BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christmas starts to early

I'll agree with you that Christmas is about the feeling, but so are other holidays; and honestly the earlier Christmas starts and the longer it goes the less special it feels. When people start Christmas in September or even August sometimes it just makes it drag on, and then when Christmas does finally happen it doesn't really /feel/ like Christmas, just the last day after Ninety Days of Christmas. And other holiday's are also about the spirit, and it's hard to get into the spirit of those holidays when you're already juggling Christmas with it. Halloween doesn't feel quite as creepy, and Thanksgiving feels like an interruption, and again by the time Christmas finally rolls around the feeling is closer to "it's finally over" than "yey! Christmas!" When the Christmas season starts a little later you can focus more on just Christmas, and in my opinion that allows you to get more into it and it feels even more special.
Christmas starts to early

I know the whole Christmas white Christmas is what everyone thinks of for Christmas but what about the kids and people living in Hawaii or Florida. There people can go swimming on Christmas Day the weather plays no effect on when the Christmas season starts. I believe that Christmas in July is even acceptable. Christmas is all about the feeling. During the Christmas season I feel like everyone is just happier I know it may have no reason behind it but Christmas just puts people in a better mood. And why cut the good mood short by cutting it down to just a month and a half as you say.
Christmas starts to early

Christmas can been seen as a whole season, but there's a difference between singing Christmas carols while stuffing a turkey and waiting on line behind someone with a Christmas tree and presents while I'm buying my Halloween costume. I'm all for getting into the Christmas spirit before December, but Christmas shouldn't start while it's still hot outside. Everyone has the mental picture of waking up to a white Christmas, so why does it start before the leaves on the trees can even change? Of course, there are a few big holidays throw together at the end of the year, and it's okay to mix them--plan out your Thanksgiving dinner while you make your Halloween costume, singing Christmas carols while stuffing your turkey--but I think it's going overboard when I'm standing in a store buying Halloween decorations or back-to-school supplies and I hear Christmas carols playing. That's just way too early. In my opinion, mid to late November should be the start of the Christmas season, not mid October. I have always seen the start of the Christmas season as the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, when Santa goes by on the last float. That's about when Christmas should start, not two months before.
Limbo Does Not Exist

There really is no physical evidence of Limbo though. No matter what I say you're not going to believe me unless I can give you physical evidence. It's about as pointless as trying to convince an atheist that God is real. Limbo may or may not be real. Heaven and Hell may or may not be real. But you're not going to believe any of it until you experience it for yourself. The winner of this debate is not going to be decided by who has better conduct and who is right, it's going to be people who don't believe in Limbo and people who do. This is why I try to stay away from religious topics. Astral Projection is also something only some people can do so it would be just as pointless to try and tell you that it is real because you won't believe me unless you experience it for yourself. Once again, if I lose this debate, it'll be because more of the people of your beliefs voted than people of mine. Good day sir.
Limbo Does Not Exist

I am closer to disbelief than belief in Heaven or Hell, but I'm essentially agnostic. I believe they might be there, but Limbo is something I fully do not believe in.My opponent has provided no concrete evidence to suggest that Limbo is a real place. Also, because there are different understandings of how "Limbo" is, our definitions differ slightly. If one where to perform astral projection, the spirit world described by my opponent does not fit the most common definition of Limbo, nor does it fit the one defined in Round 1. So, even if this world exists, it does not prove the existence of Limbo, and there is still no proof that this world exists or that astral projection really lets your soul free. Any claims of proof of astral projection are pseudoscientific at best. I believe I have said everything that I've needed to, and with that I leave the debate to con's response and to the voters, whom I ask to vote without too much religious bias.
Limbo Does Not Exist

