BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We live in a nonrandom dehumanistic world bent on squaring us

I took a journey to the ocean to learn about it's mysteries. I closed my eyes and placed a straw into the surf. I put my mouth to the straw, exhaled my breath, then pulled fluid sharply into my being to become one with the sea. The sea was a foul concoction of salt and grit. I spewed the frothy mixture back into the sand. I coughed and gagged and held back my vomit. Of all the great things I had ever heard about the sea, none of my expectations were met. I thought there must be some mistake. I put my ear to the straw and heard no sound other than a muffled gurgle. I put my eye to the straw and saw nothing but a round circle of inky black. I put my nose to the straw and inhaled sharply of it's scents. The icy liquid burned my sinuses with unending agony. The ocean is a foul place, I decided. Hemingway lied. Verne was a fool. Twain was delusional. There was no mystery in the sea. No glory. No power. No majesty. No creatures of the deep, beyond description. The sea, as I could clearly tell through my straw, was a cold and dark place, unfit for man and beast. I turned my back on the sea. As the sun set behind me, I waited until dark before departing. I looked out over the endless blackness once more, towards infinity in the stars and saw nothing. This is the filter through which you view the world. My circular straw is your angular box. You see what you choose to see. You ignore all that exists beyond the edges and lines. Our choices limit out perception. Our minds limit our interpretation. Our interpretation does not make the world. When we are children, adults hand us images with thick black lines on eggshell parchments. We are told to distribute 64 waxy hues into the space bounded by light absorption. Do not explore the emptiness beyond. But as we grow, we know better. We see the borders as training guides, never meant to limit us, but only to contain our enthusiasm until our wisdom no longer heeds the constraints. The guides were there to build our confidences and teach us control over our actions. All the while, books and games and media productions teach us to reach beyond our immediate senses and yearn for a world far beyond the walls and the windows. The boxes that protect us when we are younger are only meant to secure us, not because we are meant to be controlled and bound, but because we are vulnerable. We are vulnerable in our skin, to dangers of nature, animals, and our own passions. The borders, like the coloring books, only teach us to live in safety until we are ready for more. Once we are truly ready, no square can contain our spirit. Only fear, not the perception of oppressive geometry, keeps you inside.
We live in a nonrandom dehumanistic world bent on squaring us

Perhaps.. I see many examples you list are in veneration of nature, which the "lazy and convenient mother of invention" has absurdy estranged itself from, to the point of, through custom and language it has divided itself into a separate branch of "nature", a literal world, that for all your creativity and effort, you were bread in, and blindly contaminated by. As am I and all of your acquaintences. This form houses our minds against our potential, by necessity.. Reality as art. You can not go into walking distance anywhere without the unending reminder of this geometry of living and the principles it imposes on the mind. Live in nature.. Yet unendingly aware still of the tumor upon the planet.. I like to present that the collective acceptance of this life, as life, is as collectively accepting a homosexual in a pink fairy dress, as the embodiment of a man. But we are so blind that we cannot know of the reality of hercules and such.
We live in a nonrandom dehumanistic world bent on squaring us

I was born on a round world under the shadow of a fractal tree in a chaotic snow storm with crystalline hexagonal snowflakes. I drink coffee, moving in brownian motion, from a round cup, in an ergonmic chair. I drove to work on a non-linear road over rolling hills and an arched bridge with triangular cross-bracing in a car shaped mathematically to minimize wind resistance and create rotational power. Yes, we optimize material dimensions into repetitive units to minimize cost of manufacturing and assembly. We are economically guided by function, rather than form unless our resources and our minds provide us the freedom to move beyond. I was taught to think outside the box. It's not the world's fault you're still in it. Bring it on.
We live in a nonrandom dehumanistic world bent on squaring us

We live in a cube matrix You are birthed into this square room, off a square bed, through square halls, to square crib, taught on square books from square shelves, fed from square fridge, taught in square desk from square board, to wear square cap on head, square doors, square tiles, windows, shelves, you live on the "block"... You watch the square screen off the square box, tap on square keys for your square desktop, everything is square every where you go is square Square is used to refer to a mindknumbingly fvcking dumb person Blockhead too I think we are being hexed Come at me
The Bible Does Not Support The Doctrine of The "Holy Trinity"

