BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should withdraw from Iraq.

Thank you CiRrO for accepting my challenge for this debate. One argument of my opponent's is that the millitary wants to stay in Iraq. So who do you agree more with General Patraeus, or the civilians,and now even Iraqi Prime Minister Malliki? The words "strongly opposed" are strong, and indicate civilian misery. Is it moral to ignore a rate of 82% strong opposition? Besides the argument of General Patraeus is equivalent to the argument of George W. Bush, and from the past, Lyndon B. Johnson. Offcourse the Millitary says they want to stay in Iraq, the Millitary leaders wanted to stay in Vietnam. My point is that the Millitary as the only supporter of Bush is a group that allways would like to stay at war. As to the argument that those 4,124 troops would have died in vain, what would you prefer, the lives of their friends and comrads, or a cause that 64% of Americans say is lost? I noticed CiRrO mentioned some of the stances on Iraq, Obama v McCain. So I will once again ask CiRrO and the judges, is it more expensive to withdraw immediatly, or stay in Iraq for one hundred years? As I said earlier, including postwar costs were at about three trillion dollars of war debt in five years. 5,000 dollars a second is being spent. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to deploy one soldier. Another of my opponents counter arguments is about Iraq being more important than our international standing. This seems to be the theme of my opponents argument: The morality of Iraq's best interests is more important than our own. This is why it's an obvious Pro ballot.
We should withdraw from Iraq.

One moral arguement for staying in Iraq is that to leave Iraq would cause humanitarian issues for Iraqis. 1. This argument is flawed because according to one poll 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the coalition's presence. www.USliberals.about.com\od\homelandsecurit1\a\iraqnumbers.com. The Iraqi people know what's best for their own self interests, and if both parties (Iraq and the U.S.) think that withdrawall is in their best interests, we should withdraw. That brings me to my next point: 2. According to cnn.com, less than half of Americans say the Iraq War is winnable, and over seven out of ten think it's hurting the economy. 600 billion tax dollars have been spent on this war and, including post war costs, were at about 3 trillion. 3. Right after 9\11 it seemed as if the world was completely behind us.For example,memorial candles were being lit in Tehran,Iran. Then, we went to Iraq, and America lost it's international standing around the Globe. While we have allies, other countries are fervently Anti American, including Iran. Withdrawing from Iraq will help America regain it's international standing around the globe. 4. But international standing, or money lost is not nearly as costly as our troops. 4,124 American troops have died in Iraq. That number will continue to rise as we fight a war, that, according to cbs.com, 64% of Americans say wasn't worth starting.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is for little girls

This is the final round so I will have to do my best to defend this show. You brought their names into this. I can see why, they aren't very normal, but then again they do match how they act and their colors. 1) Twilight Sparkle: She has dark colors with some lighter colors to offset the darker ones. It is like the Moon blocking the Sun. It is dark light the twilight with the sparkle of the sun shining at certain points. 2)Applejack: Well this one is easy. She sells apples and lives on an apple orchard. She has an apple cutie mark so that would also help with the name. 3)Rarity: Ah, the one an only Rarity. She is the lover of gems and dress making. The name suits her perfectly with her obsession of rare gems and the ability of making dresses that no one has ever seen. 4)Fluttershy: Well anyone who has seen this show would know why she has than name. Her wings flutter like a delicate butterfly and is very shy. Well except on the occasional explosion of rage like at the Grand Galloping Gala. 5)Rainbowdash: That does sound like a Mario Kart track now that you mention it but she is the fastest Pegasus alive with a rainbow mane and tail. 6)Pinkie Pie: The party pony. Well the first part of the name defines her color but pie, well she can always bring a pie to the party! 7)Princess Celestia: Now Celestia sounds more like a place than a name but it still does represent what she does. She controls the rising of the sun, a celestial body. Now it is true that Twilight is trying to find out what friendship is but if she wasn't what would the show be called? That would very interesting to argue about right there! We've already talked about Celestia so onto Ponyville. It is another example like the show. If they weren't ponies maybe it would be called something else, or maybe instead of ville could they use burg, Ponyburg? They could use city, Ponycity? I think Ponyville really just stands out to any other. I agree with your final part to a 99.9 percent so I won't really disagree with that part. Now you covered what I was going to include in this second part with your final points so there goes about a paragraph or two. I will just have to say thank you for taking this debate and may the best speaker win.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is for little girls

