BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

Pro has made terrible arguments against mine. He says that in the modal ontological argument there s no reason to assume a maximally great being (one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect) exists, but this is pure bullsh1t. Our souls exist [1], that is our ability to be self-conscious. These entities are omniscient of an action before we make them, omnipotent in what they can cause us to do, and moral agents in that they make us make decisions. Since they exist, there is nothing illogical in saying a maximally great soul could exist. In response to my cosmological argument that time did not exist before the Bi Bang, and because energy= matter at high energy points there was always energy before the Big bang, so there was a medium in which relativistic time did exist. I reject this rebuttal on scientific grounds. Con's argument that there is a possibility that chance could account for the fine-tuning resulting from the Big Bang is also silly. It relies on assuming the Big Bang took an infinitesimal amount time to take place to make sure there ws a chance these values could emerge, but if that were true so much time would have elapsed there would be utter chaos everywhere in the Universe because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Instead we see galaxies existing everywhere. Chance is not viable explanation of cosmic fine-tuning Citations [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
God Exists

Okay then Theta, are you sitting comfortably? Good, then we will begin! There are many arguments and pieces of evidence that show that God exists. The first argument from evidence I will make is the modal ontological argument. It goes like this: 1. if a maximally great being (one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect) possibly exists, then it exists in some possible world 2. if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists across a series of possible worlds 3. if a maximally great being exists across a series of possible worlds, it exists in the actual world 4. therefore, a maximally great being exists The next argument I will make is a cosmological argument, which goes like this: 1. everything that beings to exist, has a cause 2. the Universe began to exist 3. therefore, the Universe had a cause of it's existence This cause must be outside of space, and therefore time, according to the theory of relativity. It must also be immaterial and immensely powerful. Now this cause could either be a number or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. However, numbers don't stand in causal relations. The number 7 for example doesn't cause anything. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind or soul, which is what people mean when they talk about God. The last argument from the scientific evidence I will make is the teleological argument from t fine-tuning of the initial condition of the universe so as to make it habitable for intelligent, interactive life. It goes like this: 1. there are fine-tuned constants and quantities which exist in the universe 2. this fine-tuning could either be due to natural laws, chance, or else design 3. they are not due to chance or design 4. therefore, they are due to design Now the questionable premise is premise 3. But I can't see how anyone could argue chance or design caused the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Natural laws came into existence at the Big Bang, before the Big Bang the Universe was not guided by anything, except a melee of fundamental particles. No laws existed to restrain activity in the Big Bang to produce a Universe which was habitable. What about chance, then? Well, the range the constants had to fall into to make the Universe inhabitale are so infinitesimally tiny that chance could not logically have caused the universe to be finely tuned for intelligent interactive life. Therefore, only design could have caused the fine-tuning of the universe. I now ask my opponent to rebutt my arguments from scientific evidence.
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

Good morning my lovely opponent, and anyone reading this. I'd first like to say, that if we lived in California that this debate would be different. But we live in little old mountain home, Idaho. To begin, yes she was colonized in her two movies, not the cartoons. But if we changed them to color it would be, yet again, changing it. It wouldn't be the original. Great potential with the younger audience. If you mean, 7 year olds wanting to wear skimpy clothes, smoke, and have a highly annoying high pitched voice that only dolphins could understand. Then sure. I took my time to talk to some adults that were around when she first came out. Id like to say that they found her very cute, but now a days it wouldn't be anywhere near as successful. There was plenty of threatening happenings in the episodes. I do recall her being choked, fights, and being shot out of a cannon. Next, saying that only the older audience got the hidden meaning so to say, is irrelevant because it was very plain and clear. And yes, but everyone is entitled to their opinion I realize, but ask around, take a poll, people now just wouldn't enjoy this as much as my opponent is trying to say. Moving on to her second rebuttal, I recall her character being changed from a dog, to a girl that resembles quite closely the flappers. The dog idea might have been a little more original than copying her style and looks from ladies in the 20's. She wouldn't be unique now because she wasn't unique then. Its 2009, things have changed. I recall plenty of movies referring back to them. IF brought back today, she might be popular for a month or two, then fall in ratings like she did in 1934. So in closing, Betty Boop should NOT be put back on television because times have changed, we have enough cartoons now. The story line would just not be very interesting to viewers of all ages. They would all just be re-runs. It wouldn't be original. And with that, I'd like to thank my opponent, and anyone reading this I urge you to vote CON. Thank you very much and have a lovely day. Thank you for this round.
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

