BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the christiangod has a variant of multiple personality disorder.

Multiple personality disorder is predominantly characterized by multiple personalities as the name suggests. So if we look at the bible we find god has 4 distinct personalities: in the old testament god is war like destroys cities and command the israelites to perform genocide multiple times. Then in the new testament god is the father with unconditional love, forgiveness, and is omnibenevolent. Then we get into the trinity; three distinct beings in one god. The father, son and holy spirit; they are all distinct "persons" but in one god. So that means god has four distinct personalities; a sure sign of multiple personality disorder.
Abortion is a right that should remain

I could again go through the argument counter-argument flow of this debate, but I find it unnecessary. My opponents case is based on many assumptions, which I have shown to be wrong, and I offered viable counter-points to everything that was said, as opposed to my opponent who just stated surface refutations without actually stating why the things I said weren't true. A few key points: Preventing embryonic implantation is different than aborting a fetus. One is still in the preventative stage, and one is not. Adoption is a less traumatic experience emotionally and physiologically for a woman than abortion, and being alive and healthy is always preferable to never having had the chance at all. The fact that something is a law does not make it right, and defining someone as not human or not really alive does not change the fact that they are, as I demonstrated. Its a simple decision. I've shown that abortion is effectively never the best option, and that aborting a fetus is taking a life, which is universally acknowledged as an illegal act in any lawful society. Therefore, I've sufficiently proved that abortion is not a "right" and definitely should not remain.
Abortion is a right that should remain

1. Laws are made and made carefully, not arbitrarily. The laws are debated and more. Thats why abortion is not against the law. Controlling a person is limited. That is the principal America is based on. America elects its officals and have several rights. Control is limited and should be limited to disagree with that is to not be an American. 2. Abortion is not murder but rather killing an un human creature. Saying abortion is muder is like saying that squashing a bug is murder or so is stabbing a calculator. Fetuses cant feel until the second trimester or thikn or essentialy live. Abortion is significantly daunting of emotion. Imagine having a child in the world but you know that that child is lonely, has nobody to love him, etc. And YOU are responsible. Put the thing out of its misery. Imagine if you had to live in a place where nobody loved yo and you had no freedom for 18 years. Sounds like prison to me. But what did these children do? 3. A baby for ninth months inside of you, pushed out of you, taking 3/4 your income, and more is more than just a bother. Neglected children are more likely to lead lives of crime and to say otherwise is to say that parents are useless. 4. First of all, if one in three girls is raped, then most of my friends and peers escaped a devastating statistic. Unless perhaps it was made up? + Maybe your life is moresheltered than other, more indigent neighborhoods or your firends can keep secrets well. If a raped woman does not learn that she is raped until the morning after pill is too late, then she will have to suffer unnecessary consequences. 5. If the baby was never allowed to be an embryo it is just the same as if it was aborted. Americans should have the right. 6. Roe vs. Wade is still a contested case as are all cases. There is no point here. The Supreme Court debates and decides and they will continue. 1. Not having a baby kills babies as well. Point blank: parents need rights and so do children. 2. A defined death is not worse than two ruined lives. Period. 3. This is a ridiculous point that Ive rebutted sufficiently.
Abortion is a right that should remain

1. Government gets to control a woman's body. 2. "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile. 3. It's arguably better for society to have babies aborted than have them be brought up poor and neglected, where not only will the child suffer but society when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc. 4. One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. 5. Raped women would be forced to have unwanted, criminal enduced children without support for that child. 6. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person.
TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required

>:) You are only half correct. It is my evil twin brother who is the evil scientist. However, it must be noted no person wearing a school uniform is happy. Look at all those federal law cases: a boy complaining about his school emblem, a parent complaining about the school emblem--again, and other parents complaining about school uniform prices. Only administrators agree that school uniforms are good. But again, this is only part of his malicious plot--he makes people think that there are two sides to the school uniform, but in reality, school uniforms are terrible. I, the genius lawyer extremely versatile in the constitution, encourage you all to vote the USA government to not require school uniforms before he takes over the world. But again, he has a plan b, which he will tell no one. .. However, he does give a hint about it: it involves turning the school uniforms alive as demonstrated in this photo: A victim of the genius scientist's prototype. No one knows what happened to him. We must ban school uniforms before he can do plan a, and what's worse, his plan B! ! (which is actually way more destructive than plan a. Hmmm.
TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required

