BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National Prayer

1. we respect our founding father's laws set up for us.In the US people are already given the right to pray, public or in private, as contra points out in the comments kids already are allowed to pray in schools, as long as its not lead by a principle, therefore we can assume the founding fathers would not mind this change (making teachers lead it makes it look like atheism is frowned upon, and hurts the 1st amendment to freedom of religion.)2. Feelingspeople can already prayer, even in public, therefore their "feelings" are already expressed. Reasons against:1. first amendment 1st amendment means the government cannot allow national prayer (so they do not respect the religion) and cannot be anti prayer, so they allow private prayer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" [1] national prayer respects religion, hence it is unconstitutional to have national prayer. VOTE PRO *no more room*[1] http://tinyurl.com...
I will not contradict myself

1. No. 2. Yes. 3. I don't understand, sorry. 4. No, I say what I feel like saying then I hate myself for it. 5. Generally, yes.. 6. No, I prefer my enemies. 7. Yes, do you want to go out? No homo. 8. Yes, I LOVE myself. 9. I assume that you meant to say, do you like *to* debate. If so then generally yes. 10. No, if you respond then I'll begin to eat kfc as an attempt to kill myself.
I will not contradict myself

1. Why not ? I feel good when I contact God via drugs. 2. Yes, via machine, though. 3. See number two. 4. ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM (I ignored the question as asked) 5. There's no official name. I usually call it "Hahahhahahhahahahhahah......HAAAAA!!!...hehhehhehhehe" 6. Yes, I exist don't I ? 7. Mostly Cocaine. Not this: http://www.youtube.com... 8. Yes, I am in denial when it comes to some things. 9. I don't know. 10. Because my parents never told me.
I will not contradict myself

1.) Why do you believe in a religion in which some worldly means (in this case, drugs) must be used to contact your God, when God is normally perceived as all-powerful? 2.) Can you time travel? 3.) If so, how can you time travel? 4.) If you answer "no" to question #2, then how were you born in the future? (if you answer yes to #2, then just ignore this question) 5.) What religion do you believe in? 6.) Can someone be born in the future? 7.) What illegal (in the United States) drug(s) are you addicted to? 8.) Are you in denial? 9.) Why did your parents leave you? 10.) Why don't you know the exact date of your birth?
I will not contradict myself

1. I am usually called Thegreatandamazingkingoftheuniverseplushesverypretty. I can't answer this with a yes or a no. 2. Somwhere around 2013 (yeah, the world doesn't end in 2012, sorry). I can't answer this with a yes or a no. 3. 8 and a half.I can't answer this with a yes or no. 4. Male.I can't answer this with a yes or no. 5. Yes 6. Any holiday I can, for example, Christmas and St. Patricks day.I can't answer this with a yes or no 7. Yes 8. Yes, that is how I contact my God. 9. Yes 10. Dunno, they left me at the age of four.I can't answer this with a yes or no
I will not contradict myself

I like this kind of debate. Thank you for starting it. 1.) What is the name that you use offline (this is pretty straightforward I hope)? 2.) What date were you born on? 3.) What is your age? 4.) What is your gender? 5.) Do you follow the practices of a religion? 6.) What holidays do you celebrate? 7.) Do you believe in a religion? 8.) Do you do any illegal (in the United States) drugs? 9.) Are you addicted to anything? 10.) Are your parents alive?
I will not contradict myself

Resolution: I, Vardas0antras, will not contradict myself Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no. 2.When Pro answers with a Yes or a No, he should give an explanation for his answer. 3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he must give us his reasons for this decision. 4. Con may ask only ten questions per round. 5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction. 6. In round 5 Pro will defend Cons accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. He may not make new arguments or present any contradictions in this round. ::Important:: Con can only use the information from this debate. So, if I say that I like color blue but in my profile or another debate or the comment section of any debate (this one included), I said otherwise, my opponent will not be allowed to use that information against me. So, only what I say in this debate counts and can be used against me.
I will not contradict myself

