BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
HUMANITY IMMORAL/DESTINED to Hell at BIRTH

It is a undeniable fact that Humanity is an immoral creature. It is This which sets humanity apart from all other creatures, in that Mankind is incapable of Living a moral life at anytime in its lifetime.It is alledged that humanity is moral, this is in error and easily proven false! As defined Morality is the act of being Good/Right. This character trait does not exists on Earth nor ever has to anyone born of Man and Woman. To be truthful, one MUST have never lied!, To be Good one must have never sinned! You simply cannot be moral periodically, you either are or are not!Though not the point of this debate ... it IS this reason Christ was required to pay for the sin debt of Gods creation! It is this reason that prevents Humanity from going to Hell at death. Though the greater part of Humanity itself is and WILL go to Hell, as unrepentant sinners! Just a Fact ... without need for debate!IF you cannot show by more than opinions that Humanity IS MORAL ... don't take the debate because this is a FACT OF LIFE and IS by EVIDENCE undeniable!If you cannot SHOW evidence beyond personal opinions Then all are NOW aware of the TRUTH that Man IS IMMORAL, and that God devulges truths to Christians that normal humans (those destined to Hell) cannot see nor understand unless pointed out by Believers of faith!Rules- Evidence only, not opinions. may begin with evidence as evidence is provided proving immorality of Man!Evidence- To be Truthful requires permanence in truthfulness- impossible for humanity!Evidence- to Be moral requires permanence in moral conduct. Impossible for Man!everyone on Earth has lied, cheated, and broken Human AND Gods moral laws already in their Lifes, this makes all humanity immoral. Humanity continues to violate the moral laws of Man and God throughout Life, remaining immoral. This should end all discussions of Morality as a debate as it is now understood that there IS NO MORALITY upon the Earth.
Atheists.

C1) The resolution regards atheists, which in of itself is vague. This could regard the validity of atheist ideology or even the moral character of atheists, however is argument has nothing to do with the resolution thus rendering it non-topical.C2) Just via semantics my opponent looses:Athiesm is the disbelief in a deity. The prefix "A" means not or dis and theism is the belief in a deity, more so a personal deity, so just by definition Atheism does not equal Islam.Isalm is very theist as they worship Allah, who is a god in the Abrahamic religions thus he has traits of omnipotence and omniscience and so forth. This verse from the Koran substantiates my assertion that Muslims worship Allah."In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."P3) Allah is a deity(true via definition and the verse I provided)C1) Muslims worship a deity (natural consequence of p2 and p3)C3) My opponent's argument is self refuting: He says Atheism is Islam because they believe man is god but my syllogism shows this to be inaccurate.P1) Atheist don't believe in any deities(true via synthetic a priori)P2) Muslims worship Allah(Substantiated by the verse I provided)C2) Atheism is Not equal to Islam.http://allah.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ayn Rand's opposition to Hedonism makes no sense

Ayn Rand's opposition to Hedonism rests on the strange notion that Hedonism is inherently opposed to its own goals. It's the idea that taking happiness as your standard of value will necessarily lead you to indulge in shallow moments of pleasure at the expense of genuine happiness, thereby preventing you from living up to your standard. If it is true, as Ayn Rand believes, that achieving happiness requires rational planning and careful consideration of what your goals are, then any proper application of Hedonist morality will necessarily subsume her approach to life. While she may have grounds for criticizing certain adherents of Hedonism for having false and destructive views of how happiness should be pursued, it's a mystery why she would take issue with the idea that happiness is what one ultimately ought to be after, which is the only defining tenet of Hedonism. Her philosophy holds that "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life," and that "The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it." From this, it follows that one ought to figure out what will give oneself the most pleasure and happiness as determined by one's nature, and then work towards achieving it, which is perfectly in line with Hedonism. What Ayn Rand advocates is a certain variety of Hedonism, although she doesn't recognize it. She associates Hedonism too strongly with how it has often been practiced and doesn't judge it on its essential message, which is virtually the same as hers. She criticizes Hedonism for stating that, in effect, if you do something which you find pleasurable, you should do it some more: "the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure". But this is a little misleading. Hedonism says that one should work to maximize net pleasure, which is total joy minus total misery. It does not follow from that standard that making a habit of whatever gives you pleasure is the proper way to live. In fact, Ayn Rand's justification for why men should be rational is that man's survival and happiness depend on it, and that all attempts to live half-rational half-irrational are doomed to fail and cause misery. Therefore, it can easily be argued that Hedonism, properly understood and applied, tells people to be rational in choosing their values and methods for achieving them. QED
Ayn Rand's opposition to Hedonism makes no sense

The following passages are to be taken as representative of Ayn Rand's position on Hedonism: 1. I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue. 2. This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism"in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. "Happiness" can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man"s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that "the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure" is to declare that "the proper value is whatever you happen to value""which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild. 3. In practice, men have no way of obeying the tenets of hedonism, except by taking their already formed feelings"their desires and aversions, their loves and fears"as the given, as irreducible primaries the satisfaction of which is the purpose of morality, regardless of whether the value-judgments that caused these feelings are rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, consonant with reality or in flagrant defiance of it. 4. Objectivism holds that such a policy is suicidal; that if man is to survive, he needs the guidance of an objective and rational morality, a code of values based on and derived from man"s nature as a specific type of living organism, and the nature of the universe in which he lives. Objectivism rejects any subjectivist ethics that begins, not with facts, but with: "I (we, they) wish . . . . " Which means: it rejects hedonism of any variety.
Man created God

