BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anti-Bullying

The example with the kid and the clothes was not that the child liked to wear the same clothes every day, but that he had no other clothes and therefor no other option of attire.. "I know, I like them" was the childs outlook on his circumstance. My point being, it would have been "bullying" if the kid started crying and told the teacher he was being bullied. My problem with the term "Anti-bullying" and its 0 tolerance policy is that it is not case specific, primarily in the school system. I've personally witnessed many back and forth incidents in elementary school that lasted for weeks, both were guilty of "bullying", but only one was punished because after escalation by both parties one reached their breaking point and told the principal on the other. They both actively participated in the "bullying", but one became a victim when he realized he was losing this game of insults and no longer wanted it to continue. The victim was just as guilty as the "bully". I've seen this more times than I can count in grades 1-8. Hypothetical comparison: We are next to eachother at a red light when you ask me, or I ask you, to a street race. We both agree and are off to the races.. at first the race is even but I start to pull ahead. Not willing to lose and angry at me, you call the police reporting my license plate for speeding. I get pulled over and arrest for doing the same thing you did, and could have as easily called the police on you and watched you get arrested. This is the same idea as someone who goes back and forth with someone until they can't win or are upset and report being "bullied". To further reiterate a previous point I will provide a real life example. For some reason 2 girls are bullying 2 other girls. They go back and forth, calling each other names and saying nasty things about each other for weeks. Finally, one of the girls is found dead because of the attention and reaction they have all equally added to the situation. Now the girl that was being bullied, and bullying along with the other girl , is still alive and they all realize how foolish the whole situation was. Except it doesn't end there.. The two girls who bullied the girl who killed herself are charged as criminals and go to jail for 5 years. Is that right? Is that just? If the two "bullies" killed themselves, before the girl who killed herself did, than the victim would be on her way to jail. Now lets take this one step further.. the girl who killed herself comes from a broken home, was recently cheated on, and was failing out of school. None of these factors or the people responsible for them go to jail, but the person who returned the straw that broke the camels back does. To create a social war on "Anti-bullying" is a lot like "The War on Terror", a lot of innocent people are unjustly caught in the cross hairs.
Anti-Bullying

Bullying is more among teens and students now days. However I get where you are coming from that if I were to call you ugly and you wouldn't care and if you told me the same thing I wouldn't care their. However teens are still psychologically wondering who they are and how they are suppose to fit in. At this time in their life they are very vulnerable; I am not sure If understood you correctly about your side but if a student is constantly being picked at and no one is standing up for them and or they got tired of standing up for themselves eventually they will start to believe they are ugly. I don't think it's right for a student to be singled out because something is different about them that people don't like. Now if a kid likes to wear the same clothes everyday that's their choice but it doesn't give anyone the right to treat them like crap.
Anti-Bullying

Let me begin by saying I do not advocate "bullying". I do not believe an adult can bully someone, to me that is harassment. I believe the focus is on children, so..What is bullying? Is it saying something with the intent of hurting someones feelings? If so, what if the subject of the comments is uneffected.. does that mean "bullying" didn't take place? What if there is a poor 4th grader who is always wearing the same clothes and one of his classmates says "you always wear the same clothes"? Is that bullying.. does it depend on how the individual reacts to the comment. Two scenarios: A.) The child burst into tears and tells the teacher he is being "bullied." B.) The child responds "I know, I like them." Personally, I believe bullying is based by the individuals response. You could call me ugly and I won't care.. but call the wrong girl ugly and she will kill herself. Well, what if I am ugly and have accepted it. What If i am ugly and know it but haven't accepted it? When you call me ugly your being honest, but call and equally ugly individual ugly and you are now a criminal and a bully because they are mentally weak and killed themselves. My point is, it's only bullying if it effects the individual.. and that leaves a lot of desecration in the individual. People like to say bullying is about power, but I believe there is now more power in the "victim". It's not right that the same statement can make you honest or a criminal. "Bullying" is the only time you can be penalized for speaking because someone didn't like what you said (Outside from threats).. and I do not agree with that.
Anti-Bullying

I am completely against bullying like many people should. However high school students are still doing it. I am for having assemblies in high school to make students aware of what could happen to a student who is being bullied. Online bullying is a major issue now days and schools do not have any say on what doesn't happen on their grounds so I feel like parent's should and need to talk to their kids about bullying and how it's wrong. Disagree?
Lamest Joke Competition

