BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of Animal Suffering.

:: Intro :: In this debate, I shall argue that the existence of vast amounts of animal suffering is a compelling reason to reject the existence of a theistic, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God. This debate is targeted specifically at Christians, and Christian responses to the argument. For those who are interested, the inspiration for this debate comes from the chapter ' The Darwinian Problem of Evil' in the recent atheistic anthology 'the Christian Delusion' [1] :: The Argument :: 'During the minute it takes to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease...' - Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden. [2] It is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the world that evolution is the process by which the enormous variety of species inhabiting the world today have arisen. But even without accepting this fact, along with the terrible process of natural selection, we can still see how the extraordinary amount of pain and suffering undergone by animals in the world is a serious problem for theists promoting the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God. The problem is not exclusively within nature. Ever since humans have arrived on the scene, animals have been hunted, killed and experimented on in horrific ways. We have abused them for our own entertainment. We have crammed them in tiny cages for intensive farming. Some fish we like to eat fresh, so we cook and eat their bodies while they are still alive (and gasping for oxygen). [3] [4] So the question to theists is: why does God allow such terrible suffering to happen? The typical Christian answers to this question simply don't apply. Animals do not suffer because they sinfully use their free-will to commit evil acts against one another. Animals cannot learn any moral lessons from their suffering, and they cannot be spiritually benefited by the vast amounts of pain they go through. If God is perfectly good, it is crystal clear that we should expect all animal suffering to be kept to a minimum, that God would give humans clear and specific instructions to be kind and gentle to the lower species, even if killing and eating them is necessary (which it is not). Instead, we find that the bible regards animals as mere tools for humans to use as they will, and that the world in groaning with amounts of animal suffering beyond reasonable contemplation. It seems that the vast majority of animals are brought into existence merely (and briefly) so they can suffer and die terribly, either at the hands of other animals or by the hands of humans indifferent to their pain. How is this to be reconciled with the proposition that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God created and maintains the natural world? I do not believe it can. [1]http://www.amazon.com... [2] http://www.amazon.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://funkydowntown.com...
The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails.

The sole purpose of marriage is to have an official event that legally beinds two parents to raise children with ONE FAMILY NAME! There is simply no other objective purpose.The only reason gays would get married is, despite being unable to decide who surrenders the name and who keeps it, is to declare themselves ready to have children, which is physically unfeasible.Thus I conclude, the resolution is most truthful.Mu opponent completely failed to address my points, terming me a troll.LOSS OF CONDUCT FOOL! BOOYA!
The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails.

I hate trolls... Sigh... I guess I might as well keep going... Con argues the purpose of marriage is so the man gives the woman his family name, however this is irrelevant. The resolution of this debate is "The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails". It is not about the purpose of marriage. We are debating whether the reproductive argument succeeds in being a valid argument against gay marriage. Con continues to go off-topic by asking who gets the surname. next, Con makes an ad hominem saying that my parents don't love each other. Overall, I have deduced that Con will likely remain a troll throughout the entire debate. Looks like I will be receiving some points for him breaking the rules. He has not made a single on-topic assertion, nor has he refuted any of my claims. Back to the Con.
The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails.

Why do people marry? Why not just remain BF and GF for life xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo HMM???????????OOOOOOOH YEAH! LET ME THINK YOU HOMO MOFO FO SHO IT IS BECAUSE.................They marry so the man gives the woman his family name so they can have children and be identified as the "Addams family" or something like that. You know?! IT SHOWS THE MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO THE INFERIOR WOMAN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAANYWAY... If you aren't going to have kids of your own and if there are two inferior women or two superior men WHO GIVES WHOT HE SURNAME?? WHOSE SECOND NAME BECOMES THE FAMILY NAME?! EXACTLY! I WIN!MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT LOVE... Just ask your parents bro... OOOOH BUUUURN (if they genuinely divorced you have my condolences).
The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails.

This will be our second debate together. Now, let us begin the arguments. The reproductive argument is as follows: homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, therefore they should not be allowed to the person whom they love. The issue that makes this argument fail is as follows: if reproduction is a requirement for marriage, then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. Those who oppose same-sex marriage have never had any issue with heterosexual couples who are infertile to get married. There is, however, a solution to this argument. When a homosexual couple want to have a child, they can and must plan for it. When saying this, I refer to surrogate mothers. The surrogate mother can be impregnated, and her child is adopted by the homosexual couple. Off to Con for rebuttals (and possibly counter-arguments).
The reproductive argument against gay marriage fails.

