BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian Universalism is Biblical

Christian Universalism should be an acceptable view in the church. Christian Universalism is the belief that all mankind will be saved through Jesus Christ. Christian Universalist base their belief in the salvation of all mankind based on these two Biblical statements: Statement 1---God has agape love for all mankind and desires their salvation(1Timothy 2:3-6 Arminian theology). Statement 2---God is sovereign and all powerful, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Isaiah 55:11 Calvinist theology). If God desires the salvation of all mankind(Statement 1) and God has the power through love to accomplish His desires(Statement 2), then it stands to reason that God will accomplish his desire to save all mankind. Futhermore, if Statement 1 is a true Biblical statement and Statement 2 is a true Biblical statement, why is it considered heretical for Christian Universalists to believe in both of these true Biblical statements? This is one of the many reasons why I believe in Christian Universalism or the salvation of all through Jesus Christ. Also, if statements 1 and 2 are both true Biblical statements, then as a matter of logic, there should be scriptures to support the conjunction of these two Biblical statements. Here is a list of some of those scriptures: Psalm 22:27-28, Psalm 66:3-4, Psalm 145:8-10, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 45:22-24, John 12:32, Romans 5:18-19, Romans 14:11, 1John 2:2, 1John 4:14, Colossians 1:16-20, 1Timothy 4:10-11, Revelation 5:13, and The Consummation(1Corinthians 15:22-28)---This is when Jesus Christ abolishes death by vivifying everyone(make alive), puts down His enemies and destroys them by making them His friends(reconciliation), then subjects Himself and everyone to God. With death abolished, and everyone subjected to God, there is no longer any seperation between God and man. God can now become All in all. This is not an exhaustive list of scriptures. There are many more scriptures that support the conjunction of Statements 1 and 2.
Ban astrology

No, astrology shouldn't be banned. It sounds like neither of us subscribe to or agree with the ideas presented in astrology, numerology, or 'etc' which I will assume represents things with superstitious backings. This comes across as an argument of 'do you think things that have little supporting evidence or in fact evidence against them being true should be banned', to which I have two responses. First, does it effect you? If astrology isn't doing you any sort of emotional or physical harm, and you could very easily just ignore it, why don't you? If your solution to things you don't agree with is banning them, aren't you infringing a little bit on other people's rights to buy into things like that, even if neither of us do? Secondly, just because something doesn't necessarily have a practical application (according to you and I, perhaps astrology will one day be verified as scientifically accurate and we'll both be wrong) doesn't immediately mean that it should be banned. If your argument for banning astrology is valid, it should therefore logically also work to explain why we should ban the following other things for the same reasons: - Fortune tellers - Religions - Ear Candling - Aromatherapy - Phrenology - Herbalism - Homeopathy - Color Therapy - Magnetic Therapy - Pseudovitamins - Earthquake Prediction - Feng Shui - Cryptozoology Every one of these can be argued to be an invalid or unverified set of ideas, but why would we just say "ok, ban them all"?
Vegeta is better than Goku

You are wrong my friend, Goku is way better than Vegeta. For one thing he is stronger. Goku is stronger than Vegeta for practically the entire show, just a little bit at the beginning. Ever since Vegeta lost on Earth against Goku and Co. Vegeta had been striving to be stronger than Goku, but never succeeded. No matter how much Vegeta improved, Goku was always 2 steps ahead of him. On Namek, Vegeta had gotten stronger by fighting alot, but Goku got alot more stronger because he actually trained. Vegeta just expects to be the strongest because he is the Saiyan Prince, but Goku is constantly working hard to get stronger. Even when Vegeta works hard to get stronger, it is not enough to surpass Goku. When Vegeta trained in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber, he thougt he was the strongest after that, but once Goku trained in it, he quickly became stronger than Vegeta again. Vegeta has too much pride. He thinks that because he is the Prince of All Saiyans that he should be the strongest of all Saiyans. This pride has prevented him to become the strongest. Goku doesn't care to be the strongest, he just cares to be the strongest HE CAN BE. His personality allowed him to never give up. He was innately more powerful. He cared about people and had reasons to fight for what he fought for. He never cared about being the best, he was the best because he HAD to be. That's why he was better than Vegeta, because of who he was. Goku never gave up, he always tried and tried again. Vegeta on the other hand was a baby, he sees someone stronger than him, and he pulls a fit. He either just gives up, or goes insane and tries to kill them, but since he goes insane, he is blinded and is weakened even further. For example, in the DBZ Movie with Broly (the first one) as soon as Vegeta learns that Broly is the Legendary Super Saiyan, he just freezes and doesn't do anything because he is afraid. Goku on the other hand didn't give up there, he kept on trying, even though his foe was much stronger than he. He is because he kept trying that he was able to defeat Broly. Maybe if Vegeta wasn't such a wimp he could've beaten Broly. Vegeta has too many anger issues. He is constantly upset because Goku is stronger than him. He even submits himself to Bobidi's evil to become stronger. Some people say that Vegeta is smarter than Goku, but this is not true. If Vegeta was so smart, why wasn't he ever able to go Super Saiyan 3 like Goku was? Why wasn't he ever able to go Super Saiyan 4 without the help of a machine. Cheese: A solid food prepared from the pressed curd of milk, often seasoned and aged. Voters, I urge you to go to www.cheese.com.
Vegeta is better than Goku