"Now, this could be a clever trick to make me think they don't have plans for world domination. .. " Yes, yes it is. You have fallen for the genius scientist's ploy. Fortunately I'm a genius as well. (A genius lawyer, that is. ) I have already sued the scientist and hoped that law can catch him in time. Meanwhile we should take action all around the world! If they don't wear uniforms, they will return to normal! Evidence has shown this: . http://regularshow.wikia.com...So, don't work! Slack off! Those methods work too. But the most efficient way is taking off the uniform!
TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required

School uniforms are friggin' awesome."Is also promotes freedom and gender equality" says admiral sexybeast How can these happy and equality-loving people be aliens? They simply show too much kindheartedness to ever want to take over the world. Now, this could be a clever trick to make me think they don't have plans for world domination, but I'm MUCH more likely to believe it wouldn't be someone in a uniform!
TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required

Look at those smiling students. They look pretty happy, don't they!Well, I'll tell you something--you're wrong! They aren't happy. Why? Because they love the race they are. Look at their skin color! No offense, and not being racist, it's true--they all have the same skin color! And their uniforms--their uniforms all have to same colors! We can logically deduce that if uniforms are worn then people have the same skin color. This is actually a crude experiment by an evil genius scientist to turn all the school's poor children into his evil robot slaves! Look at them, they're all the same--shoes, hand motions, even the creepy way they smile is exactly the same! If you aren't convinced, take a look at this other picture... Look! They're all the same! Sure, the blond girl seems to be unaffected as the others, but streaks of brown can be seen! Oh god, save us! And only one person has glasses on! Look at the guy on the left, the guy two seats to the right, and two seats to the right, and the guy two seats to the right...that's right! All of them are trying to cross their legs, copying the guy on the rightest and the girls too! It can be concluded this photo was taken while the transformation was happening...this is terrible! THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE FORCE SCHOOL UNIFORMS TO BE REQUIRED The consequences are unimaginable. One word? Destruction. Two words? Take-over. Three words? [BLEEP] us all.I know, you might say "hey, what proves that these robots are destructive? Why couldn't they be nice?" Well, I say, it's the evil genius scientist who designed these robots. He's gotten so far ahead that the earliest one of his robots has grown into an adult! Look at her eyes, how they bore into you....they hypnotize you and yet they look faraway, having lost their sentience long long ago....how terrible! Fortunately these robots have yet to outnumber normal human beings, so we should stop them while we still can! Ban school uniforms!! Onto you con.
TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required

Hello everybody! I have a very strong belief that School Uniforms Shouldn't be required, and I have many logical reasons for it. However, in this particular debate, I will use none of those logical reasons and troll you to your doom, just for fun! You may use illogical reasoning as well, but you have to argue School Uniforms Should be Required. Round one is for acceptance only.Good luck, con!
Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.

There are two key aspects to this discussion. One is a constitutional outlook and one a statistical outlook. As Americans we are expected to value our constitution. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the second amendment, while it is on the books it needs to be respected. For people who desire to infringe on citizens' right to bear arms, they need to pass an amendment that repeals the second amendment, not passing legislation. Even if people want to utilize the correct method of changing law, they should not want to. People who want to control guns, typically have a lack of understanding of how guns work and what benefit they yield. While guns are used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop them. With the use of guns, a 100 lb female would be able to defend her house and family from a 200 lb male, something that would not so easily be done with any other type of self defense, regardless of the amount of training. Guns level the playing field giving Americans equality that is clamored for in so many other aspects of life. The net number of lives saved by guns is higher than the net number of lives lost by guns. On top of this, there is no reliable data that shows increasing gun control will reduce the amount of gun related homicides. Since there is a benefit to be had from people legally owning guns, and there is no proof that passing laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence, we should stay away from legislating guns out of the hands of people that can use them to protect themselves.
April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

This is round two in the April Gauntlet Tower (1) that Mikal helped me set up in response to the trial by fire thread.(2)Kasmic vs ZaradiResolved: "Just Societies Ought to Recognize Animal Rights"4 rounds/72hrs/10,000 CharactersSelect Winner/2500 Elo voting restiction. Typical rules...... (1) http://www.debate.org...(2)http://www.debate.org...
April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

