BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegans should be crucified

Vegans/vegetarians should be crucified. These people won't eat animals, and think that they're "saving them" or some crap. they think their choices actually make a DIFFERENCE. They keep bragging, on and on, but guess what? NO ONE CARES. these people are weaklings who are too scared to eat animals, and we can't let them reproduce so we won't have newer generations of p*ssies.
Polytheistic religions offer a better choice for the people searching for new spiritual ground.

Have I stumped you? I just think you should really consider what other people's belief's are. If someone has an open mind, they can be willing to try new religions. However, most people are committed to the religion that they grew up with, and to make polytheistic religions work, you would have to change whole countries and schools to make polytheism a default thing. It's a touchy subject, but I think that as long as no one gets hurt, let people believe what they want.
Polytheistic religions offer a better choice for the people searching for new spiritual ground.

I accept your challenge. First of all, what is your religion? You didn't put it on your profile, and it is pretty relevant to this debate. You seem to be confused about the idea of religion as a whole. I'm an Atheist myself, but I was raised a Catholic, and I took much interest on studying other religions. Anyway, religion is not necessarily "pick which one sounds cool", but more what the traditions are where you live, what you were raised as, and what you truly believe in. I don't believe in any gods, but monotheistic and polytheistic religion's moral's are pretty similar. They all revolve around "Don't kill, respect you god/gods, don't hurt people etc.". You do sound like an intelligent person, I like how you think critically about things. You Christianity image is well thought out, and your points are true. However, nearly everyone's religion is just what it is where you live. You can't really change someone's beliefs if they have a closed mind.
Polytheistic religions offer a better choice for the people searching for new spiritual ground.

First I want to say that this is not disrespectful to anybody, and it's not intended to. Both types of faith have pro and con sides, and that's what we're here to address. The first issues that should be addressed is the great "free will" ground. Monotheistic religions take a deity and call that deity all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing, yet this deity gives us free-will. Knowing that we have free-will this deity comes up to us and says "Guys, I love you but if you do this and that I'll send you in eternal hell fire." Well, that deity is all-powerful, and that means that if he doesn't like murder for example, he could just make it disappear. But wait, free-willy! However, if he is all loving, he punishes us for doing something that he created or allowed to be created by something he created. So, he basically lets us screw it and then punishes us for it. Not so all-loving. In polytheism you've got a bunch of gods. They didn't actually create you, they tolerate you. You can do whatever you want, but if they don't like what you did they can just punish you now or in the afterlife if they want to. Like, say you murdered somebody, that's below their moral ground, it affects people in a negative way, therefore it was not a good choice, therefore they'll punish you for it. The question comes, why do they care about what happens to us? Well, because we do stuff they work with, like Athena is the patron goddess of cities, before there were only cities of gods, but when humans came, there are cities of humans, and she likes cities, so she takes care of them. The next thing coming is the Satan issues, which could be translated as morality. In monotheism an evil being creates all the evil stuff. In polytheism, sorrow is a curse that comes at random while evil, well, that comes at random too, kind of like an initial curse. There is no truly evil being. You can't blame Satan for all the evil, it's only yourself. By an old law of the Cosmos (or something like that) at random both gods and humans will feel like doing evil and/or will receive evil. That makes an individual way more responsible for his/her actions, while with Satan, once again, God created the possibility for Satan to create evil, or you're saying that the possibility was already there case in which God is not all-powerful, and plus, God is all-knowing, shouldn't he know what Satan was about to do?
Did Bush did 9/11

Bush didn't do 9/11 first of all because he wouldn't kill 2,977 AMERICANS to just go in a war. Also Bush didn't do it because when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon it hit the MILITARY Wing. Bush wouldn't destroy all of his military information and kill high military personnel. FINALLY the main reason why people think Bush was in on it was because they say "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" for your information they didn't melt they were weakened and the tower that was hit second was hit almost on a corner which made it weaker then the north tower that is why the steel beams collapsed straight down on eachother also you want to know why WTC 7 fell well when the plane hit it made a huge fireball which spread to that tower and the building beams were also weakened and the beams also gave out
Did Bush did 9/11

