BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feed your children with cum

I don't think giving your children cum is a good idea. This is because it infringes on the law enforcing rights of the children. You said it felt good therefore justified. However, Just because something feels good does not mean it does good. This is Hedonism. If the long term effects are negative (molesting children does produce negative long term effects), Then the activity is immoral. Also, You mention it being like nursing. This is false because nursing provides nutrients to a baby that has no other way to get it. Giving them cum can spread STDs and provides almost no nutritional value. You said Jesus gave children cum? Giving cum is oral sex and Jesus never had sex because it was a requirement to be a preacher. He also had better things to do. The bible is against pedophilia.
Team Debate: God Exists

IntroductionPrefaceThis is a team debate. We (Team Con) thank Team Pro for accepting and having time to do this debate. Please do not accept this debate until the 29th of May, 2015. There is an Elo restriction of 2,000 to vote on this debate. There shall be 72 hours per round, with 4 rounds and a maximum of 10,000 characters per round.TeamsTeam Prosalam.morcos [http://www.debate.org...] lannan13 [http://www.debate.org...] creationtruth [http://www.debate.org...] Team Contejretics [http://www.debate.org...] n7 [http://www.debate.org...] Subutai [http://www.debate.org...] Full ResolutionGod likely exists. BoP is shared. DefinitionsGod: the immensely great, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, transcendent cause of the universe. Likely: probably; >50% chance of.Exist: have physical or metaphysical, objective reality. Note that Pro must attempt to prove God as defined exists, and Con must attempt to disprove it; thus, an argument saying "you cannot ascribe properties to a being unless it exists" is irrelevant. Rules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be in an external link or within the debate.3. No new arguments in any rounds except the opening round.4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. No deconstructional semantics.8. The BoP is shared -- Pro must argue that God likely exists, and Con must argue to the contrary.9. Pro must present their case in round one and waive the final round.10. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Debate StructureR1. Pro's caseR2. Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's caseR3. Con rebuts Pro's case, Pro defends, rebuts Con's case and crystallizesR4. Con defends, rebuts Pro's case and crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......again to Team Pro for accepting our challenge.
The eradication of chytrid fungus

Well, unfortunately my opponent never offered an argument of his own. With this in mind, I have nothing to refute. Fortunately for me, I am still able to make my own argument as to why we shouldn't eradicate the chytrid fungus Argument: Killing is immoral. We know this because the Bible says so in Exodus 20:13: "Thou shalt not kill." [1] Therefore we should not kill/eradicate the Chytrid fungus. Source: 1. http://biblehub.com...
The eradication of chytrid fungus

Chytrid fungus can be transported from place to place in water or mud, including on wet or muddy footwear. You can prevent spreading it by making sure to clean your shoes well and let them dry thoroughly between visits to different places. This is also true for anything else that will come into contact with water. To be extra safe, you can brush items clean and then disinfect them with a weak solution of bleach. Also, you can avoid transporting live animals from one place to another. Release of animals at Pinnacles is prohibited, even if they originally came from Pinnacles, since they may pick up diseases in captivity that can then spread to wild populations.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

Possibilities vs ImpossibilitiesPro nit picks at the details of my example of will it rain when looking at what it means to say something is possible or impossible. This doesn't deal with the substance of the point which was to show how the possibility of something until proven otherwise refutes that same something as impossible, in other words. .. If X is possible, then its false that X is impossible. As such the mere possibility that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil is enough to prove Pros claim that its impossible for God to have sufficient moral reason to allow evil as false. There is no explicit contradiction of God exists & Evil existsPro says. .. "The contradiction: why, then, would it be that a morally good (benevolent) deity would allow acts of evil to continue in the universe? There are only three possibilities:1. It doesn't know of the evil.2. it cannot stop the evil.3. It neither knows of nor is capable of stopping the evil. "I was surprised that Pro goes back to their original argument, albeit presented in a different way, as it only proves what I said in the last round, that being. .. "Pro already assumes here that its impossible for a benevolent entity to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil. Pro has not presented it as an option to be ruled out cause they already excluded it"I have presented a 4th possibility that being. .. .. .4. God has morally sufficient reason to allow evilAs such the "possibilities" of why a "morally good (benevolent) deity" allows evil to exist include. ..1. It doesn't know of the evil.2. It cannot stop the evil.3. It neither knows of nor is capable of stopping the evil. "4. It has morally sufficient reason to allow evilPro says. .. "An evil act is, by its nature, a morally wrong act. And someone who is morally good (or "of a kind and caring nature") would want to prevent morally wrong acts when it's within his/her power to do so. "Well no argument there about a person even a God of a kind and caring nature would want to prevent evil, I would go even further and say that God would prevent that evil. .. UNLESS it choose not too due to having morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil to exist. Suffice to say, Pro is dead wrong to say there are only 3 possibilities. We can grant Pro that the first 2 options are impossible and the 3rd option is just the first two options added together, but Pro hasn't shown the impossibility of the 4th option. As such this makes the existence of God and the existence of Evil logically compatible. ClosingI submit that not only is there no explicit contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of Evil, but also that the logical compatibility of the two is shown in the premise that "It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist". As such this is a "valid defence" to the logical problem of Evil that assumes that if Evil exists then its impossible for God to exist. The resolution that there is no "valid defense" to the problem of evil is negated. I ask the vote go to the Con.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

