BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

Rebuttals:I. The "All Propositions are True" PremisePro's main (and only) argument that God exists is his syllogism that asserts as a premise that "all propositions are true". For me to refute Pro's argument for God, I would have to adequately demonstrate that this premise is based on faulty logic, and I do so in rebuttal two.II. The Rectangle ArgumentTo prove that all propositions are true, Pro utilizes the proposition, "A rectangle is a square". He asserts that since some rectangles are squares, the proposition is true. He also asserts that since some rectangles are not squares, the proposition is also false. He then draws the conclusion that the proposition and it's negative (a rectangle is not a square) are both true, and that therefore, all propositions are true.To refute this claim, let me first break it down for you. "A rectangle" has no meaning until one assigns it meaning. In this case, one can either assign it "a rectangle which is not a square" or "a rectangle which is a square". This would mean that the initial proposition proposed by Pro would become two:1. A rectangle which is not a square is a square, and2. a rectangle which is a square is a square.When observing the two new propositions we derived from Pro's original proposition, we can clearly see that no logical mishaps are present. Pro's original proposition breaks down when you assume both definitions are being used at the same time. I.e., Pro's proposition broke down when he committed the fallacy of equivocation. The only mystery here is Pro's exploitation of "a rectangle"'s ambiguity.In summary, Pro's Rectangle Argument commits the fallacy of equivocation and is therefore logically invalid.ConclusionSince Pro's argument for his premise that "all propositions are true" is flawed, his premise clearly fails under scrutiny and does not hold, and since Pro's only argument was based on this premise, his argument for God's existence also fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.
God Exists

Resolution: A theistic god exists.StructureThe burden of proof will lie solely on Pro. Con will not be contending that a god does not exist, but he will act as a sketpic and question and refute the arguments presented by Pro.DefinitionTheistic god - An intervening and personal god that created and rules the universe.Rules1. Round 1 can be used for the first argument.2. Pro must waive round 5 to compsensate for round 1.3. Do not be condescending during the debate.4. Please do not accept the debate if you have doubts about staying with it.Once you accept the debate, you can post your first argument. Enjoy! :)
Fascism is a phenomenon of the Left, not the Right.

From Wikipedia: "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism." AKA 1 man making the decisions. Or even 1 body, such as the republican party. I need only refer you to our budget and you will see that our spending has been pro republican for the last 8 years. Republicans are the ones pulling the purse strings. I have no idea if it's Bush, Cheney, or the RNC. Every year during the Democratic controlled white house, life has been better, spending has been down, budgets have been in reach, presidents have been popular. Bill Clinton is the only president in History to have a higher approval coming out than he did coming in! Stop bringing things down to Conservative and Liberal and start looking at the big picture of right vs. wrong. Ps. You clearly copied and pasted this from somewhere.
Abortion should be illegal

Only about 1% of all abortions are from rapes or incest. So there's no point in that argument. (let's say we both agree that that is the only reason abortion should be legal) Does this justify babies being killed because of convenience? If you pull the "Oh, What about health problems" that's extremely rare too, And is also not an argument. -*"Abortion is not killing if it's done within the first 5 months of pregnancy as in the first 5 months, "*- This is the most ridiculous argument that all Pro-Choice debaters point out. Not all abortions are made before the 5 month period. In fact, In some states it's perfectly legal to kill a baby up until the baby leaves the woman's body. As to the argument that these babies can't feel pain, I can agree. They cannot feel pain. But a person in a coma can't feel pain either, They can't think for themselves as well. Let's make a comparison here: Person in coma (who will definitely be out of the coma in exactly 9 months. ) [HYPOTHETICALLY IF WE KNEW WHEN THEY COME OUT OF COMAS] Baby in mother (who will definitely be out of the mother's body in around 9 months. ) With this comparison, There should be a 'right' to kill a person in a coma (who definitely will wake up in 9 months), If we can kill a person in a uterus. (who will definitely be out of the uterus in 9 months) Using the "sentient being" argument is not a good argument.
Abortion should be illegal

Because my opponent is not specifying what abortions are ok and which ones aren't, I am going to assume they are against ALL abortions in any context. That being said I'll begin with my argument of why abortion is justified for most scenarios. " It's a human life. " - Abortion is not killing if it's done within the first 5 months of pregnancy as in the first 5 months, The fetus isn't even sentient nor has any levels of intelligence. Therefore why should you care about a being that doesn't experience pain nor has a consciousness? If your counter-argument is that at that point in development the fetus has a potential to be alive then you should be against masturbation or women not getting their ovulated eggs fertilized, Which in and of itself is utterly ridiculous. - Abortion can also be justified if the mother was raped or if a condom breaks. While these events are rare, They still happen and denying an abortion in these scenarios are unfair and possibly deadly if the women are underage. Case and point, Abortions are justifiable in certain scenarios and therefore should be legal in those situations whether it be the women were raped, If the mother would die in the baby's birth, Or if it's within the first 5 months when the fetus isn't sentient. Sources, https://www. Sciencemag. Org. . .
Feminism more like sexism or more like (Female supremacy).

