BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am happy.

No no no mate. I can't say I fully understand the reason of your happiness. Not everyone believes what you believe. It's a choice, a purpose. You were reborn, remade. A new man, if you will. A Messiah, you could argue. If you're happy then I'm Mickey Mouse or something. I saw you cry with dignity when the absurdity of this conversation excluded our expectations. You're not happy. Show me the proof and or will haveth your conditional terms of debational surrender for you haveth no proof of your hypothetical anomaly called "happiness."
I am happy.

I will prove my happiness! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I AM HAPPY! I typed all this to prove it! HAH!!!
Will Automation kill or create Jobs

Automation is increasingly proliferating in every aspect of our lives, whether it"s robots building the cars we drive or artificial intelligence systems driving the vehicles for us. With the rise of autonomous systems, the big concern for many people is how their jobs will be impacted. There won't be Mass Unemployment. But those without some level of technical knowledge likely will be left behind. Even medical professionals and lawyers will have to learn how to use the latest tools to stay up to date in their industry and provide the best services possible.
Gay marriage should not be legalized by any governing body in the United States of America.

I do not disagree with your argument. While I do not support homosexuality I do not feel it is my nor anyone else's place to keep two people from having a relationship. Homosexual couples who want to be married are no different than other couples who are likewise in love, in and most cases, they are often more in love than a heterosexual couple. Homosexual couples know that in order to petition for marriage they must jump through many hoops and expose themselves to criticism from outside sources. This is not the case for heterosexual couples and thus I think these couples are more inclined to marry on a whim instead of truly considering whether or not they really love one another enough to integrate their lives. While this is all well and good, marriage is a establishment created by the governing body of the United States and as such, in order to be legally married a couple must seek the approval of this marriage by the government. What homosexual couples are asking for is the recognition by the government of their marriage to one another. This has mainly to do with the benefits that come from a legalized marriage. It has been our nation's policy that we do no recognize homosexual communions. This is what is so perplexing about the current and most popular argument in the name of gay marriage. The argument is that a government has no right to ban homosexual marriages and the government, recognizing their inability to do so, has done nothing of the sort. Homosexuals contend that that government has no say in who can and cannot marry. Unfortunately, the government is the body that has sole power in the recognition of marriage between two people and it has ruled that a marriage is the communion between a man and a woman. If two gay people would like to marry then let them, but it will not be recognized by the government. This throws a kink the main argument put forth by gay marriage advocates who repeatedly call for the government to not interfere with the continuation of homosexual marriages. The bottom line in this: homosexuals are free to marry or commune with whomever they wish. The government has no right to establish a policy against homosexual relations. What it does have a right to do is recognize them and since gay people seek that recognition, it is the right of the government to establish a policy on what couples can marry. If gay people want recognition by the government of their marriages then they will not/nor do they have the Constitutional right to do so. Having put forth my argument I am eager to hear yours.
Gay marriage should not be legalized by any governing body in the United States of America.

This is an extremely controversial subject in the United States. I would like to start my argument with an explanation of my views. I am a Christian and due to my beliefs I do not find gay marriage to be morally acceptable. This does not under any circumstance preclude that I believe it should be outlawed. My argument is that it should not be legally recognized by the governing body at the state or federal level. By this I also mean that it should not be legalized by any county, town or city as well. I am not arguing for the outlawing of homosexual relations. As a country it would be a complete and utter reversal of what our country has held as Constitutional for over 200 years. I am purely arguing against the legal recognition of gay marriage in the United States of America. As a side note, this also entails civil unions. A civil union is just a way to side step gay marriage controversy. Do not take up this argument if you cannot put forth a coherent and educated standing on the topic at hand. If you feel like listing reasons why I should be considered a bigot or anti-gay proponent then please do not waste your time. I am looking for someone who can put forth a well rounded rebuttal to my argument and truly wishes to examine the U.S policy on homosexual marriage in America. Also note that I did not say we should outlaw gay marriage, merely that we should not legalize it or civil unions.
World War Three is impossible to stop.

