BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aquaman is an awesome Superhero.

This time, again, I will show Con's embarassing, absurd argument, and I quote: "I just don't really appreciate aquaman". This is not even an argument, this is a sentence, carrying simple beliefs and thoughts that aren't even true, just like all his other arguments have been. Con, do you understand the definition of the word "appreciate"? Let's see if you do: 1.Recognize the full worth of. 2.Be grateful for (something). Con, if you are going with definition 1, then you need to provide solid, valid, and counter-able arguments that actually make sense as to why you don't recognize the full worth of Aquaman. If you are going with definition 2, then I wonder why you are. No one should be grateful for Aquaman because he isn't real. The only thing we can be grateful for about Aquaman is the entertainment that his comics and TV-appearances have brought us. That's enough about definitions. What Con needs to realize is that he is not debating. He is simply just typing more and more useless sentences while I take up my time actually debating and providing multiple paragraphs. Since Con has not provided any counter-able arguments, or thereby rebute in a solid way, I am only saying this for this round. Do better next time, Con. I expect at least that much.
Greeks mythology-Born of Zeus

Well there is another theory that states Cronus ruled the sky, sea, and land. So Adamanthea, the nymph raising Zues, had tied to Zues, infant age, to a tree by a rope suspending him in between the ground and sky and sea. Thus causing Cronus unable to hear him. There are other theories that suggest Gaia, which seems very unlikely to me since he eventually imprisoned most of the titans, raised Zues.
Greeks mythology-Born of Zeus

Hello. Sorry for taking so long, my internet crashed. So as I can see you prefer theory about that rock. Well I prefer theory about the goat. About the rock. This rock was right next to Olimp, so that was a dangerous place for Zeus. If Kronus would hear him, he would eat him. I prefer theory with goat, because: 1. Island Crete was in the south of Greece, Olimp was at North East of Greece so Kronos couldn't hear Zeus crying, because of distance and gods who district him.
Greeks mythology-Born of Zeus

Okay, this makes much more sense. Yes, you are very correct, Cronus, also known as Kronos, whichever you prefer, did hate Zues. He ate all his children because of that. But Rhea hated the fact he did that to every child. So she replaced baby Zues with a rock and completely covered it in the traditional baby blanket or whatever you want to call it. Cronus thinking that was Zues ate the rock. Rhea acted like she did when he ate all the gods and started crying, yelling, and stormed out. Cronus thinking he ate Zues, went on with life. Rhea had hid Zues within a cave far away from Mount Othrys and hid his presence so Cronus wouldn't know he existed and wouldn't kill him... Well as close as you can get to killing a god. Rhea visited Zues when she could, but he was mainly raised by nymphs until the age came when it was time for him to kill Cronus. Now, there is also speculation that when Cronus ate the rock he threw up all the gods and Zues, Posiedon, and Hades killed Cronus and chopped him with his own Scythe. Then threw his pieces down into Tartarus. But, that seems illogical for a five minute old baby to have chopped up his own father.
Greeks mythology-Born of Zeus

Ok, thank you for yours answer. Yours answer is generally true, but there is no evidence or story about it. But Cronus hated Zeus, so.... I don't really know. But there is another question: How Zeus was raised? There is a theory that I prefer about the goat. How was he raised? Please, forgive me. My debate question wasn't very clearly. Sorry again, but please here is another question. Good luck
Catholicism is not Biblical

