BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your satan is a myth

I would like someone to show me satan from the Tanak (OT of your bibles). ""But My people have forgotten Me, they have burned incense to what is false, and they have stumbled from their ways, from the ancient paths, to walk in bypaths and not on a highway." Jeremiah 18:15 HS The prophets point back to an ancient path, ancient to them, and so the OT should be all you need. The only other rules are respect with round five for closing statements
Resolved: US legislation banning flag burning is unjust.

ScarlettGhost, why did you challenge me to this? Would it have killed you to post something, ANYTHING, in your last three rounds? Could you have left a pollte note in the comments letting me know why you were forced to forfeit? You were on 13 hours ago, you had the chance to let me know that you were no longer interested in this debate, that you had no arguements, that I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, whatever you wanted. You could have, but you didn't. You didn't say a word. You challenged me to this debate. I could not imagine worse conduct in a debater than how you handled this - until I read over your debates. Take a look! . http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...In each of these, ScarlettGhost forfeited the last two rounds, and in some the last THREE rounds just as he did in this one. NINE debates thrown, no reasoning given, no explanation, no apology. From his profile: "Debate has always been one of my greatest passions ever since I joined the team during my freshman year, and I wish to exert that passion in the debates on this site. .. I hope to do my best on this site and be one of the highest-ranking debaters. "THEN DO IT. STOP THROWING DEBATES. I'm done. My opponent dropped all my arguments, decided this debate was boring, and wandered off without a word.
Resolved: US legislation banning flag burning is unjust.

Tiresome. My opponent was just on, yet failed to even leave a comment explaining their forfeit. This could have been a good debate; I thank my opponent for the auto-win, but wish they had stuck around and defended their position. I will take their silence in the past two rounds as an indication of their concession on this issue. I would ask them why they did not post anything at all, but they have blocked me. I don't know why.
Resolved: US legislation banning flag burning is unjust.

I move toward the iteration of my case, resting only on a single contention:Contention: Legislation prohibitting flag burning inhibits the freedom of speech and expression. The burning of the American flag (or any flag for that matter) is a form of expression of an emotion of some sort, and to prohibit it as such is a denial of freedom of speech as granted naturally to humans and by the American Constitution. The following sub-points explain:Sub-point A: Freedom of speech is a human right. The freedom of speech is an idealistic human right with a practical purpose of allowing individuals to hold opinions and allow them to speak out against injustice if they wish to do so. This freedom becomes even more practical in the context of democratic societies, as Cooray notes: "the freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens, although private property is required for its operation. Without free speech, no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice or oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help to restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or, consequently, economic freedom. Thus freedom of speech is the sine qua non of a democratic society. " Documents detailing the iteration of human rights, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, speak on behalf of the freedom of expression as a basic right. Sub-point B: Freedom of speech is a Constitutional right. Similarly, the first amendment also attempts to protect the freedom of expression, meaning that it would protect an expression such as flag burning. The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989) shows to agree. \\References:Yamali, Nurullah. "GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND. " Web. <. http://www.justice.gov.tr...;.
Pentagon strike on 9-11-2001

Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon? I contend it is because it was not a plane. Your claiming impossible speeds and maneuvers were accomplished along with a claim "It was a plane" is undeniable evidence. In order to do this you will have to prove how a 767 can be flown 500 mph in level flight at sea level, how the plane managed to fly below 20 ft. with a pocket of compressed gas under the wings which makes it impossible. You link claims the plane skidded into the Pentagon yet the lawn is in pristine condition, not one blade of grass was displaced from the turbulence and plane hitting the ground proving this was impossible. How a plane continued to fly after striking light standards when in the past a plane hitting one light standard ripped off the wing and causing it to burst into flames and immediately fall to the ground and explode. It is impossible for a wings made from light weight composites to knock down several light standards without causing any damage or parts of the wings to be ripped from the plane. If 8,600 gallons of jet fuel was spilled on the ground federal laws would have considered it a hazardous waste site and would have been closed to remove all the soil and grass. This was not done. Plus, my question was why a video has not been released showing a plane was ignored completely by claiming it was a plane. This is ridiculous all of it. Try again, and remember you cannot ignore fundamental laws of motion because they don't support your theory. It doesn't work this way.
Pentagon strike on 9-11-2001

Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon? I contend it is because it was not a plane.
driving age changed to 18

Sorry to waste you time but I actually posted this to find out what other people thought for homework . Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured. The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash. Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes. Drivers (both male and female) under age 24 account for 30% - $26 billion Dollars of the total costs of Car accidents in the US. The risk of a Crash risk is much higher during the first year teenagers are able to drive. I live in Wisconsin where is 16. Here are some real arguments
driving age changed to 18

I would first off like to say that I am against the resolution for the following reasons. It depends on the state, farm kids, and its fun to drive. My first point, it depends on the state. Many different states have different rules about how old you have to be to drive. Some of the rules are based on the size of the town/cities in that state. My second point, farm kids. Like here in South Dakota, the driving age is 14 because of all the farming we have here. They have it that low so kids can help out on the farms. My third point, it is fun to drive. I mean, come on, who doesn't like to drive. Also I would like to ask my opponent to post some real arguments. Thank you.
driving age changed to 18

OK thank you for showing me you evidence. Well I was going off the resolution, and that does not say just Wisconsin. I assumed the resolution meant the whole U. S. driving age should be changed to 18. Ok, but still, the resolution says it should be changed to 18. Yes, I have been reading your arguments, and only once, did you say ANYTHING about Wisconsin, well before your round 3 speech. Well, do you think those kids would be any more responsible at the age of 18? I think they would be the same if not worse, so it won't matter if they are 18 or 16. You can get brain damage from ANYTHING. Any accident can happen that will give a person brain damage, so you can't just blame teenage driver for that.
driving age changed to 18

http://www.cargurus.com... http://www.car-accidents.com... http://beehivestandardweekly.com... that is where I got my statistics from. If you read my argument I said at least 18 and it is at 16 now. The reason I have not attacked any of you point are because we are talking about Wisconsin which means you are clearly not reading my responsive, again. If you wish I attack he you go. We cannot trust some parents to trust kid with their license because their judgment is off. For example when I was in first grade kids were watching R rated horror movies and that is just one small thing so how can we trust them with peoples lives. Here is something else if some irresponsible driver gets in an accident which the chances are higher of that happening with teens. People can receive brain damage potentially ruining their lives
driving age changed to 18

Its ok, I'm bored so yeah xD. First of all I would like to see where you got your statistics from. Second, ok yes, but that would fall on the parents to trust their kids to let them get a licence. Also, if you want the driving age changed to 18, why do you have statistics that deal with 19 and 20 year olds? Just a question. Finally I would like to point of my opponent hasn't attacked any of my points. I would like for you to vote Con. Thank you.
Gatorade is better than Powerade

Again, you can discard all of them from the start because he provides *no* framework for objective superiority. The first point on uniqueness is (a) not evidenced and (b) irrelevant, because PRO doesn't link it to the resolution. The point on taste is nothing more than PRO's opinion. The same extends to "better flavors" and "better bottle sizes." The point on Gatorade having powder doesn't tell us anything either. Is this a good or bad thing, and how does it link to PRO's BOP?
In the United States, voluntary euthanasia should be legal for anyone who wants it.

