BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most religions refer to the same God

"Sup Here I propose that the God of Hinduism (Brahma), Judaism (Yahweh/Elohim), Christianity (Alaha), Islam (Allah) and Sikhism (Waheguru) are one and the same being/existence." - Round 1. OK, how do you intend to prove this?"I agree so far as religions have been USED to manipulate mankind, but to dismiss them completely is a biased argument. Not only have you completely evaded my main point, you have made the clear implication that you are enlightened and everyone with a different opinion than yours is fundamentally brainwashed. Dogmatic religion has no place in modern society, but the essence of religion itself is non-dogmatic. This is because dogma, by definition, is man-made. To quote the Scripture of one of the most dogmatic religions. Quran 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion" I will summarize in two points why you will lose this argument. - The question was not whether or not God exists. That is completely irrelevant, and whether God does exist or not will not change the validity of my original argument. - I predict you have close to no knowledge of any Scripture of any religion, and therefore you will find it hard to argue with someone that does." - Round 2I don't see any proofs there-
Homosexuality is not natural

Let me restate my definition.1.homosexual:(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex Noun: A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. Natural: 1. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity. My co-debater is even confused to the point that he thought my argument is supporting his. Now when I said, lets be biological, I mean for the fact that naturally, males have penis and female has their own reproductive system it then means the two or pair are meant for each other not the reverse. My opponent never rebutted any of my argument. I EARLIER stated that 'UNLIKE POLE ATTRACTS WHILE LIKE POLE REPELS' and my opponent never said anything about this. Since scientifically, it was proven then it means it is not natural. Homosexuality is by choice not natural. It is either those who were in prison and see no other means of having sex with opposite spouse thereby making do with the one they see. when they come out, they now turn into gay and others are learning from them. I equally said'.. If being gay is natural, then why won't mother nature allow two men or two women to be able to have a baby? Surely if it were natural, there would be a way for same sex couples to do this' but my opponent never rebutted this argument which shows that all my arguments are intact and he agreed with my line argument. In conclusion, like poles will always attract while unlike poles will always repel.
Homosexuality is not natural

This debate is over at this point but I will address a few issues. The resolution is Homosexuality is not natural. I have shown how and why Homosexuality fits the very definition of natural and my adversary has dropped all of my points. He even conceded its happens outside of human influence which contradicts his stance and affirms my position. He says " Let me be biological, one of the female reproductive organs which is 'clitoris' is very sensitive to sexual urge if beenhed. Assuming couple who are gay are sexually aroused, what will they use? Stick? Knife? Or will they hire a male gay? Lolx I think thats absurd. " This is so off topic it warrants a response. Assuming gay girls are turned on what will they use? Pretty sure a finger fits just as well as some guys body parts. Gay guys have a mouth as well. I am pretty sure you can sexually arouse each other through various means without having to hire a prostitute. I am lost as to even the context of what this is trying to say. This deserves a /facepalm In the end he says homosexuality is a choice and fails to refute my argument against this in regards to hormones. Conclusion I have shown how and why homosexuality is natural. It occurs outside of human influence and happens with nature(ie Natural) and how it is a result of hormones and fluctuations in chemicals. Meaning gay people have urges as to whom they are attracted too My adversary did not refute any of this He has not met his BOP.
Homosexuality is not natural

My opponent said: there are animals that show strictly homosexual preferences. So because animals show the preferences thats why we human beings should exhibit thesame character? It then means they learnt it from the animal world. If you quite agree that homosexual is natural because some animals show homosexual preferences, tell me how many times you have seen i fowl climbing on top of another fowl. Instead, it will be a hen climbing a fowl. Should we be eating grass because animals do eat grass? Certainly no. Homosexual is choice and not natural. Let me be biological, one of the female reproductive organs which is 'clitoris' is very sensitive to sexual urge if been touched. Assuming couple who are gay are sexually aroused, what will they use? Stick? Knife? Or will they hire a male gay? Lolx I think thats absurd. Naturally, the penis is not meant for the anus rather for the female reproductive system so that when the semen which contains the sperm enters, fertilization will occur because it will fertilize the egg during fertilization period. Let me ask again, if everybody is to be gay, what is the probability that you and I would have been in this world? Some doctors suggests 'artificial insememination' but this cannot even work for males. So it is nulled. Take it or leave it, homosexual is choice and never natural. My premise still remains: for the fact that homosexuality disobeys natural law, then it is not natural. Encyclopedia.com, yahoo.com/homosexuality, wikipedia.com
Homosexuality is not natural

