BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Heaven/Hell cannot exist.

This will be my first debate after months of reading many great debaters debates such as bluesteel, 16kadams, bsh1, Envisage, Zarroette, ImaBench. Though they do not know me, I am very grateful for making their opinions available for everyone to consider. Our debate here calls heaven and hell' existence into question. This of course causes the christian god' existence to be called into question. I will primarily be arguing the prior, as the latter is a natural conclusion. Here is some clarification to the phrases or words that may come up. ~Free-will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. ~The Problem of Evil: If an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god exists, he would not allow evil to occur ~Heaven/Hell: Will be strictly referring to the christian concepts of heaven and hell as described by the bible. ~God: The tri-omni god that is spoken of in the bible. ~Good: To be desired or approved of ~Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent. As the instigator of this debate I will have the full BOP to show that heaven/hell cannot exist. Con must simply refute any evidence I may put forth. It should be noted by Con, that so long as I can show that the concepts of heaven or hell are nonsensical, this would be enough evidence for their non-existence. If a concept doesn't make sense, it seems reasonable to throw it out. ==Rules== 1. No forfeits, doing so will result in a concession 2. No trolling 3. My opponent accepts all of my definitions. 4. With undefined words, there will be no semantics ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. and rebuttals.
Heaven/Hell cannot exist.

-Semantics- Con has reduced this debate to a matter of semantics about the meaning of the word "omnipotent" once again violating my rules stated in round 1 (this time its rule #4). For this reason alone, you as the reader should vote Pro. Not to mention he did not stick to my definition of god (rule #3). At this point I will humor Con simply because I enjoy pointing the obvious out. Also, It may grant some clarity to the reader why I have set this debate up the way I did. -Paradoxes Invalidate God- Con believes that omnipotence entails the ability to transcend logic. Nearly every debate about the existence of god brings this up at some point, and absolutely 0 theist agree that this is true. This is probably why playing devils advocate was not a good idea for Con, since at this point he is no longer playing one. 1. Since Con believes that omnipotence means god can sin (not supported by the bible), then god is not omnibenevolent (Therefore he is not arguing with my definition of god, see rule 3). 2. Since Con believes that omnipotence means he can transcend logic, that means god would be able to make "the letter three smell like the flavor yellow". I would like to ask you, the reader, does this really make sense, can this actually be possible? 3. I could posit the age old question of "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up? " to prove Con is wrong about god being capable of transcending logic (which every theist would agree with me on). If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist. Thus, if god does not exist. It naturally follows that there is no christian god, and that there is no christian heaven/hell. -Why the debate was setup this way- I believe that the christian god could not transcend logic. It is made abundantly clear by all theists that this is indeed the case. My whole case assumes that god cannot transcend logic, this is almost entirely what I depend on to prove heaven/hell cannot exist. I wanted a debate with someone will also worked off the assumption that omnipotence doesn't entail transcending logic. If god could transcend logic, he could have just made us all good people all of the time without evil and the world would be a perfect place. This is obviously not the case, I actually find this to be proof that god cannot transcend the logical. Conclusion: Con has chosen to make this entire debate about semantics. Con has broken rules #3 and #4. Con makes for a disappointing devils advocate, since the devil he represents would never advocate what he's saying. I don't like the idea of telling people to vote for me, because I shouldn't need to tell them too If I had put up a good enough argument. But Con has clearly violated the rules of this debate and this should be reflected by the voting.
Heaven/Hell cannot exist.

Rebuttals...But first a reminder as Pro explicitly states in his second round... about what excatly the debate is about.PRO- "its the christian concept of heaven/hell I'm refuting"Therfore...Contentions 1-4 are absolutely irrelevant. Given the christian definition of god which Pro so graciously provided himself..."~God: The tri-omni god that is spoken of in the bible."Thus this God has the quality of Omni-Potence. Omni-Potence means being able to do absolutely anything...Using Cons own words. Omni-Potence means God can..."bypass logical fallacies" whatever they may be. Hence within the christian concept of Heaven/Hell.....God can do anything... This means Heaven/Hell CAN exist. If he wants to or not , if it exists or not , does not matter. All that matters is that Heaven/ Hell CAN exist.I repeat myself.P1. The capabliity to do absolutely anything(Omni-Potence) , within it includes create heaven or hell.Conclusion. The christian concept of heaven/hell is sound because within it includes an Omni-potent god.
Pimping Ain't easy