In my opinion, I believe that voluntary euthanasia shouldn't be legal to those who want it. True, many may argue that "Oh no, the pain is unbearable... Please, just pull the plug." seems like a good move, as you are ending someone's misery and sending them to "a better place", but I believe such a standpoint is on weak grounds. I will now present my points to support my claims. First off, euthanasia is the act of, as defined by Merriam-Webster, "...killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." On the surface, legalizing this act would seem perfect, no? It's our right to choose the way we live; it should also be our right to choose the way we die! Wrong. Legalizing this act would not just simply "legalize" it; it will promote it. Let me show some previous examples regarding the pattern that legalizing something ends up promoting it. Look back into history: The alcohol bans, the cigarette bans, and in our current era, the marijuana bans. Before those bans were lifted up, many people were against it. However, the moment they're legalized, Bam! Instantly, the amount of people addicted to those substances increased tremendously. Coincidence? It isn't. I'll explain now why this plays a huge part. Supposed you're in your 80s, lying on the hospital bed. Every day, your son would come over, bringing your grandchildren to visit their favorite grandparent. Seems perfect, right? But deep down inside, you're guilty. You think you're a vegetable. You think you're just being a burden; slowly sucking away your son's finances. You think it's selfish for you to cause your son to suffer, just so that you can spend an extra day with your children. (Let's imagine that Euthanasia is indeed legalized in this parallel world). You decide that euthanasia would be the best choice. You take it. Little did you know, your life has brought way more happiness than anything. In fact, your contributions are so huge, the amount of cash your son has to pay each month is nothing compared to the happiness you bring to your family. Do you think your son will feel great that you chose death, because you're worried about his financial status? Put yourself in the son's shoe for a second. Your mom, who gave up everything just for you, chose to die to save you money. After all her sacrifices, and finally, you thought you could repay it? Nope, she chose to save you a couple buck. I would like to conclude by clarifying the poin I made: if euthanasia is ever legalized, old people will be pressured to choose that path, thinking that they will help their family, but in reality, no. Thank you
Resolved: Objective morality is determined by the collective goals of society.

Resolved: Objective morality is determined by the collective goals of society.ClarificationsThis is an attempt to debunk a certain atheist view of morality, though my opponent does not necessarily have to be atheist, nor does he have to argue from an atheist viewpoint.According to this viewpoint a moral action, such as murder, is wrong because it goes against the collective goals of society.Burden of proofThe BOP rests on the pro to prove that the collective goals of society are reliable in determining objective moral truths. DefinitionsObjective morality: morality that is absolute, set in stone; fact, Goals - the end toward which effort is directed[1]Collective - shared or assumed by the large majority of members of the group [2]Collective goals of society - the end toward which effort is directed, in which the sought after end is shared or assumed by the large majority of members of society[If you have any questions or complaints about the definitions please post in the comments]Set up As the BOP rests on pro, if my opponent wants he/she may go first. But if so, please refrain from using the last round for arguing so as to keep the amount of round arguments between us even.1st - 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttal4th round: No new argumentsPlease no semantics [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It would overall be beneficial to humanity if California was blown off the face of the Earth

Well Well Well...... http://1.bp.blogspot.com... I am arguing that it would be good for humanity if California was blown off the face of the Earth. (This is a troll debate btw) Arguments for why I believe in that ^ 1) If California was gone, Obama would have been 55 electoral votes shorter then he otherwise would have been. He still would have won 277-206, but he would not have had his pacific firewall of safety votes and may have compromised with republicans on more issues. 2) If California was gone, we wouldnt have so many god damn hippies in this country. All of them would be stuck in New York and have to hide themselves as 'hipsters', but we know that Hiptser=Hippie in gaywad talk.... 3) If California was gone, Nevada would border the Pacific Ocean, meaning you could go from Vegas to the beach in about an hour, hour and a half tops 4) If California was gone, pollution levels would plummet since California is a huge polluting state (http://www.scpr.org...) 5) If California was gone, we would not have 'Keeping up with the Kardashians', a tv show filmed in Hollywood 6) If California was gone, the movie industry would have to move somewhere else, and they would not be as douchy-liberal since California is a douchy-liberal state 7) If California was gone New Mexico would border the ocean, and lets face it people in that state NEED that since what is there to do in New Mexico??? 8) If California was gone, that would be one less place for Illegal immigrants to make their way into the US. They instead would have to take their chances with Texas or Arizona, and good luck getting into those states, they go hardcore on border patrol whereas California didnt give a sh*t (as evidenced by the number of mexicans living in LA) 9) If California was gone, then Kobe and Blake Griffin would be on different teams, one of them maybe on the Heat (And who wouldnt love to see Kobe AND Lebron drop 3's all over the Spurs???) 10) If California was gone, that would be 38 million people that the government would not have to spend money on, which is good since California creates the most debt in the nation, more then twice that of the second biggest debt creator. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 11) If California was gone, then China would have to go that much further to invade the US mainland (Trust me, theyre coming) 12) If California was gone, then we wont have to put up with the Oakland Raiders anymore. 13) If California was gone, Ronald Reagan would have become Governor of a different state, and who wouldnt love having Ronald Reagan as their senator? 14) If California was gone, then the worst state in the nation in terms of regulating businesses would be gone (http://chiefexecutive.net...) Over to the con now :D
Children Exhibit Moral Behavior, But Are Not Morally Praiseworthy.

