BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's

Why I Win on GingersMy opponent is half a ginger. I am a full ginger. He has passed up on this argument for two rounds and thinks he can finally bring it up now. But he says that being half a ginger makes his life 50% suckier than mine? That logic is beyond flawed. If he has half a soul, she is still capable of having half of his happiness, making him 50% better off than me, because I can feel no happiness at all. You should vote for pro because I have proven that it is theoretically impossible to be unhappier than me unless you are a pure-bred ginger, which he has admitted he is not.2. Why Being the Prince of Jordan Makes His Life Better Than MineA. Staging the pain for the throne. My opponent clearly did not read my round three argument at all. Firstly, sure he could say parts of my sucky life are staged, but I have no motive to do so. He however, has the throne as a motive. Secondly, I did provide evidence when I said quite specifically that it was mentioned on BBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. By ignoring this, he has proven that he is not paying attention to this debate. B. Bathrooms. My opponent believes that Mick Jagger is in uncredible source because of a quote he made. But these were two different Mick Jaggers. I was referring specifically to the wise philosopher Mick Jagger, who surely has a more open mind than a prince who wants to cry about his fake troubles in order to steal the throne. The quote my opponent referred to, however, was a quote by the Rolling Stone's Mick Jagger. These are two very different people, both physically and ideologically. C. Climates. This one I'm loving the absolute most. My opponent just went and admitted that steaming poopy burps are nowhere near as deadly as the problem I face in my climate, excessive diarrhea. He has conceded that in this area, my life is suckier than his.3. AIDSA. Throwing in this argument halfway through the debate is unfair because it does not provide time for a decent argument to develop. B. My opponent does not have AIDS; he barely knows the symptoms. Foaming at the mouth and repeated seizures are not symptoms of AIDS. Moral: If you want AIDS, do your homework first. Overall, Why Pro Wins. My opponent conceded the ginger argument by saying he has more of a soul than me. He did not deny that his sadness was all an act, he simply threw a fallacy at me. He tried to dismiss my Bathrooms argument by saying because one Mick Jagger is ignorant, all of them are. My opponent flat out admitted, no exaggeration there, just went and admitted that steam poop is a less threatening issue than South Dakota conditions. My opponent tried to pretend his A/C argument wasn't completely defeated by ignoring it. My opponent does not have AIDS because he doesn't even know the symptoms. -----------------------------------I win all contentions, My life sucks more than my opponents.
My Life Sucks More Than My Opponent's

1. You Being a GingerI am adopted, and my real father was a ginger. I am not, however because of this, half of my soul is missing. There for this piece of my argument alone makes me have at least a 50% more sucky life than you.2. JordanA. The pain is staged Everything that happens to me is real. None of it is faked. I could just as easily say parts of Massive's life were faked as well.Also, my opponent gave no real evidence that supported his theory that I was faking the pain. B. BathroomsIt seems as though my opponent is taking the words of a very discredited man, Mack Jagger, over someone who lives in the palace himself. If I were you, I wouldn't listen to a word Mack Jagger says."Some people believe President Obama is a Muslim, and some say he is just a good old American. Well, we should be focusing on his daughters. I have found research showing that they are aliens working for Mexico."-Mack Jagger(His words, not mine) Just because you've known someone a long time, doesn't mean they give correct detail.C. Climates"My opponent claims that steam poop is worse than excessive diarrhea. However, if that was true, and he had it, he should have been dead before many members of my family, so this contention is false. Perhaps he's disabled, but he's not dead. People who poop it all out end up dead."This contention is far from false. You see, my fathers people have lived here so long, that our great grandfathers great grandfather had steam poop billowing from his nostrils. And yes, at first nearly the entire kingdom's population was wiped out. However, over the centuries, we have grown a natural resistance to the steam poopoo. Yes, it still tastes like azz, and people are killing themselves because they hate their life so much, however the steam poop is no longer life threatening.D. AIDS"Apologies, but my opponent recaps AIDS but I believe never mentions anything about it in the body of his argument. This contention, therefore, gives no weight to con."AIDS was not an argument, but simply me informing you about myself. And yes, this does give weight to con. How can having AIDS not make you life suck? AIDS kills my immune system. When I get a common cold, I usually foam at the mouth, and have repeated seizures because my body cannot fight it.Conclusion:My opponent fails to prove that my pain is all fake, therefore I win the contention A. In contention B, I show how truly unreliable Mack Jagger truly is, and proved it. Therefore I also win contention B. I win contention C for proving my opponents arguments invalid. I win D because I proved that AIDS makes my life royally suck azz.CON WINS RECAP:<>My father was a ginger, therefore I have only half of a soul. 50%<>Mack Jagger is a fvuck trad.<>The steam poop is unlifethreatening.<>My friends and family are always trying to kill themselves.<>I have AIDS, which causes me to have insane physical reactions to even just a common cold.
Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