Thank you, Illegalcombatant, for your response.The contradiction between an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God and evil (again)My opponent asks "what is it that Pro understands about "God" and "Evil" that means the existence of one excludes the possibility of the others existence?"God: the only thing I claim to know about our hypothetical deity is that it knows everything, is capable of doing anything, and is of a kind and caring nature.Evil: without even rigidly defining which acts constitutes "evil", it should be evident that evil is, at the very least, the opposite of good. This was not meant to be a debate on what constitutes "good" or "evil", so I felt common sense could guide us adequately. Apparently, I was wrong.An evil act is, by its nature, a morally wrong act. And someone who is morally good (or "of a kind and caring nature") would want to prevent morally wrong acts when it's within his/her power to do so.The contradiction: why, then, would it be that a morally good (benevolent) deity would allow acts of evil to continue in the universe? There are only three possibilities:1. It doesn't know of the evil.2. it cannot stop the evil.3. It neither knows of nor is capable of stopping the evil.If it is in any way, be it with a different structure or diction, possible to articulate the contradiction posed by the problem of evil clearer than I have in this debate, then I'm sorry, but I just don't know it.My opponent then tries to put my position in an unreasonably rigid light, by comparing the impossibility of a logical contradiction to exist with the impossibility of precipitation tomorrow. This analogy would be far more fitting if it specified the location of the precipitation to exist on, say, the sun.It seems I have only repeated what I've already said for the third time in this debate, but only because my arguments continue to remain unchallenged in a substantiated way. I urge you to consider the validity of both of our arguments and to vote accordingly.Thank you, Illegalcombatant, for debating this with me. It was fun after all these months to battle philosophies again.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

He has this to say concerning my comparison of the problem of evil to a circular square: "This is an inept analogy, a necessary condition of a shape being a square is that the shape have 4 right angles. A circle does not have 4 right angles thus it is not a square. " So far so good. He goes on: "As such there is no logical equivalence here between the claim that its possible for a square too be a circle and the claim that it's possible for God to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil. "I find it regrettable that I must say this again, so I will do so as articulately as I possibly can, and I will do so in the same manner as my opponent did to explain other logical contradictions:For example. ..1. This shape is a circle.2. This shape has four sides. We recognize this is a logical contradiction once we understand that a "circle" is a "shape with zero sides". Equally. ..1. God is benevolent.2. God does not stop evil. We also recognize this is a logical contradiction once we realize that "benevolent" means "of a kind and/or caring nature". My opponent quotes William Lane Craig, who also admits to seeing no contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil. Without any further information, there IS no contradiction between evil and God. However, we are talking about a specific kind of deity, one with these properties:1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. A deity CAN exist in this universe alongside evil. All that we can infer from that would be the deity does not have one or more of the properties listed above. It could be ignorant of the evil; it could be unable to stop it; it could be malevolent; or it could be all three. He says I have nothing to support my premise that "It is not possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist". My reasons are those mentioned above and in my previous arguments (specifically, in my first round, where I concisely explain the problem of evil). Ironic considering it is my opponent who has made a claim without support: "It IS possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist". He has given us no idea what this "morally sufficient reason" could be, nor has he even given us a reason to believe there's a reason. In conclusion, seeing as how my premise is actually supported by logical evidence, and my opponent's is not, I must assert that your vote should still go undoubtedly to Pro. I look forward to my opponent's next response.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