The doctrine of the "Holy Trinity" taught by Christians/Catholics, is a misconception and is not supported by the Scriptures. The teaching is that God the Father, Christ, who is the Son of Man, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, are all one being; they are all one person. Nowhere in the Scriptures does the text "holy trinity" even exist. It is a deceitful teaching solely to keep us mentally destroyed and enslaved, as well as controlled. For this debate, Con (opponent) will be showing evidence supporting the doctrine of the so-called Holy Trinity. Pro (me) will be providing evidence which debunks the doctrine of the so-called Holy Trinity. The rules: (1) Must be Catholic/Christian or believe in the teaching of the "holy trinity". (2) Must be capable of providing biblical scriptures to support your claims, statements, opinions, and/or ideas. (3) Must stay on the topic we are discussing. (4) Must be able to refute Pro's assertions, and vice versa. (5) Failure to follow all rules will result in an immediate loss. Debate settings: - 5 rounds - Time to argue: 72 hours - 10,000 characters max for each round Con, by accepting this debate, you adhere to the rules listed above. For round 1, I will allow my opponent to go first.
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

First, I just have to say this about Tatarize's last speech; wow..... what a way to slam your opponent. especially a younger one...... Moving on. Yes, with one change: If a puppy does a wrong deed that warrants death and/or torture, then you should kill it and/or torture it. No where in my speech does it say that you should not kill it and/ torture it. < The fact that they, to some degree, know right from wrong doesn't lead in any causal direction towards a deserved torture or death. Let's look at this reasonably: I know that X is wrong. I do X. Therefore, I should be tortured and killed.> Actually, you are wrong. If they know right from wrong, and know they will be punished, then they should be punished if they do something wrong. You are missing a very important part of the logic. Here is it again, with that important part. I know that X is wrong, and warrants Y punishment. I do X. Therefore, Y should happen to me. Substitute Y for torture and killing. Tada. It doesn't matter. If they do a certain action that warrants a certain punishment, then if they they do the certain action, they should get that certain punishment. <-- Dogs may know what they did was wrong but that doesn't make them have any of the human moral characteristics we require in society.> Because my opponent has not taken the chance to give any human moral characteristics, I feel compelled to give some, since the term is so vague. Rational Thought. Ability to make choices. I think those are the big ones. Dogs are capable of both of those things, so therefore they should be bound by moral standards. Note, these standards are not determined by humans. These standards are there regardless of what we say. Yes we do. We torture them if they do not tell us what we need to know. (POWs) You have to look at this with context. The average human life is about 80 years. The average dog life is about 15. Have you ever heard of dog years? In fact, dogs mature much faster (in terms of our years) because their concept of time is different from ours. Yes you did. Its the same thing. Tatarize, we are debating about torturing/ killing dogs. There is an automatic assumption that there will be some hypotheticals. My entire argument. If a puppy does an action warranting a certain punishment, then they should receive that punishment. So throughout this entire debate, my opponent has presented several vaild arguments, all of which I have refuted. My opponent however, has presented no valid reason as to why a puppy should not be punished for his actions. If anything, he has made several statements that would help my case. My opponent has however, provided several theories as to why torturing/ killing is wrong. However, there is one problem. They are merely theories. Theories cannot prove anything. They can voice an opinion, but until those theories have been proven true, which they have not been, we cannot assume them to be anything more than an opinion voiced by a philospher. Therefore, my opponent has lost this debate since all of his arguments were based off of theories, unprovable statements. Thank you VOTE PRO!!!!!
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

Hello all. Thanks to my opponent for this debate. Before I start, I feel compelled to say this, due to the nature of this debate. Please don't vote for my opponent just because he is not advocating torturing and killing puppies. You should judge this debate based upon the arguments, not my username. Thank you. *Topic Analysis* This topic is a moral topic. It is asking of us whether or not we should torture and kill puppies. My opponent is against doing so, and I am supposed to advocate it. Let me state now that anything said now does not directly reflect the opinions of the debaters. I will be taking this case from a moral standpoint. I argue that puppies do have a conscience, and therefore should be punished by their actions. If the correct punishment is torture or death, then they should be tortured or killed. The puppy has a conscience, so they are bound by moral rules. For instance, if you have taught a dog that killing another dog is wrong, and you have somehow tought the dog that it will be killed if the dog kills another dog, then that dog should be killed for killing. Also, a group(no matter what the species), needs to develop some sort of moral code in order for that group to continue to exist. A group of dogs will be forced to develop a sense of morality, in order to continue to exist. For the survival of the community, dogs are forced to develop a sense of morality. They accept that killing someone within their society is wrong. Therefore, when they commit those acts, they are accepting the due punishment. Even if we are not going to talk about groups of dogs in the wild, we can still argue that domseticated dogs should be tortured and killed. Animals devolop at a very early age a sense of morality, and they know that killing is wrong. Especially domesticated dogs, since there is no need for them to kill. Domesticated dogs are taught not to kill, or commit other horrible acts. If they do, then they should be punished. Why should we protect a dog that has commited an act so bad that if it were a human we would have killed them? If a human commits a certain act, he/she/it will be punished. If that act is so bad it warrants death, then we would kill that person. Why should it change for an animal?
Governments should not be allowed to borrow money