Well, then I will start.t my points. 1. Benefit is completely subjective."For something to be completly beneficial is for it to have only good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever."First of all, I do not need to go into detail about how good and bad are subjective. As long as people have different perceptual sets, as long as different things affect my perception to yours, which they do, then the way in which things are percieved is subjective. So effectively, this debate is, "For something to be completely beneficial is for it to only have good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever, dependant on the person." This means that if benefit is the good thing according to you, then benefits are subjective. They have to be, they affect the person. Even if we take the definiton, "Resulting in good; favourable or advantageous", then we have established that good is subjective. And an advantage from a situation can only affect those involved, as an advantage is "a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position". And a favourable position, is again, a subjective matter. 2. ExampleI am sitting at home, and I am doing an enjoyable piece of work which I have no bouts against, it causes me great pleasure. It is coursework, so due for almost 5 months time, in which we will proceed to get a similar task, but is estimated to finish within a month. Doing this task is also going to raise my work level to the maximum, as it counts as a majority of my mark for which ever exam I am sitting next year. I am also someone who doesn't fear death, and this matters. I realise I could die any moment and take life qualitatively, rather than quantitatively. 3. So why is this beneficial?For this to be completely beneficial, there must not be a downside. Possible downsides could be that it is a waste of time, he could be doing something more enjoyable, and I'll take any you have to give me. However he doesn't fear death, so time isn't a problem, and he did this at his own discretion. At this point, I cannot see a negative to this from his perspective. Maybe from someone else's, but those aren't connected as benefit is subjective. Thank you.
Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

Hello. For this debate, you (con) will be debating that something can be completly beneficial. I will be arguing that nothing can ever be completly beneficial. For something to be completly beneficial is for it to have only good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever.RULES1. In this debate, you must at least include 1 example of something that can be completly beneficial.2. You may not use any semantics.3. 10, 000 characters, 72 hours.4. You must follow this rule: This round is your opening statements, and the last round you must write "thanks for the debate".Accepting this debate, you are accepting the rules established. Failure to comply to such rules will result in a 7 point loss. GOOD LUCK! :D
God randomly sprang into existence

Okay con, i would really appreciate it if you wouldn't degrade me so much im just a freshman in high school and I'm just learning about speech and debate I'm sorry if I'm not "good enough" for you but im just trying to stage a reasonable religious debate for practice before my first competition in December. i simply am trying to argue with someone how god came to be but you are just putting me down instead of arguing. that's not debate that's wrong.
God randomly sprang into existence

My rebuttal made in this round is going to be weak because, the argument my opponent made was weak.Rebuttals- WHAT DOES THE PRO SAY? "well, here's how I see it, at first, there was nothing, then by some random incident, a consciousness was created, and it began to think, and realized it had power, so it or if you prefer it, he, began to work then there came the first seven days of creation as shown in the bible, thus God." Briefly, my opponent claims, "well, here's how I see it,"......... STAHP My opponent's error occurs when he contends that because he sees things a certain then that must mean that things are that way. That is not how it works, people can and do, claim that things are a certain way. But, when it all boils down to it, this isn't enough to satisfy the burden of proof. Why? One may ask. This is because, he needs to make a case from a more objective point in order to satisfy the burden of proof he carries. Claiming that because he sees it a certain way so therefore, it is, is not a strong argument.I rest my case.VOTE FOR WHOEVER MAKE BETTER ARGUMENT pl0x !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God randomly sprang into existence

However, before I continue I would like to put forth some definitions. DefinitionsGod- the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. [1]randomly- without definite aim, direction, rule, or method. [2]sprang- past of spring. [3]spring- to produce or disclose suddenly or unexpectedly. [4]into- to the state, condition, or form of. [5]existence- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. [6] 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3 & 4. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 6. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Good luck to my opponent and happy debating. :)
Consumption of alcohol is not a sin.