I saw a debate about Vegeta and Goku and couldn't resist starting this one. When I say better I do not refer to stronger. I believe Vegeta is an all-around better character. He makes the Dragon Ball Z/GT series what they are. There always has to be the antagonist that goes covert. Vegeta is like Wolverine in X-Men or Zero in Megaman. He is the driving force that actually makes the series interesting. He is (pardon my French. Hmmm... What do French people say when they cuss? Anyhow.) bad ashs (can't swear on this site). No one stands in his way and if they do, *bang* they're gone or there is a really awesome fight scene. That is the basic reason why Vegeta rivals Goku, because Goku never does anything wrong and is a goody-goody-two-shoes. I'm not saying Vegeta DOESN'T have two shoes, but you get what I am saying. Anyone who accepts this debate will not have to prove anything, just write random things about Goku and Vegeta and possibly about cheese. So have fun, and someday I WILL find you and have a fight to remember.
The Fallacy Challenge

Envisage is incredibly, incredibly smart. Yet I have saved up my final attack just in case this happened--no arguments, nothing, nada. Ya, I'll just treat this round as if Envisage forfeited the last round. You see, I half-expected Envisage to find the loophole within my rules.... "Unless you forfeit, each round from round 2-5 CON must post at least 50 words per round." Therefore technically con could forfeit each round and seem to win....until I slap on my death-shot card: "You fell into my trap." What trap is this?Let's say Envisage ff'd the last round, since he provided zero arguments. So now what? What fallacies had he commited?He commited a load of fallacies. "Envisage forfeited this round."Straw-man. [1] He misinterpreted my argument. He provided arguments completely irrelevant to my case to support his case."Envisage forfeited this round."Texas-sharpshooter. [2] He gives one example of himself not making a fallacy within one round by forfeiting a round, hinting that he won't make a fallacy any other rounds. But who knows? Maybe he won't forfeit the other rounds. One round forfeited does not mean all rounds forfeited."Envisage forfeited this round."Appeal to authority. [3] He appeals to himself as the authority. But he is not the only one in control of the debate, I'm the one making the arguments and having the BoP. He has to disprove my arguments. Making his own arguments will help a little bit but it won't mean he will ultimately win the debate just because he forfeited a round."Envisage forfeited this round."Anecdotal fallacy. [4] Envisage used his personal experience of forfeiting that specific round to contribute to implying that he will not make a fallacy. So? He forfeited a round, that doesn't mean he didn't make a logical fallacy within the debate. It is irrelevant."Envisage forfeited this round."Ad-hominem. [5] By forfeiting the previous round Envisage hints that I'm not worth debating for that round. He hints that, despite my efforts, he can simply just forfeit and still gain back footage in the next round because I'm too bad compared to him and that he's much much more skilled than me.YOU LOSE, ENVISAGE. VOTE ME.[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[5] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
The Fallacy Challenge

