BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lucifer Had Better Intentions than God for the Life of Humans on Earth Only Not Heaven

1. The book of moses is part of a religious doctrine that was established by a partially insane guy who was wandering the desert and scheming on how to be rich and have many women sleep with him. 2. Satan clearly wants to take away free will from humans and essentially force them to do things they do not want to do. This would prohibit people from doing drugs, premarital sex, lesbian relationships, drinking alcohol, etc. This is not better for the life of humans as defined by a majority of people. 3. Satan wanted everyone to be sinless. This would cause everyone to be without sin. Therefore no one would have to repent. If no one had to repent then most mormon church officials would be destitute and without multiple wives. "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things." This would be bad for a majority of mormon men and would have ruined the mormon church before it begun as men would have no monetary incentive to continue listening to a crazy dude because there would be no money or multiple wives in it for them. Thus causing Mormonism to fail and the word of the second coming of Christ to never be heard. This would cause everyone to be damned to Hell to suffer for eternity. Therefore without sin we are all damned to hell.
Lucifer Had Better Intentions than God for the Life of Humans on Earth Only Not Heaven

God, in his trust for mankind gave man the freedom to choose between wanting to do right and wrong. Did He know that in His trust for mankind, would eventually lead to Him flooding the Earth because of His anger in man? Lucifer said "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." (Moses 4:1). Lucifer did not believe in the agency of man as said in (Moses 4:3), "rebelled against [God] and sought to destroy the agency of man." Lucifer's offer was rejected, and he was cast out of heaven with his followers. God said of Lucifer: "I caused that he should be cast down; and he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to decieve and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."(Moses 4:3-4) God said, "We will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them" (Abraham 3:25). Lucifer wanted mankind to do right through himself. Not by agency. Lucifer wanted everyone to be perfect. I wouldn't know his intentions, but Lucifer would have rid the world of suffering. ******If there is no suffering in Heaven, why should there be suffering on Earth. *******People praying for forgiveness does not make one change his habits. *******Blaming the DEVIL should not make one righteous. People say if there was a GOD, he would not let anything bad happen to people... well there is your proof, GOD gave man the freedom to kill. People say why do good people get wronged and bad people get off. GOD DOES NOT CARE. He gave people the freedom to do so. Giving man free agency, gives man the power to do what he wants. If Lucifer, was the son of God, that was sent down from Heaven, Lucifer would have all humans go to Heaven, for all would be perfect. ****** Man was been given agency to show allegiance to God. So one day man can come to Heaven. God does NOT care about life on Earth as much as one thinks. In fact, he cares really little about one's life on Earth if he trusts that ALL MEN will follow Him. God knows that life will be better in Heaven. Lucifer just knew that not everyone could get there, even with all the help in the world.
Lucifer Had Better Intentions than God for the Life of Humans on Earth Only Not Heaven

I will not argue with someone who consistently copies and pastes large parts of their argument, brings new points up in the concluding round, and continues on unnecessarily using caps locks. Furthermore when he wasn't copying and pasting arguments he was insulting me: "I THINK YOU FELL ASLEEP IN POLITICAL SCIENCE CLASS. " Also happily it generated this quote: I GOT THIS OFF OF WIKIPEDIA. .. He is totally negating my points and references. And also this quote: I am Mormon, you saying that you believe in false doctrines is offensive to me, because you are not Mormon. Philipians 2:9-10 also does not negate the fact that God is in hell and the other scripture stating that Jesus sits beside him in hell. My opponent has not defeated a single point and most of what he said was completely incoherent. I have successfully defeated my opponents points.
Photoshop Contest

