BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion isn't true but serves a purpose.

C1:Bin Laden wanted to destroy the US economy because of American/Western actions against Muslims. This included Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (Islam's holy land), US support of Israel (a Jewish nation), and sanctions against Iraq (a Muslim nation). (1) Therefore, it is undeniable Islam was more than just rallying cry, but the main reason for the 9/11 attack. Therefore, if Islam didn't exist there is a good chance the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have happened. Not to mention all the other terror attacks inspired by religion (cited in my previous argument.) By the way, R1:I never once mentioned how Islam keeps people in poverty. However, it may be worth noting that many of these First World nations, which have historically been religious, are seeing religiosity in decline. In fact, religious people have become the minority in some of these countries. This graph has 7 examples of First World countries seeing religion in decline (Ireland, Switzerland, France, Iceland, United States, Canada, and Austria), 4 of them where religious people have become the minority (5)(4): Gregory Paul, a palaeontologist who did research on this has, a reason for this. He said religion's "a psychological coping mechanism" (5) and that "religion is most able to thrive in seriously dysfunctional societies." (5)C2:Pro does not address the certain examples of discrimination due to religion brought up in my previous argument. I never once mentioned the KKK either. Even if not all Muslims agree with Sharia Law, it is by definition "the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; sharia is only applicable to Muslims." (2) Therefore, Sharia Law would not exist without Islam. Also, asserting Saudi Arabia is a theocracy further proves my point. A theocracy by definition is "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." (3) Therefore, if no one believed in God, there wouldn't be theocracies. Even if Muslims are in theory suppose to like Christians it doesn't matter, because the example in Egypt shows a Muslim majority oppressing a Christian minority, which wouldn't occur without religion, because the people wouldn't be as divided. R2:There is little reason to assume that help groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, wouldn't exist without religion. However, all the examples I provided wouldn't occur without religion or would occur a lot less.1-http://en.wikipedia.org...2-http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3-http://dictionary.reference.com...4-http://www.theblaze.com...5-http://www.cbc.ca...
The topic is TBA

First I would like to define the word "celebrity". According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, a celebrity refers to a famous or well-known person. I further define well-known as 1.clearly or fully known 2.generally or widely known According to the same dictionary. Therefore, celebrities possess either positive images and/or negative ones. What connects all of these people is their fame, and it is the only "quality" they share in common. ______________________________________ Rebuttal: My opponent stated that celebrities are wealthy, and often viewed as successful in their category, they enjoy a fabulous life, and they are typically business minded. While I am shocked by this wild guess, I am equally disappointed to find my opponent contradicting his own statement. "… the topic doesn't specify a particular celebrity or country," It is true that the topic is a comprehensive statement, it refers to everyone in the ‘celebrity' category, that is, while there are those who are wealthy and successful, there are also those who are impoverished and defeated; while there are those who enjoy fabulous life, there are also those who check in to rehab once a month; while there are those who are business minded, there are also those who are not. These statements of my opponent are unproved and false, therefore his contentment is not valid. "We want our children to be wealthy and successful, We want our children to live life to the fullest, We want our children to enjoy financial stability and a successful career." True, but again, celebrities are not necessarily wealthy/successful/live life to the fullest/etc. Therefore, our children should not look up to anyone who is well-known as the motion suggested. My opponent stated that "Not all celebrities are bad, most of them are good." First I disagree that most of them are good, unless there were solid proof, instead of sheer personal opinion. Other than that I believe that my opponent was right, because he agreed that some of the celebrities are bad, and that is why the motion should not stand. ____________________________________ Contention I would not deny that there are some worthy famous people out there, but what we should consider in the topic, is that some of the celebrities are bad, as agreed by my opponent. While that is a truth, I don't see that why we should make someone our children's role model simply because of the fact that this person is well-known. The motion is a comprehensive statement. Let's not forget about this. When we look into the worthiness of celebrities, there is only one thing that is to be considered, and that is their fame. Because when we consider whether or not these people are rich, successful, business-minded, an inconsistency is present.
The topic is TBA

Similiar to previous debates. The debate should occur in the following format: • Round One:: CON offers 3-5 different resolutions. All of the topics must be different (ie I don't want a debate about abortion put into five different phrases) and PLEASE make the topics interesting! • Round two: I will choose a topic and ask clarification, if needed. Con will answer any clarification questions and leave it at that. • Rounds three/four/five: The debate!
Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

