BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US has the right to pursue millitary options in Iran

First off, I would just like to say mazel tov one your job at US, and I look forward to seeing you at some tournaments (I go to Beachwood and do Student Congress). Now, on to the debate. For three reasons, we have, without a doubt, the right to pursue military options with Iran: 1. They have invaded US-controlled Iraq, 2. They have been consistently sending resources to Hamas and Hezbollah, and finally and most importantly, 3. We have tried all other possible options My first point, that they have invaded Iraq. Starting last June, and occurring consistently, Iranian civilians have been crossing the Iran-Iraq border and raiding villages and than returning back to the sanctity of Iran. The Iranian government has denied affiliation, but state that they will take action against any Us or Iraqi forces attempting to oppose them. This would be like some American patriots going into Canada and screwing with people, and than returning to America when they need to. But OH NO! If those evil Canadians harm these innocent Americans we will invade them before they can say "eh?". Obviously, you this obvious denial of any peaceful foreign policy by the Ayatollahs, and action must be taken. My second point is that they have been aiding and sending resources to the enemies of one our biggest alllies in the MIddle East, Israel. Ever since the second Intifada began in 2000, Iran has been sending money and resources to Hamas, the radical Palestinian party opposite to Fatah, and Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist faction. During the summer of 2006, when Hezbollah took over the Lebanese government and sent missiles into northern Israel, Iran spat in the America's face by directly going against their actions and sending a great deal of foodstuffs and money to help support the terrorist cause. In addition, they have doing in essence the same thing now with Hamas, and defying Israel and America in the process. This alone would be reason to take military action, as by a proxy war, they have fought against America and her allies. My third and most importantly, we have tried all other options, and they have failed. Ask almost any foreign policy expert, and they will all tell you that one must never even CONSIDER militaristic options until all others have been tried, which I feel is the case in Iran. We have tried time and time again to influence their policies through diplomatic means, and they have all failed. Examples of these are economic sanctions, where they have just laughed and found other sources to get goods. We have declared them terrorist organization to try and scrae thyem, and they have just gone back and declared US a terrorist nation. These are just some of the examples which show just how diplomacy will not work in Iran, and we must consider militaristic options. So again, for these three reasons, 1. They have invaded US-controlled Iraq, 2. They have been consistently sending resources to Hamas and Hezbollah, and finally and most importantly, 3. We have tried all other possible options and they have failed, I am for the United States has the right to pursue military options in Iran. Thank you.
Atheists have better morals than Theists.

Thank you for your questions. Answers to 10 questions: 1) Good and evil are subjective. I insist that all Atheists would select a similar set of morals. The reason that this is true, is because Atheists base their morals off of what they would want done to themselves. I wouldn't stone someone, because I wouldn't want to be stoned myself. 2) Rape is wrong because you would not want someone to rape you. You don't violate someone because you don't want them to violate you. Since morals are based off of doing what you would want done to you, then they are best morals. 3) An Atheist view on society, is that society should function as best as it can. We believe that everyone should have a fair chance and to be fair to all. This is logical because a well working society equals growth for the society. 4) Morality is subjective. Society does not announce a "status qua" on what morals are best. Morals are dependent on what each person would want done to themselves. Most people don't want to die, so they don't kill others. No group gets to select what the right morals are. Everyone individually decides what they would want done to themselves, and bases their morals off of this. 5) From an Atheist point of view, there is most likely no greater purpose of life. The percentage chance of their being a greater purpose of life is an extremely small decimal. The only goal of life is to better itself as time goes on through Evolution. 6) There is most likely not a greater purpose to life. This is a logical argument because there is no evidence that supports there being a greater purpose. Morality matters because without it, society would fall apart. Morality matters because everyone wants it to. Morality is a self fulfilling prophecy. It is a guideline to help society function without chaos. 7) I do use the word logic frequently. Logic plays a big part in human decisions. Logic is not the only factor in making a decision, but it is the biggest one. Logic is supreme to other forms of reasoning because it weighs a situation without incorporating bias. 8) I do not know what the universe was like before the Big Bang, but I highly doubt it was "created" for a "greater purpose." This question is the same as question six. Because of this, I will answer the same way. Morality matters because without it, society would fall apart. Morality matters because everyone wants it to. Morality is a self fulfilling prophecy. It is a guideline to help society function without chaos. 9) The human brain is a result of Evolution. We base are morality off of what are brains tell us to do. Our brain tell us not to do things to others that we wouldn't want done to ourselves. So morality is a product of Evolution. It does not include rape for most people because most people would not want someone to rape them. 10) The consequences of breaking a moral code are being ostracized by your family and friends. Going to jail. The list goes on and on. Following a moral code is helpful for a society to function.
Atheists have better morals than Theists.