I had a crazy weekend, I had an online test for school, children sick, mothers day, and made an offer on a house.... For these reasons this round is what I could throw together this morning, I apologize to Zaradi for not putting more time into this round. Con says "The aff case envokes the conception of what normativity requires. " Yes this is true as this is a debate about what "ought" be it is naturally based on what normativity requires.Con argues that my case "negates value in life because people are no longer intrinsically valuable but rather instruments to the socius." Quite the contrary. I argued that rights are inherient, implying that life is intrinsically valuable. He goes on to say "And this outweighs because it won’t matter if animals are the same as humans if humans have no value to their rights in the first place."Again I do argue a human life intrisically valuable due to rights. Thus animals having the same rights inheriently have value. Such rights should be respected. It seems my opponent is arguing that rights are not inherient in people, though does not substantiate this claim.Con says "Politics begins and ends with desire and fascism only by analyzing the K can we solve."My opponent is painting an extreme picture here. It is in fact the recongintion of rights and the respect of such rights that invalidates fascism, not the other way around. By acknologing the rights of people and animals it follows that abusing those rights or restricting them is inmorral. That is what fascism is... a violation of the inherient right of freedom. Again I apologize for this last min attempt at a response... back to con.
April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights It is my burden in this debate to show that animals have rights. If it can be shown that animal rights do exist it seems to me to follow that a just society ought to recognize them. Thus if I can show Animal Rights exist, I win this debate. C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. From this we can conclude that the existence of rights is not impacted by these types of differences and are thus inherent. Certain rights exist independent of human differences. It seems reasonable to accept that all animals, human or not, inherently have rights despite differences. They ought to be respected. Unless my opponent can show reasonable argumentation as to why humans, of all animals, inherently have rights for a reason not applicable to other animals then it follows that all animals have rights. P1. Humans have rightsP2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etcP3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rightsC. Animals have rights C2: Needless Suffering To be free from needless suffering is perhaps the most fundamental right. If something is capable of needlessly suffering, inherently there exists a right to not be subject to such suffering. This leads us with one simple question. Can Animals suffer? The general consensus is that some animals do in fact feel pain. Many governments around the world recognize this truth and have in response passed regulations that minimize or eliminate such pain. For example the U. S. Government has such regulations. “The requirement or recommendation to consider the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals when conducting research in the United States is constituted in federal law, regulations, and guidelines, enforced by the US Public Health Service Policy, and promulgated by various professional organizations”(1) If we accept, as most do that animals are capable of needlessly suffering, then it follows that a just society would not allow such animals to suffer needlessly. P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental rightP2: Animals are capable of sufferingC2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer Conclusion Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U. S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed. (1) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
cannabis should be allowed for everyone

Pro argues that, "cannabis should be allowed for every one [sic]." The complete long-term effects of cannabis use are still unknown [1], making it a highly risky drug. I therefore counter that cannabis should not be allowed for people below the age of majority (as defined by the law), since they implicitly lack the cognitive capacity to weigh risks and make sound choices compared to the average adult. I have no problem with legal adults using cannabis. However, if they look too young, cannabis vendors should be required to ask for ID, lest they unwittingly sell to minors. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...
cloning

Thank you all for reading this far. ========== Extensions; ========== Case attacks, C1 Therapeutic cloning, C2 Reproductive cloning, C3 Malthusian catastrophe, Sources. Add-Ons; ====================== Contention 4; Genetic variability ====================== Cloning may reduce genetic variability, producing as many clones as Pro suggests comes with the risk of a creating a population susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population. A virus deadly to one clone would just as well devastate the rest! ====================== Contention 5; Religious Conflicts ====================== I know this may not count for much in some of your books, but cloning would cause major conflicts between the government and religious peoples in the U.S. if cloning is allowed to be normalized. Many different religions find cloning highly unethical, and unnatural. The last thing we need is more government-citizen conflict. Thank you.
L is smarter than Near.

Sorry but I've been quite busy this week and this is all I had time to make. Rebuttals\ Arguments. This will be short. 1. You said that L wasn't close to catching Light but at the episode he dies he would have caught Light because of his plan. 2. I read that when L says that he is 9% sure he was really 90 ish percent sure but didn't want to say it cause of lack of evidence but I have yet to find where I read it so next round I'll post it. 3. In the end Light goes crazy which makes him easier to catch. 4. You said that the words of the creator are second to the audience but look here and you'll see that the audience thinks L is smarter thus L is smarter. https://answers.yahoo.com... http://www.debate.org... (I'd just like to point out that the guy who voted Near said fells instead of falls.)
L is smarter than Near.