The goal of universal background checks is, ostensibly, to prevent easy access of firearms by criminals through gun show, Internet, and private sale/lending transactions. To reach this goal, each of the transactions listed above would be subject to the current FBI background check system. I hold that this law, as written, would not contribute to an aggregate reduction in gun crime and would unreasonably scrutinize the law abiding citizens of the United States of America. Round 1 is to accept; 2,3,&4 for rebuttals and 5 will be closing arguments.
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

The second round forfeit is forgiven and should be dismissed in voting. However, it has had some effects on this debate that I will fix using this round. Firstly, I would have been able to respond to his rebuttal, secondly, many of the points made by pro are in response to a round he would not have been able to respond to. Given the second effect of this, I feel it best to respond here briefly. I will not go into the depth I otherwise would have and will quickly jump into my conclusion. This seems like the kindest way to deal with the balance shift of this debates format. Brief rebuttal: pro said that I "[claimed] that [Pro had] avoided the ... question of whether or not our 'focus' is guilty of murder." I in fact stated that "Pro says ... that [the 'focus'] is guilty of murder." In my opening statement, I meant intent by the non-law definition, defining it as desire and not intent.[1] If you define his malice as intent, than shouldn't he be fully guilty and not "low"? Conclusion This debate has two questions: is the 'focus' guilty of murder, and should intent drive our decision? He is not guilty of murder, not because he didn't intend to kill his friend, but because of the action of someone else. Intent, because of this, should not be the driving factor in our decision. The first scenario is best concluded by Pro himself, "He can choose to ignore these hijackers commands." So, he intends, for what ever reason, good or bad, to kill his friend. So why is he not guilty? Because it is caused by, and a direct result of the hijackers action. As for the second and third scenario, the actions leading to the killing remains the same. Our 'focus' remains under duress.[2] The question, if we were to judge based on intent, is which one do we rule out: the intent to do harm or the intent to stop harm? Conclusively, neither should matter in the face of physical evidence and actions should define the guilt of our 'focus. If our 'focus' is guilty of anything, it's conspiracy to commit murder. This is because of his actions, and not his intent itself. Until something is acted upon in some way, it is only consideration, thought-crime. It is when actions are taken, whether to fulfill a plan or the fulfillment itself that guilt is administered. Before that, it's inconsequential and makes no difference to society. Intent is abstract, and people should be judged for what they do -- the mark they leave on society. Governments have been made and people have been kept alive some times because of ill intent. Tyrants have gained power and many have died because of their good intent. In this case, the intent of the 'focus' is inconsequential when faced with the actions he had taken and a judgement of guilt, not one of murder but conspiracy to do so can be made do to those actions.
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

Given the circumstances of the previous forfeit, I will grant pro the next round for rebuttals. That being said, I will remain in format. The question that seems to be asked is if our 'focus' is guilty of committing murder. The moral question has been very much avoided by Pro, and his scenario two explanation very much is based in an external standpoint. So is he guilty of murder? No. Pro's scenario two explanation begs the question, "Does emotion equate to guilt?" If we're discussing guilt in the external sense, which it seems we are, it's difficult to accept that good intent outweighs an evil action. In the opposite effect, to change such view point is a bit of a double standard. Excuse the extreme example, but we wouldn't excuse Hitler for the holocaust, despite his intent to make Germany a better place. His intent was good, but his actions were evil. In this scenario, our focus' actions are arguably good, but his intent questionable. In the third scenario, his intent is good. No, that's not a typo, I meant "good." He was granted, by a situation that wasn't planned, good intent. Previously he had ill intent, but, now, the situation is no longer in his control. So the question posed, which one do we disregard: good intent, or bad intent? Pro says, good intent -- that the context of the situation doesn't matter, and that he is guilty of murder. I say, neither good or bad intent matters -- that intent is trumped by action. The 'focus' is not guilty of murder because the responsible person is the hijacker. What the Focus is guilty of is conspiracy to commit murder, not because he intended to, but because he acted in such a way that brings his intent to fruition. Intent is momentary. You can fail to act upon it. It's when you act upon it that guilt is given. This is the difference between consequences for actions, and thought-crime. Intent does not define guilt because it is different from action. Difference in action is why conspiracy to commit a crime and actually committing the crime have different charges. One defines action of preparation, and, the other, actually committing the crime.
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

