BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuals ARENT destroying america

I have decided that i would like to take the converse of visions debate "homosexuals are destorying the america". Homosexuals have been around since the 13th century, but it was not aloud to be seen. Between 408 B.C.E to 400 B.C.E the famous ancient greek philosopher. From his publication of The Symposium, it showed acts of homosexuality. Plato expresses to "celebrate" the relationship between man and man. Even plato quotes that the symposium is a "manual" to homosexuality "The Symposium might be described as a manual for those embarking on the homoerotic-spiritual path" (Plato 268). Plato was said to be gay but it was never a proven fact. Homosexuals all around us make the world just like us. They are great people who open doors for others. For example Roberta Achtenberg she was the first openly gay-lesbian offical for the United States. She was a civil rights leader/attorney. She recieved alot of awards. For example she won in 1997 one of the "50 Most Influential Businesswomen in the Bay Area"-bay area meaning san fransico bay area. Also in 1994 she won GLAAD Media Awards, Visibility Award. ALSO she was a founder for "the national center for lesiban rights" and was also awarded for that as well. She became a successful writer as well about sexual orientation. She being a successful gay/lesbian how is that destroying america? Shes actually helping america by educating others about how it is okay to be gay. There are obstacles in life that you can over come. As long as your content with yourself thats what should matter. Unfortunately society is a cruel thing that we face everyday. You can be gay and successful and bring great ideas to the plate for the country.
Philanthropic Efforts From Companies Like TOMS and Charities like Livestrong Should Not Exist.

By your standards, if a company wants to make a difference in the world and help there public reputation in doing so, what is the problem? They are helping people. No one feels forced to buy from them because of this. People can just but from another, cheaper company and then donate to a charity. Your conspiracy theoristic way of thinking scares me. Why can't you see that if a company says they want to help someone, they might just want to help someone. Footnote: I do not support Livestrong or Lance Armstrong as a whole. I see the companies used in the prompt as examples that could be switched out with any other company.
We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

First of all, I'd just like to bring up a point that my opponent brought up in their last speech, "If we can give women the right to vote, then we can eat dead babies." However, eating dead fetuses and giving women the right to vote are two totally separate things. One is cannibalism and the other is trying to promote equality for both genders. Moving on, I will now respond to the attacks made against my own case. My opponent attacked my first contention of cannibalism by stating, that we are not debating the legality of it. However, almost every state is against cannibalism, as I sourced at least 3 in my last speech, but the list goes on. Meaning that feeding aborted fetuses to the homeless won't get much support. Moving on, my opponent did not directly attack my second contention of, "It would not be effective" therefore it still stands. However, my opponent attacked the sources I used stating that it talked of anti-abortion, however I was not using the sources in an anti-abortion matter; I was trying to prove my point that fetuses are usually aborted at around, 12 weeks, and at 12 weeks the babies are only 2.13 inches. I did not use the sources I listed previously in an anti-abortion matter, I used the sources to further prove my point that feeding the homeless aborted fetuses would not be effective. In conclusion, the only reasonable stance to vote in negation of the resolution: We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless, for the following 2 reasons, 1- The consumption of aborted fetuses is not only cannibalism but it is not supported. 2- It would not be an effective way of feeding the homeless, and it would be much easier to just buy them real food, (as I stated earlier) Thank you. (Weirdest debate I've ever done)
We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

I get it, I really do. You don't want to feed our homeless. They might be miserable, ugly, urine soaked men that want to rape your mother, but they're people, they're our people. We need to start taking responsibility for our own, even if that means resorting to cannibalism. Look, I know this idea is hard to swallow, the whole premise of eating fetus is just difficult to digest, but this is 2017 people. -If we can give women the right to vote, then we can eat dead babies.-If we can give gays the right to marry, then we can eat dead babies.-If we can end the slavery of an entire race of people, then by God! We can eat dead babies. You make a claim that there are not enough aborted fetuses for the homeless to eat. I agree, so let's begin aborting more, thus the homeless may quell their hunger. I don’t claim to be a martyr, nor a saint, nor a visionary. What I do claim to be, is a guy trying to do the right thing. If we must reuse our dead, to sustain the living, then I say that’s a bloody good idea and we need to start thinking about those in dire need. A vote for con is a vote for homeless victimisation. To refute cons sources--Cons sources are regarding the legality of canibalism. Matters of legality do not suppourt any claim of what we should be doing. The whole purpose of debates are to question normality and in this case legality.The remaining sources contain information about the morality of abortion and at what age the fetus become "human."Don't assume cons sources are valid, it's irrelavent to this debate, as the fetus is already dead-Chinese people eat fetus soup all the time. It's only taboo in our culture.http://theseoultimes.com...;
We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

