BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god doesn't deserve your worship - to all religions

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE THEME-SONG, IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT ===>Alright, so we're assuming god does exist. Why should I worship him?http://www.youtube.com...Well because I see the best in him. in my eyes he's a misunderstoodnarcissist with the best of intentions deep down but he's also coping with split personality disorder, the poor guy got more personalities than followers, you get what I'm saying? God is a different thing for everyone but the definition of what he is is that which one would worship if he/she/it were real. He/she/it represents all that someone would consider worthy of an overlord of reality and thus since God is definitively deserving of worship simply by what he is if we assume he is real on top of being defined as that, then this debate has basically been lost at the very shallow level of semantics.
The national anthem should be I'm So Fresh, You Can Suck My Nuts.

*picks up mic* *stupid feedback* I believe your death or glory... just failed. Rebuttal rebuttal one: Who says swag anymore? No, really, who? Rebuttal rebuttal two: How can I suck something nonexistent, or at least too small to be seen with the naked eye? Rebuttal rebuttal three: Actually, I've got nothing that doesn't call into question your emotional maturity and/or debating ability, and this is a nice neighborhood, I mean website.
The national anthem should be I'm So Fresh, You Can Suck My Nuts.

Here's why the national anthem should not be "I'm so Fresh You can Suck My Nuts" Reason one: I'm fairly sure that the Marines are thinking more along the lines of "I almost feel bad for these idiots." Reason two: I'm at the Pizza Hut. I'm at the Taco Bell. I'm at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. Reason five (Three) three: Why? That meme is already outdated, unlike the greats like Monty Python, Blazing Saddles, or our Ogrelord, Shrek.
Colleges and Universities should prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses

The banning of hate speech is necessary for the stabilization of a society. It is necessary for the destruction of ideas to take place, which must happen in order for a stable and prosperous society i. e. 1938 3rd Reich. Speech and press should be regimented by a government supporting such ideas as one empire, one race, one leader. The government should have the ability to control all public institutions, such as colleges and universities, and decide what should be thought by the public. Hate speech should be thought of as that which doesn't agree with the government, as the government is the supreme entity with the goal in mind of protecting all of its citizens, no matter if it must liquidate some along the way in order to achieve its means. All things seditious in nature, including those which involve the expression of an individuals opinion, should be amputated. They are tumors on the society. Society must be a being rather than a grouping of individuals. The government should be able to decide what you are. If the government says 2+2=5 than 2+2 is in fact equal to 5. Ones beliefs must be crushed for the good of the masses. The needs of the many outway the needs of the few. One might argue that this is against precedence and that the government has shown no support on the matter especially in the United States which con consistently refers to. The debate is not whether we should follow precedence it is whether we should prohibit public expression or hate speech.
Should teachers be able to use their phones in class/in school

Acceptance:I accept. I would like to thank Pro for arguing my side.Arguments:Teachers should not use their phones in school, as it can be distracting to the teacher using the device and other students nearby. [1] Plus, as Pro said (again, thank you for arguing my side), it is not fair to the students if teachers can use them, but not the students.That is all, as I am very near my character limit.___________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.collegedegrees.com...
Vampires are better compared to werewolves

=Structure=R1. AcceptanceR2. Opening argumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Rebuttals/Closing StatementsRules:1) Just to make things interesting you can reference your argument off articles, books and video games as long as they're (somewhat) appropriate.2) If your going to give your own opinion, make sure it's logically sound! 3) Evidence, evidence, evidence, my friend. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Remember to back up your information. Definitions:Vampire: A preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night. Werewolf: a human being who has changed into a wolf, or is capable of assuming the form of a wolf, while retaining human intelligence.I look forward to debating you!(I warn you, it's sort of a hard topic to work with, so it'll be challenging. //facedesk)
There is no moral difference between killing a non-human mammal and an insect.