Well, you said you don't believe in Heaven or Hell and you want me to convince you of an even more mysterious realm? I can try I suppose. Limbo is not just for unbaptized babies, but for many kinds if souls. It is almost like Purgatory. It contains souls of those who don't deserve to go to Hell, but they never really accepted God or perhaps they don't deserve to go to Hell but they don't exactly deserve to go to Heaven either. Limbo is closely associated with the real world. This is why we sometimes see these spirits in our world but in a faded essence. These are ghosts. Now there is a difference between Ghosts and Demons but that is for a different debate. We see ghosts in our world because they are souls in Limbo. Many ghosts are souls that don't even know that they are dead. There is a way we can go into limbo. Have you ever heard of Astral Projection? This is where the soul can leave the physical body and wonder around like a ghost and you will be able to see other souls walking around. Many people believe this is Limbo. It is dangerous though because demons can get into Limbo. People who can leave their physical bodies are a target to the demons. In spirit form, a person that yet has a live physical body to return to, is vulnerable to demons. This causes many of the Demonic possessions in the world.
Limbo Does Not Exist

Limbo is nothing more than a scapegoat for certain Christian theists who see a plot hole for those not relieved of original sin through baptism. It, much like purgatory and the Holy Trinity (the current form of which was not accepted until the Council of Nicaea in 325 [1]), is a theory contrived by men to avoid supposed inconsistencies.If there is a place that this would be referred to, it would be Hades, as this is mentioned by the standards of some translations of the Bible. Certain Christians consider it, as Oxford Dictionary has defined it, "the place or state of departed spirits," which seems to be as close as we can get to "Limbo." Acts 2:27 has many translations that differ slightly; one states being condemned to "Hell," another "to the realm of the dead," and another "in Hades." [2] This, of course, seems to take another conitation in this context, but it is biblically mentioned...unlike Limbo. I do not really believe in either Hades or Limbo, but a theist should put more faith in the former than the latter, due to the former's written evidence and the latter's lack thereof.Sources:[1]: http://www.britannica.com... [2]: http://biblehub.com...
Limbo Does Not Exist

Limbo is defined as "(in some Christian beliefs) the supposed abode of the souls of unbaptized infants, and of the just who died before Christ's coming. " I am an agnostic who essentially does not believe in heaven or hell, but I'm gnostic on the belief that limbo is fictitious. I would like the opponent to be a theist who believes in limbo, but it doesn't matter too much. As long as they are able to argue their case.
was the dropping of the atomic bombs justified

Happy to think with you today. I should note a few things before I let you start with your arguments and evidence. 1. You've specified "was" in the title. This means we're looking at it from the perspective of the past, not from the perspective of the future. As such, unless you can show Truman had access to these estimates from Duke, Harvard, and Stanford, they mean nothing in this debate. We have to debate based on the information available to Truman and the U.S. Generals involved in this issue. 2. The fact that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities has potentially had an effect as a deterrent to war is also meaningless unless you can show that this was a reason Truman decided to drop the bombs. You have to show what the real reasons were for Truman (to the extent that is possible for a member of the public) and I will summarily tear them down and raise moral issues against them. Happy thinking.
was the dropping of the atomic bombs justified

Yes, it was justified. If we had invaded we would have lost much more American an Japenese lives. Historians from Duke, Havard, and Stanford have estimated 1 million to 2 million lives would have been lost in an invasion. Also, at this point in time, the Soviets were also developing a nuclear weapon and with Stalin in control the would have been launched at France or England to bring them into submission. With the power of nuclear weapons, even old ones shone to full force, nuclear weapons have provided one of the greatest deterrents to war mankind has ever made. Therefore, The dropping of the atomic bombs was completely justified.
Atheism is a world view.

