BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government should ban the sponsorship of religious pilgrimage

I would like to start by telling you that religion is never a tradition because tradition is my way of life or people's ways of life while religion incompasses on your belief and moral life like christianity..I agree with the definition you gave and from that definition, i will rebout your arguments..to start with, let me start by exposing the weakness of side opposition, you never gave your stand on this motion you are only telling us the defintion of basic terms and 2 two importance of going for pilgrimage..now if we are to clearly look at the motion at hand, i never said going for pilgrimage is bad, what am saying is this, that government should not sponsor it like the Nigeria government who are doing that because it is not even in the constitution to do that..you equally said that people go there to respect their prophects by this you mean their God.but then my question is this, is it when we go for pilgrimage that we will respect our God? Indeed that is a pure lie and if you insist, give us where it is written..you now contradicted your definition of pilgrimage by saying that people go there for tourism because in your definition you said pilgrimage is a place for worshiping God..my question is this, are we then going to worship God or for tourism? Also you lied against me by saying that i said that religion is not relevant but my dear, that is not what i meant what i still stand is this, that government should not sponsor it not because it is not good but because we have other pressing needs and it is not in the constitution to sponsor it..having rebouted your arguments, i move into my own arguments..I Will start by giving my stand on this motion, my stand is this' since we have other pressing needs, and going for pilgrimage is not mandatory then it should not be sponsored' ponder on this, Nigeria as a nation whose government sponsor pilgrimage has other problems to tackle like bad government, bad roads, lack of infrastructural developments and other things should stop it because it is not mandatory..even the koran stated it that one should go for pilgrimage atleast once or should send someone who is going this certainly shows that it is not must that one must go there..moreover, do we know that people do die there because of the weather? A popular man in nigeria known as chief Abomege died because of this pilgrimage issue and other people who died my question is this, should government sponsor what people will die? Also you talked about boosting economy, Thank you very much for that..if isreal should have boosting economy, then at whose detrement? People who come for pilgrimage indeed..don't you know they will even be selling their products at high price? Which is not good at all cost..remember, do you know that vanguard newspaper on may6 stated that some people been sponsored by government, go there for bad business like drugs, cocaine? Ladies and gentlemen, indeed i still maintain that government should not sponsor this pilgrimage rather they should use that money for nation building
Tacos are delicious

Final round already? ! Wow! Rebuttals ============= 1. Restaurants China buffets usually gives you a lot of food to pick and choose from. Taco Bell and Taco Johns really on sell tacos. Why else would you go to Taco Bell for lunch? To get a salad, or chicken (if they had any)? No, to get a taco. Therefore, since Taco Bell and Taco Johns, along with lots of other Mexican food places that sell tacos primarily, tacos are popular with the public and therefore are delicious. 2. Different Types Any food with the wrong combination is disgusting. A pizza, hamburger, anything you can think of will taste disgusting with the wrong ingredients. For the sake of this debate, I will specify that we are debating about the good, well made tacos. Therefore, this point is useless. 3. Popularity There are a lot of people in this world, there's bound to be some people who don't like a certain thing. To explain my point, think about this. Electricity, without it we would not be able to access this site, or have artificial light. To many, electricity is a great thing. But there are some people who don't like electricity (don't ask me why the don't like it, but they don't). But why do we still call electricity one of the best inventions of our time? Even though there are people who don't like electricity? Because it's too much of a hassle to cater toward the small amount of people who don't like electricity. The majority of people like electricity, so we thing it's great. Now just replace electricity with tacos and you can see what my point is. 4. Senses Con tries to say there is no such thing as "delicious" because it's just our senses. This actually reinforces my argument. Remember the definition of delicious? Here it is again: Delicious: Highly pleasing to the senses, especially to taste or smell. Highly pleasing to the SENSES. If tacos are highly pleasing to the senses, they are considered delicious. A taco can taste good or bad depending on the person, but due to argument 1, it is safe to assume that the majority of people who eat or have tried a taco likes tacos. This is because it is highly pleasing to the senses, which is the definition of delicious. Therefore, tacos are delicious Conclusion ============= Tacos are delicious because the success of taco restaurants shows that a lot of people like tacos. Therefore we can say that tacos are delicious, because only a small portion of people who have tried tacos didn't like it. It is delicious because it is highly pleasing to the senses, and Con concedes that. Therefore, tacos are delicious I thank Con for this direct challenge about a humorous topic. Thank you voters for voting.
Tacos are delicious

