BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government is necessary in a society

God's existence cannot be proven, this is true. God's existence can also not be disproven. That is where faith comes in. But the existence of God is not what we should focus on primarily in this particular debate. However, The Bible has implanted government since the very beginning of creation, and I believe there is a reason. A society without government would result in chaos. Yes, everyone has a conscience and knows when he is doing wrong, or committing a crime. However, just think about all of the crimes and wrong-doings performed even with such an advanced and modern government set in place for example in, America. Countless numbers of people are put on trial and declared guilty of numerous heinous acts every single day. Imagine a society without a government instituted to straighten these issues out. I am a right-winged conservative (which probably does not come as a surprise), and I do not agree that the government should have such a control over the people to a point where it controls our lives. But structure and organization and the laws that are provided with a government are indeed necessary for a functioning society. "..should be able to run their own lives without an oppressive government censoring human rights." Now, I agree that we should "run our own lives" if what you mean by that is that we have a free will. Oppressive government is something I am against as well. However, can you maybe go more in detail about what exactly you mean when you refer to the "censoring of human rights"? maybe some examples of these censored rights? :-)
Church Bodies Of Christ

Women and ... "girls" can do whatever they want with their bodies. To be defiled, the defiler should be jailed. Demons and devils only exist in your mind... maybe why you look like one. Practicing moderation is always a good trait to have, and usually leads to a healthier lifestyle, but you are not god, a ruler, a nothing... one can live how they want and their bodies will remain clean as long as they shower. Actually, taking a shower and using good shampoo will keep you clean, and maybe a comb. How can you give advice when you look like you just woke up behind a garbage can? Since you have not defined anything... i will just say what is on my mind until you make a meanignful... anything. You sir, seem like an unclean pedo, and should take a shower in jail.
Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of decreasing violent crime.

As I am alone in presenting ANY type of statistic supporting a position, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify my position. I believe banning guns would NOT end violent crime, but would decrease it, as the resolution stated. My opponent believes that violent crime would not change. He accuses me of dodging when stating this. I am not, as you can see from my previous statement. The facts are plain – Violent crime was reduced when the Brady Bill went into effect. Kids today are more likely to commit a violent crime with a gun than if they were without. Waiting periods on gun purchase significantly reduce crimes of passion, due to the cooling off period. If they were banned, who knows what kind of crimes would be not committed?
Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of decreasing violent crime.

The facts speak for themselves - In 1994 then Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law that banned handgun possession for people under 21 in Boston. A year after Weld signed the law, Boston, riddled with youth murders in the early 1990s, began a 2 1/2-year spell without a gun murder of a child under 17. In 2005, almost eight young people aged 19 and under were killed a day in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings in the United States. Many more were wounded. In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. An additional 71,417 people were shot and survived their injuries -- 52,748 people injured in an attack; 3,190 people injured in a suicide attempt; 14,678 people shot accidentally, and 801 people shot in a police intervention. In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.9 In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States. In 2005, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34. And probably the most frightening fact of all - For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. Just on the last statistic alone, how could anyone question that banning guns that are made to kill people - handguns, assault rifles, etc. isn't in our best interests? Guns make it EASIER to hurt another - it is an impersonal way to do the most personally violating act know to man. You do not have to feel a part of the victim's pain, much less look at them. If guns were banned, I believe the overall violence in this country would decrease measurably. For those more fiscally minded - The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter. ONE GUN. Source - Brady Center
Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of decreasing violent crime.

Second, notice this is not about gun control in general, but specifically about decreasing crime. I hope we will not drift into silly semantic arguments, but rather have an interesting debate on the resolution. I would discourage people who debate that way from accepting this topic. Third, because the affirmative has the burden of proof, I will allow them to show reasons why the resolution is true, first. This also means that you negate if they have not proved the resolution true.
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

Last time, my opponent was so unprepared for my argument that the debate never got off of the ground on account of a double forfeiture. I will be arguing for the existence of Karma. Karma is defined here as the psycho-spiritual principle that the conscious intentions of any self aware individual are the only causes of mental anguish and personal fulfillment. The BOP is on me to prove the existence of this psycho-spiritual principle. If my opponent can prove that mental anguish or personal fulfillment can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention, then he wins. I do not support the just-world hypothesis.
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