Brian"Also, what"s with the assumption that government officials "consider how you feel about the money" and don"t "overcharge you". Government officials are human beings just like capitalists are. If we assume that the latter are callous and greedy, than we should assume that the former are as well. And because the government has more power to abuse than a private businessman does, we should be more concerned about the former than the latter."A business man is much more profit motivated and callous then a government official. A government official job is to maintain whatever department he is a part of and do his job. A capitalist by definition is-a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism. A capitalist will try and attain as much profit as possible while a goverment office will not. This is fact, not fiction."Brian: I fail to see what is wrong with people offering a "basic service" (however that is defined) to others, with the hope of profiting from the transaction. Isn"t the main thing that the service is delivered effectively to the people who want it? Why is it a bad thing if both service provider and service receiver benefit? Isn"t more benefit a good thing? If according to "ethics" it isn"t, then I want nothing to do with that set of ethics."I can infer that you are a libertarian. The problem is not that it is wrong for private companies to provide services for the government, it is that having private companies control these services may have potential negative consequences. If we are to allow private institutions to open, they would only flock to highway systems since they are the most profitable. This means that private corporations will take all the big and profitable roads while the US government is stuck paying the rest of the bill. Private companies cannot solve everything. The government would also have to place many regulations to ensure that roads are salted and thus safe, roads are repaired, consumers don't get overcharged, and antimonopoly laws to prevent something like carnegie. If a monopoly arises from the road business, what difference would it be to the government? Brian:"I will concede that debt "may be useful", though not indispensable (irregular tax levies in wartime emergencies are not unprecedented by any means) in the incredibly rare scenario where a nuclear armed power must fight a sudden, unexpected, defensive conventional war. But in light of all of the numerous harms allowing governments to run debts results in, forsaking convenience in such ultra-rare, hypothetical scenarios is a very small price to pay."so the question is, should the US government be allowed to borrow money? Yes, Brian agrees somewhat with me here. We should try and limit how much we borrow, which i agree with Brian here and that we borrow far too much. But the fact is that borrowing can be very instrumental in times of war or other scenarios where the whole country is at threat. I thank my partner for having a nice discussions with me on debt.
Governments should not be allowed to borrow money

The topic is fairly self-explanatory: governments should not be allowed to run deficits and cover them by issuing debt/borrowing money. I will be arguing that they should not be allowed to, my opponent will argue that they should be allowed to. Suggested Format: Rd 1: Acceptance Rd 2: Pro states positive case, con rebuts. Rd 3: Pro counter-rebuts, con states positive case. Rd 4: Pro rebuts, con counter-rebuts.
You Can't Justify Yourself

How can you justify yourself? I say you can't. God loves you, God wants to be your justifier. You cannot justify yourself. What's your excuse for living? God loves you and wants you to live forever. He wants you to know Him as your justification. Trying to keep the arguments short. I know people want to go on and on and on and on explaining how they are justified, but you cannot justify yourself. If you can't explain in less than 1000 characters how you are justified, you never will explain it because it is not possible to justify yourself.
The Problem of Hell Redux (2)

I thank KeytarHero for agreeing to debate this with me. IntroductionI have already done two debates on this subject but I hope to tackle this issue yet again. [1][2]To reiterate, my position is that the existence of hell - conceived of as eternal, conscious torment (e.g. the "traditional" doctrine of hell) - is, in all likelihood, incompatible with the existence of a God who is conceived of as perfectly good (e.g. just, merciful, loving, etc), powerful, and wise. I think this problem presents a uniquely diffcult issue for that kind of monotheism in general and Christanity in particular; the latter position is the one I will be arguing from.Just to make clear the commitments of the traditional (eternal, conscious torment) doctrine of hell I'll use Jonathan Kvanvig's explication:The Anti-Universalism Thesis: Some persons are consigned to hell;The Existence Thesis: Hell is a place where people exist, if they are consigned there;The No Escape Thesis: There is no possibility of leaving hell and nothing one can do, change, or become in order to get out of hell once consigned there;The Retribution Thesis: The justification for hell is retributive in nature, hell being constituted to mete out punishment to those whose earthly lives and behavior warrant it. [3]One's theological or religious persuasion - whether theist or non-theist - does not matter in accepting this debate. The only type of person I hope to debate is someone who is competent and can argue powerfully for the position that the existence of hell and God, within the context of Christainity, are, in all likelihood, compatible.I accept the burden of proof inasmuch as all the opponent has to do to defeat me is show that my arguments fail to prove their conclusion. If they show my arguments do not prove their conclusion the argument points should go to my opponent. Thusly, my opponent has to show how and why my arguments fail.Good luck to whomever accepts this challenge.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and clarifications and/or statements of purpose. If there are any more issues that need to be worked out please post them in the comments.Rounds 2-4 are for argumentation.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] "The Strong View of Hell" , in The Problem of Hell, ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p 25
Exodus 7-12(the Egyptian Plagues) demolishes the Christian Doctrine of Free Will

