BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophilia and homosexuality are inseparable. Therefore, homosexuality should be stigmatized

Con said, "Instead, they have provided data & examples which show an -association- between homosexuality and pedophilia - there is nothing, however, that supports the absolutist nature of the original claim" Con admitted that I provided data and examples which show the association between homosexuals and pedophiles. According to the definitions of "inseparable' and 'association', I'm CORRECT. Association - a group of people organized for a joint purpose. a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations. An association is a connection and a link which makes homosexuals and pedophiles inseparable Inseparable unable to be separated or treated separately. Again, it's literally impossible to separate all the gay heroes from pedophile heros because many gay heroes ARE pedophile heroes . I provided the data in round 2. This alone makes gays and pedophiles inseparable. They share the same heroes. It's like cousins sharing the same grandparents. They are linked forever. It's literally impossible to even educate kids on the the key names who were instrumental in the history of gay rights without mentioning the names pedophiles. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to treat all gay leaders separately from pedophile leaders because many of them are the same people. From Ancient Greece to the 1960"s to 2015, gays continuously show their indisputable link between gays and pedophiles. Like I mentioned in round 2, in 2015, the gay movement pushed to give a pedophile a postage stamp. Yes, his name is Harvey Milk. In conclusion, the definiition of ' inseparable' (unable to be separated or treated separately) applies to gays and pedophiles perfectly. From ancient Greece to the 1960's to 2015, gays are still being led by pedohiles.. The UN even cancelled a gay organizations membership because they were allies with pedophiles. The data is posted in round 2. That didn't even work because in 2014, a top gay leader was charged with child rape. '
Pedophilia and homosexuality are inseparable. Therefore, homosexuality should be stigmatized

Pro has given no data that definitively supports his assertion that homosexuality is *inseparable* from pedophilia. Instead, they have provided data & examples which show an -association- between homosexuality and pedophilia - there is nothing, however, that supports the absolutist nature of the original claim. Furthermore, much of the data provided has either been twisted or misunderstood by Pro. For example, Pro claimed that the first study cited fond that "the number of gay pedophiles is disproportionately higher than the number of heterosexual pedophiles". This is not the case - what the study actually found was that "among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference". Quote from Dr. Robin Wilson, co-author of the study: "In all other research we conducted, we never found that androphilic (i.e., a preference for male adults) men had any greater relative erotic interest in children than did their gynephilic (i.e., a preference for female adults) peers." (1) Even if all the data (& accompanying interpretation) were entirely correct (which it is not), then it would still not support Pro's premise. The rest of Pro's response consisted of examples of prominent homosexuals & gay activists (sometimes only allegedly) engaging in sexual misconduct. While it's fairly apparent that, even if all these cases were indisputably true (which many likely are), this would do nothing to either support a generalized claim regarding homosexuals (since a total of under 20 individual cases have been presented - certainly not representative of the general homosexual population), or his original, absolutist claim *on the nature of homosexuality itself*. What's more, many of these examples had nothing to do with the association of homosexuality and pedophilia in the first place. For example, the case of Carl DeMaio, children were not involved at all. The allegations were directed by his former campaign policy director. Russel Stalk's rape charges, likewise, had nothing to do with children. Citations and sources: 1) http://newsmanager.commpartners.com...
babies are born agonistic, not atheist

This should be pretty easy though, since the definitions are pretty clear. An agnostic holds the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of god. Babies hold no opinions at all on matters such as this, and it is clear that they lack a belief in this area. Babies are incapable of reaching a conclusion to support a belief like this, and are incapable of being agnostic, since it requires the belief of something. Babies cannot believe something this complex at birth. The lack of belief is natural to babies. At birth we don't come out believing in god, certain political ideals, or different economic policies. Babies fit the definition of Atheist. I'll now address my opponent's points:"the definitions prove my point. the second defintionshows that the agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelief in God. babies don't either, nor as tehy grow into awareness. "Actually agnostics believe that nothing can be known about the existence of god. Since babies are incapable of such a belief, babies aren't agnostics. "con's definitio of atheist is a poor one, if hetries to argue that it says 'lacks belief' in God so therefor they are atheist. agnostics lack faith in God too. that doesn't mean they are atheists. atheists reject the notion of God, at least to some degree. for that reaosn, babies growing into awareness are not atheist. "My opponent is misinformed. The majority of atheists lack a belief in god, not make the positive statement that god doesn't exist. The vast majority of atheists define themselves as negative atheists as opposed to positive atheists. Either way, both fall under the category of atheism. "Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. [1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none. "(. http://en.wikipedia.org...)
babies are born agonistic, not atheist

con just gave definitions. i dont see why he didn't just start arguing to begin with. the definitions prove my point. the second defintionshows that the agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelief in God. babies don't either, nor as tehy grow into awareness. con's definitio of atheist is a poor one, if hetries to argue that it says 'lacks belief' in God so therefor they are atheist. agnostics lack faith in God too. that doesn't mean they are atheists. atheists reject the notion of God, at least to some degree. for that reaosn, babies growing into awareness are not atheist.
junk food is okay for your body

