BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cockroaches are the most convincing proof that Satan exists

Extend all argument about the satanic qualities of Kardashians 1) ImmunityYes stupidity is a disease and they haven't fallen of a building or been burned alive in a tanning bed according to Darwin they should not even be around yet they are populating the Earth and there stupidity has made them $80 million (. http://www.entertainmentwise.com...) there is no justice in the world. Also E! is the most radioactive place in the world does MSNBC have the Seacrest, no then E! wins.2) Hostile TakeoverLike smallpox it starts in one place and it will spread. First it is New York, LA, and Miami than it London, DC, and the WORLD! ! 3) Scare Factor Cockroaches are scary, but the Kardasians are the most frightening things in the world, don't believe me lets do the shoe test. + = + = If my shoe can kill it I am not afraid, but if my shoe can make someone more money on their reality TV show then I am scared.4) The KKKKim takes guys who are down (most times they are black) and kicks them. That is very Satan like.5) How they got their fameDoes Stalin, Hitler, Lee Harvey Oswald, Osama Bin Laden, Rebecca Black, or Justin Bieber have a reality TV show, no, Kardashians win.6) HeadsKim has lived for 32 years, Khole 29, Kourtney 34, and Rob 26 all without a brain and no need for a head they only need it for "pretty" factor.7) SizeI don't have a big enough tub. 8) Ability to LearnThey are dumb but still make bank. Kardsians are evil and who knows maybe Kim gave birth to Satan's spawn. I'm calling you out North West.
Cockroaches are the most convincing proof that Satan exists

Extend all arguments about the satanic qualities of cockroaches.1) Immunity"Kardashians are also immune to disease and radiation. They haven't been killed off by any STD'S and they live on the largest pieace of radiation yet-"Stupidity is a disease though and clearly it is a disease that runs strong in the Kardashian family. Also, E! isnt the most radioactive place in the world, any TV showing MSNBC is.....2) Hostile takeovers"The larger the pile of money they have The more likely they will take over an area. They have already taken over Miami, New York, and Los Angles, this must stop."Have you ever been to those places? They're complete sh*tholes! The Kardashians are doing Gods work by laying waste to those cities that were growing more and more satanic every day. 3) Face conditions"Look at this, im scared"Believe me the sight of a Kardashian's face makes me want to hurl just as much as the next guy, but the sight of ten cockroaches on the only thing in the room you can kill them with is a sight that can make grown men beg for death. 4) The KKK"is it any wonder why Kim is always with Black guys and then degrades them"Hold on there, every guy that ever was in a relationship with Kim were already degraded beyond respect to begin with... Kris Humpheries played for the Nets and Kanye West is the gay fish of culture, their reputations were already long gone before they crossed paths with Kim Karwhogivesafuck5) How they got their fame"Their dad defended O.J. Simpson and than Kim doing having a sex tape leaked on the internet." There have been plenty people who got famous for stuff far worse then what the Kardashians did....StalinHitlerLee Harvey OswaldOsama Bin LadenRebecca BlackJustin BieberThe list goes on and on6) Heads"They having nothing in there heads so they don't need them."But if you behead them they die, whereas cockroaches live on for weeks...7) Size"Who knows how large Khole is."I think only the sun has a larger gravitational pull then she does. On the other hand youll never find a fat Kardashian in the bathtub when youre a** naked in it.... 8) Ability to learn"Kardsians are "human" and still can't learn"Thank God too, that means they are much easier to kill.
Cockroaches are the most convincing proof that Satan exists

The Kardshians are.1) Kardashians are also immune to disease and radiation. They haven't been killed off by any STD'S and they live on the largest pieace of radiation yet- 2) The larger the pile of money they have The more likely they will take over an area. They have already taken over Miami, New York, and Los Angles, this must stop.3) Look at this I'm scared.4) Look at the names of the three most famous Kardashians Kim Kourtney and Kholeis it any wonder why Kim is always with Black guys and then degrades them.5) How did they get famous is by their dad defending this guy and than Kim doing this and having it leaked on the internet.6) They having nothing in there heads so they don't need them.7) Who knows how large Khole is.8) Kardsians are "human" and still can't learn
Cockroaches are the most convincing proof that Satan exists

