BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Non-Christians and the laws of logic.

The three basic laws of logic are: Identity A = A Non Contradiction ~A and A excluded middle A or ~A My arguement is that the only reason these laws hold up is because they are based on the Christian God. For example, God cannot change God can't lie God must tell the truth Any attempt to deny these claims would reduce one to irrationayl and absurdity . The laws of logic must be grounded in God because of the impossibilty of the contrary. My challenge to zbot is to show otherwise. For example, what does Zbot ground these basic laws on? Is it what he calls "reality"? His imagination? Another "God"? Also, any attempt to use these laws assumes that there is order in the universe. That is, that our experiences hold or will hold from moment to moment. I would like to know why Zbot belives that his experinces will carry over into the future. What is his account for the unifomity we find in "nature"?
Gay Marriage

"Love is love" Is a common slogan for marage equality.. if you wan't to nit pick it that can be done for almost any slogan. Example: Barack Obamas "Yes We Can".. Can we kill, rob, and rape?.. No, we can't. I rest my case. Con is against not only gay marage but marage as a whole. He believes marage should be abolished for its potential traumatizing effects. Given this logic we should abolish, cars, airplanes, Friendship, electricity, the internet, fire places, swimming pools, candles, stairs, rope, all medicine, trains, cruise ships, bicycles, and so on.. a completly rediculious statement. "emotionally scarred for life" but yet some divorced people go on to be remaried and live happy lives with their new spouce... Con says it is unfair to children to go through a divorce as if mariage is the only reason parents split and without it would stay together forever.. a complete fallacy. At the end of the day, the problem is "Why doesn't mommy love daddy" and vice versa.. Would be interesting to see con rebute that.. Unless Con can prove a world without mariage would promote happier relationships and offspring he has been uterly defeated in this debate.
Gay Marriage

"I accept. My short statement:If love is love, then that is an argument against all marriage, and subsequently against gay marriage. I love my mother. I don't marry her. I love my daughter. I don't marry her. I love my cat: I don't marry him. Love is - especially when not differentiated - not a reason for marriage." - Well, you Love your wife.. why can you marry her? Here you have pretty much said participants of Incest and beastiality are not able to get married so why should homosexuals? I believe Gay Marriage should be legal because it poses no threat to society. States allowing gay marriage have not seen a collapse in society. How can you refute this and why do you believe it should be illegal?
Gay Marriage Is Wrong

The bible has multiple versions so you can't speak so broadly. In the chapter Leviticus in the Christian- Baptist Bible you will find Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. I believe that Gay Marriage violates my religion as well as others and for the government to force gay marriage onto us is horrible and violates the first amendment of the constitution which says I have the freedom of religion and if gay marriage violates my religion than is it really freedom if there are limits?
Gay Marriage Is Wrong

The Bible supports same sex marriage. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David loves Jonathan more than women. In Matthew 19:10-12 supports eunuchs getting married. Isaiah 56:3-6 does too. 1 Corinthians 7:79 supports it too. Isaiah 56:3-6 does too, as well as 1 Samuel 18: 1,3,21,, 20:30, and 20:42-43, and so on. ven if it were wrong, people have no right to force religion on people. For further research: http://www.gaychristian101.com...
Netball is more suited to girls than rugby is

Now I too agree that I would rather my daughter play netball. However a person of the female gender is no different to that of the male when it comes to being better suited to the sport. While a male may be stronger I ask you: "Why do girls need to be 'feminine' as we call the shaving of body hair, application of makeup, being delicate, weak and attractive. Do not tell me that is not what most people refer to when speaking of femininity. Why does a girl have to fit into your stereotype of one. A girl is simply a young person in possession of female genitalia and whom refers to oneself as a female. While most teen girls may be 'feminine' this does not refer to 'girls' as a young, female age group. A baby girl can grow to become any size or strength and could have any interest in any thing. Anyway since when are all girls 'gentle and caring'? You are referring to a possible majority and in that instance should have titled your question: "Netball is more suited to most girls than Rugby is" Besides this is only because of how society has developed. With women not involved in many sports other than gentle ones. Because they are 'too soft' or 'gentle. You claim girls are "Made to be feminine and gentle"? Why are women "Made" to be anything? Now while most girls hate the idea of Rugby, are not physically strong enough to play it, don't like getting muddy or wet and might well be mentally too kind to do so I find my opponent is not thinking philosophically. Girls, a term used to represent a young group of females (or all young females) are theoretically little less able to play rugby than their male counterparts. It is only because of how girls are brought up and seen in society that you presume they are less suited to Rugby. Girls are 'gentle' 'kind' 'weak' and so forth because that is what society expects of them. Who says they cannot be otherwise ? You have listed a lot of girls' sates of mind but far from all.
Netball is more suited to girls than rugby is

