BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not debate

I am simply trying to have a nice conversation with you and I am sincerely interested in learning about this assassin fair. It is making me wonder why you are not answering my questions and giving me reason to believe that you don't know the answer and maybe you just made it up.. Are you a pathological liar? Why do you insist that this is a debate? It is interesting to me that you are telling me that this is a debate when you open up your last round stating that I made a post? Since when is a post a debate? I was told to do a debate for my philosophy class and I said I will not. I don't even know how to debate, for I was never taught how to. You are in my class, you know this.. It's a critical thinking class and I think you are doing a great job of thinking critically, too critically.. over thinker :).. Do you really think that our "commenter" is hating? because I think he is sincere and genuine in his interests.. Do you remember how to check for sincerity in a testimony?
I will not debate

You laid your use of FRILLS on pretty think in your last post. The questions about my assassin costume, and the comments about my user name, have nothing to do with your argument title. You are clearly interested in continuing this debate because you keep responding back in each round. If you wanted to "enjoy a nice conversation" with me, why wouldn't you just say it from across the table (where you are currently sitting)? Your motivation for this argument is not to prove that you will not debate, but to do the required material for philosophy 123.
I will not debate

Ohhh wow, an assassin.. huh.. interesting.. care to elaborate on what an assassin fair is? I think it sounds really cool! And.. I like nerds! There's nothing wrong with that; talk about a qualifier! I am not interested in having a debate and am simply enjoying a nice conversation with a beautiful young lady with interesting interests... I like your profile name too! It is catchy and creative.. And.. how can I be throwing you off I am not debating?
I will not debate

Why, thank you. I was dressed up as an assassin for a faire...I know, it's nerdy haha. Anyway, yes, I am trying to make this into a debate, and I am succeeding; we are involved in a debate right now. Considering that you were the one to propose this argument, and then send it my way, shows that you are interested in having a debate. Everything else you are including in your debate ("chatting with friends, surfing the web") are simply qualifiers, meant to throw me off.
Brain power important to be something in one's life.

Again I'm unsure of whether you're saying these people were thinking intentionally and their accidental inventions were a pursuit of a different thought or whether these people were simply able to function at all due to their brain's inherent functioning and the fact that they were not vegetables. You need a brain to live and function but you do not need high intellect or keen intentional pursuit to succeed (thus accidental inventions and "savants": http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Brain power important to be something in one's life.

There are two ways to take this: 1. "You can't do anything while braindead!", well yes, that is true, but that doesn't make sense to assert since basic cognitive ability (retardation) definitely does not open you "achieve anything in this world." 2. "Can you succeed without thinking on something?", yes you can as many inventions have been invented purely by accident: http://www.businessinsider.com... Both interpretations covered.
Brain power important to be something in one's life.

Your intelligence is not the most imperative portion of success. I argue on three points: 1. Communication skills are far more important ( http://www.businessnewsdaily.com... ). 2. Intellect can be misused or misappropriated. It is not also any form of omniscience and can be completely wasted on useless pursuits. 3. Your intellectual ability wanes. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)
Should indians be illegal? 2

My actual Debate: Indians DEFINITELY shouldn't be illegal! Not only is my opponent a troll, And a racist, But also ignorant, And uninformed. https://www. Migrationpolicy. Org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states The following article shows that there are about 2. 4 million Indians in the U. S. If Indians were Illegal, We would spend MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars to deport the people back to India. Including this, Most Indians were born in America. SO, Unless my opponent says, "we should ban all Indians including those born in America" then we would have even more people to deport. On top of this, They make up Millions in workforce, And without them, Our STEM workers would plummet. They fuel the economy in our nation, Ironically, And really put forth growth for our system's in science and math. Also, Curry isn't just Indian. It's also from: Thai, Laos, Africa, Bangladesh, China, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, And Japan, To name a few. My "Truth" debate: Srsly m8, I get your a troll, But at least do it in a smart way. You'll look like an idiot otherwise! Therefore, Why mah pee pee hard? Indians have -2 pp, But they good curry. It smell really good. Now I want curry Can you curry up and tell me why u h8n all the Indians? They make Computers work and make virus. My best friend Indian and he work at IRS. I always behid pay, Ad I always pay him. They give V-Bux to the Robloxians to figh the furries. With the combined power of Indians, We will win the T-Series war once and for all!
Should abortion be legal

