BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

I would first like to point out that "rediculous" was a spelling error in the title and has now been corrected. I would also like to start with a clarification. It seems that my opponents primary argument last round was that I did not provide enough context for some of my assertions. It was also said that, and I quote: " One might ask, "But can't context be implied?" Yes. For example, a person who is hungry makes the statement "I need food." It is clear that this is not that sort of universal/absolute statement and that the context is "to no longer feel hunger." The difference is that this is a formal debate, and there was no implied specific situation given or even hinted at in which the religious would need to prove God." Formal debate or not, the context of the title and primary premises of this debate were in fact implied. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I meant that for the theory of a God to be taken seriously by the scientific community, the Religious NEED to attempt o successfully prove God. And I hold to this statement. Even my opponent admitted: Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.The religious came up with the concept of God.Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God.Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post. However the primary objective of this debate is purely theoretical. Thus no hard evidence can be given. And I will now revert to my Panda analogy.The purpose of this argument was not for me to prove that Pandas do come from Andromeda, that was made clear, as I purposefully went about explaining how because I did not provide any evidence, the concept would not be taken seriously. Of course pandas did not come from the Andromeda galaxy! Why would I defend that? I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his! I merely stated that there is an obligation for a person to prove or attempt to prove their theory for it to be taken seriously!Now, my opponent actually failed to provide any evidence for the topic what so ever. Their whole argument was centered around picking apart my own (which it did so unsuccessfully!) and had no argument for why the burden of proof does not lie with the religious. I appreciate that they may have just been searching for affirmation of the actual subject.I would ask that they provide some evidence for their side of the debate in the next round.VOTE PROP!
euthanasia

When someone is in pain and is in the clutches of a terminal sickness how much do they really want to go on. If you are dying of brain cancer and you don't want your family to see you melting into nothingness would you really just continue on even though you had less than six months to live. Put yourself in their shoes, no we don't mean the elderly we mean the young people who don't want to waste away and be in pain for the last years of their life. Of course strict laws would help to limit the amount of people who choose the option and no government would have the right to choose for you. While you and many others may argue that it is inhumane I believe that the topic must be discussed and that a federal law must be passed setting it in stone weather assisted suicide is a choice for people suffering everywhere or if they will have to spend there last months in pain and losing their minds.
This poem captures a frustration of old age

The Affirmative argues ". . .that this poem captures a frustration of old age which is not mentioned by old men." The last clause, "which is not mentioned by old men" is not contained in the main topic but I accept that clarification. I negate the resolution as clarified: 1.Plenty of old men "mention" flaccidity. They mention it to their lovers if they are flaccid. They mention it to their doctors when asking for ED medication. The author is mentioning it in a poem. 2.The frustration "captured" is not so much about flaccidity as the memory of what once was and what exists in old age. This is not about erectile dysfunction so much as it is the lure of youth and the "torment of aging flesh." These torments are myriad and, if you have been around older people, most are not shy about discussing their ailments. 3.The frustration is not "of old age." The frustration is of several things but not of "old age." Alternate causes: a.Immaturity " If you have an agile mind but your body is failing, you can choose to process the difference between mind and body as a frustration. However, this is a choice of the mind, not "of old age." If you have learned anything in 40-70 years it is that people only stop aging when they die. I can apply many adjectives to the state of mind described in the poem, but that state is not "of old age." The state of mind described " frustration " is an internal decision to not understand a basic fact of nature. The "frustration" described flows from the immaturity of the older person who having lived a long life, covets what he cannot have. b.Greed " There are limited resources on the planet. Barring the Singularity, there comes a time to die. The decision to focus on the inability to get laid by nubile young things is both immature and greedy. Make way old fella. I certainly know my time is not all that far away. c.Stupidity " The poem ends with "and we " that dreamed youth"s blade would never rust"" Sorry fella but that was kind of dumb of you. This attitude is not inherently of old age and nor is it a valid basis for frustration. It"s stupidity. Everyone gets old and, usually, it"s better than the alternative. d. Failure to produce, earn and save. An older person with resources, particularly a male, can do quite well for himself sexually if that is what this poem is about. e.Failure to live an intellectual life. The initial quote contemplates an old person with an agile mind. The choice to be frustrated about the decay of the body even though your mind is agile, shows a failure of imagination. A person who values getting laid so much over the joys of discovering new facts and other aspects of this life, is frustrated because he is shallow, not because he is old.
The User known as KhaosMage should not be branded a troll