Atheism is not a world view. Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. In other words, it is the denial of a world view, not the proposition of an alternative. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider theism a good example of a world view, what defines it as such?A collection of beliefs and values.A particular theism can be defined as a world view as it outlines a series of beliefs and values which encompass all that is met by it's proponents and dictates it's proponents interpretation of all s/he encounters and considers. When discussing 'religion' or any particular religion in contrast to atheism, I often find that the religiosity finds itself somewhat neglected, and in substitution I often find myself involved in a conversation about the possibility of a prime mover. Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist. A-theismRoot of ‘a-’http://membean.com.........This idea of a god, and god's 'design', his 'master plan' etc, it has had more than a little influence on our species. We have developed various strict codes and guidelines which must be adhered to in order to be in keeping with his plan (as interpreted and illustrated by which ever culture/decade/country/family you happened to have landed in at birth). So vast and permeating are these ideas, so insidious it has been, that we wonder, as Neitzche does, if it is a human requirement, if we can function successfully in its absence. Do we need substitute this ancient conclusion with a relevant religiosity which accepts our ever sharpening perspective on nature? Do we need satisfy this primal reasoning with a universally agreed moral imperative and complimentary standard of ethics?Perhaps we do, and of course these questions are all very interesting, but atheism is not this. Not X does not = X. or Y. or Z.My opponent must offer a case for atheism as a world view, a collection of shared beliefs, values and standards.
Aboriton should remain illegal

I shall rebut!It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal.Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances?We have 4 rounds, so we can debate that if it is deemed debatable.__________________________________________________________Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb.Given. I agree that it is direct killing and deigned to kill._______________________________________________The Life in the womb is a human beingUmm...Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion?I'll say yes.Is it a human heart that stops beating? I'll say yes.Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off?I'll say yes.What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time.You see, the question up until x point, these cells are just that: cells. I concede that they are human cells, but so are the skin cells you kill when you sit down. Or scratch yourself. Or eat.________________________________________________________________________Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect?"Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells?Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. I will show you.According to your OWN source, pain systems don't develope until 9 weeks of developent. Fingerprints don't develope until 14 weeks of developement. Brainwaves don't develope until 6 weeks. The heart doesn't develope until 18 days.Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human._________________________________________________________Now, I'll give examples where it might be MORE responsible to abort a child.1) It may fall into a vegitated state.2) It does not have parents.3) It will go to an adoption home.4) It may grow up in an abusive home.5) The parents are too poor.6) It may be disabled.7) It might be ill.8) It might be mentally ill.9) They dont want a child.______________________If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort?_____________________________________________________________________________________Now: if we make abortion illegal, then all cases will become deadly.Untrained people will attempt to abort children, and this is very likely to kill the parent.
Aboriton should remain illegal

8000 characters48 hours to respondRounds:1 is for acceptance2 is opening arguments3 is clarification and rebuttal4 is closing statements The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal. Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally
Aboriton should remain illegal

If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable.How so?! The act of mercy is performed in order to spare the child of the pain. There is NO drop in the value of life implied.Also, people don't live or die based "value" per se. If we did, then I am pretty certain that you and I and the homeless would all be dead!___________________________YOU TOO are a clump of cells.I can think. I can breath. I can reason. There is a clear difference.Unthinking zygote that doesn't feel pain OR a thinking, breathing person with friends that'll miss him.Do you see the difference._____________________________________________________________________________________ Aborting does not equal letting die.These actions may have a similar purpose, though. Therein lies their similarities. They can both be for mercy, or for not wanting the person to be a bother anymore.These are both tragic events, but why should one be legal, and the other be illegal?______________________________________________________________________This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified?Again:Zygotes do not feel pain for a long time. They do not breath or even have lungs. For most part, they don't have blood. They cannot think.There is a clear difference._________________________I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I would compromise by having some abortions become illegal. I would hate to hear of all the news of women and untrained doctors' attempts, but...Abortions being llegal is preferable, though.____________________________________I believe I have shown that there are substantial differences between us and zygotes, and that killing a zygote is far more justifiable then killing a developed human._______________________________________________________I had fun debating! Voters: Voter for whom who you will!
nightstalker

