BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game, Families were eating their own children for 19 years

It does make sense but you don't understand it. It's a psychological will tester, testing their will to tell the truth Like asking them "What is special about a holiday roast? " And them guessing as a response "ham, chicken, turkey, beef" You tell them "No" because they don't realize the point you're trying to get across their heads Because they think they can get away with eating children, but suddenly you ask them another question like "Who or what do you think is special? " then they answer with this response "Children" and believing that "Children are special" which you respond to that with "So, you guys eat children as your christmas roast. " Which gets them to freak out. This whole topic is about getting your whole point across and at the same time, province the truth in which I did with that long comment I made in the comment section below.
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game, Families were eating their own children for 19 years

The Roast Game is pretty simple " First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast?" The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special?" The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it. The Roast Game - Bryan Mullins and The International Wine Club Orchestra: https://youtu.be...
Should public schools and religion be allowed to mix.

The school and state shouldn't be mixed in a way, to the extent of hanging Jesus portraits on a wall, because in a public area it degrades a childs right to choice instead of keeping them unexposed to religion until they are old enough to undertsnad what they are looking at and what religion physically is talking about. I'm fine with free speech, when its hurting a kids right to believe in what he/she believes in.
Up is always better than down.

I accept.I'll begin by replying Pros statements.1. "Things are looking up" means things are going to improve, while "feeling down" means you're depressed.Yes I agree both of the terms "Looking up" and "Feeling down" but how does that signifies direction Up is better. These are mere feelings expressed by people.2. Looking up at the sky will always inspire a feeling of heavenly wonder, while looking down at the ground will only inspire the miserable doldrums of reality.How may I ask? Looking up sometimes may result in looking directly to Sun which is harmful for eyes. Besides, Looking up at the sky always, makes people think, you (In general) are some kind of nuts. While not always people look down and there may be thousands of reasons why people look down? 3. Picking a snack from the upper row of a vending machine might knock down other items on the bottom row. No It can't. Unless you do it necessarily.4.Stocks moving up means profits, while stocks going down mean bankruptcy.Stock goes down for various reasons, If Investors are careful enough, investing in shares and stocks then they can make profit with minimal risk.5. Moving up in the company means a promotion, while moving down means working in the mail room. Moving down means working in mail room - Never heard of that.6. Uptown is ritzy and downtown is shady.What's wrong in that? 7. Traveling north moves you closer to Santa Claus, and traveling south moves you closer to Hell.Bring me one, person who has met real Santa Claus by travelling north most of Earth and one person who saw hell by travelling south.8. Unless someone can prove with any evidence to the contrary, we all have to conclude with complete honesty that up is always better than down.No one need to prove direction up is always better. It is common knowledge that they are just directions without which neither can exist i.e Up cannot be Up unless there is down and vice-versa.Conclusion Up and down both are just directions. Without down there can't be any up and same the other way around. Up and down terms may be used for a number of occasions and that does not mean either of the directions is good or bad. There are 4 directions which are equally important. For example: The comps use all the 4 directions, even if one direction of the compass is broken, there is no use in having that compass. It's just like saying Going right is always better where as one cannot just go in one direction only and need to go in every direction. And one cannot just stand up but should sit down and do every thing in life which is necessary.Thus every direction are equally important.
Up is always better than down.

I would like to propose that the direction up is always superior to down, and going up is always preferable to moving down. "Things are looking up" means things are going to improve, while "feeling down" means you're depressed. Looking up at the sky will always inspire a feeling of heavenly wonder, while looking down at the ground will only inspire the miserable doldrums of reality. Picking a snack from the upper row of a vending machine might knock down other items on the bottom row. Stocks moving up means profits, while stocks going down mean bankruptcy. Moving up in the company means a promotion, while moving down means working in the mailroom. Uptown is ritzy and downtown is shady. Traveling north moves you closer to Santa Claus, and traveling south moves you closer to Hell. Unless someone can prove with any evidence to the contrary, we all have to conclude with complete honesty that up is always better than down.
The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

