BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Good cannot exist without bad.

Yes, you did say God earlier; I just thought it was a typo. I was hoping to debate someonewho strongly disagrees with me. After all, if you don't, it can be hard to argue against something you don't necessarily disagree with. Anyway... Good is that which is to be desired or approved of, according to Google. It is a title for such things and does exist. Bad is simply it's opposite: that which is not to be desired or approved of. It, too, in fact exists, as long as there are people who desire. If there is something to be desired, or something good, than the existence or possibility of something that is not to be desired, or bad, is always implied, and vice versa. In my subjective experience, I consider pain something that is not to be desired. This very idea implies that what is to be desired, and therefore good, is to not experience pain. There can be no instance of anything that can be desired, or otherwise beneficial, that doesn't imply the possibility of it's opposite.
Good cannot exist without bad.

Haha, I read God, and not good, and was debating that. "That God cannot exist without bad". Let me see if I can savage this debate. Like I pointed in the first round, bad does not really exist per see since it is just a concept, and not even an absolute concept. You cannot have absolute good or absolute bad. Something to be good, by our definition of what good is, something good cannot feel bad, but since bad must exist for good to exist, we have a contradiction. So even know we have a concept for good and bad, they cannot possibly exist, even know we created the concept. Therefore, good and bad does not really exist, just the concept does. The concept of good and bad, is not really good and bad, but just a concept. ___
Good cannot exist without bad.

If we agree that good cannot exist without bad, then the debate is resolved. I have no problem with good and bad being subjective. When I said "Sex is good," I meant in general. I never posited that good and bad exist outside of subjective experience, nor did I posit that they weren't subject to differing experiences and opinions. All I said was that good cannot exist without bad, as the blaring title above says, and you've already claimed to agree with this.
Good cannot exist without bad.

So let us make some things clear that we are in accordance. Good and bad are both concepts, they exist as concepts and nothing more. The two concepts are very much subjective. Good and bad cannot exist without one another. _______ PRO wrote; "Take sex. Sex is good. It feels good compared to non-sex. Constant sex, on the other hand, loses it's quality. It hasn't enough contrasting non-sex experience." This statement is subjective, but yet you use as affirmative, by saying "sex is good". I'll guess you never heard of asexuality, or maybe such of detail did not occur to you. Asexual do not feel "good" while having sex. So sex is not "good" for them. Then you yourself implied that, sex can be "bad", which contradicts your initial statement. So is sex good or bad? Either of those two concepts can be use, and neither answer will be wrong (unless you lie about your answer). There is also the option of neither of those answers being applicative. Let us say that, the person lacks any sensation by the lost/lack of the sense of touch. There is a case by a woman called Julie Malloy. She was born with a disorder called Hereditary Sensory Neuropathy type 2 (HSN2). Because of this disorder, she can't feel anything in most parts of her body, including the sense of pressure. As such of disorder is so rear, she was only diagnosed by age of 25. Doctors thought at first, she just happens to be very tolerable to pain. ___ *Sources: National Organization for Rare Disorders, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, WebMD and Drs. Than Vu and Sanjiv Naidu http://www.ydr.com... ____ So the concept of bad and good is dependable of things such as feelings, without it, those concepts cannot even be understood, and therefore is nonexistent to that person, if they lack or were impaired of such of ability to feel. "Luckily" for Julie, this disorder did not affect her entire body, or she would most likely not have survived for long. Which happens in cases such as Anencephaly of which the person cannot survive for a very long time. Longest I have read about, is the case of Stephanie Keene (aka Baby K), that was kept alive for two years and 174 days. Sources: In the Matter of Baby K, 832 F.supp. 1022, E.D. Va. 1993. http://www.ascensionhealth.org... http://www.aspenlawschool.com... Anencephaly http://www.webmd.com... ____ PRO wrote; "I would challenge you to describe something that can be good without implying bad, even just in thought." This is a topic for another debate of which I did not take. We are in agreement so far that good cannot exist without bad. Therefore, even if I wanted to please you, with such of topic debate, I wouldn't be able to do so since we are in agreement here. ___
Good cannot exist without bad.