Welcome to the Photoshop Novelty Debate!Concept:I will be providing my opponent with an image and a theme. It will be his burden to manipulate the image using photoshop (or similar photo manipulation software) within the context of the theme. After he has finished rendering the image, he will post it as a rebuttal. In his rebuttal, he will also post an image and a theme for me. This cycle will continue until the 5th and final round.Rules: The image must be a .jpg, .png or .bmp file extension. (No gifs, PDFs or other odd image types). The image resolution must be at least 500 x 300. (Pre and Post rendered). The images may not portray hateful ideology, pornography or real human suffering. (This includes all images from "faces of death", "Anti-gay", "Anti-Religion" and "Anti-cultural/racial" sources). Absolutely no cross-talk. The opponents may not speak in the comment section until after the debate has passed the voting period. Absolutely NO vote pandering. No direct correspondence. The opponents may not correspond in the rounds, outside of furnishing a theme or concept. Voting: Spelling / Grammar - This point shall be awarded to the artist who blends the photoshop layers most proficiently. No clipping, mismatched color tones / hues. The image flows naturally and does not appear edited or manipulated. (RFD Required) Conduct - Is the artist being flagrantly offensive or foul? Does the image convey humor and sarcasm without crossing the line? (RFD Required) Arguments - This is the "Wow" factor. Raw artistic talent score. (RFD Required) Sources - Which artist best presented the assigned themes? (RFD Required) Round 1 Challenge:Image - http://www.debate.org...Theme - WWF Wrestler "Obam Bam" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

I think you should refer to this source, http://nlihc.org... on page 3 it has a flow chart that explains how the budget process works. Congress does not have sole control over the budget process, and this process only applies to discretionary spending, which is why their is a difference between the 2. Mandatory spending is not negotiated in the budget, mandatory spending is guaranteed by laws passed by congress and can only be changed by laws passed by congress. Which also requires a president signature. And how about we fix the country we have now before trashing it and trying to start over, you're supposed to be the optimist in this debate.
Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

Congress cannot just cut away funding from programs that are mandatory, even in the event of a government shutdown these programs would still be funded, and a law would have to be passed by congress to cut funding to these programs, and then signed by the president. So congress cannot just cut off all funding. The focus of this debate was political reality, that neither side would be willing to cut programs, republicans would never be willing to cut the military budget which is the largest discretionary spending fraction, and democrats will never vote to cut funding to welfare programs. You cannot debate that congress can cut funding to welfare with no say from president or courts, if you honestly believe that you may need to retake your government class in high school.
Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

I may have misunderstood this debate. Are you asking if it is realistically philosophically or politically? Turning to your response, there is no mandatory federal spending. This is a misnomer created by liberals to fool the people into thinking that certain money has to be spent. Nonsense. Congress could authorize the spending of not one dime if they chose, and neither the President nor the Courts would have anything to say about. That alone settles the philosophical question. And yes, get rid of the VA, HHS and Social Security. We would then have a massive budget surplus that we could use to give all taxpayers a massive tax cut. As to the political question, no, the American people want the government to spend and spend and spend. It is only a matter of time before we finalize the destruction of the country by hyper-inflating the currency. The U.S. then becomes a third world nation, especially once oil is no longer be traded in U.S. dollars. All those with assets should ex patriate ASAP.
Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

I think when we first start this debate it is important to understand deficit and debt. I believe you mean that the deficit will be $534B, as our debt is $19.3 trillion. Deficit means the shortage of money after each fiscal year, while debt is the accumulative total of deficits. Since we are still in 2016 and cannot predict other emergency financial expenditures, such as another war or such, I will focus on fiscal year 2015. The federal government brought in $3.248 trillion dollars. Now mandatory spending accounts for $2.45 trillion, this is where your programs like Obamacare are located, but also things like veterans welfare and agriculture subsidies, which i assume you do not want to be cut. So annual budgets can only discuss discretionary spending, where medicaid only makes up $66 billion, so to get rid of programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, etc. would require a law being passed by both houses and signed by the president, which in a polarized political system even a simple majority would be tough to achieve, especially since a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll released that 43% of americans like the law Obamacare, and 42% dislike the law.
Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

Easily in one year. According to the CBO, the debt in 2016 will be $534B. We will spend $1.17T on the income redistribution schemes to buy Dem votes knowns as Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, TANF, SNAP, etc. If we ended these two unconstitutional, immoral programs, the budget would go from deficit to surplus overnight.
Welfare, Social Security, Abortion, and Gun Control all violate the Constitution

