BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Catholics will go 2 hell for believing in demon statues

< > I don't agree. < > Be cool. Stay in school. You need it, as your education is seriously lacking. <> We're not here to debate whether I will go to hell or not. We're here to discuss the Catholics going to Hell for believing in demon statues, which is a lie. Catholics believe in their god and place no other above that belief -- a belief that does not exist. (Also, that text-typing is okay for your cellphone when you're chatting with your friends, but not so great for here. You dig, homeboy?)
The Catholics will go 2 hell for believing in demon statues

< > The Catholics will not go to Hell for believing in demon statues, as Hell does not really exist. < > The Bible is just a book made up by a bunch of different guys and not truly the words of a god. <> So it's their time to waste. Let them. If you want to win this debate, you'll have to get this atheist to believe that your Bible's "Hell" exists.
Christians believe it is more important to be a Christian than it is to be a good person.

Though this point comes in the latter half of your response, I feel it deserves to be said due to priority. I disagree with your stance that the main focus of a debate is whether a conclusion logically follows from the premises. I believe the end product of a debate should be a logically valid conclusion. No matter how well you argue your points, a conclusion derived from a faulty premises can never be logically valid, and thus, is useless in the realm of debate. It is neither unfair, unjust, nor against the rules for me to accuse your argument of being invalid on the basis that your premises are incorrect. *** I feel somewhat guilty. You devoted half your entire response to a very qualified and very impressive explanation on a logical fallacy THAT I DID NOT COMMIT. This is the result of some miscommunication, and I apologize, but I assure you that my argument was not to imply that all good people are Christians or any sort of similarly poorly-derived conclusions. What I meant to say was this: The Christian faith is NOT as purely black and white as you have said. Christians believe that one cannot be an evil person and a Christian at the same time. To be Christian is to devote oneself to a certain code of conduct and a certain way of life. To be Christian is INCLUSIVE of being a good person, not merely accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah. Will you review my other points?
Christians believe it is more important to be a Christian than it is to be a good person.

This is a tricky topic to debate, especially since you've restricted these definitions. I would personally argue that your conclusion is logically flawed because the definitions you use are flawed for that particular reason. A conclusion cannot be valid if the premises are invalid, and I believe these definition you have of being a "good" person compromises your conclusion in that way. Christians, from my understanding, do not view being Christian and being a good person as two different things, rather, they view it as one thing. No religion or faith can be summed up so simply, every religion has a set of rules for their followers. Imagine if you will, an exclusive club that has a one time membership fee. Paying the fee is one thing, but it cannot be expected that the membership will continue unconditionally. If I set fire to the clubhouse or assault the leader, I may jeopardize my membership by having violated some rules. It is the same for Christianity. Believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the messiah is the initial requirement, but that does not in any way mean that a Christian can engage in "non-christian" behavior and still hope to retain the title. Christians preach neighborly love as much as the gospel itself and a good portion of the gospel is in relation to proper interpersonal relationships. Jesus of Nazareth himself preached that the two greatest commandments were 1. to obey and worship the lord, and 2. To love your neighbor as yourself. It was not specified which ones was of more importance, thus, Christians must assume they are of equal importance.
Christians believe it is more important to be a Christian than it is to be a good person.

For the purposes of this debate I will define a true Christian as anyone who has the following belief: The belief that the only path to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. In other words, you believe that you must have faith, or belief, that Christ was and is God at the time of your death. Otherwise, your entry into Heaven is jeopardized. Anyone who truly believes the above is a Christian, and anyone who does not truly believe the above is not a Christian. If you consider yourself a Christian but do not believe the above, DO NOT ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE! On the other hand, I have never met a Christian who denied having such a belief. Furthermore, for the purpose of this debate, a good person is someone who desires to treat other people with kindness, respect, and dignity. A good person is generous rather than selfish. In short, what we normally think of when we think of someone being or doing "good." I believe that Christians believe it is more important to be Christian than to be a good person.
Free will exists.

