BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American football is the most complex and strategic of all popular sports.

I believe that American Football is the most complex and strategic of all popular sports. There are a few key words I used in this claim. 1. I specifically used the words complex and strategic. This means that football is the most layered and dynamic, and requires the highest levels of strategy and tactical execution to be successful. It does not mean it requires the most stamina or endurance, the toughest players, or the most athletically gifted players. 2. I also stated, "of all popular sports." This means that only popular sports can be used in counter arguments. Popular because I don't want you to bring up some exotic sport that no one has ever heard of or understands. I said sports because it can't be a game (e.g. chess, bar games). I'm not big on debate rules, so use the rounds however you please. Good luck.
A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet

1st no need to opologise we share some of the same beliefs like evolution in creation. I believe based on proof that micro evolution is an important part of what goes on in the earth. That is the only proven part of evolution. But that's for another debate. Many more people in foreign third world country's would go hungry with out the ability to eat meat. How bout the Eskimos or Inuits meat is a vital food source in a place that's unforgiving, what about tribes in Africa even more of there kids would be go hungry without meat, especially in the small untouched tribes. We still need to test a balanced diet of meat and vegetables against a all veggie diet to conclude that no meat is healthier. If we should not kill a living thing because it is 85 percent human then why should we be able to kill one that is only 15 that's a little bit discriminating if we are going to go to the point of 85 percent human DNA means a animal is a sentient bien. Yes we should rule over them with care not slaughtering them, but why would God require living animals as sacrifices if they were sentient. And Isaiah 65:25 is a prophesy of the 1000 year reign when animals will live together in peace and there will be no wars. But that again is another debate I will save escatology for later. :) I never said evolution was a guidelines of life but why would anyone who believes in it want to mess with the natural cycle of the earth. Yes we do breed lots more cows now but they would eventually get way larger in population then now and consume just as much water just like our population continues to increase. And you didn't really rebute my plant oxygen argument. My apologies for the hasty sound of this round this is a last minute debate on the last hour off the top of my head. Bed times in 10 minutes. School sucks. Will bring a more sourceful argument next round.
A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet

Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)
Steroid legalization in MLB

Okay, it looks like my opponent has dropped all my points.Yes, yes, we all know about people who die of drugs. But who's fault is that? I already stated that it is a choice. Whether or not you make it illegal, players will still take steroids, it is inevitable. It's like how people take illicit drugs. These people know the consequence of the drug, yet they still take it. It's their choice that they want to harm their health.
Steroid legalization in MLB

In your heart of hearts, you know steroid abuse can't be good. And your heart is telling you the truth. Even when used to treat medical conditions, anabolic steroids have all kinds of common side effects. have you ever heard of a player named Ken Caminiti? You could hear his story, but, unfortunatly, he died years ago because of steroid use. "Ken Caminiti came forward about his steroid use and detailed the damage the drug has done to his body. Caminiti admitted that his body had mostly stopped producing testosterone and that his testicles have gotten much smaller. As a matter of fact, his body only had 20% of the normal level of testosterone." http://www.streetdirectory.com... Now, I bet all of you guys out there about to vote wouldn't like that, would you? VOTE CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steroid legalization in MLB

First I'll start with a complete refutation of my opponent's points:I don't believe that steroids should be legalized, no matter how many people say they should be. When I think of steroids, I think of a horrible, life-threatening drug. It seems that what you're trying to say here is that steroids are health hazarads. I agree. However, there is still the option of not taking steroids. The resolution is merely the legalization of steroids in major league baseball, and players could choose to not take steroids, or take them, if they desire, but that is their choice. It is the same with cigarettes. You can choose to smoke ore not smoke. It is life-threatening as well. Ultimately, it is up to the player if they want to risk their health for steroids. It is the freedom of choice. If anything, I believe the amounts of tests should be increased. Also, the penalties for testing positive should be much more enforced as well as serious. Now, as for all of you out there who still think they should be legal, just imagine yourself as an MLB player, How bad would you feel if you tested positive and were suspended? I know I wouldn't be that thrilled. Now, this point is all about being suspended for steroids. However, CON fails to recognize that if they were legal, then no one would be suspended for taking steroids, as it would be perfectly legitimate. Therefore, this point falls. My Points1. Now, I feel like CON is going to say that it is unfair to others if you take steroids, as it gives an advantage, which is the main reason it is banned today. However, everyone will have access to steroids, as it is legal. If everyone are able to take steroids, no one will have an advantage over anyone else. Therefore, steroids should be lega.2. With steroids, MLB would be so much more intersting. Faster sprinting, harder bats, better catches. This would attract many more fans, and in turn raise revenues. Many teams, like the Blue Jays, are dying off, with not enough fans to support them. If players could use steroids, they would attract more fans, and thus save the jobs of many. ConclusionAll of CON's points were refuted fully. My points are as of yet uncontested.
Steroid legalization in MLB

