BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It ok for a woman to get breast implants and/or breast reductions.

But you did not simply state that it was immoral to get breast augmentations. You said, and I quote: "I don't believe that women should be aloud [sic] to get breast implants or a breast reduction for the simple reason that God made us the way that we are suppose [sic] to be." It is my contention that by not allowing a woman to get breast augmentations, one would be infringing upon said woman's "God-given" free will. According to the Bible (I am assuming that you are a Christian), that is not your place. According to Christians, God himself does not infringe upon the free will of humans. What makes you think that you have the right to do what even your deity does not? I am only restating my argument, as you failed to even address it. Furthermore, your argument has implications that go well beyond breast augmentation, or even any cosmetic surgery. If we follow your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to change their bodies becasue God made their bodies, that would disallow the following as well: hair dye (as you said, God gave you the color hair he intended), hair cuts (if God wanted your hair shorter, he wouldn't have made it grow so long), cosmetic contacts (same as hair dye), any device to correct one's vision (if God wanted you to see properly, he would have made you see properly), clothing (you were born naked, so what makes you think God wants you any other way?), and exercise for the point of building one's body or losing weight (God made your muscles a certain size already and made you fat). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Would you outlaw those things as well, or does your God have a particular fixation on women's breasts?
It ok for a woman to get breast implants and/or breast reductions.

Well first off.... I wont judge you, but My God does exist. Secondly, God put us here, and we can use our free will to make all of the decisions that we want to, but that doesn't make it right. We take the paths that we want to, they are not always the paths that he chooses. But we also have to keep him in mind. If your mother told you not to go to your friends house and you did anyway, that is your free will. That is not what was in the plan. Then something bad happens, now you wish you would have listened to your mother, God lets us make mistakes, that is why he said that no one is perfect, everyone sins. He is the only one who is perfect. He chose how each one of us look. He gave us this life that we live. No do you listen to him and do what you know is right, or do you go off and "go to your friends house" anyway. Well if you chose your friends house I hope that God be with you to make sure that you are safe even though you did not listen.
It ok for a woman to get breast implants and/or breast reductions.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that God exists at all. That alone makes your argument illogical, as premises have to either be proven or at least agreed upon by those involved in the argument. Even IF God did exist, it is agreed in most modern religions that God gave human beings free will. One can therefore infer that such a creator would not want human beings to infringe upon or restrict the free will of other human beings.
It ok for a woman to get breast implants and/or breast reductions.

I don't believe that women should be aloud to get breast implants or a breast reduction for the simple reason that God made us the way that we are suppose to be. I am think because that is the way I am suppose to be. I have brown hair because I am suppose to. My eyes are brown, because that is the way that I am suppose to be. If our bodies were suppose to be any different then they are that is the way that we would have been born.
Religion is a psychological immune system. Therefore, it's good for humans even though god is fake

If people have the power to perform sorcery, then people have the power to do much more, create and destroy. What does this have to do this the debate? Sorcery isn't created by men, trees, plants, fairies, gnomes, crystals, rocks and all of these living species have been created by God, of course there's no proof that he's there, but religion has been hiding things from us.
Religion is a psychological immune system. Therefore, it's good for humans even though god is fake

Religious people are less likely to commit suicide Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004)." Thinking about God reduces distress but for believers only prayer reduces Stress J Tartaro, LJ Luecken, HE Gunn - Journal of Health Psychology, 2005 - hpq.sagepub.com thinking about God reduces stress Michael Inzlicht, Alexa M. Tullett. Reflecting on God: Religious Primes Can Reduce Neurophysiological Response to Errors. Psychological Science, 2010; DOI: 10.1177/0956797610375451 prayer reduces anger and aggression Bremner, R. H., Koole, S. L.,
Short Story Challenge (2)