Instead of directly rebutting my opponent's rebuttal, I will incorporate them into my questions, as most of what I have to communicate are simply inquiries about his reasoning. In the next post, I will answer those ten questions, but in the meantime, here are ten questions for my opponent. 1) If good and evil are subjective, why do you insist that all atheists would select the same set of morals (Golden Rule etc)?2) Based on logic, and purely logic, why is rape wrong? (Please note that I do not condone rape, but rather am curious as to how a pure logician would argue that it is wrong, and therefore immoral).3) What is an Atheist standard for "what is best for society"? Is this a purely logical reason?4) If morality is subjective, how does society come to an agreement on what is the "current status quo" for morals? Is guaranteed to be a 100% equal vote by all members of that society? If not, why does a certain individual or group get to select the current moral standards?5) You never answered with a rebuttal to this assumption, so I'll ask you directly: From an Atheist worldview, using solely logic and reasoning, is there an objective or greater purpose to life? (relevance revealed by next question)6) If there is a greater purpose, how do you know? If not, why does morality matter at all?7) You use the word logic frequently. Tell me, what provides legitimacy for the supremacy of logic?8) In a universe created by random chance, where humanity is simply a small insignificant speck (in fact, nothing has significance, we're just chemicals), why does morality matter at all?9) Do you believe that morality is a component of evolution? If so, wouldn't our biological imperative to breed allow for rape? (once again, theoretical argument, I do not condone rape).10) In a logic-based worldview, devoid of a supreme being, what are the consequences of breaking a moral code (pending your affirmation that such a thing can even exist)? What incentive is there to follow any moral edicts? Looking forward to your replies!
Atheists have better morals than Theists.

Throughout the course of this debate, I will be arguing from the position that atheists cannot have better morals than theists because the very institution of morality does not conform to an atheist worldview. By denying the existence of a deity, as per my opponent's definition of "atheism", he assumes the following:The universe was created without a greater purpose or plan. There is no objective measure for good or evil. There is no "supreme" force or creator in the universe that lays out the rules for morality. This leaves only two options: morality does not exist, or morality exists and is built upon a system of subjective "good" and "evil". If morality does not exist, atheists cannot have better morals than theists. If morality does exist, and it is generated by humans upon a foundation of subjective "good" and "evil", each human can have his/her own set of moral rules that can be considered to be "good". Since "good" and "evil" are subjective, acts that may be considered "evil" by mainstream society (genocide, rape, slavery, murder of children) can be considered "good" by some measures of morality. Because of the subjective nature of good and evil in an atheist worldview, it is erroneous to say that an "Atheist's morals do not include stoning, rape, and Genocide. "The only alternative to a subjective standard of good and evil is for there to exist an objective one, which of course cannot be true in a universe without a supreme being. I look forward to my opponent's question in the rapid-fire round.
Atheists have better morals than Theists.

Merriam Webster defines Atheist as "a person who believes that God does not exist." That is all it takes to be an Atheist. Without believe in God, Atheists are free to have whatever morals that they belief are good. Atheists are not boxed in by a set of pre-determined morals. Atheist's morals can change with the times, because they are flexible and reasonable. Atheist's morals do not include stoning, rape, and Genocide. Atheists also do not discriminate against groups like Homosexuals. Atheists morals are based off of what makes logical sense instead of a single unreliable book.
Atheists have better morals than Theists.

Atheists have better morals than Theists. This argument can really go any way it wants to go. I am looking for a brave candidate to take me on. The five rounds will be: 1) Opening Statements. 2) Rebuttal of Opening Statements. 3) 10 Cross-Fire Questions for your opponent. 4) Answers to the 10 Cross-Fire Questions. 5) Conclusion. I hope we can have a good clean debate!
Sophistry

How unfortunate, Pro refuses to defend his position. Pro concedes my posistion, therefore he refuses to defend his posistionQuoting Pros argument, "Con is arguing with me not against. We should all ask what is he doing. Auto loss for trolling" - Said by, Hezekiah_Ahaz 神As you can see above, this appears to be some sort of sophistry on the behalf of Pro, who is by no coincidence arguing for sophistry. Well, the best way to argue for something is to use it, eh? Pro results to an ad hominem circumstantial argument which can be classified as an Apeal to Motive argument, this is an obvious Red Herring fallacy. Pro is arguing irrelevent things. Even if I am "trolling" how does that falsify my argument at all? *also, of course I'm not arguing against YOU, I'm arguing with you because I'm arguing against YOUR posistion! !! Not you! *Pro also refuses to saying other than claiming I should lose. Vote CONWhy? because I said so and Pro holds the burden of proof and hasn't even argued or rebut my arguments, leaving me with no other option but to talk to myself! SAVE ME FROM HIM! !
Sophistry

