BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

Well since my opponent has forfeited the last round, I sadly have nothing to respond to, so I'll just expand on some of my points. The 'eye for an eye' logic, has a serious problem in that if the initial person's act of "wrong doing" was either an accident or perceived to be justified in and of itself, then the "retribution" can proceed indefinitely until both parties are severely hurt. This is a fundamental flaw in this logic. It assumes that one party will recognise their own "wrong doing" and just stop their own retribution. When in fact, from their point of view, they are the ones that have been wronged. These facts may be difficult to see, when the most prevalent example of the eye for an eye mentality in modern society is the death penalty. But think this way, what if you execute an innocent man? Following the eye for an eye logic, he has right or even a duty to have everyone involved in his murder executed as well. Obviously he cannot kill, but if we form a society on this mentality as you seem to be suggesting then the state must step in and have everyone involved executed. Then the people's families would feel that they have been wronged, and they would have to act against the state. So on and so forth. The idea of eye for an eye is not justice, justice is had every day without the need for an equal offense carried out against the perpetrator. The concept of eye for an eye just creates huge social and legal problems and does nothing but harm.
an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

Well I think you need to define what you mean by 'eye for an eye' if you refer to 'acting against wrong doing' as you say, that is not the eye for an eye mentality as I see it. It is possible, and often better to act against wrong doing, except not in a manner that is equal or greater than the original wrong doing. By this logic, the person you have punished has a right to punish you equally in return, so on and so forth until everyone loses. I'm not advocating doing nothing when someone wrongs you, but to do the exact same thing to them just lowers you to their level and hurts you both so no-one wins. Certainly it doesn't purify anything. You assumptions of 'purification in the long run' assumes that one side will eventually give up this mentality, however if you are to truly adhere to this 'eye for an eye' idea, then it would not simply end. An example: -Someone trips, pokes you in the eye. You immediatly see this is wrong doing against you so you poke him in the eye. He is angry because it was an accident and kicks you in the leg, you get angry and kick him in the leg. Et Cetera. Sorry if this is a crummy response, I've had a bit to drink. At least I have written more than my opponent.
Gay marraige

Gay marriage should be legalized, and does not violate "Nature's Law". There is no natural law to sexual reproduction. Many things we consider wrong such as killing others, rape, and theft occur in nature on a daily basis, but are not against the law due to being "natural" gay marriage will have no effect on ratio's as the couples in question wouldn't have participated in straight marriages anyway. "Many more problems" are not mentioned, as we only had five minutes to compose our arguments.
God is Imaginary

I'll keep this short and simple. Something imaginary is something that only exists within the imagination. The imagination is "the ability to form new images and sensations that are not perceived through senses such as sight, hearing, or other senses." [wikipedia.org] So that means something is imaginary when it exists outside of any perception. God has never been perceived by anybody, seeing as there's not evidence for its existence. So where does the image of God come from? Right, the bible. A book describing the God image. The whole concept of God is formed by the bible and not by perception.
God is Imaginary

God is a greater nonmaterial mind.I think Atheist are illogical and purposefully deceptive when they claim, "Burden of proof is only on a positive claim, not on a negative claim"Well "God is imaginary" is spouted off by Atheist Sheep just as often as God does not exist."God is imaginary" is a positive claim so now all you Atheist can present that burden of proof you have been holding on to.
Gay marriage is not a human rights issue

1. Just because two people aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean they are being treated unequally. For example, just because a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean the government isn't giving them the same rights as everybody else. It just means that the government doesn't believe it would be beneficial or morally right to allow them to marry. 2. Whether marriage is a social institution or a legal one doesn't change the fact that it is not a universal human right. 3. You believe it's wrong to place restrictions on it, so I presume you believe it's alright for brothers and sisters to marry, or for young children to marry, however I'm sure the vast majority of people would disagree. If the government can place restrictions on these things then it can also place restrictions on the sex of the people getting married.
Gay marriage is not a human rights issue