I don't believe that steroids should be legalized, no matter how many people say they should be. When I think of steroids, I think of a horrible, life-threatening drug. If anything, I believe the amounts of tests should be increased. Also, the penalties for testing positive should be much more enforced as well as serious. Now, as for all of you out there who still think they should be legal, just imagine yourself as an MLB player, How bad would you feel if you tested positive and were suspended? I know I wouldn't be that thrilled.
Steroid legalization in MLB

Sure, I accept.As PRO, I will be arguing for the legalization of steroids in the MLBAs CON, my opponent must be arguing against the legalization of steroids in the MLBMLB is Major Leage Baseball. Legalization, by which I mean players are allowed to use steroids without consequence in game.I'll give it to the instigator to present his opening arguments as to why steroid legalization in the MLB is a bad thing.To you, CON.
God is immoral and evil

"Firstly, yes you are heavily using circular reasoning.- 'God is good because God says so'" ZaephouYour repeated reiteration of the same claim does not make it true. You have refused to show how this is circular reasoning. Below I will give a clear example of circular reasoning. "circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)" [4]As you can see these statements are completely different. As you can see the statement about God existence is circular logic because each statement points to the other statement. Following the logic train, God exists because the Bible says so. Oh yeah, how do we know the Bible is legitimate? The Bible is legitimate because God influenced it. Oh yeah, how do we know God exists? We know God exists because the Bible says so. Rinse and repeat. Now take my example. If God exists then God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God is good. Oh yeah, how do we know God exists? We are assuming God exists. Oh, yeah how do we know God wrote the Bible? We are assuming God exists and wrote the Bible. Oh yeah, how do we know God's will is divine and infallible? We are assuming God's will is divine and infallible. As you can see clearly this is not circular logic. Now the other part is if God doesn't exist, God cannot be immoral. Of course we could pretend any fictional character is real and judge that character by any number of moral standards/philosophies/religions and so forth. The problem is we are pretending. Therefore, fictional characters cannot be moral nor immoral. I noticed my opponent dropped the point about slavery. Therefore, my point stands and my opponent's does not on the topic of slavery in the Bible. As for the moral compass, we are supposed to be Christ like. "Romans 8:29 (MSG)29 “God knew what he was doing from the very beginning. He decided from the outset to shape the lives of those who love him along the same lines as the life of his Son. The Son stands first in the line of humanity he restored. We see the original and intended shape of our lives there in him.”We are called to become like Jesus." [5]In other words, when we hear Bible stories like the one Pro used we are supposed to destroy the moral compass we are born with and replace it with the character of Jesus Christ. As my opponent already shown we are supposed to be Christ like by following Christ's example. "- Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village.- 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell)."Thank you for the debate. It was most enlightening. The Lord is my shepherd. Hallelujah, praise the Lord!Sources4. http://www.nobeliefs.com...5. http://www.changingthefaceofchristianity.com...
God is immoral and evil