1. First of all just because Taco Bell, and Taco Johns are populare dosent mean all tacos are delicious. That's like saying China Buffet is popular and successful and Baby Squid in Soy Sause is delicious, or Mc Donald's is successful so kid meals are deliciouse. 2. Secondly not all tacos are delicious only the ones that are made well are deliciouse. Are you telling me a hard shell taco with pickles, ranch, mustard, and blue cheese is deliciouse? I mean think about it are tacos deliciouse? Are all tacos deliciouse? 3. Thirdly NOT EVERYONE LIKES TACOS! If some people don't like tacos then it's not deliciouse. Think about it can a taco be deliciouse if people thinks it's discussing. 4. Fourthly is a taco deliciouse or is it just our senses. Imagin this what if no food had flavor and it is just the way our toung touched it that gives us the sense of pleasure or the sence of displeasure. I mean how could a taco tast two diferent ways but still count as deliciouse. Think about it are Tacos Truley deliciouse?
Tacos are delicious

Yay, round 2. Rebuttals ============= 1. Taste Buds The definition of delicious is highly pleasing to the senses, especially to taste and smell. Nothing can technically taste delicious without someone being present. However, if the person eats the taco, they can decide if it is delicious or not. In other words, yes, it's our taste buds sensing something that pleases us, also known as sensing something as delicious. 2. Population All we need to look at is the popularity and the success of restaurants that have tacos as their main food. Such as Taco Johns, or Taco Bell. Both of these are extremely successful and popular. So it's evident that lots of people like tacos. Plus, tacos are a very popular food in Mexico.
Tacos are delicious

Well to start off dose a taco tast " delicious " or is it just our taste buds sensing the food in a way that pleases you. And like I said before if some people think it's not even close to delicious then how can it be called delicious. Do you have proof that the majoritie of the population likes tacos? Where did you get that information about the majority of the population likes tacos? And as you said yourself not everyone likes tacos so how can we make that a fact it might be true for some people but not all. So this wraps up my point that tacos are not delicious technically.
Tacos are delicious

I accept this direct challenge, apparently. Arguments =========== 1. Opinion Delicious definition: highly pleasing to the senses, especially to taste or smell: Whether or not it is delicious is up to the person. Although, I think we can all agree that a lot of people like tacos. To save time, we could just say that Tacos are delicious, since large numbers of the public like tacos. We shouldn't waste time catering to the small amount of people that think tacos aren't delicious. I'm sorry for the short case, I have a lot of things to do.
Tacos are delicious

1. OPINION, What is the technical term of delicious? How do we know that that a taco is delicious if it's just an opinion some people hate tacos for multiple reasons including taste. 2. DOES EVERYONE LIKE TACOS, No not everyone likes tacos so how can it be stated Delicious? 3. IS IT A FACT? Is it a fact the tacos can be considered delicious? No it is not a fact so that prove that Tacos are not technically delicious.
Abortion can be funny depending on your outlook on life

First, you still contradict yourself by saying "But some abortions are not funny," You also made a crucial flaw with these last couple of arguments. With your last argument you said, "Thus, since I find abortion funny, I win. " I find it interesting that you think one can win the debate being the simple fact that the debate isn't over. Also, you said, "you have no other choice but to vote for me. " Is "you" referring to me as it should or the voters?
Abortion can be funny depending on your outlook on life

I thank con for the argument. You made a serious flaw with your last argument however. You said, " I find abortion very funny." Then you said, "Thus, since I find abortion funny, I win." There is one significant problem with what you said, that being you conflicted with yourself. You mention that you find abortion to be very funny, but then you conflicted yourself whenever you said that it is just funny. Therefore, how can we truly believe you whenever you say something and then counter it?
Abortion can be funny depending on your outlook on life

I shall be taking the position that abortion isn't funny and is a very serious choice to make. But I'm also somewhat confused by your argument. You mentioned that "I think that abortion can be funny. " Then you later said "But some abortions are not funny, and very necassary. " I suppose abortion could be funny but most people don't look at that view. It is a very serious decision to make and consider, because it impacts the individual far later in life.
Abortion can be funny depending on your outlook on life