Now, I shall argue my opponent's contentions. Argument 1: By not allowing gay couples to marry, the government is in no way infringing upon their freedoms. Unmarried gay couples can still live together, have sex, or do anything else they could do if married, just like heterosexual couples. Seeing as the United States' main appeal is its equality for all humankind, not allowing homosexuals to marry is a human rights issue. If all men are equal to all women, then replacing a woman in an equation of marriage with another man shouldn't be a problem. Also, this whole point is invalid because the financial benefits that come with marriage are not available to homosexual partners unless married. Argument 2: Marriage is a social institution, not a universal human right. Marriage is a legal union instituted by the government. I fail to see how the government is infringing on anyone's rights by not legally recognizing two people as a couple. Not at all. A social institution would be dating because dating isn't recognized by the government as a relationship sharing financial benefits. Marriage is a legally instituted joining of lives and funds. Argument 3: The government has a right to choose who can marry who. It already does this in many areas, such as only allowing people of a certain age to marry, not allowing close relations to marry and limiting the number of people you can be married to to one. If being able to marry whoever you want is a human right, then surely it would be wrong for the government to place restrictions on it. It is wrong for the government to place restrictions on it. Just because the government doesn't allow something doesn't mean what isn't allowed is wrong, and the same goes for allowing something. Hence, slavery. The government allowed it, so if we went by my opponent's logic, slavery is morally right. (. http://www.usconstitution.net...) However, it isn't.
Gay marriage is not a human rights issue

I will present three arguments for why I believe gay marriage is not a human rights issue. Argument 1: By not allowing gay couples to marry, the government is in no way infringing upon their freedoms. Unmarried gay couples can still live together, have sex, or do anything else they could do if married, just like heterosexual couples. Argument 2: Marriage is a social institution, not a universal human right. Marriage is a legal union instituted by the government. I fail to see how the government is infringing on anyone's rights by not legally recognizing two people as a couple. Argument 3: The government has a right to choose who can marry who. It already does this in many areas, such as only allowing people of a certain age to marry, not allowing close relations to marry and limiting the number of people you can be married to to one. If being able to marry whoever you want is a human right, then surely it would be wrong for the government to place restrictions on it. I look forward to hearing my opponent's counter arguments.
Gay marriage is not a human rights issue

I accept this challenge. Because the first round is for definition, I will dissect the resolution:As stated by my opponent: A human right is defined as "an inalienable fundamental right,to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." An example of a right being choice. Every human being has the ability to choose, something that cannot be taken away from a person, and thus it is one's right.Right-- Morally good, justified, or acceptable.The resolution thus states that I must prove that the prohibition of gay marriage/the allowance of gay marriage is an issue that infringes upon or affects the rights of humans. Seeing as the definition of right used does not apply to morality, the only definition suitable is the one my opponent and I have agreed on. Thus, morality cannot have a say or any leverage in the debate that follows.
There is one God. (Christianity)

"I am sorry for any confusion that has crossed your mind." Pro conceded that it was his fault. "Mr. Mini, I believe you may have gotten in the wrong debate." How am I suppose to know? Since the instigator provided no guidelines or definitions, I thought it was open to interpretation. "This debate was clearly about Christianity's God as stated in the title." No, it was not! You put the word "Christianity" in bracket. I thought you did that because you are a Christian. "stop trolling!" Pro is accusing me of trolling, but the truth is that he was the one who was trolling. This debate was designed for a easy win. If he was referring to Christian God and bible, then he was telling us to disprove that there is only one God for christians, and he was telling us to dispute this claim basing on the bible! This claim is a christian fact. Ofcourse, the bible says there is only one God. What's more? He also said the burden of proof is shared !! It is explicitely clear that he was trolling. He just wanted an easy win. Now he is telling me to forfeit! It also contradicts the site recommendation. " it is usually seen as poor conduct to forfeit a round." source: http://www.debate.org... This is a very very poor conduct, Pro.
There is one God. (Christianity)

I accept. Pro did not define GOD, but we all know he is obviously talking about Glorious Ox Demons...... He also did not define bible. But, we can easily tell what means by KJV bible. KJV means kool John version. My name is John. Bible is the name of the story I have written. I await the Pro's argument about why he thinks that there is only one Glorious Ox Demon exists. Because there is more than one Glorious Ox Demons exist in my story.
There is one God. (Christianity)

