BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists Atheists are Fools!

@ con what makes you think God doesn't exist! Your thoughts are very foolish and lack so much intelligence! You are a thick fool because you think you are better than god himself! You were made by god clothed by god!Given a place to live in his universe and given free will over choices in life... l dare you con by the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed on the cross deny him right now in this debate,and surely l'll be gods witness on that day and many who are reading this that you have sold your own soul to the devil by not believing! l will show you his power,for we have been given the right to test him. lts your turn to debate! l dare you to deny the blood of Jesus right now in front of all these people who are reading this and bearing witness. l call upon the power of the holy spirit to manifest its self right now to witness con blaspheming god on the internet right! Ok con, show us that you don't fear him.Putting it in writting in front of everyone so that we may bear witness so that we may not save you from hell! Matthew 10:2827"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.32"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. So if Con claims his belief let him deny God right now before men so will all believe that he indeed CON denies God!
Gen X

Hey man, don't get yourself down. We always have the power to shape our lives how we want. It's OK to disagree with your parents' morals. Look deep inside yourself and envision the type of person you want to be. Just because we are Gen Xers doesn't mean we can only have a good time by getting drunk in a club with blaring hip-hop and smoking weed. Be the change you want to see. Today is a new day, and the past means nothing as long as you keep looking forward. Life is discovery, and it is never too late to decide on a career. We are going to live longer than our parents. 25 is the new 15, right? We have plenty of time to make up our minds. You don't have to go to college, you don't have to suffer the burden of stress put on you by the previous generation to "carry the torch." What the future will bring is way different than what they are predicting anyway. If you pursue the things in life that are fulfilling to you personally, I guarantee you will be the person that your kids will look up to. Be a good person, stay entrenched in your principles and don't allow anyone to make you believe that you are a failure.
Gen X

Hello, I am a Gen X'er so allow me to put my tissues aside. You see I am horribly depressed because I didn't turn out like the Baby Boomers. (Yes, sometimes we are lumped under that category as well. Rather ironic the times in which that happens.) Yes, I am depressed because I am not someone tripping balls and protesting against war in general (whom most of my parent's generation live vicariously through when they think of their youth). You see, all the world was pro-war before they came along. The draft of the Vietnam War had nothing to do with them getting all upset. The fact that there was narry a mouse-hiccup about any other war afterwards from them, that they could not be drafted for, proves this point I'm sure. I am also ashamed that my generation was the first to deal with divorce going from rarely to common-place, and damn those whiny kids for getting bummed out. I am also disgraced that we were put down for dressing provocatively and listening to music our parent's didn't like, etc, Mostly I am upset that I was not a member of the first generation who was dying to be just like their parents. Especially since they were kind enough to bring the drug war (people too old to do drugs saying young people can't do them - irony? nah). My grandparent's generation will be remembered as the ones who went through The Depression, Prohibition, and WWII and came out squeaky clean on the other end. Great work ethic, strong morals, family values. And gave birth to a generation who flipped them off and all their ideals. Will they be remembered the way they see themselves? As a Gen X'er I am not really too concerned how my generation is remembered. I think we were just normal kids, trying to get along and have fun. We didn't need to jump on a bandwagon to justify having fun and being free. And I think we have a lot more respect for our kids than can be said for the Baby Boomers. "whatever" lol
In defense of history's worst: The Joker's actions in The Dark Knight were justified (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of My In Defense of history's worst series, as inspired by Wylted.I defend Osama Bin Laden in the first part here:http://www.debate.org...Definitions:Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.Shared BoPIf you don't qualify for this debate leave a comment and I'll consider you. Structure:Round 1 - Con ArgumentsRound 2 - Pro rebuttals and arguments, Con rebuttals and argumentsRound 3 - Same as above.Round 4 - Con rebuttals, Pro may only say "Thank you for this debate" so there are an even number of rounds.
The Incredibles + Frozone (10 years older from their current ages) vs The Avengers