This is a topic I have been eager to discuss for quite some time now and look forward to the opportunity to do it. I am a Protestant Christian (Church of Christ to be exact) and I have many problems with how the Catholic Church justifies their beliefs. The resolution of this debate, as you can see, is that Catholicism is not based on the Bible; in other words, it is not founded on God's commands. Of course, this is a very broad topic, so I will narrow it down to several "sub-resolutions" I wish to discuss:Res. 1. The Papacy- nowhere in the Bible is any authority given to establish a papacy. Jesus is the head of the church, not the Pope. In addition, Peter was never a pope. Res. 2. Mary's holiness- Mary, the physical mother of Jesus, is not holy. Res. 3. The Apocrypha- The Apocrypha is not Holy Scripture. Res. 4. Salvation- Salvation does not come simply by faith, or as some put it, by simply "accepting Jesus into your heart." While such an acceptance is indeed part of salvation, it does nothing without the act of baptism. (Note: this topic could be debated with members of many other denominations, but I feel that it is important to my case that Catholicism is not Biblical.)As for the rules of this debate:1. Of course, participants are expected to treat each other with respect and conduct themselves properly. No profanity or personal attacks. 2. I would ask that whoever accepts this challenge be a member of the Catholic Church. Don't accept just to play devil's advocate. 3. I invite anybody to comment and vote on the debate, however rule 1 applies here. Please, no belittling or disparaging remarks against religion or religious people, or against any group of people. Such remarks are uncalled for and do not prove anything.FIRST ROUND is for acceptance only. Thank you, in advance, to whoever accepts this debate. I ask the Lord to bless both of us as well as those who follow the debate.
The United States has entered wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it cannot win.

http://www.youtube.com... Thank you for starting this debate, and welcome to Debate.org. Joshua: "STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY." War can't be won. There is no winner in war. By entering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has prevented itself from being able to win. How about a nice game of chess?
Music does not affect the actions that children perform.

I really don't understand the point that you are trying to make. But my point is that people have complete control over their actions. That doesn't always stop music from getting to their heads(depending on who they are). If i'm correct, you are saying that people shouldn't blame music for the things that we do. I agree somewhat. But think about this: if parents don't tell you to commit suicide, if your family doesn't tell you to, if your friends don't tell you to, then it is very assumable that music is at fault. Although it is true that we have our own choice, it is also true that things like tv and music affect that choice. So we shouldn't put parents down for coming to that conclusion.
Music does not affect the actions that children perform.

Music that is played these days are not the cause in increased violence and crimes.As a human you are able to do things at your own free will.Not only do you have the choice to do something, but you also have the choice to not do something. I believe that people doing crimes are just using music as an excuse for their actions.Those people believe that if i have an excuse to why i do something then it is ok to do it.
Dogs are better companions than cats.

While I understand what you are saying, and am glad that you (and others) have that connection with cats, it remains, scientifically, that dogs are better companions. It has even been proved that cuddling may be the reason dogs are "man's best friend. " It has been proved that oxytocin (the "cuddle hormone" [1]) is released both by the owner and the dog when cuddling. "In humans, oxytocin is well known as a hormone that helps mother and baby bond, and as a chemical in the brain that increases the ability of people to understand emotions and solve social problems. However, there is mounting evidence that oxytocinis involed in bonding between humans and dogs" [1]. Additionally, it has been proven that cuddling with your dog boosts your mood, eases pain, lowers stress levels, lowers your blood pressure, boosts immune system, and increases self-confidence [2]. Conclusion:It remains that dogs are better companions than cats. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;2. . https://dogvacay.com...
Dogs are better companions than cats.

Thank you for debating me. I will specify that yes dogs are good companions, but cats areequally good. I have been friends with many cats. One time I was sick, sitting on my bed, and thumped the bed and called for my cats Cuddles. I said "come here lady, mama needs you". She came running, jumped on my bed, laid down, and purred while I petted her. I had the honor years later to be in the room while she died. I love her as if she is my child. When I was living in the city, I was friends with a street cat. She came to visit me many times, and was supportive when I stopped drinking andwas waiting for charges to be brought against someone who assaulted me. I called her Smokey. parky was very funny and never failed to keep me entertained.
Dogs are better companions than cats.