Personal guilt, being left to one's own morality, is a fragile consideration. If I were to discuss the scenario in terms of the guilt felt by the "focus," I could simply make the argument that, as mentioned by another, he is a sociopath and therefore feels no guilt throughout. Li Si said once that "if one get's an opportunity, one should not be slow to seize it." So, is it reasonable to believe he felt guilt after driving Qin's Second Generation Emperor to suicide when faced with the opportunity to gain power?[1] So, I shall argue guilt as a public prospect in fairness to my kind opponent. "People will curse you for kind deeds, just like evil deeds."[Niccolo Machiavelli] The deeds of men are often judged regardless of intent. In the case of the scenario laid out, the concept of justifiable homicide comes into play. An argument can be made that, despite his reasoning, his intent still remains, in that moment, to shoot his friend. Does this intent make him guilty? No one disputes that it doesn't. The blame is unanimously placed in the hijacker's hands. In the second scenario, the prospect of malice comes into play. But, Malice does not equate to intent, so my reasoning remains very much the same. It's not until the third scenario that the parameters shift -- that the question changes; despite his intent is he guilty? If the plane landed and he went through with the murder, he would be guilty for the murder, but as far as the scenario, the blame remains with the hijacker. Let's consider this question from both the public and personal prospect of guilt. If we consider this action from a personal standpoint, he intended to kill him, so why would he carry any guilt with him, being morally sound within himself? From a public standpoint, he saved a plane full of people. His intent holds no value in such discussion, remaining entirely within himself and having nothing to do with the actions that took place. The blame, or guilt, remains entirely with the person who is responsible for the actions -- the hijacker. Throughout each scenario, the guilt remains with the person responsible for the action, and intent is rather inconsequential to the events that occur. Intent is not the driving force of guilt in this scenario. [1] Sima Qian: The First emperor (Selections from the Historical Records)
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

I am going to go ahead and post my opening statement now, I hope that it still gives you plenty of time. I am rather busy tomorrow and don't want to miss the deadline. I am arguing for the Pro stance in this debate. I believe that the level of guilt changes in each scenario. In this debate guilt and guilty shall be recognized as the same. (Guilt being a measurement of guiltiness) For scenario one:In this instance I would argue that the man is not guilty. In this scenario he is forced into a position where he must choose between the lives of the many and the lives of the few. (A common exercise and one that I will, for this debate, treat as a guilt-free decision) This therefore removes any level of guilt from him, because he cannot in good conscience allow the rest of the plane to die and must do what he can to save them. (I believe another scenario that can effectively show his lack of guilt would be sending the few to fight a war for the many, knowing they will most likely die. You are not guilty of murdering the few because it is for the safety of the many. ) Guilt: None For scenario two: In this scenario I would argue that the man is slightly more guilty. Although he does not take any action to murder his friend himself, the man is still less remorseful for killing his friend and therefore is more guilty than in the first scenario. Guilt: Low For scenario three: In this scenario I would argue that the man is guilty of murdering his friend. He plans on murdering his friend, prepares for it, and hours before he can he is granted the "good fortune" that he gets to murder his friend with an excuse. In this scenario I would say that full guilt is on him. Although the hijackers forced him to kill his friend he still would have done so without such compulsion. Guilt: Full This is my main argument, I tried to keep it short and sweet for readers. I can't wait to hear yours and wish you luck as we move into the actual debate. I would like to remind my opponent to save their rebuttal for the next round and use this round only for your main arguments.
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

looking forward to this! I'm a little busy with school, so forgive me if my opening statement isn't very long. If you could wait until the last hour before posting, that would be great time for me to balance my opening statement and my schoolwork. Any round other than first, you can feel free to post whenever (as I'll be rebutting), and if you decide you don't want to chance the clock, that's also alright, I just want to give you the best I can when what time I can! ^_^ Good luck!
Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