Thank you for your argument! I. Christian church funding I have to argue that I think it is just that the Christian church gets their grants because they will divide it among the community again. Whether or not it is equal, it is fundamentally beneficial. I should have provided examples before. There are more than 10 countries (Christian) that have agreements with the Church for either political or financial backing and their relationship with the governments are stable (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In some of these countries, there is even heavy financial backings to the Christian community! I should say now that whether or not it is unequal again, the benefits do condone the special treatment for the greater well being of the country. II. States funding religion I think that con is still only making assertions that a federal level would not be condoned by the supreme court as the case you brought up doesn't directly state a problem with the federal government unable to involve themselves in financial religious affairs. This means this argument can only be an assumption on your part. I have adequately refuted your constitutional claims do to lack of direct SCOTUS statements. Even if you are right, the purpose of this argument shows that it would be beneficial for the government to finance the church, not whether it is allowed. III. Majority Rules I think it is unfair to compare religious minorities with ethnic minorities. Black people were treated with horrible lower class remarks while whites were treated without special benefits, just benefits in general. Religion is different as the U.S. isn't banishing or forcing religious minorities into the lower class. I also think that because the church becomes the new welfare gateway for those helping the community does not mean that the church will invade the USFG and change all laws. It is better for federal welfare to be replaced. I conclude by saying that my arguments have been provided and I look forward to the debates of my opponent!
The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

Thank you for your arguments.I. FinancingA small portion of the U.S. income should be 25% of the current welfare expenditure, which amounts to about $250,000,000 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). I would argue for using welfare budgets because welfare does not have a correlation to poverty and crime and has been considered ineffective by many studies (http://www.heritage.org...). II. Funding ecclesiastical institutionsNon-Christians in the U.S. only make up 13% of the American population (http://abcnews.go.com...) which is more like 1/9th rather than a quarter, 1/4th. You argue that funding Christians would make religious minorities treated unequally but it wouldn't be under the law that the Christian churches receive their grants, it would be executive orders and federal expenditures; a new form of welfare. So I do agree a just society upholds the principle of equality and law, but Christian institutions would only be given federal grants.It is not the same as calling the funding equivalent to funding a particular industry or market. Christianity makes up more than 80% of the American public, who would feel much greater bonds to the U.S. government and their treatment to Christian Americans who make up an influential amount of people. The U.S. government would benefit for financial ties with the Christian church. As for the religious minorities, they wouldn't be persecuted, they would simply not recieve grants. III. Funding a religious institution is constitutional I'd like to point out that the results of the case came to the conclusion that the "states cannot fund religious institutions" and not the state of the government. The fact that a nation is funding the institution for the secular purpose of welfare and community bonding does not make it unconstitutional. Therefore, government funding does not violate the constitution. I look forward to rebuttals!
The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

Thank you Con, for taking me as an opponent after my other debate ended being bombed.As the rules say, I'll use this round for Acceptance and arguments.Opening Arguments of ProBefore I start, the Christian Church applies to all churches legally approved by the government and represent official branches of Christianity. By funding, I should say that a small portion of the United States income should be sent towards the religion.I. Christianity Outnumbers Other Religions In The U.S.It is not a surprise that Christianity is the most sizable religion inside the United States (http://www.gallup.com...) . Such an important religion is bound to have influence within the United States and in order not to upset the country's greatest audience, the U.S. should be expected to start funding their cause. If the American government decides to start funding Christianity in the US, they should expect a greater rise in faith and well-being, as the ideals of the religion represent peace and harmony. A common idea that no one can refuse. This country is also founded upon the ideals of democracy and liberty, where the power stays among the people, and studies have shown that Christians are open about their faith in their jobs. They are also open to their faith and loyal to their own believers in politics, as Christians mostly refuse to vote for any other persons other than their own faith (https://www.usa.church...). Heretofore, it is not an exact merge between Church & State, but a worthy investment for the country to secure a true bond with her people. II. The Church Helps OthersThe Church does more than satisfy their own needs, they also receive many donations which from the U.S. government, should be expected to redistribute their income among the needy within their communities (http://www.mustministries.org...). The US taxation system which favors welfare, should be marginally redirected towards funding the Churches of Christianity as people are more open to donations of faith rather than the poor. Religion is also a great bond for people, and if more resources are allocated in favor of religion, people should find their communities blessed with their regional church to blame for such a positive environment. III. Does Not Violate 1st AmendmentMost people believe that such a program diverted to funding a faith would shatter freedom of religion in the US which is not true. I am not advocating for State Religion, I am advocating for a gateway of funding that helps in more ways than one, including bonds between the government and people for respect of the majority faith, bonds between each other under the principles of faith. and a reborn community blessed with the resources the nation had granted. The American constitution does not stop state funded churches (https://en.wikipedia.org...) nor does any other amendment stop such funding. Those are my points for the state to fund Christianity, I hope my opponent goes easy on me! Good luck, friend.
The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