Thanks, Bellum, to you, also, good luck! This is good fun! :D Sergeant Allan crouched in his sandy foxhole as artillery shells whistled overhead. He attempted not to bat an eye lid, aware that he wouldn't't hear the shell that would kill him. His sweaty hands deftly, almost automatically, checked his Sten gun as he readied himself. He addressed the man, a corporal, beside him, "Bloody 'ot, isn't it? I dunno if I'm ever gonna get used to this 'eat, the sand or the shelling." "Aye, 'tisn't lovely," the corporal nervously straightened his Brodie helmet and yanked the searing bolt on his Lee Enfield, snapping it into place, "Jes' wish we could get movin'. This waiting is as bloomin' intolerable as the shelling." He winced as a shell burst less than twenty feet away, showering the two, along with three others who were sheltering with them, with sand. The sound of rumbling permeated the air, and Allan poked his head slightly above the edge of the unit's slit trench. Through the billowing sand, Allan glimpsed the silhouettes of multiple machines approaching from behind the infantry‘s position, "Tanks," he mused, "Comin' from be'ind us - they'd better be our boys." "Fellows, there are numerous tanks approaching; anybody 'ave a spyglass?" "Afraid not, sir." "Hmm, they're low-slung. Private Relding, dash off an' warn the anti-tank gunners, just in case!" At that moment, an aide de camp dropped into the trench and greeted the unit with a clipped accent, "Hullo, chaps, no worries - Harding's sending some Rats through to say g'day to a few Jerries. Ready yourselves, fellas' - Horrocks is mobilizing. You're instructed to follow 'em on through on the Major's call."
Short Story Challenge (2)

I hope we can both enjoy each others literary prowess and enjoy each others company. As for myself, I choose mystery. ===== Prologue (which by the way, keep as short as possible): Leonard woke up with a start. He attempted to jump up from his prone position in what seemed like the middle of an empty parking lot, but to no avail. His legs were trembling horribly. He looked around with astonishment, everything was ablaze. Buildings, trees, cars, even light poles. The sun was blocked out by looming dark clouds of smoke from the ongoing carnage. He noticed behind him a military grade helicopter which looked like had crashed but had not exploded. He slowly crawled his way over as his legs were still very, very weak. He investigated the main holding area and saw 2 dead military soldiers of some branch and a pilot just going through his very last moments. He approached the pilot and reached out to him. The pilot looked over and said "No. .. .get out of. .. .here. .. now. .. radiation. .. .deadly. .. " and with that, his soul left his eyes. But what caught Leonard's eye was the reflection off of a car window. He saw a bright orange-yellow blob slowly moving upwards. He crawled out of the helicopter and looked toward the large colorful blob. .. which was just taking the shape of what looked like a large mushroom cloud. ===== I look forward to your prologue! Good luck!
Short Story Challenge (2)

Greetings, good luck and may we have some enriching and enjoyable weaving of tales. Thanks for proposing such an idea, Bellum. Thanks also to the readers for perusing our tales. To specify, by "prologue," my opponent means a "brief introductory statement" consisting of one to three paragraphs? This would include character, setting and plot introduction, but give nothing away? As another note, shall we have limitations on profanity, sexual activity and gore (to keep the stories at a level appropriate for most ages)? I will pick "Historical" upon the assumption that the pro contends that it be fiction, albeit historically accurate and somewhat factual. Pro's three topics: - Mystery - "Steam punk" genre of Science Fiction - Fantasy Cheers, and may the best effort win!
Short Story Challenge (2)

Greetings. In this debate we will be having a short story contest. Here are the rules: - In round 1, PRO will give three topics from CON to choose from. - In round 1, CON will give three topics from PRO to choose from. - In round 2, PRO will announce his chosen topic as given by CON and GIVE A BRIEF PROLOGUE to the story to build dramatic effect. - In round 2, CON will do the same as above. - In round 3, PRO and CON will complete their respective short stories. Voting: - Everything stays the same except: - Best Argument = Best Story - Sources = Rhetoric - Conduct = Relevance to topic Very well, here are the three topics CON may choose from: - Sports - Romance - Historical When accepting this debate: Post the three topics you would like me to choose from. Thank you, and good luck!
celibacy had negative effects on the general society

Celebacy is abstinence from sexual intercourse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... This argument will demonstrate the negative physical and mental effects of celebacy on the individual and on society. MENTAL Celibacy tends to cause edginess, aggitation, crabbiness, bigotry, fanaticism, and narrow-mindedness. http://ezinearticles.com... Sexual repression leads to aggression. http://dissidentvoice.org... Sexual abstinence leads to aggression, violence, and increased levels of rage, in addition to "insensitivity to the feelings of others, criminal behavior and greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies". http://www.blog.joelx.com... http://psychology.wikia.com... PHYSICAL Celibacy leads to headaches and muscle tension, as well as the congestion of sexual organs. http://ezinearticles.com... BENEFITS OF SAFE SEXUAL ACTIVITY Safe sexual activity can decrease chances of prostate cancer and heart disease, while decreasing pain, weight, and chances of depression. http://www.blog.joelx.com... CONCLUSION Safe sex is a better approach than celibacy. On balance, celibacy harms society by harming health and by causing negative behaviours.
The Earth is Flat