I negate the following: We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless. C1- Cannibalism. Feeding aborted fetuses to the homeless is considered cannibalism. Cannibalism is defined as, "the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species." As well as, in order to commit cannibalism, it would require the desecration of corpses, which is illegal. [1] C2- it would not be effective The average age of aborted babies is 12 weeks [2] , and at 12 weeks, the babies are only 2.13 inches [3], meaning that shipping these corpses to the homeless would not be an effective. It would cost more to get the babies to the homeless than it would to just go and buy fast food. Also, there were only 664,435 abortions in 2013 [4], and a little over 500,000 [5] homeless, meaning that only a few people would get 2 babies per year, which is not effective. I will now turn to attacking my opponent's case. My opponent's only contention is: Surplus protein and world hunger. Again I state this will not end world hunger because it would only be 2:1 ratio of babies to homeless per year. My opponent provided recipes, in which I do not have to debate against since I already listed my reasons to not eat babies. However, my opponent providing recipes goes against the resolution since homeless do not have a kitchen in which they can cook the babies. Thank you. Sources: 1- http://law.justia.com... http://law.justia.com... http://law.justia.com... (The list goes on) 2- http://abortion-not.org... 3- http://www.babycenter.com... 4- https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5- http://abortion-not.org...
We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

Surplus protein and world hunger:So many women these days are aborting their fetuses and then dumping the corpse, where it lay to rot. With so much protein being discarded, why not use that protein and feed a growing hunger epidemic. Fetus meat is tender and sweet. A mix between chicken and fish, it’s rich in protein and the underdeveloped cartilage and bones have a nice chewy crunch to them. It’s one of the few meats that can be eaten raw, but boiled fetus is quite tasty too. In fact, there are many ways you can cook your fetus. Recipe 1) Bake your baby in an oven until bloated and fat. You will need to bake your baby in oven for about 20 mins, when the baby begins to rise, pull it out of the oven and pop it with a kitchen knife. The rich, watery juices that seep from the babies popped boils will be perfect to add to a meaty gravy. Recipe 2) Fry your fetus in a pan. After the fetus baby thing, is fried up and crispy, it should be very dry and somewhat resemble a burn victim. The best way to serve up the meaty carcass would be with salt and vinegar. These are just two methods I use to cook up dead babies and fetuses. I would love to hear your recipes in the comments section. You will be arguing why feeding dead babies to homeless men and women, is not a good idea. Please no racism or Jew hate,Thanks.
Evil proves God does not exist

Much to my surprise, we were actually able to get to a heart of the matter on this debate. Con's only objection to my argument is premise 2, "By definition, a morally good being would want to prevent morally bad things." As con has still not offered a new definition of morality, (technically he did, but that just shifted the definition to good and bad, which he failed to define.) Because of this I am forced to continue using my definition, which can easily be derived from Con's morality, and my good/bad (to which Con had the opportunity to offer a substitute) By definition, a moral good being would take the most moral actions. By definition, the most moral action would be that action which causes the most good/least bad net outcome As Con agreed, God could remove all the bad from the universe while leaving all of the good. That possible universe would clearly have less bad than this universe. (good being the opposite of bad, this also meens more good) By definition, it would be morally good to create the second universe. Being morally good, God would want to create the second universe. Put another way, under the definition of morality I use, which I actually live by (as in i did not create to win a debate), by definition there can be no reason that a morally good reason would not want to prevent evil for anything other than good. You have agreed that evil can be removed without lessening good. Therefore there is no reason a all moral being would not want to create a universe with no evil.
Evil proves God does not exist

Pro once again, defines what is moral and what is immoral, with what causes pleasure and pain. I think my child rapist illustration sufficiently shows this concept of morality as false. Previously I asked Con if God could have sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist. Con answers no and says "It would be possible for God to keep ALL of the good in the universe, and remove ALL of the bad" But you see I already conceded what God "could" do (in the power sense) the question is what God should or should not do (in the moral sense). You have not given any justification for your claim that God can't have sufficient reason for allowing evil. Pro makes the the following argument. .. .. .. .. .. . 1) By definition evil is a morally bad thing. 2) By definition, a morally good being would want to prevent morally bad things. 3) Therefore, God would want to prevent evil Premise 2 implies that their is no possibility God could have sufficient reason for allowing evil. But why accept that ? Why for instance isn't it possible that God has sufficient reason to allow evil for a certain amount of time ? Consider this argument. .. .. .. .. 1) God would have no sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist 2) Evil exists 3) Therefore evil proves God does not exist But premise 1 is just an assertion by its self. I can assert the negation which is. .. .. .. 1) God has sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist 2) Evil exists 3) Therefore evil does not prove God does not exist. Pro claims that God can't exist if God has internal contradiction, but If God has sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist then their is no internal contradiction between God being all power, all knowing, all good, etc and evil existing. Unless proven otherwise, God might have sufficient reason for allowing evil, thus it must be conceded that God could exist even if evil exists, which refutes the claim that "evil proves God does not exist" Vote Con I thank Pro for participating in the debate.
Evil proves God does not exist