Hello everyone! This debate will consider the merits of the USFG funding the Christian church. My opponent is a newly established DDO user whose first debate is on this topic, and I narrowly missed the opportunity to accept his challenge. Full Resolution: The USFG should fund/subsidize the Christian church. FormatR1: Acceptance/Opening Arguments by ProR2: Opening Arguments by Con/RebuttalR3: Rebuttal, cont. R4: Final RemarksI will leave it up to my opponent to define the limits of the USFG and what the "Christian church" actually is, and I will contend if necessary.
People who get home loans are welfare babies!!!!

I would definitely agree with pro if it was not for a few things.its a LOAN, which means you end up paying mortgage until you pay back said loan, so no its not theft, and people are not getting away with paying back said loan, and if you fail to pay this back the bank can literally take the house back.Secondly do you have any idea how hard it is to save up enough money for a decent house while paying rent? some places in the united states charge as much as $1300.00/month just for rent alone.So no, people who get home loans are not welfare babies.
People who get home loans are welfare babies!!!!

Privately owned banks do not make home loans on their own, it is not profitable to tie up hundreds of thousands of dollars for thirty years, only to get back chump change. The US government (US taxpayers) insures home loans to promote home ownership. When you receive a home loan, the federal government steps in and gives the bank the amount of your loan so the bank still has the equity to continue making other loans, but the federal government leaves the bank liable if the loan is not paid. The federal government makes the money to pay for the loans by selling bonds. China owns the largest percent of US bonds owned by any foreign entity. The US federal government owns the largest percent. Britain and Brazil are next in line after China, as far as foreign ownership goes. Owning US bonds actually means you own American debt. The American debt to China is directly linked to (most) American home loans. The American taxpayers are on the hook for that debt. People who've gotten home loans through the "Finney Mea", "Fannie Mae", and "Freddie Mac"programs have caused American debt to go up, and the taxpayers do not get that money back! So ya, people who get home loans are welfare babies!! I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge by the way. Good luck!
Humans are natural meat eaters.

I appreciate the fact that you decided to debate me, but... The debate topic was whether humans are "natural meat eaters", it makes no claim on whether our it is healthy to eat meat or whether it is moral to eat meat, it was more of a scientific topic on whether or not humans eating animal tissue is facultative (I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough). I do agree with you that currently the way we are obtaining meat is extremely problematic for many reasons, including the ones you mentioned (however I also think that that isn't a reason to not eat meat, rather change the way we produce it), but that wasn't the topic of the debate.
The United States has constitutional authority to assist the less-fortunate.

There are many constitutional bonds restricting the federal government from helping the poor. There is no power to create such programs even barely mentioned in the constitution. The neccessary and proper clausesays that Congress has the right "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Welfare is not neccessary to carry out these foregoing powers, which do not even relate to welfare. None of the other powers in the constitution allow for such use of the people's money. When the constitution was written, the poor were helped through the church, which ran off of voluntary donations. The seperation of church and state clause means that the government has no right to interfere in what constitutionally is left in the hands of the church. The general welfare clause in the constitution is irreleva
The United States has constitutional authority to assist the less-fortunate.