"Something you see as "bad" can be seen as acceptable, and therefore "good" to me." That's true due to our differing experiences. Say I disliked a modern film, maybe because I've seen every film out there and find this one lacking. Then let's say you've never seen any film and finally you watch this one. Chances are you would like it, if only due to the novelty of such a thing. Our ideas of what good and bad are can most certainly be different, and in fact usually are. My point is that good cannot exist without bad. One needs to know what bad is in order to know what good is. "Good can exist without "bad", since "bad" is just a concept." Good is also a concept, which exists only in comparison to bad. Take sex. Sex is good. It feels good compared to non-sex. Constant sex, on the other hand, loses it's quality. It hasn't enough contrasting non-sex experience. Here's a pretty strong example: say someone is bored and upset with their current experience. Someone approaches them and reminds them that there are much less fortunate people (starving children, etc.). Regardless of how bad they may feel for these people, if at all, it is through such knowledge that they can at least recognize that their current experience is in fact "good." Comparitive "good" and "bad" can't come into the picture until there is a comparison; and they always come together, never one without the other. I would challenge you to describe something that can be good without implying bad, even just in thought.
Good cannot exist without bad.

"Bad" is a concept created by us humans. "Bad" does not really exist outside the human concept. Therefore, "bad" doesn't really exist per see. So God can exist without "bad", since "bad" is just a concept. "Bad" is also not a very defined concept. Therefore, the concept can be very much subjective. Something you see as "bad" can be seen as acceptable, and therefore "good" to me.
Good cannot exist without bad.

Like I said good and bad only exists as a concept. I was going to use this with the God argument, but I think it can apply here as well. The concept that God exist and created a world for man exists (the concept). In that world that was no bad, everything was perfect as it could be. Since it was a perfect place, there was the option for the people (Adam and Eve) to leave the place if they so desire. The option was the tree, which was a window to knowledge. Notice, I did not say it was good because good is the absence of bad, but for good to exist, even as a concept, bad must also exist because I need bad to explain good. But after the event, and knowledge was obtained, you would have to say that at that garden, bad did not existed, and therefore good existed without the existence of bad, but the concept could not become to be. That story can be seen as a concept, but many believe to have existed. If the story is true, and you believe good and bad existed (which I don't), then you can see that good existed independently at one point in time, even know the notion and concept did not. But if good really exists, then a concept and notion does not have to exist for good to exist. If you don't believe in the story, and feel is just a story, then good alone just existed as a story or concept before, if you believe that just because a concept exists, is true, and the idea behind the concept is real, then you have to believe good can exist by itself since the concept exists, otherwise you are contradicting your beliefs. I apologize for the misunderstanding in the begin of this debate. I hope this debate haven't being completely useless. ___
You have terrible grammar

No. I will prove you have bad grammar. Look at your debates. Just looking at your first sentence proves it. "I am willing to take a Grammar, Multiple-Choice Test?!.. Could someone, Notify me of a Site that I can Take such a test and Report the Results to this Debate?!.. Would That, Settle this Argument?!.." Look, he capitalized grammar, multiple-choice, test, notify, site, take, report, results, debate, would, that, settle, and argument when he was not supposed to. Only capitalize proper nouns or the first letter of each sentence. His punctuation is horrible too. You are not supposed to put a question mark and a exclamation point and a … behind each sentence. You also do not but a comma behind every two words like you did here: http://www.debate.org... and here: http://www.debate.org... You also put "" around random words. You are only supposed to do that when you are quoting something or showing dialogue. http://www.grammarbook.com...
Mafias are not all bad.

Alright, then. No, I'm neither Gibbs nor Harmon, but I do agree that he is amazing. Now, if you look at the definition of mafia, it includes: "a similar organization elsewhere" Thus, the mafias that you listed do fit the definition of mafia. Alright then, on to more definitions: Strong mafia - A mafia with a reputation for its power and intimidation; basically, a successful mafia. Often - frequently Safer - more safe - more secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Streets - thoroughfares especially in a city, town, or village that are wider than an alley or lane and that usually include sidewalks (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[1]) First, I will quote something from Thomas Sowell about his experiences. "As a personal note, I once lived in a neighborhood where some well-known mafia leaders also lived. Few criminals were willing to risk trying to mug someone in that neighborhood, where a weak old lady might be some mafia leader's mother or a young woman might be his wife or daughter. Some nights, while I was asleep, my wife would go out at midnight to buy a morning newspaper at a news stand a few blocks away. The very fact that the news stand was open at midnight meant not only that the owner of the news stand had little fear of crime but also that there were enough other people in the neighborhood with a similar lack of fear of crime to provide him with a profitable business." Now, let's say that you lived next to a caporegime for a mafia. You wouldn't ever be touched by a criminal on the street, because there would be no criminals on the street, because they wouldn't dare mug you or anyone else on the street, due to the high chance that you could be the caporegime's nephew. And no one manages to mug the caporegime's nephew and live. This scares off all criminals from any street that a mafia leader is known to live on. Thus, everyone else on the street can go around at midnight without a care, because they know that a criminal wouldn't be there. That is why mafias do some good in this world. It's kind of like how if many random people had guns at home in one city, there would be fewer criminals, because why would a criminal rob a home where they could get shot in the head upon break-in? I will leave it at that. Thank you for accepting.
Mafias are not all bad.