I'm so very tired of the church constantly giving a bum rap to alcohol and those who consume it, so this debate had to be done. I will be debating that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not inherently a sin in regards to the Bible of Christianity. Any generally known orthodox of Christianity can be used so long as it follows the Holy Bible, 66 books, common Bible in use today. Sin: A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. Consume: eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink). Inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. First round for acceptance, and for my opponent to post his/her argument if he/she so chooses. Let's make this a good debate, no equivicating, or silly semantic tactics. Good luck to my opponent in our mental jousting.
Consumption of alcohol is not a sin.

Lmao to my opponent, a thousand thanks for the good troll.Seeing as my agreed, I don't have to post a strong argument, or any argument at all for that matter, but what the heck, cheers to overachieving.Jesus turned water into wine.John 2:1-11-1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."4 "Woman,[a] why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come."5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him (1).Wine is presented in a positive light multiple times in the Bible.Psalms 104:14-15-He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate--bringing forth food from the earth (2):wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart (3).Ecclesiastes 9:7-Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do (4).Alcohol consumption is perfectly fine if done in moderation.Proverbs 23:20-Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, (5).Ephesians 5:18-Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit (6).Sources:1.http://www.biblegateway.com...2.http://bible.cc...3.http://bible.cc...4.http://bible.cc...5.http://bible.cc...6.http://bible.cc...
Morals of the Christian God On Killing

Since there is no explicit resolution in the title of this debate, I have gone ahead and distilled the resolution that my opponent most certainty intended to affirm (as can be clearly seen in my opponent's second paragraph): **God is hypocritical according to his own standards. ** ========== Cutting Out the Fat: ========== ". .. these morals were put in place by him and can change at his leisure because he is god. What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow. There is nothing absolute about the morals of the Christian god. " It behooves us, before delving into the meat of my opponent's argument, to first eliminate the points that are irrelevant to the resolution. That brings us Spencersdreams' first point – God's morals are not definite. The fact that morality can change by the will of God only serves to illustrate that God is, according to Christianity and my opponent's understanding, the source, proprietor, creator, and sustainer of morality – not that God is a hypocrite. In fact, logic dictates that the creator of the universe not only has the right but has the capability of setting the standards for his creation. The verity of this claim is confirmed every day when a programmer creates his own gaming "universe. " It would be intellectually insane to assume that a programmer ought to be bound by his own programming. As the quip goes, "His game, His rules. " ========== The Meat: ========== The meat of my opponent's argument stems from the 5th commandment – thou shalt not murder. Now, as you may have already noticed, I used the word murder instead of kill. This is because the Hebrew word here, ratsach , denotes precisely that – unlawful killing (1). Therefore, any instances in which God commands killing – or He Himself kills – must be shown as unlawful. But, given what my opponent has already said (inadvertently backing himself into a corner), it is impossible to show said killings to be unlawful as the resolution demands. Now lets put this into a syllogism: (1)God commanded against unlawful killing (2)God has killed or commanded killing (3)According to the Bible and my opponent's paragraph 3, God is the source and determiner of morality (or for the sake of clarity, what is lawful). (4)According to the Bible, God's ways are perfect and righteous (2). (C)Therefore, since God is judge and He is perfect, all said killings could not have been unlawful. Moreover, God and man are not morally analogous, making it impossible for God to be a hypocrite – insofar as we have no supra-divine standard of Good by which God's actions may be judged. In the Christian morality, God is the metric by which morality is known and judged. Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so God exists as not something to be measured, but as the very object by which we measure. ========== Conclusion: ========== My opponent fell a mighty distance short of illustrating how God is/was a hypocrite. Sources: (1). http://www.tektonics.org... (2) Deuteronomy 32:4
Morals of the Christian God On Killing