PrefaceIt has been claimed that many Christians in the past taught that the Earth was a flat disc as opposed to a sphere. While it fails me to find the evidence for such an accusation, it should be noted that scripture in no way necessitates a flat Earth and is indeed in much better harmony with a spherical, heliocentric Earth. Recently I have come across many people on the internet, Christian and non-Christian alike, who maintain that the Earth is indeed flat and that all the supposed evidence of a spherical Earth is either faked, misinterpreted, or non-existent. I find this to be most troubling as such a trend signifies a moving away from rational, scientific and evidential thought to sensational, dubious, and conspiratorial conjecture. In my opinion, the continued acceptance of Darwinian evolution and the "big bang" in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary has opened the door for a new generation of people who base their ideas of the world around them more often on speculative hypotheses despite having a plethora of scientific evidences at their fingertips via the internet. Pro will be arguing for the Flat Earth-Geocentric (FEG) Model over the Spherical Earth-Heliocentric model as the best supported scientific theory. Con will be arguing for the Spherical Earth-Heliocentric (SEH) Model over the Flat Earth-Geocentric Model as the best supported scientific theory. Definitions for The DebateFEG Model - A model where the sun and moon revolve around a planer disc-shaped Earth and where some force other than gravity dictates atomic motion. SEH Model - A model where the Earth revolves around the sun and the moon around a spherical Earth and where the forces of gravity dictate atomic motion. Scientific Theory - A greatly substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

Thank you, Daley, for agreeing to this debate. I am excited to be debating with you again. This debate is not if the Bible contains errors (as my opponent already concedes it does); we are discussing if Bible inerrancy is important to the truth of god's word. I will be arguing that an inerrant revelation, both internal and external [1] is important in determining its truth. If the bible is errant in any way, then it isn't God's word. My opponent will be arguing that the Bible does not need to be inerrant. Good luck! NOTES [1] By external contradictions, I refer to science, history, and archealogy.
If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

Let me say in closing, that if the original manuscripts of the Bible were corrupted from the start by the original authors including a few statements that God did not instruct them to include, this would in no way prove that the Bible in its entirety is not God's word. All it would mean, is that some erroneous statements were included withing God's word, but that doesn't negate the rest of it, the book as a whole, being the word of God. But we have no good reason to think it included errors from the start. Errors have universally been rooted out by scholars who have traced the origin of those interpolations or scribal mistakes, showing exactly when such errors crept into the text. We have thousands of manuscripts to compare, too many for any scribe to change all, so we can dilenate with %99 accuracy what the originals said. Because it is difficult to find appropriate English words that fuly capture the thoughts carried by the ancient Hebrew and Greek words, we won't get it exactly as it originally was. This in no way refutes that it is the word of God. We don't have the originals, but we can say that they contained no errors because we have traced out the errors through careful study of textual transmission. In fact, my opponent has at no time in this debate been able to show me a single cear contradiction in the Bible. While admitted the possibility of some texts being interpolations, ie, how did Judas die? , I have shown explanation which reconcile the so-called contradictions. Pro did not show me any contradiction which appears in ALL manuscripts, which is IRRECONCILABLE; hence, he has not proved the originals contained contradictions. I know they ocntained none simply because once we root out those which we know are scribal changes and additions, no real contradictions are apparent. Pro has not proven that for God to be the author of the origina manuscripts that he would be obligated to prserve all te copies in the original form without the sligtest change or error. I don't see God as being under such necessity, for as I argued from the beginning, salvation is the most important thing, and nothing in the Bible has been changed to the effect it affects the salvation of people. We don't need to know how Judas died in order to be saved. He also tried to show that the Bible isn't consitent in its doctrine of how to be saved, but I have showed this to be his own misinterpretation of the texts. He has also argued from the position that differences in interpretation among Christians proves the Bible is unclear. I have argued that no matter how clear evidence is, there will still be difference of opinion, hence, we can't use differing opinion as proof the evidence isn't clear. So that argument fell to the ground as well. Lastly, he argued the Bible isn't authoritative, and I have responded that it is authoritative to those who allow it to be an authority in their lives, just like other things in life can only be our authority if we let them be so. ..
If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

