BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Talking Should Be Illegal

People don't always, 100% of the time when they talk, lie, gossip, cuss, insult, or burp. What the heck does burping have to do with anything? People can sing, teach, compliment, and do plenty of other stuff. Stitching everyone's mouth shut is stupid and you wouldn't be able to breathe from your mouth. Noise is just noise. We can ignore it. Banning talking will not stop distracting noise. What, should we ban noise too? Making talking illegal is like banning cars. They aren't necessary, but without them , things would be much less convenient. It's the same thing with talking. You can choose not to talk, if you like, and politely ask people to stop doing annoying things.
Talking Should Be Illegal

Burping is uncontrollable. And you can just politely ask your friends to stop whistling. It would be a lot easier than to ban talking. Sound does not affect boiling temperature. Diabetes is hereditary or beyond most people"s control, and purely medical. It"s like saying anyone who needs to diet needs to be fined. Laziness is subjective. Like, for example, being too lazy to type more than 750 characters. Have you ever burped? Probably. Maybe even last week. Anyways, banning talking is essentially stupid. Provide non personal arguments, please.
Talking Should Be Illegal

Seriously? I hope this is a troll, but I just want to see what you would counter me with. Your debate arguments are relatively amusing to read. Oh, and can we make a no forefeit rule? I'm not sure if you mean figuratively or literally stitching people's mouths so I won't address it yet. I believe that talking should not be illegal. First of all, talking is our main way of communication. If we couldn't talk, there would be plenty of other ways to communicate, however they wouldn't solve the "problems" of cussing, lying, gossiping, insulting, or gossiping. They could easily type or write it out. Plus, talking is the most effective and fastest way of communication- writing of typing takes time, and blind people can't read.
Jesus is the True God accoring to the Bible

INTRODUCTIONI am excited to be debating with my good friend once again. This is a very important question: "Is Jesus God?" I contend that he is not. It is my contention that there may be verses that may suggest he is God, and many verses that say no. Therefore, I will be presenting MY case.==========CON'S CASE========== Contention 1: Jesus does not posses G-d's attributes(P1) God is all-knowing.(P2) Jesus is not all-knowing.(C) Therefore, Jesus is not god.To defend p2, I wish to direct your attention to Mark 24:32-3632 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only Contention 2: The Bible Deny's Jesus' divinity.Acts 2:22, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." What can we glean from this verse? WE know that God did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus had authority from God. Peter did NOT see these miracles as proof that Jesus is divine.In fact, the way Peter refers to God and Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is NOT God. Notice that he always turns the title of God away from Jesus. For example:"God has raised this Jesus..." (Acts 2:32)"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36).Why would God need to make himself Lord and Christ???Peter believed Jesus was a servant of God. Acts 3:26 states: "God raised up his servant..." The title "servant" refers to Jesus. This is very clear from this other passage in Acts 3:13, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus."The most important command in all of Judaism is this: "Here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one..." Jesus emphasises this command. “‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30).The man replies:“‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.’” (Mark 12:32).Contention 3: Jesus prayed.John 17:3 states: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17 is a prayer from Jesus to God. One must only wonder why Jesus called God the only true God if he is God. One must also wonder why he is saying that Jesus Christ (himself) was sent by God if he is God.On a final note, Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" One must pause to wonder how God can forsake God!I rest my case.
Blonde jokes are better than yo momma jokes

The resolution says better so better can mean more nicer or just more fun/funny. I will just respond to what my opponent said first: 1. yo mama jokes can be friendly to if you do them with friends, both your momma and blonde jokes can offend someone if used the wrong way or at the wrong time. Like if a blonde failed a test and you call her a dumb blonde then it is offensive, and if someone's mom died and you talk about their mom then it is also offensive. So both are equally offensive. 2. Both jokes were originally made to make fun of people so I don't see how what your stating is relevant Now I will like to point out that blonde jokes are getting old. They used to be a main thing but people don't use them as much any more so your mama jokes are a replacement. Your mama jokes can be used on any race and have more variety why blonde jokes are too narrow.
Fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, capitalism is the best economic and political system.