Con has not meet his burden of proof. Not one of his arguments is on-topic to the agreed definition of troll. Con's arguments were fully rebutted and subsequently dropped. Con admitted that Khaos_Mage is not a troll. The victor is clear. On a side note: I'm sorry if Con has an issue with Khaos_Mage, but the issue exists due to his failures to engage appropriately in the thread, as evidenced by his failure to engage appropriately in this debate. Any animosity he feels from Khaos_Mage is completely his own doing (either by his actions or in his imagination).
The User known as KhaosMage should not be branded a troll

Since Con has admitted that I am not a troll, there is no case I really need to make.On to the rebuttals:Jerk:If it is true, it is anyone's fault that someone takes offense. Santa only hires one race, therefore he is clearly racist. Con needs to explain why this comment is not genuine.Facetious:1. The debate "The Color Yellow is Gay" is, by Con's admission, "not very serious", ergo, my participation in the debate is not facetious.2. The first post was me asking for a definition and giving an anecdote as to why the definition is important to the discussion. Then, I gave a shallow reason (why should I go into detail without knowing the definitions of key concepts), and gave an anecdote as to why friends don't last at younger ages as well. I ended with a question, asking why you should retain brotherly love from those who have hurt you.Con needs to address how this is making light of a serious topic. He simply asserts it is so.The second post in that thread was regarding assumptions made, and trying to have a discussion.The third post I made was completely ignored, which offered three examples of teen brotherly love.Ignorant:Aside the fact this is an informal definition of the term, it is merely a repeat of his first point (jerk) and does not offer any direct evidence.Low quality of posts:A: He only cites the above thread (Facetious 2), and I ask: how I can offer such valuable insight, when my questions aren't being addressed?Further, what Con overlooks is the fact that I have had a few dealings with him, and I am sure I come across as turse, because I don't feel like investing hours for someone who seems incapable of a simple discussion because he takes offense too quickly or does not address key concepts, like definitions or facts. Also, how can I give quality comments, if I am unsure of the topic? I tread lightly to get information, then I can discuss in more depth. Unfortunatley for Con, for whatever reason, this has yet to come to fruition.B: Does not offer evidence, and instead offers an obvious generalization.---Not one of these arguments remotely comes close to meet BOP, nor has any relevance to the definiton agreed upon of a troll.
The User known as KhaosMage should not be branded a troll

Introduction: Khaos Mage has personally trolled me on my forum posts for a while now. And yes, this is based off of the definition in which Pro provided. Since Pro is trying to provide defense for Khaos Mage, I will be presented evidence and explnations that prove Khaos Mage is a troll. Let me make something clear here, Khaos Mage's character is in question not mine. I. Khaos Mage's character A.) Jerk Defined: a contemptibly obnoxious person. 1.) http://www.debate.org... Just look at this poll. Why would someone who is genuine get involved in a poll like this and give an answer such as, "He does only hire elves. So, yeah, he's a racist." He clearly made this comment to bolster his ego and have himself be heard, not to mention intentionally irritate someone who cares about Sanata. B.) Facetious Defined: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant 1.) http://www.debate.org... In this debate, Khaos Mage debates the topic of "The Color Yellow is Gay". As you can see this topic isn't very serious at all, furthermore showing Khaos Mage would rather be sarcastic than be serious. Though I know this isn't enough to prove he is facetious, so I will present another piece of evidence. 2.) http://www.debate.org... Here is a clear example of Khaos Mage being facetious. Just copy and paste the link and read the first. There isn't much text to read. C.) Ignorant Defined: discourteous or rude. Some of the examples above show Khaos Mage being discourteous and rude. II. Low quality remarks (specifically on my threads) A.) I.B.2 As you seen in this piece of evidence, his remarks were very poor in quality, despite the fact we ALL know Khaos Mage is much more capable than low quality comments such as on that forum post of mine. B.) If you go through my forum posts, you'll notice where ever Khaos Mage shows up, he tends to not really be serious about giving serious answers that are actually worth something. Summary: Khoas Mage shouldn't necessarily be branded a troll, but when it comes to the relationship between him and I he should be branded a troll.
English does not enrich other languages

Most of Pro's claims, if not all. are simply outrageous. There are many Spanish-Speakers in the USA alone, and English is not even the world's most popular language, Mandarin is (http://en.wikipedia.org...). And plus, many other languages have spread throughout the world. From the same source, Mandarin is first, Spanish second, and English third. It is outrageous to claim that English does not do anything to languages murder them. I ask pro, if that is true, why are there many classes that offer languages in the USA, the country with the most English-speaking population? Where I live, there are two major high schools. Those high schools alone offer classes for German, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Italian.
English does not enrich other languages