HI, apologies for forfeit I was VERY busy. Anyway, Con has also continuously forfeited so this should naturally be noted by voters. Rebuttals: Con uses the example of him allegedly being a fire fighter, however this is irrelevant to whether Mr. George Bush from the United States of America and its government were responsible for the attacks. Unknown to Con, I was actually George Bush's secretary at the time (I was forced to work from a young age) and I can say that I know definitively that his government purposely orchestrated the attacks because of the desire to invade the Middle East, kill some Arab Shepard's, and steal some oil. *Confession*Senor George Bush actually admitted to me, his secretary, that he committed 9/11 along with his government friends. Basically he had some whisky, got emotional and said in his thick Texan accent: 'Oh, Emily, you know what I did' to which I replied, 'Naw Mr Bush, what did you do'? Then he said 'I, I, did 9/11'! 'Oh I'm so sorry, my God gonna be mad at me now'! Naturally wanting to calm matters, I offered Mr. Bush some more whisky and stroked his hair: 'It's okay, Mr. Bush, I have your back'. Then he said: 'Oh thank so much, I really appreciate this, little lady'. So basically I have been keeping this secret all these years but it's time for the truth to come out--and this is what Mr. George Bush wants. Just recently he sent me an email (okay, he got someone to send me an email) saying that he wanted me to release his confession. So here I am showing it to all the inhabitants of the world! Or on DDO, rather. Mr. George wants you to know that he was responsible for 9/11 because he's tired of living a lie and being a puppet to *cough*, people, *cough*. He's ready for you all to know. Here we have it, an actual confession. Cons resolution has thus been negated, George Bush did in fact commit 9/11. But it should be recognized that he primarily blames the Zionists and stated to me that they 'made him do it' and additionally that they are 'to blame for everything in the world', he actually attributes his low IQ and severe lack of intelligence to 'the Jews'...but of course, Mr. Bush was always able to make exceptions for me as I am apparently 'a new Jew', which he was stated as saying 'is a rare commodity'. Here is the full confession that George Bush recorded last week and sent to me: You heard it here first! http://vocaroo.com...VOTE PRO!
Did Bush did 9/11

I am a fire fighter myself and I have learned that heat and flames they don't melt steel beams they weaken them and when the beams weakened they collapsed on themselves. Also what about the families that lost family in the attack on the Pentagon. Also when the North Tower was hit the fireball was huge and in case you didn't know WTC is very close together and when the fireball happened it spread to the next building and like all buildings in has glass lines in it when it caught it exploded causing more beams to be weakened and also when the other two towers collapsed all that debris made even more damage to WTC 7. Now to the Pentagon. When 9/11 happened the Pentagon had sent aircraft towards Pennsylvania because they heard another plane was hijacked there and they wanted to intercept it. And they didn't have any idea what was going on because when the terrorists hijacked the plane they turned off radar so they were just guessing where they were. And if your telling me that Bush would kill thousands then your talking about the biggest treason ever to happen
Did Bush did 9/11

Accepted. I will begin by directly responding to Cons initial argument, which has the resolution entitled: did bush did 9/11. Firstly, Con provides no evidence or indication that Bush would not be prepared to kill 2,977 Americans--one should also keep in mind the amount of New York firefighters who have since died from cancer [1.] http://nypost.com...Regarding the Pentagon, there is extremely limited 'evidence' that it was actually a passenger airliner that did hit the Pentagon. The primary issue is that the hole is too *small* to have been caused by such a jet. Additionally, there was barely any debris and none of the passengers themselves were actually seen at the crash site--neither in the building or outside of it. [2.] http://www.911hardfacts.com... The Pentagon is also the most protected airspace in the world, so the chances of a passenger plane somehow entering the airspace and not being caught is indeed very unlikely. As for the collapse of the WTC, once again, there is virtually no *real* evidence to conclusively verify to the official U.S government version. It's simply implausible that three towers could so suddenly collapse on the basis of fire. Especially if we're to consider the example of other buildings that have caught fire throughout history, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain. This tower was on fire for total of 24 hours and remained entirely on the ground. Despite the exterior damage, its overall structure still remained; which is exactly what should have happened with the WTC. The only thing that could explain the WTC coming down, particularly at the high speed it did, is a controlled demolition [3.] http://www.globalresearch.ca...Tower 7 for example was not even hit by a plane. Alluding to the U.S government once more, 9/11 gave them the perfect motive and opportunity for invading Iraq and Afghanistan--which is what they had previously wanted to do. Even if we were to go by the official version, how exactly does invading these two countries ease the issue of terrorism? Or perhaps animosity towards the west? Obviously, it doesn't. Likewise, neither country [in particular Iraq] had anything directly to do with the attacks. The most significant contradiction is that Saddam Hussein controlled extremist fractions within his country. And his execution is the reason why groups like ISIS have advanced through Iraq and Syria [4.] http://www.ft.com...
Gay Marriage

