BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Leben

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to hone my argumentation skills. Although I'm really interested in participating(this is my first debate) in it and looking forward to making my initial post, at first I'd like the starter's claims to be formulated and delineated a bit more clear. For now, I can identify 4 assumptions and I can understand clearly only the last 2: "Anti euthanasia" and "Anti death penalty". For both of them, I suggest I am expected to advocate euthanasia and death penalty. As for the first 2 statements("To uphold the right to life" and "Prolife"), I just can't get what they mean and what type of claims they are. So for now I'm waiting for as clear claims as possible from the author of the thread.
The Leben

WELCOME TO THE LEBEN. For this group, to show yourself as a member, change your profile picture to the one I have.http://www.debate.org......... Beliefs of this group are, To uphold the right to life Prolife Anti Euthanasia Anti Death Penalty Besides these, members are encouraged to have any views what so ever, and to debate over even the core beliefs within the group to sharpen skills. Members are required to follow and uphold DDO's rules and terms of use.If one chooses to accept this debate, it will be over the usefulness of any groups on this site, and con will be against any groups existing on this site. You can still join if you agree with at least three core values of four, but under that circumstance you need to challenge me to a debate on the area of disagreement. Benefits to the Leben include I will accept any debate I am challenged to by members even if I disagree with the position, and I am willing to judge debates as I have voting privileges. Once we have at least four members we will start hosting tournaments and will hold elections to determine the leader.
God doesn't exist

Show your scientific evidence? The bible is completely stolen out of Egyptian beliefs, such as the virgin birth and wise men. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be put upon them." -Leviticus 20:13 This quote from the bible shows clearly that your so called 'God' is against gays and lesbians. I am against this completely, being a lesbian my self.
drunk driving

Breathalyzers are very inaccurate and as a result a lot of vehicles would be unable to start. A lot of people would be upset about this and riots would be inevitable. According to Dr. Michael Hiastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington, "Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy.... Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important."
drunk driving

Drunk driving could be stopped right now. The money a state spends on law enforcement and DUI courts could be spent on putting a breathalyzer connected to the ignition in every vehicle in the state. Then no vehicle could move without the successful use of the breathalyzer, proof that the driver is not alcohol impaired. The breathalyzer should be a requirement to register any vehicle in the state. I do not drink, but I would gladly pay for a breathalyzer in my car if it is required in all vehicles so I and no one else would ever meet a drunk driver on the road. Rights? No one has a right to do something that imperils other people.
God Agrees With Gay Marriage

My argument is the logical proof. In short it is this:P1) God is fairP2) Gays are born gayC1) Gays have the same religious rights to marriageIn long it is the following:P1) God existsP2) God is fairP3) God creates people and their characteristics intentionally P4) Homosexuality is a predisposed characteristicP5) homosexuality is intentionally created by godC1) God creates people with equal religious rights and worthC2) Marriage is a religious rightC3) God creates people with equal religious right to marriage and worthP1) EstablishedP2) a.) "God is a judge who is perfectly fair" (Psalm 7:11)b.) "Everything He does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright He is!" (Deuteronomy 32:4)c.) By definition God is just, anything which is just is fair as unfairness is unjust.P3) This is something many people are taught, that god creates us specifically. My reasoning here will be that creating someone who is inherently evil (gay) would make The Problem of Evil a correct argument which would invalidate God's existance. Furthermore creating a person who is inherently evil is unfair, we know god is fair from versus, but also if god is unfair then he is unjust and if he is unjust he does not exist, we have forced god to exist in this debate and thus we muste assume that god is just and fair and thus that he does not create people inherently gay.P4) I will provie my evidence for this if the opponent wishes to challenge this position.C1-C3) Because this is a conclusion it stands on its own, as long as the premises are acurate.
God Agrees With Gay Marriage