Here are three arguments against the legitimacy of the Quran: 1. Scientific Errors If the Quran truly was divinely inspired, it would not be wrong about the universe God created. But errors are there throughout the Quran. The most obvious is the creation story. It is blatantly false, as is the claim of the age of the universe. Because of scientific techniques like carbon (although it works for other elements too) dating that allow us to figure out the age of radioactive materials, we know the Earth is way older than the Quran claims is to be. (http://www2.lbl.gov......) This also disproves the Quran. The Earth is billions of years old, so the Quran is wrong with its age of the Earth. (The Quran says the world is seven God days old, and each God day is 1000 years, so the age of the universe would be around 6000 years.) Also, creationism is false. Evolution is a fact: "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." (...) " If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. " (...) "we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact" (http://www.livescience.com......) 2. Existence of Evil Assume God exists. God is omnipotent, meaning He can do anything, and moral, meaning he wants to prevent evil. So if he dislikes evil and is powerful enough to stop it, why is there still evil? This is a contradiction, so our original premise of God's existence must be incorrect. 3. Religions are very similar There are many religions in the world, and there have been at least 10,000 throughout history. Why are they all so similar? (For one example of the similarity, http://blissfulmoon.com...) This shows that humans have evolved to create Gods since they are all so similar.
Man created God

You were wrong in your context regarding the fact that man created god. One other thing I noted was your superior lack of information regarding Musims and their belief systems. No muslim on Earth believes that he can go to Heaven by killing someone. Give me a chance to explain this to you completely. Oh and we can also discuss the main topic which is as many people and I assume you included say that god is a creation of the human mind and that morality is inherent in every human being, meaning god is not required to make morally or ethically 'GOOD' decisions. Hope you accept.
Consensual Necrophilia

"The change in the law would not cause such a strike action, though the adoption of this service may do so. This would be a matter between the funeral home and their staff and does not in itself refute the resolution." It doesn't refute the resolution on its own, but it's just one more bad thing that probably would happen if the law was changed. The grieving family would not have to hand over anything, for the same reason that the family is not ordinarily involved in the embalming of the deceased or digging the grave. Such duties are performed by others. Maybe I'm being a bit too Irish in the way that I'm writing. By "hand over" I mean that they would have no say in it as the law would be against them. "Again, you would not be required to 'handle' the corpse. That would be the duty of the funeral home and the privilege of the client." See above. "You have yet to actually address the two main planks of my arguments with regards, existing precedent and sexual content, you have merely suggested that people will be disturbed by the idea." I admit I probably haven't made myself as clear as I could have, but my argument was that introducing this law would cause more harm than good (I suppose I didn't really say that). I have shown the harm that could possiby come from changing the law and it clearly outweighs the good. You claimed it should be legalised because writing wills, making funeral arrangements, organ donation, and same sex marriages were legal, but what you propose is nothing like any of these. Writing wills benefits others and is unlikely to cause any harm, making funeral arrangements is for the benefit those that attend, organ donation benefits others, and same sex marriage has to do with love betweem two people. What love is there between a necrophile and a corpse? I doubt it compares to a junkie's love of heroin. I could have used heroin being illegal as my existing precedent. To sum all of this up: what you propose would do more harm than good and therefore should be illegal.
Consensual Necrophilia

My opponent states that in response to such a scheme "The funeral home employees would be out on strike. Their job is a bit morbid as it is and you wan't them to have to deal with some necrophiles sweat and semen on top of it." The change in the law would not cause such a strike action, though the adoption of this service may do so. This would be a matter between the funeral home and their staff and does not in itself refute the resolution. "As well as that, the family of the deceased would probably be in no fit mental state to deal with a funeral after both losing their loved one (possibly tragically), and having to hand them over to some pervert to have his way with before the family get to bury them." The grieving family would not have to hand over anything, for the same reason that the family is not ordinarily involved in the embalming of the deceased or digging the grave. Such duties are performed by others. "Having to hand over your loved one's dead body to a necrophile would disturb anyone. I would certainly want to kill the individual and I'm sure the vast majority of people who read this would want the same. " Again, you would not be required to 'handle' the corpse. That would be the duty of the funeral home and the privilege of the client. You have yet to actually address the two main planks of my arguments with regards, existing precedent and sexual content, you have merely suggested that people will be disturbed by the idea.
Consensual Necrophilia