My opponent attacks my troll argument quite well. That is why I have a plan.This is what I'm trying to say: P1) If M.F. has cotton candy, then your argument, your argument is invalidP2) Morgan Freeman has cotton candy C) Your argument is invalidWhy does M.F. having cotton candy make your argument invalid? Because cotton candy is such sweet and tasty you can't make any arguments, you're too bribed. Even if the cotton candy has no effect it distracts you enough for Morgan Freeman to knock you unconscious, making your arguments invalid. Thus, I have resupported the crazy internet meme and made my argument valid while your arguments are still invalid.Resiting pulls of argumentsThere is a pretty big big relationship between debate length (rounds wise) and the number of fallacies. It's like Murphy's laws says: if something (bad) has even the least possibility of happening, it will eventually happen. [1][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_lawVoting for meIf you know everyone will vote for pro, you are more likely to just give up already since fighting is futile. 1st genetic fallacy--hmmm...interesting....but I was talking about the likes of your sources being from Wylted or Toviyah. I'm trying to say that if you say "Wylted could not spot a single logical fallacy in my debate, thus 9space has the near-impossible task of spotting a logical fallacy", this has the genetic fallacy. 2cd genetic fallacy-- I see.Reducio ad hitlerum's fallacies-- Ad hominem--however, if you compare my arguments to Hitler's propaganda, you're definitely insulting me. If I said "Your insults are similar to Izbo's, therefore you'll get banned off the site", it's basically saying you act like Izbo and that statement is very insulting, as well as commiting the ad hominem fallacy. No true scotman--The fallacy Envisage made in the previous round(s) is because he wrongly compared my arguments to Hitler's propaganda. I proved my arguments depend on different kinds of persuasion than Hitler's, thus my opponent moved the goal-posts, was wrong, and commited the No-true-scotman fallacy. Wait, no, I think what Envisage commited was more like the Special Pleading fallacy rather than no-true-scotman, since Envisage moved the goalposts. [2][2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...Anyhow, here's how the arguments go:Me: Because blah blah blah, my opponent will make logical fallacies.Envisage: 9space's arguments are like Hitler's propaganda, and since Hitler's propaganda failed, 9space's argument failed.Me: My argumenta aren't like Hitler's propaganda, since I use different appeals rather than Hitler. Envisage: That's not the "no-true-scotman fallacy".You see, since Envisage completely changed to talking about the no-true-scotman fallacy rather than actually facing on my arguments (and pointing out exactly why my arguments are similar to Hiler's propaganda), he definitely moved the goalposts and commited the special pleading fallacy.Let's see what you have to say for yourself, Envisage.
The Fallacy Challenge

My opponent makes very interesting contentions. I was half-expecting him to fall for the "trap" imposed in round one and find a clever loophole just to troll me. But--never mind that--onto the real arguments.A1. Envisage has grounding in basic logicYour debates example makes the Genetic fallacy. [1] You judged your own logic based on yourself. Who knows if this is true or not? Maybe they went easy on you. They could have also have personal bias for you. We just don't know.A2. I'm unlikely to spot fallaciesOnce again you have made the Genetic fallacy. Just because Brant.Merrel didn't spot a fallacy, that does not mean I won't spot a fallacy. A3. Reducio ad hitlerumMy opponent makes a very interesting argument using a logical fallacy NOT listed on my website. However, my opponent makes multiple mistakes here.1. He commits the ad hominem fallacy. [2] He compares me to Hitler in an attempt to shoot me down. 2. He commits the no true scotman fallacy. [3] He appeals to "purity", because Hitler is so goddarn impure that seemingly nothing is right about him, including his propaganda, and he applies Hitler to be like me and because I'm so darn impure my arguments appear to lose. In addition, just because my arguments are similar to Hitler's propaganda, this does not mean my argument will lose. Not only that, my arguments are nowhere even similar to Hitler's propaganda. There's no way Hitler used any internet memes about Morgan Freeman having cottencandy. He also in no way talked about logical fallacies made by Envisage. He also may be mean and malicious, but he's not sly. I made an excellent point in the previous round that I can insult and offend Envisage while accusing him falsely, and none of the conduct deductions will matter, since everyone is judging by "choose winner" option. Therefore even though it is a very unfair tactic, people will have no choice to vote for me if I prove Envisage making a fallacy.In addition, Hitler makes a fallacy in his propaganda by appealing to emotions. On the other hand I make appeals to probability as well as the pull of being unable to make fallacies. Hitler may have a mean face and a mean motto, but one sentence cannot do more than what 8,000 characters can do. Probability=/= emotions. Therefore my arguments aren't similar to Hitler's propaganda as Envisage's.In conclusion:-Envisage has to somehow rebut to my contentions in which he commited the genetic fallacy twice-Envisage's Hitler argument backfired upon him and gave him a few accusations of fallacies which he has to rebut-Envisage's arguments are weak and doubtable because Morgan Freeman still has cotton candy[1] http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[2] http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[3] http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
The Fallacy Challenge

Your mission: try not to commit a single logical fallacy in this entire debate. "Logical fallacies" are defined by this page: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... can accuse you and make logical fallacies myself, but as long as you prove my accusations to be false and no accusations are true by the end of the debate, you win. However, if you make one single logical fallacy, you lose.Round one is for acceptance only. RULES -Unless you forfeit, each round from round 2-5 CON must post at least 50 words per round.-CON may not have more than 3 of the same words in a row-CON cannot post spam-Even if CON only makes an error in the final round, the voters are to decide whether or not he or she made a logical fallacy.
The death penalty should be an option for criminal punishment