Firstly, I'm not trying to force a debate structure on anybody. Lincoln Douglas is just the format that I'm used to. The aff isn't required to argue in the LD format, just to rebuff what I've said, which so far, the aff has been inadequate in. I'm not going to bother with the mind games argument, because it is too late to argue against it. But what I will mention is something I said in round 3, which the aff still hasn't rebuffed. This is the fact that the mind games argument is the only one my opponent has decided to argue. He's conceded over and over that all the other facets of a pimp's job is simple and thus easy. The only other argument my opponent makes is that it's hard to be smart. Well it's obviously not, because my opponent has conceded that the only facet of a pimp's job that is difficult is the mind games, and that everything else is simple and easy. Thus a vote for the neg is the only logical one at this stage in the debate.
Pimping Ain't easy

LD-I'm not sure what LD debate is. What I am sure of is we're not having one. I honestly consider it a conduct violation to try to force a debate structure on me, when I'm unfamiliar with it. Simple- I don't accept this. The definition of easy isn't the word --simple-- and swapping words out for synonyms to unfairly win a debate is just wrong. Arguments- "The evidence the aff uses specifically says that pimps target young, impressionable, vulnerable girls as I said previously. " Here is what my opponents not understanding. Easier doesn't imply easy. It just implies less hard. It's still hard to manipulate these young girls. You have to keep them on an emotional roller coaster and not let up on the mind games for even a fraction of time. It's easier for my to fight Mike Tyson than Superman, but I'm still in for one hell of a fight. Given the choice I'll pick Tyson because he's easier, but make no mistake it's still a hard fight. ". So naturally playing mind games and manipulating girls would be quite easy. " No it's not. I explain what needed to be done in order to achieve that. No rebuttals were offered for that, and it would be too late to offer any now. These aren't horses you're trying to break. These are human beings, and humans have incredible spirit and will. "Finally, he said it's a 24/7 job with a lot of risk, but again, this isn't a problem as long as the pimp is being smart. " Than you admit it's a tough job. It's not easy being smart and not making any mistakes. It's not easy being smart. If they were smart they'd have a real job, so the fact that they're pimps imply that they are in fact not smart and thus have a hard job. Conclusion- Pimping ain't easy.
Pimping Ain't easy

First of all, on the simple vs. easy debate. I was arguing in the LD format, which is when you provide a value to uphold the resolution. Therefore, by achieving the value, you've upheld the resolution. By proving how simple a pimp's job is, I've subsequently proved how easy it is. Now I'll move on to my opponent's rebuttals, or lack thereof. The only thing he argues is the mind games a pimp plays, but none of the other things I brought up in round 2. Therefore, my opponent has conceded that all the other facets of a pimp's job is in fact simple and easy. The aff provides evidence of a woman who was a prostitute to prove how pimps play mind games. Again, this is not in question. Both the aff and the neg acknowledge that pimps play mind games, the question is whether it's easy. The evidence the aff uses specifically says that pimps target young, impressionable, vulnerable girls as I said previously. So naturally playing mind games and manipulating girls would be quite easy. This evidence only serves to work against the aff and in favor of the neg. The aff also mentions that hoes try to manipulate their pimps, but the aff provides no evidence of how this is true, so it should be disregarded. Finally, he said it's a 24/7 job with a lot of risk, but again, this isn't a problem as long as the pimp is being smart. So, to review, the neg has disproved all of the aff's arguments, and has once again proved how a pimp's job is simple, and thus easy.
Pimping Ain't easy

Easy ain't Simple- My opponent attempts to debate the simplicity instead of ease of pimping. The problem is that the words imply to completely different things. You can't just look up a definition of a word and look at synonyms and swap out the word in the resolution with the synonym. Supplying a definition for the word I used in the definition is reasonable, swapping it out for a synonym isn't. Synonym- 1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language. http://dictionary.reference.com... The key part in that sentence is the words nearly the same. Nearly the same isn't the same. The difference in simple and easy is obvious if you look at the definitions and origins of the words. Simple originated from a Medieval Latin word, meaning -having only 1 ingredient-. Easy roots from the Latin word ease meaning to cause little difficulty. http://i.word.com... http://i.word.com... Pretty much everyone agrees that losing weight is simple. You burn more calories than you take in, but almost nobody finds doing so easy. My opponent hasn't negated my resolution and has instead swapped out a synonym and had weak arguments even against that, modified resolution. Now I'll address the points I have room to. Counter rebuttals- Con underestimates the effort needed to pimp a hoe. He wrongfully believes hoes are desperate and therefore easy to manipulate. Pimps have to constantly be on their game. They are constantly thinking of ways to manipulate hoes. You can't break them like you do a horse. You have to continually keep them on an emotional roller coaster. http://news.medill.northwestern.edu... Keeping up this constant manipulation is tough, and keep in mind at the same time hoes are lot's of times trying to manipulate their pimps, if the pimp makes the slightest mistake he could lose his psychological control of the hoe. This is a 24/7 job with a lot of risk. It's not an easy job
Pimping Ain't easy