I see two major points you make that i will attempt to refute. 1. abortions are the best choice in the case of rape or some horrible circumstance. 2. Abortion reduces future suffering and make it ok. To your first point I think if we believe that abortion is ok then there is no need to explain why you abort someone. If it is indeed murder then there is no possible reason to justify it. Further the value of one's life is not based on the way in which they were conceived. Even a child of rape is a child, it's a horrible circumstance but if you acknowledge that abortion is an evil, why do two evils make a good? You also say that to abort a child that will struggle in this life due to health concerns of the pregnancy is a merciful act. This looks at the value of human life as though it was a direct reflection of the utility of that person. In other words you are only valuable insofar as you have use. Following this logic we should also kill born humans when things get tough for them. Essentially if someone were to be paralyzed and have a bleak future we should just kill them off to save them from this horrible world. Now some people might believe that to be ok but i don't think you believe that. I say this because you say that abortion is inherently wrong because it ends a life, you are in effect saying that ending lives is wrong. Your logic to say that human life is valuable but it is also ok to throw away because of hardships doesn't add up. I will also add that you didn't actually refute my argument. I guess my question is do all humans have an absolute right to life (regardless of their utility)? (btw thanks for the debate)
Should abortion be legal

So in order of your arguments, I will respond thusly; The destruction of human life is indeed wrong. The choice of an adult is not strong enough justification to end a child's existence. However, we must also take into account outlying circumstances. More on that later. Now your argument would be sound, if all conceptions happened between consenting, responsible, and capable adults. However, this is sadly untrue. We live in a world where teenagers make poor decisions, rapists take advantage of women and men, and there are tragic birth complications. While it is both regrettable and heavy-handed, we should as a society consider the fact that not all children will be born into a world that will love and nurture them as they should be. It is an act of mercy, for children who are in the womb of an alcoholic and will be born with deformities and deficiencies that could quite possibly damn them. It is an act of mercy to allow young women a second chance, without being shackled to take care of their mistake for the rest of their lives. It is quite akin to a life sentence in prison, only your prison is a living breathing human. I don't deny that an abortion is the snuffing of a human life, however I think it should be legal under circumstances where we can prevent suffering, and be merciful to those who would otherwise experience a lifetime of pain. The argument could be made for the fact that their fate is not set in stone, however I would argue further that the margin of exceptions is very thin. I wouldn't wish a life of pain on anyone, and abortion prevents that suffering before a baby even has time to process its own existence. It hasn't attained sentience until long after birth. What do you think? I concur that nobody should arbitrarily choose to abort, but when the circumstances are there, it should be a forgivable course of action.
Should abortion be legal

Well this is my first debate so I hope I do well. To start you mention that abortion is a necessary evil. This implies that the destruction of the human life is in itself a bad thing. If we both agree on this we then have to determine why is this unfortunate or evil. Dose the choice of a big human trump the right to live of a big human? My argument is can be formulated as such: p1-Unborn children are human, p2- all humans have an absolute right to life, conclusion- all unborn children have an absolute right to life. My first premise that all unborn children are human is a fact of science. Embryology tells us that life starts at conception, this life by virtue of having two human parents is thus a "human life". We can further see that since this life is growing and has its only unique DNA it is a human organism. The stance that unborn children aren't human is nonsense as i think you will agree. My second premise, that all human life has an absolute right to life is the more important premise. We have seen in the past in society that when one group of humans deny's personhood to another group of humans all sorts of injustices happen. We see this is Nazi germany, in the american days of slavery, and even in our culture before women were considered persons under the law. When we deny personhood to human beings there can be no stopping the evils committed against them. Thus all human life can be said to be inseparable from its personhood and thus needs to be protected as such. This applies even if at the apparent expense of another group of people. If my two premises are sound an true, then my conclusion is also sound and true.
Sexist

~H , I apologize for not recognizing what you said in your second debate , I just realized you where talking about the prospects of marriage XD. Also as a homosexual male I don't think you should be scared homosexuals because its a different form of rape . Rape is Rape no matter who does it. I think your argument was entertaining and I apologize for going ape and misinterpreting your comment XD. Ps Don't favor lesbian women over gay men! I would End this debate although i do not know how....
Sexist