(By girls I am meaning teenage girls, e.g. 13-17.) Netball is definitely more suited to young women for the following reasons. ~Body type- girls bodies are not built for rough encounter, conflict, or fighting. ~Mental state- girls are more fragile and sensitive than males ~Rugby is a brutal, rough sport. ~ Intense physical endurance can stunt, growth, development (breasts) etc... ~Girls are not as physically strong as boys and shouldn't be made to be. Girls are made to be feminine and gentle, sensitive and caring. Not brutal and forceful as in the game of rugby. Rugby is a very danger sport and can cause severe injuries such as brain damage- when head comes in contact with hard boots etc, muscle and limb damage etc etc. Boys and men even have a hard time playing rugby and often come off the field with a bloody nose, a limp, or a torn muscle, if this is the case, which it is, why should women/girls play rugby? I understand that it may be some female's desire to play a sport such as rugby, and they are in fact more than capable of doing so, however that is not to say that Rugby is more suited to girls than netball. Netball is no where near as rough as rugby, creates thinking ahead skills, game skills, co-operation skills, problem solving skills and fitness skills (some could say so does rugby) but all this takes place without the players getting severly injured, which they rarely do in comparison to rugby. I definitely know which sport I would rather my daughter play, the one where they won't come off limping and bleeding, with a broken nose and a bruised tendon. Netball. Thank you:) I am eagerly awaiting your reply!
Netball is more suited to girls than rugby is

As you have said: "Let the games begin! " So first of all I find myself asking about your definition of girls: Does 'From birth to full grown' include an adult women or simply means to the end of puberty. This may not alter the argument very much (at least not mine) but it will be nice to know. Now that I have asked you this I will deliver my argument: So, is netball better suited to girls, more so than rugby? I do not believe so. The majority of girls will dislike rugby and a lot will even despise the idea of getting dirty but is netball better suited to girls? NO. I mean why is netball better suited? Girls are often not as physically strong as men (this is true and not at all sexist) but that doesn't mean that they cannot train up and get stronger. . It doesn't mean that they cannot learn to throw and catch a rugby ball. Just because from birth boys are brought up being taught physical sports such as rugby, football, ice hockey and so on it does not mean that the same cannot go for girls. Treat a girl like a boy from birth and there you go (I'm not saying you should, just that gender will not change and the interest and capability will spark)! The girl might well turn out with a love for rugby. Despite a possible slight natural physical inferiority to the male sex nothing can prevent a girl from playing rugby. Maybe by teenage years most girls will be disinterested in Rugby but that does not prove that netball is better suited. Please supply me with reasons for which you take the position that you do. Thank you once again and I hope we both enjoy a fantastic debate. I look forward to your reply- Will
Flat Earth isn't real.

Genesis says that the Earth is suspended atop pillars. You saying that the ancient civilizations were crazy is bias and has offers no support to your argument after all in the future we'll be the crazy ones. I never said most flat-Earthers are Christian, so the Vatican can have their own opinions, The rockets don't go into space, some people believe that it is all staged. This would fit well considering that Elon Musk's tesla in space videos look animated. Rockets bumping into the firmament was seen in a launch years ago when the rocket hit something and created something that looked like a tear, though some say that the rocket hit a UFO. Both theories are equally as possible. The theory of Flat Earth is wide spread there are people everywhere that believe in it though it's such an old debate people ignore to research into it. I'm not saying the sun goes directly next to the ice wall, I'm saying that it goes around it. In a oval if you want to think about it that way. The Official Flat Earth twitter has nothing to do with anything I have said, I don't even agree with half the things they say. So, yes I agree that picture is a phony. Though go ahead and look at pictures of the Earth they all look like they are from a virtual reality game. Honestly I believe that if people would do their research before picking a side and automatically believing everything the government says they might change their mind. The government has given out false information "Anonymous" has shown this. Your turn.
Flat Earth isn't real.