I negate the following resolution: Pimping ain't easy Value: Simplicity Simplicity is defined by merriam-webster as "the state of being simple, uncomplicated, or uncompounded." The Neg can best achieve the negation of the resolution by valuing simplicity. It is now the burden of the neg to achieve simplicity. Once this is done, the Neg will win the round. Value Criterion: Deterrence Deterrence is defined by merriam-webster as "the act of making someone decide not to do something : the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening." Deterrence in this instance is using psychological threats against a ho, or using physical harm. This debate will ultimately come down to whether or not the deterrence is easy for the pimp or not. I'll now move on to rebuttals. Firstly, my opponent claims that a pimp must be an "expert in psychology." This is not the case. Although knowledge of psychology can prove useful, you only need the bare bones. Obviously, if a woman is whoring herself out, she's desperate, and most likely will be an easy victim for any psychological manipulation. Next, my opponent claims you must be an expert in Macchiavelianism. This is true to manage a good business, however, keeping a bunch of weak, desperate women in fear is hardly difficult.Being a "self help guru" is completely unnecessary and should be disregarded. A pimp doesn't care how they feel as long as they bring him money.Accounting and money laundering can be performed by somebody else, and basic knowledge of law enforcement is required by any criminal.I agree that a pimp must be cold hearted and have great foresight, but anybody can do that. Being secretive is easy as long as you're smart. Recruiting girls is easy if you go after desperate ones, meaning you don't have to con them at all.Soliciting customers is the hoes' job. Working out your pimp hand requires very minimum exercise. Deterrence is simple as we can see through my rebuttals, thus the neg has achieved simplicity.
Pimping Ain't easy

Pimping hoes isn't easy because it means being an expert at several things. Here is a list of rules written by a pimp(his spelling not mine). 1) Alwayz make them need and depend on you so you have power over them. (Power is control) 2) Make them understand that you don't need them they need you, they are replaceable. Never let them no if you need them deep down inside. 3) Never let no1 get away with sneak anything cause once they feel they can get away they will alwayz scheme. 4) No matter how much you like or care for 1 or any of them, don't trust none of them. Like Scarface, who do I trust?? Me that's who...) 5) Alwayz stay 2 step's ahead of the game you have them playin. 6) Don't let them no all your Plan's. But alwayz try 2 no there's. 7) Make sure you own there mind's, body's, and soul's. (N test it out every often 2 make sure.) 8) Keep your bi[?] on the low as possible when it come's 2 family and hater's. (cause you can't trust none of them) 9) Alwayz try 2 no whatz goin on...(Make them tell on each other) 10) Give respect when respect's due... (Follow these rules and you should b gucci.) http://deadspin.com... So according to this. You need to be an expert in psychology, Macchavelianism, and self help guru. Given the money you handle you also need to be know accounting, money laundering skills and some basic knowledge how law enforcement operates. You need to be cold hearted, have great foresight and be really secretive. Recruiting girls ( turning hoes out) is going to be hard also. You have to be a good con artist (sales skills). There are other hard parts of the job not mentioned here as well. Pimps need son basic marketing skills so they can solicit customers. They need to work out their pimp hand, so it stays strong. Keeping somebody under your complete control requires a lot of energy, because they have to be on an emotional roller coaster. It's required to be a good pimp
Pimping Ain't easy

I don't think pimping is easy. First round is acceptance.Pimp- noun1. a person, especially a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.http://dictionary.reference.com... Easy-adjective [eas"i"er, eas"i"est.] 1. not hard or difficult; requiring no great labor or effort: a book that is easy to read; an easy victory. http://dictionary.reference.com...
If a Person is Drunk or High, That Person is Responsible for Their Actions

I accept the challenge to debate against the motion that: "An intoxicated person is still responsible of his actions" First, a person can be drugged against his own will. In this case any kind of damage caused can not be assumed to this person's responsibility to the same extent as we would if he had chosen to get intoxicated. This should be obvious and many cases, and subsequently, examples unnecessary. Furthermore, a person's choice getting intoxicated does assume some responsibility. And yes it does promote further offences to slight extent if we show that one gets the full extent of liability regardless of his state of mind (as per drug effect). However, a judgment must be in proportion to other major things than just setting an example. If a drug made a person go through a psychotic episode, then it is a good chance that it might be because of this psychotic episode that the person committed the felony, such as a murder. In conclusion: We give punishments to both set an example (to prevent further offences), as well protect other people from this person, if it is the case of a more serious felony. In both aspects, prevention and protection, a person's state of mind (as per drug) serves a role that must be accounted for. This applies even more so if the person did not choose to get intoxicated.
Rap Battle: Odyssey & Fever