Natural - existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature[1]Homosexual(ity) - : of relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex [2]Resolution - Homosexuality is not natural. In great detail - The act of tendency to direct sexual desire toward another member of the same sex exists within nature and is not made or caused by people Homosexuality in natureThere are a great number of other species besides humans that exhibit and act on homosexual tendencies [3]. There is an estimated 1,500 species of animals that practice homosexuality. "Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex." [4]In addition to this there are animals that show strictly homosexual preferences and that are not even bi-sexual. Granted most out of the 1,500 are bi sexual. This at its core is strictly the definition of natural. This is not influences by human behavior and happens outside of our influence. It is found within nature and is observable. Homosexuality and hormonesIt also is notable that people may not have the choice to be gay, and are born with a hormone imbalance.Prenatal hormones/ Prenatal endocrine play a factor in someones sexual preferences and even their sexuality as a child" Sexual orientation varies markedly for men versus women, as well as for individuals within each sex. The great majority of women are androphilic (erotically interested in males), whereas the great majority of men are not. There also is variability within each sex. Some women are not androphilic, whereas some men are. The effect size (in standard deviation units or “d” [23]) for the sex difference is very large (d = 6.0 to 6.7) [66;67;103]. To put this magnitude in a familiar context, it is several times as large as the sex difference in height (d = 2.0) " [5]This is also essentially saying that the early (prenatal, neonatal) hormone environment has powerful influences on neural and behavioral sexual differentiation in a wide range of mammalian species. Literally thousands of experiments involving manipulations of hormones have shown these effects [5]This goes way more in depth but is pretty much all I need for the purpose of this debate. ConclussionIf homosexual behavior is found in nature and happens among animals and a variety of studies show that hormone imbalances and prenatal hormones lead to someones sexual preference, it is not their choice to be gay. While they may me making the choice to engage in a homosexual act, the choice is determined by urges within them due to their chemical makeup. This happens with other species as well, not just as humansTherefore this means the very definition of naturalHomosexuality is in fact natural, and occurs within nature and is completely independent and not influenced or caused by humans. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.news-medical.net...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Homosexuality is not natural

I accept the challenge. I will be arguing for the motion:Homosexual is not normal. Let me start by defining the basic terms that will aid me into this argument. 1.homosexual:(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex Noun: A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. Natural: 1. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity. My argument is this, that homosexual is not natural on the basis of procreation.. If being gay is natural, then why won't mother nature allow two men or two women to be able to have a baby? Surely if it were natural, there would be a way for same sex couples to do this.human beings are meant to procreate thats why we have male and female.even in the animal kingdom, there is nothing like this homosexual issue. Yahoo.com(is gay natural?).I Don't think anybody will like the population of the world to drastically reduce. If we all are to turn into gays, don't you think it will reduce the population? And this question clearly shows that we are meant to procreate and not to be reducing. The statistical data of birth rate and death rate suggests that we ought to be increasing since the death rate is high and how can this be achieved if we are all gays? Been gay is by choice and not natural as proven by mark sway in his popular gay book page 16. I personally believe that its a choice. Look at Anne Heche-she was 'gay' with Ellen Degeneres...they broke up and all of the sudden shes straight and has given birth to 3 kids already. Most at times, this gay increases in the prison owing to the fact that people are trying to help their sexual urge there by having sex with someone of thesame sex.punch.com. This gay, violates natural law and cannot be natural.ponder:Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law""s most elementary precept is that ""good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided."" By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act""s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.source:tfp newsletter. Let me ask, what justifies that homosexual is natural when the majority of the world's population rejects it? Haven't we heard of this scientific term: unlike pole attracts while like pole repels? Since the scientific term states this why then are we arguing that it is natural? I will like to stop here for now and await my opponent reply
Atheists are lost souls

