BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

This resolution is ,in fact, in support of murder. While my opponent argues that this is a matter of "self-defense" this is a ridiculously extreme solution to the problem of abuse. Even if a person were abused, it is rather obvious that they would be sentenced thirty to life by any sensible jury. There is no excuse for murder. While it may be argued that the Death Penalty is murder, this is merely a punishment for severe crimes. Perhaps someone who has abused another human being could be sentenced to death, but it is not the abused person's job to take justice into their own hands. Also, my opponent claims that fear is a factor in why she wouldn't tell an authority figure. Well, it takes quite a bit of adrenaline and fearlessness to commit a murder, which is exactly what killing another person, even in self defense, is. All my opponents arguments are based off of hypothetical instances "Well if the abuser says this, and I say this, then this will happen and they wont believe me and I'll do this...yadda yadda yadda." On top of this, they are illogical arguments. When this kind of matter is taken to the proper authorities, it is not ignored. If you run, and they stalk you, stay close to people AT ALL TIMES. The pro side's case is rather poorly constructed, especially for such a con traversal topic. Really, when you get right down to it, the only option is to vote con in this debate, as the pro side supports murder, lack of self control, and injustice. Thank you.
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

I really do believe that if someone was abusing me over and long period of time I would try to kill them to protect my-self. I know as a fact my appoint can and or will say well you could have left or gone to an authority figure? But if I was scared and could leave to go to an authority figure, How would it be any help to me if they happen to be there or not. As for leaving well what if the abusive figure male or female where to stalk me and if I did call the cops but had no evidence he/she was stalking me would it matter anyway? I would just be playing along with his/hers game it would be right into it. I call the authority figure and have no proof they call me and liar and they they don't believe me so they the abuser in the case has more power because now I have eliminated the authority figure's trust. So if this said abuser oatcakes me and I kill this abuser all I am doing is defending my own life.
Resolution : God does exist

What are we doing here ? What is our purpose in life ? I asked myself that many, many times. Humans have been asking themselves that for as long as history records........... Why did I talked about that ? Because it is in our nature. This debate is about the existence of A god. Here are three reasons why a God does exist.... 1. The Argument from Contigency. The Philosopher Thomas Aquinas explained it best. This Argument defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. (1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence. (2) The universe exists contingently. Therefore: (3) The universe has a reason for its existence. (4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God. Therefore: (5) God exists. 2. Morality. Information from this argument is from John E Hare's The Moral Gap. John Hare is a Professor of Philisopihcal Theology at Yale Divinity School. The Perfectionist Moral Argument (1) We ought to be morally perfect. (2) If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect. (3) We cannot be morally perfect unless God exists. Therefore: (4) God exists. 3. And Finally..... the Ontological Argurment from Christian Philosopher St Anslem's book, Proslogion. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. God exists in the mind as an idea. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality So reply ! Thank you for accepting this !
Resolution : God does exist

After our private and public discussions I accept. I do look ford to this debate and hope that you bring forth compelling arguments. As my opponent is aware this is not my 100% usual topic. I have already started on my argument and, as I expected, am finding hard to find any evidence as there is practically none. Lucky for me I do not have the burden of proof, however, I still like to make arguments to support my position. This is why i prefer a specific religion as there are mounds of evidence.
Clash of Clans is better than Boom beach.

1. Less building times If you tell a Clash of Clans player that Boom Beach has only one builder, the first thing they"re likely to think is "Well, that means building and upgrading are going to take FOREVER!" However, that"s simply not the case.First, all"the build times are significantly shorter than in Clash of Clans."Currently, the longest building upgrade (HQ level 20) takestwo and a half days"rather than the weeks it takes to get some of the later upgrades in Clash of Clans. Building a new level 1 building takes mere seconds in most cases. This is nice for when you upgrade your HQ and unlock a new landing craft or defensive tower.Second,"diamonds (the premium currency) are currently best used to speed things up."In Clash of Clans, you generally had to stockpile gems to buy more builders. In Boom Beach, they can be used to bypass the resource requirements for upgrades, and they can also finish buildings immediately. The game is pretty generous about diamonds as well.
Clash of Clans is better than Boom beach.