(Special Ed - "I Got It Made" Instrumental) Oh Feverish! You better get off my girlfriend's vagina cause your gay, your name is Selena and Tamara is that a shirtless or 50 Cent's new shirt This guy with balls will love you to flirt Your hair looks like Patrick Sway See that he died from the grave This guy never talked as a kid, because he Abuse him to behave Like home alone 2 that gives you to play a video game He likes to play Super Mario Kart "That's a shame" Your rhymes didn't sound right, your not tight Go home and write some raps and make sentence till tonight Before the Brain master Mafia hit you, You can take the microphone with you You can take monopoly with you, like the president says "Take The Anarchy With You!" You can rock with a Polyester with you If your not a rapper, How come Green Day is going to diss you? Your a Death Wish, F**k Feverish I'll make you a dinner for your mom tomorrow called Fever Dish
Rap Battle: Odyssey & Fever

Thanks to my youthful opponent for the challenge. Obviously this is not a serious debate or a serious rap battle but just a bit of fun. At the potential risk of being pretentiousness, I've decide to experiment with the text rap format by bolding the syllables which occur on the "on" beats to hopefully make it easier for the reader to follow the intended rhythm. Note that the bolding has nothing to do with the rhyme structure, it just marks the four beats of the bar, with each line of text representing approximately one bar. I put the smack down on this wack clown, tell him to put the crack down He must be smoking something, the way his brain be jumping From topic A to topic B, it doesn't function logically That's why it's so easy to kill this easy-kill-ised-oddity Obviously this fool can't emcee properly, I'm owning him like property He's lost the game like monopoly or the lottery I'll put your tape on pause, so you can't bother me, I'll take what's yours like armed robbery Or like government foreign policy, with no apology It's touching that you wrote that rap for me, but it's a rap catastrophe I'll give you props for your audacity, cos you thought that you could battle me You can't do it by yourself, you're best to go and get some help I'm questioning your mental health, you step to me, you wet yourself You know that you ain't Got It Made, you're in the hip hop second grade The lack of skills that you've displayed has prob'ly left you quite dismayed But don't stop rhymin', put your time in, look at it like mountain climbin' Rap from the heart, respect the art, and one day you'll spit sharper darts Peace
In this world (ie. not in a perfect world) prisoners should get the vote.

I think I saw this on a poll a day or two ago. Thanks for making an actual debate for it!I'm also really hoping by "prisoner," you mean someone who has committed a crime and is in a jail, or a prison - and not someone who is being held captive against their will. As there are four rounds, I will briefly bring up a few things here, and we can do a little back-and-fourth for the next three rounds.A prisoner is someone who has been locked away from society because they have committed an act that harms another person, or people.A prisoner spends time in prison, not a jail. While a jail holds people either awaiting sentencing, waiting for a court date, or serving time for a misdemeanor, a prison holds inmates who have been sentenced for a crime, usually more serious than petty crimes such as possession of marijuana or graffiti.A prisoner's impact on society obviously was not a good one, as they have been locked away from society. To allow these people to have a say in who is running the country, or even city, would most likely be detrimental. They probably wouldn't be too concerned about how well the politician runs the area they're representing, but more of how the prisoner can benefit from it; less prison sentences, legalization of substances or actions that should be illegal and are detrimental to society, etc. Prisoners have a different mindset than working citizens. You and I work for someone to earn money to buy things, whereas prisoners (usually) will do what they can to exploit, extort or steal from someone or a company usually to spend the money on something that can harm themselves or (most likely) other people, such as drugs or weapons. To allow people who would prefer to take from someone than help their community, the ability to elect someone to represent them could lead to a rapid decline in society and the economy.Think about it - who would prisoners elect? Someone who wants to implement better health care, more police forces, stricter gun laws, faster response time to crimes, etc? Or someone who is planning on legalizing drugs, cutting down on government spending on corporations that help the public in general, much lighter gun laws (if any at all) and things like that?What would benefit society more?I agree that we should allow people a freedom to vote and freedom of speech, however if that vote is probably detrimental to society, there's really no reason to allow it.