Firstly, yes you are heavily using circular reasoning. - 'God is good because God says so' This is a prime example of circular reasoning and simply the only evidence I need to prove my statement. Secondly, my opponent is taking the existence and/or non-existence of god in a binary way, and makes claims of how god is in a static state of good. My opponent also thinks that eternal damnation is something to be celebrated, and 'is a moral action since this is God's will'. This logic, and way of thinking I find extremely flawed and profoundly disturbing. The fact that you are accepting to throw away your moral compass simply because this god is responsible, is perhaps a deeply saddening case of how contradictory his logic seems to be, because firstly, from past arguments, it is evident that you seem to think moral rules are only for humans, and yet by the logic you present here, humans should also not follow the moral rules set by god because god is god? I know this sounds ridiculous and this perhaps accentuates the corruptness that is presented by god, since that reasoning is present only in a ruthless dictator, which I should reiterate is also, circular reasoning yet again. My opponent seems to be falling into the trap of logical fallacy without realizing it. Also, my opponents argues my statement that eternal damnation is not 'in any way representative of an omnibenevolent god' by simply saying 'this is God's will'. This is another case of contradiction, and my opponent seemingly going against the very definitions, since he is stating that these immoral acts are god's will. And thus I can state that god is going against his own self-proclaimed characteristics, since an omnibenevolent being will not commit actions non-representative of it's own omnibenevolence, supposedly. Furthermore, my opponent seems to favour fallacies so very dearly, Since he yet again falls into another fallacy when he states that 'The Lord woks in mysterious ways'. This is an example of the ambiguity fallacy. Even though my opponent appears to be conclusive with his end statements such as 'Thanks for debating', I find it ironic that with the repeated use of fallacies there is a overarching sense of utter obliviousness. On a final note, fantasy characters can be immoral if the writer portrays them to be immoral. Thank you for this debate, and I hope you find my argument a pleasure to read.
God is immoral and evil

My opponent accuses me of circular reasoning. I do not think this is the case. I find my opponent's accusations lacking. [1]Let me run down my r1 argument. If God exists then God is in a static state of good. else God doesn't exist and therefore cannot be evil.Rebuttals"while you seem to provide no evidence that will nullify the examples of evil and immorality I gave." ZaephouI didn't want to mix rebuttals and arguments. So, yes I didn't respond yet to your r1 argument at all. All of God's actions are God's divine will. God's miracles and will are to celebrated not condemned. "- Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village.- 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell)." ZaephouWe ought to celebrate and cheer on these actions. This shows that God is not to be trifled with. These actions are God's will and therefore a quintessential example of goodness and moral behavior."Even the simple idea of being sent to Hell. How can you argue that sending anyone with a finite life to eternal damnation is moral, or in anyway representative of an omnibenevolent god?" ZaephouGod's wrath is to be celebrated. This is a moral action since this is God's will. "Condoning slavery in passages such as Leviticus 25: 44-46 and Ephesians 6:5." Zaephou"“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. " [2]Vast difference between voluntary and involuntary slavery. You were to be put to death for involuntarily enslaving someone. As for voluntary slavery, how is that any different that today with student loan debts, mortgages, and credit card debit? We voluntarily enslave our selves today. As for moral objectivity, "On Christianity moral values have their objective and universal basis in the immutable nature of God. " [3]"Even the Bible makes god quite an irresponsible being, since it is stated that god can do whatever he wants, and since the book is the word of god by a Christian's definition, then it just makes god no different from an immature juvenile who thinks he can create rules to do whatever he wants, which is the opposite of moral" ZaephouThe Lord works in mysterious ways.As for phantasy characters being immoral. It is impossible since they don't exist. Harry Potter cannot be moral nor immoral because he doesn't exist. Thanks for debating.Sources.1. http://rationalwiki.org...2. https://www.biblegateway.com...3. http://www.apologetics.net...
God is immoral and evil

Now onto my argument. First of all, your first statement mentioning that you are willing to accept the Bible's sayings on the goodness of god, seems to me like a prime example of circular reasoning, and I only need to reiterate my previous statements to show how hypocritical this god seems to be, and if you are accepting what the Bible says at first glance, then these examples of immorality and evil should be considered. But I avoided falling into this circular reasoning since I only made an implication that god is evil, as I have evaluated the evidence and have come to a conclusion, while you seem to provide no evidence that will nullify the examples of evil and immorality I gave. Secondly, I find your first argument being that 'a non-existent entity cannot be evil' quite questionable because surely, if you consider a non-existent being not to be evil, then these heinous acts shown in the Bible could only be concluded as being mere mythological tales humans wrote to succumb others to live a restricted and fearful life, which was clearly the case for most lower class citizens in Israel during the conception of these stories. You only seem to be making statements while providing no backup as to why. And also, a non-existent entity can be evil, since you seem to argue that evil is purely a human quality, so then this evil presented in the Bible is real since by definition, this evil is no different from the evil you see in other fictional books and comics. Furthermore, I find it humorous how often you use circular reasoning to justify your beliefs, 'God is good because God says so'. Not only are you devaluing your own moral compass but you are also simply lowering your chances of winning this debate by using logical fallacies on a debate website. This is quite ironic since you come across as being extremely arrogant in your chances of winning. One final thing, you seem to go against the very definition of objective morality, and also by saying, god created all rules and physical things, you are showing that god is going against his own set rules, since there is no definition of objective morality that makes an exception of god. Even the Bible makes god quite an irresponsible being, since it is stated that god can do whatever he wants, and since the book is the word of god by a Christian's definition, then it just makes god no different from an immature juvenile who thinks he can create rules to do whatever he wants, which is the opposite of moral. Before I conclude, I would advise you to not make the argument that God can do whatever he wants because he is God and the Bible says so, since that would fall under circular reasoning yet again. Thank you.
God is immoral and evil