Ill give it a shot :) My little pony: friendship is magic, was designed for girls and it has many many many girly parts to it, look at the names of the characters in it 1) Twilight sparkle (girly) 2) Applejack (ok that one could go both ways) 3) Rarity (thats a name?) 4) Fluttershy (sounds girly to me) 5) Rainbow Dash (sounds like a mario kart race track name but could still be very girly for the name of a pony) 6) Pinkie Pie (supremely girly) 7) Princess Celestia (you get the point right?) What do the ponies do in the tv show? "Twilight Sparkle is tasked by her mentor Princess Celestia to learn about friendship in the town of Ponyville." - directly from Wikipedia. The very plot and point of the TV show is girly on 3 levels now, 1) She has to learn about friendship (can be girly since this is done through magical talking cartoon ponies) 2) Princess Celestia (which I have already stated is a rather girly name) 3) The town name is actually called Ponyville (Arguable the girly-est part of this whole show) But here is my main argument, just because a show is designed in a girly fashion and targets a girly audience, does that not mean others could find the show somewhat interesting? There are some elements of this very girly show that teenage men can find appealing. 1) there are some (very very very few but still some) fight scenes which guys can always appreciate 2) the show is designed similar to what can be created on adobe flash computer programs (something that can appeal to nerds like me who use the program to make short animations) 3) it contains old themes that an older audience can notice and appreciate more than the younger girls watching the show. Most Importantly 4) The episode plots are something guys could relate to I looked into some of the episodes and found that some of them have plots that guys can easily relate to 1) episode 4 - one pony stubbornly refuses help for an injury they got, something almost all guys have done 2) episode 5 - some ponies play pranks on others and it gets out of hand, almost any guy has gone through that 3) episode 11 - the ponies go through spring cleaning, something that all guys are forced to do by our parents 4) episode 13 - two ponies see which one is more athletic, all guys do that at some point with siblings and/or friends 5) episode 25 - all the ponies make excuses for not going to something they dont want to go to, guys are known to do that 6) episode 29 - one of the ponies rushes to finish a hw assignment, guys do that almost every DAY 7) episode 31 - two sister ponies disown each other, guys try to disown their own siblings all the time http://en.wikipedia.org... My point is, the show is designed for little girls, it just happens to have some aspects that some guys may find appealing to them. Does that mean it is NOT for little girls? no, it just means that even though it is designed primarily for one audience (little girls) it just so happens to attract a few people from an opposite audience (teenage guys)....
The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

Argument 1: Logical invalidity of the trinity To prove this point, let us give the persons of the trinity a letter of A, B, C, D. Let the Father=ALet the Son=BLet the Holy Spirit=CLet God=DIn general philosophy, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. For example: If A=B and B=C, then A=C. A=B and B=C. Therefore, A=C. We can see that when we make these into mathematical operations. A=4B=2+2C=8=4. If 4 is equal to 2+2 and 2+2=-4, it must therefore follow that 4=8-2 (indeed, if you have a calculator, you can check my math and see that this syllogism is sound). If we go back to the photograph, we can see an immediate contradiction of the Laws of Logic. If A=B, B=C, and C=D, then A, B, and C=D. However, in the Biblical trinity, A=/=B, B=/=C, yet all of the above=D. We immedaitely begin to see the logical improbability of this doctrine. Hence, a more valid doctrine is as followed: If A=B, B=C, C=D then A=D, B=D, and C=D A=B, B=C, and C=D. Therefore, A, B, and C all equal D. Thank you for a fun round. I look forward to your opening arguments and rebuttals.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