Traits of Cockroaches that makes them the most convincing proof of the existence of Satan:1) They are immune to radiation2) The larger they grow, the more likely it is they learn the ability to fly3) A single one of them can strike fear into a full grown man4) Cockroaches can eat just about anything and survive5) Roaches have been around since Dinosaurs roamed the earth. When the dinosaurs died, roaches lived. Coincidence? Sounds like genocide to me. 6) Cockroaches can live for weeks WITHOUT THEIR HEADS (Seriously, this is the biggest indicator that they are the spawn of Satan http://insects.about.com... )7) Roaches can be big enough to have a wingspan of 18 inches. A FOOT AND A HALF. Those ones though live in Australia.8) Roaches can learn o_O (http://news.softpedia.com...)And thats my evidence.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

I’m not going to pay any attention to what you have to say for RD3 beyond the first 4 paragraphs. The problem is you, not me. You brought in 0 for RD 2 which is NOT my problem, that’s YOURS entirely. All you did was echo what I said. And you did it again with your openings for RT 3 for at least 4 paragraphs, count em, FOUR, yes that’s right 4 big bright FOUR mighty big paragraphs. I’m not going to waddle through any more of YOUR nonsense. 4 was MORE than enough. You had your chance to prove yourself and wow did you blow it. If you were a lawyer for either the prosecution or the defense, you’d be thrown out in a heartbeat, and or the judge would tell you to “Move it along” because he would NEVER have the patience for that crap. Well I most certainly don’t. If this was a serious debate, and it would be you VS the opposing side, there’d be absolutely no possible way that you could ---ever--- win in which is what you want. Not me. I want what is right VS what is wrong and what is just VS what is unjust. And if you cannot handle that, then leave. I---don’t---care. I’m not here to please you. I’m also not here to make friends with you. I’ve got friends that would die for me whereas its rather obvious that you don’t just like so so so many here on debate.org don’t. Repeating: Its also very obvious that in no possible way, just like your friend “judaism” is not an orthodox jew either because you do not in any way follow your scriptures, not by any means. Yeah so what are you going to do now? Echo what I’ve said yet again? Sheesh. Wow has this debate been so fruitful whereas you’ve proved NOTHING. Typical.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

If all you *yawn boring boredom bores a boring bore* are going to do is repeat what I state and then put in your remarks, well I may as well go to sleep during the next nuclear war water horse from which this horse can drink of my well funded spit. Now here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t. Still no proof? My patience is wearing thin as cheese whiz to blow a tin can across the cow chirps of the squatted universe eve searching for big black blank holes. Strange isn"t it that according to Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived, there are roughly 125 billion galaxies in this known universe. It is also known that there are supermassive black holes inside each one of them. Yet there hasn"t even even been that many people here on planet earth. Black holes are nothingness. So your god, in which you cannot even prove exists, favors soulless big black holes over humans. Kinda tells us/ man where your god"s truth lies. Utterly pathetic. "Not from the Universities where i learned." Well then they are too soft. Well I was born jewish and was taught Hebrew. But I don"t remember anything about it except that its read left to right. Now I don"t need to give you examples of your spelling woes. If your computwhore doesn"t do that, then you have a piece of cow dung larvae and you should dump it in favwhore of something bettwhore. "Since when does asking a question constitute as a personal belief system?" It has nothing to do with the article. "Which God?" Nothing. OK I googled "T'NaCH". But there's a serious problem. That is that there are far too many websites to view and I have no idea which one is among the best among "about 366,000 results". Well you brought in nothing, absolutely nothing to support any argument that you may have to answer "Why do you think god was invented?" from RD1 so your RD was was essentially wasted. Not a good idea. .
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Ad hominem argument: "The question, in you being a teeny bopper and trying to change the subject, naturally, because you do not have the answers, as you completely avoided the subject matter at hand and went into your own whoo-ha whatever, like a Jerry Falwell gang bang at his inauguration to be chief medical officer for the televangelists on know-nothings." If your opening thesis statement has no real logic ... that sinks your entire argument. In computer terms: "trash in ... trash out". Proof you say? " Wow does your super egotistical non proven superior egotistical god prove that one as you dig it into the dirt trying to find worth from a penny serenade." Another Ad hominem argument. "Now if you are going to be debating with me, then you WILL use a spell check and no more of your ridiculous miss-steaks unless you are making up your own language as I often do, in which you are clearly not. You get to college, and one mistake, that"s an instant F. Teachers will not deal with it and neither will I. And there"s no reason for it." Not from the Universities where i learned. Being an Israeli and communicating in English, you want to start writing in Hebrew and see how many mistakes you make? But seeing that you do not give any examples of my errors, oops another empationed ad hominen false logic. ""Where did God come from? Which God?" See, that"s what I truly hate about those so endowed with their own self righteous religious beliefs, without a shred of evidence, naturally, is they CAN"T READ." Since when does asking a question constitute as a personal belief system? Which God? You do not see the question mark? "You paid 0 attention to the article. Because if you had, your small toxic meow mix music muddled brain would have understood that it simply doesn"t matter." Another ad hominem illogic. "Now I have been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 22,000. And I have never heard of anything resembling a "T'NaCH" or whatever you are referring to." Google "T'NaCH" and learn. Another transliteration of the Hebrew abreviation: Tanakh. Ow that's the siren for Shabbot.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

