BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should NOT be thought in schools

I accept, and assume that I can start my argument in this round. "religion divides people,its what started wars,it might not be true,a lot of it is theory,not everybody follows the same religion yet in schools they only teach one type of religion" Almost all of this is true, except the last one. All major religions plus agnosticism and atheism are taught in schools. It has divided people and started wars, but so has slavery. By your logic, we should not teach children about slavery, which I am sure most would disagree with.
Logically, being gay should not be a sin

But why does God care about what gays do? Why should we not just leave them alone and treat them like normal people? God shouldn't give a crap about what I do in my personal time. Again, freewill. It's not "freewill" if you're going to hell for being gay. It's called "freewill" because I can do what I want without worrying about punishment. Hell is punishment. Eternal punishment. If someone is gay, but they are the kindest person in the world (hypothetically) then why does that person go to hell? Because God doesn't like what they do with their life of "freewill" that he gave them? Why should a kind atheist go to hell when someone from the Westboro Baptist Church goes to heaven?Why should I not get another breath of air? Because God gave me life? That's extremely stupid. It's like a father saying,"Hi son, I'm going to have to kill you now because I helped create you." It makes no sense."Freewill" is a bunch of crap, we have sin, so we don't have freewill. God had the power to stop people being gay when he created Adam. He didn't, so why should that count against us?
Logically, being gay should not be a sin

Knowing man would sin did not excuse man from the penalty of sin. That is why we die. You can't blame God for sin. You can try, but it won't change your guilt. Anybody who engages in sexual acts outside of marriage should be ashamed of themselves, and homosexual acts are particularily dirty. You will probably win this debate by blaming God for your sin or for other peoples sin and trying to use your existence as an excuse for your behaviour, but you can never justify yourself and you can never justify or excuse sin. Most people want to blame God for their sin by saying "God made me this way", and shirk responsibilty for their own behaviour, telling themselves they are only human and nobody is perfect and garbage like that in order to fool themselves into thinking sin is normal behaviour.Logically, none of us should get one more breath of air because we all deserve to die now. Life is a gift from God. Excusing sin, excusing sodomy or women burning in their lust with each other is wicked. Pedophiles thing sex with kids should be ok, sodomites think butt buddies is good, whores think prostitution should not be a sin, Incestuous fathers think it should not be a sin to have sex with their daughters, and sodomites think they should not be told what they are doing is wrong. Wicked. Nasty dirty stuff. This stuff makes my skin crawl to think about. I really don't even like talkign about it, but homos who are trying to deny their guilt and blame their feelings of shame on other people are always want to air their garbage publicly and try to force people like me to say it's ok so they don't feel too bad about the disgusting way they are abusing their bodies.
Logically, being gay should not be a sin

First off, the Bible is fair game. It will be assumed completely true. I apologize for my earlier comment. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just keep reading. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and gave humans freewill. freewill- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion[1]omnipotent- (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything[2]omniscient- knowing everything[3]Now, when God created man, he would've known that there would be gay people, because he's omniscient. He did nothing with his unlimited power to stop it, and then he gave humans freewill. Logically, his creations should've been able to build their civilizations without any worry of their god punishing them, but then God goes and makes being gay a sin, even though beforehand he knew there'd be gay people and done nothing to stop it. Sources:[1]-. https://www.google.com...[2]-https://www.google.com...[3]-https://www.google.com...
Logically, being gay should not be a sin

"Being gay" implies being an unrepentant sodomite. All sex outside of marriage is sin. No matter if homos get laws passed saying they can be married to the same sex, it is not marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman to come together as one flesh. A man and a man can nevver be anything other than two men. A woman and a woman can never be anything other than two women. A man and a woman become one flesh in marriage. Homosexual acts are an abominable (Bible word) perversion of God's gift in abusing sexual pleasures. It always has been sin, always is sin, and always will be sin. If you don't like calling it sin, that's your problem. It's sin. I'm not going to bother quoting the Bible passages from Romans and Leviticus that clearly point to homosexual acts as being abominations. God's Word is God's Word and you don't get to be the one who changes it to accomodate your or anybody else's sin.
Logically, being gay should not be a sin

I don't think that being gay should be a sin in Christianity. In this debate, I will hold the complete burden of proof, and the existence of the Christian god will be assumed correct.Debate Setup:Round 1- Acceptance/Opening StatementsRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Final Rebuttals/Closing Statements(Rebuttals may be made at any point)Good luck to my opponent.
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down (perhaps or perhaps not in the most delightful way).