and for my opponent's clarification, I am a male. Now going on again, I never said you where illiterate. Nor did I give any indication that I doubted you intelligence. As for your remarks that you where in a low grade, if this is true then why does your profile say that you're twenty years old? also going on to my opponent's hypothetical question, on how I would feel if I where a homosexual who wished to marry some-one who was my gender, but was unable to do so because it where illegal. The simple answer is I just am not able to answer this question, That's like asking me how I would feel if I where a woman and having my period. I cannot give you an opinion I've never had. Going on, my opponent also spoke on the morality of homosexuality; first of all that is no what this debate is about, we are not here to argue whether or not being homosexual is good or bad, but whether they should have the right to get married. Second, on your argument "I go to church and I am very religious, but that is probably the only thing that I don't agree with" this really disgusts me on many levels. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any-more than standing in a garage makes you a car. Also a sexual preference is not love, it is lust. I mean tell me this, if there was really nothing different, if it was really all the same either way and you truly believed "love is love" then why bother tacking that word "gay" on there at all? It's just love so it's all the same right? No. Love is not a feeling, love is not a sexual attraction, love is none of that! Love is something that runs much deeper than that. It's a caring glance from a stranger, a hug from your mother, the words "you can" when the whole world says you can't. I could say much, much, more on this subject; but I've already wasted enough time writing about something off-topic. That's another debate for another day. Now going on I would like to point out that nothing my opponent has written after this point in her prior speech has anything to do with the topic at hand. She gives us no reason either logical or empirical to vote for Same Sex Marriage, but instead continues on this tangent where she instead chooses to rant about something completely off-topic. Now as for my own arguments in the last speech, my opponent has not attacked it; in fact she agreed with me and conceded that it was true. So reviewing the debate thus far, I've already won. My opponent has not met their burden of proof, while I have.
Gay Marriage

I understand that I have to admit that my opponent is right that I did not state my arguement clearly, but I also have to admit I didn't understand parts of his or her argument and by the way I'm a girl not a boy thank you very much, but I'm not illiterate I'm just at a low grade level. This may be a stupid question to my opponenet but I hae to ask, how would you feel? To be specific, how would you feel if your partner was of the same sex and you loved and respected that person enough to take vows with them and you couldn't because the governent wouldn't let you? Again just my opnions, also people always say that you will go to hell if you are homosexual. I go to church and I am very religious, but that is probably the only thing that I don't agree with, I think that the people who pull that are just looking for excuses to say homosexuality is "wrong". I'm not slandering the bible or people who agree with that. Think about it though, god put us here on earth to live, and that men and women get married and bear children and to respect others around them, how are we following that if we slander "gay" people and call them out on their sexual preference, I think the only reason that: "you will be sent to hell", is because that if you are "gay" you can't reptroduce. I believe that even if "gay" people can't produce they should be allowed to be married becuase they love each other. I mean come on, a man and a women who hate eachother can get married but two "gay" people who love eachother can't. I think thats a bunch of bul; again why are there so many riots including gay people? Because the government won't get over themselves and let two people who love eachother marry.
Gay Marriage