No semantics No trolling -=Definitions=- Reproductive argument: refers to the argument that homosexuals can't reproduce, therefore gay marriage should not exist. Gay marriage: a formal union of two members of the same sex, by which they become two husbands or two wives. -=Burden of Proof=- The burden of proof lies on I, Pro, and the job of Con is to refute my arguments. Arguments will begin in Round 2. I await a response.
Abolish the Electoral College

I will try to rebut your arguments, but I have to be honest, I don't understand what you're saying in your first few paragraphs. It sounds like you're just repeating what I said. As for the "majority rules" thing. States side with the candidate who can bring the most positive change in their lives. This is generally different for different states (For example, North and South). Thus, the minority is small in most states, not 40% or 30% as Pro would have you believe. And when I said 12 people running for president, I mean 12 people in the final election, from 12 different political parties. I would appreciate if you read my argument more carefully. And yes, Americans are often forced to go with the lesser evil (Usally out of 2). But would you rather one of 12 or 13 parties win, and then have 90% of the population unhappy? Because it seems like that's what you're saying (No offense). "A lot of Republicans hate Trump but will vote for him because they prefer Trump to a liberal. It doesn't mean they actually like Trump." This is true, and upsetting. It's a problem. But what you're doing here is pointing out problems and not offering solutions. This debate is not over whether or not the electoral college is a good system, the debate is over whether or not it should be abolished. In order to prove that we should dismantle the electoral college should be dismantled, you have to point out problems, but also find a way to fix them. Otherwise, you're admitting that despite it's faults, the electoral college is the best system. I understand that this is not your intention, but still. Your ideas at the end do not count, because they are simply stated, and you don't go into depth about why they would fix anything, or why they would do more good than harm.
I am better than you

MaI aPoNnEnT hAvE mUcH bEtTaR gRamMeRz tHeN i DoEs. DiS pRoVe DaT hE aRe BeTaR tHeN mE.hE aLsO aDmEtT dAt He BeTtAr ThAn Mi In He LaSt ArGuMaNs.TeH cOkKeH b@sTeRd!!!!!!!!!!!!!BuT iT iS tRuE, mAi ApPoNeN bE BaTtEr tHeN mI.
Catholic priests should not be allowed to own monkeys

Banning hoodies in shops and banning monkeys for priests are not analogous. What you propose would be more like banning young men from wearing hoodies outright, so there goes your precedent. Sending the price of monkeys might cause breeders to take interest, which might turn that ever-decreasing into an ever-increasing, and who doesn't love monkeys? That huge price on monkeys would probably lead to the organ grinders cashing in on their little simian sidekicks, leaving the criminal life and turning into tax paying, law abiding citizens, so yeah it could have a tiny impact on crime figures, but not in the direction you suggested. I'd much prefer being robbed by a monkey than having a badger roaming around my house; I could tell you some stories...
Catholic priests should not be allowed to own monkeys

Next I would like state that I agree that not all Catholic priests are paedophiles, just like not all young men who go into shopping malls wearing hoodies are thieves trying to conceal their identity. No doubt most of them are in there to buy sausage rolls, fairy cakes and paper doilies for tea dances they are planning and they only have their hoods up because they don't want get their hair wet if the sprinkler system goes off unexpectedly. However, the shopping malls don't want to take any chances and that is why many refuse entry to people wearing hoodies [1]. The same principle, I'm afraid, should be applied to Catholic priests. I must admit, though, my opponent did outline some distinct advantages of giving free monkeys to priests. However, the ever-decreasing number of primates in the wild [2] together with the huge increase in demand for them from Catholic priests would send the market price of monkeys through the roof. This would have a serious impact on the crime figures because the huge cost of buying monkeys would mean that organ grinders would have to train their simian sidekicks to rob people's homes in order to supplement the meagre income they earn by looking cute outside pubs. [3] Just think about it: you won't be able to sleep at night; every time you hear a noise outside you'll wonder if was just a fox or a raccoon (or a Badger) sniffing around for scraps or whether it was an organ grinder's monkey forcing a window open in an attempt to make off with your cash and jewellery. Overall, I think we should err on the side of caution and disallow Catholic priests from owning monkeys. Thank you. [1] . http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... [2] . http://www1.american.edu... [3] . http://img.photobucket.com...
Catholic priests should not be allowed to own monkeys

