BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

Just as in introductory I would like to point out the fact that my opponent has stated he/she does not want to resort to killing but jailing may be necessary. We have people who as of right now would die for their religion, abolishing world religions would result in mass killings on both parts. Imagine trying to destroy the dome on the rock. That would not go well. Mass killings would be inevitable. This idea will not work from the start, pious religious people would not stand by as their sacred places are dissolved. This would result in mass revolt. Moving on to the basic argument my opponent has put forward, my opponent has stated this premise: " If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion" The entire argument my opponent put forward rests on this premise. This premise however is not true. My opponent has used Scripture as an example so I will too. In Ezra 5:14 we read: And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; All throughout Jewish history the Holy Places were invaded, dissolved, and usurped by enemy forces. God allowed this to happen. Using the premise my opponent has put forward, the true religion should have special protection above all others. This is not the case in Scripture. The Jews were persecuted throughout Biblical history and when we get to the New Testament, we see Christians suffering the same fate. And likewise, by this supposition my opponent has put forward, even now we should not be seeing the death or suffering of members of the true religion. In reality, God allows suffering for His own Sovereign purposes, and destroying all churches, mosques, temples, shrines, or any other religious institution will not change those divine purposes.
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

First I want to clarify that I'm not proposing mass genocide because that would be ridiculous and somewhat contradictory to some of my arguments. What I propose is the immediate dissolution of all currently established religious organizations as well as the destruction of relevant religious structures and artifacts tied to the religions. Also, their property should be seized and re-assigned for general public use. The goal is to effectively wipe the world slate clean of these religions without having to resort to outright killing people. Jailing may be necessary, but probably not for long because of my first argument. 1) Provoke/Invoke God. There are a lot of people, Atheists and Agnostics for example, who question the existence of God. Many religious people also question who's right about God. We have all these religions are they all correct or is it all a scam? If only there were a way to figure it all out. There is! I propose to the people of the world that they allow an agency like the UN to stamp out all religion. If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion. And if he doesn't everyone will know at the very least that those religious institutions aren't needed. If God acts, or doesn't mankind, will have learned something very valuable. It's not so unreasonable to test religion anyway. In the Bible the Jewish prophet, Elijah, tests whether or not Baal is real or not. When Baal fails to show the priests of Baal are all killed and all their places of worship and artifacts are destroyed throughout Israel. In some understandings regarding the Christian Greek scriptures of Revelation the world leaders are supposed to turn on religion and destroy it. This is supposed to be a precursor to God's war on the world and the supposed paradise afterward. The destruction of religious organizations is foretold in Christianity Let's do it! What do we have to lose? Either we prove that all this religion stuff is nonsense and stop beating ourselves up over it or God settles it and there's paradise for whichever religion was right.
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

I'd like for this debate to follow a structure similar to a typical parliamentary debate. I'd also like for the arguments in this debate to be somewhat calculated so as to avoid massive walls of incomprehensible text. At the same time I'd like any evidence you'd like to reference be restated in your own words so as to draw upon the main points that apply to your argument. Posting links is good, but don't expect to me or any judges to read entire studies or watch videos for more than two minutes. Not many have time for that. I'd like to make this debate easy for audiences to follow. Therefore the 3,000 character limit, which I feel might still be too much. Round 1: is for accepting the terms and debate. Just type that you accept. Round 2: I will post my first argument and you can rebut it and present 1 or two of your own arguments. Round 3: I will rebut and post an argument or two and you should do the same. Round 4: This round is reserved for final rebuttals and reinforcing any of your current arguments. A few closing words can be shared to state why you think you won.
Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

Thank you to my debate partner for thinking to present this challenge. I have never heard an argument in support of animal cruelty, and so I am eager to hear how it will be framed.My task here is to establish that any law that prevents animal cruelty for any reason is a "good idea." This is a straightforward task, and so I shall not waste much time in getting straight to it.1. Animal cruelty laws have been demanded by the public, and so these democratic demands should be respected by our government. If we allow our government to ignore the will of the American people, then we will erode our freedoms. Think of the brave men and women who died for our right to be free. 2. Many laws which prevent animal cruelty also protect human life. For example, there are good reasons that we do not allow cattle and dairy farms to permit diseased livestock from being raised, and then sold to the public. Think of the little children, dying of diseased milk in their breakfast cereals. 3. Very often the act of animal cruelty presages a propensity to cruelty in general, which animal cruelty laws can discover. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer regularly tortured animals. Had this behavior been discovered, his murderous rampages might have been prevented. Think of the lobotomized sex zombies.4. Very often, laws that protect animals do not simply prevent their suffering, but their extinction. The American Bald Eagle, symbol of this country, would today be extinct were it not for these laws. Alas, it is too late for the poor dodo's, mammoths and other creatures whose name and importance escapes me at the moment. 5. Some animals are very profitable when they are dead, but cannot be killed if they are extinct. Animals that have marketable horns, tusks, furs and feet could have been extinct long ago due to over hunting. Laws that prevent the extinction of these animals also prevents some unemployment. 6. Animals that help Asian men achieve erections would have been extinct long ago, had it not been for anti-poaching efforts. Today, we would be without both these animals - and the Asian erections. In short, laws that prevent animal cruelty and over hunting also help humans in important ways. They help us to identify serial killers, prevent little children from coming down with mad cow disease, and are singlehandedly responsible for millions of Asian men surfing the Internet singlehandedly.
Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