My opponent has failed to properly address the problem of slavery. He has failed to prove how a person born into slavery has consciously intended to experience mental anguish by being born into slavery. I believe that I have fulfilled my task in this debate which was to prove that mental anguish or personal fulfillment can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention. Well, I have at least proved that mental anguish can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention. What that "something other" is I don't know, But, I do know that it can't be "conscious intention". Does consciousness exist beyond the womb? That still has yet to be proved. People are born everyday, Some are born into situations that most people in the western hemisphere would find appalling. Right now this very moment as I'm typing out these words and as you're reading them unspeakable things are happening to people. People being stolen from their families and sometimes their own parents sell their children to slavery. To say that these children consciously intended to be sex slaves is ridiculous. Oh,well that's all I got. I'd like to thank Strycora for an interesting debate. Again my apologies for forfeiting a round.
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

Thanks for responding, Athos. I would like to remind both my opponent and my voter's of the BOP. "The BOP is on me to prove the existence of this psycho-spiritual principle. If my opponent can prove that mental anguish or personal fulfillment can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention, then he wins." Karma dictates that we experience suffering and fulfillment depending on what our intentions are. That's it. I don't think that the slave is responsible for his situation in life, especially not if he is born into slavery. However, without desire, suffering cannot exist. The slave desires freedom, more rations, etc. and therefore he is in a state of suffering. That he is a slave is only an indirect cause of his suffering: I repeat, suffering is inexorably linked to intention in that suffering is the effect of desiring something other than what is actual. Fulfillment is the state of desirelessness. So far I have fulfilled my Burden of Proof. The slave desires freedom, so he's stuck in a state of suffering as long as he remains a slave. It's best in that situation to play for liberty or death. He can choose to be a slave no more. Whether or not he makes it out, the owner has lost a slave. The lesson is never to be controlled, even if you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm running out of time. I can comment on whatever you address in this round.
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

sorry i had to forfeit the last round. Some unexpected personel matters came up. my opponent states:The BOP is on me to prove the existence of this psycho-spiritual principle. 'If my opponent can prove that mental anguish or personal fulfillment can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention, then he wins.'' There are other causes of mental anguish...What about the people that have been born into slavery from the past and onto present day? And also peeople that are born into famine and impoverished conditions? How is it posible that these people have consciously intended to experience mental anguish?Side note: I have other matters to attend to. Within the next 48 hrs I won't have access to any type of computer. answer these questions then we'll finish up in the 4th round.
Resolved: The Federal Reserve Should Raise Rates

Contention 1: Economic RecoveryMy opponent concedes tha the economy is recovering, but argues that raising rates will increase deflation and harm investors. Though this may be true the truth is that inflation will begin to rise again when the Oil market begins to stablize. [1] Chairman of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen showed that the main reason behind this issue was the Oil and a strong dollar. Though the issue here is already starting to resolve as the International Engery Agency has found that the supply of oil on the market is starting to be tightend and that prices are on the rise again. [2] This already solves the issue of inflation as this will occur within the time limit allotted and will lead to a rise in inflation which will show that the economic growth will continue. Contention 2: Low rates cause economic turmoilMy opponent claims that lower interest rates do not cause bubbles, but yet that it incorrect.it – πt= r* t + α(πt – π) + βgaptIf we observe the Taylor's Rule as shown above we can see that inflation needs to rise 1/1 of that of inflation over time. If neutral rate is constant over time and inflation are zero then we are fine, but that is not true as economic data has shown that it has averaged out at 2.5% since 1981. This means with current output growth is falling we can see that it would be at -3. [3] This will result in a movement away from equalibrium at 1.5% which is bad as is since economic wise we want to get as close as we can to equalibrium. This is shown that if these rates continue the way they are they are to create asset bubbles as people continue to look elsewhere and you'll see more bust than boom and when this occurs the entire economic system would collapse. I extend across all other impacts brought up. My opponent brings up the $16 trillion bailout the Federal Reserve carried out in 2008. [4] The thing is that this money will be quite impossible to pay off on it's own and the US must raise rates before we get into another economic crisis. You have to take my impact over his since mine is not only larger since the Federal Reserve has no means of countering this one, but this will likely collapse the world economy into a Great Depression and will be something of the likes that Rep Ron Paul has been warning for the past few years. This is the exact thing that we need to worry about. There are several issues we can take to solve Con's impact, but unless my plan is implamented we can see that there is no doubt that the economic system will collapse. As for the inflation-growth disadvantage we can still see that there is a direct link to Oil Prices with are rising again which shows that this argument is nullified. Sources1. (http://www.wsj.com...)2. (http://www.reuters.com...) 3. (https://www.cdhowe.org...)4. (http://www.bloomberg.com...)
There's too much hate in God