I am arguing that dogs are better companions that cats.My reasons for believing this are as follows: A companion is defined as "a person or animal with whom one spends a lot of time or with whom one travels" (Google "definition of companion"). 1. Dogs make you laugh.In a pilot study done by the Animals and Society Institute, they discovered that out of 95 people, the dog owners laughed significantly more frequently than cat owners [1].2. Dogs keep us fit.In a study from 2008, it was discovered that dog owners were 60% more likely than cat owners to walk for leisure. In a more recent study from Michigan State University, it was found that dog owners exercise an average 30 more than "non-owners" each week [2].4. Dogs are man's best friend.Because there is an undeniable connection between us. A study from 2013 showed that the relationship between a dog and its owner is similar to that of a child and his parent [4]. Additionally, dogs are also naturally understanding and comforting to humans [3].Conclusion:Dogs are better companions than cats. Sources:1. https://www.animalsandsociety.org...2. http://www.realclearscience.com...3. http://news.discovery.com...4. http://btgstudios.com...
Should Abortion Be Outlawed

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."[1] "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."[2] [1] Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, testimony to the Judiciary Subcommittee [2] Dr. Jerome Lejeune, testimony to the Judiciary Subcommittee I can cite numerous more articles and doctors speaking about the beginning of life. Almost every source I've come across confirms the fact that life begins at conception, and a new human is created. At that moment a set of genes is created unique to ANY other before that. Though I see the logic in your argument that the fetus is not conscious, and "brain-dead", it has the probable potential to gain consciousness. My analogy is someone in a coma, I realize they do have brain activity, but they are not conscious, but we know that it is possible for them to wake up. With a fetus, we know that the baby, except for the case of miscarriage, will sustain brain activity. There is a type of energy called potential energy, is there not. It is still energy. A fetus is potential life. By that logic I can make the assumption that the baby does possess life, but awaits for the full development of his physical body, or in translation, the rope to be cut that is holding the mass creating the potential energy. I'm sure 95% of the mothers that had an abortion would change there mind if they could see their baby's potential to grow up to be something wonderful.
Should Abortion Be Outlawed

"Not until twenty-eight weeks, at 77 percent of full-term development, does the fetus acquire sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately thirty weeks, or 83 percent of full-term development. In other words, the capacity for human thought does not exist until just weeks before birth. Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be human, the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important. By this criterion, since virtually no abortions are performed after the second trimester, and before then there is no scientific evidence that the fetus is a thinking human individual, it is reasonable for us to provisionally agree that abortion is not murder and to offer our provisional assent that abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a fully functioning human being. Therefore, although one may oppose abortion on a personal level, there is no scientific justification to shift the abortion issue from a personal and moral one to a social and political one." [1]Our ability to think is what sets humans apart from other animals. The capacity to think defines what it means to be human. Just as it's not "murder" to pull the plug on a brain-dead person, it's not "murder" to abort a baby before the second trimester; their minds don't work yet.[1] Michael Shermer, "The Science of Good and Evil"
Should Abortion Be Outlawed

Abortion is murder!!!!!!!!! You are killing a baby. Life begins at conception for those of you who aren't scientists. Every baby has a future and potential to live and it is just as bad as murder to take that away. Even if you are not religious, which should definitely lead you to choose life, how can you morally be ok with what these people do to babies, they rip them up, burn them, or crush their heads and then throw the remains in the trash. It is incredible to me how retarded liberals can say, "The capital punishment is wrong" which is usually for convicted murderers, but then support the slaughtering of defenseless babies. It disgusts me and I hope the Lord has mercy on their souls. If anyone thinks they have a better argument, go ahead.
The god of the Holy Bible, as he is described in it, cannot and does not exist today.

First off that is a very good argument, and thank you for bringing this up. The bible does state accounts off people having conversations with God, but none have ever seen him, it may not be stated in the bible itself, but logically God chooses people he made known his presence to, he has done this in earlier time, but as you can well see our time today is very much different. More people in this time don't believe in him. That is only one of many unknown reasons. In the earlier era people were more dependent to Him which is why he has made his presence known to chosen people, where as in this time people are more dependent to themselves and other people. The population of people who don't believe in him have drastically increased, I believe that he does not show himself, because it is His way of truly confirming who are true believers.
The god of the Holy Bible, as he is described in it, cannot and does not exist today.

Since I am christian I will try my best to prove you wrong 1st God has not connected to mortals for many unknown reasons but one reason is known and that is the reason of which he does.not show.him self to test how much we have faith in him even if we do.not see him It is what we call there are more than meets the eye 2nd a priest in itlay himself was losing faith in God then one sunday while he was cutting the bread true blood came out 3rd padre pio himself had the same wounds jesus had he had all the same wounds jesus had he.was in so much pain With this following reasons God has been trying to connect to us not physically but spiritually
The god of the Holy Bible, as he is described in it, cannot and does not exist today.

