BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise.

My opponent agrees that God is greatly to be feared. And not feared as in, "oh, a scary thing in my closet" but feared in a, "my word, I have no way to compare to that" kind of fear. So, that fear is what brings me to my next point. God is above you and I. God is above morality. Morality is simply following a code of right and wrong. The thing is, there is no wrong for an all powerful God. My opponent attempts to put a human moral code to a superhuman being. Is it anymore "wrong" for God to choose what nations live or die compared to our way of thinking than it is for me not to proudly display my chest and sing loudly when I'm around an attractive female compared to a bird's way of thinking? Or to bring food first to the queen, then to the pupa? Trying to compare an almighty God to a human is laughable at best. My opponent is attempting to compare asparagus to chocolate cake (something disgusting to something divine, sorry asparagus lovers it is a fact asparagus sucks look it up on Wikipedia). My opponent is telling the football coach how to set up his team while my opponent watches on the couch. Without knowledge, without scope, without absolute justice, my opponent brazenly dismisses the moral uprightness of a God he has already admitted is all powerful and almighty. A God who, as I previously stated, created the universe also created true moral code. In doing so, God is the very ruler to which all moral codes must measure. You may find your moral code to be better in every way but one, but if you don't measure up, you are morally bankrupt to God's perfection. My opponent admits that God is all powerful. That alone should make him worthy of praise. Fear is a good reason alone for praise, look politicians. They absolutely loathe each other, but they are happy to follow each other to hell, just because they fear the retribution if they do not. But, God is even more worthy of praise because he is better than such drivel as human morality.
should suicide be legalised

Suicide should not be legalised because it carries a long aftermath effects to the people left to deal with the trauma and to some financial cost.We have the state left to use the resources to try and determine the real cause if whether is authentic or a murder .There is no moral behind this motion so how will the law that protects the community that has made the right to life a fundamental right detor from its mandate.This diabolic act of taking one's life should not be legalised as it exposes the education system that has failed with the issue of building students to have a self esteem also the ability of making resolutions on solving issues.
United States Citizens should not be allowed to undergo gender-transformation surgery

According to Walt Hyer, a 72 year old male who underwent gender-transformation surgery, "People don"t change gender, It"s the biggest medical fraud in the nation"s history. It"s simply a masquerade."(2) Becoming a transgender man or woman does not provide the afflicted with any form of self-confidence or contentment and, if anything, makes the afflicted even more sub-conscience and pitiful. According to a study done by LiveScience, 41 percent of transgender people in the United States have attempted to commit suicide (1). Allowing gender-transformation surgery to continue is an offence against human reason and God. We are born as a man or a woman, and remain that way for the entirety of our lives, and no surgery can fix that. We should not offer false hope to those who struggle with gender-identity. 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.catholicreview.org...
Genetically engineered food isn't completely bad

G"day and much luck to CON. Well, lets begin. Genetically Engineered food, can be bad because its already very disused. But a very proper use of it would make it great. This is where I slightly disagree with the Green Party. The man can live with GE-products, why? Because e.g. the wheat that runs all our history and bread, didn't exist before the rise of agriculture. The man used selection to gain the biggest and most qualitative seeds to slowly turn it into that what we know today as wheat. Its basic evolution, it took many aba many generations but every generation had small changes. The wheat isn't the only example, the dog,cow, the apples... Many species that run today's agriculture didn't exist before the rise of agriculture. In conclusion: We"re genetically changing already changed species. But what are the good sides of the GE anyway? Well, you make more food that can be more safe, more nutritious, more immune against nature (pests and dryness) and because of these causes you acctualy can feed more man more qualitative. Medically, it can be dangerous, if not tested. That's why we have to test it. Because if science is used correctly, you'll get it great. My biggest worry once was that our digestion would get too used on it. But the today's food (even the organic ones, but not all) are already changed and we are getting used to it. Also the biggest problem of today is the food industry. But GE-Food is very bad if: - Its being own by corporations. You may check my debate over regulating the Food industry. Capitalism searches for the max. efficiency for max. profit. So corporations mainly disuse the GE, and cant be trusted. -Also GE is bad, if not labeled. Labeling of GE is a basic human right of information. We all should know what our food is made of. We need more freedom, not the business. But corporations usually don't want labeling, because people wont buy anything then. Many people automatically think that fat is bad, so they do about GE. And they wont buy it until a famous person will say that its safe or that the government will use propaganda. But never mind all that, it has to be labeled seriously. -The last the GE has to do, is to stay away from nature. As these GE plants/animals are usually more immune against natural dangers (dryness, diseases, pests), they may hurt the environment. They can be highly invasive and can seriously hurt the jet continuing evolution and selection. There is also something else. GE is great because you can fuse apple properties. But as I found out, many people just think that its bad, but they don't know why, like my grandmother, she said that its bad and when I asked her why, she didn't know. GE-food is in opposition to traditional foods,culture and religion. But still GE-food isn't totally bad, and it isnt perfect. But I support the small and organic farms, and seasonal food. Plus we need to make the food to be localised. And to tell the people the truth about GE-food, don't trust your religion or McDonald, simply trust the scientists. Good luck for your argument
Genetically engineered food isn't completely bad