In Clash of Clans, you"ve got to manage your Barracks, which produces units for your Army Camps. The Camps have a limit,each Barracks has a training limit as well. There"s training time to worry about, so keeping your camps properly balanced can be painful and time consuming unless you"ve got a particularly boring unit mix.In Boom Beach, each landing craft holds an amount of units. They"ve all got to be the same unit, as well. Replacing defeated units is quick and painless."It"s easy to manage your unit mix with this interface.In Clash of Clans, dropping a unit during an attack consumes it, whether it survives or not. It can be hard to decide how much of your forces to commit to an attack. You have to keep the training cost and the remaining resources in your mind at all times. This can lead to some raids where you"could"have won if you"d been bold at the start, but the game encourages you to be overly cautious instead.In Boom Beach, if a unit survives, you can use it agai
Clash of Clans is better than Boom beach.

You mentioned that the gems are used to progress you through the game faster. In Clash of Clans Gems are not an easy resource to come by, as they are in Boom Beach. This allows easy access to better defences for people who pay for their gems. This gives they game the 'Pay to Win' aspect. The gems in Clash of Clans are quite expensive to purchase with real money so it means you cannot rush in progress as quickly which gives the game a more lengthy play-through. You mentioned how building times are quicker in Boom Beach, and yes they are. But, in Boom Beach the shorter the upgrades the faster they are done (duh). This makes you constantly go back to the game to build something else or do something else. With Clash of Clans the building times allows you do many other things for long periods of time without checking back on it.
Abortion

According to your logic, humans that cannot do complex tasks as stated by your definition are not humans. This means that brain dead or mentally retarded people are not human and can be murdered no matter what. However, the baby is also unable to do complex tasks so we should be able to kill the baby even when it has been born. Back in the beginning of this county, black slaves were not considered humans but they were considered property. The same thing is happening now with regards to unborn babies. However we know that all life is precious and we should not be able to end life for selfish reasons.
Abortion

As you said, murder of life, is what you don't agree with. However, the definition of murder is " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Now, go into the definition of what is considered a human being. The correct definition of a human being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. " Now, given this logic, is a zygote consider human? Is a fetus consider human? However, I am not saying everyone should be having abortions left and right, what I am trying to conclude is that, they should be legal. Even if they are not legal people will still find a way around it, and do what it takes to have it done. For example they have inject themselves, or drink or hurt themselves to terminate the pregnancy. What I am saying is women should have the right to get the help they need. I am not pro-abortion, however I do think they this options should be available to those who need it.
Abortion

Regarding your argument that says that it is not any of our business to interfere with the choice of women is what I disagree with. If someone hired a murderer to kill someone and I knew that this murder was happening, I believe that people should speak up about the issue. If I know that a baby will be murdered in cold blood by someone paid to do so, I believe that it is necessary to stop this murder from happening. Besides the very small percentage of women that get abortions because of rape, women choose to have sex and they should be held responsible for their actions. The baby should not be murdered because of the bad choices of the mother.
I have a question

Nah man unfortunately the Bible isn't that interesting. Apparently people invoke something both holy and vulgar for a 2x combo of emotional exclamation. For example, if I were surprised by a loud noise, I'd exclaim "Jesus Christ!" But if I'm exasperated, I might say "Jesus f-ing Christ" because exasperation causes a lot more negative emotion than surprise. https://www.quora.com...*t%E2%80%9D-come-from
God Probably Exists

C1)This is just stupidity. In both your argument and your defenses you stick to this point. I hope that I am not the only one who sees this as a joke. There is no proof that god exists so he does not necessarily exist. In fact it is more probable that he does not exist as can bee seen in my arguments."1) If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in any possible world 2) God exists in some possible worlds 3) Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds (1,2 modus tollens)"Well there is no proof to say he exists in some possible world let alone there are other possible worlds. These arguments and points you make never cease to make me laugh. Time and time again you pick and choose parts of god that suit your argument, you lose all intelligence and make these senseless point that have no proof.C2)Did I 'Straw man' everything you say? Well I disagree with all of those 'Straw man' claims. This is not a matter of multiple choice. There are more possibilities than you have given. Such as reality exists on its own basis. Why would a mind need to ground reality? That is just philosophy without any intelligence or proof behind it.Thus, you affirm. You affirm that your points are nothing but false. You affirm that your refutes are meaningless. You affirm that you are incorrect. tejretics is great at sticking with the program when it comes to arguing pro god. He maintains, like most of his piers, the hypocrisy and unintelligent points. The hypocrisy when it comes to using the definitions from the Oxford dictionary, and the senseless point when it comes to his argument, refutes, defenses and the second refutes.Thus I affirm.
God Probably Exists

