BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ivf debate

"Before starting treatment, consider your own stance and what you would be comfortable with. If you are uncomfortable with the creation of multiple embryos, we can support your choice by using Natural Cycle IVF, or by freezing additional eggs rather than fertilizing them to create embryos." "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. "If you want to have more than one child via in vitro fertilization, your doctor can harvest several eggs and freeze them for a later procedure. This is an important aspect for women who want to harvest eggs to use when they are older." "Pros and Cons of In Vitro Fertilization: Costs, Success Rate, Multiple Births, Egg Storage." Mama's Health.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. "With the permission of the biological parents, unused embryos can be donated for research purposes, or to another couple to enable them to have a child." "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
gay marriage should be legalized

I think gay marriage should be legal because there no different then a man and a woman in love. yes, the bible might say its wrong but doesn't it also say that god loves ALL his children, and doesn't it also say that everyone is created equal under the eyes of god? it could also raise some peoples self-esteem. Studies show that LGBT teens are between 30 and 40 percent more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. some of these teens might think "what's the point of living if I cant marry the person I love?" also, gay marriage doesn't affect anybody but the 2 people who are marrying. other people don't have the right to say if a couple should marry. would you like it if someone made it illegal for you to get married to the person you love just because some strangers you don't even know thinks it's wrong? they obviously really love each other if there fighting so hard to get the right to marry.
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm

Both eating an animal and sacrificing an animal are both killing. But eating an animal for self-preservation is primal instinct and life-giving. Pouring the blood of an animal on an alter as an alternate means to a libation vessel is in my opinion cruel. This is speaking from a tird-party perspective. If it isn't cruelty because the animal is already dead, then what would be immoral about beating up, raping, or just generally disrespectng a dead body? Oh that's right, it serves no purpose other than to hurt something. There is no beneficiary to an act of cruelty after something has already died. But if you consume the animal for self-preservation, there is a beneficiary. Were the paegan Norseman of Greenland just trying to wash away their sins when they made animal sacrifices? Were they justified? In their eyes they were. In their eyes, both you and I are paegan. Why does animal sacrifie in the old testament, get a double standard? I can't imagine soemone arguing for a viking's right to sacrifice animals. That is because it is only once someone sees someone else doing it, that they get clear perspetive. Saul did acoording to the bible killed himself. FACT. It is not a given. If God would be willing to put one of his most faithful serants on earth through all of that suffering to prove a point to Satan, then God doesn't have the morals that i was taught were so great in Catholic middle school. On the topic of religious texts, do you think that could have been an i dictment of all religious texts? Just a possibility. This again dismisses any notion of nautral altruism, even though it is clear throughout nature among animals that don't fear God.
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm

Please don't try and paint me as pitiless. I am a Vegetarian, and I do not support animal cruelty. I have plenty of empathy. That is not an issue. You say, then, that animal sacrifice is animal cruelty. I would argue that since eating an animal and sacrificing an animal begin with the same act (killing) they are more similar than you think. I would also argue that once the animal is dead nothing that can be done to it is "cruel" because it isn't alive. One cannot be cruel to something that isn't alive, whether it once was or not. Animal sacrifice was a harsh remedy in harsh times. But your original question about it was "Why does God require it?" God did not create humans as puppets, but as thinking, reasoning, autonomous beings. Think of Jesus. Before The Fall, Adam and Eve were like Jesus. Fully human, and yet without sin. I don't pretend to understand it fully, but all evil acts, which are what we must atone for, serve the devil. All good acts, paradoxically, serve God. Yet God cannot see past evil acts; or more accurately, he couldn't before the sacrifice of Jesus. Why is this? It is because God cannot commit evil. Because he cannot commit it, he cannot overlook it. He gave humans free will. We chose sin, and animal sacrifice was what he gave us to atone for our sins before the coming of Jesus. Saul, David, and Solomon did not kill themselves. I don't know where you got that. However, they were flawed. But again, they atoned for their sins and were right with God when they died. "That is a given and doesn't prove or disprove anything." When you bring up Job, however, you bring up one of the most complicated books of the Bible, and one of the hardest to understand. In many ways, the story of Job is parallel to the story of Jesus. Jesus suffered, when God could have prevented his suffering, as did Job. But in both cases, it needed to be done. Everyone's faith is tested, in great and small ways, and as the faith of Job was greater than mine or yours, his tests were greater. But did he curse the Lord? No, he kept the faith, and God rewarded him. In the sense you meant, God is not a tyrant. God is not cruel. It is our sin that makes the actions of God seem cruel. See what I'm saying? I stand by what I said earlier: there are no morals without God. Present a real argument on that score, and I will debate it. My point in bringing up the dissimilarity of the Old Testament with other religious texts was to disprove your argument that the OT was "One of the most morally dismissible religious texts that anyone could pick up." I pointed out that, in comparison to other religious texts of the era, it is very moral. Remember, as Matthew says, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." The Law and the Prophets, of course, is the OT. So from your "morally dismissable" text comes one of the greatest and most profound aspects of human goodness: the ethic of reciprocity; the Golden Rule.
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm

When i say the Bible of the Catholic Faith, you can make an educated guess, that i am talking about the Catholic Bible. I know there were no Christians in the time of the Old Testament. That is a given and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Yes the Torah and the Old Testament as a whole are revolutionary ideas in relation to the religions of ancient times, but that is irrelevant, and again doesn't prove or disprove anything. If you don't see anything wrong with animal sacrifice, than that leads me to wonder if you have enough empathy to have a debate like this in the first place. The essential difference between eating an animal and simply pouring it's blood on an alter or some other form of a libation vessel, is health and sustenance vs. animal cruelty. The animal can either be recycled through our bodies and in turn sustain life, or it can be killed in vain for a cause it has no purpose in. See what i am saying? Ethnic cleansing. Debatealby true? More like absolute truth according to verses from the bible. "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and an a"", with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21 1 "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." Joshua 10:40-41 And we can't neglect the Biblical characters such as David, Saul, or Solomon, who all eventually killed themselves, started worshipping other Gods, or broke under the pressure; all of this while conquering surrounding tribes that posed no threat to the Israelites, but still had to be handled violently. Where is the book about the surrounding farmers who were enslaved and held captive for the rest of their lives. Another story i would like to call to mind is the story of Job. God made life truly terrible for Job, just to make a point to Satan. No rising above, and letting the fight go. No being the bigger man, and stepping back for a second to think. What we have instead is a stubbornness of a deity. I am sorry. By definition, "tyrant" is not necessarily a bad leader. But i was trying to make use of the bad connotation that "tyrant" usually comes with in historical writings like 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine. Tyrant as it is usually interpreted today, is what i meant to call the God of the Old Testament. To say that without God, there is no morals, is to denounce any natural altruism that one may have developed. one, i am not denouncing the existence of a God, only his motives. Two, what about other religions that have morals that may even make more sense. The Bhuddists of the far east, or the agnostics of today.
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm

The Old Testament of the Bible of the Catholic faith is one of the most morally dismissible religious texts that anyone could pick up. With the employment of logic, we can understand the God of the old testament to be an ethnic cleanser, a tyrant, and an insatiable, insufferable, morally questionable leader. This is not to denounce the New Testament. The New Testament takes a drastic turn for good. It is about tolerance, humility, and righteousness. Don't confuse the two please. Having gone to Catholic and public school i can honestly say that i have a clear third party judgement. I have been exposed to all religious ideologies, and neglected none. My only wish for this debate is to make at least one person who reads this realize the grave injustices going on in the Old Testament and by the ignorant zealots that preach it's goodness today. I think the rage of the Catholic deity of the Old Testament was put best in the terms of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
Worst Argument: Rap Battle

I don't cry you spoiled bitch, you are seeing things again. Marijuana should be legal because I don't own a pen. You are awful at rapping, and terrible contentions. They actually make sense, something I should mention. I don't wanna f*ck you, you gay disgusting b*tch. I'm like a ladies magnet while you're ugly as a witch. The blue milk is unreal, you can't Bladerunner that. You are an yellow tea, wearing a duck hat. You got one coin? What a da*n surprise. Your poverty cause of rapping is your biggest demise. The cards are dwelling my foot finch! Oh Nooooooooooo! All the other girls say your d!ck tastes like feces. I'm the best human rapper of the whole entire species. Licorice is banana for you, please don't take it. Cuz if you are apple, then you might fake it. You are still a purple circle, in a class full of noobs. You have never got a girl, while I get to see their boobs. Your grammar and flow are both really horrible. Anything you spit is nothing short of deplorable. All your debate topics suck and you'll never be like me. (Awesome!) Why don't you go back to your job and clean a Porta Potty.
Worst Argument: Rap Battle