He asserts that "there is no EXPLICIT logical contradiction in [the problem of evil]. " I must disagree, however, as I've already explained the contradiction in detail. My opponent offers no basis at all for this objection. If there is something specific concerning the problem of evil that he does not understand, I urge him to point it out and I will clarify. Otherwise, it remains valid until challenged in a meaningful, substantiated way. Now on to my opponent's main argument for why evil exists in the face of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent deity: "It is possible for God to have [a] morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist. " I commend this argument for its remarkable vagueness. My opponent asserts that if I cannot prove there is some possibility that God would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then it stands as a valid defense. However, I can only repeat what I've already said: I HAVE given a reason why a deity (with the properties mentioned) and evil cannot both exist in the universe. Therefore, I disagree with this premise; there is NOT a possibility for God to have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist, and it will remain so until my opponent actually gives us a reason, not just wishful thinking. This argument is logically equivalent to "it is possible for a circle to be a square, and the truth of this statement stands until my opponent proves otherwise". Well, evil and an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent deity logically clash as much as a circle being a square, and the reasons for you to believe it could be differently remain nonexistent until a reason is given. In his next round, I urge my opponent to elucidate on his obscure statement. That is, I want him to give us a valid defense for the problem of evil, not just a statement proclaiming there might be a valid defense (as such a proclamation is worthless without something to support it–namely, an actually valid defense). Until then, your vote should undoubtedly go to Pro.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

I thank DakotaKrafick for creating this debateResolution/What this debate is aboutI as the Con will seek to show that there is no logical contradiction and/or impossibility of the existence of God and the existence of Evil. If I can show this, then this would show that the problem of evil does have a valid defense and thus the resolution is negated.The existence of God and the existence of EvilPro claims that the existence of evil and the existence of God is a logical contradiction, but there is no EXPLICIT logical contradiction in these two claims. An additional premise of the possibility of God having morally sufficient reason to allow evil helps highlight the logical compatibility of the existence of God and the existence of Evil.1) God exists2) It is possible for God to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist3) Evil existsIn order to claim that the existence of evil proves God does not exist, Pro would have to prove that it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil.Until proven other wise, the possibility that God has morally sufficent reason to allow evil is a valid defense to the problem of evil and thus the resolution is negated.Over to you Pro.
The problem of evil has no valid defense.

I thank my future opponent and the viewers for making this debate possible. The problem of evil is an argument against a specifically-defined type of deity, and is as follows: It is logically impossible for both evil to exist and for an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent deity to exist simultaneously in this universe. The reasons being are fairly simple: only a deity who is intrinsically malevolent (or at least apathetic) would both be aware of the atrocities in the universe and be able to put an end to them, yet do nothing about them. And a deity who is benevolent would only allow these atrocities to continue if it is either unaware of their existence or unable to stop them, or both. By accepting this debate, my opponent must agree to the following axioms/definitions: 1. Evil exists. 2. Omniscient: having knowledge of everything. 3. Omnipotent: capable of doing anything. 4. Benevolent: of a kind and caring nature. The problem of evil is the only argument I shall put forth in this debate; the rest is up to my opponent to refute it, and for me to refute the refutations. (Note: my opponent doesn't have to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent deity exists, only that such a being is not logically contradictory in the same presence as evil. )
DDO WORLD CUP: Due Process for Non-Citizens in the U.S.

PrefaceThis debate is part of Daytona's World Cup Tournament. Voting is open to everyone w/ 2000 ELO or more, but it is an up-or-down win-loss ballot. I would like to thank Fanath for agreeing to this topic, and for agreeing to take a devil's advocate position (Pro) in order to get this debate off the ground. Normally I prefer 5-round debates, but, unfortunately, I will be departing for CatNats shortly (my first time as a judge)! I cannot guarantee that I will have internet access when I arrive in Chicago. Therefore, all response times are just 48 hours, and there are only four rounds. It is my hope that this debate will conclude prior to the 22nd of May. To this end, I ask that Fanath accept this challenge quickly.Full TopicThe United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizensBOPBOP is shared. Pro must show that non-citizens deserve the aforesaid rights, whereas Con must should that such rights ought not to be extended.Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: Pro Presents His CaseR2: Con's Case; Pro's RebuttalsR3: RebuttalsR4: Con's Rebuttals; Pro PassesThanks......once again to Fanath! I look forward to a good debate :)
The US government is funding ISIS!

