BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will the Carolina Panthers stay undefeated and go 16-0

The Carolina panthers will go undefeated because of Cam Newton. He averages 30+ fantasy points per game. He has had two 40+ games in the last 3 games. Also they have epic receivers like Greg Olsen and Ted Ginn Jr. There defense is unstoppable with CB Josh Norman. The Panthers are and will be the only undefeated team in the NFL.
Will the Carolina Panthers stay undefeated and go 16-0

I think that the Panthers will go undefeated because their final three games are the Giants, Falcons, and Bucs who all have a losing record. The panthers have one of the highest scoring offenses and best defenses in the whole country. There is no way they will lose. Also the Panthers have not lost a game all season. The pressure is on not to lose for them. I think that the panthers will stay 16-0.
The bible advocates war, revenge, slavery, rape and even genocide

I accept and remind the voters that pro must prove that the bible advocates far every single thing listed. If I show it does not advocate for even a single one of those things, than I win. If he fails to prove it advocates for a single item on that list, pro loses. Here is the definition of advocate, I request people keep handy, as I think it will be relevant to the debate at hand to pay particular attention to it. Advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The bible advocates war, revenge, slavery, rape and even genocide

Whilst the proposition should really be an open-and-shut case, I'm sure that somebody out there will try to defend the "good book". Why anybody would have the frankly risible notion that we might be able to derive a decent moral perspective based upon the writings of bronze-age and iron-age farmers, I have no idea. .. but there you are. .. somebody today (almost 3,500 years after some of the book was written) will almost certainly take up the fight to defend the inerrant and ideally moral nature of what they believe to be the words of an almighty supernatural being. It does beggar belief, if you think about it. Opinions aside, though, the bible really does advocate war, revenge, slavery, rape and genocide. I think that Christians should know that. It's embarrassing. It also throws into question whether it's at all reasonable for Christians to castigate, for instance, homosexuals based on scripture. I mean, when your justification for the vilification of a behaviour is a book that advocates genocide, I think you need to grow up and take a harder look at your opinions. So bring it on. .. who thinks that the bible does not advocate these things! ?
The bible advocates war, revenge, slavery, rape and even genocide

Framework Let's review what my opponent must do to when this debate. Not only does he must prove the bible advocates for war, revenge, slavery, rape, and even genocide. Please don't confuse the word advocate for condone. My opponent must also prove the bible as a whole approves of these things, not that there are a few exceptions that make allowances for these sorts of things. One thing I'll touch on when I get into the rebuttal round is the laws God created that only applies to the nation of Israel in the time of Moses and the rules of engagement given for Israelites during times of war are different from the ethical framework the bible gives for it's people. General Argument The Bible commands that Christians follow the laws of the governing bodies that reside over them. Romans 13:1-2 "Let every person pbe subject to the governing authorities. For qthere is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Most people live in societies that ban many of the things my opponent mentions. So performing the atrocities mentioned is something The bible is quite clearly advocating against. Murder The bible quite clearly condemns murder in many instances. Exodus 20:13 "Though shalt not kill" Leviticus 24:17 "And he that kills any man shall surely be put to death." Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revenge The bible clearly states that God is the only entity who has the right to commit vengeance, though the God of the bible makes it clear he'd rather forgive. Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord." Rape God made laws against rape for his people. In Deuteronomy 22:13-29 The bible specifically condemns forcing a woman against her will into sex, which is what we refer to as rape in these times. In Deuteronomy 22: 25-27 The bible states that the punishment for rape should be stoning a man to death while considering the woman innocent. "25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her." Conclusion I am running short on time, but this is a 5 round debate, so we can pace ourselves. The interesting part of this debate comes in the rebuttal rounds, which is round 3, so without further ado, I welcome my opponents rebuttals.
The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility

First I shall humorously highlight my opponent's logic by direct correlation by simple replacement of words.1. An omnibenevolent being is the most loving, giving, and selfless being in the world.2. Omnibevolence is incompatible with malevolence3. A malevolent being would be able to hate something.4. An omnibenevolent being cannot be malevolent5. An omnibenevolent being cannot hate anythingI shall now state the exact same logical system using different terms to highlight the humorous fallacy he made.1. A human being is a mammalian creature belonging to the family Hominid.2. Being human is incompatible with being reptilian.3. A reptilian being would be able to eat something.4. A human being cannot be reptilian.5. A human being cannot eat anything.I really hope you saw the humorous side, I prefer to tear apart debates in an amusing manner rather than a hostile one.Now let's get down to business.God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe.To be omnipotent is to have unlimited power and to be able to do anything. Such a creature surely has the ability to hate.To be omniscient is to know everything, this doesn't stop god being able to hate.To be supernatural is just to have superpower (could be to hate).To be omnibenevolent is to be all-good. My opponent had a fair enough outline of what good what. BUT, being good doesn't mean the emotion hate cannot be felt IT ONLY MEANS GOD DOESN'T ACT ON IT.I hand it over to pro.
The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility

Thanks to RationalMadman for his willingness to debate this topic.Arguments Omnibenevolent God- 1. God in question is omnibenevolent.1a. An omnibenevolent being is the most loving, giving, and selfless being in the world.1b. Omnibenevolence is incompatible with malevolence.1c. A malevolent being would be able to hate something.1d. An omnibenevolent being cannot be malevolent.1e. An omnibenevolent being cannot hate anything.Conclusion The hatred of anything by an omnibenevolent being is a logical impossibility.
The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility

Since God is a non physical entity which lacks a brain and the brain is used for humans to hate I think the argument that he has no physical brain to hate with is too cruel and unfalsifiable to be fair for pro to use. Instead, I think this is a clear-cut debate of whether or not the hatred of anything assuming it's possible for god to hate without a brain is a logical impossibility.I think it most certainly is possible for God to hate something. I look forward to your debate.
The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility

I have made this debate impossible to accept, so if anyone wants to debate me, just post a comment in the comments section regarding your acceptance.My resolution: The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility Rules- Please, no trolling or semantics. The definitions will not be argued. Definitions- hatred- prejudiced hostility or animosity. anything- any such thing. God- the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernaturalcreator and overseer of humans and the universe. logical- of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic. impossibility- something impossible. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached
Logic IS cause AND effect

No entity(person) has the right to cause harm.Name calling is attempting to do harm.Cause:All entities(persons) are beings who act.Effect:Entities that act, adapt.Effect:Entities that adapt, learn.Effect:People can do more - with more - people are comfortable - people become lazy - lazy people stop acting - people stop learning.Some like adapting - more learningSome like the knowledge - more learning.Therefore Action + knowledge = wisdomLaziness + knowledge = knowledgeknowledge + time = less knowledge
Logic IS cause AND effect

cause = D6 + modifier =chance to hit = ow!chaos + logic= order thereforechaos = order - logicchaos=random cause + silly entities = us playing - Sorry readerslogic is true or false = computers :: logic is absolutely serious (so serious it looks you in the face) :: reason found logic :: there is no logic in fantasy (just an enormous amount of fun).chicken + rooster = eggrooster = egg + cause = chicken therefore chicken = rooster!if all apples became poisonous, and someone was aware of it - they would be here Wicked Plants: The ExhibitMy thoughts: I had great fun, thank you!
Logic IS cause AND effect

cause=random+specified sum of all logic=chaos+order chaos=random cause+effect order=specified cause+effect logic is true, logic is absolute, reality is logic.. reason is the opposite of logic, there is no logic in fantasy chicken=cause=egg egg=effect=chicken if all apples became poisonous, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples?
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

1. I agree with premise one 2. I agree with premise two 3. I agree with premise three 4. It was Medea's choice to kill or not kill her children but it was influenced by anger inflicted upon her by her husband. 5. Medeas husband caused her to chose to kill her children. 6. If it were not for her husband, Medea would not have chosen to kill her children. 7. A person is responsible for the acts they commit willfully, while sane. 8. Medea was not sane when she made the choice to kill her children. 9. Therefore, Medea is not responsible for the death of her children. Note; My opponent did not disprove my argument.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

1. No person or law was forcing Medea to kill her children. 2. Medea was not tricked into killing her children. 3. Medea's children were not killed by accident. 4. The choice of whether or not to kill her children was up to Medea and only Medea. 5. Medea chose to kill her own children. 6. The choice to kill her children and the act of killing them thereafter was therefore a willful act. 7. A person is responsible for actions which they commit willfully. 8. Therefore, Medea is responsible for the death of her children. Note: My opponent did not sufficiently disprove any of my premises so my argument stands the same.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