Okay since it says "Sophistry" I will be deliberately argeeing against sophistry...My first argument is, sophistry decieves people, therefore I don't like it. Argument 1: Sophistry can lead to cancer, this is because someone using sophistry will say something that leads cancer actually doesn't, then someone will believe them and they will contract cancer. Argument 2:Sophistry is wrong, because it is fallacious.Argeement 1:You are right, people are psedudo-philosphers, this is because of sophistry. Sophistry is to blame for avoiding questions similar to the plague. This is bad because, it is like the actual plague!!!!Chicken:Malicious advertisment uses sophistry, this advertisment is bad, therefore sophistry is bad too!!!!I rest my case!!!!
In the holy bible, Pentacostalism Is the only true way to be saved

I will be arguing against Rosalie in negation of the resolution: "Resolved: In the Holy Bible, Pentecostalism is the only true way to be saved." This is a debate we've talked about for a couple weeks, and hopefully can result in an enlightening discussion as well as a productive debate. This debate won't necessarily be based around God's existent.. I will do my best to stay away from a theism debate here specifically, and more argue against structured religions. Rosalie should provide a brief framework in Round 1 describing Pentecostalism in a nutshell, and it's defining differences between other Christian religions. She should also provide an impact for what it means "to be saved", as the will play a visceral role in deciding how this debate will be run. This should be a fun and intellectual experience for both debaters, and I wish Rosalie the best of luck in her Opening Round. Structure: R1. Con starts debate, Pro starts arguments R2. Con Refutes arguments and makes his own arguments (optional), Pro rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Pro Makes concluding rebuttals, no new arguments. Con Passes.
God Does Not Exist

I hope we both learn from this. Now, I will proceed with my opening statements: Young Earth Creationism "Young Earth Creationism" is the religious belief that the Earth, and the universe, originate directly from acts of a divine being, and also the belief that the world was created less than ten-thousand years ago. The Genesis book, of the Bible, is based on creationism. The strongest argument that can refute creationism, is the fact that we have discovered remains of ancient extinct creatures, that can date back from thousands to millions of years. From this scientific evidence, it is obvious that the world was not created a mere ten-thousand years ago. The Bible The Bible has been proved to have numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements contradict each other, then one or both of the statements are false. Thus making the Bible unreliable. It is very common for the Bible to say something, and then say another. For example, in Matthew, it is said that Jesus' family moved out of Bethlehem and were on their way to Egypt, immediately. However, in Luke, it is said that Mary stayed in Bethlehem for her purification (forty days), and then went on their way back to Jerusalem. Evolution Evolution is science. It theorizes how animals came to be, a long time ago. It might sound unrealistic, however, it would make more sense to believe this method, than to believe that a divine being, created the universe. Evolution is backed by observations and evidence, while creationism is backed by almost no evidence, hence the reason why it is pseudoscience. What creationists usually do, is ignore all the evidence that is against their beliefs and focus on what they want to believe. Jesus Christ It has been widely questioned the existence of Jesus Christ for a long time. You may know it or not, however, Jesus Christ can assimilate to many Gods that may or may not have been invented, hundreds of years before. For example, Perseus, the greek demi-god, was born of a divine father and a mortal mother, just like Jesus. Asklepios, was the greek god of health and medicine, he was once known as "the saviour". Hercules was also born of a mortal mother and divine father, and was known as the saviour of the world. Remember that all these characters were made up hundreds of years before Jesus was supposedly born. Thus making Jesus a possible fictional character, just like the ones mentioned before. These are my opening statements, my opponent may present his opening statements, or rebuttals in the next round.
God Does Not Exist

Thanks for the debate opportunity! I was just asked if I have an interest in apologetics - so, I suppose this is as good a chance as any to figure it out.Accepting this Debate - with the Following Understanding (If Permitted) :1. Arguments that depend on fallacies will be avoided by both parties - they don't really seem to have merit! (e.g., "The Christian God must not exist because he is bad" - is not remotely a valid argument, and a waste of time).That my Definitions are a "Reasonable Representation" of Christian theology - based on Judeo-Christian Scriptures :2. "God" - The "Most High" - Transcendent of this Causal domain.3. "God of Scripture" - "God" (see #3); Self declaring to be: "True" (trustworthy); "Just"; and "Loving" - in view of eternity. The Father of Humanity - the one Jesus claimed to have submitted to.4. "Christian" Defined: A disciple of Jesus, (a "Hebrew Jew" - though a Political dissident from Pharasaic/Rabbinical and Sadducean Judaism). Specifically - an individual that pursues the imitation of Jesus by pursuing understanding of his commandments - to follow them.
God Does Not Exist