I thank my amazing opponent for choosing to accept this round. Well, I don't suppose we can say much about Boise since we don't live there. However, in one of the most influential states in America which I visit for long periods of time quite frequently (California) she is very well recognized. I would once again like to point out that Betty Boop was colorized after the 30s. Even her originals were put into color. Betty Boop has great potential to be popular with younger audiences, since it is music based and because kids love cute characters. Many teenagers would love her for her quirkiness. Also, adults would more than likely support her since her episodes dealing with more difficult issues are presented in a comical and non-threatening manner. The episode you mentioned: the intent of these actions is not made obvious and is for the most part only understood by older audiences. She is more moral than MTV even if her dress is a little short. And while you did state that these would not be "enjoyable" this is strictly a matter of opinion. Also, she was the only sucessful human, flapper based character of her time. This makes her very unique. Her sound may have been based on a singer of that time, but her personality was totally original. She would be a unique character today to because be honest with yourselves, how many cartoons do we have now a days starring flapper girls in the 1920s? As far as I know, none. People strive for the unique. The story line and character of Betty Boop is totally unique. Novel, if you will. If brought back today, her novelty appeal would draw in quite a large audience. So in closing, Betty Boop should be put back on television because she was very unique in her time and still would be today, she was popular in her time, her products are popular now, and her novelty appeal would draw in audiences of all ages and genders. Thank you for giving a fun, productive, challenging debate. <3
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

.cartoon character, and thank her for this round. To attack her first contention, in other regions maybe, but near where I live she isn't very recognized if at all. I'd also like to point out that you live down the street so its your town too. There isn't any talk of her in our little town, Boise. .now even there, her success, so to say, is not very talked about. Moving on to her second contention. I'd like to say that no one these days really enjoys black and white cartoons. They are hard to watch. Especially when they are as sexual as the one last night that made me feel very uncomfortable. And my point would in fact be very relevant because it would be changed, other wise it wouldn't be as liked as it once was. As I stated earlier that Betty Boop would not strive in the world now, as she did in the 30's. Times have changed greatly. It wouldn't be anywhere near popular now as I see that you stated later on in your attacks that we have MTV and what not. Well, when we have MTV why would people be watching an old black and white cartoon, that doesn't make sense half of the time. We are so used to color now a days as Americans, that watching a black and white, old, cartoon wouldn't be as enjoyable as you may think. And some of her episodes would put different idea's into young kids heads. She dresses very vulgar, and wears next to no clothing. She also smokes. And in the Bimbo and Ko Ko episode I recall the ring leader stroking her legs, and choking her when she would give him what he wanted. That is violent and dis taste ful. To conclude, she may have been a unique character then, but now it just wouldn't be enjoyable. And yes, well, she wasn't very original if you actually looked at what she say'd, and did. It was just dis tasteful again. And yes she was modeled after then so it wasn't a very original thing at all. It wasn't her own look, it wasn't her own sound. It was someone else's. Thank you for this round.
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

Hmm... Contention 1 Well to begin with, maybe she's not as evident in this little town, but there are many but in other regions of the country where population is more dense, she is. The debate topic, in fact, is truly whether or not she should be on TV anymore, and so if her show came back around, the youth of America would know about it. These adults that see her as "distasteful" are not the ones I am referring to. Allow me to clarify by saying that I am speaking of the adults that grew up with her, so to speak. Contention 2 On the issue of this cartoon being in black and white: In the nineteen eighties, two Betty Boop films were released on television in color, which proved to be quite successful. And If it wouldn't be the same Betty Boop, then this makes your point irrelevant. We are talking about bringing back Betty Boop as the character she is now remembered as. If she were completely changed, the topic would be more along the lines of "Betty Boop should be shown on modern TV through the altering of the plot to match the 2000s." The novelty of Betty Boop is that her cartoon's are about the 1920s. She wasn't just a random character created for the taste of the thirties. She was designed to remind people of the fun, care-free days of the roaring 20s. (1) Contention 3 She was quite unique as most of the characters of her time were animals. Also, female cartoon characters were basically just the girl version of their male counterparts. (2) Saying that she's not unique because she's based on the flappers of the nineteen twenties is like saying Tommy Pickles from Rugrats is not unique because he's based on the babies of the nineteen nineties. And while it is true that her voice was modeled after that of Helen Kane, she is still an original character, as there were no other characters whose voices (or even personalities) were similar to hers. Also, it's difficult to believe adults would find her "distasteful" seeing as children are allowed by said adults to watch some of the appalling things they do on MTV. Betty Boop is truly the lesser of two evils. She looks like an angel next to these girls on MTV. (1) http://www.answers.com... (2) http://bettybooptoons.com...
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states that Betty Boop will once again become a popular figure in entertainment once again. To begin attacking my opponents case, starting with contention one, looking at my local walmart, I see more new time cartoons like Chester cheeto, Mickey Mouse [[new version]]. I've been there three time within the last week and I have seen no merchandise with Betty Boop. Betty Boop products do not ‘sell themselves' because they are a falling fad. They aren't as popular as they once were. Youth of America in fact do not know much about her, or her show, because it isn't shown on TV anymore. Many adults see her as distasteful, and miss leading, so to say. Next attack on contention 2; yes she was popular in the 30's. This is 2009. Next you cannot possibly say that Betty boop would be as popular now as she was then. The cartoon would have to be completely changed. No black and white, the characters would be different to match the new times, and new wants. The meanings would be totally different. It just wouldn't be the original Betty Boop. Lastly, to attack your last contention. She wasn't very unique at all if you really look at her. She was in fact based on the flappers or the 20's. They really all looked the same. Hence her not being original. That brings me to my next attack, again with her being modeled after someone else. She isn't an original character.
Betty Boop should be shown on TV in modern day America.

