BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

Today's institutional church system is based on a clergical model. In the case of protestantism, we see a prominent teaching that Pastoral Authority is the sanctioned system of government for the Church. Pastoral Authority is the concept that the Church should have a pastor who governs the affairs of a local assembly, as a shepherd to a flock of sheep. he is the sole visionary and leader of His assembly, speaking as the mouthpiece of God to the congregation, and the last word on the church's doctrinal matters. Yet, no such position exists in the NT, nor was any position endorsed by Christ. This debate will seek to simultaneously establish both the lack of evidence for the concept of Pastoral Authority and to expose the Biblical model of eldership and shepherding.
Existence Precedes Essence

My opponent mistakenly puts that free will can not be an essence and gives no reasoning behind it. He waves it aside and dismisses it as if it were a pesky fly. Unfortunately for him, his argument rests upon the very foundation that free will is in our nature and thus part of our essence. This is even contestable, Nietzsche for one talks about not free will but freeDOM of will. An example he uses is that we can not blame birds of prey for their predatory behavior since it is in their nature. My opponent, however, fails to see the significance in this problem which has been debated for centuries. My opponent also accuses me of circular reasoning, however I am simply pointing out that the ability to choose an action, free will, if it existed would in fact define us. Actions do not alone define people, but also their intentions. To do otherwise is foolish. I urge people to vote con simply on the fact that I have refuted my opponent, which is all that I need to do it win. My opponent has not adequately responded to my rebuttals.
Existence Precedes Essence

Our essence is what we define ourselves as being. We cannot define ourselves as a volitional species--it is our nature. Much like we cannot deny that humans (typically) have two legs and two arms, we cannot say that we are not free to choose. Our faculty of volition is a biological phenomenon. Poking around in the brain can inhibit its function, which proves it to be a physical process. Essence means identity. Could you identify yourself before you were born? Were you able to acknowledge that we have free wll? The logical answer is no, and for good reason. Until we exist, there is nothing to identify, and no identifier. Where did the term essence come from? Man invented it. Man invented everything about himself, because he's the only being that can recognize it. It's his own interpretation that makes up what we call truth. You could believe that you were an octopus if you wanted to. You could believe that we don't have free will (which I think you would agree is a funny statement in itself). You can believe anything in the world because essence is whatever we dictate it to be. We have free will, and it certainly is part of our nature, but to call it part of our essence is like going in circles. You're using what gives you the right to define essence to argue that there's a prior understanding of essence. No knowledge exists outside of our own perceptions. There is no knowledge that isn't fallible by the human condition because we are subject to believing whatever we want. There's no other conclusion but to say that existence precedes essence, because essence will only ever exist once existence has been established.I'd like to thank my opponent for his insight. His objection truly made me think and it is the sole reason for why I'm here.
Existence Precedes Essence

My opponent seems to have forgotten one simple fact, a glaring weakness in not only his but every existentialist system out there. The claim that we have no essence and therefore can decide for ourselves what to believe, that our "fate rests in our hands" is contradictory in itself. The ability to decide for oneself is a form of free will, something my opponent claims that we as the human race have. We must have it our else we would not be able to invent something for ourselves in the first place. But isn't that an essence in itself? Let us note here that essence does not mean that it existed before us, but that it is an essential part of what makes us human I ask my opponent to really think hard about this. If we claim that everything is simply a construction wouldn't free will and the ability to decide be part of that? What then? How would we then make decisions? Could we make decisions? It would be impossible. We would have no reason to do one thing versus the next.
Existence Precedes Essence

My opponent throws the word ‘value’ around as if it itself had none. He believes that value on has merit if it assigned by an external source, otherwise he would be okay with the idea that it is ourselves that assign value. He is uncomfortable with the idea that our fates rest in our hands, and wishes for an overarching dogma to provide answers to unanswerable questions. “However if we have no essences, if we are in fact a blank slate how are we to define ourselves?” It’s completely up to you. Make it up as you go or borrow it from else. I can make up a god on the spot with whatever characteristics I desire and use that as a definition for our essence. Nothing stops you nor me from drawing our own tapestry. “If nothing is true then everything is permitted” are not my words. They are my opponent’s interpretation of a similar and yet obstructive opinion from other individuals. I have not claimed that there are no absolutes. We live—that is something that cannot be false. We die—that is something that cannot be false. But this isn’t what our ‘essence’ entails. Recall my earlier word: “Everything that we identify as being important is something that we've invented for ourselves.” You live, and yet you do not have to care for your own life. This is your essence, your sense of existence. No one can claim an absolute essence for anyone else. If essence is a blueprint, why does everyone differ? My opponent has rightfully pointed out that without a ground one cannot build a house. But the fact that we exist, like I’ve already said, is not our essence. It is an incorruptible absolute that lies outside our powers. Our essence is what define as important, what we define as humanity.
Existence Precedes Essence