VerseLol is rite 'cause u SUCKANd do u wanna Fu/CK?Girls give analIts painful(lol101 is crying)ChorusGibbe DA PUSIIIIIIIGIBBE DA PUSIiIIiIiiIiiIIII oh oh yeahHold on I got seeeemenDrinking what now? Oh I got the flow oh no no no no no DARTH VADER NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOCheck it b0ssI gotz da coinOh boing boingI see men on the stage yeah semens on the stage(Janitor: CLEAN THAT SHi.T UP)(IIIIIII don wanna)Why are you even battling me?Unless you like pee.I will win this rap battle.This isn't a crap battle.I don't lose sh'itI made it bit by bitI am awesome butYou're just a possumLol101?More like Lol GAY HOMO QUEER OOOH YEAHHH"My d!ck grows longer than the world's tallest mountain."YEAH THATS JUST MAH DI"CK I GOTTA FERRARI OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!Y u gotta be so ruuuuude, don't cha know im human too ChorusGibbe DA PUSIIIIIIIGIBBE DA PUSIiIIiIiiIiiIIII oh oh yeah
Worst Argument: Rap Battle

Your raps are awful, nobody wants to hear such sh!t. Nobody gives a dam* if I don't know how to knit. You think girls love you? You need stop hallucinating. You'll only get experience with chicks by mast*rbating. (Real audience screams and chants Go lol101!) You don't know how to build a table, so that means you are gay. You get your a*s beat in a raposition every single day. My sharp rhymes will cut your balls and make you a real X Dude. I'm the titan of rapping and to me you're just food. My d!ck grows longer than the world's tallest mountain. Girls like to suck my d!ck like I'm a sem*n drinking fountain. You are just a homeless man with minimal pay. I beat your a*s so hard like a served you on a tray. (Girls walk over to the stage and beg to "come home with me and eat") Your rhymes are weak and small, just like your d!ck. While my rhymes are legendary, and they're all beyond sick. You are terrible at making terrible arguments, please do not try. I replaced your pickle table with a bow tie french fry. You will never get laid and you barely get paid. That was one of the worst flows you ever made. Boom!
Worst Argument: Rap Battle

VerseIm the best everAnd you're neverGonna beat me'CAUSE I BEAT MYSELF(audience screaming)You don't have a chance bruhYou don't even knit bruhI beat suckers like you everyway!And I don't get STDs today!Bridge(hot girls come on stage)OOOOOooooohhhhhhhhhhhhDattttxxxdudde wee llloooove yooooouChorusI rap hard like my d'ick...sh'it.I rap hard like my d'ick...sh'it.I rap hard like my d'ick...sh'it.I rap hard like my d'ick...sh'it.VerseI can't do this no moreYeah, because I'm too hardcoreBeat thatttttt
UK reapplying Capital Punishment

First off, my arguments are not invalid, for some crimes are considered justified, depending on what the purpose of them was. Now for my opposing reasons:1st- Although the system is built on rehabilitation, that does not mean that they have to continue living that way. America for instance was built on war, but it does not necessarily continue to live that way.2nd- I have no counter argument, but I must say that that is Britain's choice to make.3rd- The death penalty is only put into action if the crime is worthy of receiving it. If the crime is minor as most crimes are, then the death penalty is not significant.
UK reapplying Capital Punishment

I would first like to point out that ALL crimes are unacceptable, hence they are against the law. So I count this as an invalid reason for argument. My argument against capital punishment has many points. First, the British justice system is built on rehabilitation not retribution. The death penalty offers no chance of rehabilitation. Second, the death penalty is against European human rights laws. Bringing it into the British justice system would have a negative impact on britains relations with Europe. Third, there is no chance of reversal, meaning if a person is wrongly convicted after the sentence has been carried out, the victim has been unjustly murdered. I have outlined the bases of my argument against the implementation of capital punishment and look forward to my opponents response.
No god would use faith

My opponent needs to know that I am well aware of the rules he set in place. And I told him that there was a mistake in his views on faith. I told him that faith is not "used" by God, rather, by his followers. I am not changing any rules by saying this, nor making my own. Again, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter whether or not my opponent feels God is perfect or not, it has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. My opponent is essentially side-tracking from this debate. We are discussing faith, not perfection. I did not blow anything, I made a clear point to my opponent that he is mistaken. I am looking forward to continuing this discussion, as well as my opponent's response.
No god would use faith

We’re done. I’m not going to debate with you. I specifically stated in round 1 “So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.” I make the rules. You don’t. Its my fricken debate, not yours. But I guess you wish to continue to not follow simpleton instructions that a 3rd grader can as always. I also proved imperfection in your god as he has freely admitted to having which is beyond laughable such as evil, anger, wrath, rage, fury, jealousy especially which ARE human qualities especially with an EGO for crying out loud in which no GOD ever would. Apparently you wish you remain without friends and truly loveless. And the key word is "genuine". You had your chance. You blew it. Bye.
No god would use faith

