BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ladies...keep them toilet seats up!

I will make a few points here as to why I must agree to disagree with you, sir. 1. Women do not use the toilet with the seat up. Both men and women use the toilet with the seat down, thus it is only natural the 'nuetral' toilet seat position should be down, as benefits both sexes. 2. No one wants to walk into a bathroom and see urine splotches, stray pubic hairs etc on the rim of the toilet. We keep the seat down to prevent those unpleasant facts of toilet life w/men from being foremost in our minds. 3. Nothing worse than falling into a toilet in the middle of the night when someone with bad potty manners has left the seat up.
God is Black

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
God is Black

1. RebuttalIn my opponent's last argument, he yet again has presented another unwarranted assertion. My opponent's claims implicitly suggest that he knows the mind of God, or at least he knows the necessary conditions in order for God to "create anything". My opponent goes on to claim that "color is infact ONE of the necessary qualities for God to possess." This is nonsense. God cannot hold the quality of being black (or any color) before color existed. Time and time again, my opponent claims that God is necessarily black. This is demonstrably false. Anyone can conceive of God being immaterial (colorless). It couldn't be more clear that color is most certainly not a necessary quality of God, which is exactly what my opponent attempts to assert in this debate. In order to believe this, one must take the view that it is not possible for God to exist unless He is black. I'm not sure that there's anyone who would seriously hold this view. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to provide evidence and argument to think that this radical view is anything but nonsense.2. ArgumentsIn the last round, I provided two arguments of my own to think that God is not black, as my opponent claims. Neither of these arguments were addressed by my opponent, so I take it that my opponent either agrees with their conclusion or else is incapable of refuting them. In any case, he is not able to win the debate unless and until both of these arguments are refuted and sound arguments in favor of his own position have been provided.3. SummaryMy opponent continually makes wild claims about the nature of God. For example, he has claimed that God is necessarily black, a claim which my opponent must know he cannot warrant. I have provided two arguments in favor of my position, both of which have thus far gone unrefuted. As I stated previously, in order for my opponent to win this debate, he must knock down each of these arguments and provide arguments of his own that support his assertion that God is necessarily black.
God is Black

God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally. The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material" Creation itself is a reflection of God's qualities. As it goes with the color Black which is a "visible" representation of the eternal nature of God, containing all things that ever was, is, and will ever be. Human beings have 5 physical senses that process the God data which covers every inch of the Earth. So color is infact ONE of the necessary qualities for God to possess. Nothing in creation is arbitrary. "Time" is planetary effect via the Sun. Suns are a density of creation, the most common being that of Light, and since both light and sound rely on Ether to travel (which is also Black), then God exists both "in" and "outside " of what we call "space and time" Eternity is a difficult concept for anything that is not God, because only God can understand its nature in totality and God is eternal. Everything God creates now becomes restricted to "space and time" once it leaves the Mind of God. But the comprehensive concept of "God" cannot be created because it is eternal اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ
God is Black

Thank you. First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect. In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles. Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black. And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم
God is Black

1. AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and I look forward to a good discussion. As Con, I will take the position that God is not black and is not any color at all.2. Burden of ProofMy opponent will be responsible for carrying the burden of proof in this debate in showing that his assertion that "God is black" is true.3. Debate TermsI invite my opponent to clarify the terms of the debate and to bring forward his/her arguments.
Atheism is more probable than Christianity

I am resending this challenge because I neglected to change the number of rounds and the voting period length. Please accept this challenge and we can delete the old debate. Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Christianity.I am challenging acvavra to this debate to put to rest his "arguments" for the existence of God. For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as the God of Biblical Christianity. and "Christian" is defined as one who puts his faith and trust in Jesus Christ for eternal Salvation. "Atheism" shall be defined as the positive form of atheism; namely positive belief that a God or gods do not exist. Therefore, I will argue a positive view that the Christian faith is false. Rules: (1) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(3) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(4) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. (5) For purposees of this debate, we will use the AV 1611 KJV translation of the Bible. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement(3) Rebuttal(4) RebuttalOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Choose the Topic debate!!!