I'm just going to do a line-by-line style rebuttal:"So, your first argument is you explaining your rulesand trying to tell honest voters what to do, basically calling them stupid, which they arent,"Actually, I'm attempting to help the voters out. See, generally voters shouldn't vote for something that's not said in the debate. So I was explaining my personal standpoint against my opponent's case in order to ensure that voters could use that as a voting point for sure. Not that they couldn't vote on that anyway, but I'm just making this more comfortable and clear. "so quit trying to bribe them to win." That dangling modifier is killing me. But now onto the actual statement, I'm going to define bribe for you. Bribe: to try to get someone to do something by giving or promising something valuable (such as money) : to give or offer a bribe to (someone). [1] I didn't offer anyone anything to get them to vote for me. I just reminded everyone that you need to give us evidence. "The guns COULD be coming from anywhere else but they AREN'T!!!" You could at least give a little evidence considering the vast amount of possibilities you're just casually dismissing. "What do you think the CIA does with their weapons overseas," Probably keep them handy or use them in some possible scenarios. "why are they mysteriously dissapraring out of the blue." Well you know how to use periods and exclamation points thoroughly, but I guess question marks got lost on you. Aside from my grammar nazi reign, I do have something to say about this. According to all of the evidence you posted in the last round, no guns are disappearing from the CIA. "It is George Bush and the CIA funding ISIS in order to bring more attention away from the fact that they are brainwashing society, and it looks like it has worked on you." Well, it's a good thing that George Bush still has a signficant pull in the CIA, and you still don't have evidence.Now, I'm going to remind you of my arguments:My opponent hasn't presented reputable evidence, and there are literally hundreds of other ways that ISIS could be getting their weapons. These two points haven't actually been properly disputed. My points carry on, and my opponent has nothing supporting his case. Thanks for reading.
The US government is funding ISIS!

So, your first argument is you explaining your rulesand trying to tell honest voters what to do, basically calling them stupid, which they arent, so quit trying to bribe them to win. The guns COULD be coming from anywhere else but they AREN'T!!! What do you think the CIA does with their weapons overseas, why are they mysteriously dissapraring out of the blue. It is George Bush and the CIA funding ISIS in order to bring more attention away from the fact that they are brainwashing society, and it looks like it has worked on you.
The US government is funding ISIS!

Well, thanks for this debate. While I do enjoy getting screamed at as much as the next guy, let's try to tone it down a little bit.I just have a couple things to say.1) In order for my opponent to win, he must substantiate his claims. His substatiation consist of claiming that guns aren't cheap and that the guns must be coming from somewhere. And exclamation points. He used lots of those to back up his claim. Here's the thing though, he's making a claim against the norm, which means he needs to back it up with some reputable evidence.2) The guns could be coming from literally anywhere else. Some country in the Middle East could be funding them, some rich guy could be funding them, they could just steal everything they need, they could be supplied by a country that's not even in the Middle East that's not even America. There are so many other options that what my opponent presents is like a fraction of the possibilities out there. That means the resolution is not affirmed.Thanks for reading.
The US government is funding ISIS!

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I feel really ignored. It's not a good feeling. Probably worth a loss of conduct points if we're being fair about it. I've asked my opponent several times throughout the debate to provide me with evidence, and he doesn't even acknowledge that I said that. The best he offered was to say that we could triangulate the position of where the guns were coming from. First of all, that's not even how it works. Second of all, unless he actually posts the evidence, he is asking you as the voters to go to the Middle East, infiltrate an ISIS hideout, steal some of their guns, identify them, then do some incredibly difficult research to find out if those guns came from the CIA. That's not even close to proper evidence. So yeah, I saw where my opponent claimed that George Bush and the CIA we're finding ISIS, but I didn't see where that claim was backed up. My opponent currently has the credibility that a bag of marshmallows has on the contents of earl grey tea. Thank you for reading this debate.
Cannabis has been celebrated for thousands of years and is a gift from God.

Other evidence that supports use of cannabis for spiritual and religious reasons in ancient times come from India and Nepal from the Atharva Veda, a sacred text of Hinduism, and one of the four Vedas, often called the "fourth Veda". The Atharva Veda is estimated to have been written sometime around 2000–1400 BC,[2] which mentions cannabis as one of the "five sacred plants"[1]. This is one of the earliest mentions of the plant for sacred uses.Source:https://www.cnsproductions.com...;
Cannabis has been celebrated for thousands of years and is a gift from God.

Cannabis has been celebrated for thousands of years and is a gift from God. Only within the last century has it been demonized by man, probably beginning in America. With new research and revelations becoming available to us (and rather painstakingly), can we now realize this. I will offer evidence and sources that study this issue. I'd like to keep this debate based on facts rather than opinions. So please offer your research that contradicts this statement.