God is good according to the Bible. [0] This passage clearly states that God is good. Now my opponent can take two angles, A. God doesn't exist or B. God does exist. If my opponent takes A, I win because a non-existent entity cannot be evil. Yet, if my opponent takes B, I win because God's laws are divine and take precedence over human laws and morals. In other words, God is a supreme being, and God is good because God says so. God is at a constant state of good. Therefore, no matter what God orders humans to do or does himself, God is good. So, if God was to order us to begin human sacrifices, light random people on fire, and so forth, God would still be good. Thanks for the debate. 0. https://www.biblegateway.com...
God is immoral and evil

From my past experiences with the Bible, when I was previously a theist and a Christian, it was not hard to come across passages that are certainly disturbing when we consider the morals us humans follow. Since the Bible is the word of god, I can only conclude that this god Christians like to worship is an evil, immoral being with no consideration of the feelings of it's own creations. I can give many examples of when the Christian god is committing immoral, evil acts: - Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village. - 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell). - Even the simple idea of being sent to Hell. How can you argue that sending anyone with a finite life to eternal damnation is moral, or in anyway representative of an omnibenevolent god? - Condoning slavery in passages such as Leviticus 25: 44-46 and Ephesians 6:5. From a moral perspective, these acts are in no possible way acceptable to any being, let alone an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. And yet, these acts are committed by this very being that Christians worship as the ultimate moral instigator. The reason I am willing to argue with Stupidape is due to the fact that I recently came across an argument with very similar topics that Stupidape took part of. In my opinion, that argument was not well representative of the pro side, and I want to continue that argument again in a better and more informative way.
My opponent should go Fvck himself.

Firstly, does it really? A "V" has meaning in this world. A "V" is not an excuse for a "U". It is a prideful letter, a unique one! While you do not respect the letter "V," I praise it! Secondly, I would like to say, I'm a girl. Instead of "himself," you should have said "herself." Thus, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!
My opponent should go Fvck himself.

For men masterbation helps to prevent cancer, boosts a person's mood and helps them keep erections better as they age. http://www.menshealth.com... Women also get many health benefits from masterbating. Masterbation reduces menstraul cramps, increase your ability to reach orgasm easier and helps with sleep. http://www.wewomen.com... con is eithe male or female. Resolution affirmed
My opponent should go Fvck himself.

The voters should tell my opponent to go fvck herself by voting for me in this debate. The title of the debate is separate, but related to the resolution. I clarified what the resolution meant in round one, where I explicitly stated that I used a V instead of a U to get around the sites filtering method. I also clarified the resolution in round one by adding the word herself to it as well. I urge the voters to reread round one, and I urge my opponent to go fvck herself. No new arguments. Go
Prove that God is real

Prove that the bible is not the greatest work of fiction in history. According to modern measurements, the earth is in fact much older than the bible states. Also people cannot live until their 900 as Noah's Ark claims. Also, we have no actual scientific proof that Jesus died on the cross. So everything you just typed is wasted. If Noah took two of each animal, why is there no dinosaurs? Noah lived in a desert. Climate is not directed towards the entire earth.
Prove that God is real

The most amazing thing about God is not that He exists, but that He loved us so much He was willing to send His Son to earth to save us from ourselves. Jesus was with the Father from the time of creation, and His arrival was predicted numerous times in Old Testament prophecy. Finally He interrupted history and came to live among us. His crucifixion is historical fact, and His resurrection was verified by hundreds of witnesses. The man who perhaps knew Jesus best"the apostle John"saw the risen Christ and touched His nail-pierced hands. He wrote, "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you" (1 John 1:3). Jesus is not an illusive fairy tale. He is the living, breathing, touchable Son of God.