Cons first objection is to my statement "If God exists, no pain would be necessary" I believe I proved this in my first post "A3) God can put the universe in any state (A2) A4) there exists a state where no evil exists A4.1) Currently there are places where there is evil, and places where there is not A4.2) If these regions [which contain evil] were to be removed, then evil would not exist at that point in time A4.3) This can be done at all points in time A5) God can put the universe in a state where no evil exists (A3,A4)" As this answers Cons objection, and has yet to be acknowledged, i feel it is sufficient, I will elaborate and/or revise when I know what (if any) Cons objections are. Con repeats his objection to my definition of moral, again i would like to hear an alternate, however regardless of the definition of moral, can we agree that evil does exist, and that evil would be contrary to the wishes of a morally good being. Con:"You [pro] objected when I said that your claim of evil = unnecessary pain means that good = necessary pain. But you see, you attached a moral value to one description, in this case the description being unnecessary pain and attaching the moral value of evil to it. All I did was take the opposite of that description and attached the opposite moral value, thus good = necessary pain." First of all, evil is not the opposite of good, bad is the opposite of good. I would say that all pain is bad, however evil refers only to that subset of pain which is unnecessary. Good, being the opposite of bad, would refer to those actions which cause pleasure. IE. bad=pain therefore good=pleasure. One could imagine defining an anti-evil word, rightous, to refer to that subset of good which is unnecessary, this would be the opposite of evil. "If evil exists, then good exists, since evil is contrary to what is good." I have objections to this, but I think this is a perfect time to say, 'so what'. I already agree that good exists, it is completely irrelevant to evil disproving God. I would like to leave Con with some questions 1) Is God capable of creating a universe with no evil? 2) Would God want to create a universe with no evil? (even if you said he could not, he could still want to)
Evil proves God does not exist

Pro says "I would like to see con refute my arguments against God's existence, which basically gos, if God exists, no pain would be necessary (all powerful). Therefore all pain would be unnecessary, or evil. because he is morraly good, God would want to prevent evil, and because he is all powerful, he would be able to do so. Therefore, there would be no evil. Because there is evil, God cannot exist. " Your first premise of your argument states "if God exists, no pain would be necessary (all powerful). " But why accept this assumption, I could just assume that if God exists some pain is necessary. Do you have a reason to justify this assumption ? You also state " because he is morraly good, God would want to prevent evil, and because he is all powerful, he would be able to do so. " But I rejected your definition of morality that stated the moral thing to do, is that which results in the less pain. I would also note you claim evil is unnecessary pain. You objected when I said that your claim of evil = unnecessary pain means that good = necessary pain. But you see, you attached a moral value to one description, in this case the description being unnecessary pain and attaching the moral value of evil to it. All I did was take the opposite of that description and attached the opposite moral value, thus good = necessary pain. Unnecessary pain (what Pro says is evil) Necessary pain (what Pro implies is good) If evil exists, then good exists, since evil is contrary to what is good. Seeing that good exists, isn't is possible that there is a good that is uncaused, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover ? Without any logical proof, it must be conceded that Gods existence is possible, thus the claim that evil proves God does not exist is false. I look forward to Pros response.
Evil proves God does not exist

Con launches a valid objection to my definition of morality. To clarify, negative values of pain exist, we often call them pleasure. With this clarification we can see that if you were to kill me, i would not have the time to get more negative pain. If the net total of my pain was positive, (ie. i would live an on-average unhappy life) I would say that it would be moral for you to kill me. Con is correct when he says that divide pain into 2 groups, necessary, and unnecessary. I do not mean to imply that necessary pain is good, only necessary, and i would (and did) argue that if God existed than there would be no necessary pain. I never said that good and evil cause necessary/unnecesary pain. Good and evil are words I use to describe actions. Cons numbered argument is a very interesting piece of logic. First, i never assumed that good has casual power, it is only a word used to describe actions. Good has no mind, so i fail to see how it can be all knowing. By definition, good requires some amount a pleasure in order to exist, therefore before good exists, a sentient being must already exist. Good is, by definition, caused. It comes into existence to describe an action. This action had to be initiated by some other object. I would like to see con refute my arguments against God's existence, which basically gos, if God exists, no pain would be necessary (all powerful). Therefore all pain would be unnecessary, or evil. because he is morraly good, God would want to prevent evil, and because he is all powerful, he would be able to do so. Therefore, there would be no evil. Becuase there is evil, God cannot exist.
Evil proves God does not exist