"Atheists are lost souls because they don't see the obvious fact that there is a god and they can have a chance at eternal salvation by simply calling out to him and repenting." A) Pro claims that it is obvious that there is a god yet has provided no evidence. If it is obvious, then why am I not an atheist? B) Pro also claims that atheists are "lost souls" yet gives no evidence regarding the existence of souls. On a related note, Pro claimed that atheists are lost souls because they cannot see something that is obvious. Blind would be a more appropriate word than lost. I'm an atheist and I'm not lost at all. I'm perfectly content living without an imaginary friend. C) Pro claims that atheists can have a chance at eternal salvation simply by calling out to Pro's god and repenting. Even if what Pro is saying is true, it's not worth my time. This is because, as Pro stated, there is only a chance. I am not guaranteed eternal salvation. Since it's not guaranteed, I'll just sit back, relax, and torture some orphans because my actions will land me in hell almost regardless. However, as Pro said, all I have to do is open my window and yell "GOD I LOVE YOU AND I'M SORRY TAKE ME BACK". This goes against the Bible. As God is omnipresent [1] [2], I should be able to whisper the words and he'll love me all the same. In conclusion, Pro did not meet their burden of proof, did not cite sources for their claims, and provided information that goes against what the Bible says about God. [1] Jeremiah 23:24 [2] Proverbs 15:3
Failed nations are a greater threat to the us than stable nations

My opponent obviously has yet to attack my case or even make an attempt to take this debate seriously. however, i will continue and state my summary. My main point in this debate is that Sable nations pose an economic threat to the United States. I used japan as an example but every stable nation is a prime example of this. the United States no longer produce many of their own products. because of this, most of the products in our everyday lifestyle have been imported from stable nations. if one of these 'stable' nations were to have some disruption that would discontinue the shipping and/or production of the product. the United States would be left, economically hurt.
Failed nations are a greater threat to the us than stable nations

my opponent obviously is addicted to the myth that ninjas have super-powers and that they are impervious to any level of resistance. but despite of that i will still continue on with this debate. My opponents first contention is obviously made-up. I have yet to find a site that even mentions 'grandmaster kodamonu' the only site that shows up is THIS DEBATE. . http://www.google.com... until my opponent shows me their source for their quote, their first contention is destroyed. As for his second contention, I'm not even going to try. His third contention is a complete opinion. its one of those things i would have to see to believe. i advise my opponent to write arguments around sources that are real next time.
Failed nations are a greater threat to the us than stable nations

. http://www.youtube.com... What is a stable nation? What is a failed nation? None of us have the authority to say, except the ninjas. You thought that you could make this long complicated argument and expect to win because you thought the ninjas were not going to get involved, you thought wrong. Without further ado, I will now make a kick butt argument to ultimately win this debate, through the power of ninjas. Contention 1: Failed nations are aided by ninjas "I as a ninja aid failed nations" Grandmaster Goddamn, President of the ninjas As the above quote states, the president of the ninjas would help failed nations however possible, which means that if he thought USA posed a threat, he would dispose of them with his own bare hands and a shurikin. Contention 2: Ninjas used to be oppressed peasants, so they will always root for the underdog, failed nations Ninjas were the result of a reign of samurai's from Japan, they were lowly peasants that rose up to destroy the samurai though fear and stealth. This proves that the ninjas would always root for the people with bad lives like they had before they rose up. Contention 3: USA would be a pushover to conquer The United States has a leader, the president, who if he were to "disappear" the American people would be scared. But the USA has a backup for that, the vice president, but what if he disappeared too, what if the entire line of successors disappeared in a planned ninja attack, the country would become mass chaos, it would be devastating.
Tournament III: Military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated b

Tournament III: Military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated by the US ========== Writ large: I defend the position that the USA should initiate a policy that supports military operations to prevent the negative effects of genocide in the international sphere. >> Ambiguous definitions >> Genocide – I'll be using an international definition not the common definition of genocide. The mass homicide of people who have a common identity and not simply a common race. Arguments come in round 2.
The revenge of hoopla

hoopla: –noun Informal. 1.bustling excitement or activity; commotion; hullabaloo; to-do. 2.sensational publicity; ballyhoo. 3.speech or writing intended to mislead or to obscure an issue. Revenge: –noun 4.the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance. 5.something done in vengeance. 6.the desire to revenge; vindictiveness. 7.an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction. Hoopla, you see, is an event or state of affairs. It is incapable of maintaining injuries, and thus incapable of avenging them. It has no desires. It has no relevance to the word "retaliate." Whether you are attempting to argue that the revenge of hoopla is going to occur or that it is desirable, you lose because it is impossible and even desires ought to be based on reality. As for your question, it's because YOU failed to post another debate before this one. If you had, it would not be true that there was no debate in the challenge area before you posted this one.
The revenge of hoopla