This debate will be about a theoretical fight between the Incredibles (aged 10 years older than their age in the 2004 movie) plus Frozone from the 2004 movie 'The Incredibles' and the animated short 'Jack Jack Attack', against the original Avengers of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movie 'The Avengers'. I will be arguing on the side of the Incredibles + Frozone, Con will be arguing on the side of the Avengers. 1 - Voters will vote based on who they believe would win in a theoretical fight between both sides based on the arguments presented in this debate. 2 - The battle will take place in a neutral environment, meaning that neither side can place the battle in a specific location in order to provide a better advantage for the side they are arguing for. This battle will focus entirely on the powers and traits of the superheroes on both sides, no third-party factors are allowed.3 - The powers of the Incredibles is based on the 2004 movie 'The Incredibles', and the animated short 'Jack-Jack attack'. The powers of the Avengers is based on the 2012 film 'The Avengers' and all previous Marvel films about those superheroes from 2008 to 2012.4 - 4 rounds, 4000 characters, 24 hours between rounds. No trolling or excessive semantics (because this is a very hypothetical debate not grounded in reality both sides can take some liberties in warping reality to argue their cases)5 - No third parties are allowed to be included in the fight (Except Frozone, to make the number of people on both teams even at 6), meaning that this theoretical fight can ONLY include characters listed below. Characters from The Incredibles: 1 - Bob Parr aka Mr. Incredible = 55 years old = Super strength2 - Helen Parr aka Elastigirl = 50 years old = Stretch into any position3 - Violet Parr = 25 years old = Invisibility and can generate forcefields4 - Dash Parr = 20 years old = Super Speed5 - Jack Jack Parr = 10 years old = Shoot lasers from his eyes, teleport, turn into fire, turn into heavy bulletproof steel, turn into small version of Hulk6 - Lucius Best aka Frozone = 55 years old = Create ice and snowCharacters from the Avengers (Con can ONLY cite powers for each superhero that were present in the 2012 Avengers movie and from previous marvel movies films from 2008 to 2012)1 - Iron Man - Suit of armor that can fly, fire powerful lasers for a short time, fire repulser blasts from his palms, feet, and chest, etc. .. .
Guitar Competition of Awesomeness

I thank Masterguitarist for accepting, as he is sure to be a great opponent.Some issues I'd like to clear up: 1) Please post videos of yourself playing that have been recorded for this debate. Mentioning what you're playing the songs for will alleviate any suspicion of videos not being from you.2) The format states that rounds 2-4 are reserved for Guitar Shredding Badassery. If you would like to post that same song, post it in round 2, as music posted in round 1 doesn't count.3) State the genre of your music, so we are sure the different rounds have different genres My Music SelectionsHungarian Dance No. 5 - Johannes Brahms This piece is a fast, challenging classical song that is difficult to get down on the guitar, especially when it's 86 degrees in your room and you're sweating like an obese walrus during mating season. Spanish Song I tried for about 30 minutes to find the name of this song, but alas, it is obscure. This emotional Spanish, Classical guitar song features the use of volatile dynamics and soft whispers. I enjoy serenading and marinading with this song. Enjoy!http://www.youtube.com...
Guitar Competition of Awesomeness

Format1: Acceptance, Clarifications2-4: Guitar Shredding BadasseryRules1. Each of your rounds must be a different genre (e.g. Rock, Classical, Bluegrass). Our rounds function independently in this regard.2. All music must come from your guitar. No pre-recorded tracks.3. You can use effects pedals, but try to make the music come from the guitar, so it doesn't end up sounding like Megatron and a dragon having vigorous sex.4. Post your round as one YouTube video that is under 5-minutes in length.5. You may use the character space to talk about your composition, but no points will be derived from your descriptions.JudgesPlease, only vote if you are a musician or musically inclined. Judges should vote on three criteria on a score between 1-10, so the maximum score for each competitor's round is 30 and for the entire debate, 90. Only vote using the "Convincing Arguments" voting button (3 points).MUSICIANSHIP (Mood, Dynamics, Style, Control)PRESENTATION (Memorized, Comforatable, Captivating)SELECTION (Difficulty, Quality) Good luck, and kittens!
The Minimum Number of School Days per Year Should Be Lowered to 160

Yes I agree however this is not lowering the minimum amount of hours the school needs to complete, it just allows to schools to complete those hours in less days. For example, schools take money to run, so in a poor, urban school district, it would be more cost-efficient to extend the hours of the school day and reduce the number of school days. The students still receive the same amount of instruction, just over a shorter amount of days if the school district so chooses.
The Minimum Number of School Days per Year Should Be Lowered to 160