Junk Food: food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation. Junk Foods are caloric foods with little to no nutritional value. Junk Food includes, but is not limited to candy, French fries, cake, and ice cream. Junk Foods are typically very high in fat and calories. A Burger King's Whopper is around 830-990 calories (ranging on whether there is or isn't mayonnaise). A McDonald's Big Mac was 540 calories (S1). A McDonald’s Big Mac, not-to-mention, possesses around 33 grams. A medium-sized McDonald's French fries is 384 calories, with 20 grams of fat. The estimated total amount of calories for one meal, consisting of a McDonald's Big Mac, medium-sized French fries, and a medium-sized vanilla shake is approximately 1,680 calories and 74 grams of fat (S2). The recommended amount of calories for a typical lunch is relatively 400 calories, and taking into account how little nutritional content there is, I can confidently conclude that junk food is unhealthy. This, however, is not to say that you can have junk foods every once in a while, but I advise to only have junk foods in moderation. There are countless more healthy alternatives, and to suggest that junk food is healthy is a fairly inaccurate claim. I turn this argument over to pro. I hope that pro can explain why he or she believes that junk food is healthy with proper evidence and safe to include in our regular diet. Sources: S1) http://www.popsugar.com... S2) http://www.infoplease.com...
The environmentalists and the White House are to blame (not physically) for the oil spill.

Okay, in recapitulation: my opponent has repeatedly argued that nebulous environmentalists argued that we should drill off the coast, rather than close in, without presenting any sources that confirm this. I can't find any environmentalists that supported this either, so basically that point is false. Second, an oil spill closer to the coast would in no way minimize the damage, although it would arguably be easier to repair. However, on this first point there is absolutely no evidence that environmentalists or the white house in any way forced drilling rigs into deeper waters. Second, my opponent has suggested that since other ideas to contain the leak have failed, we should use his. He seems to think that Jindal's artificial islands plan is the only other possible solution, and therefore that it is the best one. This is not the case. In addition, oil has already hit beaches and wetlands, so cleaning artificial beaches would be a chore on top of the already difficult cleanup of the aforementioned areas. On the third point my opponent makes in his rebuttal I will admit that I got off topic with the solar plant snark. I did in fact get off topic, I was meaning to make a slightly different analogy but I got wrapped up. My mistake here, however, in no way detracts from the rest of my argument, nor does it lend any credibility to my opponent's theory. Finally, pro has restated that if the spill were in shallow waters it would be easier to clean. This is in part true, but a) neither environmentalists nor the white house FORCED BP to drill where it was drilling, and b) Deepwater Horizon was actually very close to the coast- only about 50 miles away. Unless my opponent is suggesting that harsher regulations should have been put on BP to keep it from drilling where it did, which does not at all seem the case, it can in no way be argued that environmentalists or the White House are at fault for the massive damage caused by leaking oil. Pro has cited no sources other than his own personal opinion and hearsay, which is unfortunately inadequate for a debate setting. I believe that I have disproved his claims beyond a shadow of a doubt, although there was not much of a shadow to go beyond, as weakly supported as they were to begin with.
The environmentalists and the White House are to blame (not physically) for the oil spill.

How they could have prevented it? Well you see the left decided it would be more environmentally friendly drill somewhere five miles underwater, rather than up close to the coastline. That way if there were an oil spill it would be hurtful. Which was actually what I had said before. But now we have an oil spill, and we can't do anything about because of the "ideas and precautions" of the left. Yes, the artificial island and beaches ideas would take a lot of time and money, but how many ideas have worked so far? The top kill has failed, and pretty much every other plan. So what choice do we have? And why waste your time staging on real beaches when you could be cleaning on artificial beaches where no damage is done. Your point: "I don't see a big solar plant explosion killing eleven and contaminating the air for thousands making the news. . . In addition, BP failed to take basic safety precautions on the drilling rig, and didn't install a device that would have shut down the wellhead in exactly a case like this. BP is also using a chemical, Corexit, that has many safer and less toxic alternatives, in enormous quantities.", I'm not sure if you thought I meant that it was actually the White House's fault physically for the oil spill, but if that were the case that would be false information. Look at the title of the debate. How they could have prevented it? By not taking the chance of an oil spill in deep waters. If the oil spill were closer to the coastline, this problem would have been fixed a lot sooner if not already. Which you stated in your quote of me. Which seems to me doesn't make sense to you.
The environmentalists and the White House are to blame (not physically) for the oil spill.