"I maintain that, in both cases, these non-sentient animals maintain functions that are naturally provided and both play into the food chain. Should right and wrong be decided on how much we like, disgust, look down on, fear, feel for or how easy it would be to kill them? That is just madness."Right or wrong, I was saying that is how we think."If our level of empathy should decide whether killing something is wrong or not, then a man lacking empathy overall would have done no wrong in killing even a homo sapiens, as well as a cow."But it is not for one to decide, its for society. Society chooses what it thinks is acceptable and unacceptable and tries to imposes that on everyone, from what you should wear to how you should think. So to that one man he really sees no problem. I'm not saying it's necessarily right/wrong. That is just how society works."Our feelings and our empathy is irrelevant. The moral difference I speak of is one that ultimately says "killing mammals is morally wrong and killing other animal classes is not."I am still unclear on what you specifically mean, there are many "moral" differences that say exactly that.I explained a few reason for how societal morals say that, and our feelings are completely relevant. Much of human morality is based on how much we care, or should care*. Unless you are a psychopath you have emotional restraints, humans are not comfortable with the emotional impact of doing something we perceive as immoral. And these emotional restraints much of the time are what influence our behavior. People don't have the emotional restraints in killing a insect as much as they do when killing a mammal. That is Human ExceptionalismWithout supplying a definition for 'moral difference' you leave it up to me to decide/assume the definition.And there are many definitions to pull from, since morality is so subjective and has such a deep history.But in regard to the rules of conduct that is considered right or wrong in society, there are many differences between mammals and insects as I said.Also, you never really answered my questions for clarification. I was asking so I could get a clear understanding on what you mean. It would pointless for me to debate with you if I didn't even know what you meant; it would only lead to strawmans.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;https://www.google.com...;http://www.emotionalcompetency.com...http://brainblogger.com...* http://science.discovery.com...* http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
There is no moral difference between killing a non-human mammal and an insect.

Our feelings and our empathy is irrelevant. The moral difference I speak of is one that ultimately says "killing mammals is morally wrong and killing other animal classes is not." If our level of empathy should decide whether killing something is wrong or not, then a man lacking empathy overall would have done no wrong in killing even a homo sapiens, as well as a cow. The same principle accounts for "fearing" something. As long as one fears something or someone enough, would it be morally acceptable to kill it? And again I use that argument for disgust and amount of effort it takes to kill something. Whilst we may view the various insects we kill as useless pests that invade our territory, fact is that they all support a large ecological system and adhere to the principles of the food chain, each proving necessary and possibly maintaining a useful and or necessary function in one way or another. A function most flies possess, for example, is the distribution of pollen to flowers with nectar. Also, they are highly valued in a scientific matter when it comes to researching genetics and evolution. Ergo, flies have functions useful to humans, much like a Cow (milk, meat, leather) would. Also, in both cases the resources aren't a necessity, but something we choose that we want. As a matter of fact, even if they both were essential, it would be the principle that counts. Here one might be tempted to invoke the argument of the sheer number of flies, but I wish to render that useless. How can the quantity of something decide whether it is morally wrong or right to kill it? Finally, as I've already mentioned, they are both non-sentient and whilst it may be difficult for humans to comprehend, no non-sentient creatures can perceive the world as we do. I maintain that, in both cases, these non-sentient animals maintain functions that are naturally provided and both play into the food chain. Should right and wrong be decided on how much we like, disgust, look down on, fear, feel for or how easy it would be to kill them? That is just madness. Alright, I'm done. Hit me!
There is no moral difference between killing a non-human mammal and an insect.

Hello McBrass, I would first like to ask you some questions:When you say "moral difference/moral result" do you mean the consequencial outcomes from killing or the emotional/sociatal response from the killing? Or what do you really mean by that?How does whether both classes experience the same process of evolution affect the morale of killing them?Intro" As they both are non-sentient animals produced through the same natural process of evolution, how can there ever be different moral results from killing one of them?"I think morally for human beings, there are many differences to killing mammals and other tetrapods and insects.First, I would point out humans have a tendency to avert most arthropods. Since we naturally fear that which is different from us, and insects are probably the farthest from us than any other terrestrial fauna. Second, there is little emotional connection from humans to insects, versus mammals. I think this is because, humans only see insects as mechanical meager creatures, and see mammals as more emotionally reachable and to our likeness.Also, insects are generally easy to kill with less effort and less mess. Making us feel like gods compared to them, yet at the same time they disgust us and frighten us, so we kill them with little empathy. They are also seen as useless pest which invade our territory, whilst mammals are usually welcome or serve a purpose for us (eating, travel, companion, etc) so they are less expendable.
There is no moral difference between killing a non-human mammal and an insect.