Thank you for choosing that topic, I wrote it first because I really wanted you to choose it! Also HUGE thank you for choosing PRO. No harsh feelings if you loose, anyway I'd like to say good luck and let the debate officially begin!Good Morning/Afternoon,Ladies and gentleman,Family is not more important than friends because you can choose your friends but you're stuck with your family. We argue that friends are necessary for our emotional and social well being throughout life. Family is important when you are young because they physically look after you, but as you get older - and that is most of your life - family takes a backseat to friends, as we don't need them to look after us. In fact, family is the cause of many problems, and we are stuck with themIn my first round I will be talk about the emotional benefits of friends and in my second round I will talk about the social benefits of friends. And in my third round I will sum up my arguments.And now to begin my case. Friends are like counsellors - friends share deepest secrets with each other - the secrets that nobody knows not even the family. Friends feel relaxed together - they participate in activities together, they share similar interests and spend lots of time together. Because of this trust develops - you develop confidence, whereas in families there is often competition between siblings for the parents attention. Your sibling often dobs on you to get the upper hand. You sibling may have totally different interests, but you're stuck with them - but friends and compatibility, you choose.Secondly, friends are generally in the same age group as you and understand the complications in you're life. They too are going through exams, bullying, puberty, romance, marriage, divorce, parenthood etc. They share your experiences and are more tolerant of how you handle things than family are - who are more likely to boss you, preach at you and put you down for your problems. I'd choose a friend for support but I'm stuck with my family. Lastly, you choose friends that understand you, they get you. They may not be exactly like but they respect you, and don't take you for granted. They don't tell you to do chores or expect you to be brilliant. Because you choose each other, you respect each other - more so than if you are stuck with a family member you don't get along with.Family is not more important than friends, simply because you don't get to choose them - you're stuck with what you're born with - no say in the matter - no control. But friends, you have a choice here, you can pick the ones that make you happy, support you and share you're ups and downs. They are human superglue. I choose friends forever.This concludes my first round of this debate. I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge. I appreciate any comments and votes. Feel free to challenge me to future debates. Thank you once again!Happy Debating,Caty44444444
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model.

Since DATCMOTO has cowardly refused to defend his position on this topic (twice) I open it to all... The proposition on offer is that there are simply no moral truths. In short, morality is non-cognitive in nature. ************************************************ Relevant Definitions: Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. (http://dictionary.reference.com......) Moral Proposition : a statement of the form X is right/wrong. Example: slavery is wrong. Moral Truth : The ability to describe a moral proposition as true or false. Truth Value : the designation True or False. Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have a truth value. Non-Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have no truth value. ************************************************ Contentions: 1) Cognitive morality consists of the following viewpoints. -----a) All moral propositions are false (error theory) -----b) At least 1 moral proposition is true ----------i) Subjectivism (whatever I say goes) ----------ii) Conventionalism (whatever most people say goes) ----------iii) Idealism (whatever John Doe would say goes) ----------iv) Religious appeal (whatever God says goes) -----c) Naturalism ----------i) Analytic (nature describes what goes) ----------ii) Reductive (we can infer what goes) 2) All of the above points have at least 1 problem with them. 3) Until these problems are solved, rational beings should endorse non-cognitivism in theory, if not in practice. ************************************************ I've made this debate 4 rounds because I don't believe CON will want to argue all of the cognitive points, so I'll let him choose which one(s) to defend and we'll start actual argumentation in the 2nd round. As always, comments are welcome before the debate commences to clarify terms, etc...
Progresive Taxation should be upheld

