BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Argument for god

Ok I will start by saying that I am not religious in any way and that I think all religions are just ways to control people, I hope that one day they are all made illegal. But I do not think you can possibly put forward any evidence, not even a shred that can disprove the existence of an intelligent being having created the universe, or even just earth and the first living organisms on it. Infact there is more evidence to point towards an intelligent creator than to say its all random chance, such as laws, the laws of physics that are a mathematical rule book governing all things that also mean from the original creation on the universe someone with infinite knowledge of the rules could have planed every single movement of every atom with the one action. Until other intelligent life came along by the massively slim chance that we did which is odd in its self. You will also probably say if there is a greater who created him? Well before you do I obviously cannot answer that. Can you answer this question. If there was a big bang where did all of the energy come from? And if it came from another dimension when was that dimension created? And so on, it's impossible to disprove the existence of of a great powerful intelligent being but the simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics may just show the existence of an artist.
Argument for god

I propose a debate on an argument for existence of a god. In my opponenets first post he/she should provide one argument for the existence of a god, along with a definition that follows this argument. This debate will be on that one argument. Give me whatever you got: Kalam, TAG, Ontological, what ever you got I'll attempt to disprove it. There is 4 rounds and 5000 character limit. Dropped points infers conceding of point. Sources can be put in comments so as to save room.
Donald Trump is sensationalised in countries other than the USA

One point stands out within the case of the negative... he seems poised to win. Elections take place across America to decide which president would be the best for the country. Is the negative stating that all Americans are stupid for voting for an insane and racist leader. Is the negative under the impression that Trump is insane and racist due to sensationalism. If the entire world is against and America is for him, doesn't this say something about sensationalism in other countries?
Donald Trump is sensationalised in countries other than the USA

Donald Trump doesn't need to be sensationalised, his policies are just so crazy that the rest of the world cannot comprehend why so many Americans have been voting for them. From the point of the view of the rest of the world, for the last 8 years, America has been run by a President whose policies are extremely progressive when compared to Bush. Now we have Trump, whose policies are either a) Racist or b) Insane. In any other country, he would bomb at the polls, but he seems poised to win.
Donald Trump is sensationalised in countries other than the USA

Memes, hate club pages and phony news articles cover the internet and advocate the ideas of Donald Trump in a hateful way. This has imposed a general dislike for the politician within our population. Is this deserved? For many people in countries other than the USA, the true motives of the politician are sometimes questioned. America is a large world power and honest interpretations of the president seem to be essential in the smooth running of a fragile world.
Random Storytelling!

Staring at the picture, he drew an Object Hospital behind it all. Suddenly, broken and tattered, he at this wonderful idea. He sat around all day and waited. Waited and waited. About 2 days of waiting, someone saw how broken and tattered he ways. He was put in a stinky coat pocket. He hated coat pockets. Luckily, the person was heading right where he hoped. To the Object Hospital! He was starting to get hopeful. Will this guy fix him, or throw him away?
Random Storytelling!

Filthy and defeated, Pierre looked hopelessly at his choice of weaves. They seemed to be taunting him, and his sadness grew. What did he expect? A stylist to fix a weave onto a paintbrush? He dragged himself back to Hobby Lobby and, ignoring the taunts of the other paintbrushes, he dipped his bald tip into some point. Hopelessly, and began making dots little brown dots in the shape of a dog. Pierre stared at the dog in shock. Excitedly, he began filling in more dots, then dotted grass in around it. He felt his heart racing as he created men and women and trees and boats. All with dots. It was beautiful.
Random Storytelling!

It was in the dark, smelly coat pocket where Pierre got thinking. He had come to the Hospital pursuing plastic surgery, but he was beginning to have his doubts. He was perfectly content with his handle, he just needed a nice shock of bristles. It was then that it hit him. It wasn't plastic surgery he needed, it was a weave! Excitedly, the bald paintbrush threw himself from the coat and rolled away towards a salon.
Random Storytelling!

One day, Pierre decided to hitch a ride to the People Hospital. There, he could find all sorts of things BETTER than a brush. He rolled off his shelf, and saw a jacket someone must've dropped. He rolled into the right pocket. After about 1 day of waiting, someone picked up the coat and put it on. The ride on this person was bumpy, so this person must be limping. What luck! The ride of the People Transportation Thingy was bumpy as well. Finally, he arrived at the People Hospital. The man walked in an hung up his coat on a Coat Stand. Dang it! How will he ever get to the People Hospital's supplies now?
Random Storytelling!