Environmentalists and the White House have been taking extreme action when it comes to offshore drilling. They proposed that it would be more environmentally friendly to drill five miles underwater, than in shallower areas near the coastline of the U.S. in case of an oil spill. Well guess what, there is an oil spill now and we can't do anything about it. Good job. First, the environmentalists complain that if we burn the oil away, it could cause air pollution. Second, a governor from Louisiana, I can't recall his name, proposed we should build artificially made beaches and islands to soak up all the oil, which by the way is an excellent idea, but the environmentalist and the White House think that could be environmentally harmful. So if you look closely, the environmentalists are doing more damage to the environment with their "ideas and precautions" than if we didn't consider them. They are not to blame for the oil spill actually physically happening, but could have easily prevented it from happening in the first place. Or if they had drilled somewhere closer to the coastline of the U.S., where it is more shallow, they could have easily cleaned up all the oil within a short period of time.
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

Since my opponent forfeited the last round, I have no arguments to rebut this round. However, I would like to post new rebuttals to my opponent's previous arguments. 1. "Spongebob can easily call upon his best friend, Patrick Star, Who can eat Pretty much anything as seen by quite a few of the episodes. If that doesn't work he can just sit on the robot until it of course explodes, breaks, runs out of battery, etc. " 2. "Spongebob can do what many classic TV shows have been doing all around the world. He could just hold up a famous Krabby Patty and make every citizen in Bikini Bottom to run over Plankton while they may be fighting. " These two arguments break the rules stated in Round 1 of the debate. In round 1, I state that: "In a one-on-one battle to a fight that ends when one of the battlers become unconscious. .. " Note the "one-on-one battle". However, in my opponents two arguments above, he mentions Spongebob summoning Patrick Star or the Bikini Bottom citizens, and that breaks the rules. Therefore, these two arguments are void and invalid. However, since it is likely that my opponent will try to prove that Plankton's inventions break the rules, I will demonstrate how they do not break the rules. Plankton's inventions can be his tools, or weapons. However, Patrick and the mob are living organisms that aid Spongebob, making the battle not a one-on-one. Plankton's inventions are not organisms, but tools, and therefore this battle is still one-on-one due to his inventions. With that said, all of my opponent's arguments have been rebutted. ----------- That's all.
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

I shall post my rebuttals before my argument. 1. "You specifically said that this debate is about the show 'Spongebob Squarepants.' Though in these first two arguments you have been talking about inventions from the VIDEO GAMES, and not from the actual show." The title of the debate indicates that the two battlers are from "Spongebob Squarepants." However, it was never specified that the extent of this battle was limited to the episodes, or did I ever say that they have to be from the episodes. Considering the fact that the two video games I've mentioned in arguments 1 and 2 are part of the "Spongebob Squarepants" franchise, and the two video games bear the "Spongebob Squarepants" logo, my arguments are still valid. 2. "Spongebob can easily call upon his best friend, Patrick Star, who can eat pretty much anything as seen by quite a few of the episodes. If that doesn't work, he can just sit on the robot until it of course explodes, breaks, runs out of batter, etc." I agree that Spongebob can call Patrick. I also agree that Patrick can eat through many substances. However, I doubt that Patrick can digest, let alone swallow, solid metal. In fact, Patrick has never been shown to eat metal in the series. Therefore, it must be assumed that Patrick can not just simply eat "Robo Krabs." Considering my previous arguments are still valid, Plankton can simply use his Enlargetron to make the Robo Krabs bigger and prevent Patrick from simply sitting on top of Robo Krab. 3. "Spongebob can do what many classic TV shows have been doing all around the world. He could just hold up a famous Krabby Patty and make every citizen in Bikini Bottom to run over Plankton while they may be fighting." I am not sure if Spongebob can hold up a Krabby Patty and cause the Bikini Bottom citizens to run over Plankton. However, should that happen, Plankton can simply brainwash them with the "Chum is Fum" slogan, (evidenced in the Spongebob Episode: Chum Bucket Supreme). At that point, they would stop attacking him, and he could feed some of them chum to make them sick. The other brainwashed citizens will move away, not wanting to get sick. Should Spongebob try to interfere, an enlargened Robo Krabs could prevent Spongebob or Patrick from interfering. Should all else fail and Plankton be trampled, he will not be rendered unconscious. Because Plankton has frequently been squashed by multiple characters throughout the series, his body has grown resistant enough to remain conscious despite being trampled. Argument. 1. Plankton can use his "Mind-controlling Chum buckets" (from the "Spongebob Squarepants Movie) to sabotage Patrick into attacking Spongebob. After Spongebob summons Patrick, Plankton, in his larger Robo Krabs, can grab Patrick and force the bucket onto Patrick's head. Under Plankton's control, Patrick would proceed to attack Spongebob, and Spongebob would not be skilled enough to take on both of them at once. Spongebob would be rendered unconscious from their combined attacks. This can also be used against the mob Spongebob summons against Plankton using the famous Krabby Patty.
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