I find it hard to see any moral differences between killing a cow and a fly. It doesn't really matter whether it is good or bad; either way we get the same result. Both are non-sentient animals that have been produced naturally via evolution and yet many who condemn the various killers of cows world over, saying the infamous phrase "meat is murder" would, under assumption, have no problem swapping a fly as it hover over their ears when they attempt to sleep, or sits on their food. The reason for this - again on assumption - is that the fly seems so small and insignificant compared to the bovine milk-producing grass-eater. Now, what I put forth is as such: As they both are non-sentient animals produced through the same natural process of evolution, how can there ever be different moral results from killing one of them? Alright, hit me.
Drug Legalization

I will now state my case. C1: The War on Drugs is pointless. There is no logic in keeping drugs illegal, why should we care about what substances people put into there own bodies. With that logic attempted suicide should be illegal as well. People who take drugs are only hurting themselves and should not be criminalized. What I find ironic is that these illegal drugs are less harmful than legal ones. For example marijuana has killed no people while alcohol abuse kills 75,000 people each and every year (1). C2: The War on Drugs costs too much and money can be made if illegal drugs are legalized. We spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs each and every year. We are at a time where the global economy is slowing and the federal and state governments are having high deficits. At a time as hard as this why would we as a country further hold our country back by keeping drugs illegal. If drugs were legalized the government would save $41.3 billion dollars on government spending, 25 billion of that would go to state and local governments and $15 billion to the federal government (2). We would save even more money in revenue. A report estimates that if we tax illegal drugs at the same rate we tax alcohol and tobacco the government would make $46.7 billion dollars in new revenue each year (2). C3: The War on Drugs increases crime and overflows prisons. The war on drugs has indeed increased crime, the drug cartels have penetrated our borders and now operate in over 1,000 cities in the U. S. (3). Over half of our federal prisoners are in jail for drug violations (1). By making drugs illegal we as a country are guaranteeing criminals to profit from selling illegal drugs if drugs were legalized the free market will sell drugs and the drug cartels will take the biggest hit. But since many drugs are illegal gangs and organized crime are now fighting over control of these drugs in cities such as Chicago (3). If drug were legalized our prisons could be opened up, police will be able to solve more important cases of crime such as murder and rape, and will deal a big hit to the drug cartels. Conclusion:The War on Drugs has caused more harm than good. The war is pointless and criminalizes innocent people. The war has holded back economic progress, billions of dollars can be made and even close some deficits in some states and create thousands of new jobs. The War on Drugs has gave more power to organized crime and overflowed our prisons. These are the reasons why the War on Drugs needs to end. Sources: . http://www.esquire.com... . http://www.drugwarfacts.org... . http://www.theblaze.com... Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal
Airmax was justified with his ban on Jifpop

Simple enoughResolution - The ban on jifpop that airmax put into place was justifiedStructureRounds(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing StatementsCon (1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff
Gay Marriage

Thanks for the response Pro.R1. How does your argument cancel out hetero adoption?It would still be best for the child to have a mother and father, as emphasized by Source 1 in Round 2. Let's not forget that heterosexual couples can adopt too!R3. Not counting other religionsNote that Christianity is not the only religion in the world! Islam is also against gay marriage as well. (Source 1.)__ My opponent demonstrates logic with multiple holes. For this reason and others, you should vote CON. __Sources Cited:1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Marriage

R1: It does not matter a straight couple would be 'non-natural' parents also, because they are not biological. If a child's parents die then they need someone to look after them and raise them. Homosexual parents are better then no parents. There is vertually no difference between straight parents and homosexual parents. R3: It does not matter if they are really christians or not they are recognised by the government as christians and the majority of them support gay marriage and thus the majority of religious people are for gay marriage. In conclusion, Gay marriage does no physical harm to other people. The gay marriage ban goes against human rights. Gay marriage should be legalized.
Gay Marriage

Thanks for the reply pro. R1. My Opponent's Faulty Logic Since either way it hurts someone, see below. Because a child is put up for adoption doesn't mean they had bad parents. Their parents may have died of natural causes. Obviously, in this case a child is with inferior hands with homosexual non-natural parents. R2. See R1 R3. If they are pro gay marriage,they can't really be Christians because they obviously don't agree with the Holy Bible's teachings.
Gay Marriage