To be straight up and down to earth with you. I don't really care. I know that may sound bad or selfish and I'm sorry if I offend you but I feel it's best for me to stay out of it. If you want to get married there's plenty of places to go I'm pretty sure. It's just me being a heterosexual male it honestly has absolutely nothing to do with me. I think human society tries to keep sexual relationships as conservative as possible and homosexuality kinda breaks that mold a little bit is all. Gays are also hated (not by me but some) for ending bloodlines over the fact that gay people don't produce. In some societies or social circles the family line is a pretty big deal. Another major function of marriage was to join families and extend dual-bloodlines through children. Yeah we can all adopt but the bloodline still doesn't really extend. I dunno just think out loud here. I know that if I had a gay son and I knew that it wasn't a phase but the real thing. I would train him up to be one of the manliest gay guy he could to be (meaning I would have him weight lift, practice martial arts and get stronger). So that we would be able to maintain his respectability in the real world where the majority of people are heterosexual and have animosity against gay people (not always personal). Honestly if any of my children were gay I just hope that they'll play their genders at least. Honestly that's all I ask for. Not that I would stop loving them but it would save me a lot of ridicule. That's another thing a lot of people don't respect gay people. I mean have gay friends but there were always my friends long before I found out they were gay, And personally, I don't have a problem with gay males as long as they're smaller than me. That's the one phobia I have of homosexuals I have. Females are fine because they don't rape you and sometimes they convert. However huge gay guys erk me. That's part of why I always hit the gym so I could be more tolerant y'know. There always the fear of anal rape. I know that sounds absurd but for a lot of straight guys they're really sensitive about their a-hole. The huge gay guys could be nicest guy on Earth but it's just this subconscious feeling that makes you gravitate away. Anal rape would turn a sane conservative man to insane raging psychopath. I'm being completely honest right now.
Sexist

Tty for clearing up the sexist misunderstanding but marriage is also a tax benefit. It also gives the couple a sense of commitment when they are married. Idk why you oppose that and suggest same sex couples should just date and do their thing. Same sex couples should have the right to get marriage just like heterosexual couples do . I just find it intriguing how you would say Marriage should stay as a traditional thing rather then "mixing it up".
Sexist

One of your posts breatly urked my nerves in a debate I saw and I would like to conform you'r thoughts about it . Xanxus Comment: I find gay marriage pointless. The whole idea of marriage is based around the idea that women were the property of their fathers and during the marriage ceremony it was to show the property switching hands. The wife was now the property of the husband. Since men are free. I see no need for men to have to marry. So, you are saying women are property of their fathers and husbands? I find your view of the female gender greatly disturbing and quite rude. Your sexist comment is degrading towards females, in the sense that you are labeling them as property to "own." Men are "free?" So, women shouldn't have rights and should just be objects for men to "own?" Also, you stated that same-sex marriage is somehow "pointless" because the "property" is not transferred from one man to another (?). I think women and men are equal, and I don"t see women as property to own ~H
Dogs are better pets than cats.

As a person who has both a cat and a dog, I believe that dogs make better pets than cats. I am open to all arguments, be them for vastly different situations, e.g Cats are better for old people than dogs. No rules apart from the usual, no racism or homophobia or anything like that (not sure how you could be racist when talking about dogs or cats!). I expect that this debate has been used a lot on Debate.org but I thought I might give it a try! This is just for fun, please don't take this too seriously.
Dogs are better pets than cats.

This site has a poll and reasons it http://animalbehaviorassociates.com... Quote from this site http://www.foxnews.com... "Clearly, there are dog people and there are cat people. But it's not much of a contest: 74 percent of people like dogs a lot, and only 41 percent like cats a lot." Bad things that cats do http://www.drjeffnichol.com... Good things that dogs do http://shibashake.com... http://news.distractify.com... This one focuses on the people themselves who own these pets http://www.livescience.com... Up to you to draw your own conclusions from these as I've already made mine. I've tried to include quite a few sources for you to back up everything I've mentioned.
Dogs are better pets than cats.

Where is your evidence to prove that cats are annoying and difficult to train? Opponent fails to provide any sources and uses many of his own opinions and personal experiences rather than logic and reasoning to make up for the lack of sources. Just because your experience with cats was negative does not prove that all cats and all experiences with raising/training cats are negative. Burden of proof lies within opponent until they can provide sources or at least use cold, hard reasoning and realistic logic to back up their arguments. Opponent then goes on to claim that dogs are superior to cats. Again, where is your sources to prove it? And why are you basing your evidence on your own opinionated experience? You may provide at least a poll to prove your claims. He goes on to make a comparison between dogs and cats, yet there are no sources and they are extremely vague. Provide better sources, better logic/reasoning, and better examples to make your claims more authentic.
Dogs are better pets than cats.

Well, starting off with the negatives of cats. Cats are very annoying and hard to train. My cat is extremely annoying when it walks across my keyboard or sits on the table or even food. It attacks my socks, eats my tie and climbs up me as I walk, which I can say is very irritating. Then training the cat not to do these things is very hard. I've read many books on training cats and none of the techniques work. Dogs however, are very easy to train, don't annoy you and show far more affection than cats, not to mention are better company. Dogs are better for children too because they are more playful and loving where as cats give up and go and sleep in a basket somewhere. Cats often bring in dead things which is very unpleasant. Dogs don't. So for these reasons and many others, I believe dogs make better pets than cats. Also, dogs make good guards and alert you when there is someone coming. Cats couldn't care less, they have no awareness of the concept of threat to the family.
Belief in a God is rationally justified.