The topic is that god, according to the christian doctrine, agrees with gay marriage. The debate will solely be refutation of my logical proof. You do not accept the folowing upon acceptance of the round...P1.) The Christian God is a fair god.P2.) There are homosexuals who are born homosexual.C1.) God created them homosexual.C2.) Homosexuality is not wrong and they share the same right to marriage as heterosexuals.You do accept the following upon acceptance of the roundRounds, Rules and Regulations-The opponent cannot Kritik the debate.-Burden of proof will be shared.-All argumenatation must be refutation of the pro argument.-Both Pro and Con should format their debate to some extent for the convenience of the voters.-Please keep as civil and courteous a manner as you can. No one likes to read a hot headed debate.-Forfeiting is an auto loss, sources within the given character limit, no semantics or trolling-The opponent and I both accept everything under the Round Rules and Regulations tab upon acceptance in round 1. violoation of such by either player is an auto loss.-You assume that god is real and that he has the capacity to concieve, create and recognize ideas.God: The christian god, as he is concieved in most christian sects. Agrees with: Considered accetable and/or in line with morality. In the same regard to heterosexuality. Not immoral.Homosexual marriage: Mariage as it was concieved by the christian religion, or is assumed to be objectively concieved by god, between two homosexual men.
God Agrees With Gay Marriage

Although I did not intend to, I concede the debate. I spent a while online and after much work I can only muster up an argument that homosexuality itself if not a sin, but I cannot disprove that the act of homosexuality, according to the bible, is morally wrong, nor can I justify marriage between them.I now realize that my argument has a couple flaws. Firstly, that it isn't unfair for god to deny homosexuals the right to marriage, the argument is that god promotes equality and not equity and therefore it is not unfair for god to say that just because you like the same sex means you get to marry them, as a heterosexual does.So from the standard christian perspective I can understand how they could think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's as far as it goes though. Christians still would have to justify that marriage is solely a religious thing, when in reality it is a legal thing, a big problem I also have is that christians shouldn't be able to impose their religious beliefs on other people, that is highly immoral, but these are besides the point. Con wins
God Agrees With Gay Marriage

Pro's argument is a clear non sequitur. It is not clear that God creates homosexuals as homosexuals. If someone is born gay, it does not follow that God made them that way. There are also pedophiles and kleptomaniacs, which are clearly sinful behaviors, but God did not make them that way. However, even if we assume he does, it does not follow from this that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Premise 2: I accept that God is fair. However, we have to have a correct idea of what fairness is. Fairness is not giving someone everything they want. God clearly considers marriage to be between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-26; Mark 10:2-9). If marriage is only between a man and a woman, then it would not be unfair to deny homosexuals the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. It would only be unfair to forbid them the institute of marriage based on being homosexual -- in other words, to deny them the right to marry someone of the opposite sex based on their being homosexual. Premise 3: Here, Pro is confusing the orientation with the action. No one is evil for being homosexual, and being homosexual is not a sin, based on the Bible. Committing a homosexual act is a sin, but being homosexual is not. So Pro's appeal to the Problem of Evil fails. Premise 4: I won't challenge this premise because even if I accept it, Pro's argument is still a non sequitur. However, considering it a predisposition means there could be any number of reasons, including nurture, that causes it. It does not necessarily mean they were genetically predisposed from birth. Premise 5: This premise I will challenge. Pro certainly hasn't proven it, so I will wait for his evidence. To quickly recap: Pro's argument is a non sequitur because even if God creates homosexuals qua homosexual, it does not follow that homosexuals would have a right to marry someone of the same sex. Additionally, Pro's third and fifth premises are unsupported, so his argument fails on those grounds, as well.
It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

I don't see how one person can be two people, you say my source is bad, but the examples you gave were irrelevant and you gave no source at all. I'm not entirely certain what your logic is behind this "one person is two people" philosophy and the only way I can think to negate this is to ask the judges to just think it through, are you really communicating with yourself? You aren't sending new information because you already have it, there is no biological explanation for a person communicating with themselves. They may do it on a subhuman level such as within the brain but that is parts of the brain communicating not the person. I guess we will just leave this decision up to the judges as to whether one person is two people or not. Since my opponents only argument was that we communicate with themselves I will make a list of times when this doesn't happen for those judges who do think one person is really two people, when you are; -dead -asleep -unconscious -in a coma A person in any of these states is still a person, but can the alleged two people within them communicate? Also although it is probably irrelevant, I'm not in college, I'm still in high school.
It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