The debate can go a bit of topic, if needed. After the debate we continue on comments. I think that genetically engineered food isn't really bad, except if: -Its being owned by large corporations -Its not Labeled -Its massively planted in sensitive environment (hurts the continuing selection) CON should mainly say why she/he thinks that GE-food is very bad or why He's agreeing under these 3 exceptions.
Undertale Or Minecraft

I have only played about half an hour of the game, so I can't say from my own experience what the game is all about in terms of its meaning. I can say from reading a few reviews and articles that Undertale is supposedly a very emotional game in some areas. However, I think people are talking about it a little too much for what Undertale really is: just a video game. From my experience in playing games like Earthbound and Persona 3/4 (really liked these games), the meaning behind them, or central theme, is clearly stated. However, unlike Undertale, they focused on the fact that they were video games and needed solid and fun gameplay. Granted Undertale was a game that focused on its story as well, but I feel that it fails to hint at its theme and instead thrusts it in your face whilst forgetting that it is still a video game.I realized that a large number of people who played this game feel it's worthy of its fame and I want to feel the same way, but it's hard to do so when the game fails to be a video game in my eyesBut what really turned me away from Undertale were my own mixed feelings on how I should approach the game. I'm always looking for a game with a good story AND excellent gameplay. I think Undertale falls short of the latter. On the other hand, the overwhelming praise of the game caused me to overlook what I initially thought the game was about and I went ahead in buying it, only to realize how heavy its heavy focus on story and meaning was. Thus I wrote my opinion of the game.
Undertale Or Minecraft

You can't really say the undertale is better because it has a story because Undertale and Minecraft are two different types of games. Undertale is an adventure/rpg (if my memory servers me correctly) and Minecraft is a sandbox game. The things that minecraft is better at is that you can make almost anything you want. Minecraft has command blocks so you could make under tale in Minecraft. It mostly depends on what type of game you want to play. If you want a game where you can build and explore, you would play Minecraft, and if you want an adventure game with quests, you would play undertale.
Undertale Or Minecraft

Undertale Is Better Because It Has A Story And In Minecraft Its Just No Story At All! The Protagonist Or "Frisk" Has Fallen Into Mt.Ebbot In Year 201X If I Remember Correctly. Undertale Has Tons Of Comedy,Action And Spaghetti AND Don't Forget The Enemies! Temmie Is Funny,Toriel Is Serious,Skeleton Bad Puns = Sans,Skeleton Spaghetti = Papyrus,Dogs,Dinosaurs,Etc. Undertale Has 4 Endings And Minecraft Only Has 1! Undertale's Endings Insist Of Pacifist,True Pacifist,Neutral And Genocide. Undertale Has A Unique Story As I Said In The Beginning And Has Left Out Parts Which People Have Figured Out Like W.D Gaster "The Man Who Speaks In Hands".
Torture is necessary in some situations.

I have been informed that the account of my opponent has received administrative action and will not be able to complete the debate but before the rest of the rounds go to Forfeit I would like to point out once more, the Real world cannot exist in hyperbole hypothetical. We as a functioning societal system has said Torture is not acceptable and as well, technology has rendered it Unnecessary as Highlighted in the previous round. The worlds created in Pro's scenarios where colorful but in the real world none of it happens. In the Real World Torture is among the least effective methods of extracting useful information and it has been demonstrated scientifically. The Final point Pro brings to the table was to argue that we don't see tortures success because the act it self adverts what we would see in the media to warrant the story. This point is almost purely conjecture, no real solid backing has been offered for it. Thank you for your time in this debate.
Torture is necessary in some situations.

