BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Parkland school shooting was probably a false flag based on all the evidence.

Oh well I guess you shouldn't have accepted this debate but I will proceed. I have a video from info wars website because it's the only place I can find it right now because of the censorship war that's upon us. *Side not seriously go check it out on Google try to type in any conspiracy topics anything relating to government cover ups and it will be filled with media propaganda webistes and forums essentially filtering out real and factual events and evidence someone way up doesn't want viral. This video is very detailed and I can confirm these videos to be real seeing that they were posted online the same day early in the day so we know they are genuine. At least two other interviews have students who claim multiple shooters and talk about the drills which staff were trained through the secret service a few weeks prior to the shooting. Just watch this and see for yourself it's twice as bad as I've described. https://www.infowars.com...
The Parkland school shooting was probably a false flag based on all the evidence.

I haven't put together a good structure if cited information but I will say after following the narrative and observing the media reactions from all angles I can tell after reviewing the shooting timeline that their is something we are not being told. Almost all of the public was informed about the incomoentence of the FBI not reacting appropriately and in context to all the evidence being censored by media any sane person would come to believe that this is a false flag. I will wait to give more examples on my standpoint for when this debate is accepted by another user. Please be respectful and think rationally if your opinion is not supported by facts this is not the place to advertise them. Also we could have a side argument for gun control depending on how this debate is handled as it pertains strongly to the main argument.
Being Transgender is not a Sin

I accept. In accordance with the terms set by Pro, I will quickly answer each question, and in my next post, I will lay out my sources and an argument in support of my position. 1. Does the Bible say that being transgender is a sin? The Bible does not explicitly reference transgenderism, however in my further arguments, I will show that transgenderism contradicts God's plan and morality. 2. Is the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria real? Yes, Gender Dysphoria is a clinically diagnosed mental disorder. http://www.who.int... 3. Why do you think that sex reassignment is sinful? I will lay out my argument and position in my post, as I will mainly use this one for acceptance. In Round 2, Pro will try to show transgenderism is consistent with the Bible's morality, and I will try to show the opposite.
Being Transgender is not a Sin

PRO: Being transgender is not a sin. CON: Being transgender is a sin. Note: Con should be a "Christian" (of any denomination) who strongly believes that transsexualism is a sin. Pro's arguments: Gender Dysphoria does exist (DSM-5) and its medical treatment is the most effective treatment available based on studies. Therefore, being transgender is not a sin. Questions to Con: 1. Does the Bible say that being transgender is a sin? 2. Is the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria real? 3. Why do you think that sex reassignment is sinful? References that can be used: 1. The Holy Bible > The Bible is silent on the issue of transsexualism yet we can use Bible principles to address it (Phil 4:8;2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). 2. Scientific studies > Empirical data matters since arguments on the ethics of sex reassignment includes biology and psychology. Christians sometimes uses science to determine the sinfulness of something (e.g. cigarettes smoking is dangerous to health and thus, forbidden by Christians). Sequence of Debate Round 1: Acceptance / Answers of Con to the questions of Pro Round 2: Rebuttal of Pro Round 3: Argument of Con Round 4. Rebuttal of Pro
Hillary Clinton better than Donald Trump