If you believe in god, I feel for you because there far too much hate in him. And seriously when it comes down to it the only way that you can believe is through hate. Perfect examples are Deuteronomy 13, Numbers 31, the entire book of Nahum. So many more examples of this hate. KILLING, TORTURING NON-BELIEVERS: The Bible is clear " people who do not believe in God and Jesus are to be killed and/or tortured: 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13 "And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." What a great god filled with such kindness, love and chocolaty goodness that really wants to enlarge his congregation through peaceful gestures huh? Nope. Well goodie for me, just because I am NOT to seek this lord guy I shall be put to death? god has freely admitted in his bible that he has anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, and the biggie jealousy. Jealousy from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And even worse is this supposed supreme deity passed down these emotions to man so man in turn could learn to hate. Wow what a great god huh?
Toss out the nonsensical 10 commandments that were negative, And let's all create something positive

The commandments weren't designed to bring peace or happiness, They were rules made by God, And verified by Moses. They were rules to be kept by Christians so they could live eternally in Heaven. When the World was created, It was intended for peace and prosperity. The reason nothing ended up like that, Was pointed to in Genesis, When Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge. After disobeying God, She and Adams future generations, A. K. A. The rest of the world, Were forced into hard labor, And nothing would be the same again. This became Satan's world as soon as Adam and Eve disobeyed God. So there could be no true peace associated with the commandments. Besides, Rules are almost never positive anyway. If your commandments were passed, There would always be someone to break them. After all, What terrorist wouldn't take this opportunity to kill as many people as possible. My main point and question still remains; How are you to enforce these laws without eternal damnation? If a person disobeys god their entire life, Without ever asking for forgiveness, They are sent to a life in Hell where they burn forever.
Toss out the nonsensical 10 commandments that were negative, And let's all create something positive

Oh its not my logic. This was thought of with the first printing of the erroneous completely immoral unproven superior ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else and its first printing. You do realize that the original 10 commandments are completely immoral and that this country only follows one of them - correct, And not really? 4 of them if disobeyed are death. So toss them out. All of them are prohibiting and negative and none are positive when all of them should be. None of them offer hope of any kind. So they should be tossed out on those grounds alone and are required by common sense, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Logic to be rewritten or tossed out altogether. Not one of them is geared towards children, So by that measure, They should all be tossed out. If adults cannot take care of children and watch out for them, F--k each and every parent there is. "And what is disobeying them punishable by? " Now what do you mean by that? See that's the problem with you supposed christians is there's no possible way you can ---ever--- believe in anything hopeful or peaceful. Don't even bring in that christ crap. You just proved yourself wrong. Here's something else you don't get. . . Under your unproven god's helm, There's not been more than 40 years of peace at any time during any time for any length of time. Pathetic. "When there's a Bible we know we get punished for disobeying the commandments. " Damn right. And that's a "good" thing -right? "Also, Throwing out all religion is a bit overkill, " Better yet, Why don't we throw out ALL religion? One thing for sure is that religion, All of it has claimed more destruction, More war, More hate, By far, Than nonreligion. The only way there can be worldwide peace is for the world to get rid of ALL religion. A pipedream? Perhaps. But unless its done, There's gonna be more hate, More war, More bloodshed and more characters pretending to be christ/ godlike like Donald Trump the worst president of all time who in reality is no different than the god of the bible who is "grateful for me" and has a lot in common with him etc etc etc. If course a few other things needs to happen as well. Well thankfully this country was in no possible way founded on christian morals, And or god. "There is a chance these commandments you've posted are just peaceful ways to live, In which case, There's no point in throwing out the old ones, " absolutely there is for all the reasons just listed. Here's a small video to help you which far outdoes anything I could come up with. . . https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=x9weXGtCk7c
Toss out the nonsensical 10 commandments that were negative, And let's all create something positive