My contentions: 1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government. 2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes. 3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy. None of these have been explicitly refuted. My opponent has not created any contentions, and may not do so in the last round. He thus has no arguments. In addition, my opponent has changed the topic from flat vs. even to taxes vs. none, which is a conduct breach. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to defend my position in light of my opponent's arguments. My opponent's attacks 1. Taxes enforce the founding principle of the United States: A government by the people, for the people. Americans pay taxes to support the operation of the government, which then governs the country in return. Thus, taxes are not theft. They are simply payment for services. My opponent's response ignores contention #2. 2. Allow me to change the example. You have three apples and I have eight. You give one, and I give 2. We both receive one (the flat return of services and governing). I now have 7, and you have 3. The rich still have more wealth (see contention #3). In the highest tax bracket, federal taxes are 35%. If that's what I pay on my 100 apples, and you pay 20% on your 10, you have eight and I have 65. Thus, the rich have more after taxes regardless of how much they pay. The 37 apples we donated went to the operation of the government, which stops us from being killed in the streets, and stops thieves from stealing the rest of our apples (a small price to pay for safety). Thus, progressive taxation bars off radical wealth extremes, and installs a system which allows the well-off to help the less fortunate. Your objection to this will most likely be that the less fortunate are less fortunate for a reason. While they may be, this reason may be an inadequate education or poverty as a child. 3. Income is an objective system for the purposes of taxation. While being a democrat says nothing about your wealth, income says everything. See contention #2. Thus, all my contentions remain standing, and my opponent neither has any, nor may post any more in the last round.
Progresive Taxation should be upheld

"1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government." Transfer is simply a political term for theft. Rhetoric of 'The rich have more to offer' contradicts the fact of taxes as an agent of force. If any one individual wishes to send their money to any one charitable enterprise - that is offering - theft however remains theft even when government endorsed and enacted. Flat fee of service? Sounds like flat tax, not progressive. In any case those of higher income have less need for Government services making the point moot. Wealth 'evened out' is again political speak for Robin Hood tactics of theft and redistribution. Wealth is value earned. There is no inherent claim on the production of value that entails its removal. "2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes." You have 4 apples I have 1 - I steal one from you thus fairly redistributing your property. The poorer I am the greater recourse I have to thieve from you. That is your proposed system - the only difference being the government is the arbitrary mediator of this theft. Simply because any one individual has more wealth than another, is not moral grounds for theft. An individuals wealth is their property - no one has rightful claim on it other than through the voluntary agreement of the property holder - or until such time as they may violate such principles. The remaining wealth of an individual after tax is incidental to the actual premise of tax support. That is, by agreeing to the notion of tax - you endorse theft. "3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy." The correct opposing is no taxation at all. Not, Flat versus Progressive. Progressive tax is simply no more than a system that punishes the successful. Perhaps you can explain why an arbitrary minority should be targeted, and why such a category is valid. Would taxing Democrats higher, for being Democrats be a fair system? Perhaps all those born in January? No? Likewise, income is such an arbitrary denomination for the purposes of taxation.
Progresive Taxation should be upheld

1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government. 2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes. 3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy.
Abortion

Either way I still disagree by the followings. As stated that to much sex will be negative for it should not be used that many times. For the production of sperm is limited and numerous internal complains will arise if overused by both males and females. Let I say that the level of stress is even higher due to the cause of society implementing this pressure like it has over time. Sex will become and escape to relieve this and by it even more used. Now by the earlier mentioned statement of over usage this will show you that your argument is invalid. The situation where this stress reliever is used for its beneficial means is not reason enough to misuse it. For the purpose of sex is to create life any other usage is out of desire or short-term necessity. As my opponent stated another way of relieving it is not as effective. Instead of using that as an excuse why not approach the source of the cause that elevated the stress. Besides there could be other ways of relieving stress since the cause is psychological. Second point is the argument that every action not procreation is precluding potential life. Some what truth except that the situation is different. Whereas the actual killing of potential life by the act and in the other ways it's indirectly killing it. Like the example of killing people consciously and killing them unconsciously. Huge factor if this was presented in court. For the sentence of both cases will not be the same. Also, by the earlier stated argument that overusing it will cause internal problems with the human body. By that indicating it should not be used too often. Third point which has the same thinking process as the argument addressed in the previous paragraph. This is linked with the act is not to be used in this way and by it will not create the situation of unwanted results. Highlighting your argument about an unwanted child and by it creating more problems. Last point is society will experience a low quality of life. Also, close to truth, but not entirely. As the act is redefined in its usage it became a constant. The experience of life is defined by the environment. For this constant is where you were born into will be the norms and values you will forcefully inherit. Also, the act is considered extremely pleasures you will see that the point in arguing about it's usage will cause people to distance themselves from it. Why? For the act is now considered a constant and by overusing it and experiencing intense pleasure one became addicted to it. Also, for the lack of responsibility that was relinquished for the mentioned reasons. My opponent states is entire case on the benefits it has and by it overlooking the negative ones. For the redefinition of the act and by that result it became a necessity justifying its usage. Which is saying the positive outweigh the negative no matter what it may be.
Abortion