Funny stuff, but your whole argument is negated by the simple fact that we can't blame all priests for the actions of some. Now for mine. .. I am not only opposed to the idea that priests should not be allowed to have monkeys, but would even go so far as to say that all priests should be given monkeys free of charge. These monkeys could be trained to do the work of alter boys and girls. This would not only make church more of a spectacle, which might increase the turnout, but it might spare poor, gullible children any of the priest's shenanigans in the sacristy. As well as that, placing monkeys in such a close proximity of creationists might help them to see how truly similar we are to them, which might cause them to accept evolution and give up their faith, taking from the hinderance on scientific progress. Also, the priests might take a liking to the monkeys and decide to do their dirty business with them instead. You'd never know, maybe the only reason all those priests were having sex with children in the first place was because they were the only ones they trusted not to tell anyone and expose their veneers of chastity for what they were. If this is so, which it could be, would a monkey not be an even better choice for the priest to have his way with? And priests riding monkeys is preferable to priests riding our children, isn't it? It's worth a shot. Athiests, pay no attention to the part about increasing the church turnout. Christians, pay no attention to the part about evolution.
Catholic priests should not be allowed to own monkeys

Now that the sordid sexual practices of Catholic priests have been exposed, [1] parishioners are lot more circumspect about giving them direct access to children. This has now left a lot of sexually frustrated priests plotting ways to get their kiddy-fiddling kicks by alternative means. One method a Catholic clergyman might use is to buy a monkey: queer it up; then train it to break into the bedrooms of juvenile worshipers in order to do the priest's vile, paedophile bidding by simian proxy. This might all sound faintly ridiculous, but it has been done before, albeit by thieving organ grinders who trained their monkeys to burgle houses [2] rather than men of the cloth training monkeys to molest children in their own homes while they watched from suitable vantage points such as the branches of a nearby trees. Child safety must always be society's primary concern and I therefore affirm that legislators cannot take any chances with it by allowing Catholic priests to own monkeys. Thank you. [1] http://www.catholicpriestscandal.com... [2] http://query.nytimes.com...
Vaccination is a fraud

I know I probably shouldn't do this, but I honestly don't care. I give up. Everything I say at this point is refuted with lots of stupid and simple ignorant and outdated claims. I make an argument, I back it up with evidence, and then you erase it with conspiracy or stupid. I don't care if I lose this debate. I'm just mind boggled how anyone could live under such a hideous rock. You completely ignore all medical and scientific data with woo. I don't know...I don't know what to say or where to start... Shall I redo all of medical research ever collected for the last 200 years again just to prove it isn't fraud? And iodine based body? WTF? The body needs iodine but IODINE BASED?
Vaccination is a fraud

The two army analogy. If you have two armies; one army has knowledge of the enemy and the other army has no knowledge of the enemy. Army one has knowledge of the enemy, but has no transport, no food and no weapons. Army two has no knowledge of the enemy, but has plenty of transport, food and weapons. If army one was to fight army two, which army would win the battle and why? Germs are the result of a disease; they are not the cause of it. (Antoine Bechamp) "Germs floating in the air" is just an unproven myth of the medical world. If somebody gets sick it is because they are eating a bad diet which lacks vitamins and or they have been poisoned by toxic chemicals, dirty water and rotten or decayed food. The concept of a virus killing somebody is illogical and absurd. If viruses killed people, the virus would kill itself in the process and would become extinct in a very short time period. Thus, germ theory is an incorrect theory which has been adopted by unscrupulous individuals as a means of making money and profit from human misery. The medical system is a drug based system which ignores the existing biological countermeasures that already exist. The human gut has bacteria which aid in digestion. If somebody eats too much sugar and carbohydrates this will cause a bacteria imbalance and the person will get a flu virus. The medical system just makes up names of diseases which are based on symptoms only. They never, ever look at a disease under the microscope as a means of identifying a disease. The modern diet is the cause of most disease. Grain, sugar and dairy products are unnatural foods for humans which cause inflammation of the internal organs. This can result in whooping cough, flu, heart attack, stroke, Alzheimer"s disease, leaky gut syndrome, diabetes and many other problems. My opponent has provided false and misleading information. By saying that "vaccines are free" my opponent is clearly trying to deceive the voters. Vaccines are never free, the government subsidises the pharmacy companies with billions of dollars of tax payer's money. http://articles.mercola.com...- quicker.aspx http://vaccine-injury.info... The sad history of small pox vaccination - http://www.vaclib.org...
Vaccination is a fraud