Rounds 1-Acceptance of Terms 2-Opening Statements 3-Rebuttals 4-Rebuttals/Closing Arguments But ill clear up a couple things here first: Animals: one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings Protective Rights: Rights protecting animals from physical or psychological harm, for whatever purpose. I intend to argue that Animals are not entitled to protective rights. I look forward to a great debate!
Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

Many thanks to my partner, whose dark worldview has pleased me immensely. I have greatly enjoyed this contest, and hope to find more such duels in the near future. Adversaries such this are the reason that I have grown fond of this forum.I also want to extend gratitude to all the voters who have followed our arguments to this point. I shall not delay their judgment much longer; I just want to make a few swift points in closing.My argument has, from the start, been light hearted. I have intentionally sought unique perspectives to present to the readers, and unconventional arguments that might (I hope) surprise those who have considered this topic before. In doing so, I have of course, neglected the obvious. I hope that I am not judged too harshly for this - the conventional, well-trod talking points are most likely not what the persons who are attracted to this forum are searching for. However, perhaps I should at least mention one of them in passing: animals are alive, and life is important to all living creatures. We mortal human animals are necessarily terrified at the thought of the inescapable suffering of other creatures - it horrifies us. This phenomenon is entirely instinctive, and can be found mirrored in our childlike fear of slashers in cinema - we cringe as the damsel in distress flees the chainsawing redneck. And we cannot long tolerate similar (also non-human) suffering inflicted upon those lovable little furry things. In short: life loves life. All my other arguments stand as originally stated, with little need to be repeated here. Thanks again to all the voters, whom I hope will be kind as they evaluate my work here, and to my erstwhile debate partner, for having presented this challenge in the first place.
The Problem Of Evil Is Sound

If God were to prevent all suffering then society would become less independent. For example, if God were to cure all cancer patients, not as many doctors would work on finding a cure and we would totally depend on God for healing. As for your example of a child being raped, God would want his followers to intervene and learn to help each other. Going back to my beliefs I had as a Deist, I believe God created an autonomous universe which was designed to correct and better itself until its ultimate demise. Morality as a part of the universe should do the same. For example, if we see a person murdered in cold blood, we acknowledge that is wrong. We see that nothing was gained by his or her death but a cycle of hatred; the killer hating the victim, and the victim's friends hating the killer. As a result, we assert that murder out of cold blood is immoral. Therefore, Moral Realism does not have to exist if God exists because He would allow humanity to develop ideas on morality for themselves. As a Deist, I believed God wanted us to learn how to alleviate our own suffering so that He does not have to step in literally lord over us. A part of this is having us realize for ourselves the source of our suffering and to develop ideas regarding morality that prevent suffering. For example, by teaching about the Holocaust, we are hopefully making it harder for another event similar to it from happening. Now people know to look out for actions which may lead to genocide and the deaths of innocent civilians. Morality cannot exist without suffering. If no one ever suffered we would not need to create ideals that ensure society functions in a peaceful manner. However, a world of sentient life cannot exist without suffering. In his book "The Selfish Gene" Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, explains that more behaviorally selfish species tend to outlive altruistic species and pass on their genes. Therefore humans by nature are bound to be less altruistic. This leads us to do things which we learn to see as immoral. As a Deist, I never believed in sin, so I never thought the free-will defense was valid. Sources: Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. 2006
The Problem Of Evil Is Sound

I disagree with your first point and consequently disagree with your conclusion. I will base my argument on the idea of God I had when I was a Free-Thinking Deist. When I was a Free-Thinking Deist, I believed God created the universe, which I believed was an extraordinary and benevolent act. I also believed God would not intervene in world events due to the consequences of supernatural intervention in a natural world. Although, I am now an atheist I still believe "The Problem of Evil" is not a sound argument. As a Free-Thinker, I look forward to engaging in and learning from this debate.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

3. In everyday American society it is frowned upon to have multiple relationships. Not too many people would be willing to come out a be the black sheep in society and agree that having multiple partners is okay. They would just rather stick to the norm. 4. What I meant in this statement was that just cause you love two people, it does not mean that one love is worth less than the other. 5. I agree that people can intentionally hurt others using relationships.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

1.Both sides have agreed to this definition 2.I do agree that there are no technical limits put on how many romantic loves a person may have. 3.I do also agree that most views on monogamy come from society. However, society can only influence your opinion, not control it. If everyone believed polygamy was a good thing, then they would have the right to participate in it if they choose. 4.I do not agree that you can be in love with two people in the same kind of way at once. Your emotional connection to one person should not be able to be duplicated. If its possible to duplicate that love, then it was never unique. 5.People can be spiteful and start a relationship, and not be in love just to hurt someone else. 6.I do agree that being in love is a good feeling.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