At the onset, there is a philosophical problem with capitalism that rests on the notion of positive basic human rights. These rights are those that state that persons have autonomous rights to exercise their will, and not merely rights that a person has to not have something done to them (i.e. the right to not be killed). So the entire basis of capitalism rests on the notion that one has a positive right to own property and to own the use of one's body and labor. While it is possible that one could argue that there is no such positive right, and that one can negate one's right to body and labor with a contract, this is not my opponent's intention for debate, and I will attempt to stay away from these points unless he brings it up again. Another problem at the onset is that my opponent's resolution is not a valid argument. He makes an unwarranted assumption that capitalism is the best model to follow in the face of Fiscal Equality. Pure and true capitalism as defined in his opening argument is in fact, NOT the best model to follow. Capitalism has several problems. 1) Capitalism is biased towards those who already own property. Following the positive right to own property, the first-come-first-serve policy automatically creates an unfair distribution of property unless all persons receive an equally valuable share of property. Following the "as much and as good" rule, the later you are in line, the less you get, while still leaving "as much and as good." Thus, it becomes possible for those that already own property to exploit those who don't. 2) Capitalist markets are subject to various problems of justness. In a capitalist market, it's possible for monopolies to arise, leading to other problems like price gouging. Also, when wages are set by the free market, it's possible (and seen frequently) that some wages are egregiously low or egregiously high. Lastly, in a capitalist market, external influences can radically affect the market without compensation or punishment. ********************************* I argue that a much better system is regulated capitalism, or some libertarian form of Marxism, wherein a democratically elected government not only regulates the distribution of property, but regulates the market to keep prices, wages, and the overall market stable. ********************************* My apologies for a short post, but I have a terrible migraine at the moment and I'm content to let my opponent make propositions for me to rebut...
Fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, capitalism is the best economic and political system.

I would like to begin by asking all voters to read the debate before voting. To do otherwise defeats the purpose of debating. This is not a poll, but a debate. Fiscal equality- government mandating an equal yearly wage for all its citizens unjust- lacking in justice or fairness . http://dictionary.reference.com...; What one puts into society should equal what one gets out of society. -pursuing education should yield a higher pay than not doing so -creating or inventing new things or ideas that improve society should yield a higher pay than not doing so -working more/harder should yield a higher pay than working less in cases of two people with the same job For the above reasons, fiscal equality is unjust. I will elaborate as necessary. capitalsim-An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. . http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... To round this up: People can own their property and their work results in pay in the form of somehting of value that directly goes to them. Goods are chosen by the consumer. Competition inspires people to work hard and develp new things for their own benefit. The way one's property is used or spent is not restricted unless it violates another person's rights to do so. My opponent must suggest a system that would be better than capitalism. Simply saying that there is a better system will not suffice. I have not put out a thorough argument yet and will do so in round 2. My opponent may throw the first punch.
It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

My opponent has no wish to have a respectful debate, he just wishes to troll. In fact, this entire debate is a temper-tantrum because he has pretty badly lost another debate. KRFournier was arguing that using faith as your reason to believe in a god (or God) is rational.To make matters worse, he has actually copied and pasted KRFournier's first round debate verbatim: http://www.debate.org...;This should very swiftly lose him conduct points, and should actually lose him the entire debate. In fact, his first round actually plays in my favor since it's an argument that placing faith in anything, be it God or an invisible pink unicorn, is not only rational but inevitable. As such, I extend my opponent's arguments as my own. He must refute them if he wishes to win this debate (although he should lose by default).See the first sentence of the first paragraph: "My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious."Since I was pretty much suckered into taking the Pro side, this statement is obviously false. I would be declaring that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is rational. My opponent can't even get his argument straight.
It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

Finally my opponent comes up with a semblance of an argument, and it took him three rounds (the final round) to do it! However, he has not successfully refuted his own opening argument, so I will extend those arguments since they work in my favor, not his. I will briefly touch on a few of his points now. Special PleadingThe argument that KRFournier used is a good one to show that placing faith in a god or in God is not irrational, but rational and inevitable. This goes for any gods or any god you would choose to believe in. However, there is good evidence to believe in the Christian God, so much so that putting your faith in that God would not be special pleading. There is good reason to do so, but that is not within the scope of this debate. A good, intellectual case can be made for putting your faith in God (and possibly in other gods), so that is not special pleading. I have not used one standard for God and another standard for an invisible pink unicorn, and nowhere in this debate have I indicated that I am. If there is good reason to believe in an invisible pink unicorn, then placing faith in it would be rational. I only ask the same of the invisible pink unicorn as I do of God. To have good reason to put faith in it. But as stated, just like with God, using faith to believe in an invisible pink unicorn would ultimately be inevitable. No different. "So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see. .. "Here my opponent makes a blatant ad hominem attack. However, his syllogism fails because KRFournier's argument was not a case of special pleading, as I have shown. Also, I never said belief in God was by faith alone. There have many good intellectual cases made for the existence of God. However, it is inevitable that believing in God still requires a measure of faith. My opponent has been utterly ridiculous in this debate. I have already shown that his copying and pasting of another user's argument should disqualify him the debate, and cost him conduct points. Also, he has relied on faulty arguments and ad hominem attacks to try and get his point across. Additionally, he waited until the very last round to actually make some sort of argument, though it doesn't support his position on the proposition at all.
It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