Two peanuts walk into a bar. One is a salted. A dog hobbles into a saloon with a bandaged leg, and growls, 'Am lookin fer the man that gawn done shot ma paw... Did you hear about the optometrist that fell into a lens grinder and made a spectacle of himself? Doctors tell us that there are over 7 million people overweight. These, of course, are only round figures... Statisticians say 'mean' things. When Mr Sip's wife steps into the restroom, does Mississippi? Why couldn't the hen find her eggs? She mislaid them. A man sent in ten entries to a newspaper's pun contest in the hopes that one would win. Sadly, No pun in ten did... A man and his wife were having an argument about who should brew the coffee each morning. The wife said, "You should do it, because you get up first, and then we don't have to wait as long to get our coffee". The husband said, " You are in charge of the cooking around here and you should do it, because that is your job, and I can just wait for my coffee." Wife replies, "No you should do it, and besides it is in the Bible that the man should do the coffee." Husband replies, " I can't believe that, show me." So she fetched the Bible, and opened the New Testament and shows him at the top of several pages, that it indeed says: "HEBREWS" Source: http://my.opera.com...
Lamest Joke Competition

The purpose of this debate is to find the lamest joke. I urge those of you reading to stop now because I assure you this won't be funny. there are three simple rules. The first is that all of the jokes must in fact be jokes. They can't be real stories or anything like that. The second rule is that it can be any type of joke. Yo momma, story jokes, etc. You get to pick. And the last is that if you need to exceed the limit of characters, then go ahead. leave them in the comment box, and nobody will hold it against you. I wish you luck, and I will begin. A little old lady was in her pink house in her pink living room in pink clothes reading her book pink pink pink. Outside a traveler broke down outside the pink house and walked up the pink steps to the pink door rang the pink doorbell and waited for the lady in pink to answer. So the lady in pink answered and gave the traveler a room for the night. She said that your room is down the pink hall down the pink stairs to the first pink door on your left. So the traveler went down the pink hall, down the pink steps and to the first pink door on the left. The lady then went back to her pink living room and continued reading her book pink pink pink. Then another traveler had the same luck breaking down outside the pink house. So he walked up the pink steps to the pink door and rang the pink doorbell. The lady in pink answered and said that he too could spend the night in the pink house. So she told him that his room was down the pink hallway down the pink steps and was the first pink door on the right. So the traveller went down the pink hallway down the pink steps and to the first pink door on the hallway. Then the lady in pink went back to her pink living room and continued her book pink pink pink. As chances may have it, another traveler broke down in front of the pink house. So the traveler went up the pink steps to the pink door and rang the pink doorbell. The lady in pink answered and said that he also could spend the night in the pink house. She said that his room was down the pink hallway down the pink stairs and was the second pink door on the right. So he went down the pink hallway down the pink stairs and went to the second pink door on the right to go to sleep. So then the lady in pink went back to her pink living room and finished her book pink pink pink. The next morning the three travelers awoke in their pink rooms. They went out their pink doors, up the pink stairs down the pink hallway through the pink living room into the pink kitchen where the lady in pink asked what they wanted to eat. Traveler one said cheerios, traveler two said wheaties, and traveler three said cheerios as well. The moral of this story is that two out of three people prefer cheerios over wheaties... Thank you and good luck.
The God of the Bible is mostly evil

I apologize for the wait in between rounds. I have been super busy and have learn a major lesson—don’t have too many debates at one time! No, we should not have allowed the Holocaust to happen because from an objective moral stance, what Hitler did was evil. My opponent can't really say what is evil and what is good because he has nothing to base it upon except society. I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point. Basically, you are using what is known in philosophy as the “Objective moral argument for the existence of God. ” In case you do not know what that is, it states this:1. If objective morals exist, then God exists2. Objective morals exist3. Therefore, God exists. However, this argument fails miserably because there is no ground for the 1st argument! The very first point fails! Does God have to be the author of objective morality? If you can prove that God has to be the author of objective morality, then you have a won debate. However, you cannot prove that. Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. So, if God is all good and all perfect, then how could he possibly allow slavery? But who created sin? If you think about it—God did! this article admits that God did not create sin because he is holy and cannot create sin. http://carm.org... (from a reputable, Christian source. )Let me provide some Biblical and logical evidence that God created sin. The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.1 Corinthians 15:6this begs the question: Who created the law? Well, as we clearly see throughout the entire Bible—GOD CREATED THE LAW! This verse is saying that the law is sin’s strength—i. e. without the law, there is no sin; God created the law, therefore he created sin. God permitted slavery because of sin; however, God created sin as we clearly see. Back to you, con. Good luck!
Console gaming better then PC gaming