Pro: 1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2.There are no rules on how many people you can love at once. 3.Society is what tells us that it is inappropriate to have multiple romantic relationships at once. Human nature has no law against this. 4.Just cause you are in love with two people at once does not mean that you do not love them equally. 5.It is not anyone"s intentions to purposely hurt someone"s feelings by loving someone else. 6.Being in love is a great feeling, so having that feeling multiple times seems like a good idea. 7.Therefore, it is possible for you to love more than one person at once.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

Definition of Romantic Love: A love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2. Being in a committed romantic relationship is time consuming; a person can only be fully committed to one person. 3.Cultures that practice polygamy may just be following their cultural traditions without the actual feelings of love. 4.When you are in love with someone, you will do anything to prevent making that person unhappy. Being in love with someone other than your original partner may cause him or her to become unhappy with you. 5.Open relationships mostly consist of causal sex with others, while maintaining a stable relationship at home. 6.Feelings of love might be mistaken for lust. You may think that you are in love with two people, when in reality you are just infatuated with one. 7.Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person at once. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 3,4, and 6 are non-controversial because I feel that my opponent will agree that these statements are true within a relationship. Controversial: Premise 2 is controversial because some may argue that relationships should come easy and should not have to be fixed on a daily basis. Premise 5 is controversial because open relationship encounters can consist of more than just casual sex. For example, a person may start of having causal sex with someone and then later fall in love with them.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2.There are no rules on how many people you can love at once. 3.Society is what tells us that it is inappropriate to have multiple romantic relationships at once. Human nature has no law against this. 4.Just cause you are in love with two people at once does not mean that you do not love them equally. 5.It is not anyone"s intentions to purposely hurt someone"s feelings by loving someone else. 6.Being in love is a great feeling, so having that feeling multiple times seems like a good idea. 7.Therefore, it is possible for you to love more than one person at once.
Can you be in love with more than one person at a time

1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2. Being in a committed romantic relationship is time consuming; a person can only be fully committed to one person. 3.Cultures that practice polygamy may just be following their cultural traditions without the actual feelings of love. 4.When you are in love with someone, you will do anything to prevent making that person unhappy. Being in love with someone other than your original partner may cause him or her to become unhappy with you. 5.Open relationships mostly consist of causal sex with others, while maintaining a stable relationship at home. 6.Feelings of love might be mistaken for lust. You may think that you are in love with two people, when in reality you are just infatuated with one. 7.Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person at once
Legend Of Zelda Is better Than Metroid

Legend Of Zelda Has Way More Story To It Than Metroid. Yea You Can Play A First Person Shooter Any Day(Referring to new Metroids) but how Many Times Can You Play As A Sword Wielding Elf Who Saves A Princess Plus You Cant Stab People Or fly On A Loftwing Freely Instead Of Having no control Over A Useless ship. And Thats Why I Think Legend Of Zelda Is Better.
Socialized Healthcare would be good for the United States.

As i stated before, we already have a socialized healthcare system. It is impossible for the free market to work when half of all healthcare payments are made by the government. Socializing it further will only exacerbate the problems. Pro stands on the idea that if we socialize healthcare completely then all the problems will go away. He has not given any foundational reasons as to why and how that would happen. I have given you a few of the basic reasons for why the system is broken, and how freeing the market will correct them. A lobbying group working for more regulation that helps companies bottom line is not capitalism failing. It is corporatism succeeding. In a free market no company, no matter how many lobbyists they had, would receive preferential treatment. On the other hand, in a socialized system, by the very nature of the system companies would receive preferential treatment. If the government controls all expenditures, then the government controls who gets what. What more can we ask for? How about a system that does not rely on force. How about a system that relies instead on the free exchange of thoughts, services, and goods, to the mutual benefit of all involved in the transaction.
Socialized Healthcare would be good for the United States.

My opponent asks, how Socialized Medicine is the solution to our broken health care system. Here's how: As I stated before, currently, it is estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually, in the US, due to lack of health insurance. Socialized Medicine will provide medical benefits to everyone. So these excess deaths will not occur. Socialized Medicine will allow doctors to determine a patients treatment based on their needs, instead of the financial concerns that they currently have to consider. Since approximately half of all bankruptcies are due to medical debt, Socialized Medicine would eliminate these tragic, life-altering, experiences. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009. Socialized Medicine would provide medical benefits to these people. As my opponent pointed out, the amount of new physician education available is currently limited to 100,000 doctors per year. The point that he misses is that it's AMA (physicians trade group) that's lobbying for those limits. They're not the government. They're the, "for-profit", physicians - that's Capitalism failing.Yes, as my opponent pointed out, I could have quoted even more of the wikipedia article. Everything in the article reinforces my point that we need Socialized Medicine.My opponent disagreed with my assertion that we receive a sub-standard quality-of-care. The World Health Organization, in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). Life expectancy in the USA is 48th in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations.[1]As I've illustrated above, it's clearly evident that having a National Health Care (Socialized Medicine) plan in the USA would be good for the country. It will allow doctors to make decisions based a patients needs. It will give access to the 50 million currently uninsured residents. And, it will save approximately 45,000 lives a year! What more can we ask for!?!?The decision is easy... VOTE PRO! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;