I wanted to present a philosophical exercise that I'm sure a few have already heard or gone through before. Scenario One: A man goes on a trip with his wife and their friend. While on the plane, mid-flight, a group of men hijack the plane and take control. One of these men forces a gun to our focus' head and hands him a gun. He then tells our focus that he has to shoot his friend or the whole plane will be blown out of the sky. Our focus then shoots his friend in order to save everyone else. Is he guilty of murder? Is his friend's death on his hands? Does him saving the plane outweigh his murder? I want you to think about that for a second before moving onto scenario 2. Scenario Two: This scenario all follows the same path as the first, however, there are a few extra details to consider. Before the man, his wife, and their friend leave for their trip he discovers that his friend has been having an affair with his wife. He does not plan to confront his friend until after the trip (it was already planned), but he hates him enough that he wish his friend would just die. The scenario then plays out as the first and he ends up killing his friend upon being forced by the hijackers. Is he guilty now? Should he hold at least some guilt? Think on this scenario before moving onto the third and final scenario. Scenario Three: This scenario follows very similarly to the second, however in this scenario the man, our focus, plans on killing his friend soon after the plane lands. He prepares to murder his friend, having everything ready at their destination. However, the plane is hijacked and he is instead "forced" to kill his friend on the plane. Is he now guilty of murder? Does the focus' guilt increase with each scenario, or does his level of guilt remain the same throughout? The debate I would like to have is whether or not the man's intent in each scenario changes how his guilt is determined. Is he more guilty with each scenario, or does his guilt remain the same throughout?I will be taking the position of pro.Pro: His guilt changes with each scenario.Con: His guilt remains the same. Rules:1. First Round is for acceptance only (If you have questions on terms let me know with acceptance)2. Not forfeiting3. Be respectful, site your sources or post the links at the end of each round, make clear, valid points. 4. No trolling. (This is a semi-serious debate, I want you to think logically and critically but there is no need for sources and opinion is the main deal here.)Format: Round 1: Acceptance of debateRound 2: Intro into your argumentRound 3: Counter-Argument/Further main points, use this round to further your main points or in order to argue against my main points. Round 4: Conclusion and closing statements
The God of the Bible is the most merciful God in all of established religion

I see that you are passionate, you have a lot of emotions inside of you that make you write such long, unorganized, rant-like blocks of text, filled with hatred and insults to the brim. I have seen you on your YouTube channel, and I believe there is some good left in you. I want to debate you, I want to answer every question that you have, but I can not do so unless you choose to present your points in an organized, point by point manner, that I can address very clearly without spending the entire day doing it.Right now, I could spend the entire day taking apart your blocks of text and answering everything that you mention. I have time, but I don't have that amount of time. It would be perfectly fine if you could limit your points to 3 per round, and exclude all emotions that you may have from the text (no insults, name calling, and so on).
The God of the Bible is the most merciful God in all of established religion

"I refuted a video that you posted, and you took absolutely no notice." Wow. See that's EXACTLY to the letter why you are... either a point blank liar, or you simply can't read which isn't a surprise as its what christians do when they have their backs stabbed against the wall with 0 outs. You in fact did not in any way refute the one video that you attempted to because I back slammed your sorry butt right against it so you would have 0 outs to respond in return. And regardless, one video? Big whoop. I presented 10 videos for you whimsical meow mix tired brain to refute. Oh and naturally you picked what you thought would be the easiest one to refute but naturally, like the unedumacated unscientific and not knowing anything at all about mathematics, you failed completely and THAT was proven in the previous round in which you did not refute or are a point blank liar. Bye.
The God of the Bible is the most merciful God in all of established religion

"You wrote a response, before you even finished reading mine - why would you do that?" All I did was base my tracks on your utter lack of evidence and me pouring it on because I do have evidence. A lot of it. And the thing that makes me know that this person doesn't know at all what he/she does not know a single word about what he/she is talking about is that he/she can only talk about ---one--- subject. AND its a losing end for his/her/ perspective. Not only that but seriously? Your excuse, and it truly horrific at best is "I mean, you're handing me +1 hours of videos to listen to, where the authors name argument after argument. No one has the time to address all of that." In which I don't buy for a single second. Um no. Because oh yes, you absolutely do. You like sooooooo many christians, who state that they are christians, but in reality ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY BE A CHRISTIAN and that's according to the bible in which you have clearly NOT READ, cannot handle a single ounce of evidence especially when handed to you right front and center from your bible and you simply don't believe it. And you know what? Then perhaps you shouldn't sign up for any debate if you cannot handle actual evidence rather than complaining about it. Now as stated you need to come up with some evidence in order for this conversation to continue, and not just enter the dragon same thing time and time again. Refute A LOT of the verses from RD1.
The God of the Bible is the most merciful God in all of established religion

You wrote a response, before you even finished reading mine - why would you do that?In my very first point, I explain that species are not a part of the flood story - and what do I see you write? You write, and I quote: "GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard."Perhaps you are correct, I can not argue with such an intelligent person as yourself.