The number of minimum school days per year should be lowered to 160 days. This can be beneficial for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it gives schools a lot of flexibility. Most states currently have the minimum school days at somewhere around 180 days. Lowering this helps districts have more flexibility to give their school different hours and different days. Next, this can be very flexible because some districts are in rural or poor areas which could benefit from lower amounts of school days. Also, school districts will have to keep the same amount of hours as it was. Overall, this gives school districts so much more flexibility in planning their schedules depending on the needs of the students, while still giving kids the same amount of instruction time and opportunities.
V for Vendetta, the Movie, Glorifies Western Terrorism

My position (for): V for Vendetta, the movie, glorifies Western terrorism. http://www.youtube.com... Rounds: (1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments Terms: The Western world (Occident) = The countries of Europe and the Western Hemisphere.
V for Vendetta, the Movie, Glorifies Western Terrorism

Because my opponent forfeited the previous round and was unable to respond to my arguments, I extend previous arguments. As a conclusion, however, I will note a couple things. I challenged my opponent to refute one of two claims: "My opponent already stated that 'if the movie glorifies V, and if V is a Western terrorist, then the movie glorifies Western terrorism. ' If my opponent agrees that the audience's (including my opponent, who called V a 'hero') reaction to V proves V's glorification, then he must argue that V is not a Western terrorist. If he believes that V is a Western terrorist (a point that he did not dispute), then my opponent must argue that the audience's reactions to V do not prove V's glorification. " Because he forfeited the previous round, my opponent neither refuted those claims nor responded to my challenge. I have shown that V is a Western terrorist and that the film glorifies V. I have also shown that the lack of context for V's actions links the film's glorification of V to V's actions as a terrorist. I believe that I have fulfilled my requirements as Pro: V for Vendetta, the Movie, Glorifies Western Terrorism.
I say, "God does not Exist."

My opponent points to one source that claims evolution exists. This does not equivocate to God not existing. While this may seem to contradict the bible particularly, the chapter on genesis. If you were to read this chapter and just took it for it's face value then yes they contradict each other. One must remember that the bible is one interpretation of God's image as seen through the eye's of a few select men and it is not the same as God's exact words. BILLIONS of people believe in God http://www.adherents.com... to just say God does not exist and just provide 1 link that say's there is evolution is not sufficient enough to deny the extensive of a being who has provided BILLIONS of miracles http://www.christian-faith.com.... My opponent has also failed to answer my first contention that everyone has to be created by something and that person is accepted to be God by most of the world.
I say, "God does not Exist."

"God does not Exist." There, I said it, the topic is absolutely true. I do say, "God does not Exist." And humans evolved: http://www.talkorigins.org... Paintings don't reproduce, but if they were to it could have similar effects, for example the coloring of some butterflies is akin to painting and since it evolved there's no painter there either. I'd be happy to elaborate on religion or evolution further in another debate, but as for this debate: "God does not Exist" - is full of win.
God exists.

Pro's core argument goes as follows: 1. Moral theories that are more pragmatic are more likely to be true. 2. The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God and the afterlife enables moral universalism. 3. Moral universalism is highly pragmatic. 4. God and the afterlife are very likely to exist. This is deductively invalid, an instance of affirming the consequent, although this is concealed by the presentation. What Pro needs to say for the argument to be deductively valid is that moral universalism is ONLY true if God exists, not just that moral universalism is true if God exists. So one way of refuting this argument is just to point out that there are lots of other ways to account for moral universalism, like deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and rational self interest. In fact, Pro's own account of morality doesn't depend on God. He writes: "refraining from killing others is something he ought to do out of self-interest." So the moral standard he's using is self interest. My opponent isn't really a divine command theorist, he's an ethical egoist who happens to think that God exists. If self interest is a valid criterion then I can construct a universal secular morality on that basis rather than positing the existence of a God that we have no independent evidence for. I mean, if we're just making stuff up to confirm our moral preconceptions, why not make up something other than God? Plato thought that bad people were resurrected as donkeys, and philosophers ascended to the realm of Forms after death - he thought that this was just how the universe worked, not divine judgment. That sounds just as good as God, and I personally find it more aesthetically appealing, although this is a matter of taste. Finally, even if I grant everything up to this point, Pro isn't really arguing that God exists, he's really saying it would be awful if God didn't exist. Premise 1 is completely unjustified. You can't legitimately infer the existence of God from the alleged fact that it would be nice for God to exist. So there are a host of problems with this argument. But let's just look at the conclusion for a second. "4. God and the afterlife are very likely to exist." God and the afterlife are both made vastly less plausible by the overwhelming body of evidence that consciousness is dependent on the brain. You cannot have a mind without a physical substrate, because every faculty of the mind in intricately dependent on the operations of the brain to sustain it. Mental states correlate with brain states and stop or are damaged when the relevant areas of the brain are damaged. So it just not true that there are likely to be any minds without brains, whether God or the soul. Lastly, there is the problem of evil. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, then we would not expect there to be any gratuitous evil. But there is, and that's evidence against the existence of such a God.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists. By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises. God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors. Please note that the character maximum for this debate is 5,000 characters per round. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
Stigma: Depression is not a choice