The question, in you being a teeny bopper and trying to change the subject, naturally, because you do not have the answers, as you completely avoided the subject matter at hand and went into your own whoo-ha whatever, like a Jerry Falwell gang bang at his inauguration to be chief medical officer for the televangelists on know-nothings. No absolutely not can you comprehend gods because it is man that invents god to explain the unexplained, just as all religions have done in the past. And with nearly all religions, it first starts off with power, then fear and then control. Wow does your super egotistical non proven superior egotistical god prove that one as you dig it into the dirt trying to find worth from a penny serenade. Now if you are going to be debating with me, then you WILL use a spell check and no more of your ridiculous miss-steaks unless you are making up your own language as I often do, in which you are clearly not. You get to college, and one mistake, that"s an instant F. Teachers will not deal with it and neither will I. And there"s no reason for it. "Where did God come from? Which God?" See, that"s what I truly hate about those so endowed with their own self righteous religious beliefs, without a shred of evidence, naturally, is they CAN"T READ. You paid 0 attention to the article. Because if you had, your small toxic meow mix music muddled brain would have understood that it simply doesn"t matter. Now I have been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 22,000. And I have never heard of anything resembling a "T'NaCH" or whatever you are referring to. It is not listed in wikipedia, nor is it listed in the dictionary. Nothing resembles that so-called word. So what should I do here? I can either shut this debate down completely until you come up with better EXCUSES for something that is believable, or I can go completely around that and totally ignore it. Let"s see what happens when I ignore it. OK I cannot continue. You bring up stuff that I in no possible way can confirm. The word "Yechuda" is listed so so so many times under different pretences in wikipedia, and I"m not going to search through all of them to dig up what you are searching for and or trying to say. Nor is that word in the dictionary. In other words, I"m not going to take your fricken word at ---anything---. If you cannot back up what you say, with solid concrete evidence, so that I or anyone can look it up, or don"t bother saying it. Btw, your friend "judaism", he"s not an orthodox jew, not by any means. He doesn"t pay any attention to actual jewish laws and scripture, in which he most certainly doesn"t follow and I 100% guarantee that you don"t either. So for him to even doubt that you are not an orthodox jew, well that paints him as a true contradictory hypocrite if there ever was one. Oh and oh yeah speaking of scripture, no god of his or yours would be stupid enough to communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible. So that"s a megadose of truth. So if you wish to continue with this debate, then provide where I can look things up to support what you state.
Our economic situation

Medicaid and medicare have been negatively viewed since their conception. The problem is that so many Americans have been depending on the government so long that if the government did in fact immediately stop, it would probably shift the economy into the slums. Everyone wants a handout. I'm unsure what stand to take on the schools, I've been to public and private schools, they're pretty much the same. Although I must admit the school system here, as good as it is, the way they go about it just destroys people's ambitions. All of the time spent at school when you could be doing something productive like getting real life experience really throws people off.This was a shortlived debate, but you still had a few points to make Pro, although you didn't really cover majority of what I had said.
Legalized Abortion

Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, medical abortion has been made legal for every American woman. Abortion was criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and acquired abortions anyway. Of these, tens of thousands of women died from illegal abortions. One study in 1932 had the number at 15,000 women who died a year from "back-alley" abortions. If we were to criminalize this safe legal form of abortion in the U.S., most women who would seek an abortion would either carry it out in "back-alley abortions" or journey to another country to gain they're abortion. If abortion is criminalized, a lot of women will still seek abortions. The government will prosecute thousands of these women to show that they mean business about enforcing the law. The women prosecuted will come overwhelmingly from minority and lower income segments of the population. The common idea behind the "pro-choice" movement is the concept of "protecting babies", many on the far-right criticize pro-life individuals as being babykillers. Yet, simply this fact couldn't be further from the truth. A fetus is not a baby. Many studies have shown that a fetus is not aware of its existance and doesn't begin to feel or experience any pain until at least 37 weeks. An overwhelming majority of abortions are preformed before this 37-week point. The government cannot be trusted to be in charge of who is allowed to have an abortion and under what conditions. The government should not be allowed to be put in between a doctor and a patient. A woman is not free unless she is in control of her own body. I await a reply, and I ask the question to my opponent as to if you believe that abortion should even be illegal to rape or incest victims? And I do not feel that we both have burden of proof, in fact I feel that you have a higher burden than I because my opinion is backed by the American legal system and the Supreme Court. Thank you.
Snelld7's Argument for the Immorality of Homosexuality is Incorrect.