How great it feels to be debating with my opponent once again! After studying many of his other debates, I have gained a better understanding of how he forms his arguments. I am already used to the "insults" he thinks he has the right to use. After having debated with him, it has become clear that he provides no basis off of which to judge that someone is "uneducated", that is assuming that he is even in a position to make that judgement in the first place. It doesn't really matter though, all he does is harass people who disagree with him. To begin, he is very unspecific and vague in the prompt and his opening points. "No God would use faith". In the context of this debate, the dictionary defines faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". It does not make sense to say "no God would use faith", as faith is belief in God himself. What he CAN do is encourage others to have faith in him. I will now address his arguments regarding imperfection. He does not provide evidence to back up his claim. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the prompt. We are discussing how faith relates to God, not how he may be imperfect. As my opponent states, I am supposed to prove that God needs to use faith. Again, this does not make sense. God in the Bible does not "use" faith. It is his followers that have the faith. I wish my noticeably immature opponent the best of luck! I look forward to hearing his response, along with his cheesy insults!
No god would use faith

Faith is the number one thing preached in the bible. Now why is this so when one would expect it to be love, kindness, care for each other etc. Its not. In fact it doesn't even come close. Its that ridiculous snot meat chew rag "faith" in which no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for, well that is of he is perfect. So this SCREAMS of imperfection. So what idiot would bow down to, worship or idolize imperfection? So it also proves that this god of the bible is indeed no god. And since this god, well he's really just an immoral bully but for lingo purposes I have no problem calling this "character" a "god" as what the bible has been representing him for centuries or who knows how long, I mean there's hundreds of thousands of others of entitlements that are titled god or gods... anyway back to the script... guy has that need, that feeding frenzy for your faith, in which you give to him with extra special gullibility, because you have absolutely---no---proof---whatsoever that this god of yours even exists, it ultimately proves that your god has a superior "ego" complex. And an ego is a human quality. But then again god also has MORE human qualities such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy all in which he has freely admitted to and again proving that he is imperfect and this god is thus no god but is as frail and is as weak as you and me. For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible. And if god is god (tee hee), he would NOT use faith. So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.Please argue intelligently and use an education. If there is the slightest hint of you not knowing something and you try to run and excuse by me and or lying, because I am very educated on this topic especially, I will pulverize you with a barrage of well deserved insults. And hey, I would like nothing better than a GREAT INTELLIGENT EDUCATED DEBATE!!!!
Socialism has made a comeback

"Socialism is a word often misused but it expresses a desire for society to be more equal and more democratic". Paying lip service to conceptual whims does not necessarily achieve the desired end result. Pro has inadvertently implied the Orwellian notion that all things are equal but some things are more equal than others. A notion that actually identifies the reality of hierarchy and as I have already suggested, Hierarchy is the intrinsic social design flaw. And who really desires a "more equal" society the most? And who actually gets voted onto the board of directors? Is it going to be Herr Numbnuts or will it probably be Frau Cleverpants? Evolved human nature and instinctive behaviour cannot be suppressed and neither can it be ignored. There will always be those that will lead and those that will be led. And Pro's personal problems were Pro's personal problems and were in no way relative to socialist, Theoretical concepts.
Socialism has made a comeback

Socialsim is a word often misused but it expresses a desire for society to be more equal and more democratic, Many attempts in the past have failedm nay attempts to fly failed many attempts to lauch a rocket into orbit failed till they succeeded. . I failed misreably in my attempts to swim when i was 7 at 8 my dad insisted i could do it and better do it if i wanted a new bicycle for my birthday, Many attmpts to ride a two wheeler without training wheels failed misreably also eventually i did learn to swin and ride a bicycle and read and talk to girls without getting sick to my stomach they all seemd rather impossible at the time, But now are second nature i do feel this is wat will hapen with Socialism. . Maybe the model of a state run society may have failed but the idea of a more equal and democratic society lives on and has had many successes germany in it constituion rquires union workers to be represented on it board of directors. . Perhaps this is the social ism that will succeed
Socialism has made a comeback

If Socialism has morphed then it is no longer Socialism. Even Marx, Observing the natural hierarchy of human society, Accepted that Socialism would only be a temporary state that preceded Communism. All societies are to a lesser or greater extent authoritarian and China and the Scandinavian countries are certainly not exceptions to this rule. Authoritarian systems that observe and pander to natural hierarchy, By definition cannot be regarded as Socialist systems. In reality Socialism is an unachievable, Theoretical utopia.