If a conscious entity existed that was all-powerful and wanted to have a relationship with everyone, his first goal would be to make himself detectable so that the humans he wanted to have a relationship with would know that he exists so he could have a relationship with them. God is not detectable by any human means whatsoever. God is either not all-powerful, does not want a relationship with everyone, or does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Hope is a more influential and motivational emotion than fear

Interesting, however I disagree that hope is the end resolution of fear. See, the person who wishes to instill fear in someone hopes that the fear will be strong enough for the subject to have his actions influenced. But the subject, if the fear instilled is strong, will not at all act off of hope. In example, a legislature passes a law making murder illegal, and if the law is broken than the punishment is death. Now, that legislature hopes that the death penalty will instill enough fear in his subjects so they will follow that law. That hope however, has no form of influence when a person contemplates whether he should break that law or not. It is fear that will influence that persons decision on whether or not to break that law. But even things Like a fat man dieting, an alcoholic trying to stop drinking, or a high school drop out trying to get his GED are choices heavily influenced by fear. A fat mans motivation for dieting is that he fears his lifestyle habits can lead to very dangerous diseases or even death. An alcoholic is motivated to stop drinking because he fears his unhealthy lifestyle is damaging his body and his psychological being. A high school drop out is motivated to get his GED because he fears that he might not be able to support his family working at a job that hires people without a high school diploma (or GED). These people hope they can be successful, but it is fear that motivates these people.
Hope is a more influential and motivational emotion than fear

Hope is the end resolution of fear. Fear is the emotion that comes from contemplation of consequences. Hope is the belief in a positive resolution to a given situation. Hope triumphs over fear because fear is always felt when we think of what might go wrong. If we have hope however, we have already came to a conclusion that a positive resolution is possible. When partaking in a risky endevour, one will always have fear that their plans will go wrong. However this may not alter their actions. If that person has hope, thy have concluded that the situation is salvageable. While one may wrestle with their fears, one doesn't wrestle with their hope, for their hope is a culmination of emotion and calculation that have told them that things will turn out for the better. Hope is in this way a more developed emotion than fear. Fear is a primal knee-jerk reaction to a situation. It is a swirling formless mass of doubt and second thoughts. It has not taken root in a persons mind when it's encountered and only has the possibility of doing so. Hope is a emotion that only exist rooted in the human mind. Hope is developed, not encountered. It is rooted deep within the minds of men and once possessed makes fear irrelevant because the person has decided that there is no need for fear.
Hope is a more influential and motivational emotion than fear

Fear motivates and influences people more than fear. This is because when a person is given a consequence if they perform a certain action, they will be less inclined to perform said action. In example, if a parent would like their child to do their homework but the child refuses to do it, they can not simply hope that the kid will have a change of heart. However, if they lay down a consequence, such as "If you don't do your homework you will be grounded for a week". This will make the child fear "If I don't do my homework, I'll be grounded for a whole week". So in order to avoid this consequence, the child will do his homework.
William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

I'll be arguing that William Lane Craig's moral argument is flawed:(P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.(P2) Objective moral values do exist;(C) Therefore, God exists.My first problem comes at the first premise, as it's a bit random. I don't see how a supernatural being os relevant to objective morality, It's not incorrect, it's just odd.The second premise is where I have my big problem. This is a baseless assertion. When William Lane Craig uses this argument, he simply asserts that they exist, and that 'deep down, we all know it'. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument at all. I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist. As even when held by a supernatural being, can one opinion be more valid than another? What is morally good or morally bad is simply opinion. When somebody says that murder is morally good, you cannot disprove them or prove them to be correct. That is why objective morality cannot exist, because no opinion can be more valid than another, even when there's a supernatural being who will punish you for not doing what he thinks is morally good, that still doesn't make them objective, just like it wouldn't make the statement 'Icecream is cool' true even if there were a supernatural being who would punish you for not thinking this.I'm interested to hear Con's response.