I argue that God's interaction with Pharaoh in the Exodus story, specifically relating to the Plagues and Pharaoh's reaction to them negates the commonly accepted Christian doctrine of Free Will. God intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart negating his free will and creating cause for all humans to question the free will doctrine. (As a simultaneous sidebar debate I will be attempting to prove that God's action towards Pharaoh, was immoral as it was designed to result in the death of innocent children)
The Bible Teaches the Weekly Sabbath is not Binding on Christians

My opponent in this debate must defend the position that the Bible teaches Christians are obigated to keep the weekly sabbath, and turn down my evidence to the contrary. My opponent must be either a Seventh-day Adventist, or a member of a church that keeps the weekly sabbath. He/she must believe the entire Bible to be the word of God. The Sabbath is a shadow of Christ (Col 2:16-17), and Christians don't live in the sahdows, we live in the reality. Jesus has put an end to the law of Moses with its sabbath requirement (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15), hence, Christians are not under the law. (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14). We have freedom of choice in this matter of holydays, we can esteem everyday alike if we want (Rom 14:5). Paul even warned his brothers against being caught up in the observance of days as thought there were some law to do so. (Gal 4:10-11). Immediately after saying that Christians were delivered from the law, what example from the law does Paul cite? "Thou shalt not covet," the tenth commandment, showing that the decalogue was included in that law from which they were freed. (Rom 7:6-7) In 2 Corinthians 3:7 he speaks of the decalogue as being gorious, then in verse 11 he says that which was glorious was done away with. To make sure he meant the decalogue he tells us that it was written in stone, and reminds us of the occasion when Moses came down the mountain with the tablets in his hands. (vss 7, 13; see Exo 34:29-35) Hebrews 8:6-9:4 informs us that the old covenant, the decalogue, is replaced by a better covenant; that ends the sabbath day! There is no command under the New Covenant for Christians to keep the sabbath, and even those who keep it cannot prove which days is the seventh day on which they should keep it. Which day did Jesus die? Which day was he resurrected? Which day was the seventh-day sabbath? They can't prove these things, which merely indicates that the day cannot be that important, otherwise God would have furnished them with proof! I look forwards to hearing my opponent in this matter.
Re: The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

I appreciate internet. debater for challenging me to this debate. I was getting tired of debating trolls and people trying to net an easy win with semantics. I’ll define the ‘omnis’ to prevent any confusion. Omnipotence: The quality or state of being almighty or infinite in power. Omniscient: Having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding. Omnibenevolent: Unlimited or infinite benevolence. All good, perfect goodness, etc. The Christian God is omniscient, as shown in the following verses: Job 37:16 Do you know how the clouds are balanced, Those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge? . http://biblia.com... Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite . http://www.biblegateway.com... 1 Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. . http://www.biblegateway.com... The Christian God is also omnibenevolent, as shown in the following passages: Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. . http://www.biblegateway.com... Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. . http://www.biblegateway.com...; So basically, I am trying to prove that the Christian omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god probably doesn’t exist. If you need any more clarification, please message me.
Re: The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

This is a redux of the previous debate, "The biblical God probably doesn't exist." In my opinion a more appropriate thesis for that particular debate would have been "Physical evidence doesn't support an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipoent interpretation of the God of the Bible." In short, I'm challenging Sketchy to the same debate against me. *This is my first debate on Debate.org, so please forgive if I'm not familiar with how everything works. Since Sketchy is the one that initiated this topic to begin with, I would like him to set the ground rules for what exactly it is that he's hypothesizing. His previous thesis was in my opinion deeply flawed and his argument was specious. Is he trying to prove god or some other concept of supreme being doesn't exist period? Is he trying to prove a particular interpretation of the Bible is false? So I'd like him to first state specifically what he intends to argue and then we can go from there. To help Sketchy put his thesis together though, let me start out by pointing out that the words, "omniscient," "omnibenevolent," and "omnipotent" do not appear anywhere in the Old Testament and the word "omnipotent" appears only once in the New Testament. And this word can mean a lot of different things. Also, for the sake of this debate only the King James Version of the Bible will be used.