In my opinion, both are terrible, but Trump is the lesser of the two. For one, Trump has called for abolishing the minimum wage, which is a big plus. His tax plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on all classes. It has been estimated that his tax plan would increase the size of the capital stock by roughly 29%, would increase wages by 6.5%, and give americans 5.3 million more full time paying jobs. Compare this to Clinton's tax plan, where it has been estimated that long run real GDP will drop by 1%, capital investment would drop by 2.8%, and wages would drop by approx. 1%. The US economy needs economic growth. We are nearly a decade past the 08 crash and we are STILL hesitant to raise interest rates from post recession levels. U6 unemployment is still at 9%, inflation isn't budging. There is also the matter of international affairs, while Clinton was pro-middle eastern intervention, Trump was against it. The world plain and simple needs a strong America, lest regional conflicts flare up (see Russia and Urkraine.) Trump would embody strength, I have serious doubts Clinton would be able to do this. In conclusion, both Trump and Hillary are awful in my opinion, but Trump will serve our most urgent needs, and that is economic problems and geopolitical strife. I look forward to engaging in this topic with you further.
Hillary Clinton better than Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton has many times over during her time as the First Lady and the Secretary of State that she will be a strong president that is not afraid to take on political opponents. The first and most important thing that she stands for is a certain bi-partisan way that can bring congress together and truly achieve her goals. This way, promises won't be dead like many claims of previous politicians. Second, she is for antidisestablishmentarianism. Basically, America as a nation is still not ready for a political revolution. This before mentioned word (antidisestablishmentarianism) referred to the Anglican separation of the church by radical liberalization. But, this ties in with today's political environment, as an enormous rift, or separation, of the two parties that have governed the state are gaining ground. Hillary is able to keep things together. And lastly, but not least, Hillary has a very experienced history and a real voice in Washington. She can get things pushed through and knows how to make deals. Her experience, or resume if you will, far outweighs the puny one of Donald Trump. Now, as to the email scandal, this was just a publicized mistake. All these backroom deals come with the job of being secretary of defense, and the direct under to the POTUS himself. So, the email scandal was blown up past proportions and definitely wasn't the corrupt debacle that the lurkers of the internet made it to be. And Donald Trump is just an angry and punitive man, and does not have any respect for others. He boasts of business savvy, but a fortune was already there for him. He is a relatively minor player in Manhattan real estate, as stated by the real top dogs. His net worth of a self proclaimed 10 billion is nowhere near that. Even Forbes may have it wrong, and 4.5 billion may be closer to 2, according to economists for notable real estate journals. This man has filed for bankruptcy on file at least 7 times. Many of his, again, self-proclaimed, 515 businesses are scams. Trump University is an extremely notable scam of a business, much less a university. Others, such as Trump steaks and Trump suits, are total flops, losing more money than tax revenue showed. Trump is just eager to put his name on things. Trump just does not have what it takes to be the president.
water be considered a public good and not be privatized

My opponent relies on extreme cases where the government is forced to allow a monopoly to a certain water company. In his video, and in the Cochabamba incident, the local governments needed money. These cases prove that business without the restricting hand of competition can be very corrupt and insensitive. However, the vast majority of water companies have to compete with other water companies, and thus charge low rates for water. My opponent's examples therefore show not that the privatization of water is evil, but that no one company (not even one run by the government) should be put in charge of everyone's water. Thus we should not discourage the privatization of water, but encourage it and create a lot of competition. Competition ensures that prices will be kept low and that quality will continue to increase. My opponent claims that privatization of water will make prices triple, but this would only happen if a certain water company suddenly got a monopoly. Plus, with the average rate in the US being about a quarter of a cent per gallon, a tripled price means almost nothing. Even if you use a lot of water, there is no way you can use more than 1000 gallons a day, which means with a tripled price you would spend no more than $4.50 on water a day. With minimum wage being almost $7 an hour, $4.50 is very affordable. Of my opponent's points, only one can be said to apply to the general public, and not to a few isolated cases. Water is the foundation of life; without it nothing can survive. But that doesn't mean that purified water is a natural right. Developing nations in Africa live on water straight from a water hole. Purified water is a privilege that only the wealthiest of nations can enjoy. It is not a right, but a commodity. Conclusion: All of my contentions stand intact. My opponent's points either apply only to specific cases, or cannot be applied in the context of this debate.
water be considered a public good and not be privatized

While water is the source of life, it does not come free of charge. For this reason I support the privatization of water. Contention 1: no economic difference between public and private For water to be fit for human consumption, it must be purified to remove all the toxins and parasitic creatures that inhabit it. This purification process is not free of charge, and thus we do not get our water free of charge whether we get our water from the government or from a private business. If we get water from a private business, we get a monthly water bill. If we get our water from the government, we get an increased monthly tax rate. Thus there is no real economic difference between getting our water from the government and getting our water from a private company. We might as well keep the status quo and have private companies provide us with water. Contention 2: private companies will continuously better purifying technology Private companies are motivated by economic profit. One of the best ways to ensure economic profit is to make one's product better than the competition's. Water companies are continuously researching ways to make water cheaper, cleaner, tastier, and more accessible than the competition, ensuring that the quality of our water continuously gets better. That would not happen if our government supplied us with water, since the government does not make money off of water, and thus would not be motivated to improve its quality. Contention 3: water is affordable The Cochabamba incident was a scandalous incident of corruption, but we must remember that such cases are rare, since otherwise there would be revolts everywhere protesting the price of water. Bechtel Corp was able to charge very high prices for water because of a) lack of competition, and b) backing from the World Bank. While the incident proves that the World Bank and Bechtel Corp are corrupt, it does not prove that business in general is corrupt and cannot provide water at affordable prices. In the US, 1000 gallons of water cost $1.50 [1] and we can expect similar prices elsewhere. Sources: [1] http://www.fcwa.org...
strip clubs should be legal for minors