Anyhow, I will win because I'm the best around. . http://www.youtube.com... 1. Denial "by knowing that he is in denial it is impossible for him to be in denial. " Definition of denial: "an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc. , is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges" Dictionary. com Argument: My opponents logic does not follow the definition. I have to know in order to deny something! 2. Eating "He said that he enjoys eating; yet, he admits to using cocaine" Indeed. "One of the side effects of cocaine is a lessened appetite. " A lessened appetite doesn't mean that I enjoy the food less. The food tastes the same, I just eat less of it and not so frequently. For example, I drink a lot of water hence I don't feel like eating for the entire day, but when I do eat, my favorite food is still my favorite food and I still enjoy it. Maybe, cocaine makes you enjoy the food less but that is not what my opponent is arguing. 3. I'm a failure I don't care about my reputations nor do I have one to begin with. So ha! . http://www.youtube.com...
I will not contradict myself

Contradictions: 1.) I asked in round 2, question 8- I asked "Are you in denial?". He answered "Yes, I am in denial when it comes to some things." But, by knowing that he is in denial it is impossible for him to be in denial. A person can't be knowingly in denial. So, he contradicts himself there. 2.) He said that he enjoys eating; yet, he admits to using cocaine. One of the side effects of cocaine is a lessened appetite. 3.) In round 4, he says that he will attempt to kill himself by eating KFC. If he posts in round 5, then he will have to admit he is a failure, which will be very funny. If he does not, then he won't be able to defend himself and will loose the debate. So, it comes down to whether he values this debate or his reputation more.
I will not win the upcoming tournament on this site.

Due to the fact that I am currently in two debates that are very important to me. One being the tournament, and the other a religious one. I decided to take this debate and have a little fun. I really only have one argument. In order for the pro to win this round, they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not win the debate tournament. Because neither one of us, or any judging is able to see the future, then you cannot make that claim, and you cannot prove it. Therefore because there is a chance, however small it may be, that you will win the tournament i must win this debate.
I will not win the upcoming tournament on this site.

First let me say that ny position is that I can not win the tournament. With that said, here are my reasons why: 1. I have little experience; a more experienced or smarter debater could eaisly beat me. 2. In debates, I frequently make unwarranted claims and hope something sticks. Most of my arguments are hard to read and pointless. 3. Me han conocido para discutir en espaï¿½ol. 4. There are WAY better debaters than me, and I will likely lose the first round to Logical-Master. 5. Me haz rllly bad gammer i dunno if enee1 can UNderstand wujt I em saaing, in a d3bate EPIC PWNS 6. I frequently doze off in debate rounds, forgetting most of my arguments. 7. I have a lot of homework to do. 8. My internet freezes up, and I could likely be just finishing an argument when the time runs out. 9. I have the winning percentage to prove that I will lose to good debaters like Rosseau, beem0r, and Kenicks. 10. I have been known to vote for myself, whereas if I didn't, I would have a much worse winning percentage. In the tourney, it is decided by one person, so that tactic will not be useful. 11. I could very well forget all together about posting my next round argument, losing the debate. All of these factors combine to show you that I can not win 9 debates in a row.
I will not win the upcoming tournament on this site.

Once again, you are trying to prove something that will happen. As this is impossible, you have not affirmed the resolution. Even though you may lose this debate, it does not mean that you will lose the tournament. So if you do lose this round, it does not prove that you will lose the tournament. They are two seperate events. Since you have not affirmed the resolution, you cannot win. Therefore vote for me.
I will not win the upcoming tournament on this site.

My lack of good argumentation skills proves that I will lose this debate, as well as others. I still have my 11 points, so please pull those across to this round. I have shown you that I am not a good debater as per my 11 points, I can not win 9 debates in a row, and the fact that I can't even win a debate where I say negative things about myself prove that I will EPIC FAIL against other debaters in the tournament. Plus, my opponent will win this debate, and he is in the tournament, so we can see that, empirecally, he can beat me in debates.
I will not win the upcoming tournament on this site.