I stand in firm affirmation of the reselution which states that Betty Boop will once again become a popular figure in entertainment once again. Contention 1: Current Popularity If any of you have looked around at you local Wal*Mart or mall, then you've probably seen some kind of Betty Boop merchandise. These products practically sell themselves. She is already a popular character with the youth of America, even though they haven't seen the cartoons yet. Many adults remember her fondly from her 1930s reign over the cartoon domain. This means that there is already a potential audience available if she were to make a comeback. Contention 2: Previous Popularity From 1930 to 1939, Betty was a majorly popular character, called "the Queen of cartoons" by many people, fans or not. While it is true that her popularity saw a decline after 1934, this was strictly due to the Censorship of Production Code enforced by The Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association. If Betty Boops cartoons were brought back in modern times, there would be no censorship laws detracting from her distinct charm. Contention 3: Quirks, Talent, and Individuality. Betty Boop was a truly unique cartoon character. The idea behind her charcter was to create a cartoon based on the flappers of the 1920s. There has never been a character that was able to replace Betty Boop. In 1939, her animators tried to replace her with a character named "Sally Swing". However, this proved to be an epic failure. While it is true that Betty Boop herself was modeled after the singer Helen Kane, she is the only character modeled after Helen Kane. And if not, she was the only character modeled after that women who had such great sucess. Her vocal talents, girlish charm, and unique sense of fashion, especially when compared with today's, will help her once again climb to success. I'll now wait respectfully for my oponent to post their arguments.
Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

I read buringpuppies101's Big Issue and what side he went for on death penalty. First, I'd like to say, it is morally correct to punish a criminal with death. We don't need criminals who have brought death to our fellow citizens. We don't need criminals who rape or murder. I first believe they should serve prison time for the first murder, obviously. But if that criminal has been to jail and still murders, it is common sense jail has not changed the person. He/she must serve another more extend time in jail with a prison that is more heavily guarded. For the 3rd time that person kills and is caught, that person must be sent to death because prison definitely has no affect on the criminal.
I think that america should become apart of russia

I think that you are wrong. I think that America is superior to Russia, and if not, then they are at least the same. I believe that we have surpassed them economically, politically and scientifically. I think there would be a worse impact if America left the world, then if Russia did. You did not use any real information to back up your claim. "They would;d protect us and eventually, everyone would follow." this is not a good argument. Fix your thoughts and your grammar and come back to me.
Regulation of Marijuana like alcohol