I think that abortion can be funny. I myself am currently on a 12 month waiting list for an abortion for my baby. But some abortions are not funny, and very necassary. If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis…. Would you recommend that she have an abortion? If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven. Pretty interesting, isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.
Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 8k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Be prepared...
Killing animals must be illegalised

Yes humans are animals anyone would know that. You even admited that we started as animals. If today was some milion years ago we would be killing each other. Indeed we dont chase our tails, monkes too dont chase their tails. Indeed we dont live in a jungle, to the animals london is a jungle to them. Indeed animals dont work, but eagles go hunting for their young ones. Call a zebra an animal, zebras also see us as animals. Conclusion we are all animals with different lifestyles, mentality, abilities and appearence. Thus killing your dog is killing a fellow inocent animal and is MURDER!
Killing animals must be illegalised

My opponent says that animals are becoming extinct, the only animals that are becoming extinct is the polar bears. No humans are not like animals. Do we chase our tails, are we put on a leash, are we in a jungle NO. Yes we started as animals but now we are not animals, animals dont go to work, they dont go to school, animals are completely different from humans, animals should be punished for their behaviors. We are aslo punished for our behaviors too.
Killing animals must be illegalised

No there should not. There are some animals that act out in very wild behaviors and they are uncontrollable, so what are you going to do about it, the animal is stronger which puts them in a higher position. For example the whale that attacked its owner some months ago, that whale should be put to death no matter what, the whale was trained and still acted out and deceived its fellow fans by acting out on its trainer, therefore it should pay the consequence of being put to death
Being against homosexuality does not make a person a bigot.

First off being against homosexuality fits perfectly in line with your own definition. You dislike the idea of homosexuality. in your own definition it says that a bigot is a person who strongly and unfairly (Dislikes) other people, (Ideas), etc. that would include disliking the idea of homosexuality. Second off I have a problem with the term "strongly". I don't think you have to have a strong disdain for people, ideas, etc to be a bigot. I also believe that being against homosexuality is unfair given that the arguments against it are usually misleading, religiously based/bias, and do not promote any sort of positive outcome. How about this definition. Bigot: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself (oxford dictionaries.com)
Being against homosexuality does not make a person a bigot.

This debate has been created to challenge the assertion that being against homosexuality does not make a person a bigot. Having the misfortune to read that statement in countless posts from my conservative friends on Facebook, I finally decided I should formally create a debate for this. Since Pro will have the BoP, I’ll waive my arguments for this round, and only provide my definitions. If Pro cares to challenge them, please take to the comments section so that we can decide before you start your arguments. The round structure will be as follows. Round 1 Con: Waives arguments, provides definitions Pro: Additional definitions, opening arguments. Round 2 Con: Opening arguments Pro: Rebuttals Round 3 Con: Rebuttals Pro: Rebuttals Round 4 Con: Rebuttals Pro: Rebuttals and closing statements (No new arguments) Round 5 Con: Rebuttals and closing stamens. (No new arguments) Pro: Waives arguments. Definitions: Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. (merriam-webster) Discrimination: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people. (merriam-webster) Civil Rights: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress. (merriam-webster)
god is not intelligent

Before I begin, I noticed that pro spoke of his position as if it came from the scriptures. I also noticed that though he did this, he also did not provide any scriptures to back up his statements. I on the other hand, will show by the scriptures and evidence that the words I speak are correct, not because I want to win a debate, but because I want to help pro and everyone else understand the truth about God. To begin, we must establish the authority of the scriptures as otherwise, there would be absolutely no point in this discussion. There are many forms of evidence for this, whether it be scriptural evidence, Hebrew and Greek linguistics of the surviving texts of the scriptures, Hebrew cultural understandings, scientific evidence, or historical evidence. How can we be sure that the scriptures came from God? Though there were many human writers, the author is God by means of inspiration or Holy Spirit guiding their writings. (2 Timothy 3:16) Of course, there is much more that proves the authenticity of the scriptures as there must be more than a simple claim that it is from God. For one, the first 39 books, the Old Testament, was originally written in the Hebrew language. Further, the last 27 books were written in Greek by Christians in the first century. Inscribed into 66 books over a period of about 1600 years by many different writers from different backgrounds, it would have changed in not just text, but in even its most basic ideas. Not only that, but over time from 3000 years ago, would have been completely corrupted, or even forgotten if it were any other writing. However as we can see, even the canonical Dead Sea Scrolls show little change in the text, and its ideas are completely preserved. Having said this, there are scribal errors. However, this can be answered by the ancient process for preserving its texts, which is called in modern times, Textual Criticism. Next, since pro claims that God is unintelligent, I will first provide some scriptures to prove otherwise, that not only is God intelligent, but is all knowing. The scriptures show from the very sequencial beginning in Genesis, that God is all knowing, as well as all powerful. This however, only deals with the beginning of the Earth. The original beginning came about in the creation of wisdom, which includes all of the scientific laws that hold the universe together. (Proverbs 8:22) Then, as further in the scriptures show, all other things were created in wisdom and by wisdom. (Proverbs 3:19)
god is not intelligent