I accept my opponent's definition of the mafia as stated in the opening round. I will use only this definition in this debate, as any crime organization I identify as the mafia will be linked to the Italian mob or a conceived organization in the US. The Mexican Mafia, Crips, Bloods, Vice Lords, and Folk will not serve as examples of the mafia for this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... Not an Italian based organization, and is not conceived as one in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... Not an Italian based organization, and is not conceived as one in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... Not an Italian based organization, and is not conceived as one in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... not an Italian based organization, and is not conceived as one in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... not an Italian based organization, and is not conceived as one in the US. I will show that whatever good the mafia posits is offset by the harm it causes. If I can show that any benefit the mafia posits is offset by the harm caused in relation to this benefit, should one exist, then the mafia is all bad. If the mafia presents a beneficial situation in one respect and this situation (respect) cannot be offset by a more substantial harm caused by the mafia, or the existence thereof, then my position falls. I must show the harm is greater than the good, not just equal. If I cannot do this, my position falls to my opponent's reasoned position in respect to the resolution presented. I welcome my opponent to open with support for his first contention, stating strong mafias often lead to safer streets. If maintaining safer streets is my opponent's basis for his pro position concerning the mafia, my position is still not supported as I must show the mafia is all bad. I welcome my experienced opponent to define "strong mafia" in reference to this debate, "often", "safer" and "streets" in this contention. The burden for each position is equal. I must show the mafia is all bad, not just cross examine my opponent's position and claim mine is correct because he did not prove his stated position. The burden is equal. Stipulations: 1) If my opponent is really Special Agent Gibbs then I concede the debate as Gibbs is second only to Sherlock Holmes in detective pwnage. I do not wish to face his ire. 2) I am not Sherlock Holmes, just a fan, and I do not wish to face Special Agent Gibbs anymore than Holmes does.
Rasen-shuriken beats Chidori

I beg to differ. Ladies and gentleman, we must keep in mind that we are comparing the techniques themselves rather than the shinobi who use them. In doing that, is is quite clear that the chidori is the superior of the two techniques. ===================== DRAINS TOO MUCH CHAKRA | ===================== The rasen-shuriken requires a great deal of chakra to use. We must keep in mind that even the current Naruto (utilizing the kyuubi's chakra as well as the full power of sage mode) can only successfully pull off this technique twice and that regardless of how it is used, it deals a great deal of cellular damage to Naruto's body. This is all IN SPITE of Naruto's healing factor and enormous chakra reserves. Surely using this technique would kill just about any other shinobi in the process. On the other hand: The Chidori doesn't drain up anywhere near as much chakra. Even Kakashi (whose chakra is pretty average for a jounin shinobi) can use this technique up to four times in a day. Merely using this technique even once wouldn't kill an average shinobi using it. Looking at it from this perspective, it's similar to comparing a katana to a zanbato. Although the zanbato is much bigger, it's much slower when used in combat due to the amount of strength it takes to use as well as its sheer size. Because of this, the average individual who wields it would be placing themselves at a vast disadvantage for combat in general. The same applies to a comparison between the chidori and the rasenshuriken. Naruto is an exceptional shinobi when it comes to having successfully pulled of this technique, but the average shinobi would lose their limbs or die from chakra exhaustion simply in trying to use it. On the other hand, one would be more capable of using the chidori without dying from chakra exhaustion. Even Kakashi as a 10 year old was able to use this technique without need for large chakra reserves. I'll leave it at that for now.
my crap smells more than yours

I negate the resolution. It does not matter if my opponent's "crap" smelled after he consumed food. Many people smell the scent of their crap in result of various foods that they choose to consume. If this debate has no meaning to it, then my opponent need not argue and should give up. I don't believe he can provide any evidence or backing to support his claim. Thank you. If you're not serious about the debate, you may want to forfeit a round so we can get this over with.
my crap smells more than yours

ok aright i will try an argument then for you: So for an example i chew a lot of sugar free gum. And as a result my body intakes a sugar alcohol substances called Xylitol. When digesting this cemical it makes gass. One of the side effects of intake Xylitol is if you intake 30 to 40 grams of it, you can have dharrahea as a result. Conclussion: my crap smells more than yours is because i intake a lot of sugar free gum and taco johns http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obesity is a disease