I did not define person, but since I am speaking of Human Beings, not person (person is an under-developed definition of Human Being) I will open the definition up to what I speak of. A Human Being IS a person, but a complicated person. A Human Being is an individual self, even though it is possible that the Human Being can contain a multiple of collective thoughts within one's self. Seeing you are majoring in Communications, you should know that no one comes up with an idea by themselves. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Human Being is not mentally and ideally an individual, but that but physically they are an individual with a multiple collective of thoughts made from influences of the human psyche. Therefore, a Human Being can naturally be more than two people. My position still stands. One Human Being CAN be two different people. And communication can be from the same Human Being. Also, Mirriam-Webster dictionary is not a good dictionary to reference from. It has been criticized by Herbert Morton for not having good English in it and not having a wide variety of definition to it. So obviously, most definitions are one-sided and simple, where as the subject matter at hand is not simple at all. CBS also reports that the Mirrian Webster Dictionary includes new "hip" words from modern times. Such as Himbo, and taking out words such as colloquial and corruptness. My opponents source for definition is not a good source at all. So to sum it all up: 1. It is impossible not to communicate. 2. Two people/personalities can be in one individual. 3. His only source does not work with the subject at hand. 4. I have provided a clear definition of a Human Being (in which I used things learnt in a communications major, that is HIS specialty for study). Thank you for the debate.
It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

Since you did not define person, I will take the honour, this is from Merriam-Webster Person- Human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes This definition clearly shows that 1 person = 1 person, not 2, but 1 person, amazing how that works isn't it? The definition of person isn't sender of info or receiver of info. Talking to yourself is not communication, it is a though process. A person cannot communicate with themselves, as you stated by saying that 2 people are required. Even if one person could communicate with themselves there are many times that this could not happen, for example during sleep, unconsciousness, or a coma. I would like the judges that my opponent used an absolute and I need only prove 1 time when a person is not communicating is even remotely possible to win.
It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

I wish to rechallenge my opponent but this time I will actually check up on the website instead of purely relying on it's pathetic emailing system (yes my notifications for my email and on this site are turned on). It is impossible for a Human Being NOT to communicate. Communication is defined as: 1. the act or process of communicating; fact of being communicated 2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs 3. something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted 4. a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc. 5. passage, or an opportunity or means of passage, between places Communication MUST involve two or more people. They do not have to be voiced either. Being silent, having a blank stare, and sitting in a single spot, not visibly moving, is communicating. It shows boredom to another person. It shows disinterest to another person. It is impossible to NOT communicate to another person. My opponent would have to have the statement "NOT communicating is possible".
The Avengers' film sucks

The avengers film doesn't suck 1. Made a ton of money off just the first week 2. The 2nd movie was one of the most anticpated movies of the year. 3. Had a great cast, robert downy jr., scarlet johnhoson, Hemsowrth (thor), The captian american actor who played in other good movies etc. 4. The first one was considered the best action movie of the year when it came out by some. 5. It was the best movie released by marvel in a while and way better then the other ones thus it was a decent movie.
Nickleback vs. U2

http://www.youtube.com... My song for this round is Beautiful Day. This song is a great one to wake up to. It lets me know that even if im not in the best shape I can still moe for ward into a Beautiful Day. My fondest memory of this song is when I was traveling from Springfield to Little Rock. We were on the way to the Children's Hospital when my Mom put this song on. We sang and listened to this song for a while and it brought our spirits up. I thank this song for being there in my time of need. I hope "U" like it "2".
Nickleback vs. U2

My song for this round is Vertigo. . http://www.youtube.com... This song hit the top of the charts in the U. S. . And i know why. I grew up on U2 music. When I was much younger my mother, a U2 fan from there foundation, took me to a concert. This was the opening song I heard. I still remember it vividly because of the guitar music performed by Edge (the lead guitarist). This song is light and smooth. Great for the start of a concert. U2 likes to start slow and work towards the grand finally.
Nickleback vs. U2

Let's explain the rules. Pro= NicklebackCon= U2Must post 1 song a round and then must explain why it is better then the song posted by their opponet (except for pro round 1 for obvious reasons. )You must post why you like the song. You must post song name and band. No cussing outside of the songsNo insulting the other debater. If any rules are violated all 7 points go to the opponet. How You Remind Me- Nickleback. http://www.youtube.com...;I like this song, because it was introduced to me during my early childhood and that made me like this song. This song is also what got me to like Nickleback. The best part of the song, in my opinion, is the first verse, because those words are true for many people. The chorus comes in a quick second and that's because of it's greatness. When you break down the chorus it shows a man who misjudged someone and that he is trying to make it up. Now it's TDK's turn.
Nickleback vs. U2