This isn't refuting my argument at all in the slightest. No, I understand the idea of Feminism I just stated Feminism is not truly for equality because it deals with the problems of only one of the sexes, females. I am not saying that all feminists are all sexists, I am saying if they truly believe in equality and both problems of the sexes should be addressed equally, they are wrongly labeling themselves. The only way you can argue feminism is truly for equality is that it someway addresses both problems of the sexes EQUALLY. Also Con would have to prove feminists mostly (radical) feminists are not hell bent on female superiority and men are demons.
Gay marriage should be illegal.

How does it undermine human morality? If you're familiar at all with philosophy, morality goes well beyond any religious doctrine. There have been civilizations in the past who didn't use any divine sources to create the behavior that they thought was necessary to hold society together. Take the ancient Romans, yes they had a pantheon of gods, but worshiping them was more of a social norm, rather than something that they took seriously like the modern religions that govern the behavior of many humans(i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Regarding your comment that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality, pedophilia, or any other like behavior; this type of logic is much like a domino row, thinking that because one thing happens, that everything else that is a danger to the physical or psychological nature of people inevitably follows. Besides the far-fetched nature of this type of flawed thinking, the research that is being done by medical and mental health professionals has gotten to the point were high levels of scrutiny are applied, and the subsequent research made available to lawyers, judges, and anyone else that might need it before passing anything into law. To address your comment about pedophiles seeking legalization of their behavior, it is extremely unlikely that any competent lawyer, judge, city council person, mayor, governor, or any other legislator, would pass a law that allowed pedophiles to have sex with children without the fear of criminal actions taken against them.
Gay marriage should be illegal.

Then what is the harm in calling it a "civil union"? "Does it prevent you from living safely in your home, drive to work safely, take care of you family, or practice your own beliefs?" Furthermore, Contender, you stated my arguments are mostly based on religious beliefs (and personal beliefs as well)... and that is does not harm me, or anybody else in that matter. This is the biggest topic in which Gay Marriage Supporters always seem to mysteriously overlook. To begin, on a more general/wider scale, the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would obscure basic moral values of all the people: In the Netherlands for examples, gay marriage was enacted and legalized and once people became comfortable with the idea, they are legalizing pedophiles, child pornography, and animal sex. Slowly, all the parties passing these laws, have similar arguments to your about how this does not affect or hurt anyone. Although, it does not affect my driving, which is completely irrelevant to this topic, it does affect many people on a large scale. Basically, legalizing gay marriage, would lead to all this disgusting and horrifying acts that eventually, everyone will think normal, because of our leniency in gay-marriage. "Using the same tactics used by "gay" rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals" (Northern Colorado Gazette). Is gay marriage really that "normal"? Sources: http://www.allenbwest.com... http://www.freerepublic.com...
Gay marriage should be illegal.

The arguments you're using are mainly based on religious belief. To use your personal beliefs outside of your religion's domain is not only unwise, but also goes against the freedoms that are granted to all Americans, to live their lives according to their own belief systems and values. What harm does a gay or lesbian couple do to you if they want their union to be labeled as "marriage"? Does it prevent you from living safely in your home, drive to work safely, take care of your family, or practice your own beliefs? Please keep your narrow and bigoted ideas to yourself. Don't poison the rest of society with it.
Gay marriage should be illegal.

Despite you saying that my arguments are "opinion-based", your sources are weirdly absent of links to mental health organizations, like The American Psychological Association, or The American Psychiatric Association, or even The American Medical Association. Your sources tend to be conservative or religious-based, not on scientific evidence, which in court, would not be very sound sources to base your argument on. I don't need to remind you that we live in a country that is governed by the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible. Your argument is based on a very weak foundation, and until you come up with mental health evidence from any of the sources that I've listed, then people will never take you seriously.
Gay marriage should be illegal.