Your argument about that ice wall has quite a bit of flaws. How is it that some Arctic and Antarctic days and nights last for way longer than other days and nights? That part about you saying that the sun goes around the edge of the earth instead of above it? Then wouldn't that massive wall of ice you're talking about be melted/block the suns rays? After all, if it's closest to the sun, it should be pretty hot there. Also, that still Another point I'd made is that one of the pictures that the Official Flat Earth Twitter posted is a picture of an airplane "flying over the edge." This image has several problems with it. The image itself appears to be taken on a beach. There is no sign of a tremendous ice wall, like most flat Earthers say there is. Another point that I'd like to make is that the people who you say believed in the dome above flat Earth are all ancient civilizations, including Greeks, who frequently made human sacrifices (Check out Ancient Sparta History, they're freaking nuts), Egyptians (Who worshiped bugs, cats, and dreams), Sumerians (worshiped the dirt, water, wind, and a bunch of other crazy things), Celtics ( They have a god about RABBIT MAGIC.), and Jews (ask a Modern Day Jewish person if they believe the Earth is flat.) Another question I have is how we are still staying on the surface. Wouldn't it make more sense that we are all being pulled down by a central force, instead of standing on the edge of a Flat Earth. What is the flat Earth suspended on? Is it just flying? Or is it just hanging on something? Also, since most flat-earthers are Christians, I'd like to point out that the Vatican (which is one of the heads of Churches) made a statement comparing Donald Trump to flat earthers. I will leave the link at the bottom of the article. So, not even the head of the Catholic Church believes that the earth is flat. Another point is that you said there is a "dome" How would that explain, that We have sent multiple spacecraft and rockets costing millions of dollars, that large groups of people have witnessed large rockets flying into the atmosphere that cost incredible amounts of money, that they're just bumping into a dome. What is outside of the dome? Is it nothing? Is it Heaven? Is it Hell? What would happen if we were to "fall off" the edge? Also, I have one more point to make. How would it be possible, that all, and I mean all governments have the belief that the Earth is round. If so many people believe it, then why isn't it more widespread? I wish I had more time, but I slept earlier than I normally did, so I didn't have much time to write this. I look forward to your views on this.
Flat Earth isn't real.

First off, you're looking at it the wrong way. Flat Earthers don't believe that the water just falls off the edge, they believe that the edge of the Earth is in Antarctica. They believe this because in Antarctica there is a giant wall made of ice that world widely agreed not to be explored. This is how they hide it. Now onto your next point, "How does flat earth explain eclipses?" That I know of there is only two theories concerning this part. One is of course that just because the Earth is flat does not necessarily mean that there's no space. Some also believe that the sun just goes around the edge of the flat Earth, instead of straight over. Now this belief is a bit more complicated. Many flat Earhters believe that the is also no such thing as space, instead there is a firmament. This is a structure above the Earth's atmosphere that looks like a vast solid dome. Above the dome is water. Now, you say that you are a Christian, so you should know of this. After all, the firmament is in Genesis since "God created the firmament to separate the water above from the waters below." Now you also say round Earth is widely accepted by multiple religions. Flat Earth was also mentioned in many religions such as: ancient Egypt who believed the sky was held up with pillars, Greeks, who believed the sky was held up by Atlas, the Sumerians, Celtics, Jews, and many more. So I believe this disproves your points, anything else?
Flat Earth isn't real.

How do I explain this... If the earth was flat, first of all, Gravity would make everyone slip off the side of the world. Second of all, how does flat earth explain eclipses. Third of all, why would anyone try to hide flat earth from people? I have many more questions. I am a Christian, so you can't tell me that round earth is just a "theory for Satanists and Atheists." I believe God made the world round, however it's widely accepted in multiple religions that the Earth is round.
Is There A FLAW In the so-called "Classical Wage Theory of Economics [Austrian School]???"