I accept.I will add also the description of the God from the Westminster Confession of Faith, as it offers a comprehensive summary of God, including his Triune nature:I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [1]Matt Slick's commentary on the Trinity is also suitable.Seeing as this is five rounds, I'll assume my opponent intended this round only for acceptance and clarification of terms.Source http://www.reformed.org...;
The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

Resolved: The doctrine of the trinity is logically implausible. Because this is a logic debate, no scripture may be used to support either position. That includes MY position! The trinity: Matt Slick notes that the trinity is, "God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God." [1] http://carm.org...;This doctrine is totally illogical and I would like to explain why in this debate.Good luck!:-)
The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

I want to extend my sincerest thanks to Pro for his participation in this debate. I am humbled that my contentions were so convincing, especially on this website where people tend to desire winning over listening.I do want to comment on his defense, if only for the benefit for the readers. He says the D comes from God, but A, B, C, and D are four mathematical symbols. Thus, it's not at all an accurate depiction of the Trinity, which does not define four separate entities. That's why the math is certain not to work out, because it fails to describe the Trinity correctly in the first place. Moreover, there is no conceivable way to describe the Trinity as a mathematical formula. The closest we can get is: Let The Father be A and D Let The Son be B and D Let The Holy Spirit be C and D Let God be D But this doesn't suddenly make the Trinity logically plausible, mostly because it's the definition of the Trinity in question anyway. That's why I provided my extra-dimension argument.Dear voters, Pro has urged you to vote for me. I, in return, recommend that you grant him conduct points for his honesty.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

Thank you for a superb opening argument. I hope that you (and the readers) are having an excellent Chaunakha! May we find the truth in this season of lights. ==Defending my case==My partner accuses me of straw-maning. The D comes from "God" who ABC all are, yet ABC are not each other. Hence, this is not a straw-man. ==Partner's arguments==After thinking about my partner's arguments, I must concede that he is correct in his contentions.
not clear what minimal faith is needed for salvation, for christians

what if you do what the bible says, confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and confess w your mouth that he was risen from the dead? that from the bible doesn't say anything about savior. what if you don't know any better or what if you have an honest disagreement about what savior means etc... so just did that thing from the bible or "relied" on Jesus instead? I can't see how to peg requirements, but still can't get too vague. seems undefineable.
not clear what minimal faith is needed for salvation, for christians

what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. this debate is beyond the "faith v works" debate and is simply in the realm of what faith is required to be saved. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved". i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does as even the bible says. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. but then there's various beliefs in atonement, "christus victor" v "substitionary" etc. but then the bible has lots of places where it says what to believe. "confess with your lips that he is lord and believe that he has risen and you will be saved". that doesn't really define what "Lord" is though, thoug h in any case all this atonement stuff may not be necessary after all. but what if they do beleive in atonement and all this other stuff, but dont' know to believe that he was risen? or what if they find that piece of evidence insufficient for belief but believe everything else? most christians just say "believe he's savior and you're good". and what if you don't like this "savior" stuff given it's a loaded word. what if you just "relied" on Jesus instead, and acknowledged that you're a sinner, wouldn't that be enough? well it's not confesing and beleiving all that stuff, though no one said that was teh end all be all of what's required. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. if it's too short though, they don't like the vagueness or the possibilities they are forgoing for the sake of an easy answer... it's a brutal issue when you get down to it. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. you have people who are new to the religion and one wouldn think couldn't be held responsible to everything to a T, and you have those who have honest disagreements over what doctrines should be belieeved and what shouldn't. and even if they knew of one doctrine that is considered standard and rejected what tehy knew... what is the minimum they'd have to believe? they can do the "confess with your mouth" stuff and reject say the trinity and be condemned for it? basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: One of the smartest people.