I haven't come across any news either online or on TV, saying that pedophilia is legal in the U.S. If there is proof of that, then please direct me towards the source(s), where it proves what you are claiming. Also, the preeminent mental health organizations which are The American Psychological Association, and The American Psychiatric Association, haven't published anything that supports it being classified as a sexual orientation. Here is an article directly from their website: <http://www.apa.org...;. I did an extensive search on Google, to see if I could find any credible stories from like NPR, The BBC, Skynews, Fox News, CNN, or any other major news network, and found nothing saying that Pedophilia or any other kind of sexual abuse against children or teens. And just to further my point, I also checked the APA website for recognized sexual orientations, and came up with nothing that supports your claim that it's considered a sexual orientation. Here is that link: <http://www.apa.org...;. Regarding your comment that to me and others like me pedophilia is just two people "loving each other", and that we use that thinking to think it's okay, then you couldn't be more wrong. The difference is that sexual activity between adults is that between adults, the majority of them are psychologically, emotionally, and physically mature enough to be able to deal with being intimate, whereas children and teens due to them living a pretty much sheltered life, so they aren't ready to deal with the consequences of being physically intimate or any of the consequences that come with sexual activity. So to conclude, it seems that I'm not the one trying to pass off "facts", as opinions. Have a wonderful night:).
Gay marriage should be illegal.

To begin with, about the domino row, as long as a part of it is true after the accusation or statement, then this is not really a "flawed" thinking. And you may be thinking, that I am just fantasizing about what could happen if we continue to accept gay marriage, but actually, pedophilia, is now legalized and classified as a sex orientation. It is actually protected by the government. This is mainly because they had the same reason (the argument that you used to defend your position on gay-marriage) and some way somehow, is now allowing and protecting pedophiles. Remember, this was directly correlated from the already unnatural, and disgusting same-sex marriage. You would know this, if you actually checked my sources, rather than coming up with "facts" based solely off your opinions. Using your same line of reasoning, would you accept pedophilia? I mean, it is just two people making love with each other. How does it bother me in any way? It doesn't affect society at all right? Really. Your naive and one sided reasoning is the trait shared by many gay-marriage supporters.
Gay Marriage

"But people who love each other want to get married. So they should be able to if they would like" I would like to have one billion dollars in my bank account, from taxpayers money. Do I have the right to take that from them? No. I have no right whatsoever to have whatever I want. "People should get the rights they want." Yet again, you do not automatically get whatever you desire. Such logic would destroy society. If I want to murder yiu, do I have the right to kill you? "If they want this right give it to them." No rational has been given as to why we shall... "They should not have to go to another state to get married." They don't have to do anything if they don't want to. "Everyone has the right to marriage and gay people are also human. No one should get there rights taken away from them!!" You have failed to provide any *reasoning* as to why it is a right. You can't take away something they never had. I await your arguments. And is the BoP shared, or do you have it on entirely?
Gay Marriage

"I think that Gay Marriage should be allowed because, you should be able to love who you love. " Refutation: marriage is not a requirement to love. It is still possible to love and love with someone, without a Goverment paper issued to you. "Even if it means the same gender. " Well that's what we're arguing. "How would you feel if you couldn't love who you love. " 1. As I stated in the first point, love is not reliant on a marriage. 2. This is a clear appeal to emotion fallacy. [1] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... I await your responses.
Generation 1 was the Worst Pokemon Generation

I understand my opponent is busy, so there's not much to rebut.Graphics have no relevance to the argument.Graphics may not have utmost relevance, but you cannot deny it has no relevance. If I said graphics alone is what made it worse, you may have a point. But this is among many other reasons including inferior content, which you said was important.One may have been an avid writer and loved poring over the details of a game. The other may have just wanted to stick to the basics.But you cannot deny the facts. Generation 4 had a better plot than Generation 1.Overall, Red, Blue, and Yellow were good games. I will not deny that. However it was the limitations at the time in graphics and data what made it weaker than the rest. Game Freak made the excellence or these first games and built onto it without making it too confusing. They added newer, more original Pokemon to appeal to more audiences, while still making it down to Earth. They brought back old Gen 1 Pokemon for the people who enjoyed the Pokemon. They took what Gen 1 had and built on it. They made it better. Generation 3 and arguably 4's remakes captured Generation 1's essence of simplicity, leaving it with nothing special. The glitches in this game heavily affected the battle system. It was short, had limited multiplayer, barely an aftergame, and cannot compete with the rest. The story was weaker than the rest. A story can be successfuly implemented to Pokemon. Look at Platinum. It had a good simple story, but had battling and catching Pokemon the central point. GameFreak's excellence in making the later games led this game to age badly. When comparing games side by side, when it came out and the limits of the time is not a viable excuse. When you're trying to argue a game as better, it has to stand on its own in order to make it. This game could simply not stand the test of time and found itself weaker than the rest.
Generation 1 was the Worst Pokemon Generation