my opponent also says that "sure the flavourless medicince must have tasted horrid". first up i would like to poitn out you sir are an idiot. as flavourless things have no taste ! my opponent thinks that sugar does not help the medicine go down , i would like to challange my opponent when he says mary poppins has no logic and no evidence , surely that a women who is capable of flying using an umbrella and landing it with the percsion of a helicopter pilot and can also make a house spotless in minutes and break out into wonderful compelling songs and get the general public to join in at random in public parks , must have some logic without explination. As mary poppins is an expert in her field of work (supper nanny). She of course knows what she is talking about , i would like to see my opponents creditals for mis-crediting her , as she is far more qualified in that field of work. further more apart from mary poppins being mentally insane , she is right when she says it helps it go down . As she is undoubtly refering to the taste , making it easier to swallow , nowhere does she say its actually good for you. you say you refer totodays modern medicine , my response is that if you have medicince that actually works and has no bad taste to it you are quite clearly a witch and should be burned at the stake. also my opponent suggests that you should vote for him , I think that anybody who votes for him is of obviously a flamming homosexual or an idiot , perhaps both. I urge all straight people to vote for me , along with all smart people , because if you dont im going to laugh at you and call you childish names of course.
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down (perhaps or perhaps not in the most delightful way).

I noticed the lack of evidience in Ms. Mary Poppin's logic. I apologize to many of you, I realize that only one as cynical as I would insuate that a childrens movie has a lack of depth and logic. It just struck me that this could be an interesting debate, as I'm sure many of you will come to find out that it will. I will begin by making observations, then moving on to my opening (and final) arguement. Observation 1: Any sugar in the medicine is considered a part of the medicine and should not be counted as a seperate entity. Sugar is often used as a sweetener for unsavory, bland, or tasteless commodities. With today's modern medicine, we can enhance medicine to make it taste more appealing. I will admit, the flavorless medicine in her day may have been horrid, but we are talking about today, right now. It is not recommened that you give children pure sugar, because with all of the diseases the little rugrats have (ha, excuse the laugh please. Moving on), they may have a serious medical reaction to it. Aside from those not-so-rare-anymore cases, sugar would still only provide a masking taste to it, and not one that even compares to enhanced tasting medicine. Not only that, but it doesn't really help it go down, it just helps with the taste.
Same-Sex Marriage ought to legalized and regulated by the United States Government.

Problems with my opponent’s case I would like to point out that my opponent has refused to participate in this debate despite my messaging and post in the comments to inform him of the role he must take in this debate, via the rules/introduction piece. As I pointed out at the beginning of the debate this was to be a Lincoln Douglas Google Hangout debate and he has refused to participate on both accounts. It cannot be a simple mistake because he has not only refused contact (despite him being online 2 days ago, and I sent the message immediately after he posted) but also avoided anything similar to a Lincoln Douglas Debate case. The only thing close to a case that is posted is: “Yes it's fun Im gay and wana get married someday. Stop being a hateful pig. What are you some kinda homophobe?” Grammar errors aside, I would like to point out that this is not only offensive but pure ad hom fallacy. Being against a position based on rational thought isn’t an indication of some personal quality of the individual. My opponent has failed to show anything resembling an argument this round. Because my opponent has failed to participate in this debate, he has broken the rules and fundamentally (at least implicitly) forfeited. Furthermore, because I specifically stated that we were following LD format my opponent has broken many National Forensic League regulations so judges should flow his entire case to my side. My opponent cannot win this debate. I will post a value and criterion simply out of respect for Lincoln Douglas debate and what it represents. I apologize that I cannot post more due to lack of precipitation of the Affirmative case but I do not feel it is necessary due to the violation of the rules. So my value premise is justice, which I define as fairness. My criterion for evaluating justice is the LD rules and the integrity of debate.org. The reason I use this criterion is my opponent has violated both of these organizations rules. And we must be fair in judging both me and my opponent on the basis of both these rules. Therefore, my opponent must lose this debate.
Same-Sex Marriage ought to legalized and regulated by the United States Government.

This is a Google Hangout Debate.Resolution: Same-Sex Marriage ought to legalized and regulated by the United States Government.Traditional LD Format:The person who holds up there value ought to win points on the flow.Furthermore, criteron or criteron of judgement(at least the one who prevails) ought regulate the framework for the resolutionPrep time: 5 MinutesThe definitions shall be predefined in order to not waste time within the case.Definitions:Same-Sex Marriage: the governmental recognition of the union of two same-sex partnersOught:used to express obligationlegalized:Make permissible by lawregulate:Control or supervise by means of rules and regulations.United States Government: the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States
An Iceberg did NOT sink the Titanic, THE GERMANS SANK IT!!!!!