This work you've put into this, the writing is really very colorful and well written. Have you ever considered writing a novel? Seriously ( not Ad-hominiem) these are written, they could be a suspense thriller novels. But despite their detail and colorful writing style, they are still bad arguments. Here is why. Because you have accomplished a level of Pigeon holing the parameters of your scenarios to exclude any of the normal tools we use to extract information there is no good argument against your hypothetical situations and so you technically met all the parameters of the Debates topic but the letter of the word. What you did to get it to a point of argument is not unlike what I face as a vegetarian some times having people ask " would you eat meat for a million dollars?" In this instance what the Person is trying to do is push for a breaking point, a point where normal rules wouldn't apply. These hypothetical situations are the same line of thinking but they are bad arguments to make for systematic issues. Systemically we say Torture is never necessary, When its used it marks a failure of the system, a good argument cannot be based on the system failing and in the most wacky of situations ensue in order to make its point. "Violence is the first act of the stupid and the last resort of the desperate." There are better systemic ways of gathering Intel in the systematic world we really live in. An example in the criminal world is the Electroencephalography ( EEG) which works by measuring a brains subconscious responses to images and words related to a crime that would be triggered by memory recall they call "brain finger printing". http://www.truth-justice.org... Next, our systems of breaking people down are based on honed Police strategies. These include convincing people that they important and we need their co-operation and there is a big job opportunity in it for them, such as we have done with a few Taliban 3rd man(s). But we take advantage of phycological mechanisms either way. Police them selves have various strategies for extracting information from a a person. Some of which are arguably abused by the system, but the system still functions. http://people.howstuffworks.com... So what does torture do in the real world where our system is functional and we are not running around in a mad max universe? http://www.telegraph.co.uk... But that's a news blog right?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Turns out that pain In sustained doses aids in the creation of false memories and damages the memory system. http://www.dailykos.com... It turns out in the real world where the system works, Torture doesn't.
Germany Could Have Won World War I

I unfortunately must concede this debate.Things that I have not anticipated have piled on me as of late and would prevent me from making timely arguments. As such I must concede this debate. Though I feel both of us made great arguments and I would love to debate something similar like this in the future, for the sake of my opponent's effort they have put in, I will declare Subutai the winner of the debate.My deepest apologies to those who hoped for closure on this topic.As a side note I leave for college in 3 weeks so expect me to disappear off DDO around that time to not re-emerge until summer.-42
Germany Could Have Won World War I

Full ResolutionGermany could have won WWI.Debate TypeThis is meant to be a historical war debate. As such, the following rules apply:1. The only weapons that may be used are weapons made before the time under consideration. If a weapon was developed in the middle of the war in question, it may not be used until the time it was created.2. While war is extremely complicated to analyze, debaters must make the best attempt possible at recreating all of the conditions. This means that all decisions must take into account morale, supplies, transportation time, cost, etc...3. The capability of the generals and influence of politicians is incredibly important. As such, no decision can be made that would obviously never happen because of either of these two factors.Since it is likely that at least a few rules are missing from this list, one final rule, at least for the time being, is that no obvious absurdities outside the scope of the above three rules can be argued for. What constitutes an absurdity can be debated if and when the time comes.Rules1. No forfeiting.2. No semantics or trolling.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate and character limits cannot be broken. Sources may be posted in the comments or in an outside link.4. This debate's resolution, rules, and structure can only be debated before you accept this debate. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Initial arguments by pro and refutation by conRound 3: Defense by both sidesRound 4: Defense by both sides
Children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work willingly on all jobs for pay.

The Resolution I would like to begin my arguments with a discussion of the resolution. As worded by PRO, the resolution being debated is, “Children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work willingly on all jobs for pay. ” As agreed, I will be arguing against this resolution. I would like to point out that PRO proposes applying this resolution to “all” jobs. It is clear that PRO is arguing that 16 year olds should be allowed to work any job they like. I will provide three examples of types of jobs they should not be allowed to have. Skill Jobs There are many jobs that require a great deal of skill. Often, that skill can only be gained by years of study and experience. Based on the requisite schooling and experience, a 16 year old should not be allowed to be a surgeon [1], an engineer [2], or a pharmacist [3]. Although it would technically be possible to earn engineering credentials at the age of 16 if one began their undergraduate work at the age of 12, this is not practical. These jobs, as well as many others that require high levels of skill should not be open to 16 year olds. My Job According to PRO’s resolution, a 16 year old should be able to walk into any workplace and take any position away from the individual currently filling it. Not only is this absurd, it would cause all sorts of issues with employment contracts [4], and collective bargaining agreements [5]. Unsafe Jobs It is well understood that the body and brain of a teenager is still developing [6]. This not only means that a 16 year old’s decision making process (which they would use to choose a job) may be questionable; it also means that damage incurred during an unsafe job may hinder proper development. Therefore, I propose that high risk jobs such as professional football player [7], military infantry [8], and prostitute [9] be off limits for a 16 year old. Closing Thoughts PRO has claimed that a 16 year old should be able to have any job (s)he wishes. I have given reasons why at least three categories of jobs should be off limits to 16 year olds. I await PRO’s comments in the next round. Sources: [1] . http://work.chron.com... [2] . http://education.seattlepi.com... [3] . http://healthcareers.about.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://www.nimh.nih.gov... [7] . http://www.npr.org... [8] . http://www.beforeyousignup.info... [9] . http://www.11points.com...
Children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work willingly on all jobs for pay.