Hello Dr Midget two.I shall be brief as it appears to have ignored my argument. I have shown a few scenarios in which world war three is possible to stop, thus negating the resolution. They were unnadressed.C1: People love warC2: War advances society. These are some lovely bits of rhetoric which shows that another world war is likely (it may not be, but I don't feel it necessary to argue that), however it does not do anything to show that world war 3 is impossible to prevent. Yes, this was a bloody lazy round, but if my opponent isn't even going to read what I wrote, then, as there is no council to write a sternly worded letter about this sort of behaviour, I feel I atleast ought to put the minimal effort in required.
World War Three is impossible to stop.

Thank you for accepting, Ill get right on to my argument then. C1: People love war Don't pretend like I am lying, half the reason the first World War happened was because Europe was itching for a good war. People were cheering in the streets as the soldiers left for war. It was a spectacle for them all. We make video games of it, write novels on it, watch movies about it, it is driven in our very culture. War is something that humans are driven to, violence is natures tie breaker, it is what drives natural selection and is the reason we are who we are today. People rise up in arms about it, but the same people usually go home and watch Saving Private Ryan or play Call of Duty. You might not like the cold facts about it, but without war, society would never be as good as it is today. C2: War advances society. Lets look back at our World War 1 example, as the World War raged, people had to fill jobs, and advance weaponry, as weaponry advanced we ended up with radar, and the radio, and airplanes. War forces innovation upon people as it is usually advance or die. It is nature putting a glock to your head and screaming at you to come up with the latest and greatest gun or get shot in the head. The Cold war was the golden age of humanity, without it we might still be trying to figure out how to get to the moon and bring someone back home in one piece. World War 3 will happen, and it wont come with a ghasp, it will come with a cheer and an applause.
World War Three is impossible to stop.

Hi Dr Midget (2? - What happened to the first Dr Midget? I do hope he is alright) I will be negating the resolution that World War Three is impossible to stop. I actually agree with you that a third world war is probable, but not that it is inevitable. If I can give any possible scenarios in which World War Three can not occur, I will have negated the resolution. First I shall define a world war; World war - a war in which the major nations of earth are involved http://www.thefreedictionary.com... As we have already had two World Wars (I really liked the special effects in the sequel, but I thought the plot wasn't as good. They decided to make the bad guy full on evil, which made the characterisation feel far more 2D. The Series has already jumped the shark in my opinion)our next one would be the third world war. Response 1. Humans love war. Some do, some don't. Though I recognise it as being partly factual, it is still an assertion without warrent. 2. War is what advances human society and a globalized world is bound to enter war. The premise that "war is what advances human society" is false and unsupported, and the conclusion is a non-sequiter. Just because something might have desirable outcomes does not mean it is certain it will occur. Arguments I shall be giving three scenarios in which world war three cannot occur, each negating the resolution. 1. The year is 2051. People are running through the streets in horror. A distant cackle can be heard. Dr Thaddeus River (phd in Evil) surveyed the dead bodies in the shattered streets with glee in his heart. They had thought him mad, and on balance they were probably right, but he had shown them. Oh yes, he had. They'd said that he would never be able to create an army of mutant giant kittens which were intent on hunting down and destroying humanity... But they were wrong (in case the rest of the story hadn't made that obvious) (Or a test tube which contains a deadly virus could be dropped or a meteorite hits the earth. The point is, no people, no war) 2. Everyone in every country becomes sensible simultaneously and nations are dissolved. If there are no nations, there can be no world war. Or Ron Paul could go geriatric guerilla on them and destroy all the states. At once. With Chuck Norris. (States could also be dissolved over a long period of enlightenment. No nations. No world war) 3. Aliens intervene. They lock us all up for our own good (so they say, anyway - how come our own good always involves sticking stuff up our butt?). If we are locked up we are incapable of waging a world war on each other. 4. We are lazy chaps, and we don't get round to it. We keep procrastinating and we miss the deadline. No world war for us. Ta-ta for now, and remember; To protect the world from devastation. To unite all peoples within our nation. To denounce the evils of truth & love. To extend our reach to the stars above. Thaddeus River Team awesome, blast off at the speed of light. Surrender now, or prepare to fight.
World War Three is impossible to stop.