Just Gettin' High- Nickleback http://www.youtube.com...The reason I like this song is, because it has actualy happened to me. That's right folks! One of my friends had turned to the evil of drugs and he once was a nice guy, but then he started to get distant from others and was buying drugs and selling them. Then one day I caught him smoking pot and I reported him after I gave him a chance to get ridd of "the goods" but he denied me, so I called the cops. The song itself is a little rough but that's what makes the song fun.
Nickleback vs. U2

If Everyone Cared- Nickleback http://www.youtube.com...I kick off round 4 with If everyone Cared. This song is pretty relaxing and the most relaxing of all Nickleback songs. This song sends a good message as well. The message tells us to go out and change the world and we will have peace. It's very modivational to me and many others, but is it modivational to you?
Nickleback vs. U2

Ok if this song doesn't prove that U2 is the most awesome band in the world then I dont know what will. I hit the middle of this debate with Elevation!!! http://www.youtube.com... This song was the theme to Lara Croft Tomb Raider. It premiered in the Bonus Features and hit #3 in the UK song charts. This song gives me an awesome feeling when everything slows down. A feeling like I can control time and space and, for once, I make a difference. Watch this video and marvel at its awesomeness.
Nickleback vs. U2

Next Contestant- Nickleback. http://www.youtube.com... The reason I like this song is because it has a bit of a bounce in it. This is a song that many people, when they are dating, can relate to. A lot of people don't like people hitting on their girlfriends. The song itself is the sole reason on why I bought the Nickleback's All the Right Reasons album, but there are other songs on there I like that you will see later on in this debate. Toward the end of the song it get's that far off fealing that has me relaxed.
Kidnappers should be made to face capital punishment

I'd like to remind voters that my opponent seems unphased about the plagiarism charge. I would remind you that this debate is already over for that very reason, and you should award the points to me for his unoriginal argument. As I stated in Round 1 and clarified in Round 2, my opponent has the burden of proof, so he must prove his case. All I must do is neutralize his case, which I have thoroughly done. My opponent has dropped my arguments entirely. Even though he can find instances of victims being tortured -- and simply linking me tells me nothing; voters should not be expected to follow the links for his arguments, so because he has not articulated them and drawn on those soures, they will not count toward his argument -- does not refute my argument. My argument is that kidnapping and torture or murder are separable, and he has not proven otherwise, and thus his argument falls. Then he says that failure to refute his copy/pasted definitions means that I accept his arguments. Wrong. Those are objective definitions of "kidnapping. " Notice that it nothing he has cited involves murder or torture. He is simply making things up and citing nothing to back his arguments up. As for your round 2 questions: your post was an incomprehensible copy/pasted mess, so I didn't even see them beneath the plagiarism. You never specified anywhere in your round 1 post that I couldn't post any new arguments. I won't, because this debate is already over, but I willl address them now. He claims the government has granted amnesty, for which he provides no evidence. Amnesty is a completely different argument than capital punishment, so he is mincing his terms. He claims that if 5 kidnappers are killed others will learn a lesson. He cites nothing to back this argument and thus, because he has the burden of proof, his argument falls. There is plenty of evidence telling us that the death penalty is not an effective deterrant. But his logic is incomprehensible. Even if the death penalty were a deterrant, executing people for a non-comparable crime is still inherently wrong -- this is an argument I made in my last round that my opponent dropped. Conclusion:My opponent has dropped all of my arguments, plagiarized, displayed horrible conduct, and failed to fulfill his burden of proof.
Kidnappers should be made to face capital punishment

Let me start by exposing the weaknesses of my opponent. My opponent did not present any argument. So I won't be rebutting anything. My opponent did not challenge my definition which means he accepted it and like wise my argument and my opponent will not present any further argument because this is the last round. Since my opponent. I still maintain that kidnappers should face death penalty with clarification. Since my opponent did not challenge my definition, do I still need to give evidence? Certainly no and with this, I think am ahead of today's argument. Let me give instances of victims who were tortured. www.kptv.com.abcnews.go.com >Home>US. en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Gary_M._Heidnikwww.nydailynews.com/news /national/u... What other evidence do we need to prove they should face capital punishment? Some of the questions which I asked in my round two was not answered by my opponent. He just ignored them. I won't rebut anything because my opponent did not tell us reasons why they should not face death penalty.