Such as in this debate, I frequently also fail my burden of proof. Logical, my opponent, and many other debaters will point this out. Because I have such bad argumentation skills, I will inevitably lose this debate and those in the tournament. If and when I lose this debate, there is enough evidence to show you that I lack the skills to win a debate, let alone 9. In a row. Plus my opponent argued only the burden of brooooooooooof. So, if I have proof, I win the debate.
There are only 2 genders-Male and Female

We are evolving as a society. We've started to realize that human sexuality is messy. What we deem as attractive or acceptable changes every few decades. We now understand that identity, gender, And sexual attraction are more fluid and diverse than once believed. As our understanding of human sexuality evolves so must our vocabulary. --- "Actually, No laser eye surgery cannot change your eye color. It's been proved by many independent medical organizations. "This is a real surgery [1][2]. You need all new ID afterward (like you would need with a sex change). Stop dodging the question. Would you call my eyes brown, Despite the fact that I changed them to blue? After all, That's what biology says they ought to be. --- "The transgender suicide rate is 40 percent. The (Anderson study? ) shows that it has nothing to do with how society treats them. " Post that study. Are you sure you want to take this position? You're claiming that the way transgender people are mistreated in society has NOTHING to do with the 40% suicide rate? Is that really something you think you can back up? --- "There is no such thing called inter-sex. You either have a XX chromosome or an XY chromosome" Wait. . . Do you actually not know intersex people exist? You realize not everyone is born with XX or XY chromosomes right [4]? You do realize that not everyone is born strictly male or female right [3]? You need to educate yourself on this topic a bit further. Just google “klinefelter-syndrome” for an example. --- "Incidentally, What does the B in LGBT(and Q) stand for? Bisexual. Which means attracted to both men and women. There you go. Only 2 genders. The idea that gender is a social construct is absurd. " What does the 'T' stand for? Gender is a social construct. The notion that words can't change because it offends you is the real absurdity. For example, the word "girl" used to mean a young child of either sex [5]. Society changed that word, And it was tied to biological sex. --- References in the comments.
There are only 2 genders-Male and Female

Argument 1I can get laser eye surgery to change my eye color from brown to blue. My DNA and biology would both insist that I should have brown eyes. Would you also insist on calling my eyes brown, According to what biology intended? I could change my height from 5'9" to 6'0". Would you insist on calling me 5'9" afterward, Given that my DNA says I should be that height? Argument 2The definition of the word "Gender" is not the same as the term "Biological sex". These are two different words describing two different things. Gender, As defined by the The American Psychological Association means: "The attitudes, Feelings, And behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity". [1]For example, Gender Dysphoria is caused by a cognitive dissonance between your Gender and your biological sex. This further demonstrates that these are two separate things. Argument 3What about intersex people? Not everyone is born strictly male or female. Why should these people be required to classify as male or female, What's wrong with non-binary, For example?
There are only 2 genders-Male and Female

Actually, It wasn't for acceptance, But anyway, Let's go. Good luck to you too. The first point is you're not a man or woman just because you think you are a man or woman. A boy who thinks he"s a girl or a girl thinks he is a boy, Which is technically, What we"re talking about here is called gender dysphoria. Before it was called gender identity disorder, But now it's called gender dysphoria. It essentially means the idea that gender is malleable is not true. I'm not saying that transgender persons are not humans but if you want me to think that men are women and women are men, I'm not going to do that because it is basic biology that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Men and women are completely different things. If I suddenly call you a frog, Are you a frog? The ball's in your court.
Violent video games being banned

Violent video games should not be banned. The retail in the U.S. for violent video games is twenty one billion dollars. If people ban the violent video games, and corect me if i'm wrong, it will almost wipe out our economy. It has been proved that one-eigth of the school attackers have been more interested in violent movies, violent books, and their own violent writings. Almost every teenager plays violent video games, and you don't see them running on rooftops with a sword and hidden blade trying to kill redcoats. Yes, I do play violent video games, and yes, there are violent video games out there that are really bad, I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that violent video games are not the root cause of the shootings, and killings in America. The mass killer, Adam Lanza, the guy that killed 26 people in Newtown, Conneticut, was not interested in video games as a child. If the government regulates everything, what are we then? We aren't the free America that we used to be. We will be a dictatorship. A socialist country. And we don't want that. "If video games cause people to go out into the world and kill people, then guns kill people, pens and pencils misspell words, cars cause people to have accidents and drink and drive, and cutlery causes obesity. We cannot blame mere objects for people's accidents and mistakes." I found that on Google Images. That statement means that people can blame anything and everything for their mistakes, and the government will just try to ban it. So will the government ban forks and knives? Cars? No, they won't. We need cars to get places. We need forks and knives to eat. So why should we ban video games when it's not the violent video games that kill people. It's also movies and books. That's that
That the world would be better if it had gender equality