My opponent has decided to go with the empirical argument for knowledge and from this standpoint fleshes his argument into the idea that existence precedes essence. One of the most famous empiricists is John Locke who proposed the idea of the clean slate. That experiences shape that we are. My opponent is arguing something similar when he says "no concept of the individual exists until after he/she defines it for him/herself." However if we have no essences, if we are in fact a blank slate how are we to define ourselves? From a philosophical perspective if we acknowledge that everything is simply a construct of either a society or an individual than nothing has value. "If nothing is true, everything is permitted." This is however false reasoning. Morality and laws in themselves provide guidelines for how to live your life. If there are none then there is no set way in which I can live that is "better". Even being nihilistic towards values is no better than living with false values. "If nothing is true, nothing is permitted." For us to redefine our value systems or our nature there must be something upon which to build because you cannot build upon nothing. If there is no ground I cannot build a house. Existentialism relies upon the idea that human beings can decide for themselves what they are. But that process requires an essence on which to build on. For somebody to define him or herself they must first find what they are.
Existence Precedes Essence

R1 is for acceptance and clarification of noteworthy concepts/terms.Credit to Jean-Paul Sartre for the quote 'existence precedes essence'. Essence: the human experience; everything that we identify as being part of our natureMy stance essentially means the following:Everything that we identify as being important is something that we've invented for ourselves. I intend to lead my part of it towards a nturalistic explanation and I welcome an opponent that is willing to argue that God has drawn us a blueprint from which were destined to grow into.
Black lives matter

Change has always been sparked by a group fighting for change. And it is not that groups such as black panther immediately turned to violence, it is that they tried fighting injustice for years with no successful change. Before there were protests on the streets of Ferguson police brutality was not an issue covered by mainstream media. The black lives matter movement was not brought around to take charge of the government, there goal is to change the way african american's are treated in society. It is also unfair to compare groups like Black Panther and the Taliban because they were formed in different circumstances. I look forward to the debate!
Black lives matter

So here's what I have to say about this movement. I believe that this is a toxic way of thinking that has lasted in our society for too long. It starts as a simple movement such as the black panther party or the Taliban at first they are freedom fighters who are actually fighting for the right cause and are doing good. Later tho people who have I'll intentions get control and warp the values and twist the meaning. If you want people to see black lives matter don't attack the police who protect us, don't attack another race because you are scorned over the past, and don't cry because you don't want to be treated different but you still want the educational, financial, and job related benefits you have due to a racial stereotype. If you want to change things, and you just have to do something attack those who are causing the issues, the people you idolize emphasize that you are so different, the pastors and priests who feed on your tears to fuel their fortune and fame when all they do is further the stereotype that you are different, the media stars who teach these small children through their lyrics that what it means to be black is to be different. It makes me sick when a person reaps the benefits of race based program and then cry's when they are treated different.
Legalize Shrooms in the US

Voting Issues: Shrooms are safe, non-toxic, non-addictive, mind-expanding drugs that should be legalized for reasons of public health, recreation, and morality. Shrooms improve the well-being of individuals and the compassionate connectedness of groups for years after a single trip. Shrooms are used to effectively treat depression, cluster headaches, PTSD, improving mental health, reducing fear of death in terminally ill patients, and treating addiction to cigarettes and alcohol. It is immoral to violently prohibit the use of something that harms no one else, because to do so would be to claim a higher right to someone else's body than their own. Now every drug has risks, for shrooms it is rarely eliciting dormant psychological problems; however, we don't ban peanuts because 0.6% of people are allergic; we don't ban cars because 40,000 people are killed per year in them (in the US alone). We realize life itself is dangerous, each activity with its own risks, and we don't treat people like child slaves, using paternalism to take away their right to choose for themselves. Banning shrooms produces black markets, which allows for lower quality mushrooms and more dangerous purchasing a reality. Enforcing a ban has a large financial and personal costs on society. Finally to reiterate, it is immoral to initiate violence against peaceful people for choosing to put a beneficial fungi in their bodies.
Legalize Shrooms in the US

Resolution: Psychedelic mushrooms should be legalalized in the United StatesRules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.Rounds:(1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments.(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.Definitions: Psychedelic mushrooms - mushrooms containing psilocybin and psilocin, most commonly in the genus psilocybeLegal - permissible under law to cultivate, transport, sell, and possess United States - A federal republic in North America [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Burden of Proof: I haz the burdens of proof! I can typing!By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. Kittens!
Pick your own debate 2!