Responses: >> "Anal or Oral sex HAS NOTHING to do with love and everything to do with lust." This is point where your argument above falls apart. You cannot show that anal/oral is ONLY a lustful act. >> [Homosexual] "encounters are solely based on lust." Again - this does not stand. You just admitted a sentence before that relationships may not be "SOLELY based off of lust," which obviously leaves the possibility that homosexuals love each other. These two passages represent a complete misunderstanding of homosexual relationships. >> "I'm saying, their bodies WERE NOT meant to come together, have sex, and reproduce "normally.'" The involves the preconception that all relationships are only "normal" if they are centered around procreation. This is obviously not the case, as sterile people, and even aging first cousins can get married... our society recognizes many relationships that are not based on reproduction. Homosexual relationships are simply another one of those. >> "any other form of 'inventive' sex that is only for pleasure and not for reproduction is immoral" That's curious, considering several species, including humans, naturally have sex only for pleasure. This line of thought would make it immoral to wear a condom, diaphragm, take birth control, morning after pills, or even practice coitus interruptus... And there is obviously nothing wrong with having consensual sex for pleasure... what sort of moral grounds can there be for moral approbation on the subject?? Be careful about appealing to religion on this one... **************************************************** My opponent restates his argument, which I'll put here again as well for clarification purposes and so the reader can have it in mind... The bracketed letters will make sense in a moment. "If through [H]omosexuality you cannot achieve [R]eproduction. The you aren't doing anything but [L]usting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having [A]nal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even [O]ral! Either of these are [M]orally shunned uppon because it's [C]arnal lust." Let's look at it logically... (H -> R) -> [(L & A) v O] [(A v O) v L] -> C C -> M Obviously, the argument can fail at C, A, O, or L (or R, depending on your definition of reproduction). So I state once again that Snelld7 must show that 1) Carnal lust is immoral (conceded by me) 2) Anal sex is unnatural and immoral 3) Oral sex is unnatural and immoral 4) Lust is the only driving force in non-procreative relationships. He has not addressed #'s 2, 3, or 4, and cannot adequately do so. There are actually subpoints in #'s 2 and 3 where he must also show that unnaturalness and immorality are linked in these circumstances, but not in others. Otherwise, his argument is not salient at all. I leave the readers to decide these three points. AFFIRMED
Snelld7's Argument for the Immorality of Homosexuality is Incorrect.

2 &5) You fail to realize you don't need sex, for love. One who loves another, does not need sex in order to portray his/her love. Anal or Oral sex HAS NOTHING to do with love and everything to do with lust. You can say the giver is doing it our of love, however, you can't make the same argument for the reciever (or the opposite in anal sex lol). In this case, it will always be wrong for at least one of the partners and out of sheer lust. Being that you said "Lust is bad," and agreed with the overall generalization that morals are the weighing of good and bad behavior, you have no other choice but to agree that acts of anal or oral sex are bad/immoral. Of course they may not enter SOLELY based off of lust. However, their sexual encounters are solely based on lust. 1) Reproduced is meant in a natural since in my comment and I'm sure you knew it. Why even bother opening it up in an attempt to "be right" if you knew you were attacking something I clearly didn't mean. I'm not saying they can NEVER have a child (as through unnatural behavior almost ANYTHING is possible). I'm saying, their bodies WERE NOT meant to come together, have sex, and reproduce "normally.' 3 & 4) Here you go again. You obviously know I'm not meaning to say that everything unnatural is immoral (apologies if you dont). The right response to this would have been to take it as, "Everything unnatural and a form of lust, is immoral." (anal, oral, aural [never heard of this lol], and any other form of 'inventive' sex that is only for pleasure and not for reproduction is immoral). If you do it, then you do it. And just because 6.6 out of 6.7 billion people do something wrong, it does not turn into being right. The statement "If through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction. The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even oral! Either of these are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust." Stands as truth/stands correct.