Morality has three principal meanings. In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or belief which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to other alternatives by the sane "moral" person, under specified conditions. In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics. [1] I will be debating the questionable moral of the Christian God and attempting to prove him hypocritical to his own principles on the subject of killing. The first point I wanted to making before beginning that none of these morals I'm about to uses as examples can be definite since according to the bible, "God's written word", these morals were put in place by him and can change at his leisure because he is god. What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow. There is nothing absolute about the morals of the Christian god. As far as Murder: The 5th of his 10 Commandments was "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder" or "Thou shall not kill" depending on your version of the bible your reading. He also says this in other various places in the bible such as Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. But at the very same time he has given instructions telling how exactly why and how one should kill. He even sometimes even does the killing himself. A few of many examples are: Leviticus 20:14 reads "And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. " Samuel 15:2-3 reads "2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ' " Genesis 6:17 reads "I am going to bring flood waters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. " The same god who tells us thou shall not kill has told us to kill innocent children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), entire civilizations such as the Amalekites and in various verses throughout the bible people because they have done things as simple as working on Sundays or being born gay. Why was it ok to kill all of these people to be killed with their death on their own hands? (Leviticus 20:13) Because they were evil? (Genesis 6:12-13) Is it ok to disregard morals to kill those who are evil? Why is it ok for people who don't share the same religious freedom to be put to death? (Leviticus 24:16) There are many more verses in the bible god has instructed the murder of people just because they do not follow his standards. Are we follow him blindly without know why its immoral to kill yet moral kill at the same time? What do this constant demand for killing say about god and his morals?
unknown=false, as only know is true

"only know is true""becasue i dont know it, i have to imagine it, therfore its false"Once again Pro has failed to provide any evidence for his claim in order to fulfill the BoP. The bare assertion that only knowledge is true can be dismissed because it lacks evidence. Imagining something does not necessarily mean it's false, it just means it's unknown. Thus, Pros' statements are nothing more than empty claims.Pro has also failed to acknowledge any of my points, so I will again extend them.
unknown=false, as only know is true

From the resolution, it appears as if Pro is arguing that what is unknown is false, and what is known is true. However, Pro has not provided a definition of what false is. According to Dictionary. com, false is defined as "not true or correct; erroneous"[1]. In order to dissect this definition we must also define "true", which is: "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact"[2]. Now we know that in essence, Pro is arguing that the unknown does not exist, and that only what we know exists. Because he is making such an extraordinary claim, he holds the full BoP. Let us look at Pro's opening statements, which are "reality is unbelieved, unknown is alien, alien is false". This does not in any way argue or prove the claim that what is unknown is false. Because of this, Pro has yet to fulfill the BoP, which he must do in order to win this debate. We have only discovered so much of the universe, but that doesn't mean that what we haven't discovered of the universe doesn't exist. It simply means that we don't know the rest of it, though it's existence is possible and ought not to be passed off as nonexistent. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
you should do something you don't want.

As people know, the world is too complicated to figure out the best answer, the best solutions to solve the problems. we can't even foretell what will be going on in life or tell which is good considering everything. Everything has pros and cons. Is it just me to see things this way ? pretty recently, however, I willingly do things I used to avoid but I came to the realization that hard work will pay off. I believe This philosophical concept is related to anything. Dieting. Workout. Sacrifice. Dedication. Fasting. What's on your thought?
you should do something you don't want.

FrameworkI will rebut my opponent's case in this round. My opponent had did not even rebut my case, extend it. Don't let Pro rebut because he is posting arguments in the last round which is abuse. BoP is on Pro. Remember, I cannot lose because my opponent wants to here my thoughts, so unless I state my thoughts, I win. Rebuttals1. DietingMy opponent had stated about dieting. He said he had hated dieting. Well, I can't really rebut that, but where is the proof? Also, the things you don't want to do, you don't want to do them for a reason. There is no reason why you don't want to do something for no reason. For instance, dieting is bad for your health, and bad for you [1] [2] [3] [4]. So my point is that the things you don't want to do such as for you dieting, it is bad for your health.2. Everything has a good effectThis is false. For one example lets give death. [5] Death is sad, and it is when you die. Does this have a good effect? I don't think so. Also does bullying, and torture. Because of my opponent does not rebut to my arguments, vote for Con. Sources[1] . http://breakingmuscle.com...[2] . http://www.boxingscene.com...[3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.spiked-online.com...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...I await for your response.