*Rules: I will begin the story. My opponent will pick up where I left off. Then I will pick up where he left of, etc. Each entry will be no more than 2000 characters. The ideal entries we will be looking for are creative and light, though still have a clear storyline.* Once upon a time, in the mysterious halls of Hobby Lobby, there lived a little paintbrush by the name of Pierre. He was a very expensive paintbrush, slender in shape and vivid red in color. His smooth handle widened in the center and formed a fine point at the end. However, despite his pleasing proportions, none of the other paintbrushes wanted anything to do with him. They all had nice, soft bristles that created swoops and slashes and swirls. On the other hand, little Pierre had the terrible misfortune of being bald. He couldn't make swoops and swirls, he could only make dots. Dots were so basic, so predictable, Pierre could hardly stand it when he turned to the paper. So one night, as the manager's car disappeared for the night, Pierre decided that something was going to change.
Random Storytelling!

Unluckily, no one would buy him because he looked like trash. One day, a man grabbed him and put him in his coat pocket. He drove far, and he finally arrived at the Object Hospital! He filled in his chipped-off spots and made him look like the best paint brush in the town! He even added bristles! However, when he arrived back at Hobby Lobby, he looked so fine, no one recognized him as he returned to the shelves!
The Quran is from God

Resolved: The Quran is from God Definitions Quran: The sacred writings of Islam revealed to the prophet Muhammad during his life at Mecca and Medina. God: The Tri Omni Creator of the Universe. BOP (Burden of Proof) is shared Rules: No Forfeits. A forfeit will result in a 7 point loss. No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post Argument 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Acceptance in R1 Follow the debate structure Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Acceptance Round 2: My argument + Con's arguments and rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals from both parties Round 4: Rebuttals from both parties Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.
The Quran is from God

My opponent have presented poor arguments in order to present his case, his arguments offered the pure meaning of vagueness and reaching, and of course, arguments that comes around that block come with fallacies. It is quite clear that the initial (And final) four arguments presented were quite lacking, which leads to the conclusion that my opponent is too sure or determent to be selective of the quality of his arguments. The Quran is not a book of science, but since it is a book of God, it is absolutely accurate, the Quran is suitable for every time period, so it should be noted how cleverly, yet accurately the Quran have been regarding the scientific aspect. My opponent's weak understanding of philosophy is quiet striking, the fact that he claims and insists an argument lacking any true preposition is a sound argument, which misses the whole point of philosophy, just go and count his fallacies and take a look at desperate rebuttals.
The Quran is from God

Conclusion. Keep under 1000 characters. I would like to say I cut some of the verses due to space limitations. I gave 4 reasons to think the Quran is not divine. Pro responded to 3/4. In my first argument, Pro didn't address my the verses until the last argument round. Even then he went after one I didn't cite. He tries to form together the idea that the Quran is Heliocentric, but it's vague, unlike the verses I cited. In my second argument, he ignored the main problem and didn't understand what I was getting at. He dropped tons of stuff in my third argument. He concedes that he can't prove the Quran is from God, so he attacked philosophy. He admits he committed an argument from ignorance and twisted around sources claiming it's not always fallacious. His responses to my rebuttals were mainly based on misunderstanding of what I was saying or ignoring me. Such as his argument 1, 2 and sub arguments 2 & 3. In his argument 3 he only addressed the sub arguments. Thanks Pro.
Taxation is not theft

Taxes: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.http://dictionary.reference.com...Theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another;http://dictionary.reference.com...The definitions provided above are for the purposes of avoiding semantics. Con may challenge the definitions in whole or in part but must provide a valid argument consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the resolution to suport his/her disagreements.The country of reference in this debate will be the United States. The three main forms of taxation to be discussed will be income tax, sales tax, and property tax. Con may make an argument to include other forms of taxation, but must show why these other forms should be accepted as relevant to the general discussion. Remember that taxation is a broad term, and the resolution does not negate that it can be theft, but rather it negates that it is theft.Round 1 for acceptance, no new arguments in round 4. All other standard debate rules apply.VotersPlease take into account that this is an extremely biased topic. The winner should not be the debater whom you personally agree with, but whomever made the strongest argument in this debate. For more please read: http://www.debate.org...
Downloading Pirated Music Should Be Legal