1) Grebecki Code-word"But how the hell would the Gerlish people hear them?"There arent a Gerlish people, because there isnt a country called Gerlistan or Gerlandia on any globe ive ever seen. 2) Torpedo or Artillary round?How the f*ck should I know which one it really was? The government covered it up and we cant observe the hole in the ship because its buried in mud in the bottom of the Atlantic. 3) Why target the Titanic?The reasons the Germans attacked a civilian ship two years before WWI broke out was because they were preparing for what was about to come. Germany was gearing up for a war and they were willing to fight, but the British were too much of a wuss to play ball, so the Germans had to antagonize them into war so they could kick their a**. The Titanic was perfect because it was carrying very famous wealthy British people who would have helped Britain fight, while at the same time it would have angered Britain into declaring war. Only problem was that there was allegedly an iceberg nearby and the iceberg was blamed for something it didnt do. 4) Iceberg pictures"Why not? crap is delicious."Well no one is going to dispute that but thats not what we are debating here. "You see, the Iceberg is from Pluto. It cannot be held captive. It would simply kill anyone who tried to arrest it, like it sank the Titanic "So suddenly this iceberg is now terminator? Its not invincible either, anything that can be killed from sitting in the sun too long is something that even I would mess with. Secondly the Titanic isnt a cop, its British so the correct term is constable, and they only carry around those childproof stick things which are about as intimidating as threatening a person with a stamp collection. "The people didn't know who Tyson was, and then this company named TYSON starts up. The iceberg was sent to warn people, and in the process sunk the Titanic."This still makes no sense at all and you dont even mention how it actually happened. ========================================================================================================================================================I rest my case that the Titanic was not the victim of an Iceberg, but instead was the first victim of WWI and was sunk by the Germans.
An Iceberg did NOT sink the Titanic, THE GERMANS SANK IT!!!!!

1) Pronunciation of GrebeckiWell of course it was mispronounced, it was meant to be mispronounced so that the British wouldnt let the German-Polish know they were on to them!!! You dont use the correct version of their own language and then hint that you know whats going on, you make your own versions of wars and speak in that and leave the other speakers baffled. Its the same thing when A white girl in Europe wants to buy something but she has no idea how to pronounce anything and all the European dudes think shes some dumb white girl (which she is) and they proceed on having semi-consensual sex with them. 2) How they spotted the submarine. German submarines at first didnt have torpedoes to launch at enemy ships, most of the early models simply had an artillery gun mounted on the front. The ship would surface, fire on a ship a few times, then hide back under the waters. 3) The Lusitania was sunk in 1915, well after tensions got high. Exactly, the Lusitania was sunk during WWI, Titanic was sunk before WWI, both by the Germans too. 4) Pictures of the iceberg - 1 - I dont trust a website that has the phrase "crap factory" in the URL address.... - 2 - If that is the iceberg, then why hasnt he been arrested? Is it because hes white? Are you saying that if the Iceberg was black the government would have arrested it for sinking the Titanic? I find that hard to believe, its more likely that if it were black it would have been arrested before 1912 for a crime it didnt commit. Are there any black icebergs serving jail time for crimes they didnt commit? No, therefore it can be concluded that the Germans sunk the Titanic as an act of war. ========================================================================================================================================================At this point it would appear that the Con's little sister hacked into his DDO account and tried to be funny....... Ill play along though. Pluto may or may not have tried to kill a scientist in the future by sending an iceberg through space to take care of the job, its possible because thats basically the exact same story line to the Terminator movies..... But even thr Pro says that the iceberg instead tried to kill off tyson food products, thus this doesnt at all explain how an iceberg sunk the Titanic, let alone an iceberg from Pluto.
An Iceberg did NOT sink the Titanic, THE GERMANS SANK IT!!!!!