A man is defined as: an adult human male. a human being of either sex; a person. a group or person in a position of authority over others, such as a corporate employer or the police. a figure or token used in playing a board game. A woman is defined as: an adult human female. The world is coping fine with male domination. Men make up 53.3% of choices, men have initiated the general relationship at 60%, 56% of females seem to be more intimidating in relationships and more statistics shown on http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu.... Women have generally been worse off than men and as I am against this topic it is hard. If you are reading this, just know in your hear it should be fair. Like white and black people, gay and lesbiane, female and male; it should be fair. It should be fair, and you know it. Hope you enjoyed :)
Atheism is a lie

If a claim is made such as "there is a god" it is the responsibility of the person who is making the calm to back that claim up with evidence before the claim should be reasonably be accepted or even taken seriously. If we did not do this than any claim no matter how false would be accepted as truth first and then have to be disproven. The burden of proof falls to the one making the claim which are believers. If a god especially any god that created the universe or is like the deity described by Judeo-Christians should have some evidence. Yes, there may not be absolute proof unless he did exist and showed himself but there should be clues. Like tracking an animal. The animal may not be in your field of vision but the animal should leave some sign of his presence there if he was there. So if there is no evidence left behind and there are scientific explanations for things usually described to god. Than the evidence points more towards there being no god. Just because we can"t know absolutely doesn"t mean that based on the evidence we can"t make an educated guess about what is most likely true. "In short, you have faith God doesn"t exist therefore live your life as if he did not. " I don"t have faith that he does not exist I have no reason to believe he does and there is a difference. "The claim about God existing or not does not come from atheist. The claim is an inherent question that begs the truth, due to your very existence. Hence, you asked "where did I come from? " And the answer was "God. " It is an internal and psychological question for the self. God IS "the first cause. " And this is not a new definition proposed. It is the most fundamental and basic definition of God. Just because YOU have other imaginary notions about what God is, does not make God exist, not exist or change his existence. And if no one has ever known God or seen Him, how do you expect ANY one to define his properties for you to test? " Now if we describe god as merely being the first cause than god becomes nothing more than another name for the big bang. He would not necessarily have any other characteristics we usually describe to the character of god and we would have evidence of his existence and we could know that he did exist. However, that is obviously not the god we usually thing of when we think of god. If god is not anything like we imagine and he is something that just existed unless he had some interaction or effect on us (which we could test) than the fact of his existence would be relevant to us. We would not interact or be affected by him and whether he was there or not is irrelevant especially since we could not prove him one way or the other. We can never know anything absolutely but we do have evidence that that can help us know what is most likely true.
Atheism is a lie

Con's logic is not perfectly logical. Premise 1 of con's logic is not necessarily true. Which is why Con's logic fails. It is not "perfectly logical". It is only incorreect. Also. I never said believers dont express their beliefs, or "TRY" to preach. I said believers are not preachers. And even preachers never claim to KnOW. Even when they verbally say "i know God exists," since its only an expression of their belief, it can be easily assumed they dont know, and only believe. Which is why atheists are able say that they dont believe. This is also an expression of their belief. However, it is important to note, when the atheists say that they disbelieve something, they are actually making a claim to knowledge. The reason for that is, when atheists say they disbelieve they provide reasons. They also claim that their reasons are tantamount to scientific evidence. And if we define knowledge as being beliefs that are well supported by evidence, then one can rightly gather that atheists are assuming to have knowledge about God, and therefore can say that he is unlikely to exist. Without knowing who or what God is, you cannot say it is likely or unlikely he that God does anything. If someone did say something about God , but at the same time says he doesn't know anything about God, we could easily call that person liar. We could easily call that person liar. Weighing scientific evidence, or knowledge, over Faith is probably an appropriate choice and most life situations , where a pragmatic or scientific approach is possible. But to say that you disregard faith entirely, is also another lie. Doesn't everyone have faith in humanity? Doesn't con have faith that he or she is loved? Doesn't she have faith That love even exists? Or does she disbelieving love too? Faith is required for love because it cannot be proven.