BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hell, as a place of eternal torment, cannot be justified

Thank you for your quick response! My counter argument will begin with rebuttals to your assertions. Rebuttal Number One: Pro said, "1) the punishment for a finite human being with a finite existence is eternal suffering. This isn't justice." Response: In this debate we are debating the justifiably of an eternal hell to those condemned to it for all eternity. If this is the case pro can not consciously assert that human beings are finite. If one goes to hell then they must (for the sake of this argument) have an eternal essence and thus not be finite. Rebuttal Number Two: Pro asserts, " 2) reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice." Response: How can Pro be certain that Hitler went to hell with other longer punished reasonable non-believers; when he (Pro) himself does not believe that an eternal hell is justifiable. With doubt on his evidence for point number two this objection is baseless. Further along I disagree to the second part of his point number two: reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice." Just because those non-believers have been punished more in comparison to Hitler doesn't mean that invalidates justice. If we are arguing whether an eternal hell is justifiable then we must understand that those non-believers have been punished, but they will always continue to be punished the same as Hitler. Before attempting to tackle how long infinity is, the number of "years" in hell would not affect the secession of their punishments.
Hell, as a place of eternal torment, cannot be justified

Thanks con. Hell as a place of eternal torment. It might be the Muslim or Christian interpretation of hell. This is not a hell of varying degree but the worst hell imaginable for everyone going to hell. 1) the punishment for a finite human being with a finite existence is eternal suffering. This isn't justice. 2) reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice.
Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship

Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy. First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus. Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy. So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.
Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship

Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens? The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a "bread on the table" job from hardworking American citizens. Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don"t reward them for their actions. This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens. Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs. When it"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.
Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship

For my final argument i will focus on your statement "Immigrants could account for the population increase." Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group. Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as "slums." If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.
Doctors salaries are a major part of the health care problem

...other countries have better health care pay their drs less Did you just come up with this assumption? If you did not i would like to know which countries have better health care than us and i would like to know why you say they have better health care. Until you prove the fact that our health care system is inferior you have no argument. >>> the stats are there on the internet. the US rates only in the middle of quality of health care and pay too much .... we would get people who are not into for the money Everyone is in it for the money. The doctors have to pay off their bills from their extensive schooling. They have to pay for food, housing and medical care just like the rest of us. I am sure some doctors get into for the satisfaction of saving lives but if they were not making money they would still leave so they could pay their bills. >>>> Drs salaries after all the expenses are very high and about twice as high as candana france britain. its all googleable >>>>> have you researched this?
Doctors salaries are a major part of the health care problem

...other countries have better health care pay their drs less Did you just come up with this assumption? If you did not i would like to know which countries have better health care than us and i would like to know why you say they have better health care. Until you prove the fact that our health care system is inferior you have no argument. .... we would get people who are not into for the money Everyone is in it for the money. The doctors have to pay off their bills from their extensive schooling. They have to pay for food, housing and medical care just like the rest of us. I am sure some doctors get into for the satisfaction of saving lives but if they were not making money they would still leave so they could pay their bills.
Doctors salaries are a major part of the health care problem

The one thing that keeps medical care satisfactory in America is the fact that we pay our medical staff more than other countries. ...other countries have better health care pay their drs less In fact if we pay our doctors less, as you suggest, we would run in many other problems. Their would be no incentive for prospective doctors to become doctors at all because they would be paid less money. .... we would get people who are not into for the money If a prospective doctor goes to school and finds out he could get paid considerable more money at another occupation why would he become a doctor? ... to help people?? This would then lead to a shortage in staff and a lack of medical care. It seems it would be better to have more expensive medical bills, that insurance could possibly cover, than have a lack of care which has no immediate solution
Doctors salaries are a major part of the health care problem

The one thing that keeps medical care satisfactory in America is the fact that we pay our medical staff more than other countries. In fact if we pay our doctors less, as you suggest, we would run in many other problems. Their would be no incentive for prospective doctors to become doctors at all because they would be paid less money. If a prospective doctor goes to school and finds out he could get paid considerable more money at another occupation why would he become a doctor? This would then lead to a shortage in staff and a lack of medical care. It seems it would be better to have more expensive medical bills, that insurance could possibly cover, than have a lack of care which has no immediate solution.
DDO Tier Tournament 2-Flat Earth Theory vs Spherical Earth Theory

Pro will be providing evidence for Flat Earth Theory. Con will be provided evidence of a round Earth. The debate should be determined by preponderance of evidence.There are to be no semantics with the terms round Earth or flat Earth. Neither round Earth theory or Flat Earth theory doubt topographical differences.First round is for acceptance. P.s. Romanii wanted me to add this. Round earth theory doesn't necessarily mean a perfect sphere. Just like flat Earth theory wouldn't necessarily mean the Earth is perfectly flat.
patriotisms should be taught in schools