There’s no intelligence in hate and evil which indeed was created by the belief in god. After all this so-called god could have created an era of peace, kindness, love, caring for each other, harmony, in which has never happened and will never happen. That’s NOT intelligent. That’s according to the bible. So this whatever god blatantly and obviously prefers his evil and hate in which he governs all too well. If he didn’t like or love all of this hate and evil that he knowingly creates, he wouldn’t knowingly create it. DUH. After all, take away the hate and evil that governs this who-knows-what god and he’s be out of a job. There’d be nothing for him to do. If there was only peace, harmony and love, this knee clap god would be bored to tears. There’d be no children to listen to as they SCREAM at the top of their lungs while daddy is raping them, there’d be no super infectious diseases to cure while mommy is lying like a slab of meat on the operating table trying to get that tumor out of her brain, there’d be no hurricanes to stop that kills off all running water so disease and infection can kill off an entire population, there’d be no brains are splattered on the carpet because daddy decides to go on a murderous rampage and kill his entire family for a sporting adventure. My what fun huh? Those are just some mighty fine examples of NO INTELLIGENCE behind this canned goods god. And yet no one can prove this wonderful He-Man god even exists. “Stop making excuses for your holy book. It is an abomination. It encourages abomination. And the more you sacrifice your humanity and morality to make excuses like ‘well god really wanted people to love each other but they just wouldn’t so they just wanted to nudge them in the right direction by saying you can own people but don’t beat them too damn much.’ Its still a weaka$$ immoral god. And YOU are better than that. Stop making excuses for the immorality. Take responsibility for your life and realize that if a GOD tells you that you can own somebody, that GOD is a piece of s--t.” Matt Dillahunty So your job... should you choose to take on this debate is to prove that this god according to the bible is intelligent in some way shape or form and is not hateful and evil (btw this god of your has freely admitted to being evil so that’s a pretty big strike against you POOF).
(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Round one I will be arguing that the Christian God is evil. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is good.DefinitionsGod ""(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]"Malevolent"1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.2. Having a harmful influence: malevolent stars." [1]Benevolent"1.a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).b. Suggestive of doing good; agreeable: a benevolent smile.2. Relating to a charitable organization that operates without making a profit." [2]All other definitions are assumed common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be equally shared.StructureRound 1 Acceptance and DefinitionsRound 2 ArgumentsRound 3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two.Round 4 Defense, respond directly to opponent's round three. Failure to comply with any of these rules on a first offense will lose the conduct point. A second offense will forfeit the spelling and grammar point. A third offense will forfeit all remaining points. Forfeiting any round will result in an automatic loss.Sources0. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The existence of a god

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:5 "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
The existence of a god

Numbers 14:18 "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Numbers 14:19 "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now."
The existence of a god

If you are waiting on mans words to prove the existence of God then you will be waiting a very long time. Mans words are in contradiction to the truth. The truth can only come from the scriptures, if that is what you want, that is. Romans 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
The existence of a god

There are many reasons why there is no God but here are a few. The first reason is that if a supernatural cause created the universe then there would need to be supernatural evidence. The second reason is that God has no reason to create the universe. The third reason is that God did not create a perfect universe or a perfect world and yet he is supposed to be supernatural and perfect. The fourth reason is that no one could create a supernatural being. The last reason is that he cannot be seen.