English is most likely the most popular language in the entire world. It is the most used language in bossiness and you are almost certain to meet a English speaking person where ever you go. But English does not really do anything to other languages except for murdering them. English smothers the life out of other languages because it does not offer other languages to grow and expand in the its presence. I am not saying English must die or go anyplace. We simply need to ask ourselves, is this language we call our mother tongue really as enriching to other, smaller languages (examples: Afrikaans, Maori) I live in South Africa and in the news at the moment is that our top universities are taking away more and more faculties presented in any of our eleven official languages EXCEPT for English - which in fact is getting more and more faculties and classes being presented in it. Now if a language does not enjoy the glory of being taught in, how will that language ever survive? Please keep in mind I do no have anything against English speaking people - I just don't agree with the fact that it comes in and tramples on all the rest!
English does not enrich other languages

I'm sorry, but Spanish has been spoken for thousands of years, the same with English. If your claims are true, Spanish would have already fallen under the "wrath" of English speakers. And you obviously care about English enough, as you obviously know it fluently. Countries can speak their own languages, there is nothing at all wrong with that. English just has the luck to be wide-spread. And, like I said before, there are more people that speak Mandarin and Spanish than English. About the two strangers meeting, it depends on what COUNTRY they're in! Can't you realize that?! Here's some examples: -If an American meets an American in the USA, they will be speaking English. -If a Mexican meets a Mexican in Mexico, they will be speaking Spanish. -If a Frenchman meets a Frenchman in France, they will be speaking French. -If a Russian meets a Russian in Russia, they will be speaking Russian. -If an Italian meets an Italian in Italy, they will be speaking Italian. You get the point.
English does not enrich other languages

Con we must compare apples with apples. We must be realistic in facing the fact that if Spanish be the worlds most spoken language that it can sustain and survive the English wrath. I urge con to take a gander at smaller language that face a immense struggle in staying afloat in the fast ocean of English! Most English countries have a secondary STRONG language, such as French or Spanish, thus there is no threat because those languages have already developed and evolved. I ask con to think on the fact that if two random strangers were to meet, what language they would both start speaking first - most likely non other than the dominant English!
we should return to the gold standard

I would like to remind those that vote on this debate, that the Affirmative has the burden of proof. Looking back at his last speech, he did not have any evidence besides one graph. He tried to refute my evidence written by professionals with his logic which I will once again show you is not worthy to stand in today's debate round. He left me with two main arguments to contend with which are Constitutionality and stability So in refutation to his contention of Constitutionality, my response is that the gold standard can't be found in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a gold standard. What my opponent is referring to is Article 1 Section 10 where it says, ""[No State shall] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;". This does not require a gold standard, rather, "it is a restriction on the individual states States of what they can make legal tender, and not a requirement that they make gold and silver coin legal tender. In the same section is the restriction which prohibits the States from coining money, so the only money that can be coined by government is by Congress, and includes more than just gold and silver. " . https://fauxcapitalist.com... Secondly, he talked about stability, and he made the professional which I quoted look like he had no idea what he was talking about. Bringing you back to his speech, he didn't cite anyone who said that there were no recessions during the gold standard era. Has he forgotten the Great Depression? Perhaps he has never heard of the Panic of 1893 which was caused by the gold standard. Just as a side note, unemployment rates were much higher than they are today. By implementing a gold standard, we would skyrocket the unemployment rate once again. . http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... He briefly touched on the point about America not having enough gold, but once again he had no source and therefore I win this point. America has a 15 trillion dollar economy, yet we only have 478 billion dollars of it. Our economy could not run on the gold standard. So unless my opponent wants to send us into a depression, you must vote Negative. It is for all of these reasons which I have presented and have backed up, as well as my opponent not upholding his burden of proof, the only way you can vote is Negative. The status quo is innocent until proven guilty, and the judgment in this round is INNOCENT.
we should return to the gold standard