Since my opponent forfeited this round, I am going to outline my contentions. First, I would like to clarify the premise of my arguments. My citations will primarily be from the Bill of Rights and the 27 Constitutional amendments, as the structure of government set forth in the Constitution is not of direct importance to the specifics of this debate. Contention 1: The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws that are deemed necessary for the country. Welfare, Social Security, abortion, and gun control were all passed lawfully in accordance with the process detailed in Article 1 Section 7. Based on Art. 1 Sec. 7, the programs being argued in this debate were Constitutional simply because the laws that established them were passed in the manner dictated in the Constitution. Additionally, the necessary and proper clause (Art. 1 Sec. 8) gives Congress the power to pass laws that are necessary "for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Contention 2: Welfare and Social Security are actually supported by Constitutional principles. During the Warren Court in the 1960's, the idea of "welfare rights" was popularized under it's interpretation of "equal protection" [1]. These welfare rights were justified under the Equal Protection Clause, as Justices and legal scholars determined that the government must have "a principled basis for distinguishing among individuals" [2]. Because welfare programs target those who are in need of governmental assistance, it satisfies the requirement of a "principled basis". Contention 3: No aspect of abortion is addressed in the Constitution. Pro-life activists often cite scientific evidence that abortion is immoral, but for the purposes of this debate, it is irrelevant. Even if it were to be determined that abortion was murder, it is not a violation of the Constitution, but rather federal and state penal codes. Contention 4: Gun control is not an infringement on the 4th Amendment. The full text of the 4th Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". When looking at this in context it appears that the right to bear arms is directly linked to a well regulated Militia. Regardless of this interpretation, gun control falls under the necessary and proper clause, as it was introduced as a solution to rising rates of gun violence. [1] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu... [2] http://scholarship.law.edu...
Welfare, Social Security, Abortion, and Gun Control all violate the Constitution

This debate will be based on the four subjects above in the topic: Welfare, Social Security, Abortion, and Gun control. Con will be arguing that those four subjects are legal in accordance with the constitution. This is a semi informal debate, although it would be appreciated if you put a short bio in round 1 in order to show viewers your exact stance on the situation. Bio: I am a conservative all American capitalist who believes that welfare, Social Security, Abortion, and Gun Control not only violate our constitutional rights, but are also morally wrong. I believe these four objects manipulate the US citizens into allowing the government cheat, steal, and limit our freedoms.
Sexism should be banned in the media

I was not suggesting there to be punishment but that it should not be aired or splashed around in our faces in magazines, it is not a freedom of speech but rather a man in charge putting out his personal desires, the fact is putting out music videos encouraging rappers to speak about women being hoes and showing them prancing around naked has a damaging effect on not just women but our society, if we want to be equal things like this should not be aired or sold unless in a perverted pornography shop which is where a lot of these magazines and music videos belong as they are essentially soft porn and in which case the people are in the wrong business and should keep that else where not in our youths faces, do you want our future to be equal or you want women, our mothers, sisters, aunties, cousins and daughters to be continued to be degraded and portrayed in such ways.
Sexism should be banned in the media

To address the confusion you should be pro and I con, non the less now that that's understood lets begin. To be fair I will not rebuttal my opponents points in the first argument. My opponent will argue that sexism should be banned in the media, I will argue the contrary. This idea is a direct attack on our civil liberates as members of a free society, to take away our free speech is an appealing idea and is a first steep towards a totalitarian dictator ship, something no rational human benign could want. Also I'd like to know who decides what is deemed as 'sexist' and whats not, whom do we allow the authority and such immense power in this media fueled day and age to control the way the media operates; a very dangerous idea indeed. My last point would to be to ask what the punishment would be if sexism in the media became a crime, any fine or prison time is still to much for the simple notion of expressing 'free speech'.
Sexism should be banned in the media