I copied and pasted to show a point. If I changed anything other then the being it is no longer special pleading. When you have the exact same argument and you accept it for one being and decline it for another that is special pleading. He is definitely doing that here. Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard. http://en.wikipedia.org... He is using one standard for god and one standard for an invisible pink unicorn and that is the point here. ra·tion·al (rsh-nl) adj. 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane. 3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... Source So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see, Premise 1. To be rational is to be logical by definition. Premise 2. A logical fallacy is by definition not logical. Premise 3. KRFourniers argument used the logical fallacy of special pleading. Conclusion: KRFourniers argument is not rational. So he can argue that their is evidence for god but that discounts it being by faith alone and says he disagrees with the original argument as: faith audio (fth) KEY NOUN: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. http://education.yahoo.com...... It is simple faith can not be back by evidence by definition. Lets go back to special pleading for a moment, even if you use this logic to a god it still becomes special pleading to use faith as many gods such as the christian god or allah are mutually exclusive as would be pinky, since they are mutually exclusive, to use faith for one god including the pink unicorn would mean that your logic went like this: All gods are unworthy of my faith. except this god, This god I have faith in. In this case its pinky in krfourier case it was jesus. In the end that is a clear case of special pleading. Since special pleading is a logical fallacy and not logical it becomes irrational. Night Night thanks for playing opponent you might want to defend your logic you so clearly thought was amazing a day or so ago.
It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

Unfortunately the link didn't post correctly in the last round. It was a debate on whether or not using faith was rational to believe in God. However,"I did copy and paste the argument verbatim..."He freely admits his offense and should not win this debate, although he clearly could not win since he doesn't realize that he has not offered any evidence to the contrary. The arguments stand, the ones that he posted, which he must refute."Being my opponent has conceded that it is not rational..."I have done no such thing. I said that your argument, which you copied and pasted from another user, argues in my favor and not yours. Therefore, I extend those arguments which you must refute if you think they are a bad argument.
It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

My opponent has not addressed the topic, he voted in another debate this argument took a valid form, He should be able to defend the conclusion of the debate if the form is correct. I did copy and paste the argument verbatim, to get you to defend the argument you voted for verbatim. Being my opponent has conceded that it is not rational, he should lose this debate as well as concede that his vote was biased and not a good one since the argument obviously fails.
The internet brings more harm than good.

You are only repeating yourself and adding few arguments to your old arguments. round one: you say it brings prosperity and allow people to work at home (with no sources to prove it what-so-ever), I rebut with cyber-bullying and stalker/sexual predators round two: you say educated people can navigate it safely and it brings people together, as shown by debate. org, I rebut with trolls and spammers and possibility of children being affected, and hoaxes on the internet, showing the websites' untrustworthynessround three: you say the internet gives off information (which I already stated! ) and people can differentiate the trustworthy and biased articles. (Then why are the tips there for how to tell if a website is trustworthy or not? If people can differentiate, then there is no need for such articles! ) You continue stating "help bring people together". .. again? And then you say. .. "it brings the world together. .. ." You stated that twice. Just saying! Ok, so now, my final argument. Con has merely one source on his side (unless counting debate. org), so I will win sources wise. Conduct, maybe Con win, since he has "THANK YOU" in all caps. Spelling. .. .not sure, possibly tie. .. And finally, Convincing arguments. Well, I have to say, con did quite a nice job attempting to counter all my negatives effects of the internet. Because I do not want to lose the argument conduct-wise by bringing up a new point in my conclusion, I shall sum up everything I said in the previous rounds. The internet is not always credible, as people can post whatever they want, even if it's a lie. (One great example being the "fact" above. :P)The internet has cyber-bullying and predators, both which are very hard to stop. The internet has bad suggestive effect on children with its trolls and spammers. Children can also be effected by video games. (according to a newspaper article,a student was found dead in front of the computer for being to addicted to playing games) . http://content.time.com...The internet can invade your privacy (with cyber-bullying and the news) In conclusion, the internet brings more harm than good. It is because of the ever-changing nature of the internet that it harms many people.
The internet brings more harm than good.

The Internet gives millions of people access to information they would not otherwise have had, which is a huge benefit. People who read the news, offline or online, are not inherently dupable, they like all people do not simply accept messages, they are, to varying degrees, critical of what they read and not simply passive. When people spend a lot of time reading online content they can differentiate between trustworthy articles or extremely biases online who carefully refer to legitimate sources. The problem of bad information is not unique to the internet; there are lots of trashy articles that are poorly researched as well. We learn in formal education to double-check our sources and not believe in everything we read, and we can apply that skill while surfing the internet. **************************************************************************************************** The internet helps to bring communities and the world closer together. With the ability for anybody to easily and quickly share rich information online, via a whole host of tools, the internet serves to bring people together. People can maintain and even create friendships without the barrier of geography using the internet. Additionally, social networks have a capacity to distribute news in a timely and targeted manner, directed at the people whom it mostly concerns, that is far greater than that of traditional media cannot compete. For example, ****http://fillthathole.org.uk...**** provides a nationwide portal for U.K. citizens to report road potholes. The internet DOES NOT bring more harm than good since it brings the world together by not only encouraging direct communication with other people from other countries, but also by being able to share and distribute information in a way which traditional forms of communication could not do. THANK YOU FOR THIS DEBATE