4. If Medea did not willfully become angry then it would also be possible that she did not willfully killer her children. Both getting angry and killing her children are choices she made not willfully. 5,6. Medea did make a healthy attempt to deal with her anger by contemplating the consequences of her acts. So she was aware that it was bad and also attempted to deal with her anger in a healthy way but was unsuccessful. Killing her children was not her responsibility because she tried avoiding it before she actually went through with it. 8. Insane people seem to have sane thoughts. She rationally reasoned both of the options she had but ultimately, because she was mentally unstable, ended up killing her children. A sane person would have to feel guilt for that but she did it regardless.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

4. Medea became angry when her husband betrayed her, but not insane. And even if Medea did not willfully BECOME angry, she subsequently allowed her anger to get the better of her while she was fully aware of what was happening. There are methods of dealing with anger once it has grabbed hold of you that she could have utilized but did not: for example, deep breathing and meditation are common and effective strategies for embracing anger in a healthy way and ultimately reducing its presence. 5, 6. If Medea was aware enough to recognize that what she was doing was bad and she made no effort deal with her anger in a healthy way, then her decision to let her anger lead her to kill her children makes her responsible for their deaths. 8. On the contrary, this demonstrates that she is still capable of reasoning with herself and coming to a conclusion of what the right and wrong things to do are. In the end, she knew that what she was doing was bad but she did it anyway.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

4. Medea become insane when her husband betrayed her and in that state made the unconscious decision to kill her children and therefore left not responsible for it. 5,6. The responsibility can be removed because she was not in the proper mental state to make the decision in the first place. The act of killing her children can not be denied nor undone, but the responsibility of the choice behind it can be argued. 8. I disagree because throughout the story she goes back and fourth between her decision. One moment she decides that she will not get revenge on her husband and the next she is justifying it, making it clear that she in not mentally stable.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

4. Medea had a choice whether or not to become angry at her husband. She could have chosen to view his actions differently and to accept them and move on, but instead she chose to become angry at them. If she chose to become angry and consequently killed her children out of anger, then she is responsible for their deaths. 5, 6. Whether or not Medea's husband was a factor in her choice to kill her children does not change the fact that she herself chose to kill her children. The responsibility of that choice cannot be removed from Medea and placed on her husband. 8. There is no reason to believe that Medea had at any point lost her sanity; we are only told that she is full of anger. In fact, she even says that she is aware that what she is doing is bad: "I know that what I am about to do is bad[...]"
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

1. I agree with premise one 2. I agree with premise two 3. I agree with premise three 4. It was Medea's choice to kill or not kill her children but it was influenced by anger inflicted upon her by her husband. 5. Medeas husband caused her to chose to kill her children. 6. If it were not for her husband, Medea would not have chosen to kill her children. 7. A person is responsible for the acts they commit willfully, while sane. 8. Medea was not sane when she made the choice to kill her children. 9. Therefore, Medea is not responsible for the death of her children. Non controversial premises: premises 1, 2, and 3. They are details from the story. I agree with premise 7. Controversial premisesR03;: premises 4,5,6,8. they are interpretations of the context and of insanity.
Medea is responsible for the death of her children.

1. No person or law was forcing Medea to kill her children. 2. Medea was not tricked into killing her children. 3. Medea's children were not killed by accident. 4. The choice of whether or not to kill her children was up to Medea and only Medea. 5. Medea chose to kill her own children. 6. The choice to kill her children and the act of killing them thereafter was therefore a willful act. 7. A person is responsible for actions which they commit willfully. 8. Therefore, Medea is responsible for the death of her children. Non-controversial premises: 1, 2, 3, and 7 are expected to be non-controversial premises. 1, 2, and 3 are known details surrounding the incident, and 7 is a statement connecting responsibility and willfulness which I expect my opponent to agree with. Controversial premises: 4, 5, and 6 are controversial because they all revolve around Medea having the choice to kill her children. I do not expect my opponent to agree that Medea chose to kill her children of her own accord.
There are worse things than cloppers in the Brony fandom