It's common knowledge. He's one website http://www.tostepharmd.net... If you put Einstein and retarded in Google you'll get circa 390,000 hits. Actually he layed the theoretical groundwork for the atomic bomb. The ones that actually took that theory and engineered the first working bomb was the Peenemï¿½nde scientists who started working for the Allies after the fall of Germany. While theoretically he was amazing, he couldn't build a birdhouse.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: One of the smartest people.

May i ask you a question.Where did you got this info? Well if it wouldnt be by ALBERT EINSTEIN, we wouldnt have nuclear wepons.Only because supposabley he wasnt very good at math doesnt mean he was "retarded".He was smart,very smart.In 1922 Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics[42], "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time. The presentation speech began by mentioning "his theory of relativity [which had] been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles [and] also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time." (Einstein 1923) As stipulated in their 1919 divorce settlement, Einstein gave the Nobel prize money to his first wife, Mileva Marić
ALBERT EINSTEIN: One of the smartest people.

It really depends on the criteria. In some very obvious aspects he was one of the smartest people to have walked this Earth but in others he was well bellow average. For instance, while he was amazing at high other abstract math, he couldn't do simple addition and subtraction in his head. His memory was so poor that if he didn't immediately write down notes he would forget what he was doing. When he was in grade school, his teachers actually thought he was retarded and wanted to put him in a specialized program. I would argue if we are looking for one of the smartest people, a well rounded genius would be more appropriate. For instance Divinci. He was an advanced thinker in everything from engineering to art and philosophy. Truly and extraordinary mind.
Music lessons are too expensive and not available to everyone

My name is roxanne russell and I am doing my gold arts award in which we have to form and communicate an issue within the arts world. My issue is that music lessons are too expensive and that music is not available to everyone to everyone.Please comment if you have an opinion. Argument: The average music lesson cost "28 an hour, with you needing at least an hour a week needed. This means that there are less people taking music as there is a gap between those on benifits and those who can actually afford music lessons.Research by scientists has proved that music can boost your IQ by as much as 7 points. Any age can benifits from playing a musical instrument as it improves you fine motor skills.Music also helps you to release your feelings in an expressive controlled way.
Children should be raised without religion

I believe religion has a negative effect on children, and minds so young and impressionable should not be influenced by such a powerful thing. Please note I am not speaking against religion, I simply feel that children should grow up without it, and then when they are more mature, they can make an educated decision and choose a religion that suits them, instead of them being forced to be Christian/Muslim/Atheist etc. I also believe this will make better, more open people who make better choices for themselves. Serious debate please.
Children should be raised without religion

To begin with, religion does not stop "fornication", homosexuality, jealousy, resentment and drunkenness. Surely any capable parent, religious or not, would not expose their child to such things. Also, sin and lack of morals are not necessarily the same thing, from an objective view. You are also proving my point. Fornication or sex, is not a sin, neither is homosexuality, intoxication, jealously or resentment. In fact, they are normal human reactions, some uncontrollable, and some inevitable. By telling children these are sins, you are setting them up for a life of shame and pain, forced to believe there is something wrong with them, rather than being told the truth. They are human. They are flawed. But them having sex, or coming out gay are not "problems". They are facts of life. They don't need to be "disciplined" out of it. They need to be given the room and opportunity to be who they want to be, not to be stunted at a young age by cruel standards that they have been born into. Which brings me back to my point. A child should be kept away from religion until they makes their own choice regarding it. Look how people can be. How can you want a child to be brought into such hate?
Children should be raised without religion

Sorry but that is hardly a valid argument. Religion is a part of discipline? By that statement are you saying children need to be disciplined? Instead of treating them as people, you are suggesting they are treated like dogs, forced into submission with fear and promises of an afterlife. These are children we're talking about. If a parent fails to raise their child, they should turn to religion and fear? I do not agree. People deserve choice and open-mindedness, something religion often takes away.