I see where you are coming from, but this is were things get tricky. What you are implying (choose to change) takes years, even decades for some to manage. Its not that we don't want to change, allow me to provide personal anecdotes. When I attended my GP counselling session few months back, she highlighted that people hardly ever come to counselling for depression, that is how it is to address. I believe in order for one to change this hardwired disease ( depression is classified as a disability), one needs to accept counselling, master self discipline, education, and self-awareness. Again for some, that may take forever, definitely not overnight. I mean for me I wouldn't say my depression is critical, severe yes but not suicidal. My issues don't even compare to those who suffer from PTSD, rape-physical abuse etc. Ever since primary school, I have felt like a voice trapped inside a body, that's what best describes depression. I constantly get ill due to poor coping mechanisms, and have a terrible immune system. Its easy to say I need to control my diet*, and exercise more. However normal people experience a buzz when exercising, not me. I instantly feel more depressed after the initial endorphin rush, its as if i'm unable to experience positivity. Depression is so energy sapping that it simply can not be a choice. In other words, I can choose to fight and overcome it or accept it and continue living in misery, but I definitely can not control the root cause of it, ala it chose me first, as you already noted. The problem I have with society, is that no one is willing to address such as an epidemic, media hardly ever promotes it. that's the stigma aspect. *- Because of my issues, I think in black and white/ all or nothing. I eat a lot of pizza or pasta bake for comfort, otherwise I have been a vegetarian, have not even crisps and chocolate for 5 years in order to prevent myself from binge eating as I used to, This brings me back to poor coping mechanisms, if it is not pizza, its porn, if not porn, then caffeine-sugar, just something that blocks painful emotions. This aspect of depression is the hardest to master, overcoming poor coping mechanisms requires you trust people, and as mentioned depression thrives in isolation. Jonlee pointed out a very interesting observation about me in one of our debates, he said "I like to be in a losing position, it gives me power", that sums my condition perfectly. Its a sort of inferiority/god complex at the same time. Anyone is welcome to add their thoughts in the comments section, don't worry about my feelings, i want to understand the stigma completely, just as long as you don't hate crime, cos I can go off on a tangent quite easily.
Stigma: Depression is not a choice

Okay, I just want to make it clear first-off that I am new, and I just wanted something to do at the time being so let's please keep this a calm debate. (By the way, I'm twelve so please don't start bringing super complicated things into this as well.) I know depression is a very hard thing to go through, and sometimes the person that has it can feel as if they don't even belong in the same world, but depression can be a choice. Now don't get me wrong, it is not a conscious decision to be depressed in such a way, but there are conscious decision to cope. I guess I just proved your point a little, huh? Anyway, depression may not be a choice when it begins, but you can choose to change. I know you might say something like, "well I just can't connect with people" and maybe that is true. You might feel isolated, and that you aren't important in any way, but just think of this. Change that one way you think. I'm not asking you to become a different person, but change that part of your head that tells you nothing matters. You CAN choose to try and change your life. And you CAN choose to try and change the way you think about yourself. If you just try that, I promise you will feel a difference. And sorry if some of that was irrelevant, but I just got into this and I don't know anything about your particular situation.