Thank you, Daley, for this awesome debate. This has truly been a good debate. This round is for closing statements and closing arguments. I request that no new information be brought up. (P1) The Bible is inspired by God.My opponent is still maintaining a "fact" that the original were inerrant. However, he has no basis to make this claim as we do not have the original manuscripts! The current editions of the Bible are based upon the best scholarly attempt to get the oldest possible manuscripts and still there are contradictions that exist. Thus, far from proving that the Bible is without error, modern attempts have proved the exact opposite [1]. Secondly, if one assumes that it is a copyist error, one can with equal validity, assume that the error arose at the very first writing down of Chronicles. Since we know that the writer of Chronicles use much of II Kings as his source, it is equally likely the the Chronicler himself got the numbers wrong! So here is a case where “copyist” error does not exclude the Bible from being inerrant. (P2) God cannot lie My opponent blames the translators and scribes, but again, we do not have the original work and thus his reasoning are circular. If you were to be unable to lie and write a news paper article with a lie in it that wasn't your fault, then you should have protected it a little better.Remember that god is supposedly all-powerful so he should be able to protect his word from bible difficulties and lies. I have given my opponent how transcribal errors are highly unlikely and he has not attacked that premise.| Conclusion |I have answered my opponent's objections and have affirmed the resolution that If the Bible were to be the word of God; then it is necessary for it to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant. My opponent has not proved otherwise. Voters, all up to you. References[1] McKinsey, Biblical Errancy, p490
God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

As I said, you are defying God and He proves His wrath by your death.I don't have to prove anything, God proves Himself. All you are doing is causing God's wrath to build againt you for defying Him. He loves you and He does not want to pour out His wrath on you, but you are going to leave him no choice if you don't stop saying He cannot be proven. Your rebuttals in defiance against Him won't get you out of His wrath. You are trying to throw things in my face in defiance of God. It does not matter how much you insist he cannot be proven. He is God and you are one of His creatures and He loves you and if you do not stop defying Him, He will make sure you feel his wrath. I don't have to prove anything. God is God whether you accept proof or not. Even if you fall into the fire of Hell today, you will defy God the same way you are defying Him now insisting His wrath cannot abide on you and never being able to know anything but His wrath against your defiance of Him.God's wrath s on you now but you refuse to recognize it and that only causes His wrath to build. How long do you think He will be merciful to you and hold back from pouring out His wrath on you? This could be your last day......in fact, as far as I know, God could have called an end to your defiance already......maybe you are already gone off to Hell.Hello? are you still there? God is still there. Are you?
God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

The proof is your own death. If you won't believe God's wrath is in response to your evil, your eternal death is sure and you will never know anything other than God's wrath......even though you deny it now. God loves you.I hope you find this to be more than intersting.Your defiance against God is evil and will incurr nothing but God's wrath proven in your death and ultimately in eternal torment of the Lake of Fire if you finalize your death insistant that God's wrath cannot be proven.Casting doubt on the existance of God will only cause His wrath to build against you more.Go ahead and cast doubt. Go ahead and say God cannot be angry with you because He is not there.Go ahead and see where it gets you.God's wrath is on you now, and you are pretending not to notice and not to care. God won't excuse you for pretending, and He won't accept your argument saying He cannot be proven as your excuse that you should not feel His wrath.You are defying God and He will make sure you know He does not appreciate it.
God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

Because PRO is affirming this resolution, he bears the entirety of the burden of proof. Not only must he prove this statement to be true, but he must prove also the underpinnings of it equally true. For instance, in order for God's wrath to appear in response to atheism and agnosticism, God's wrath needs to exist, i. e. , God needs to exist. PRO, therefore, must be able to prove conclusively that God in fact exists. If I am able to cast enough doubt on the existence of God, or neutralize PRO's arguments to the extent that he cannot fulfill his BOP, he cannot possibly win.