Okay, I'll concede on your first point, that human Evolution wouldn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, this one faulty argument doesn't, in any way, disprove the existance of God. This round I shall use three arguments to prove my claim:1. Likelihood:As I said above (and you agreed), humans are currently incapable of developing life on our own. So, if we, an intelligent race, cannot create life, then how can random chance? If "nature" has so much creative power, why are we not seeing this power in action, and why don't we possess it?2. Emotion:Why do we have emotions, such as compassion and charity? I've heard the argument of "group survival" before, but that doesn't really explain why someone would willingly lose resources for, say, a disabled person, who can't possibly aid "group survival" in any way.3. Simple/Complex:Much of the human body is made up of what are known as "irreducibly complex" organs, such as the ear and the skin. These are called "irreducibly complex" beacause each individual part of the organ is essential to the function of the whole, hence the name. Darwin himself acknowledged that to suggest that such an organ evolved is ludicrous.This all ties into my former argument. Once again, if we didn't Evolve into what we are now, we must have been created. If we've been created, we must have a Creator, a supernatural being. If this entity exists, why can we not measure them physically? Simple: our Creator exists outside of time and space. He created our universe, and our physical laws, so why would He be bound by them?As for your beard analogy, I've proved the existence of God, with good reasons. This, as you've said, justifies belief in Him.
Belief in a God is rationally justified.

This is a very passionate issue for me. Alo, before I begin, I'd like to say that I define "God" as "The supernatural entity that created the universe and all life". Now that I have that out of the way, my argument: Science has provided us with many explanations for phenomena in the world around us. Scientists often create physical "laws" to explain these phenomena. One such law, which has been shown time and time again to be true, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This fundamental principle states that, in general terms, order cannot come out of disorder. So, then, to suppose that living cells (complex, orderly structres) were created by a primordial "soup", of their own accord, is absurd. So, we (human beings) cannot possibly have "evolved" into what we are now. If we didn't create ourselves, it logically follows that we were created. Now, can we, an intelligent race, design and create life? The answer is no, we cannot, despite our best efforts, create life from its base elements. This, our Creator has clearly done, so this shows us our Creator is infinite in power. If we have a supernatural Creator (as I've proved), and that Creator is omniscient (as I've also proved), it clearly follows that we should Believe in this God. So, I conclude that belief in God is rational and logically justified, which I've proved using fundamental scientific principles and logic.
Belief in a God is rationally justified.

The debate is fairly simple. The round format is as follows: R1: Pro: Opening argument including a specific definition of their particular god. R2: Anything R3: Anything R4: Anything R5 Anything Time limit=24 hours/round Pro will be making the case that there is rational justification for belief in a god, con will be making the case that there is not rational justification for such a belief. Con will not be attempting to prove that gods do not exist, only that belief in them is not rationally justified. I will not accept atheists as pro for obvious reasons.
Concept of God or Allah

Finally , i request my christian brothers, hindu brothers, Buddhist brothers, and all idol worshippers to read Quran or listen to Quran in your mother tongue, like English, hindi , Urdu, Kannada ,French, German etc, and then decide whether you want to convert to Islam, or continue with your old religion. So Read Quran in any language, convert to Islam, enter paradise or jannat, and leave happily for ever. I challenge you to a debate based on what you shared right there and I am ready when you are to have a dialogue on this matter. However, the nature of God is far more elaborate than frogs worshiping another frog in a well with 7 stones. Among the proofs and arguments for the existence of God is the fact that man has not created himself, but rather that his creator and fashioner is another than himself. It is true that through intimacy and sexual interactions, the physical body of man is made, but the morals and characteristics that contribute to distinguishing man from beast, is most certainly guided by God. It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man himself, because a powerless being cannot create another being, and an active creator must possess all perfections to produce his creation. Is it possible for the creation to be perfect and the craftsman imperfect? Is it possible for a painting to be a masterpiece and the painter to be deficient in his craft, notwithstanding that he is its creator? No: The painting cannot be like the painter, for otherwise it would have painted itself. And no matter how perfect the painting may be, in comparison with the painter it is utterly deficient. Therefore, the unpredictable world is the source of deficiencies and God is the source of perfection, who sends us Messengers to guide us in understanding Him. And that my friend, is the tip of the iceberg that addresses the True Nature of the Almighty God. God Bless P.S. If anyone wants to talk about religion or has any specific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Just send me a message on telegram.me/Farsiprince