Grebecki would be pronounced long e k eh b eh rg, so it has a different pronunciation than what it had to be to be iceberg backwards. {1} If no one could interpret it meaning grebeci backwards, what use was it? Also, how could the people in the lookout post be able to spot the U-Boat? The Lusitania was sunk in 1915, well after tensions got high. On to the coverup. 1. The iceberg was never caught. http://www.slightlywarped.com... {2} 2.We cannot see the hole that sunk the Titanic. Yes, but we can see photographs of the ICEBERG. ========================================================================= Onto my case ========================================================================= Look at this picture: http://www.slightlywarped.com... Pluto is mostly rock and ice. You see, Niel DeGrasse Tyson, the man that wanted to revoke Pluto's title as a planet, was born in 1958. That is 46 years after the Titanic sank. You see, Pluto is actually sentient, and sent out the iceberg in 1908 to warn people of what would come in fifty years. He figured that people would take it as a sign from the gods, and that the people would kill Niel before he was born (Pluto is Pro Force.). The iceberg actually had "Kill Tyson" inscribed on it, but people didn't know what it meant. As the Titanic was nearing the Iceberg from pluto, the people sent out the message. People thought that it meant Kill Tyson Food products, which resulted in a nation-wide protest when someone made Tyson a brand. As you can see, Pluto is god. Back to you, Pro. {1} http://www.ehow.com... {2} http://www.slightlywarped.com...
An Iceberg did NOT sink the Titanic, THE GERMANS SANK IT!!!!!

This is part of Cheesedingo1's troll debate tournament, the resolution is stated above. I will be arguing that the Titanic did not sink from being hit by an iceberg, instead it was sunk by a German submarine in 1912 as an early act of hostility against the British for World War 1. I am pro this resolution, con is against this resolution. Let the debate begin >:)
An Iceberg did NOT sink the Titanic, THE GERMANS SANK IT!!!!!

"There arent a Gerlish people, because there isnt a country called Gerlistan or Gerlandia on any globe ive ever seen. " Because it is Gerland, not Gerlistan you idiot. "How the f*ck should I know which one it really was? The government covered it up and we cant observe the hole in the ship because its buried in mud in the bottom of the Atlantic. " So you don't know how it was sunk. "The reasons the Germans attacked a civilian ship two years before WWI broke out was because they were preparing for what was about to come. Germany was gearing up for a war and they were willing to fight, but the British were too much of a wuss to play ball, so the Germans had to antagonize them into war so they could kick their a**. The Titanic was perfect because it was carrying very famous wealthy British people who would have helped Britain fight, while at the same time it would have angered Britain into declaring war. Only problem was that there was allegedly an iceberg nearby and the iceberg was blamed for something it didnt do. " Why the f*ck didn't Germany wait, then launch an invasion on Britian? Why would they loose the element of a first big blow? "Why not? cr*p is delicious. " Point conceded. "So suddenly this iceberg is now terminator? Its not invincible either, anything that can be killed from sitting in the sun too long is something that even I would mess with. Secondly the Titanic isnt a cop, its British so the correct term is constable, and they only carry around those childproof stick things which are about as intimidating as threatening a person with a stamp collection. " . http://articles.orlandosentinel.com... American cops get killed wayyyy more often. Also, the iceburg melts when it wants to return to its master, not just when mr. derpy sun says so. " This still makes no sense at all and you dont even mention how it actually happened. " Ok, lemme simplify it. Pluto no planet anymore. Pluto mad. Pluto try to tell people to kill Tyson. Titanic accidentally hits iceberg. Eye witness tells media that the iceberg had "KILL TYSON " written on it. Tyson chicken gets protested instead.
Using Occam's Razor, Christianity is more likely than Atheism

:) I would also like to apologize in advance for my lack of spelling grammar and punctuation. ,! ?' What I lack in the above areas I try to make up for with logic and sincerety and passion! Onto the acceptance. Interpretations of Occams Razor, -Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - -when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. - -We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. - - Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses. - -If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along- The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations. - -If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest. - -The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. - -keep things simple- Terms BOP burden of proof, logic dictates BOP falls on the person making estrodnary claims. I hope pro accepts my interpretations of Occams Razor and look forward to his argument :)
Using Occam's Razor, Christianity is more likely than Atheism

Well pro's claim of christanity being more likely than atheism using Occam's Razor is simply false and literally fails the definition and interpretations of Occam's Razor as stated in round 1. The simplest answer is the most likely. An atheist- we had to come from somthing/somewhere -insert- favorite theory (here) somthing had to always exist! A Christan - we had to come from something/somewhere. God made us braking multiple laws of physics (well that dosnt matter God made the laws) we came from God. A Christan - where did God come from? - now from here you can say he was always here or w/e but the Christans are already 2 questions in! Making them more complicated and thru Occams Razor this makes atheism more likely. I will elaborate more if needed and feel I have debuffed pros argument :)