Hi Dr Midget. I think it might useful to remind everyone of the resolution (yes, I am fully aware that you could just scroll to the top of the page and read the big text in bold, but I'm such a wonderful person I'm telling you here[BTW its my birthday in a few weeks]); World war three is impossible to stop. Therefore if I can give one *possible* scenario in which WWIII cannot occur then I shall have negated the resolution. Note the use of possible, not plausible. Let us look at your attacks of my scenarios. I would remind Dr Midget that the scenarios used were types with specific examples to illustrate (ie 1 is the elimination of all people via disaster) 1. Pro claims that I have to be able to name such a virus which kills everyone. This is an argument from ignorance. You are implying that because we don't know of such a virus (it could exist and the illuminati could just be hiding it) it can't exist. I am claiming that it could hypothetically exist in the future. That is, we create it and it prevents WWIII by killing everyone. Pro also ignores the genetically engineered kittens and meteorite destroying the world examples. 2. Pro is very mean here. He calls my ideas idiotic. You may have noted that I did not post this response very quickly. This is because I have been crying all by myself because of his hurtful comments. I would post a video of me singing "memories" but there are miners on this site (people who mine ore don't like the fact that I have such a good range). Regardless and regardingly, calling the idea idiotic is not an argument so let us press on, like the way a fat man on an aeroplanes buttock presses against and invades nearby seats as his smelly flaps of flesh engage in territorial warfare. His arguments that it is unlikely now are accurate, but that does not mean it is impossible, and does not mean that it could be possible in the future. He has not shown that the dissolution of nations is impossible. Therefore resolution negated. I miss Steve. 3. "rugged manly sex appeal" Oops I copy pasted the wrong thing. "Aliens locking us up is entirely implausible" Pro pretty much concedes that is possible, by saying that it is implausible. I would also infom Pro that the aliens are here, and they are impersonating politicians and famous comedians. Resolution negated. Oh yeeeeeeeah! 4. Calling something moronic just hurts my feelings. No argument against was presented. I'm feeling too lazy to reinforce the point so I guess the point is reinforced? "I brought psychological reasons as to why the world may be compelled to go to war and you have yet to put up any defense against it. In fact you even ignored me debunking the first part of your whole argument. I will go in to even more detail on that however, just for the fun of it." I ignored it, because I concede that a third world war, at some point, is probable (though for different reasons than you, I actually think your arguments are fairly bad). Unfortunately no debunking has taken place at any point by you in this debate. This saddens me greatly. Actually it doesn't because it means I will win. Yay. This is my winning face. =|. I'm so happy.
World War Three is impossible to stop.

I never ignored your debate, your second part was just so silly I did not feel like addressing it, I proved why the first part of your argument was invalid via examples in the previous World Wars and the Cold War. However, to satisfy you, I will debunk your arguments. For the first one, I would love an example of a currently existing virus that exists and could plausibly kill everything, because by your logic, we would have to release it, but even if that happened, the world would go under quarantine and it would never kill all of humanity. As for the second one, nations all dissolving at once is again something idiotic to even consider, the world is far too chaotic (look at the middle east for an example), and people are far too nationalistic or patriotic to ever give up their nation. Aliens locking us up is entirely implausible, and can hardly be used as we don't even know if there are aliens that could realistically reach us before the sun blows up. The last one is also moronic and I am slightly annoyed you would even try to argue that. I brought psychological reasons as to why the world may be compelled to go to war and you have yet to put up any defense against it. In fact you even ignored me debunking the first part of your whole argument. I will go in to even more detail on that however, just for the fun of it. World War 2: Digital electronics were heavily invested in because of the war, we also got RADAR from it, which is now used to keep people from accidentally killing each other with planes. We also learned to synthesize rubber and now can have it anywhere we need it. There are many more examples, but I feel I can leave you with those for World War 2. The Cold War: nuclear studies eventually lead to the ability to make a rocket, leading to the space race with the USSR. You may say what you will about the HUMMER, but we got it because of the Cold War. Plastic was also invented for military purposes during the Cold War. With the world so entangled within itself, a World War is very easy to start, and could easily start via a North Korean invasion in to South Korea. This could happen in many other ways, but this seems to be the most likely way for it to happen in the near future.
A Divine Being Created The Universe