I would simply start by saying that in a postulated free market, people either accept or deny the price (wage) being offered at the current market price which would determine a natural level of unemployment. There have been many arguments on the actual percentage of natural unemployment, but for my purpose I will simply state that it exists. So, the real flaw I see in your logic is the upward pressure postulate. Here is a short, and I hope fairly comprehensive list of shifters for supply curves: # of suppliers, technology utilized, input price, price of substitutes and complements, and expectations. First, you contend that there is an upward pressure on workers' wages (which is a shift in the supply curve) by labor unions that do not receive the privilege of government sponsorship (that is to say union shop laws do not exist as they do now). The only perceivable method of affecting the price by means of a labor union would then be to decrease the number of suppliers (workers) and thereby drive up the price of labor (wages). However, if this wage were determined by a free market the workers would be self-selecting. They would opt out originally if they believed that the wage was insufficient. If, while working, they believe the wage has become insufficient, they will seek employment elsewhere or perhaps collectively bargain. Yet, the logic behind a labor union is useful only in so far as it can be enforced. The shortage of workers will drive up wages only if this shortage can be maintained. That is to say that no other individuals can replace the exiting (or striking) workers. This scenario is unlikely precisely because competing companies would be willing to pay slightly more if the current wage was under market equilibrium. The rationale is simply that companies are driven by profit motivation. If the worker's wage at one company is lower than equilibrium, another company will offer them more until (as always mc = mr) in an attempt to gain market share or greater profits (usually related). The usual exception to this rule is pure monopoly, which is hard to find anywhere except the government and perhaps some utilities. The other option, wherein the company simply hires other workers completely undercuts the goal of the collective bargaining. I would submit that rational workers, in a free market, will not collectively bargain if they can be easily replaced. Currently, during labor union strikes there are severe limitations on companies to seek replacement workers that are not unionized. That is where the conservative argument comes into play. The unions, through the force of law, have created an artificially high wage for union workers because, and only because, union laws prevent companies from hiring others. This, in effect, reduces the number of supplies (legally), driving up the price, and ultimately resulting in fewer individuals hired (i.e. higher unemployment that would prevail otherwise). I am no economist, but I believe that is the general idea.
Is There A FLAW In the so-called "Classical Wage Theory of Economics [Austrian School]???"

The Classical Wage Theory of Economics advanced primarily by the Austrian School states the following: "Like ALL commodities, there is an INVERSE relationship between the PRICE & the Quantity DEMANDED of that given commodity [Law of Demand]. If LABOR is a given commodity in the Free Market, the WAGES offered to an individual seeking employment is the PRICE of Labor in the Market. "Therefore, in the context of a 100% FREE MARKET with ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, the Law of Demand boldly implies to rational-thinking individuals that if there were an UPWARD PRESSURE of workers' wages by NON-governmental forces such as Labor Unions, the PRICE of Labor (as a commodity) will naturally go up, and likewise, the quantity of labor DEMANDED will go DOWN thus resulting in unemployment!!!" In response and reflection to the Topic Question abovehand, I argue that there is, irrefutably, a fatal FLAW in this logic which has led Conservatives to take the position that Unions HURT the National Economy!!!
Adultery

Lets see my opponent has once again forfeited a round which clearly indicates he had not real desire to debate this topic and that is intent may well have been to prevent other members from debating it. The debate premise provides a choice on one hand the woman should repent and ask forgiveness from God and on the other should blame men for her situation. Both may be false choices and both may be unappetizing under the circumstances which may exist. Nonetheless the choice for the woman is clear repent, ask for God's forgiveness and to accept her punishment. If she is guilty is must understand and accept she is being punished for her actions not for those of the men involved in her crimes. Whatever punishment they receive or don't receive has no bearing on her execution On the other hand if she is innocent of the crime of adultery or that she was unfairly sentenced to die then she should still repent and ask God's forgiveness. There have been other things she has done in her life either related to the adultery or from other situations which require repentance and forgiveness. And if her execution is so unjust that the understandable impulse would be to blame the men involved with it instead the woman should ask God to forgive such men. It would be a difficult step and one requiring much inner strength and courage but if she can do it it would be the right one
Ronaldo is an odious cheat; a disgrace to football and should be banned from the game forthwith.

I should just like to provide a few definitions before I begin: Football – soccer. Christian Ronaldo – Manchester United and Portugal international player who ponces about the pitch like Billy Elliot with a feckin' football, looking for an opportunity to deceive the referee into awarding a foul in his favour and thus unfairly penalising the opposing player. Billy Elliot – a fictional character of stage and screen; a nancy boy whose ambition as a youth was to become a dancer. Nancy boy – a sissy, an effeminate male, a ponce (example: Christian Ronaldo) Okay, let's cut to the chase. Here are some of the many examples of how this player has deceived the ref in the past: http://www.whoateallthepies.tv... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk... There are too many video clips of Ronaldo diving in an effort to get someone sent off to provide links here, but If you want to see video footage, just Google "Christian Ronaldo cheat" and you will find lots of examples. This is the reason why, instead of a fan club, Ronaldo has a hate club: http://www.freewebs.com... In the light of this evidence, I defy anyone to tell me this player is not an odious cheat, a disgrace to his sport and shouldn't be banned from playing professional football for life.