Thank you for taking this debate. First let me apologize i should not have assumed you were from America. I guess sometimes i forget the internet is accessible to anyone anywhere. So i am sorry for that. Now on with the debate. "A stable government is not special, nor unique to America; the majority of developed countries have one" I was not trying to say that America is the only country with a stable government and economy, I was simply trying to point out the fact that America, like many other countries America has many accomplishments to be proud of. "Cultivating loyal patriotism in students, however, conflicts with the legitimate aims of education. Gaining competence crucial for ascertaining key truths relevant to various disciplines; the nurturing of critical thinking (i.e., the unbiased deliberation of counter factual evidence); and developing the ability towards economic self reliance are paramount. Patriotism though, is likely to promote a narrow-minded understanding of one's national history, as well as its current role in a globalised society." My opponent points out that Patriotism promotes a narrow-minded view of a nations history. however accrding tohttp://www.ezinearticles.com... " Children need to feel a sense of belonging too, in their family, their classrooms and in their country. They will thrive in an environment of respect, compassion and stability. If we as parents teach our kids to love, honor, show compassion and respect for their country as well as for their fellow man, they will not only be graced by a sense of patriotism, they will become better citizens, and in turn role models for our future generations." There is nothing better then children feeling a strong sense of belonging. Also I am not saying that patriotism should teach that our country is better then any other, all countries have problems there is no way to deny that. "Patriotic history is biased. Patriotism encourages a detrimental type of partiality, one that encourages favoritism in ways that militate against others welfare, either; in one's homeland (e.g., toward ethnic minorities), or internationally. Education should be democratic. Students should learn in an environment that supports their willing participation and importantly their own intellectual contributions. Far more preferable than coerced or taught patriotism, is an individual who arrives at such a value of patriotism through unbiased, non forced and critical analysis of history and current events." I do not think this debate is about how patriotism should be taught. I am not saying that children should be forced or lied to in order to get them to feel a sense of pride. Also patriotism is not meant to put other countries down rather to celebrate the way your country does things and look at other countries differences and celebrate that as well. patriotisms is a sense of pride and belonging bot something that is biased.
Homosexuality is disgusting

My opponent is wishing to argue the actual act of homosexuality, meaning sex, and not the desire of the sex or the attraction to other individuals. I accept this definition of homosexuality. I will, however, propose a definition for Disgusting, from the Princeton Dictonary, "highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust" [1] There are two types of homosexual sex, both man on man, and woman on woman. I will look at these two separately. Woman on woman. At this point, there is no physical difference in lesbian sex, then straight sex. Both use the game body parts on the women, their vaginas. So from a physical standpoint, we cannot call it any more disgusting then standard sex between a man and a women. The sex is typically done, between two that are wishing to express their love (probably just as often as straight sex is used to express love). And I personally find that the expression of love is not all that disgusting (unless it is those overly obnoxious kids, enjoying their puppy love at too high of a volume to where I can here them at the store). This breaks it down to that we can only call the attraction between the two that is causing that love, disgusting, which my opponent has already ruled out. Man on man. This does use a different body part then traditional man on woman (however, it should be noted that many man and woman enjoy a similar style of sex). Namely, use of the anus in sex. The anus is covered in nerves, and so, it is highly sensitive to both paid and pleasure (much like the penis).[2] This means that it is only natural to be used for these features. Why would God place those enjoyable nerves in us if they were to be condemned? Remember, that God alone created us according to the bible, the Devil had no hand in it at the time. I will pass for now, awaiting for the scientific evidence and biblical support that homosexuality is "disgusting." Thank you, [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.intestinaldisorders.net...
Homosexuality is disgusting

Homosexuality denotes the phenomenon whereby members of the same sex engage in sexual relationships with one another. For purposes of clarity it is necessary to draw a distinction between this and the homosexual inclination, which is the attraction of members of the same sex to one another. I will be arguing that homosexuality is disgusting, both morally and physically - and that it is condemned by our Lord and Father (whose existence is not up for debate here). God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve. 30 minute response time.
Homosexuality is disgusting

If you only look at individual passages, then yes it does condemn homosexuality, however, if you read through the entire bible, both the old testament and the new testament, you'll see that the bible changes, and the rules of God changes. Easy things to see are the sacrifices (which became no longer needed as Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice) and working on the sabbath. The bible does not require a fear or hatred of homosexuality, and hatred in and of itself is against the bible and the very spirit of christianity. John 4:8,9 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." Those that preach hate are not true followers of God nor Jesus. As for my opposition to gay marriage, that is an opposition to gay MARRIAGE, not to homosexuality in general and doesn't really have any purpose in this debate. Thank you,
Homosexuality is disgusting