Sorry, I have been busy with school. So, Con's argument is basically the universe doesn't need God to exist so he did not create the universe. God, however, is not something we need to fill gaps. Could the universe be the result of random chance or always exist? The believer in God does not reject that possibility. Rather, he accepts the most logical conclusion based on his observations like Con's snowflakes. These beautifully designed hexagonal snowflakes, are they really merely the result of an unnatural process by itself? Also, consider the mechanical gears in nature. We used to think mechanical gears were human invention until we found it in the Issue leafhopper, an insect that uses those mechanical gears for precision when jumping. Do these mechanical gears not imply a divine designer? Furthermore, the Bible claims to be of God and it gives evidence of his power through the fulfillment of the specific Bible prophecies written down before the events. The destruction of the most powerful city in the world, it's conqueror, and its eternal desolation were written down some 200 years before it happened. Many have tried to rebuild Babylon and it is still ruins today. Certainly, this should give us reasonable faith based on facts in the Bible's promises for the future. Could all the fulfilled prophecies be coincidences? While I do not reject the possibility, it sure is a leap of blind faith to make such a claim! Thank you for your time, and again, sorry that I have been busy with school work to answer before. Back to Con now.
A Divine Being Created The Universe

Romans 1:20 - “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” Order Within Our Universe The universe is logically arranged into superclusters, clusters, and galaxies. In turn, galaxies are logically arranged into solar systems. As the Earth rotates on its axis allowing the proper warming and cooling of its surface and as it revolves around the sun at a speed of approximately 67,000 miles per hour, it has been maintaining a perfect distance from the sun for billions of years. A fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life impossible on Earth. Why are we still alive? Because the planets in our solar system move fast enough to not be pulled closer to the sun, but not too fast so that they move away. This order is not unique to our solar system. More than 500 solar systems have been found in our galaxy, and every year new ones are discovered. It is estimated that there are tens of billions or maybe even hundreds of billions of solar systems like ours. Order Within Us We are made of some 100 trillion cells, each like a walled city with controlled entrances and exits, a central government, power plants, defense agencies, a transportation system, a communication network, and waste disposal facilities. Why It Matters Order is the condition of logical arrangement. The abundance of order within our universe and within us suggests the universe is the result of a logical mind rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes. The Language of Life The DNA within our cells is the universal language of life consisting of the letters A, C, G, and T, which combine to form sentences, or hereditary information like your eye color, skin color, etc. Does this universal language not imply that we are the result of an intelligent mind rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes? The Bible Through the Bible, the most translated and distributed book in the world, God tells us He exists and reveals His power through, for example, the fulfillment of Bible prophecy written centuries before the event. Through the prophet Isaiah, for example, God predicted not only the destruction of what was at the time the most powerful city in the world, but also its eternal desolation and the name of the conqueror, Cyrus, 200 years before all this happened, before Cyrus was even born! Conclusion Jehovah God is the Creator of the Universe, and He has given enough evidence for us to have reasonable faith based on the facts as opposed to blind faith which is not in harmony with what God wants which is that we use our "power of reason" (Romans 12:1). So, those who reject His existence clearly seen in the creation, as it says in Romans 1:20, are without excuse.
A Divine Being Created The Universe

ResolutionA divine being created the universe.Burden of Proof is on YOU (PRO)Pro has 40,000 characters (4 sets of 10,000 characters) and the BoP to demonstrate that a divine being created the universe.Con has only 30,000 characters (3 sets of 10,000 characters) to refute Pro's claims.Definitions (from Google definitions)divine - of, from, or like God or a godbeing - existencecreated - cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actionsuniverse - all existing matter and space considered as a whole*There are no rounds or round rules, so there is NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating and use the characters as you wish to meet your burden of proof.*The provided definitions are agreed on by posting your first argument.*Definitions can be changed however, before posting your first argument, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree. May the best argument win.