Con is arguing against a God of religion. But that absolutely does not link to the resolution. The definition provided in R1 is that God is a “creator and ruler of the universe. ” Con, under a shared BoP, needs to disprove *this* God. Instead, Con is arguing against religion. 1) God did not ‘give us’ anything. God just created the *universe*, and not all life. Additionally, I don’t see how this argument refutes God -- it is a defensive argument, and mitigates my case, albeit I never presented this argument. Therefore, the argument fails. God needn’t have been created by anything -- the question assumes the Principle of Sufficient Reason, as already mentioned, which is yet to be justified. The refutation is *dropped* by Con. 2) As mentioned, the entire argument (a) does not link, and (b) is an unjustified bare assertion. Religion and this generic God are completely *irrelevant* to each other. 3) Praying won’t work, since this God does not answer ‘prayers’. As mentioned, I am arguing for a generic God, not a specific God of theism, etc. This deistic creator and ruler of the universe does not answer prayers, so this argument does not link either. 4) I concede this *entire* argument, but it fails to make God improbable. God created the universe, and not all life. Con asserts this argument makes God improbable, but this is a bare assertion. 5) Religion remains irrelevant. Con is arguing against a personal, theistic, religious God, while the definition mandates I argue for a more generic ‘God’. Per Rule 7, Con accepts all definitions, but Con is adding new resolutional definitions. This violation is enough to merit a loss. 6) I already mentioned that Part 4 fails because it, once more, is against religion and not God. This argument is entirely dropped. Basically, Con’s case is one against religion, and is made of non-linking defenses. My case is unscathed since Con frequently straw mans my positions, et cetera. Therefore, I have justified a generic God and Con has failed to uphold their position under a shared BoP.
God Probably Exists

C1) Modal ontological argument Pro first accuses me of begging the question. This is unfounded, since I said that if it is possible that God exists, then God exists. I don't see how that is question begging, and Pro has failed to justify that assertion. Additionally, Pro *strawmans* my argument. I said if it is possible that *God* exists, then God exists. This doesn't mean if anything is possible, it exists necessarily. The argument requires ‘God’ to be defined with a property of being ‘necessary’. I'm just adding to God's definition. X is considered "necessary" if it exists in all possible worlds. I explained what a possible world is -- if []X, then it is impossible for X to *not* exist. Now, since God is defined as being necessary by this argument, if God is not necessary, then God *necessarily* does not exist. This is explained in the following axiom: ~[]G --> []~G Now, let us analyze this axiom deductively, by using the following argument: 1) If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in any possible world 2) God exists in some possible worlds 3) Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds (1,2 modus tollens) From this, we can infer that if is possible that God exists, then, necessarily, God exists. This argument is unscathd. C2) Argument from idealism Pro strawmans my argument against physicalism by taking the sentences out of context. The justification for the mind not being physical is *not* the ‘doubt’ argument. I gave an entirely separate justification, showing that if solipsism (the idea that the world is imaginary) is logically possible, then physicalism is false. Then, I refuted dualism. Pro *drops* both of these, and drops my links showing they entail God, just using random and false analogies that justify nothing. “What is the point?” The point is, if physicalism and dualism are false, what is mental can only interact with something else mental, meaning reality is grounded by a mind. If there is a mind that grounds reality, then it is omnipotent, and the efficient cause and controller of the universe. Thus, I affirm.
God Probably Exists

I will present my rebuttals with your heading and then my rebuttal underneath that heading. Thank you for your argument. Also I know this is not the correct round to bring this up but I did read some of your rebuttals, and I cannot wait to respond as they are mostly incorrect, as convoluted as your initial argument and are hypocritical. C1) Modal ontological argument This argument is a nonsense. In its entirety it basically says "if god exists, he exists." Well, that is the question. Furthermore, I exist in one possible world, I don"t necessarily exist in all other worlds. There is no evidence to say that there are more than one world, there is also no evidence to say if you exist in one world you exist in all worlds. C2) Argument from idealism First of all what even is this argument? You are saying that we are in a dream in which we interact with the physical world, therefore god is true. "To doubt the existence of the mind itself requires a mind. With this, I shall affirm that a mind is not physical." This is two sentences from your argument. You use these true statements as evidence, but using these statements as evidence does not prove your argument. This argument is as stupid as me saying "The laws of physics are based around what we discover, therefore we are gods." What a load of nonsense, right? "Therefore, minds are neither matter nor energy, meaning they are "mental"" Well your evidence is not really supporting this claim and if the mind is not matter nor energy, then it is mental you say? This is not a multiple choice question, there are many there possibilities. Additionally, this is a problem that we still ask ourselves today (how do we think?), your evidence is nonsensical and argument is not supported by saying this. Even later in your argument you say that we are interacting with reality. What is your point, are you teaching us basic neurology? When you make a decision your brain is telling your body to interact with the world around you. That is a known, is it not? Thank you for your argument and I am looking ford to seeing your defenses. I mean no offence when I make these points but truly believe that these arguments you made are pointless. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://www.mayoclinic.org...
God Probably Exists