“We do not see the effects of what piracy has on the economy largely because piracy still is a relatively uncommon crime.” It's not uncommon at all. According to a research paper by Colombia University: “Piracy is common.” Some 46% of adults have bought, copied, or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies. These practices correlate strongly with youth and moderately with higher incomes. Among 18-29 year olds, 70% have acquired music or video files this way.1 “Music is a good that has a cost of production. If we allow anyone and everyone to pirate this good at will, the profit margin for this good will decrease to almost non existent.” Most of an artist's revenue comes from sources that cannot be pirated, such as live concerts, so your claim is unfounded. According to a survey of 5,000 artists by the Northwestern University of Law, a measly 6% of a musician's total profit is derived from sound recordings:2 Furthermore, music piracy actually benefits artists. Pirated music is not lost money; it's actually increased recognition for the artist. Someone who is not willing to pay to test a certain type of music for the first time may be more than willing to try it for free. This person is now aware of an artist that he wasn't aware of before, and may purchase tickets to their concert. This same person is now also likely to spread the word about the artist to family and friends, whereas if the music could not have been obtained for free, he would not be able to do so. “if we set the legal precedent such that it is legal to steal digital intellectual property rights, industries such as video games and movies would also soon face the same problem.” You say they'd face the “same problem,” but I've demonstrated that there is no problem. Media piracy is free advertising for the product. It's a form of non-monetized demand that benefits both the producer and the consumer. “would you really want piracy to be legal if you knew that the quality and production of the media you consume would drop dramatically?” Media piracy is almost de facto legal anyways, and I've only seen an increase in the quality and production of the media I consume, despite a steady growth in the rates of piracy alongside with it. 1http://piracy.americanassembly.org... 2http://papers.ssrn.com...
Downloading Pirated Music Should Be Legal

I believe there are two sides to this argument that should be addressed. First, the economic ramifications that result in pirated music. Second the legal ramifications that could follow from such a ruling. The economic ramifications can be easily understood by looking at the classic "Free Rider Problem" in economics. We do not see the effects of what piracy has on the economy largely because piracy still is a relatively uncommon crime. Music is a good that has a cost of production. If we allow anyone and everyone to pirate this good at will, the profit margin for this good will decrease to almost non existent. Thus, there would be no incentive for music to be produced at a high quality (except out of the creative will of the artist) Second, if we set the legal precedent such that it is legal to steal digital intellectual property rights, industries such as video games and movies would also soon face the same problem. So then I ask you, would you really want piracy to be legal if you knew that the quality and production of the media you consume would drop dramatically?
Downloading Pirated Music Should Be Legal

“I ask you to please keep your arguments more succinct for the sake of our readers and myself.” I'm not sure I understand your complaint about the length of my arguments. Much of the previous round was spent quoting you; besides, before you accepted this debate, you were informed that each round had a limit of 10,000 characters. “As a mathematician I do not agree with you that it is reasonable to assume your 46% are repeat offenders.” Pirating 2 songs makes one a repeat offender. Please, use common sense when answering the following question: How many people pirate only 1 song in their entire lifetime? “It is true that the big players in the music industry make a good sum of their money from live performance, but as I showed in my previous post these are already established artists.” You did not show anything other than the salaries of popular bands. I could post the salaries of Obama and other politicians and use that to argue that all civilians are poor, but it doesn't make for a convincing argument. “You would not hear of new artists complaining about a lack of exposure because by definition they would not be exposed for you to know about them.” It's extremely free and simple to get enough exposure to complain about too little exposure. You can do it yourself very easily right now: by posting on this site's forum, which will turn up in a Google search. “The industry still makes money off of digital downloads because fortunately there are still people willing to pay and the number of people pirating is relatively low.” But you said that piracy is uncommon. Now you're saying it's relatively low? Here is a quote from your own source: “There is little debate that U.S. sound recordings are "pirated" in vast numbers in the U.S. and in international markets.” "As a consequence of global and U.S.-based piracy of sound recordings, the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in total output annually. Output includes revenue and related measures of economic performance." http://www.ipi.org...... That study is strongly biased. The author of the paper, Mr. Siwek, is clearly collecting a lot of money to do research for the International Intellectual Property Alliance; of course he's only going to publish research that supports the copyright industries. Here is a quote from your paper: “Mr. Siwek has published eleven studies on behalf of the International Intellectual Property Alliance ("IIPA") that analyzed in detail the economic importance of the U.S. "copyright" industries (including the sound recording industry) to the U.S. economy. In these studies, Mr. Siwek quantified the substantial contributions made by the copyright-based industries to U.S. economic growth, employment and foreign trade.” (emphasis mine) “100% Pirating in the movie business implies no one would buy a ticket. And they make next to nothing on movie premiers.” Who said that there would be 100% pirating in the movie business? And movies rake in thousands of dollars at premieres, not “next to nothing”.
Downloading Pirated Music Should Be Legal