In literary criticism, the principle known as Death of the Author (http://tvtropes.org...) holds that the words of a creator are secondary to the interpretation of the audience. Since it was never stated in-universe that L is smarter than Near, and other interpretations can be deduced by the audience of Death Note, what the authors may have meant is only one possible interpretation. The canon of Death Note 13: How to Read even explicitely contradicts this interpretation, by giving L an intelligence of 8/10 and Near an intelligence of 9/10. Death Note: How to Read is at least as canonical as the author's own words, therefore I should win this debate. L wasn't really close to beating Kira. By the end of his life, he had enough evidence to convict both Light and Misa. And yet, the likelihood of Light being Kira (in L's mind) never exceeded 9%. Near, who had to find evidences all over again, identified Light as L-Kira and Taru as X-Kira in no time at the beginning of Part 2. From there, he only needed to find proofs to corroborate his theses. The scheme of Near and Mellow involved Mellow dying so Near would have sufficient evidence to convict Light and Taru. The one thing that could have saved L's butt is if he had done the same and written his own name in the death note before Rem did (actually, he did just that in the movies). In both cases, the "Thanatos Gambit" of the characters (for non-tropers: http://tvtropes.org...) does not invalidates any of the involved characters' intelligence. Otherwise, this would mean L himself was stupid. Also note that L was a grown-up adult with the best resources in the world to solve his cases (including all the fake identities he would ever need). Near was a child with little except a gathering of US agents and indirect assistance from his enemy in the Mafia (who only decided to help him at the very end). Therefore, considering that L had better resources and better evidence than Near, but that he failed where Near succeeded, and considering that Death Note 13: How to Read explicitely states that Near is more intelligent than L, I postulate that Near actually is smarter than L, no matter what the author may have intended, and thus, that Pro is mistaken.
Physical Reality Is Probably Fundamentally Timeless/ Unchanging

Our subjective understanding of the Universe is what makes up Science; our ideas aren't absolute. They are merely ideas that we were capable of coming up with with our human perception."I agree that nothing can happen without time, but timeless existence isn't incoherent at all (as long as the thing that has timeless existence doesn't change). So, my opponent is half-right. Nothing can happen without time, but changeless things can still have existence without time."You have agreed that NOTHING can happen without time, which is a logical contradiction. How so? If ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can happen without time, then why do you suppose that quantum events are not dependent on space and time?And, actually, timeless existence is incoherent. There consists a present - what things currently are - And without that particular composite, things can not be what they currently are. And taking into mind that things exist? That doesn't make sense."My opponent's statement depends on what view of time you adopt. If you are a Presentist, then only the present exists and that past and future play no ontological role in reality. In this view, the present changes, but the idea of the "future" and "past" are nothing more than concepts in our mind. "The "Presentism" view should be removed as an adoptable belief; It is flawed. Like I said, without the future, time wouldn't be moving; As we are moving INTO, but HAVE/WILL NOT move into, the future. That is, then, what validates the past. As we move into the future, those events that have past have moved into this composite of time that we call a past.The idea of the "past" and the "future" are logical concepts in our minds."The present could still constantly change, even if the past and future don't exist. This is exactly what Presentists adhere to. If my opponent is saying that the future exists, then this means that the Moving Spotlight Theory of time[2], or B-Theory of time is true[3]. However, my opponent hasn't defended either view. Also, if the B-Theory of time is true, then this is essentially saying that time doesn't exist anyway (In B-Theory, everything is static and unchanging). "I'll concede to a loss in this debate actually, for I don't very well understand my opponent's arguments. Vote Pro! Anyways, thank for the debate, Pro!
Physical Reality Is Probably Fundamentally Timeless/ Unchanging

IntroductionI will negate the resolution that the Universe is ontologically static and unchanging. I will refute my opponent's arguments in R3. Contention Nothing can happen and exist without time This is very simple. In time, there is a past, present, and future. Without a future, time wouldn't be moving, as we move into the future, so to speak. Future validates the past. Since time is moving, those events that have already past are now... past. If both did not exist, we must be frozen, never to move. However, without the present, not even what things currently are can be so, which I rightfully consider absurd. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.