Round 1 will be introducing yourself 2 will be controls of a game 3 will be the raw power 4 will be the price. I am a console gamer and a PC gamer I prefer consoles since I'm better with a controller. But now a days if a game is also on PC every so often a PC gamer will come on waiting for his PC to be fixed or something and call us peasants,noobs,etc. when that happens I get mad and say why consoles suck so much a pro for consoles is that you can sit on your couch and play a game in minutes.
Console gaming better then PC gaming

By price I mean "bang for your buck" a high tier PC usually costs 600-700$. When consoles cost 400-500$ (depending on PS4 or xbox 1) and can easily be affordable. Soon the med-grade PCs will have to force a upgrade costing at least 100$. Both gaming types have pros and cons PC has great titles like outlast (and yes I know it's coming for PS4 but still) but has to have a 100$ upgrade every few years which is forced. Consoles have portability and entertainment in mind.
Console gaming better then PC gaming

You make valid points while some of what you said was right if you actually use a PC for gaming in particular you would generally build it to fit your needs building a computer outfitted for gaming can be expensive. yet it lasts longer then most consoles are out a lot of games on PC can be modded as well. PC games have the added help of laptops an alien-ware laptop outfitted correctly can run new game at full speed and are portable the only problem being battery life. PC's can take an onslaught of abuse and keep kicking while something like having it uneven can kill a console (Unless it's N64 they can't break) as consoles progress so does the modern PC they also become cheaper.
Console gaming better then PC gaming

The PC has the raw power HOWEVER in the consoles defense they are overall cheaper then a PC that can run games like BattleField or Crisis 3 at the expense of having slightly less RAM. However with the next-gen consoles, consoles and PCs have never been closer in terms of RAM another downside of the PC is that a upgrade in RAM comes every 6 months and in a few years many PC games will be unplayable with your RAM card forcing you to buy another card. Consoles however last longer in terms of playability from RAM and the PC upgrade coming up next won't have a large improvement over the current highest RAM card unlike consoles.
Console gaming better then PC gaming

The problem I have always found with console controllers is after time the joystick can become worn out and it makes using it a pain. also there is very little in the customization aspect of controls. Controllers with cords also have the downfall of wires tangling and being pulled on which can result in the controller breaking. Cordless controllers on the other hand don't have that downfall but can be pricey and tend to need new batteries or a recharge. for my final argument on this particular point keyboards can be quite cheap and last for years while controllers need to be replaced when broken or when a new console is bought and can cost quite a bit.
Deism is more rational than theism:

deism is not more rational than theism because in deism, it is believed that there is one omniscient god who does intervene, and in theism, there is belief in multiple gods. Theism is more rational because of a variety of things. There is a more cultural explanation for theism since practically, it makes more sense. The idea of an all-seeing god that does not intervene accepts the existence of god, but then there is no reason to even have a god. You mentioned how they both accept god, but if deism accepts a god but he doesn't intervene, what's the point? There's no use praying to the god or even relying on him since all he does in watch. It is also a big stretch so say the exact same god controls and sees EVERYTHING. In Theism, the idea that there are different gods that intervene makes much more sense. The different gods have their own specialties and powers, and people can choose which god to pray to depending on them and the situation. Different gods makes the religion more plausible as it makes the heaven seem more realistic. A heaven of different gods that control the universe and listen to you makes more sense than one god who doesn't listen or do anything. If the people choose which god to pray to, then it feels that there is a more individual and personal relationship with heaven, and this makes the people more connected to their religion and ideas. People will feel more connected to their god and therefore the heaven. (sorry for trolling btw)
Deism is more rational than theism:

I'm not gay, and even if I was, it would not invalidate my arguments. My opponent is just trolling, and so I will ignore it and proceed to make an argument:Deism and Theism both agree that there is a God- the difference is that Deists deny revelation whereas Theism is founded upon revelation. Deism is thus more rational than theism because theism consists in the belief in revelation, which requires you to just, without proof, take someones word for it that God talked to them, which is irrational.
"pedophile" its a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.My Contender merely tried to write two lines which no one other then him understand.He did not cared about the Rules and have not said a word about the title of debate.Still I will request Readers to do not consider this time and I will allow him to speak on the debate topic "If he wishes" otherwise He can fortify the Debate. Con's Response out of context. No Points Refuted Rules not observed Argument Extended. Thanks.
Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Your analogy of being punched multiple times is flawed. It's evidently clear that the human brain is constantly augmenting and mapping neural pathways as it reacts to stimuli. It's a giant neural network that is being fed stimuli from multiple sensory preceptors. So being punched multiple times and having a different thought to the repeated stimuli is not an earth shattering concept. Not to mention, Being punched in the same spot has a physiological affect in the area such as bruising and swelling. This reaction is triggered autonomously by the brain. Repeating stimuli is not necessarily going to give the same result every time. Carrot/stick conditioning I would argue is analogous to this as well. Can a thought or a concept exist without a mind? I would argue no, Because they are extensions of the physicality of the mind. Underlying biological functions manifest these abstract "entities", Or however you would like to label them. This is clear in EEG's and other tests that show the brain has a physiological reaction to things such as arithmetic, Empathy, Etc. These conceptual entities are extensions of biological processes in the brain. This is of course different from a logical absolute. Logical absolutes are still true regardless of whether there is a mind to conceive of them. An immaterial God, Unless we're referring to it as being a logical absolute or a conceived extension of the mind, Has no basis in reality and therefore does not exist by definition. If we are talking about the concept or the thought of an immaterial God, Sure, That abstract exists as an extension of the mind, But the entity it's referring to does not, Because it has no physicality in reality.
Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Your examples about shapes and numbers and arithmetic were hinged on the stapling argument that concepts are not material. I clearly conceded in my opening argument that there are things that exist, Such as a thought or concept (I literally spelled it out), That have no physicality and would be considered immaterial. I feel like you may have ignored that entirely and stormed on with your argument. We exist and reality is real, As we agreed. It seems to me that a concept is intrinsically dependent on the mind that creates it. Do we have any examples of concepts without a mind? I would contend that without a mind, Concepts would not exist. Our mind is physical, Therefore, Concepts are an extension of our physicality. Existence is an ontological, Empirically observable property of being, Referring to the ability of an entity to directly or indirectly, Interact with the reality. Concepts interact with reality through their extended physicality in our mind. Thoughts and concepts have physical neural directives that invoke biological function. Therefore, A thought can indirectly interact with reality and it meets the definition of existence. Does an immaterial God? You mentioned nothing else, Except an immaterial God. I can't conceive of a way in which that could interact with reality either directly or indirectly. If it does, Then it's detectable and would be considered to exist, Otherwise it doesn't exist by definition. You said, "If you desire to keep your focus on the Christian God, It would be all the same to me. " I would contend that it most certainly wouldn't, Because the Christian God is not the abstract immaterial most basic definition of a God imaginable. The Christian God intervenes with reality and has real natural effects on our reality that would be detectable scientifically. Sources: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Existence
Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

I'll try to keep my opening argument short and direct. We should start this off by clarifying what "God" we are talking about, As that really makes a drastic difference. In the comments I presupposed it was the Christian God, And you did not correct me. If this is some abstract deity that exists in some immeasurable way, Then it's not falsifiable. It is possible for immaterial things to exist in non-physical ways. God could exist as a concept or a thought, For example. That would not be reducible to any form of physicality once it's been reduced beyond the anatomical level of the mind and it's sub components. I am not aware of any examples of immaterial things that can have physical affects on our reality. This is not to say it is impossible, But it's delusional to our understanding of reality from a naturalistic view. The God of the Christian Bible, Who I am still assuming we are discussing, Has direct impacts on our reality, According to it's theology. The God listens to thoughts, Intervenes in peoples lives and even speaks to some of the people. He has manifested himself physically, Performed physical miracles, And still somehow seems to circumvent all naturalistic interceptions and tests. If a God has physical effects on reality, It is testable and demonstrable. For example, If praying heals people, We could test that. Reality is comprised of natural occurrences. If something supersedes reality, Then it is supernatural by definition, And outside the scope of what we can falsify. An immaterial God to me, Assuming we are talking about the same thing, Is supernatural and therefore by definition of reality does not exist.
Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Our argument will focus on the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " You accepted this debate in the comments section. You also presupposed to my acceptance that reality is real. If you don't mind, Round 2 will consist of opening arguments, Rounds 3 & 4 will consist of rebuttals and rejoinders, And Round 5 will consist of closing arguments. Since Round 2 starts with you, You will start.