Cloppers are mostly terrible for the age of content they are bringing to the fandom. Have you seen how /mlp/ turned out? It was a disaster. The cloppers hit that hard and the mods were like "Screw this." and left it a right mess. A mess of pony porn. I find it extremely distasteful what cloppers do, and so do many others.Especially given how they have managed to change the way the world views us bronies. When a person thinks of a brony, they think "EW, some old guy who jacks off to MLP." So horrible are these accusations I actually feel depressed every time i hear it.But your concept of "everyone should stick to love and tolerate" just wont happen. Love and Tolerate was a bad joke started by /b/, and besides, I shall simply quote in my half-attentive frame of mind: Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one. It's fine to be proud of it. But dont whip it out in public and start waving it around, and don't go shoving it down our children's throats! The same can be said about being a clopper.But if you claim cloppers are not the worst thing in the community, tell me... what exactly is? Apart from bronies who don't love and tolerate?
There are worse things than cloppers in the Brony fandom

Of course, I think cloppers are something dark in the fandom, but still, they deserve respect and at least a little bit of tolerance. What your "friend" did to you was unacceptable I admit, but that could have been a "extreme clopper" just because one clopper did this to you, doesn't mean that all cloppers are like that. Just like a Brony, just because one treats MLP ( My Little Pony ) as a religion, doesn't mean that all the bronies treats My Little Pony as a religion, I still consider cloppers as a brony, because he still watch the show and go for conventions. I didn't make it so long too because I am kinda tired, sorry for that. I await for your response, Con, good luck.
There are worse things than cloppers in the Brony fandom

Touché.I must admit, there are some of us who do not adhere to the creed of Love and Tolerate. However, there are still those who try our patience in that aspect.I am not saying haters aren't that bad. I have dealt with MORE than my fair share of haters in my 2-3 years of being a brony. And there will always be one or two immature bronies who will react to the trolls.However, I feel that Bronies that do not Love and Tolerate are the least of our concerns in relation to Cloppers. Because Cloppers are never just Cloppers.Let's take for instance one brony "friend" I made at the start of 2013. Seemed nice, up until I found out he was a hacker who had hacked me, and was a Clopper. Yes, before you say thats beside the point, let me explain.He wouldn't stop flaunting it. Spamming me with Clop, detailing his precise feelings and thoughts while doing so, it was unbearable. Do we want that kind of person being a member of the Fandom? As opposed to some bronies who's jimmies get easily rustled... I'd say no we do not.Forgive the half hearted response Pro, its 3 am right now and I'm dead on my feet. Looking forward to a crushing response in the morning to dig myself out from under.
There are worse things than cloppers in the Brony fandom

Our work (we the Bronies) is to respect everyone in the world, why? Because it's part of our culture, we love and tolerate all the kinds of haters, even cloppers we are supposed to love and tolerate. But there's a problem, we don't really love and tolerate every hater in the world, Howard Stern for example, 60% of his hate mails must be from bronies, my point is that there are bronies who just can't love and tolerate haters or cloppers, there are bronies who doesn't, but make us look like cry babies that doesn't accept opinions towards us, the brony fandom would be better if we didn't get easily so mad at haters and cloppers, I think we should love and tolerate cloppers and haters. And not make the fandom look like there is only cry babies on the fandom, and not protect the fandom like this. . http://www.youtube.com... Sending hate mails to Howard Stern, etc. Your move, Con. Good luck.
There are worse things than cloppers in the Brony fandom

I, as a brony, am here to tell you there is nothing worse than a clopper in the brony fandom.As an opening statement, I would like to educate the voters on some general terms.A brony, is a fan of the hit TV series: My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. The show was intended for an audience of roughly 12 year old girls, but has an extremely high popularity with all audiences. Female Bronies can also be refered to as Pegasisters, although this is not a widely used term.A Clopper, is a person who, if you would pardon the term, Masturbates, to My Little Pony. Cloppers are often disguised as standard Bronies, however what they do is sick and twisted. Allow me to explain why.My Little Pony (or MLP for short) is a perfectly (ok, maybe not perfectly, but close enough to it) innocent cartoon aimed at Childeren! Now I'm not talking teens or that, I'm talking 8-12 year olds. I'm talking "Eww touching the other sex is yucky" age. Cloppers take an innocent show and twist it around to strip it of its innocence like a rapist easily strips a woman of her virginity.Then there are the artists! Skipsy, Slugbox, those people who draw formerly innocent characters and turn them into porn stars! It's horrid!Then they go flaunt their stuff about (I'm still pissed off that Skipsy gets a panel at the conventions) and act like its normal!So no. There is nothing worse in the fandom than a Clopper. They ruin the fandom. They ruin the community's public image, and they think its funny/normal.I leave this to you Pro.