Why were there no debates in the challenge period before I posted this one? I demand to know! If i don't find out within an hour I shall convert to Pacific/Islander religous beliefs. Yeah. Youkilis. He's on da wed sokks. Not the red sox. Da wed sokks. German folklore spelling. Also i believe that my argument is grammatically correct. So stop it debate.org. Someone needs to answer my question please. Weenis. I already expanded my opening argument. Fine, then I shall babble. My pancakes are spuds. My pancakes are spuds. Hidy-ho my pancakes are spuds. Anyway I think that my rightious beliefs are only valid in Spanglish.
Drunk driving

Studies of the recidivism among drunk drivers finds that jailing drunk drivers is no better at reducing their recidivism rate. Also in Norway and Sweden deaths/crash from drunk drivers decreased when they switched away from prison related punishments for impaired drivers. http://www.nhtsa.gov... Also using an ignition interlock system that periodically checks alcohol content prevents someone from drunk driving in their owns cars. The only way for a drunk to drive with an interlock system is if they a) steal a car or b) have a friend who lets them drive drunk, this means that recidivism rates for interlock systems are very low. So basically my opponents position is that we should spend money imprisoning people; when we could reduce drunk driving even more so if we instead had them install a interlock system. We could also increase government revenue by forcing drunk drivers to pay fines.
Drunk driving

So your say it cost more to pay for someone to be imprisoned yet it cost around $7,000 for a burial. This year, 10,839 people will die in drunk-driving crashes - one every 50 minutes. According to my math it costs $75,873,000 for funerals. Individual burial space tends to start around $400-$500 per space. Add to that an opening charge of around $400-$600 per space plus a vault around $1,000. So far, around $2,000. Those costs are eliminated if cremation takes place after the services, average $3000 plus casket, average. $2000. An immediate cremation (without visitation) is the least costly way to go, around $1,000. So,the typical funeral with burial is about $7,000. A typical funeral with cremation, about$5,000. Immediate cremation, $1,000. -http://www.funeralplan.com... -http://www.madd.org...
Drunk driving

I do not think drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offence, because it costs a lot of money to imprison some on. In 2005 it cost 23,876 dollars to imprison someone year round. 23,876/365=$65 so it cost 65$ a day to imprison someone[1]. I propose instead of spending a lot of tax dollars to imprison drunk drivers we do other things. We should fine them a large sum of money for endangering other people's lives. Have them pay to install an ignition interlock system on their vehicles (this system makes it so they have to blow into a tube and if there is alcohol on their breath they cannot drive). And lastly we should have them pay to enter an alcoholic's class to help teach them how to avoid driving drunk again. The benefits to my proposals are that instead of costing taxpayers money it makes taxpayers money. Another benefit is if the drunk driver is not in jail he/she can still go to work and actually contribute to the economy where as if they were in jail they couldn't work meaning the economy gets hurt. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...
"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

My opponent is welcome to debate me here on a topic he has been trying to get going for some time. My opponent can take Round 1 to accept this challenge, but he also MUST define the following: 1. False Doctrine - And against what source is the Catholic Church's specific teachings going against to make them false 2. Man Made Church - and then clarify how his church is not man made 3. Catholicism 4. Any other theological terms he will use such as "sola scriptura" Pro can also take R1 to make an optional opening statement.
"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

Closing Arguments Quote from opponent: "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: My opponent intentionally added the words "and not ", thus falsifying what the scriptures say." No, you misread what I wrote. The verse says "profitable or useful" AND IT DOES NOT SAY "SUFFICIENT", as goes the definition of sola scriptura. NEWS FLASH: Sola Scriptura is found NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE. It is a phrase invented 1500 years later. All my opponent has done in this debate, is fail to demonstrate how his denomination is not man made. Does he believe in the Holy Trinity? Does he believe in the Hypostatic Union? We don't know, he never mentioned it. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT FUNDAMENTALISTS DO WHEN YOU CORNER THEM! His only response is to show doctrines he does not understand about a denomination to which he does not belong. We Catholics, has scriptural backings for every single doctrine and dogma of faith. My opponent simply does not agree with our interpretation of scripture. But when people disagree with scripture, and all you have is scripture to go on (e.g. Sola SCriptura)...you get whack jobs like my opponent and 40,000 different churches. "Let there be no division among you". I hope the audience can see just how poorly my opponent dodged questions, misquoted me, and acted like a child in this debate. Thank you for playing. I pray for you. I knew this debate would not convince you otherwise, but I simply wanted to expose you and your piss poor tactics and methods.