However, Pokemon Generation 1 is not the worst generation at all. Here's why: 1) Design Generation 1 contains Pokemon designs that are rooted in nature and simplistic. People fell in love with the designs of Pokemon such as Pikachu and Squirtle, who are similar to biological animals that are considered cute. People can identify with these designs, and other designs such as Charizard, who was structured from popular myths about dragons. These original Pokemon appeal more to a wider range of people. As the Pokemon generations have progressed, Pokemon designs have deviated more from this biological standard and branched into a more anime-driven design. This is a less challenging avenue for artists, who just can make up almost anything they feel like instead of adhering to biological standards of what living creatures should look like. This makes the Pokemon of newer generations, especially the two latest ones, less believable. Anime also has a limited appeal, meaning less people appreciate the designs of newer Pokemon. Some weird ones include "Garbodor", a misshapen pile of who knows what, and "Aegislash", basically a sword and shield. Some newer legendary Pokemon such as Reshiram and Zekrom seem to be a contest of how many minute details can be added to a Pokemon. This changes the originally intended design style of Pokemon for the worse. [. http://www.pokemondungeon.net...] 2) Popularity The original Pokemon of Generation 1 and the games of generation 1 are more popular. If follow the trend from bottom to top of this fan-voted list, you can see that the Pokemon become increasingly older. The top five Pokemon all belong to generation 1, as do seven of the top ten, where most of the bottom of the list is populated by newer Pokemon. [. http://www.dorkly.com...] The first generation of Pokemon games also has sold the most games to date, with about 10 million units more sold than any other generation other than generation 2, which it has outsold by about 3 million units. [. http://vgsales.wikia.com...] This does not even include firered and leafgreen, which can be counted as generation 1 games as they are remakes of the original games, red and blue. 3) Originality and Simplicity The thing that makes generation one so good, and definitely not the worst Pokemon generation (which, I remind the voters, is all I have to prove) is that it is the essence of Pokemon. It sold everyone on the now multibillion dollar corporation that is Pokemon. Without this generation, there could be no other generations. It contains a simplistic plot that engrossed gamers without confusing, added information. Its simplicity is a strength rather than a detriment. Its original 151 Pokemon would set the precedent for all other Pokemon. It cannot be considered the worst Pokemon game. I cannot rebut my opponent's faulty arguments yet, so I will end with a source that testifies to this exact feeling of originality. [. http://www.ign.com...] Sorry for the late post. Good luck!
Generation 1 was the Worst Pokemon Generation

Rules:1. You may not rebut anything in the same round.2. Round 1 is acceptance only.3. Mention which Generation you're arguing as the worst in Round 1.4. No swearing.5. Pictures are discouraged, but if you must, keep it small.6. Bulbapedia is a valid source.If you break any rules, you forfeit the debate. Voter Rules:1. You may not take off spelling and grammar because a debater quotes a spelling/grammar mistake an opponent made.
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care costs

it doesn't cost much to enforce, it's just a tax. if there's a loss of revenue when people don't buy it, then they aren't gettin cancer from it. if they do buy it, they pay the tax. i see no reason people would substitute for tobacco. people get addicted to it, it's not like they need a fix, no matter what. it's one specific thing that they want. so those consequential costs aren't there
tobacco should be heavily taxed to reimburse for government health care costs

the idea, that cancer and other bad health effects from smoking causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in cigarette taxes. my understanding is right now the costs of tobacco to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for smokers, so they would't smoke as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends due to the product.
Rap battle round one

You talk all this weak sh-t until you see my resumeI hate to say it but a round one loss will flood you with dismayyou talk big words but I'll ad-lib until your hair goes graythis isn't even the main course, it's barely an entreewould a switch of style outweigh the negativeson the twelfth day of Christmas I killed all your known living relativesI make you drowsy with sedatives like Mike Tyson's PunchOut with Action Replaylook here mc9you're more like a benign tumorI hear from the grapevine you gotta poor sense of humorso sooner or later i'mma tear into you with my caninesthis battle is gory like the WW1 front linestitle the headline"Man's spine turns to dust!"this is a good opportunity to outlinethat this may be the signthat you're not ready to face off with a fully charged alkalinebattery I'm genuinenot close to borderline murdergo into the drive thru with your body and pick up a burgerso I think before we go any furtheryou should understand i'm a lyrical miracle workerso rethink this battle before sh-t gets worser