Definition of minor: "a person under the legal age of full responsibility" My arguments: 1.My opponent has made some obvious spelling mistakes hence you know who to vote when it comes to who "Had better spelling and grammar". 2.If alcohol is served in the strip club, it should be quite obvious why you are not allowed on the premises. If it is not, it may be less clear. In most states, it is not legal for an adult to have sexual contact with a minor. Seducing a minor is indeed sexual contact. Minors are supposed to have protection from things that can theoretically corrupt them, which is why there are laws about not contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 3.Its against the consensus and the law should follow the consensus hence this should be illegal. 4.Until a minor reaches the age of 18 they are still under the care and custody of their parent and its up to their parents to decide whatever or not they want their nation to be full of lustful minors. I await my opponents response
does true love exist

i never meant true love as in a romantic sense but in the general sense, a love a mother typically has for her child a force so strong noone can break it.also for a bestfriend kind of love, or a family pet. i cant honestly think of a truer love than those. love: an unstoppable force that makes the world go around, the reason we were put on earth, seeing someone and connecting with their soul and knowing you would never do anything to hurt them.
does true love exist

Let's hit you with a triple-angle Burden-of-Proof (BoP) that you are going to quiver in your boots for daring to uphold against a god-tier debater like me:1) Prove that love, as its own emotion, is any different to addiction in the early phases of a 'good relationship' and that as the relationship progresses that the love is not simply recycled so one keeps falling in love with the other over and over again (helped by bias in favor of the lover) meaning that the 'fruition of love' never occurs and never surpasses that of addiction to the other's personality and company (as well as their addiction to one's own personality and company).2) The concept of soulmates and true love requires Determinism to be true on a supernatural level which is better known as 'Fate'. I actually believe in Fate personally but since this is a debate and I'm allowed to play devil's advocate I am going to ask you to prove this beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to a reality where random number generator runs the so-called 'matrix' in which all that exists operates meaning whoever you end up with and how good a match anyone out there is for you is totally randomised at the core of its being.3) True love is almost always used in a monogamous sense. Unless you are open to polyamory, you need to prove that all humans are destined to love one other human being more than the rest no more no less in absence of peer preassure from society to do so.Meet this triple-angled BoP and you win the debate.
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

For all his detailed and lengthy explanations, Con's argument is very simplistic and is essentially a fallacy. I'm disappointed, but I really wasn't expecting anything better that could be made in favor of this resolution. I shall summarize his opening argument.1. An omnipotent God can do anything, even things that are logically impossible.2. Therefore God can create a stone even he cannot lift and still lift it, defying logic.My opponent's case rests upon a wording fallacy. Logic is something very special when it comes to defining specific things or acts. You can't treat it in a syllogism the same way you treat words like "color," "shape," or "size." What he is trying to insinuate is that God defied all logic and lifted his unliftable stone, which essentially proves that God failed to create a stone he truly cannot lift. An omnipotent God would have the power to lift any stone, which would therefore not allow any stone to be defined as unliftable. My opponent will argue that since God can defy logic, he can do anything, including the paradox of the stone (this seems to be the crux of his actual argument so far). However, this assertion is dependent on circular reasoning, since any overcoming of logic would have to be presupposed upon his logic-defying powers in the first place. Could God remove his own logic-defying powers and still be capable of defying logic?ConclusionSince God cannot create an unliftable stone, he therefore cannot perform any act (which was the definition of omnipotence agreed upon). This refutes an omnipotent God. I also demonstrated that being able to defy logic and being capable of doing "any act" are two separate things and should not be used interchangeably. If my opponent thinks he can use "God can defy logic, therefore he can do ANYTHING," as an unbeatable trump card, he is sorely mistaken. Do not confuse the ability to defy logic with the ability to ignore definitions.
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

Only accept if you have won 15 or more debates. To be clear, I am con the resolution.Resolution: The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent GodThe paradox of the stone goes as follows:P.1 God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.P.2 If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.P.3 If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.Therefore:P.4 God is not omnipotent.P.5 If God exists then he is omnipotent.Therefore:P.6 God does not exist. [1]Omnipotence: the quality or state of possessing unlimited power [a few changes change] [2]Definition of omnipotence may be disputed but my opponent must defend the argument as presented above.One forfeit results in the loss of the debate.First round acceptanceNo arguments last roundPlease refrain from semantics.[1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