PrefaceUnhookedSchnook challenged me to this debate, and I'm sure it will be a truly fascinating discussion on this relevant issue - does God exist? As it is my favorite topic, I am happy to take on this challenge from my distinguished opponent. I'm sure it will be a stellar discourse, and hope we have fun. Voters must have at least 2,500 ELO to vote on this debate. Debaters have 72 hours to post their arguments, with 4 rounds, and 10,000 characters per round. Full TopicGod probably exists. TermsAll terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary. God - the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universeProbably - 'is likely to happen or be true'Exist - 'have objective reality or being' Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Summarize Thanks......again to UnhookedSchnook; I look forward to an engaging discourse!
Rap Challenge I - Nouns Volume I

Topic- Rap Warlord You may be right that the Black Guy doesn't die, so you're equal but considering how he got whipped by Ren, he's only gonna live through the sequel I got the testerome, you think banging my mom is a threat? You're so premature, you can not even get the bed wet! I'm the dude verbally assaulting you with word gems The only rapper who can be my equal is Eminem I'm in high school gettin A's, while still making raps for Chem Listen, are you one of us, or are you one of them? Why do we need to debate on raps, I'm the better rapper hence My opponents sticks 2 quarters in his ear, thinks he's hearing 50 cents No bullcrap comments saying that my raps makes no sense Cause nobody wants to be just as immature as Mike Pence I can see you had to prep, boy you can not freestyle Once I'm done with you, your butt will be clenched for a while Speeding through you faster than you can run a Green Mile DeCypher your raps, and toss you in the defeated pile! You say in your profile that you're interested in women but at 91, how do you think you're gonna get to let em in? In the 99th percentile, but your rhymes are worse than a clucking hen Welcome to reality, hitch, welcome to my rap den! You're trying to best the man who can take Snoop Dog for a walk Interregation's over, son, let's see if you still can talk.
Rap Challenge I - Nouns Volume I

NO HEADER NEEDED->See Amendment in Comment Section. Well I’ma Jew man of many moves / and smooth as a million Youtube viewsBorn to never lose / and entertain like a youth from a movie of John HughesI’m part of a Club / that eats Breakfast like high-school kids with no loveI’ma Prince among you thugs / flyin’ thru Purple Rain like an un-cryin doveI’m the huckleberry that plays for blood / so takin’ Holliday shots at DocWill get your top chopped off with buckshots / so little Tot you ought not Pop ya chest up like you a ruthless Cowboy able to break some backbonesYou lackin’ testosterone / you ain’t even grown / now you under a TombstoneCause I write the scripts / that’ll leave you stripped / like a Tale to the CryptSh!t you out like onion dip / little trick, you a floatin’ stick to my warshipYou can’t boldly go where this man has gone before / with more Star WarsThan you’d ever score / even if you were Thor / you’d get Loki-ed like a whoreWhen a real Hulk grabs hold of the bulk of your soul / like a fisted tadpoleCrush you beneath my 12-inch sole / you dirt-livin’, Wookie-cocksuckin’ moleIn this Millennium I’m the Falcon that devours prey like you that baulk & talkPerpetrating like you walk as a Sith Lord / altho ya nothing but cuddly EwokI, motherfucka, wrote the goodbye Order that 66-ed the Jedi to cry & sighYou can’t lyrically assassinate I / cause in this movie the Black Guy doesn’t dieRound up yo sissy marine buddies for battle / so I can play Daddy with the paddleAnd spank you femboys into repentance from all ya’ll’s Sodomite straddlesAnd tell yo mama to put on them pink polyester panties and play as Pepper PottsI’m cummin’ to give her the Iron, man / and my War Machine is going in hot!