1: Manny Ramirez Has Had a Better Career as an Individual Player in Major League Baseball Than Jason Bay (sports.) Manny Ramirez: http://en.wikipedia.org... Jason Bay: http://en.wikipedia.org... By "better," I mean "more valuable," by which I mean Ramirez contributed more to his teams over his career, which I'll show using statistical evidence, which will show Ramrez's ability to produce offensively and defensively, and his durability (playing time) is superior to Bay's. 2: Frank Zappa is a Better Musician Than Lars Fredrikson (entertainment.) Frank Zappa: http://en.wikipedia.org... Lars Fredrikson: http://en.wikipedia.org... I think this is more self-explanatory than the last one -- I mean that Zappa is better than Fredrikson when it comes to composing music. 3: Peyton Manning Has Had a Better Career as an Individual Player in the National Football League Than Tom Brady (sports.) Peyton Manning: http://en.wikipedia.org... Tom Brady: http://en.wikipedia.org... By "better," I mean "more valuable," by which I mean Manning contributed more to his teams over his career, which I'll show using statistical evidence, which will show Manning's ability to "produce" in combination with playing time is superior Brady's. The wording is a little odd, but it's the same concept as I used in the first topic, so yeah. 4: iamadragon Deserved to Win His Debate with mongeese Regarding the Nature of PEDs in MLB (miscellaneous.) http://www.debate.org... I'd be "pro" for all of them.
Pick your own debate 2!

1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum). Include your position for each resolution. 2. In R2, I will respond with my choice. If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5. If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate. BEGIN!
Pick your own debate 2!

<"This is exactly how the other debate went down."> No, it didn't, and even if it did, that's a seemingly blatant misrepresentation of what the debate was about, so why should iamadragon be penalized? mongeese made arguments around his interpretation, sure. We agree there completely. But you're under the impression that mongeese's interpretation was inherently equal in nature at iamadragon's, which I don't understand at all. Like I said, the "resolution" has an objective meaning; iamadragon had a clear-cut idea in his mind when he created that debate over what was the whole point. Since he's the one starting the debate, it's up to him what the point is, and mongeese's distortions and interpretations of it are irrelevant to what the actual point is. <"These morally negative implications override the importance of IAAD's arguments involving the mild nature of steroid use."> No, they're just completely and utterly irrelevant. To pound the point in, iamadragon had an objective meaning in mind for the debate and when he made the "resolution," and mongeese's arguments had nothing to do with what he meant. At all. <"The deaths of the millions override the integrity of Tic-Tac-Toe."> But moral implications have nothing to do with the rules at all, so the arguments are completely unfounded. The debate was over the rules of tic-ta-toe...not weirdly inane little moral problems that would arise because of who wins. <"They did not violate the resolution in any way,"> They did, in that he wasn't arguing against the meaning of the "resolution," which would be his job as "con." <"MG counters this by noting that the effects of steroids will generally help with aspects of training since they logically increase strength and endurance, as well as the baseball related muscles."> I mean, didn't I go through that whole exchange a round or two ago? iamadragon actually sourced his claim that the muscles mongeese argued would benefit from steroids won't really do much. And, to make it stranger, mongeese asked him for proof, when iamadragon cited that in his opening round. <"IAAD has absolutely no trustworthy source for his assertion that most players were using steroids,"> iamadragon: <"How do we know tons of players used steroids? Obviously, we don't have concrete numbers. We do, however, have player's accounts. [10] Some players have talked about the rampant steroid use in the late 1990s and early 2000s made possible by lenient drug policies, and some have suggested the idea of the level playing field. The allegations of "rampant steroid use" are what prompted the initial congressional investigations into MLB's PED problems. [11]"> So...um...yeah. He addressed this in his opening argument, as well. So really, you have nothing. mogeese's interpretation is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the "resolution," as I've talked about frequently, and your little analogy is essentially countered by that same point.
Pick your own debate 2!