My opponent has decided to ignore all of my arguments and return to his previous contention, namely being his unspoken assumption that God's ability to defy logic would automatically cancel out all of my arguments. I have aptly demonstrated why this is not so. In this round, I shall attempt to make it harder for him to avoid direct argument.Rebuttal"I would also like to remind pro that the burden of proof is on him to prove the resolution, therefore he might not want to spend all his time refuting me."In this case, he attempted to prove that the paradox of the stone did not disprove a maximally omnipotent God. If I refute him and prove the paradox to be valid, it essentially affirms the resolution."I will quote what I think is the general summery of pros contention. "What he is trying to insinuate is that God defied all logic and lifted his unliftable stone, which essentially proves that God failed to create a stone you he truly cannot lift"What Con may have 'thought' was incorrect. I quote the true contention of importance: "An omnipotent God would have the power to lift any stone, which would therefore not allow any stone to be defined as unliftable."Recall that in the conclusion of my argument I asserted that being able to perform any act and being able to defy logic were two different things. Con's definition assumed that God could do "literally anything," not merely defy logic.My point I tried to make was that God would be able to defy logic (e.g. 1+1=3), but not falsify true definitions, since they aren't dependent on the 'logic' from God's perspective. I clearly stated this, but he has not responded to it or, indeed, even acknowledged it in any way. When he replied, "The statement clearly implies that God created a stone he couldn't lift," he is playing his blind trump card again, ignoring the fact that no rock could be defined as unliftable, DESPITE God's ability to overcome logic. This also refutes the possibility of making square circles, since such an act would not merely be illogical but would have to invalidate either the definition of "square" or "circle."I further demonstrated God's impossibility by asserting- and I quote myself- any overcoming of logic would have to be presupposed upon his logic-defying powers in the first place. The example I used was again rebutted by his "God can do anything" fall-back. I simply ask him further if God could still exercise his logic-defying abilities if he had never existed, as his power is dependent upon his ability to use it. While refuting an omnipotent God using a different paradox is irrelevant to this debate, I simply use it to prove that his wild card of making logic irrelevant fails.I await Con's response.
Sisterhood of DDO

Sorry Con for the long reply. I had to do some family matters and was not able to do a quick reply. My opponent is making an argument that "The Brotherhood does not contribute and is not fit for DDO." He attempts to prove that claim by suggesting we are racist. My question is, even if we are proven to be racist, how does that demerit our debating skills and how does that deem us to be poor contributors? That is exactly what my opponent has failed to explain during his argument. However, I digress. I will not be arguing that racists should be given a voice on DDO, rather I will be arguing that we are not currently racists, verbally abusive nor pro rape. Which by the way, this shows Masterful arguing against rape as con- http://www.debate.org...... Masterful makes a logical point against rape as a punishment- "All the desperate fat chicks would be stealing food, knowing they they get A) Food, or B) sex. For them it's a win win." The point is, Masterful has demonstrated that he is anti-rape in at least one debate. I therefore present this question. How can Masterful have a debate for rape and against rape? Could it be because debates don't always reflect the beliefs of the debater, and therefore, serves as poor evidence when attempting to identify the debaters true ideology? I'm certain. We are growing as a group, our ideologies and beliefs are changing as we explore new ideas. We do not regret making those debates, they served as a milestone, which we have surpassed, leaving our old ideas behind. I believe it was necessary to explore previously unexplored debates, not only to discuss the previously un-discussed, but to provide a change of pace to the debates we see on a regular basis. By debating those topics, we've only added diversity to this website, therefore we have already provided fair contribution. Let's look past all of that, let's hypothetically suggest, that Masterful, masterdrave and myself, all believed what we wrote when we made those silly little debates, the question is, do we still believe in them now? The answer is no. The purpose of the formation of the Brotherhood was to make DDO great again, to do that, we needed a certain set of rules to hold our group accountable to, these rules are strictly against racist behaviour, strictly against personal attacks and strictly for the terms of use. Therefore, because the Brotherhood was formed, 3 accused racists, are no longer racist. The Brotherhood has reformed these accused racists, into upstanding users of DDO, where their contributions will be focused on promoting free speech and encourage users to form an inner community, which in turn, promotes togetherness. Thus the Brotherhood not only provides fair contribution, but the Brotherhood HAS reduced racism on this site. The Brotherhood is not only fitting, but is making a positive impact on DDO. I thank you, for allowing me for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings you may have had. I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and remain yours faithfully, What50, recruiter and enforcer of the Brotherhood.