First I'd like to question some of your logic. Let's say we throw out the Bible. Where do these commandments apply, And what is disobeying them punishable by? When there's a Bible we know we get punished for disobeying the commandments. Also, Throwing out all religion is a bit overkill, Considering it was founded by a religion. Not to mention the fact that the American constitution grants the right to freedom of religion, And protects those of other religions from discrimination. There is a chance these commandments you've posted are just peaceful ways to live, In which case, There's no point in throwing out the old ones, Because breaking peaceful Morales gets you no where, And teaches you no discipline whatsoever. Also by the way, I'm trying not to favor this argument in favor of atheists or other religions, Because I don't want to make this too bias.
Moral Relativism (Pro) vs. Divine Command Theory (Con)

This is a topic I would enjoy debating. My previous two debates over this topic ended in forfeiture by my opponent, so I ask that my opponent not forfeit in this debate. For this reason I have set it so that the contender must have a minimum of five completed debates to accept. Definitions:Moral Relativism - "[that] the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons" [1]Divine Command Theory - "human beings require a special divine assistance in their ordinary cognitive activities [of discerning moral behavior]" [2][1] . http://plato.stanford.edu......;[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu.........;First
Mr. Fantastic would beat Jake the Dog in a fight

Thank you.Jake's Stretching vs Mr. Fantastic's StretchingJake seems to be able to stretch farther, and seems to be stronger.Richards is like a rubber-band. Jake's actual muscle mass can grow, so he is able to lift more. He often grows to carry Finn on his back.Prep TimeRichards has been shown to be amazing with prep, but Jake has an advantage: Magic.Finn had inherited a sword made of "Demon's Blood". Jake could steal this, and it is likely that the two have Magic swords somewhere. It is likely that this could cut Reed.Also, throughout the various dungeons he could conquer in the week, he could earn several things that could hurt Reed. These type things seem plentiful in Ooo, and Jake would have little trouble getting them.For example, in the Real You, Finn acquired the Glasses of Nerdicon by wiggling his pinky and singing a jingle. Those glasses increased Finn's IQ exponentially. Finn then decided to create a Fourth Dimensional Bubble-Blower out of things he had laying around. This rivals or even surpasses anything Reed has done. Reed's PrepReed would not try very hard to defeat Jake. As there is time to prep, Reed would know a bit about Jake. He would believe Jake to be lazy, or otherwise unintelligent, just as you assumed. He would likely prep the bare-minimum. He may also come into the battle with emotional uncertainty. He is shown to sometimes overlook family and friends during his work, and this might affect his performance.Jake's AgilityIn Mystery Train, Jake performs skateboard tricks on a moving train that Tony Hawk would have trouble with.DurabilityIn the clip that you showed, Jake fell several stories head first, possibly reaching terminal velocity. Next, 130 pound (approximately) Finn fell onto Jake (perhaps also at terminal velocity). Then, a tree or two fell on him, weighing several tons (possibly at terminal velocity). Jake gets up, and continues fighting. Keep in mind that Jake is clearly holding back.Reed would have had to stretch to endure this. Jake took it without stretching.Pain ResistanceIn Burning Low, Flame princess falls into the Earth's crust, according to Peebles, at extreme heat. It is stated that she would fall at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. Whether or not she reached 3000 degrees, she started to fall through the crust. Jake covered the hole to deprive FP of oxygen. It is clear she was very hot. Jake, though in pain, endured it to stop the Earth's Gravity from destabilizing.ProactivityThough variable, Jake has been shown to be proactive saving people, attempting to rescue Finn, etc.I will start rebutting next round.
Mr. Fantastic would beat Jake the Dog in a fight

This is my 1st debate here on DDO so sorry if I mess up in some way. Basically, I am arguing that Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) would beat Jake the Dog from Adventure Time in a fight. Each person has a week to prepare for this fight and they will fight on an open field. There are no things such as rocks and other things on that terrain that could possibly help them. The only things that can help them are the objects they bring to the fight, it's one on one so they can't receive assistance from living things/other people such as Finn or the rest of the Fantastic 4. It is considered beat when one of them can no longer fight back. 1st round is acceptance 2nd round is opening/arguments 3rd round is rebuttals 4th round is rebuttals again/closing. No new information can be said in the 4th round.
Should Teachers Wear A Uniform

That's the thing, we students are never regarded equal to teachers. Sure, a teacher is older and sometimes wiser, but why no uniform? Because there is no equality. Is a student arguing with a teacher a common occurrence? Can a student directly defy the teacher's order and say that they do not want to do homework and will not do it? No, there is no equality in school between teachers and students, and that's why teachers don't need to wear the false badge of equality.