<"As you can see, both IAAD and MG were talking past each other the entire debate. Neither side really addressed the fact that they were, in essence, arguing two different but valid and reasonable interpretations of the same resolution."> I can't see how mongeese's interpretation is "valid," since iamadragon had an objective meaning in mind when he came up with that resolution. It just so happens that mongeese's as wrong. <"Both sides expressed confusion and frustration over the fact that the other was focusing on something they believed to be irrelevant, but by the end of the debate, neither IAAD nor MG knew why."> Ok. So? The resolution has an objective meaning set by iamadragon, so mongeese's interpretations clearly aren't inherently equal. <"Note the comment section of the debate. The RFD left by ToastofDestiny shows that he has a strong position and understood MG's argument. He read the resolution the same way MG did."> Which simply means they misunderstood the original meaning of the "resolution" brought up by iamadragon. That's clearly no fault of his own. <"As it stands, IAAD did not deserve the win. As Instigator and Proponent, he bore the burden of proof."> ...but mongeese responded with arguments that had nothing to do with iamadragon's, which don't necessarily refute what he said. At least not to the point where the burden of proof is met. <"He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct."> No. There's one set meaning for a "resolution; therefore, there's one correct interpretation. I'd think the person who wrote it would know what it is. So really, unless it's to the point where it's hilariously incomprehensible (ex: having the title say "crocodiles > alligators," and meaning "I like soup"), then I don't see what you're saying matters. <"He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct. IAAD continued arguing without addressing the fact that the resolution was being negated by his refusal to do anything but ignore MG's points."> That doesn't "negate" anything. At most, it takes away a foolish little "conduct vote." <"MG actually attempted to invalidate IAAD's notions that steroids do not increase baseball statistics and the notion of a level playing field. At the end of the debate, MG was right in his closing statements."> Yes, he did attempt, but he doesn't win, nor tie, by virtue of just trying. Kinda low standards, no? Ah, so you say he's right, but don't back it up, eh? Alright...
Pick your own debate 2!

In essence, the arguments used by mongeese rarely addressed the issue at hand. A lot of the crap he spewed in that debate was over the supposed "morality" of using "performance enhancing drugs," even though such arguments were completely unfounded, absurd, and nonsensical. mongeese was essentially attacking a position iamadragon never claimed to hold -- whether it's moral or immoral to recorded the statistics of those who broke the rules on par with those who didn't just isn't at all relevant to how closely the statistics indicate how those players performed. iamadragon said nothing about morality; he was arguing over statistical legitimacy. How math has a place in morality...I'm not sure. mongeese also 1: essentially claimed the "resolution" to be wrong; 2: made an argument involving workouts. His first argument is meaningless, since simply going "but you're wrong!" isn't even really an argument. Some support was needed, and really, not just any support, like editing a wiki page with fallacious information, and then citing it -- when you make a claim, the onus is on you to give something relatively concrete to show the rationality of your position. mongeese never even went as far as backing up that position with anything, though. His second one was rebutted easily: iamadragon: "No–the increased muscle mass is largely located in the 'thorax, neck, shoulders and upper arm.'" mongeese: "Largely"? That means that increased muscle mass is also located elsewhere, such as the core-abs." iamadragon: "If 99% of the increase is in the not-important-to-baseball upper body, and 1% of the increase is elsewhere, then it's still largely in the upper body. The benefit to muscles important in baseball is insignificant. Second, even if it is located elsewhere, you cannot definitively single out the core as the elsewhere. There are still many other muscle groups besides those I named which aren't important to baseball which could be benefited by PEDs, just less so than the upper body." mongeese: "You're the one who is claiming that it doesn't help the core-abs. The burden of proof is on you. It has an effect on core-abs. You're the one who's making up statistics." Well, it seems mongeese ignored this: <"Steroids, however, have a much more pronounced effect on the upper body than the lower body, and the upper body is actually quite irrelevant in creating bat speed or arm speed. [6]"> The [6] iamadragon was referring to is this site -- http://steroids-and-baseball.com.... So, uh, no...he didn't make anything up. mongeese was simply asking iamadragon to prove something he had already shown and cited in his opening argument. So really, mongeese had nothing. He tried to argue over the morality of steroids when it wasn't applicable to the argument, went "you're wrong!" a few times, and challenged iamadragon to cite something he already cited.
why corn is not real

Before saying my arguments, I would like to get the definition of corn clearDefinition of corn: Maize, known in some English-speaking countries as corn, is a large grain plant domesticated by indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times. The leafy stalk produces ears which contain the grain, which are seeds called kernels. Wikipedia First off, you can not simply deny the existance of a food for not liking the taste.Corn is used in many food products such as corn flakes, popcorn, corn syrup and ect.Corn If corn wasn't real, there could not be a lot of information about corn on the internet. If you go to a food market, you may find corn there. There is nothing to disprove the existance of corn.This is clearly a troll debate. sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...