Rebuttels for my contentions: R1: I do not need to give proof. It is clear that it would only hurt other people who are against it's feelings, but banning it is hurting the people who are for it's feelings, so it is pretty clear that either way someones 'feelings'. We might as well make the choice that gives rights rather than take them away. My opponent claims that homosexual couples who adopt children can't raise children as well as the biological parents, this is true in some cases. However, if a child is up for adoption then that means the biological parents are not capable of raising the child properly. Homosexual parents are better then no parents at all. Also, if you use this same logic then straight parents are not fit to adopt either. Therefore, this is bad logic. R2: My refutation of my opponents first rebuttel applys to this as well. Rebuttels for my opponent's contention: R1: My opponent brings religion into the matter. first off it doesn't matter, there are alot of Atheists, Jews, ect. that are for gay rights. Wht are we to say to them? Also, The christian thing works to my avantage since the majority of christians are for LGBT rights[1]. Vote pro! [1] http://www.hrcbackstory.org...
Gay Marriage

Thanks for the response.R1. My opponent must prove this hurts no one.However, same-sex parents in adoption cannot raise children as well as the biological parents. As they do not have the biological DNA, they are less effective at rasing children. (source 1) Children do best when raised by opposite-sex parents who gave them their DNA. One study indicates that “it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.”R2. If you read the argument above, it can infringe on the child's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If "every person" is born with these rights, does the child not also possess these rights? If someone is hurt by this institution, does this not infringe upon their rights as well? C1. The obvious offense caused to religious is too much to ignore. An excerpt from Romans 1:18 of the Christian Holy Bible: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.And Matthew 19: “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?"Rather than simply shove religion down your throats, let's look at some statistics, shall we?According to Source 2, 78.4% of all Americans are also Christians. Even accounting for discrepancies, inacurracies and lies, this still makes up a massive amount of the US population that is Christian, and thus most likely against gay marriage. Note that this does not even count other religions against homosexuals.For these reasons, vote CON. Sources Cited__1 http://www.citizenlink.com...; 2 http://religions.pewforum.org...
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is basically the marriage between two individuals of the same gender, I trust my opponent will have no problem with this definition. I will be arguing for gay marriage, and that it should be legal. I will be arguing that everything that does not physically harm other individuals should be legalized, gay marriage is one of these things. I will also be arguing that by banning the gay marriage we have gone against human rights. C1: Gay marriage does not physically harm other individuals in any way shape or form therefore, it should be legal. A marriage is a union between two individuals that love eachother, and it basically only effects these two individuals. If it is banned then it is hurting people, and if it is legalized then it isn't hurting anyone. C2: Banning gay marriage is against human rights. Every person is born with the equal human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, banning gay marriage goes against to of these fundamental rights. How can someone pursue happiness when they can't marry the one they love? How can someone have liberty when they are not allowed to marry the one they love. I await my opponent's response.
Jesus Is the Messiah Prophecied in the Old Testament

Thank you for a good debate. In this debate, I have argued that Jesus is NOT the Messiah because:1) His genealogy is incorrect;2) He died an accursed death; and3) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.Since this is the final round, I will not be bringing up any new information. Rather, I will sumarize. I am sorry if I did not respond to all of your arguments, your arguments were a lot and took too much room to respond to, especially Daniel 9 in which it takes almost 8,000 characters to respond. I request a separate debate for Daniel 9.The "Personal experience" argument makes no sense. Rather, this is a fallacious argument. Does it really matter if they have created good ministries in the eyes of Christians? No. In fact, we view them as decitful.Furthermore, why is it that only messianic congregations can create those "wonderful ministries"? Personal experiences=/=Truth. Judaism is based upon a national revelation, not a personal one.I stated my opponent contradicted the immutability of Jesus and G-d, this is how he responds: "See, what all humans don’t understand is that Jesus is 100% human, and 100% God. It’s God in three forms, the trinity, the Father (God), the son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (our conscience). So His 100% human side gives Him the opportunity to have a God. This is just one of those things that is impossible to understand completely." This is contradicted in Deuteronomy which states, "Here, O Israel, the Lord our God is One." Zechariah 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of a donkey.”Simply put, if you read on and before, it is a military king returning from battle--obviously, Jesus did not fulfill it. In addition, Matthew has Jesus riding on TWO animals! Heck, the gospel's can't even agree on who found the animal! Thank you.