My apologies to my opponent, I incorrectly assumed that this debate had a 72 hour time period. That being said, I would urge the voters to allow my opponent a final response in the comment section. He should not be deprived of a round because of my mistake. Overview:I will win this debate on two levels. First I'm going to argue why abortion is more moral than the alternative. Then I'm going to argue that pragmatism is more valuable than morality and demonstrate that abortions are pragmatic. Morality:My opponent addresses the responsibility of having sex by arguing that abortions allow sex without reprecussions. I will say that this a good thing. Numerous studies suggest that sexual activity decreases stress, promotes bonding, and increase creativity. A world in which we have less reprecussions for the activity is one in which we are happier as a civiliziation and treat each other better. My oponent briefly states that there are other ways to overcome stress. While this may be true, very few of those methods pose all the benefits of sexual intercourse while limiting the personal risk. If Con is to win this argument, he is going to need to demonstrate why sex is intrisically immoral. Barring some out dated, 19th century, mode of thought I doubt a good explanation exists. Next my opponent argues that "the mindset" will "become a constant that will spread to other areas of thinking". This is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy, in which one action snowballs into many other actions. Since abortions have been existant for some period of time, I'll suggest that emperical evidence disproves this thought. Finally my opponent argues that abortions kill the promise of life. This is true indeed, but it is not a moral issue. In truth every action that is not procreation is precluding potential life. For instance, as my opponent was typing this post he was sacrificing time that could have been used to create babies. In this way he has directly limited the potential of life, but so too does every other action not copulation related. Every moment that we do not attempt to pro-create is a moment of "killing the promise of life." As it is the base state, it does not have a moral affiliation. Pragmatism > Morality:Next I'll argue that pragmatic approaches are indeed more important than morality. Morality remains inconsistent from society to society, from community to community, and even from person to person. I've previously argued that without abortions society experiences a low quality of life for children with a nurtureless environment. Since the outcome often has terrible ramifications on society as a whole, we should consider it above the singular morality of each personal action. My opponent talks briefly about killing the promise of life, but I'd say that the more pragmatic factor is the "quality of life." A child born into a family that does not desire it will be precluded, in many aspects, from living a happy existence.
Abortion

The usefulness of things do not outweigh morality. It became a burden of the current situation of our time that looked upon something that was needed. By it not looking if it was right or wrong, but at its convenience. For the act was redefined for business purposes creating this issue. Sex is not something used for pleasure only and by exploiting this natural instinct of man for creating a product like condoms, a pornographic industry and the procedures of abortion. It gives the idea that we should just give up on morality for the sake of the easy way out. As long as you make money for your country no harm is done and it is beneficial. Creating the mindset that allows future businesses to grow on this principal. Dependence once government is on this income the harder it will be to get rid of it. Next is the idea that because it can be aborted we should look upon responsibility as something in that case non existent thus creating lack and increasing desire of it. For now see there is no restrain in usage. There are other ways of relieving stress. The fact that it is so elevated comes from our current system creating it. Also, a factor that allows this to be justified for the necessity and by it ignoring morality. The mindset of this will become a constant that will spread to other areas of thinking. All that not even talking about killing the promise of life and the fact that deceases are the indicator of overusing sex.