Well, I would like to immediately post my argument...Rebuttals1 & 2You specifically said that this debate is about the show Spongebob Squarepants" Though in these first two arguments you have been talking about inventions from the VIDEO GAMES, and not from the actual show.3Spongebob can easily call upon his best friend, Patrick Star, Who can eat Pretty much anything as seen by quite a few of the episodes. If that doesn't work he can just sit on the robot until it of course explodes, breaks, runs out of battery, etc.ArgumentsSpongebob can do what many classic TV shows have been doing all around the world. He could just hold up a famous Krabby Patty and make every citizen in Bikini Bottom to run over Plankton while they may be fighting.
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

In addition, I accept the rules that my opponent has proposed. Now, on to the debate! 1. Plankton's use of the "Enlargetron" can aid him in battle. Plankton has invented various items throughout the Spongebob series, and can use him in his aid during this battle. The Enlargetron is a machine Plankton invented that can make anything bigger, shown in the Spongebob video-game "Creature from the Krusty Krab. " Plankton can then proceed to use the Enlargetron on himself to make him bigger, preventing Spongebob from simply squashing Plankton with his shoe. At the very least, Plankton will be big enough to not be easily squashed. It is possible for Plankton to be big as Spongebob, or even larger. The use of the Enlargetron gives him better defense in the form of size. 2. Plankton can use his "Hypno-Pod", shown in the online Spongebob game "Plankton's Pernicious plot". The Hypno-Pod, another invention by Plankton, hypnotizes jellyfish into becoming his slaves, giving Plankton control over them. Once gaining control of the Jellyfish, Plankton can simply direct them to attack Spongebob. The Jellyfish can give Spongebob enough of an electrical shock to make his body and heart to suffer a shock, and thus rendering him unconscious. 3. Plankton can use the "Robo Krabs" as a good defense and offense against Spongebob. The robot is a fake Mr. Krabs. It is made of a hard metal. Plankton can simply enter this robot whilst fighting Spongebob. Spongebob cannot simply punch, kick, or use his karate skills to break the robot, considering the strength of the robot. The robot has sharp claws that can be used to crush Spongebob's arms, and even his eyes. Plankton is also skilled enough with the robot, to the point where he could perform random acts with it in order to prove he was the real Mr. Krabs to Spongebob, in the Spongebob episode "Imitation Krabs". Sources: - The Spongebob Video Game, "Creature from the Krusty Krab. " - The Spongebob Online Game, "Plankton's Pernicious Plot. " - The Spongebob Episode, "Imitation Krabs. "
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

Well, I shall except a bit early but not post my arguments till tomorrow or sometime later. I accept your debate but, I would like to add a few more rules if you shall let me...Rules:1. No over godly powers that have an exceedingly strong abilities that will give an very strong disadvantage to the other player. Ex: Things that are unstoppable such as Controlling or splitting atoms?2. Just have fun!Alright, let this debate commence!
Plankton vs Spongebob, from "Spongebob Squarepants"

There will be no abuse of semantics, dictionaries, or anything linguistic. In a one-on-one battle to a fight that ends when one of the battlers become unconscious, Plankton could defeat Spongebob. My opponent will be for Con, and they must prove that Spongebob could defeat Plankton in the type of situation. -As my first debate, I am excited to see how a debate will be!
Is Christianity a repulsive religion

My opponent's base argument is that the Bible does not deliver, but I point that they are ignorant in the words of God. Clearly you cannot argue that what the Bible says will be the end is false becaus the end has not been. There is no possible way that you can prove that the ending the Bible states will be different from the end of the world, so this is a fallacious argument. You cannot determine what the perfect word of God is unless you are God himself, so there is another fallacious argument. Your arguments are riddled with fallacy that does not prove that Christianity is a repulsive religion.Also, yes there are many stories that have morale themes in them, but these books are not worshipped- if they are, it is not near as widely as Christianity is. Therefore, Christianity is not a repulsive religion as I have proved. Your entire argument is "I don't know Christianity, however i will argue that the Bible doesn't deliver what it preaches," which is entirely fallacious.
Is Christianity a repulsive religion

I'm not sure myself if I believe in God or not. I do agree that sometimes it is annoying to hear people preaching about their religion and forcing others to follow in their footsteps. However, because this seems opinion based and doesn't require sources or evidentiary support, I will explain why I do not believe Christianity is a repulsive religion.Christianity through their sermons(?) and Holy Book (Bible), shows the path to purity and righteousness. Throughout the Bible, there are hints of overcoming temptation, following what you believe in and scattered lessons on morals and how to conduct oneself. With so many pure lessons and a strict avoidance of sin and evil, it would be illogical to call Christianity a repulsive religion whether or not you choose to believe in and follow the religion.