I know that a lot of people probably have debated this subject before but I hate how the government discourages two people who love each other because they are with the same sex. I disagree with it very much, just because it's two men or two women doesn't mean they shouldn't love each other. I, myself, am not "gay", I am not interested in the same sex, but I don't think it's fair that just because people like others of the same sex are being slandered and treated differently because of their sexual preference. I know everyone says: "Life isn't fair." and I agree with that, but we don't have to make i worse because two people are different. Why do you think that there are so many riots include Gay Marriage? It's because the government doesn't want two people of the same sex too marry, I don't know why it's their own fault. It's my opinion and my opinion probably doesn't matter much but I'm willing to speak out to the people who are suffering and being treated like dirt because of there sexual preference.
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

First my opponent says that I should have asked questions about the structure earlier in the debate but ignores the fact that, in the comment section, I did ask about the order of the debate and explain what I thought it meant. Therefore, I did alert my opponent to my confusion and my opponent either chose to ignore it or did not see it but either way I made my confusion known. Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made climate change you are preventing research into that area and therefore creating a huge bias in the experiments done and articles published. In conclusion, my opponent has not rebutted even one of my claims, instead they focus on the accusations of rule breaking. Due to this absence of rebuttals, my arguments stand and therefore, based on this debate, I have proven how climate change is not much of a threat, and that global warming is not caused by man. While my opponent may of used abstracts from peer reviewed articles (as they love pointing out) I have won the debate. I have given 11 points to why climate change is not due to Co2 and given countless examples of natural disaster frequency staying constant. All of the arguments I have made in this debate go uncontested and therefore prove that climate change is not man made and that the threat is exaggerated. Due to this, all voters are mandated to vote Con under more convincing arguments and conduct. Thank you for reading this debate.
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

"R2-3 Arguments & rebuttals" StupidapeI didn't break my own rules. This means you can perform any combination of arguments and rebuttals in r2 as well as r3. If you had any questions about the structure the best time would have been before accepting the debate and/or round 1. I rebutted your argument indirectly and reinforced my own argument. My opponent uses the tired strategy of cherry picking evidence and red herrings by climate change deniers. Unable to find any peer reviewed articles my opponent relies upon non-credible sources. I ask this, if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal? Until then, I can't take your argument seriously when they contradict scholarly peer reviewed sources. Especially the more prestigious journals like sciencemag. "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. " [6]Thank you for debating.
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent breaks their own rules by not rebutting my argument. Therefore it is an automatic win for the Con as my opponent can decide when they want to break the rules or not, leaving me at an unfair disadvantage. Instead of following their own rules and rebutting my claims, my opponent decides to strengthen their argument. This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too. It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the climate change threat is either nonexistent or being exaggerated. In conclusion, while I agree that rapid climate change poses a threat, I believe that this threat is being exaggerated and that humanity does not have to worry about extreme heat or any other natural disaster for much longer because once the world enters a natural cooling period all of this will be forgotten.
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent throws around a bunch of irrelevant facts to try to disprove highly credible and peer reviewed articles. At this point, responding to my opponent's arguments directly would only give the impression that they were worth responding to. I added a few more peer reviewed articles to back up my points. I use peer reviewed to prove that anthropic climate change is real and a threat. When two sides of the debate conflict on facts, the winner goes to the side who uses the more credible sources. My opponent uses blogs and other sources with notorious reputations. Then, my opponent proceeds to engage in conjecture that these red herrings somehow impact the resolution. At the very least voters, give me the more credible sources points. The below quote, although lengthy explains that man-made climate change isn't something far in the future, its an event that has occurred already and is continuing to occur and claim human lives. I have overwhelmingly met my burden of proof. Thanks for the debate. ""Unusually high temperatures, as well as socioeconomic vulnerability, along with social attenuation of hazards, in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke. In addition to age and gender, combinatorial factors included preexisting disease, medication, urban residence, isolation, poverty, and, probably, air pollution. Although diversely impacted or reported, many parts of Europe suffered human and other losses, such as farming and forestry through drought and fires. Summer 2003 was the hottest in Europe since 1500, very likely due in part to anthropogenic climate change."" [5]Sources4. http://dx.doi.org...5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...6. http://science.sciencemag.org...7. http://iopscience.iop.org...