Pro concedes that he was trolling because he did not give any objection to that. . . . . . "I quoted a verse of the Bible I was referencing. "- Rebuttal1)No, you didn't. This is false. You just said "Deuteronomy 6:4". It means the sixth version of my story, Bible. Rebuttal 2)Pro had the chance to clarify this in the second round. He failed to do it. But, now he is claiming that. I think Pro himself is confused. . . . "Also, I did set guidelines. "- Rebuttal: a. Pro apologyzed in round 2 for not setting up the guidelines properly. He completely accepted my accusation of him. But, now he is trying to confuse the voters with his cheap tricks and tactics. Shame on you, Pro. Go to your room. .. b. That is some really bad conduct to change the guideline of a debate at the end of the debate. .. After saying all that in round 2, now Pro is saying that he was being sarcastic. a)This proves that he was trolling b)This also proves how bad he is at being sarcastic because nobody understood his sarcasm. "Also, anyone seeing KJV Bible worldwide, would not easily see that is a "kool John Version", but that in fact it is the King James Version. "- I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT, kool John Version does exist. . . . Pro cited wikipedia to justify Christianity a religion and he didn't even presented what was said inside the link. Nobody has the time to read an entire article just to see whether Christianity is a religion or not. So just because its not there it means it doesnt exist? by that logic everything that IS NOT on the link DOES NOT exist! Writing story is a religion and it exists. Pro told me to prove it. But, I must present new arguments to prove it. Presenting new arguments in the last round is wrong. . . . I would also like to point out that Pro presented new arguments in the last round . Voters should penalize this. . . Summary: 1) Pro forfeits that there are more than one Glorious Demon ox 2) Pro forfetis that Glorious Demon Ox can be represented as God. 3) Pro believes that everything on the wikipedia is real 4) Pro forfeits that he did not define God in the first round 6) Pro forfeits that he did not specify that we had to wait to last round and wait for him to define everything 7) Pro forfeits there is both Christian God and Glorious Demon Ox are more than one 8) Pro forfeits that he did not lay the ground rules for the debate in round 1, leaving it open to interpretation, definitions, etc That is a total forfeit. Points for argument go to me. He was trolling.
There is one God. (Christianity)

I quoted a verse of the Bible I was referencing. Since I did this, it is obvious to which "Bible" I was referencing. Also, I did set guidelines. The guidelines were broken by mini-guy since he used a book he conjured up and not the KJV Bible that is of Christianity origins. Then, I was being sarcastic when I said, "I'm sorry any confusion crossed your mind". Also, anyone seeing KJV Bible worldwide, would not easily see that is a "kool John Version", but that in fact it is the King James Version. Lastly, since I referenced a verse from the Bible, we know which one it actually is. Now, since we do, we should look into the Bible to see what God actually is. The King James Version Bible clearly says who God is. Nowhere does it say "Glorious Ox Demon" at all. In fact, since this is a debate under the religion category, this must be about religion and not a book that you just made up. Mine is a religion. http://en.wikipedia.org... Prove that yours is also.
(Yet another..) One-Word battle!

If youve seen the recent debates around here it is the same! Just post your one word on the next round. This round is just for exceptance. Here are the rules... 1. No long words that make you look smart even when you misspelled it too.... 2. no connecting symboles like - to join two words. 3. it is allowed to be a word that the other person does not know, but dont just put it to act cool and smart...
Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive

He first says that my claim that he has to disprove the existence of God is harsh and unproductive and a waste of his life. The problem is that he took this debate and is the instigator. He is making an assertive claim, namely that God does not exist, and is failing to provide proper evidence. He is not fulfilling his burden. Next he says that I don't define maximal greatness and that he is maximally great if he is healthy and fit. I think that "maximally great" is self-evident. A being is maximally great if it is omnipotent within the realm of logic. Maximally great beings excel in all fields. His definition is flawed because there is always someone who is going to be better than him on x ground, so he can never be maximally great. Extend the rest of the Ontological argument because it was cleanly conceded. Extend the entire Kalam Cosmological Argument because it was conceded. These prove that God exists. He says that God was created as a product of human imagination. He doesn't have any proof for this statement, and my logical arguments for God's existence prove otherwise. He then says that I concede that religion is man-made and am arguing against myself. That's inherently false. Religion does not define God's existence; it merely attempts to define God's will. Just because religion is man-made does not mean God is man-made. That's a nonsequitor logical fallacy. Now, extend the arguments about the universe's age, the turn on the idea that something cannot come from nothing, and the attack on the problem of evil. Thanks ;)
Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive

Firstly by saying I intrinsically have to disprove the existence of god the same can be said about your harsh and unproductive comments that serve to do nothing more then waste our precious lives. Have you ever heard of the phrase cow logic, if so it ,in my opinion can be perfectly applied to your argument you don't explain what you believe a being of maximal greatness is so if I am perfectly fit and health am I a being of maximum greatness after this 'flawed argument' of yours you go onto comment on ideas of his creation this is only theory and of course depends on point of view you say God was not created by humans but of course you would what I am saying and what you fail to grasp is that God was created as a product of humans own properties to be creative and imaginative such as humans of as thousands of years ago inferior minds couldn't explain most things they see and so they look for an easy answer in the form of god you then say Religion is a man-made institution this argues against yourself and what you once again fail to the same fault as not grasping that what i was implying was that the belief of God gas done no good anyway and let me say that you sir as a contester have an inherent burden of proof to disprove you don't do this and so the remark is frivolous at best.
Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive

My opponent has an inherent burden of proof in this debate as the instigator. He must show that God does not exist, and none of the arguments that he provided do that. I offer two logical arguments for the existence of God. God is necessarily defined as a maximally great being. The first argument is the Ontological Argument. As follows: 1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and 2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. 5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. 6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. The second argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As formulated by Dr. Craig: 1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause. Now, my opponent claims that according to science, the Universe has no cause. Therefore, the cause that we are discussing necessarily must be God because there is no alternative explanation for the Universe's cause. Let's examine the flaws in his case. His first argument is that God was created to scare people into submission. This is flawed on two grounds. First, God was not created by humans, as he assumes in his argument. Please see the two logical arguments that I presented for God's existence in order to prove this true. Second, this is an example of a bare assertion fallacy; it is entirely unwarranted and unproven. He is just assuming this to be true. He next says that the Universe has always existed and that something doesn't come from nothing. The Universe has not always existed; even scientists have determined that it has an age. Since the Universe has an age, then logically there was a period before the Universe existed. Next, turn the fact that something cannot come from nothing, since that proves that an external creator has to exist: the universe has to have a cause because it literally cannot have come from nothing according to the Kalam argument. He then discusses the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil does not disprove the existence of God; rather, it disproves the existence of a God who interferes in our lives. Unless he proves that it is impossible for a God who does not constantly interfere in our lives to exist, he cannot use this to disprove God. Finally, he argues that religion is corrupt. Religion is a man-made institution that was created as an attempt to define God's will. There is no inherent proof that it IS God's will. Men are corrupt and thus their institutions are corrupt. He needs to prove that God created the corrupt religions. and he has not done this.
Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive

First of all let me put across some basic arguments 1) God was a fictinal character created by rulers in the hope that he could scare his people into submission and then from there it spread. 2) God is said to have created everything from nothing "in the begging there was nothing" (genesis the bible) Einstein's own theory its self makes the point that something cant com from nothing thus implying that the universe has always exited in some form of mass and that time is unequivocal to are minds as infinite 3) how come their is so much suffering now and their is so much suffering in the world and that nothing special has happened for thousands of years I know you will argue freedom of mind but he is supposed to be are shepherd and if I may say so myself he's doing a pretty bad job of it 4) My final point would be how come their are so many different religions six of the major ones must be wrong what good has religion bought any way war,fear,scandal loss of money corruption all which at some point in the past have been caused by religion
USA vs. Every country in the world

A war is what I debate I think the World would win do to he fact of troops money and power. The US has a disadvantage do to the fact they would lose income very quickly and would need resources to support there army that you cant find in the US. If the US tried nuclear warfare they would lose because they would just destroy the whole world with them while the whole world would destroy them with nukes. So in the end both sides would lose. So I think the World would win against the US.
Hydaulic Fracturing

The disadvantages of having a Hydraulic fracturing rig on you property is that there can be a loss of property value, a loss of county property tax revenues. the drilling sites can greatly increase traffic and accidents. the road or roads being use in the duration of the drilling site well be deteriated faster than they usually would from all the heavy trucks driving on them everyday. As a result of this the road or roads will require up keep or repair, and more frequently too. the rigs are uaually in more rural places so if you are a person that enjoys your peace and quiet in the counrty then that could possibly come to an end when a rig comes in. having a hydraulic Fracturing rig near you house could also increase your mortgage and property insurance. Banks have refused to issue mortgages on properties where fracking leases have been sold. Lenders have claimed breach of contract when leases have been sold. Insurance companies have refused to cover land and structures.