1) That statement is false. marijuana is as addictive as tobacco and alcohol. "Marijuana addiction has the same characteristics as any other addiction to other drugs including alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine" (1) And yes the gateway theory is a theory. But so are gravity and evolution. Marijuana, when smoked, CAN cause cancer. "Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana. Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue. Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer." (2) Marijuana is as dangerous as alcohol behind the wheel. "Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink." (3) 2) No. kids couldnt buy them from the store were there an age limit. They would still need some form of a supplier, who would buy some blunts at a store than sell them for double the money. 3)Yes, but you have missed the point. The legalization of marijuana can lead to more drugs, setting off a chain reaction. it might not be meth tomorrow, it could be something only slightly more harmful, such as cocaine. But the point is that it could open doors that go places we never intended. 4. Yes, until the cartels start bombing stores. When cratels face prosecutioon or competition they will grow violent and lethal. And I dont know why you think the stores' weed will be great quality. They could mash together a two bit product and sell it. Plus, the taxes on it will probably be outrageous (see taxes on cigarettes), so the cartel may actually be able to sell it for less. 5. Yes medical benefits for those who need it. For those who dont its completely unnecessary. And there are no deaths attrinuted to marijuana related accidents? You can die many ways when high on marijuana, and the side effects are usually less severe than that of FDA approved medication. Marijuana possesion will not get you more time than a rapist, that is a gross overstatement, and I am not saying some people cant have it. But it should not be as free as alcohol is, which is the premise of this debate. I have to say, good job. You were actually pretty intelligent, and I had a blast. Thanks for my first experience with this. Win , lose, or draw, it was a good match. (1) http://www.marijuana-addiction.net... (2) http://lungcancer.about.com... (3) http://alcoholism.about.com...
Regulation of Marijuana like alcohol

Ok well I'm not going to type as much as I would like(due to time restraints) ill combat to your points. 1.Marijuana does have some minor side effects, But these effects are far much less than what legal drugs can do to you, i.e tobacco and alcohol causing much more addiction problems than marijuana. As for drivers that are high, Please look at all the deaths that have occurred from people only smoking marijuana, the deaths are nowhere near what alcohol does, While under the influence of marijuana, the driver although lacks some driving skills, still has more focus on the road than any other substance. As for marijuana causing cancer, there is no proof of this. in fact there have been studies to which mice who all have cancer, are treated differently, the ones who were given marijuana showed signs of cancer dying out. And the gateway theory is just as it sounds, a theory. Nicotine in cigarettes has been proven to make people move on to harder drugs more than marijuana does. 2. If marijuana were legal, it would have the same effect as tobacco and alcohol where sure people will still buy it for minors, but It would easily reduce the dealers in the schools and on the streets. No dealer is gonna want to try to compete with stores who could sell marijuana cigarettes or blunts perfectly rolled and for cheap as hell. 3.As for the excuse about today marijuana, the next meth. Well there both two different things. Meth is considered a hard drug and has no medicinal value and no reason to legalize, With marijuana the proof is there, it has the medical effects to save peoples lives. 4. the cartels could not compete with the legalization, mexico right now illegally exports the lowest quality marijuana that makes its way to the states.Like i said no one in the right mind would buy marijuana anywhere but stores and such where quality would be unmatched. 5. As I also said before, Marijuana and hard drugs are 2 very different subjects, With marijuana being far safer and with medical benefits. For prescribed medicine, thousands of people die every year for accidentally taking to much pills that they are legally prescribed to. And they have a ridiculously high rate for addiction. What I was saying about criminal activity, is that obviously marijuana is illegal under federal law and possessing it makes you technically a criminal, but what i'm saying is its ridiculous that someone could get prison time for smoking marijuana in the comfort of there own home and while not hurting anybody. Should a cancer patient get more time in jail for just smoking marijuana to reduce his pain than a rapist only getting 10 years tops?
Regulation of Marijuana like alcohol

Its my first one also! But lets get down to business. Everyone knows the government will do anything it can to not give any attention to marijuana. Its listed as a schedule 1 drug which means its apparently more dangerous than cocaine. For a drug to be in schedule 1, it has to have a very high risk of addiction, and provides no medical benefits. Now how is this even acceptable by people that marijuana has no medical benefits? You talk to anybody with glaucoma,cancer patients, or veteran soldiers who use it to ease the pain, and they'll tell you its the only thing that works. In fact, Marijuana is a much healthier and safer alternative to those crazy pills doctors can give you. If marijuana was regulated like alcohol, it would bring in more money for states, and hopefully switch people from drinking alcohol(a much more dangerous drug). Most people who oppose the legalization of marijuana try to say that it would be more available to younger kids and teens. But they don't understand that marijuana is widely available in schools and for teens is much easier to get then tobacco and Alcohol. If marijuana had an age limit, it wouldn't be so easy to get. And honestly, If it was legal, who go buy marijuana off the streets if the states provided high quality marijuana? The cartels are making money off americans who are looking for weed, and they are dangerous as hell. As for marijuana even being illegal in the first place has to be the most crazy law we have. The police should spend more time on actual criminals instead of picking on young adults or teens with a small amount of marijuana. They are just making criminals out of innocent people. And if some one does get caught with possession, they get a criminal record, even if it was for personal use in there own house.