Thank you for accepting the challenge :) good luck to my opponent Children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work on any job they want for pay. They should be able to have any job they want and should not be limited to odd jobs and starting their own [small] businesses such as landscaping, baby-sitting, lemonade stands, car washes, etc. There are many smart children out there and just becase some are immature, they shouldn't be judged as a whole and put on extremely restricted leashes. Infact, children as also quite smart, and even the immature ones can put on a serious face long enough to work their shift. The government is too overly controlling. As long as the children are not working overly dangerous jobs, have parental consent and are more than willing to work, they should be allowed to work for money.
Children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work willingly on all jobs for pay.

You will debate as against the above [con] Round 1 will be for accepting. Rounds 2-4 will be arguing upon this topic [let's keep it friendly"this means no cussing"and open-minded: "support your details logically "counter-argue each other's facts "opinions should be kept at a mild rate "facts should be present. Round 5 will be our conclusions upon our topic. Thank you.
Islamophobia is a problem in the United States, and is not justified.

I presume since my opponent abandoned the debate after round one that he doesn't have an answer to my arguments. There seems little point in giving other than the briefest summary of them here. Whilst I certainly believe that there are individual muslims of outstanding character, who are worthy of our respect and friendship; as a religion Islam has a number of aspects that should lead non-muslims to treat it with some caution. These include the intolerance which the Quran exhibits towards other religions (and non-religious individuals), which is reflected by the preaching from the pulpits of many imams. Also, women are treated as second class citizens - even as property. Horrendous atrocities have been (and still are, every day) carried out against females in the name of Islam. I would have listed examples of these had the debate progressed, however the last round is not the time to do so. I believe I have shown in round one that the examples which Pro himself introduced show that in general, Americans are moderate in their reaction to Islam; particularly considering the evils which have been perpetrated in the name of that religion since 2001. Thus, while there is some degree of fear, it is certainly not what might be described as hysterical, and is in fact quite justified.
It is impossible for the Catholic God to want anything

My opponent thinks that his definition is better than mine. He gives no reason why my definition is unacceptable. He only tries to replace it. "The 'Catholic God' couldn't have wanted light. He is light. To Catholics, God is everything." He obviously wanted light. He said, "Let there be light." This means that there wasn't light before, and he wanted light. So, he made light appear. Even if we went by my opponent's definition, God was in the state of needing light, and light was absent. This led him to create light. "God can't want anything because of the simple reason that if he does want something, then he can be satisfied." I want a potato chip. I don't have a potato chip. Therefore, I shall roast a slice of potato in oil. God wanted light. God didn't have light. Therefore, God created light. "Something who has all-power, all-love, all-knowledge, and all-presence, can't want because he is everything." He isn't everything. He just has all power. Thus, he has the power to have whatever he WANTS. Therefore... Going by my definition, God demanded the presence of, and thus, wanted, light, affirming the resolution. Going by my opponent's definition, God needed (wanted) light, which was absent until its creation, affirming the resolution. My definition is the one to be used, because it was the first definition to be established, and there are no problems with it. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.
It is impossible for the Catholic God to want anything

Want- lack: the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Catholic God qualities-omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent (PERFECT) Cont. 1- If you know everything, and you are everything [...] Then there is nothing you can lack or want. Defense 1- "God wanted light." The "Catholic God" couldn't have wanted light. He is light. To Catholics, God is everything. God can't want anything because of the simple reason that if he does want something, then he can be satisfied. And if he can be satisfied then he isn't perfect. Something who has all-power, all-love, all-knowledge, and all-presence, can't want because he is everything.