1: Existing Precedent. I can think of a few reasons. The funeral home employees would be out on strike. Their job is a bit morbid as it is and you wan't them to have to deal with some necrophiles sweat and semen on top of it. As well as that, the family of the deceased would probably be in no fit mental state to deal with a funeral after both losing their loved one (possibly tragically), and having to hand them over to some pervert to have his way with before the family get to bury them. I can't see religious families taking that well, or anybody really. In the interest of everyone's mental well-being what you propose should be illegal. It probably would increase the chances of the crack cocaine and being murdered situation as you would be supplying very desperate people with large amounts of money (It'd surely cost a bit, having sex with dead bodies is quite the luxury). The first part was just me stoned though. 2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. My scenario is not completely unrealistic. Having to hand over your loved one's dead body to a necrophile would disturb anyone. I would certainly want to kill the individual and I'm sure the vast majority of people who read this would want the same. It would not make sense to legalise something that would cause so much destruction. Forget about that question. I was fairly stoned yesterday, but if you and your partner want to fvck each other's dead bodies then fire away. The widow/widower would surely get some time alone with their loved one's corpse if they requested it. Why should we turn something so horrible into a market for religious people's sake when they could get away with it so easily as it is?
Consensual Necrophilia

Ignoring the issue of crack cocaine or being murdered in a drug deal, (risks that would neither be increased or decreased either way) the above scenario would not occur for the same reason that surgeons do not turn up to funerals to harvest organs should the deceased be on a register of organ donors. Instead the news of the deceased wishes would already be revealed and met prior to the funeral. There are no reasons why a nice family funeral could not ahead afterwards. I fully accept that the family may expressed negative feelings about the wishes of the deceased, however what right do they have to dispute an adults death and funerary arrangements? 2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. Given that the above scenario of the my opponents is unrealistic his claim that, "I'd hardly call a padded room or a jail cell free, and what you propose would undoubtedly send the likes of me into either of these facilities, and for this reason, there should be laws preveting this from happening. " Does not logically follow and can not be used to negate an adults right to sexual freedom. Lastly my opponent asks, "What if the religion was harmful to society? " This is only relevant to the debate if my opponent can show that allowing posthumous sex is harmful to society, he has failed to do so. My original premise has not been refuted.
Consensual Necrophilia

You're my kinda guy. 1: Existing precedent. Laws exist for the good of everybody. None of those other rights could harm anyone else, but what you propose could. Consider this possible chain of events: You have three sons. The oldest is nineteen, the middle child is fourteen, and the youngest is ten. Now, your oldest boy likes to smoke a bit of crack cocaine, but he can't always come up with the money. He hears that you can sell the right to have sex with your dead body to necrophiles. He signs up thinking he is the luckiest man in the world. He makes a fortune and heads off to meet his local dealer. Once there the dealer shoots him in the chest and takes flight with his money. About a day or so later the wake is on and everyone is very upset over this tragic death. Nobody even seems to notice this guy [1] walking around the place asking strange questions about the departed. Later, however, this man approaches the coffin where you and your family are mourning. He tells you that it was lovely to meet the family, but that he cannot spare much more time. He presents you with the contract and lifts your son out of the coffin and throws him over his shoulder. The end of this story could play out in numerous ways that could harm those involved. For one, you might let this man take your son subjecting yourself and your family to psychological trauma. If it were me, I would probably flip out and kill the man, traumatising my already grief stricken children at the same time. It is within our best interests to have laws in place that protect us from events such as these. [1] http://listentoleon.net... 2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. The purpose of the state is to keep us as free and as safe a people as possible, but what some people don't seem to understand is that it is for our benefit as a whole rather than individually. I'd hardly call a padded room or a jail cell free, and what you propose would undoubtedly send the likes of me into either of these facilities, and for this reason, there should be laws preveting this from happening. "Certain religions or cultures, do not accept that marriage is ‘till death do us part' but accept concepts such as immortal, permanent, or posthumous marriage. The state should have no right to interfere in religion, marriage and the way in which marriages are consummated." What if the religion was harmful to society?
Consensual Necrophilia

I affirm that it should be lawful for those of the legal age of consent, whilst still living, to give and record consent for posthumous sexual acts to be performed on their bodies and for these wishes to be honoured. Or in other words, for people to will their bodies to necrophiles. The exact terms of which could be defined in the will or contract, with regards to time limits, number of permitted partners etc. My initial argument rests on two main principles. 1: Existing precedent The law already accepts the right of those of the proper age to give consent to sexual acts. The law already accepts the right to write wills, dictating what should happen to their bodies, with regards funeral arrangements and organ donation. The proposal merely affirms pre-existing laws and civil liberties. 2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. I affirm that the state has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. Though same sex marriage may be an issue of debate for some only backward countries seek to outlaw and regulate what happens in a bedroom between consenting adults. Few in the west would now tolerate the state outlawing private homosexual practice, or demanding that only legally permitted positions be used. The state therefore has no right to prevent consensual necrophilia. In addition, Such consent could be purchased, which could offset or even negate the cost of a funeral which can proof to be a serious financial burden to a family already beset by the woes of grief. http://www.whathappensnow.com... (As the supply of ‘consensual' corpses would be limited, potential necrophiles would likely be willing to be pay large sums). Certain religions or cultures, do not accept that marriage is ‘till death do us part' but accept concepts such as immortal, permanent, or posthumous marriage. The state should have no right to interfere in religion, marriage and the way in which marriages are consummated. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Chinese)