================ Source Model vs. Leeway Model ================ My opponent asserts that computers do not have moral agency. Although they typically do not, they very well could. They could be programmed to recognize moral rightness, in which case, by my opponent's definition, they would then have free will. Furthermore, my opponent's definition of free will is flawed. He has offered an interesting definition, but has failed to explain why his definition is an adequate challenge to mine. Unless he can do so, I win this debate. Unfortunately, we are now in the final round, so for my opponent to provide new arguments at this point is discourteous. =================== The Importance of Moral Responsibility =================== My opponent asserts that moral responsibility is linked to free will; and yet he challenges my definition. He is attempting to link moral responsibility to an indeterminately-defined entity. In essence, he is only associating one pair of words with another. This is meaningless, and contradicts his attempt to challenge my definition. Let it be known that I do not necessarily support all of Fischer's views. I was citing his work for a specific purpose. ==================== Defense of the link between moral responsibility and free will ==================== Under the merit-based view, my opponent's definition of free will is supported. Why we should accept his definition is still unclear. However, the merit-based view is inferior to the consequentialist view (http://plato.stanford.edu...), "according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior." This is the most beneficial perspective, as it is the most productive and therefore should be accepted over the merit-based view. My opponent's first premise is a non sequitur. My opponent has failed to prove that moral responsibility is not arbitrary, or that it even exists. He has merely relied upon a non sequitur in an attempt to prove it. ================= New Dispositionalism ================= Both regulative control and guidance control are inferior systems. See my definition in round one. New dispositionalism, as well as classical compatibilism, both rely upon inadequate definitions. As I provided definitions in round one, my opponent must explain why his definitions are superior. So far, it seems that the only reason for the superiority of his definitions is that it supposedly allows him to win. My definition of free will is concise and intuitive. No link to moral responsibility is necessary. It is possible that moral responsibility exists or does not exist under my definition, but it is really not relevant. What is relevant is that my opponent has not refuted my proof. What is relevant is that my opponent's definition of free will is unconventional, unintuitive and unsupported. What is relevant is that it is time for you to vote CON. I thank my opponent for this most enjoyable of debates. ================ [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Free will exists.

======== Source Model vs. Leeway Model It is widely agreed upon that computers do not have free will. They simply choose among various alternatives using some algorithm. Given the exact same input, they will come up with the same result. If I understand my opponent's model correctly, he is saying that computers in fact do have free will, which is clearly false. His model is therefore flawed, and should not be accepted. ======== Moral Responsibility My opponent argues that moral responsibility is linked to free will. But this goes against his entire argument. The typical argument is that if the world is deterministic -- or indeterministic, that is, decisions are either deterministic or random -- which my opponent agrees with -- then we have no moral responsibility. My opponent asserts that moral responsibility is compatible with indeterminism, and I would agree (without looking into it much further). But his assertion that moral responsibility must be linked to free will is completely unwarranted. He states that it is difficult to argue otherwise, and yet he has not provided any evidence to support his burden of proof. ======== Ordered Desires I do not see how these ordered desires are relevant to free will. I will allow my opponent to do his own elaboration. However, as a starting point, I ask this simple but important question: What if someone else is in direct control of your second-order desires? ======== It appears that my opponent's entire argument boils down to this syllogism: 1. Moral responsibility can only exist if free will exists. 2. We have moral responsibility. 3. Therefore, free will exists. Both premises of this syllogism are unsupported. ======== My arguments remain entirely unchallenged except for my definition of "free choice", and my opponent has barely even explained why my definition is inadequate. I thank my opponent and await his response. It is a relief to be debating someone who actually understands determinism. [1] Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer
Free will exists.

He will be playing the Devil's Advocate, as we agree on the issue of free will. Free will: The capability to make a free choice. Free choice: A choice that is ultimately not influenced by any outside entity and completely unpredictable, but is also completely rational from the perspective of the entity making the choice. Rational: Proceeding or derived from reason or based on logical reasoning. (dictionary. com) Note that a being with free will does not have to make every choice a free choice, but must only be capable of making a free choice. That is, some or even most choices that a person makes may be predictable, but for a person to have free will the person must be capable of being truly unpredictable. *** Why Free Will Is Impossible 1. Every event is either caused by something or caused by nothing. (This is not arguable. ) 2. If an event is caused by something: it is not free because it is a reaction dependent on external cause. 3. If an event is caused by itself: events can't be their own cause so this is impossible. 4. If an event is caused by nothing: it is unpredictable and therefore random; a truly random decision is not rational, and is therefore not free will.
Gay Marriage