Pro had said "I propose that we define 'moral' as the action which caused the least pain/most pleasure. With all forms of pain/pleasure scaled as they are in the mind of the recipient. " I don't agree to that and I will explain why. When it is said that God is morally Good, what is meant is that God does what is good and doesn't do what is evil. Now there is a problem here, cause what the good thing to do is, may not necessarily be what results in the least pain. As such I won't accept that definition. Consider this, if your definition of morality is true, it would be moral for me to kill you and lets assume I kill you painlessly, cause if you are dead you can't suffer, and thus my action resulted in you not suffering nor being able to suffer anymore, and by your definition that is the definition of a morally good act. At this point I don't know if Pro will drop their definition of what is morally good, and tweak their arguments, or if they will defend their definition of morally good. So I will move on and come back to this depending on what Pro says. Pro says "And evil is defined as something that causes unnecessary pain. " Now notice here Pro doesn't say that evil is something that causes pain, but rather evil is something that causes UNNECESSARY pain. This means according to Pro there are two kinds of pain. .. .. .. .. . 1) Necessary pain 2) Unnecessary pain (what Pro says is evil) This would seem to me to imply that necessary pain is good. Unnecessary pain (what Pro says is evil) Necessary pain (what Pro implies is good) Also consider according to Pro, good and evil have causal power, since they cause necessary and unnecessary pain respectively. Now if good has casual power, how powerful is it as a casual agent ? A bit powerful ? kinda powerful ? All powerful ? Is their any reason why this "good cause" can't be personal ? , rather than say an impersonal cause like gravity. Consider this argument. .. .. .. .. 1) Good exists and has casual power (assumed by Pro) 2) Goods' causal power could be all powerful 3) Goods' causal power could be personal 4) Good could be all knowing 5) Good could be the prime/first mover 5) Good exist uncaused 4) Thus God (uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover) could exist. The conclusion that God could exist, refutes any claim that says or implies God can't exist, such as the claim that "Evil proves God does not exist" I look forward to Pros response.
Evil proves God does not exist

Before we begin this debate, it is important to know exactly what we are talking about. According to Con, God has the following properties: G1) uncaused G2) morally good G3) all powerful G4) all knowing G5) personal G6) first/prime mover I propose that we define 'moral' as the action which caused the least pain/most pleasure. With all forms of pain/pleasure scaled as they are in the mind of the recipient. And evil is defined as something that causes unnecessary pain. Morally good would then mean taking the most moral actions. Let us assume for the moment that God does exist, based on the above properties, we can determine the following A0) God exists (assume) A1) God would want to take the most moral action (G2) A2) God can do anything (G3) A3) God can put the universe in any state (A2) A4) there exists a state where no evil exists A4.1) Currently there are places where there is evil, and places where there is not A4.2) If these regions were to be removed, then evil would not exist at that point in time A4.3) This can be done at all points in time A5) God can put the universe in a state where no evil exists (A3,A4) A6) God would want to put the universe in such a state (A1) A7) The universe would be in such a state (A6, A2) A8) Evil exists A9) Therefore, our assumption that God exists must be false
Evil proves God does not exist

My opponent will argue that "Evil proves God does not exist" I will be arguing that the existence of evil does not prove Gods non existence. If you have any problems or concerns with this debate, please refer to them in the comments section first, so we can come to an agreement and make any changes to the debate before starting the debate. Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover Opening Statement.......... The existence of evil has been used as a "proof" against Gods' non existence for a long time, by arguing the impossibility of God existing and evil existing. This argument can be summarized as........... 1) Evil can only exist if God does not exist 2) Evil does exist 3) Therefore God does not exist But why accept the mutual exclusivity of the first premise ? The problem with this argument is that there's no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There's no explicit contradiction of God existing and evil existing. If some one claims that evil existing proves that God does not exist, then they must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. In the absence of proving this mutually exclusivity, at the very least God existing and evil existing is shown to be possible. My counter argument for now is...... 1) God existing and evil existing has not be shown to be mutually exclusive. 2) Therefore its possible that God exists even if evil exists. 3) Therefore the claim that "Evil proves Gods' non existence" is false. Seeing my opponent is the one arguing for Gods non existence based on evil existing I will leave it to them to make this argument in the affirmative.