You say that not once has vaccination saved lives, and yet provide no sources for such claims. Whereas I can provide many, and even say that vaccination has wiped out a whole diseases such as small pox. In fact, 732,000 lives of children have been saved due to the discovery. http://www.who.int... http://www.livescience.com... The link above is from the World Health Organisation. I'm sure they know more about it than you do. Finally, you say it's a money scam. Funny how most immunisations are actually free, but I guess that depends on where you live. Think before you make ridiculous and wilfully ignorant claims.
God is Metaphorical

Con inquires..............' Why must my concept of God needs be "extracted" from my perceived experience and not truly be represented of a literal God? '-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ask in reply what a 'literal God' is. I think you mean actual or real. The God you have described is absolutely 'just', literal and metaphorical and you make that admission here yourself. You tell us that He is to be found in literal description in the Bible. You tell us that you believe this book literally and that God extracted traits of goodness from Himself to make man in his image. When people present a 'wonder God' metaphor that encompasses everything from the start then they have a carte blanche for any argument, therefore.................they see God in nature,.................they see god in Science....................they see God in human 'goings on'.............................etc, etc. They have a can't loose literal argument.You say that you have a uniquely spiritual relationship with this God. That does not work in that you cannot reference your actions in this matter to anything else you do. Isn't it more truthful to state that you are injecting emotive love into this relationship. Isn't it true that you are subjectively 'cherry picking' within this relationship , just like picking a vacation? Nothing we do is uniquely unrelated to our other actions. Your attempt to build this thing up only illustrates the fragility of its structure and it points to the copious amounts of self delusion that will be required to sustain it.The Jewish Biblical God Yahweh, did not initiate the feelings that you describe as your relationship with God.Yahweh was part of the tribal fabric of the Israelites, He was their tribal figurehead and he lead them in their wanderings, in their adversities and in their wars. He still does. He sold these people actual land in lieu of loyalty and he acted as a moral compass for them by which they could formulate and structure their society. There can only be one Yahweh and he belongs to the Jews of the Middle East. Yahweh is a figurehead, metaphorical concept for a nation and can be likened to 'Liberte' in the French psyche. Yahweh is a secular God of earth and earthly influence. You do not have a spiritual relationship with him, you obey him which means by default that you obey the leaders of your religion. You are by default 'a Jew' if you do this. I would consider this Yahweh as being real and regional and above all secular. He is not for me as I am not specifically Jewish. Con pleads...........' Indeed, a literally knowable God who can be discovered through scripture, prayer and science is not a metaphorical being. 'I'm afraid it is, Con. Thanks for continuing with this conversation and I look forward to your next submission.
God is Metaphorical

The summation of Pro's rebuttal seems to be that I have built a "perceived reality upon an accepted metaphor;" that if this God concept is a mere construct of my experience and not the real deal so to speak. Firstly, I do not see how this follows. Why must my concept of God needs be "extracted" from my perceived experience and not truly be represented of a literal God? Secondly, Pro fails to address my arguments and instead continues asserting that I am speaking of a metaphorical God. Pro asks, "Do you have a 'spiritual relationship' with anything else?" To which I answer: no I do not, my relationship with God is uniquely spiritual. However, suggesting this is a feeling or "hunch" of some kind is entirely subjective. This conjecture is even more unfounded given that I have provided an actual means beyond mere assertion by which God can be known to exist as I describe Him. Pro claims that he is "worried" for me because I have, ". . . produced a space travelling spiritual being that possesses the human traits of intelligence, and mercy, and that has given its 'listening ear' to man's situation." First of all, I said God transcends space-time, not travels through it. Secondly, according to the biblical account t of God as Creator, we have been endowed with some of His traits, not the other way around. God does not have human traits, but more precisely, humans have God's traits. I am worried that Pro has not addressed my claims and neither has he supported his argument. How does the claim that God is a "real" being get relinquished to the non-literal, figurative notion of a metaphor? Can Pro's whole argument not be seen as a metaphor by this arbitrary definition? Indeed, a literally knowable God who can be discovered through scripture, prayer and science is not a metaphorical being. If this be true, we are all metaphors so why even have this debate? Sounds silly to me. Maybe you can clear up this mess in the next round. Good luck and thanks for your time!