Resolution: "Obesity [1] is a disease [2]."I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the "Pro" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
To Say Human Logic Is Limited Makes No Sense

Yes, I used human logic, that is how a reducio ad absurdum works, by assuming the antithesis of the conclusion to be true to derive a contradiction, or absurdity.[1] Thus human logic can in principle be shown to be absurd by it's own standard. Thus human logic can in principle be shown to be self-defeating, self refuting or simply incoherent. References: 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
To Say Human Logic Is Limited Makes No Sense

You're using human logic. With that human logic, you concluded that the logic you are using isn't fully trustworthy. Why should I accept that conclusion if you're saying that the logic you used to come to that conclusion is faulty?In shorter words: You are using human logic to determine that human logic is limited, therefore the argument defeats itself.It makes a lot of sense on the surface, but it is self-refuting.
Drug Legalization

In this debate, I will be arguing for the legalization of so-called street drugs. These include but are not limited to substances like psilocybin (magic mushrooms) and MDMA (ecstasy) -- but let's face it, Con will likely go right for the big guns: heroin! And believe it or not, I think heroin should be legal too. The War on Drugs has been a futile failure at best, and more realistically an immoral, expensive and tyrannical burden to society in looking at our current criminalization policy on a cost/benefit analysis. In this debate, I will explain why the government should absolutely rethink its strategy in dealing with harmful drug abuse. I will outline how criminalization has thus far not only been ineffective, but counterproductive. I will specify how it harms society on multiple levels: social, economic, moral, practical and otherwise. Finally I will solidify how legalization provides more effective alternatives to realistically and morally deal with the problematic concerns drug use presents to public health and safety. Thank you again to Unitomic for debating, and to everyone else for taking the time to read and vote. Con can use his first round for acceptance and to state his position. As Pro I will officially start the debate in Round 2.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

I don't care what anyone says, if someone cheats on you, they will always be a cheater, male or female, these people are downright heartless, I don't care if a few more people do it nowadays, because they still are when men/women cheats, they aren't trying to "save your relithonship", because cheating is what KILLS IT. if they do it because you haven't given them enough affairs, that does not make them "understandable" it makes them sex loving pigs. if they cheat on you, they are greedy, so they go off to pleasure themselves not even caring about the person they cheat on. and they have the gall to ask for forgiveness, they don't do it because they love you, they do it because they want their cake and eat it too. the person they cheated on is the victim, its not the victims fault they didn't "treat them right" their is no evidence a cheater still loves you, so they deserve to be unforgiven and cast out in the street.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

In this hypothetical situation, all I have to do is show 1 instance where cheating is acceptable in a regard. Let's say then, that the children are living with grandma while this is happening. It seems like you hold cheating in a very high regard saying it's equal to beating your wife and children. Which, there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise. I disagree, and for many abuse victims, it takes an outside party to proverbially slap some sense into them.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

it still would have been smarter to wait until the police would come, while I will admit that the women is the victim in this situation, it still does not make sense to anger the abuser even further, the women still had no second thoughts about leaving her children, even while she was still with her old husband, while she was kissing another man, the children would be abused without emotional comfort from the mother in this situation, I think neither parent deserves the kids, the court has seen the wife kiss another man, and the man beat his children, so the logical thing to do was not give the children to either of them. because I will say for a final time: she doesn't care about the kids, because she let them get beat while she is getting attention from some dude she found. because she's a cheater, and cheaters should never be forgiven, by husband or child.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

Oftentimes abuse victims don't act rationally. It's easy to say "oh in this situation, I'd do X", but if it actually happened, fear might cause you to do the opposite. The new guy might be the guidance and feeling of safety she needed to finally snap out of her hostage situation. Any actual court would look at the abuse testimony by the kids and wife and disregard her kissing another man. There's no way on earth the court would award custody to the man. The woman is different from her old husband. Physical and verbal abuse to a spouse and children is objectively worse than kissing another man and removing yourself from an abusive situation.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

if the mother was really threatened and abused, she should have called the police, the bruises on her body would be enough as evidence, then she would meet with the "nice" man. from my point of view it would look like she abandoned her kids just to get a better life of her own, the court could also have potential witnesses catching the wife kissing another man, the court would have the men win the custody battle, leading the women to abandon her children to the abusive father. and she would be fine with hit because she has a new boyfriend anyway because that's what cheaters are, heartless, they don't care about their children's feelings, they don't care about their husband, or wife's feelings, they are just heartless, if anything, that women is no different than her old husband.