There is no God, d*ckhead. Your opposition to gay marriage is also quite at odds with your nonsensical interpretations of the Bible. This book, however, this work of fiction - is quite clear on homosexuality - it absolutely condemns it. Your interpretation of the Leviticus quote is quite absurd. It is clearly not a statement of an impossibility, but it is an ethical statement - it is not the equivalent of saying "One must not sprout wings and fly" ... but rather a blatant moral condemnation, with no regard for consequential ethics. As Peter Tatchell has said: "The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust." You seem to attempt to argue as something of a Biblical literalist, without accepting the homophobia that must necessarily accompany Biblical literalism - that said, you oppose gay marriage. Mainstream Christianity and homophobia are inseparable. Why ... to quote the current Pope (Jesus Christ's representative on Earth, sayeth the Catholics!): "homosexuality is a tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil".
Homosexuality is disgusting

"To quote God, speaking in Leviticus: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable" - that is God's word. Given that we are not debating the existence of God, and that that is God's word - then certainly the immorality of male-on-male intercourse is confirmed." Gay men do not have sexual relations as a man does with a women. Gay men do not place their penises in the other person's vagina, as such they are have sexual relations NOT as a man does with a woman. Therefore not going against the bible. "I also mean that it causes me to become disgusted - and my vomit whenever I see a gay couple expressing affection for each other - effectively therefore expressing affection for the devil - is living proof of this - I vomit on the street." Are you seeing gay sex on the street? "Furthermore, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden to test human ability to resist temptation - in response to your point about the pleasurable nature of homo-intercourse - perhaps this is God testing man." At no point in the bible does God say that homosexuality is a test. Even though God does say to run from temptation, I don't think that you can really run from homosexuality.[1] We should also note that salvation can only be achieved through believing in Jesus Christ, not by following all of the Old Testament's laws.[2] Jesus also provide the New Commandment at the last supper, "Love one another as I have loved you." [3] [1] see youtube link http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://jesus-messiah.com... [3] http://www.believers.org...
Homosexuality is disgusting

At no point did I say that anal sex, oral sex, or contraception was acceptable between a man and a woman. Natural Law, God's revealed will, tells us that sexual intercourse is designed for its reproductive purpose only. To quote God, speaking in Leviticus: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable" - that is God's word. Given that we are not debating the existence of God, and that that is God's word - then certainly the immorality of male-on-male intercourse is confirmed. When I say that homosexual sex is disgusting, I also mean that it causes me to become disgusted - and my vomit whenever I see a gay couple expressing affection for each other - effectively therefore expressing affection for the devil - is living proof of this - I vomit on the street. Furthermore, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden to test human ability to resist temptation - in response to your point about the pleasurable nature of homo-intercourse - perhaps this is God testing man. I note that you are opposed to gay marriage, at this point. I would like to know why you do not think this is okay, given your ungodly and wicked arguments.
Gay marriage should be legalized

Pro admits that she is contradicting herself with her religious beliefs in gay marriage. Pro's argument on gay marriage consisted of her opinion only, with no facts or sources to back her argument. Pro dismisses history as not mattering. History does matter. We should look at patterns in history and apply the works and actions of great leaders to our modern world. Our nation and globe could use the genius minds of past leaders in today's era. Like Catholics, Baptists are also not in favor of same-sex marriage. As well as Catholics, "...the majority of established Baptist churches condemn homosexual behavior." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.christianpost.com... "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" -Leviticus 18:22 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." -Romans 1:27 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." -Genesis 2:24 Is this not what your church teaches? Or is politics more important than God? "Picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow is an exercise in pride." http://askville.amazon.com... May I also address the subtopic of equality. In U.S. history, we found our nation discriminating against rights for women and blacks. Although I do support civil unions and rights for gays, let me point out the fact the blacks are born black, women are born women, but gays are not born gay. There is no evidence anywhere that support homosexuals being born the way they are. In fact, quite the opposite is evident. "'The human genome sequence was decoded in 2001, there is no 'Gay' gene. If homosexuals were, 'born that way', how do you explain a gay person changing his status to straight? You cannot claim that has never happened, because it has." http://www.debate.org... A person's homosexuality is based on their own personal upbringing, on how they were raised. There is nothing that proves that homosexuality has been and always will be part of a gay person. Like heterosexuality, it's a life choice. http://www.washingtonpost.com... So if you knew someone who cloned himself, would it be "equality" for him to marry his clone? What stops him from marrying his cat? According to your argument, this is okay because these are two beings that love each other. The only thing that steps in the way of him doing that is that it is "gross", but this is an inconsistency showing how many gay marriage supporters do think homosexuality is "gross", but want people to be able to live and love as they choose. I would like to see my opponent top my argument or at least provide a convincing one. Something that I haven't heard many times before. Con awaits Pro's response.