What are you doing? You should present at least 2-3 arguments to support your stand, not just ask simple question. (I will elaborate my arguments after you do that because you are in affirmative) It is incorrect to say that gays are not allowed to marry someone. Gays are allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex. Arguments: a. Allowing same sex-marriage would create extension of rights. Members of LGBT Community are not prohibited to marry a person. They are allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex. In this case, there is equal treatment in terms of who are qualified for marriage. But by allowing same-sex marriage, the government would extend the rights of other people. Consequently; this extension of right is unfair because there would be additional benefits such as tax exemption, social security, employment benefits, medical benefits, and the like, extended to them where in fact they are already eligible for that when they marry members of the opposite sex.1 Clearly, same-sex marriage would create this unwarranted extension of rights. b. The government values marriage because it is the foundation of family. The Family is an integral part of the society, and the government has every reason to protect it. The government encourages people to marry by providing benefits such as tax exemption so that they create family. In a family, a child is born. This child will be part of the society, he can either become an asset or a liability, depending on how his parents discipline him. In a same-sex marriage, a child is not possible naturally. As a result, contribution to the society is hampered. This is one of the reasons why government avoids that kind of scenario from happening. (I will expound all my arguments later) As you can see, I did not use any religious arguments. 1 Marriage Rights and Benefits. URL: http://www.nolo.com...
Gay Marriage

There is nothing to abolish when in the first place it is not present. I will be presenting arguments to oppose same-sex marriage primarily not based on religion but on other aspects such as in economy, tax, and the like, which I will expound after you present your own arguments (you should present your case first because you are in affirmative). Same-Sex Marriage is not allowed not because it is restricted per se but because marriage is a privilege given only to those who are qualified for the reason that in marriage, it is more than love, it involves the government and people’s taxes to support marriage which is the foundation of family.
LDS' Doctrine on the Father and the Holy Spirit Are Christian Doctrines

=========== INTRODUCTION =========== My opponent made two main truth claims which are " God the Father who has a body of flesh.....the Holy Ghost which will at some point get a body of flesh and bone." As Con, I believe that such doctrines are outside of the Christian Faith. Never taught by the eye-witnesses of Jesus (the twelve apostles) the other writers of the New Testament, or the Church Fathers who faithfully held to the teachings of the apostles. As pro, the burden of proof falls on Strikeeagle84015 to give evidence from church history, the Bible (Old and New Testaments), and any other reliable source that would show forth evidence and reason that such doctrines are indeed part of the Christian Faith. Pro requested in a pm, "one condition you will accept the Book of Mormon if not as a primary source at least auxiliary evidence." It is accepted not as primary source for the Christian Faith, but as representing LSD's belief system. In round 1, I will provide some definitions. Pro may give his introduction and contentions as well. Round 2-4 will be for rebuttals/explanations. Round 5 the conclusion. If my opponent accepts my challenge, I give my thanks in advance and look forward to our debate. Thank you to our readers for taking their time to read this debate. ======== DEFINITIONS ======== Truth: 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. [1] Literary Context: Of any verse is the paragraph of which it is a part, the section of which that paragraph is a part, and the book of which that section is a part. And, given the unity of Scripture, the ultimate context of any book is the entire Bible. Historical Context: What were some of the social, political, and technological influences on the writer and on those to whom he was writing, what else was taking place in the world at this time, where does this passage fit in history, what is taking place? Theological Context: What did this author know about God, what was the relationship of his readers to God, where does this passage fit in the unfolding of Scripture, etc? Cultural Context: Self-explanatory Geographic Context: Self-Explanatory Comparison: Comparing Scripture with Scripture. [2] [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] Hendricks, D. William and G. Howard, "Living by the Book", pg. 228-242
Is Chess a sport

I am a school chess player, but I also play cricket and badminton, and I can definitively say that chess is not a sport, because there is something which sets cricket and badminton apart from chess. Physicality. Physical fitness is not at all required in chess and it does not require any form of physical exercise to train for a match. Also the Oxford dictionary defines a sport as 'An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment'. I can say without a doubt while chess requires a huge amount of skill, it does not involve physical exertion. My opponent mentioned that chess plays upon the mental toughness,well, that is irrelevant in terms of what a sport is and what is not because while it is necessary in sport, it is not what sets a sport apart from anything else. My opponent mentioned that being in good mental condition requires good physical condition, while that is true, does that mean that debating is a sport? Because you need in good mental condition to respond wittingly. Secondly, my opponent mentioned that several countries recognise chess as a sport alongside the IOC however you cannot say that because people recognise chess as a sport that makes it a sport, because if majority of the world saw talking as a sport that does not make it a sport, it is just people's view, we have to got by definitions. Thirdly my opponent mentioned that other sports use chess' player ranking system. That is irrelevant. It does not affect whether it is a sport or not, it just means that it is a good system. Thanks KingToffee
Is Chess a sport

