristics.
Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

Someone wrote: "My opponent doesn't cite evidence for his false idea of nihilism." The definition I posted is correct. "My opponent seems to retract his first claim that denying existence is proof that existence is real, by saying he didn't make that claim" I did not say that I didn't make that claim, you liar. " my opponent living in a different reality." How many realities do you think there are? "Next my opponent doesn't try to dispute Solopsism," This debate is on NIHILISM, you moron, not on SOLIPSISM. "Again my opponent denies reality by claiming he didn't make his second claim." I didn't deny that I made my second claim, you liar. "He doesn't argue against fallibilism," This debate is on NIHILISM, you idiot, not on FALLIBILISM. " and acts like a kindergartner saying "nuh uh"" I never said that, you liar. "validate these views with logic or arguments." I supported all of my statements with arguments and logic, but you supported none of your claims. Therefore you lost the debate. " Ultimately, I cannot argue against chronic narcissism. " You apparently can't argue at all -- you're too stupid. You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)