I ask you to please keep your arguments more succinct for the sake of our readers and myself. I am of the opinion that less is more when it comes to information bloat. I will be brief, but I am afraid most your counter points you once again make do not rely on sound logic. 1. As a mathematician I do not agree with you that it is reasonable to assume your 46% are repeat offenders. Statistics in its most raw form is void of making faulty assumptions. This is also only one flaw of many I chose to address with the study (again for sale of keeping things succinct). 2. It is true that the big players in the music industry make a good sum of their money from live performance, but as I showed in my previous post these are already established artists. Upcoming and independent artists would not be able to get themselves known since their only revenue would come from live performances (at very small venues for very cheap). The large companies could survive but the little guy would not stand a chance. 3. You would not hear of new artists complaining about a lack of exposure because by definition they would not be exposed for you to know about them. 4. The industry still makes money off of digital downloads because fortunately there are still people willing to pay and the number of people pirating is relatively low. But to argue it does no harm is foolish. In fact "As a consequence of global and U.S.-based piracy of sound recordings, the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in total output annually. Output includes revenue and related measures of economic performance." http://www.ipi.org... 5. 100% Pirating in the movie business implies no one would buy a ticket. And they make next to nothing on movie premiers. 6. Finally I do not see how you can make the connection between a business in its infancy relying on piracy to survive and the business model that currently stands today. I find it almost silly that you then use this to conclude piracy could not hurt the industry since it was born from it. I also do not believe the legal ramifications of the industries to be a red herring, they are important consequences that would certainly follow if we were to rule piracy as legal (which we are arguing).
Downloading Pirated Music Should Be Legal

I will address your counter points one by one. First, "Piracy is common." Your study admits that 46% of people have pirated, but this does not specify if they have pirated only once or are repeat offenders. For our argument, it is those who would be repeat offenders that do the most harm to profit margins. "Most of an artist's revenue comes from sources that cannot be pirated" This study suffers from making an overarching claim about what is a small and unknown sample population. I invite you to look at the top 5 artist who sell the most live shows. Year Top 5 All-Time Grossing Tour Gross 2009 " 2011 U2 " 360 Tour $736 Million 2005 " 2007 The Rolling Stones " A Bigger Bang Tour $558 Million 2008 " 2010 AC/DC " Black Ice World Tour $441 Million 2008 " 2009 Madonna " Sticky & Sweet Tour $407 Million 2005 " 2006 U2 " Vertigo Tour $389 Million All artists who have already had their exposure well before the piracy boom. What do you say to the new artists who will find it impossible to find exposure to an audience. Your argument also states that the artist makes money off of ticket sales and song purchases that people who otherwise wouldn't be exposed now make. But your argument assumes piracy is legal, and thus there is no profit to be made off music sales, a contradiction. "Media piracy is free advertising for the product" Piracy would still effect the other business I mentions just as much if not more, because the only source of income those industries have is the purchasing of their intellectual property. There are no live shows for the Movie or Video Game Industry to profit from. "I've only seen an increase in the quality and production of the media I consume" This is because as technology advances it becomes cheaper and easier to make quality sound. It is not a direct result piracy like you assume. If you eliminate the profits of the music industry you will see a dramatic drop off in production of the media you consume. Please also address the legal precedent that this ruling would set for other industries that rely on Intellectual Property rights, and how judges would not rule piracy legal for other industries as well.
Nudity is shameful according to the Bible.

Isaiah 47:3 says:"Your nakedness will be uncovered, Your shame also will be exposed; I will take vengeance and will not spare a man."So we see here that the word nakedness is synonymous with shame, thus nudity is regarded as shameful. Now, I am obcourse working with the Hebrew Bible, but since my opponent is a Christian he probably meant bible as in the Christian bible, and if this is so I also want to cite 1 Timothy 2:9-10.
Nudity is shameful according to the Bible.

Format: 1st round - Acceptance only 2nd round - Introductory arguments, no rebuttals 3rd round - Rebuttals 4th round - Counter-rebuttals, closing statements Source text: The Christian Bible (any translation, including interlinear texts, no Apochrypha) Definitions: Nudity - The state of full undress. Partial undress can be included if there is significant evidence that it would be culturally considered a nude state. Voluntary nudity - nudity which is not forced upon someone by a 2nd party. Shame - a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior. Exceptions: If my opponent agrees, we will not consider nudity inherent to marital sex, as I believe the Christian Bible is fairly vocal in support of such nudity and treats that situation differently. All other cases and examples of nudity are fair game otherwise. I am arguing for Con, against the idea that nudity represents shame in the Bible.