Chess is a wonderful thing that many people play. However is it a sport. This is something that many chess enthusiasts believe is a sport. One reason this is a sport is that Chess plays upon the mental toughness of the player similar to wrestling, cross country or other Sports. And yes I have participated in both of those sports so I do know what it means to physically exert yourself. Another reason that chess is a sport is that it is actually recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee. Also, It is recognized as a sport in multiple countries including Turkey, and over 100 countries. This is a huge amount of countries considering there are only 195 countries in the world. World chess champions have also won their national Sportsman of the Year competition including Magnus Carlsen (Norway), Vishy Anand (India) and Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria). the player ranking system was developed for chess in 1960 and has been adopted by many other sports including American football, baseball, basketball, hockey, korfball, rugby, and golf. Football and cricket use a related formula. Peak mental condition requires being in good physical condition. Players need to concentrate totally for up to seven hours. As the stress and tension build up, blood pressure, pulse and respiration rates all increase. Contenders for the world championships have nutritionists and fitness coaches. Thus concluding all of this compelling information. I believe that Chess is in fact a sport.
Freestyle Rap Battle (18)

on the subject of never shooting a gun, have you ever really? it's quite fun if you haven't done it already this is the last round, and i'm not sure you're ready for the pounding this man will put on you you'll bleed out your face like a fountain i'm the mountain, you're a dude that checks out nuns and rabbi's and such but you'll never love them like you did your pastor it's f-cked the lucks ran out this time, maybe shoula made it 5 or 6 rounds so we could really settle the score you and your gang are all a bunch of cucks.for real let's talk dairy, you probably spend your life baked and to top it all off you're a fairy you think you're good? you really need to refine your interests because you're already gathering reputation as a princess where as mine is as a f-cking mind boggler, your b-tch, i toggle her. You do nothing but take my raps and leech off 'em and on top of all of that you leeching off Em, your entire career is getting beached don't pretend i didn't hear those faps to the ponies on your computer screen, you aren't mean you're a fiend for kids cartoons, and catfishing for nudes by pretending you always got the blues, and call every other girl a bitch when calls you a prick, and exposes your tiny d-ck, you hitch rides for more than just licks, boy, you do it for fun.That's a deep metaphor, think about itdude you're a joke, honestly f-ck your whole crew, i just screwed the b-tch that just screwed you, out of all your cash and there's nothing you can do, i'll always stick around like a f-cking tattoo we got our guns in the jeep when we rolling on you M.A.S.H any possibility of truce, suicide attack, YO, SOMEONE GRAB ME THE NOOSE i don't even have a beat and i'm droppin loose you just rolled deuces the windows to this booth are.shattered, i'm flattered you spent 3 rounds rapping with me just so you could see my freestyle for that i'll bless you with another battle if you wanna test me yet another time i'll spit another rhyme, another day.[out of character, nice battle, nice rhymes, let's see what the voters think]
Freestyle Rap Battle (18)

I'll say it one more time, you big pile of shjt, like Kyle I'm lit, rapping with Yachty on this bjtch. I see you've heard the album Infinite, it's quite lit, isn't it? yes I heard the song 313, it's in-tre-stin', and my ABC line was not so diff-er-ent, but it was meant as a shout out to the album, it's good like the book from Mitch Albom, I didn't mean to copy, I never get that low or sloppy, that's just not me, I switched it up a little to make it unique, while it still keeps that 313 Slim Shady physique, it was meant as honor to that song, I give more honor to em then I do to your mom in a thong, so hit the gong, like I'm a big fat sumo, time to knock this bjtch out, he's thinks it's only Uno, but you know I'm in it for real, no playing, You're bout to see my skill, so praying for your life is would be smart, cause I kill, so slaying. You talk about hood life, but I bet you live the good life, I bet you got a quiet neighborhood and can have a good night, no robbers to worry about, nothing to fret, I know you're a pvssy, I'm willin to bet, So let's just get set, and settle the score, you're really a whore with no bjtches at his door. Except maybe your sister, or a line of misters, but no visitors, cause no one like your bjtch nigga @ss. I threaten you in real life with a gun, and I'll see what happens? Your brain will be all over the wall and I'll be dabbin', don't even talk like you're a thug, I bet you give countless hugs, countless rubs to men in pubs, talking about the Intratec 9 but I bet you never shot one, I said I destroy this guy's brain but he aint got one, but let me tell you, roastin his @ss is a lotta fun, I aint even done... You barely get a double rhyme in, can your brain not function? Your sentence structure sucks, and you need a conjunction. You hop up on guys and suck them with suction, your faginess in this rap battle gives you a vote deduction, You have suffered heavily from my eruption, And I have not shuttered once from you introduction. [Had to edit a small part cause I went past the characters, but as of that it's fresh.]