Thanks Harry for your arguments. I just have a few things to say about those arguments and we will start off with your first one which is that the Constitution mandates a gold standard Constitution mandated many things which have been amended The Constitution mandated many things when it was ratified, things which would not work in today's economy. For example, slavery. Slavery was ratified in the Constitution but just because it was ratified, does that mean that we should still have it implemented in the US today? The answer is no. Just because it was passed in the Constitution does't mean it would work today. Next, my opponent contended that we would bring stability back, but for this point, lets look at past precedent, or what happened when the gold standard was in place. Gold standard led to 26 recessions and 6 depressions: When the gold standard was in place in America, we had many more depressions and recessions then we have had since the gold standard has been repealed. This simply shows us that the gold standard brings anything but stability in the US. https://www.nolanchart.com... Finally, my opponent said that a gold standard is more reliable, but this ties back to my last point that it isn't reliable, the value of gold fluctuates and it would not be a good system to implement or revert back to in the US Now with my opponent's arguments outlined and responded to, let's look at a couple of problems with this system that the Affirmative would like to implement It is impossible for the US to return to the gold standard Let's take a second here to examine the amount of gold that is available in the world. In the world today, there is about 9 trillion dollars worth of gold with the US owning about 478 billion dollars of it. But the US has a 15 trillion dollar economy, it is simply unfathomable to ever back to the gold standard because there is not enough gold in the world to support our economy. https://www.nolanchart.com... This point leads me into the impact of another depression: With the gold standard back in place, the US would plunge into a deep depression because we would not be able to back up our dollars with gold. What happens? Prices skyrocket, jobs are lost, and the poverty rate shoots to an all-time high. I am eager to my opponents response, but currently, the vote should definitely fall to the Negative
free market capitalism

I am arguing for mostly unregulated capitalism, a. k. a. "free market". I will also use the U. S as an example due to the fact that it is your debate, but I will refer to the U. K and other countries as well with a free market, capitalist system in order to reinforce my point. My resolution is that the best interests of society can be fully fulfilled yet still keeping a free market, capitalist system, with slight regulation which doesn't curb our freedom in society. Proposition posts, "My resolution is that capitalism must be regulated by a socialist mentality in order for it to possibly work in the best interest of society. " So I believe what is in our interests is to let the games begin!
free market capitalism

I am arguing against unregulated capitalism, a. k. a. "free market". For the purpose of this debate and to avoid a separate one altogether, we are considering the U. S. economy to be mostly free - market capitalism with an arguably subpar level of regulation (the point of this debate). My resolution is that capitalism must be regulated by a socialist mentality in order for it to possibly work in the best interest of society. Con's bop is the age old claim that free market is better than a regulated one from a socioeconomic standpoint.
On Fulfillment, Or Joy.

Alright, Joy. I've noticed in society that there are a lot of things which are completely pointless, which we partake in. Take drugs and alcohol, for example; these are not truly beneficial to our bodies or our minds. People will argue that you must let go and "live a little" once in a while... I don't really think this is true. There is no part of our bodies or our minds which actually NEEDS non-beneficial things, I believe that everything which brings us joy, in modern society, that is NOT a NEED, only brings us joy because we seek conformity and acceptance. These outlets for conformity and acceptance have been made by others who would capitalize on our needs for acceptance and conformity, in order to satisfy their own monetary needs. Therefore, I believe that true joy derives from satisfying our needs, and that the joy which is derived from satisfying our WANTS, has been created by others in order to satisfy their needs, and is artificial and un-necessary.
Being openly gay is ok

As a Christian and American I have no problem with someone being gay and I agree with you that we are the same and we are all loved even if we sin, I think the anger and resentment comes with the way it is shoved in other faces, for example I saw the flag raising at Iwo Jima and the American Flag was replaced by the gay pride flag, this really ticked me off, if they want to be accepted then they need to act the same and not force others to accept it, and I think we need to worry less about offending others and more about respecting others, you see if a gay person wants to be gay, hey so be it, just don't force it on me, you have to act normal if you want to be seen as normal, not doing things like disgracing American moments in history.
Being openly gay is ok

People who are gay/lesbian are all the same under the skin. Why should someone tell someone else how to live. Do you change you whole look because someone said that your sense of style is weird? No. Do kill your self just because someone said to over the internet? No. So why should you say that being openly gay/lesbian is "unhuman" or "ungodlike." If you don't remember from your bible studies, god loves all his children no matter what. When you call someone slang gay words that might be painful, think before you do. now this is not anything against anyone but, if you call someone a "Faggot" it really could hurt that person. What if you were African American and someone called you a "Ni**er?" You wouldn't feel to good after that. What if you were Caucasian and someone called you a "Cracker" or "White boy?" you might get offended from this, so my message is treat people how you want to be treated, and think about calling someone that word in person before you say it over the internet. Some words are hurtful.