For instance, there are many music videos where men are fully clothed and woman are parading around like objects,, why not give them more opportunities to be in a music video not half naked or fully for that matter, especially when the men are fully clothed! kids can't even watch music videos these days as everything on tv is to adult, it's brainwashing society to behave in a way where men are led to think there is nothing more to a woman other than her body. We are so used to seeing naked airbrushed women that we will forget what real women look like or that they actually have a mind and a soul like men. It is not just effecting the way women are treated but it is effecting relationships, there are more men cheating now than ever before and it's because of the people controlling our media thinking it's okay to ruin relationships by putting into mens heads that there are better more perfect women than their partners. I wish we could put an end to this and stop putting this trash in magazines and on our tv's. Most men don't feel insecure with themselves the way women do and that's because there isn't so much sexism towards men, there aren't so many music videos or films showing men that they are only attractive and worth something when they're under 25 and looking a certain way so why is that the case for women? There needs to be a change.
Sexism should be banned in the media

Missing the point? "What real women look like or that they actually have a mind and a soul like men" and then when I give you factual evidence of more equality than ever before in the workforce and education you say this is not of form of respect, that leaves me baffled. You than go on to say "Anything that the media put out has an effect on everyone the same way as if you play violent video games the same way as if you watch a horror movie you start thinking about spooky things, the same way as the media objectify women we start to think the same way" now it appears my opponent is leading to the suggestion we ban some video games and movies, when will this tyranny end? By this logic we must also ban the news every time they report crime; inconceivable. Lets look at the sexual objectification of women in Islamic communities, there is none; however coincidentally there is also no equality for women.
Sexism should be banned in the media

I think you are missing the point I was making, I was not suggesting that it effects women's earnings but rather the respect as a human being you can not disagree with me in saying that there are not many music videos with women in business outfits whilst the naked young men parade around like they're sex slaves nor are there many magazines using men's bodies as sex objects to advertise products, nor are there mainly just young "sexy" male actors as there are mainly only young female actors suggesting that women are only worth something when they're young. Yes I do believe that when a women gets groped in a club or walks down the street and gets harassed by numerous men who seem to think that's okay that it is the media encouraging this behaviour and encouraging men to look down upon women in such a way. It's still an equality issue there are different forms you stating a financial one is not a point I was trying to make. Anything that the media put out has an effect on everyone the same way as if you play violent video games the same way as if you watch a horror movie you start thinking about spooky things, the same way as the media objectify women we start to think the same way. It is a form of brainwashing.
Sexism should be banned in the media

My opponent appears to be arguing that the objectification of women in the media is having such a profound effect on women that they are losing equality in relation to men. However this is just not the case, in America the first mentioning of the harms from objectification of women came about in the 60's (1), also in 60's came the came the American feminist movement and women gained a greater amount of rights as a result (2), but my opponent would argue that it should have had an opposite effect which it clearly did not. Now to the present day where we have seen a skyrocket in the objectification of women in the media, as the media has boomed we see more images, and 96% of them are female of sexually objectified bodies (1), however equality for women is at an all time high and in most aspects of life is on par with their male counterpart. From education to earnings, American women today enjoy unprecedented levels of opportunity. Women now have a huge edge over men when it comes to higher education. They are earning the majority of associate, bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees. For every 100 degrees men got in 2013, women got 140 (3). Thus if the objectification of women in the media plays such a great role as my opponent states it does then the objectification of women is actually 'good' for women's equality. Remaining on the issue of objectification my opponent is trying to give the impression that this is only a problem for women; untrue. In London 2013 two women have raised $3.5 million for a controversial, girls-only app that objectifies men (4). You call for sexism in the media to be banned but then say there should be no punishment for offenders who break the ban, so then it would become an ineffective rule and a waste of everybody's time. By suggesting this only applies to women which by your previous two arguments you clearly are leading to that view; means you want to place the 'rights' specifically your rights as i'd say most women would not agree with you, over the of rights everybody has to free speech. This idea is a step back for a progressive society. source 1. http://everydayfeminism.com... 2. https://tavaana.org... 3. http://www.usatoday.com... 4. http://www.businessinsider.com.au...