1. We are all going to have to assume that you have retreated from your previous statement regarding the "...many constitutional bonds restricting the federal government from helping the poor." Since I challenged you to name one that specifically did that and you failed to do so. 2. The constitution says specifically that the government can collect duties and taxes to provide for "the common defence and welfare of the United States." This term "general welfare" leaves room for interpretation, and since 1937 apparently no court has felt that it is unconstitutional. Since 1937 the court has alternately been both liberal, and conservative and has been upheld since its inception. You may disagree with that interpretation, but ultimately it is the interpretation of the court that matters. Also the courts have not ammended the constitution through their opinion. All they have done in this case is interpreted a specific clause in the constitution.
The United States has constitutional authority to assist the less-fortunate.

1.Because the constitution does not give the goverment the power to create welfare, the government doesn't have that power. The definition of welfare is different now than it was when the constitution was written. It meant prosperity and well-being when the constitution was written. Though the word has evolved into that, the old definition was meant. 2.You are correct that the constitution shouldn't be expected to predict possible situtations hudreds of years into the future, but it did prepare for such situations. The constitution has not been ammended to fit this duty, and congress does not have the the specific power to do so. As stated in the tenth ammendment, this power is then given to the individual states. Also, the courts do not have constitutional authority to ammend the constitution through their opinions. Despite what previous courts have said, this debate is about interpreting the constitution. I do not consider precedent as decent proof, only the proof of the precedent.
The United States has constitutional authority to assist the less-fortunate.

1. "There are many constitutional bonds restricting the federal government from helping the poor." Please name one that specifically restricts helping the poor. 2. The constitution specifically says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Now this clause does not specifically say that the welfare system we have today should be created, but it does give congress the power to create legislation to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. The constitution cannot be expected to specifically mention every situation encountered by the US for the next few hundred years so interpretation is necessary, and obviously the courts have upheld that this system is constitutional. You may not agree with it, but it's not unconstitutional.
God Exists

My opponent has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the existence of God is more likely than not. The argument of needing a cause breaks down outside of time, as there can be no cause/effect relationship without time for it to occur in. In the absence of evidence for some deity, and the absence of the necessity of some deity, the inclusion of that particular deity makes the system more complex than otherwise, and therefore less likely. Seeing that there has been no evidence or necessity presented, it is clear that it is more probable that God does not exist.
God Exists

My opponent has decided to base his arguments on unsubstantiated axioms such as: "Time must've existed forever in Heaven. This is agreed upon by most people." Not only did my opponent fail to provide any substantiation for that claim, he attempts an unsubstantiated appeal to the masses, which is a well-known fallacy. According to scientific models, time came into existence via the Big Bang, not before it. Quantum Mechanics provides an explanation for something coming from nothing, demonstrated in theory as well as in the measurement of virtual particles. Both Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking describe the potentiality of a universe spontaneously coming into existence from nothing in their books Something From Nothing and The Grand Design, respectively.
God Exists

This "God" we both are reffering to - Let's just define him as any monotheistic religion defines him as; The creator of our Universe, and everything in it. So, what happened is, before the Big Bang, time came into existence. WHAT!!?? It CANNOT! How so? Without time, nothing can happen. This is agreed upon by most people. If so, NOT EVEN time could come into existence... AND BY ITSELF, THAT IS. Time must've existed forever in Heaven. This is agreed upon by most people. So, HE MUST'VE created it.
God Exists

This debate is whether or not it is more probable that God exists than God does not exist. Pro's burden will be to demonstrate that it is more probable, while my burden will be to refute Pro's arguments and show that it is more probable that God does not exist. Neither party has to prove 100% that God does or doesn't exist. God can be defined as any personal deity, this debate doesn't apply to non-personal or pantheistic concepts. I ask Pro to define which god concept he will be arguing for in Round 1. I will mainly be attempting to refute Pro's arguments rather than presenting arguments of my own. The basic principle of my position is that God is not necessary, and the concept of God is more complicated and therefore less probable. Round 1: First arguments for Pro. Round 2: Rebuttal by Con, rebuttal/arguments by Pro. Round 3: Rebuttal by Con, closing remarks by Pro.