Let me finish with this, vi_spex,You state 'belief dosnt make anything true'I only believe in what I see and feel. I do not jump beyond that, so no pressure to construct scenarios , just the opportunity to extract pattern and to wonder. I look for natural places that are uncrowded and this is my luxury. Birds, fish, bees, insects, weeds, trees are all 'getting on, getting on' as Seasick Steve would say. I am a Buddhist without the BS, if you like. Goodbye vi-spex and keep on keeping on debating.
nightstalker

vi_spex: 'earth is paradise as i see it, or balance.. before heaven or hell'I see it the same way. We should attempt to repair our clumsiness to date. We should offer up a spirited effort to this cause. We need to attempt objective rationality (ie including more considerations than our own narrow ones). We should submit to wisdom and direction regarding environmental protection , ethical treatment of other life forms, population quotas, etc etc. None of this will ever be realized but that does not remove the fact that this is what we should do. The place is in a mess and getting worse by the day. It is an infested bed-sit cluttered with criminal waste extracted from an Eden project that was wonderful in its terrible pristine beauty. IMHO
nightstalker

vi_spex 'im not sure how to specifikally define morality yet'morality is the limits of our 'goodness' ie how effectively 'good' we can become. I do not blame you struggling with this definition.Evil is as evil does and there is plenty of it to go round. Labelling it's various genres and calibrating their comparative intensities is usually a very subjective exercise. It is a consequence of highly evolved mammalian and primate social strategies and much of it can rest on what might loosely be described as choice. I see a thread on today 'Which of the seven deadly sins is the deadliest' Religious thought has kicked this thing to death but in fairness it is a smoke and mirror undertaking to pin this thing down.Evil is as evil does and it has many names. It is enabled by humans doing various things for a of diverse reasons,ie ambition, hatred, illness .................IMHO (for what that's worth) I know we can do better and we have done in the past but this is based on subjective optimism rather than rational observation. vi_spex states 'joy=yes=crack coconut shell and eatpain=no=eat coconut with shell'This suggest to me that our 'happiness' requires our attention for it to be realized. This is very 'religiousy' an probably very true. Most things in life are step to next step. A realization of our ineptitude to avoid pitfalls, might erode our confidence and it might make us edge towards infantile 'God dependence'. I see little self confidence in this prayerLead us not into temptation,but deliver us from EvilAmenWe are as we are and we need to work with what we got and in truth that might not be a lot.I find the Jesus teachings to be very optimistic regarding the power of our potentials. I also find them useful when offering sound advice about dealing with our weaknesses.I will post a few examples in comments for you to 'rip to shreds'Thank you nightstawker/dragon/snake/vi-spex
nightstalker

vi-spex: 'hell is too much heaven'This is what primordial man had, ie too much heaven. Evolutionary progression brought him unsuspectingly to the exit door of this place, ie the tree of choice, the tree of options and strategy. This created permanent separation and mutation and loss. Therefore Hell is as the Eden narrative clearly states, ie a loss away from what was. Hell is exclusion from Paradise.There are natural creatures immersed in the perfect balance of life on this earth, our Eden, the problem being that man will never be one of them again.Do you think that the world possesses an objective morality? If it does then what is it?Do you think the human is a 'moral entitiy' in any way and if so elaborate?Put your cards on the table and stop slithering around, Please!
Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

I will be arguing that Citizens United v. The FEC should be overturned, while my opponent will argue that it should not be. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Opening Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Remarks -- without new arguments, though clarifications are permissible. With that said, I await a fascinating debate.
Ayn Rand accepting government aid was not hypocritical

Like I said before Ayn Rand had a choice to put her money where her mouth was, but she didn't. She used the very same government programs she denounced using her married name Ann O'Connor, which my opponent hasn't responded to. Plus it wasn't food that she got, it was medical care for her cancer. However, her hypocrisy does show she is human after all self preservation would supercede philosophy. I must also point out that self preservation is different self interest which my opponent blurs. Ayn Rand's actions have shown that her actions were hypocritical in her belief as she accepted government aid through secrecy.