As this is the last round I can bring fourth new points,.. I am a little disappointed that my opponent has not really explained the difference he thinks there is between "moral" praise and just a good old pat on the back, and a "that was nice of you," in response to a child displaying good moral behavior. ******** On a personal experience,.. My 3 1/2 year old niece is learning how to share her things with others,... When she fusses and takes a toy from her cousin, we say hey, that is not nice, you have to share your toys. When she plays nice and gives her toy to her cousin, we say awww, that was nice, thank you for sharing. She replies with please, thank you, sorry, and your welcome in response to us and other children. Perhaps it is natural instinct to display moral behavior, but to say the child is not moral praiseworthy for displaying such behavior, is a little far stretched. I will assume that my opponent is saying "moral praise" is praise directed at "moral behavior." I feel that if this is so, it does nothing to change any of my previous arguments. **** In short, my opponent is trying to "split hairs" in the definitions of praise. PRAISE: the act of expressing approval or admiration; commendation; laudation. --> Obviously, if a child displays good moral behavior, an adult could express approval for displaying said behavior, ergo, making moral behavior praise worthy. ****** My opponent seems to believe that a child is in some sort of developmental cloud until the age of 7, when suddenly they spark into coherence. This simply not the case. Children from very early on understand right and wrong, they DO in fact make decisions based on right and wrong,... When a parent or influential figure displays approval or discipline, the child reacts. I have seen this first hand. When we see a child push another child off a swing, it would be expected of the adult to discipline (blame) the child that pushed, and let them know what they did was wrong. If the child helps the child that got pushed up and says sorry, you say that was a good thing to do. Praise and discipline are values to the child's development, and perhaps when that child is 7, they are no longer needed as much praise or discipline as they understand on their own much better. ***** Surely my opponent isn't saying we should simply ignore when a child shoves another from a swing, or yanks a toy from another. My opponent must be denying any value in discipline and praise in developing a childs moral character earlier than 7 years. Even if this IS what my opponent is saying, and he believes that a child can not conceptualize morality, my opponent still has not offered reasoning as to why the moral BEHAVIOR displayed is not morally praise worthy.
Children Exhibit Moral Behavior, But Are Not Morally Praiseworthy.

Unfortunately, my opponent seems to be confusing praise and moral praise. I would concur that a child is praiseworthy for exhibiting moral behavior. However, exhibiting moral behavior does not prove moral judgment or reasoning, and thus does not indicate MORAL praise should be bestowed upon them. It is of the utmost importance that the actor (child) understands that they are making a moral distinction if they are to receive moral praise. The obvious goal of moral praise is to enforce a system of morals, not certain behaviors. Reinforcing certain behaviors does nothing to foster the framework that allows an actor to judge whether or not these behaviors really are appropriate. Also, consider the case where a child exhibits a certain behavior and is praised or blamed for the behavior, but has no idea why... oboviously in this case the praise or blame cannot be said to have any bearing on the child's understanding of the action, other than "This specific action is wrong (or right)." When my opponent goes through my seven numbered points above, all he asserts is that children are worthy of praise for moral behavior, NOT that they are worthy of MORAL praise for moral behavior. **************************** Another reason one can see that children don't exhibit moral reasoning is in how morality is conceptualized. Adults can easily recognize the difference between a child who pushes another child off the swing, and a child who does so with a smile. Studies (Nichols, Joyce) have shown that children don't recognize this difference until approximately age 7 (the age of course varies by subject). This clearly shows that children are not able to conceptualize morality in the same way that adults can, and thus, when an adult confers moral praise on a child, this is improper, as the child is not performing the actions and making the reasoning that the adult assumes. Thus, since children can't conceptualize morality properly until they are past approximately age 7, they are not worthy of moral praise. We may seek to enforce certain behaviors or behavioral patterns, but are not MORALLY praiseworthy for their actions.