Hello, welcome to this debate. Here, we will be debating whether the Christian God is real or non-existent. I will be debating against it's existence, my opponent will obviously be doing otherwise. If you wish to debate against me, you will have to follow the following rules: - Insults, direct or indirect, are strictly prohibited. - No sources are needed, however, if you believe that any argument posted here is false, you will need to prove it, with a source. - Be organized, something very important is that both of us can understand what we are saying. Now, the debate structure is quite simple. The first round is used solely for the purpose of acceptance to the debate. The second round will consist of opening statements and rebuttals, if necessary.
Dress Code Policies in School

For starters: how it can be beneficial. Well if you look at the percentage of people in school that get into fights at school because this guy is wearing these types of clothes compared to a school with a dress code the school with a dress code has a lower percentage. Also, a dress code can prevent segregation of different gangs. In any normal persons book a school with less relation to gangs is a safer school over all.~~ First off i would like to know where you got the fact and percentage of people who get in a fight at school because what there wearing? and i don't know if you know this but clothes are not the only thing about gangs. clothes are not what make up a gang. just because they are not wearing there colors or whatever they are still part of a gang. so i would like to know where you are going with this cause it looks like know were. moving on. ~~Now about your point on the cost. If money is a issue which in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes. ~~ First money is a issue for a lot of people. in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes? that makes no sense but i think i might know what you mean so a will work with it. you stated some so that's not all they time. moving on. ~~Now you brought up that people never wear it anywhere else and could use that money for food or utility bills. Now, lets clarify this a bit a dress code is completely different from a uniform. A uniform you are told what shirt is mandatory what socks is mandatory for example white or black, high or low, what color tie to wear etc... Now a dress code is a whole lot more relaxed. I wear clothes that I wear to school all the time and vase verse. So therefore the issue of money really isn't a problem and neither is the waste of clothes.~~ you are right about the uniform. now that it is clarified. lets use a soccer uniform for example. you have to wear the same shirt short and socks to ever game. now for dress code policies in school. the dress code could be red white or blue polo's with only tan or blue shorts. that is a policy. So i have totally refuted your point. back to what i was saying about saving money. a lot of people are not going to want to wear that during summer or the weekend because they want to me comfortable. thus not having to buy extra clothes parents could save for bills.
Dress Code Policies in School

For starters: how it can be beneficial. Well if you look at the percentage of people in school that get into fights at school because this guy is wearing these types of clothes compared to a school with a dress code the school with a dress code has a lower percentage. Also, a dress code can prevent segregation of different gangs. In any normal persons book a school with less relation to gangs is a safer school over all. Now about your point on the cost. If money is a issue which in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes. Now you brought up that people never wear it anywhere else and could use that money for food or utility bills. Now, lets clarify this a bit a dress code is completely different from a uniform. A uniform you are told what shirt is mandatory what socks is mandatory for example white or black, high or low, what color tie to wear etc... Now a dress code is a whole lot more relaxed. I wear clothes that I wear to school all the time and vise versa. So therefore the issue of money really isn't a problem and neither is the waste of clothes.
Dress Code Policies in School

Dress code is just a way for teachers to enforce more rules.. I myself used to believe this. But if you look more into depth in this you see that Dress Code Policies in Schools can be very beneficial to the environment around you.~~ I would like you to explain how it can be beneficial to the environment because I do not see how. Also I would like to point out how it waste money. Parents are forced to buy extra clothes for there kids to be able to go to school. If the kids does not follow the dress code exactly then they will be in trouble at school. It is a waste of money because most of the time the kid would never wear the clothes any other time. So this can only hurt the parents. they could be using this extra money to pay bills, or for food, or gas. So if anything it hurts the parents. I do not see how it can be beneficial to the environment. I would also like to know what is benificial*?
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

I would not say reckless and totally inexperienced. I actually would say very experienced and some times reckless. If any thing Batman gets very reckless a lot of the time but lets face the facts Spider-man can left ten plus tons , has is own fighting style called the way of the spider which perfects his abilities. Also Batman could use his gadgets to escape, I don't think so but it's a fight Batman would not run away in the first place. To add on to why Spider-man would win he has his spider sense which by the way makes Batman's stealth and knock out gases useless. Not to mention he can spin webs which can slow down Batman a lot :) .
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

Spider- Man would not beat Batman in a 1 vs. 1 combat. Batman would win because he is older and more experienced while Spider-man is young reckless and totally inexperienced. While Spider-man has superpowers to sling webs Batman could easily use many of his gadgets to escape and get spider-man caught and stopped. People may think that Spider-man would win because of his web slinging abilities and flexibility and think that he would be the obvious winner but they are wrong. Spider- man would slip up to Batman's Superior abilities, sling bad webs, and otherwise mess up.