This is the argument/rebuttal round, so I will present my own arguments and then refute Con's. Arguments The death penalty prevents murderers from murdering again. Murderers who are released from prison often go on to murder again. In a study of 405,000 prisoners released in 2005, 77% were arrested again for a new crime within 3 years, including 71% of violent offenders such as murderers. [1] Based on these statistics, releasing a murderer will only cause more death. There are two ways to prevent this from happening: life in prison, or an execution. My next argument will explain why the latter is more effective. The death penalty is more effective than a life sentence. First of all, a life sentence increases a prisoner's chance of escape. When you have a lifetime to plan your escape, it will likely be well thought out and more likely to be successful than an escape from death row. A person waiting on death row usually waits 15 years before execution [2], but using less expensive and faster methods of execution such as hanging can reduce this number greatly and further decrease the chance of escape. Second, a life sentence is much like an execution, but the death is delayed. Criminals facing a life sentence will eventually die in prison, so an execution will will do the same thing, but with less time for a prisoner to escape. Rebuttals The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. Based on the chart you provided, you can see that murder rates have decreased in all states, and that the rate of decrease is approximately the same in states with the death penalty and states without it. The decrease is likely caused by life in prison and executions both acting as deterrents, but as I explained earlier, the death penalty is more effective than a life sentence for reasons other than deterrence. It is hypocritical. Here you ask a question, so I will answer it. Punishing a murderer with death does not exactly make us any better, but it makes our actions better than the murderer's actions because we are killing to protect people while the murderer is killing for the opposite reason. The death penalty is more costly than a life sentence. This is only for lethal injections. As I said before, hanging would be a much less expensive alternative. Innocent people get convicted. Your entire argument here is a single fact which does not even relate to innocent people. Extend it. [1] http://www.crimeinamerica.net... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The death penalty should be an option for criminal punishment

Thank you for that Bob and I hope we have an excellent debate. 1) My first contention is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, as shown in the graph of (1) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87 5.90 5.83 5.72 5.26 5.00 4.89 4.95 4.72 Murder Rate in Non-death Penalty States 9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 5.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03 4.22 4.10 4.05 3.90 4.01 4.13 4.09 3.88 Percent Difference 7% 10% 10% 17% 27% 44% 42% 41% 28% 35% 37% 36% 44% 42% 46% 40% 42% 41% 35% 25% 18% 21% 22% Sorry it may not be complete as this is on word but through the power of excel I have found that the average murder rate over this time span was 5.14087 in states without the death penalty and that of the ones with it had an average of 6.575652. These statistics are per 100,000 people. I believe I have sufficiently shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. 2) It is Hypocritical How does punishing a murder with the death penalty make us any better than the murderer? 3) The Death penalty is more costly than a life sentence As you can see the death penalty simply costs more than life in prison (2) as seen in many states such as Kansas where it costs 70% more, in Tennessee where it costs 48% more, Maryland where it costs 3 times more and California where it costs roughly 12 times more. 4) Innocent people get convicted and they can’t be let out once it is found that they are innocent. About 10,000 people get convicted of serious crimes per year (4) Sources (1) "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;. (2) "Death Penalty Cost." Amnesty International USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.amnestyusa.org...;. (3) N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://researchnews.osu.edu...;.
The death penalty should be an option for criminal punishment

Since you did not mention it, I am assuming that the burden of proof is shared. I will also assume that we will follow a round structure of: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments/Rebuttals 3. Rebuttals 4. Conclusions ("I won this debate because...")-No new arguments. I accept the challenge. Thanks to Hayd and Rosalie for hosting the tournament and thanks to mc9 for challenging me.
Withdrawing troops from the Middle East

Here are a few arguments (with very limited character space) in case Con comes back: 1. The world does not look favorably upon America for going to war in the first place, let alone staying this long [1]. 2. Increasing troops in the ME will be received with concern and anger. This will make it more difficult for us to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine. 3. George Will wrote "Americans should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units..." Similar to the ideology behind bombing Hiroshima during WWII, the idea here is to save American lives. We've already lost far too many soldiers unnecessarily; we should focus on protecting American lives by keeping troops off the ground where they're in danger. 4. Instead of more fighting, we should try engaging with locals to achieve cooperation on addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development. This would empower people in the ME and improve the conditions of their lives. Increasing troops only accomplishes targeting innocent civilians and tarnishing America's reputation. It also encourages the locals to support the Taliban rather than the U.S.; they'd rather be ruled by extremists than be dead. 5. Some point out "Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan" [2]. Either them or the guvmint. 6. Congress has approved $1.086 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the wars in the ME [3]. Our economy is in shambles; this money can best be spent elsewhere. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...