BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Greed is Good

As Pro I will be arguing that "greed is good." Greed should be desired. It should be desired in everyone. Some will dismiss greed as being selfish. I agree, greed may be selfish but that is a good thing. I plan to fully explain why in this debate. Definitions: Greed-"Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Good-"To be desired or approved of" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.youtube.com...
we should never eat food or drink

This is a VERY unfair topic, just to state. 1) Can't the people just eat carbonated food and water? Doesn't mean that they can't eat food and water at all. 2) Also, this topic is so biased towards his side. I only wanted to debate this is because he challenged me to one and I never knew. Now this is a ridiculous topic and favoring his side, so vote for my side. Thank you.
Would Naruto Beat Goku

Hello. I will be taking the con side and arguing that Goku can defeat Naruto. My opponent who made the debate has not laid any structures of how the rounds should go, therefore I will start my arguments. No, Naruto cannot beat Goku regardless of how cool Naruto might be. You trying to put Naruto into battle with a character who can just fuse into SS4 and easily defeat him. If Goku wanted, he could just blow up the entire planet. If Goku wanted, he call upon Zeno with a press of a button, and Zeno would vanquish Naruto just blinking at him. Also, has Naruto even fought any villains that would equal in strength with those compared to who Goku has faced over the many years? No. In fact, all the villains in Dragonball would probably crush Naruto.
On Balance, The US Federal Government should continue its funding of the military

I thank everyone for their patience as it is now time for this debate to come to a close. Contention 1: Debt My opponent brings up that since both countries owe each other then it would cancel out and wouldn't be a big deal. This isn't true as that would only work under public debt, but this is the government owing money in private debt from bond sales. [1]My opponent brings up things lthat I have already answered. This is the impact as I have shown that this will collapse the global markets into an issue worse than the great depression as well as cause massive inflation and a long list of other harms. All of which can and will happen if we do not change the status quo and under my opponent's plan will be excellerated. Not to mention that I have already given a time frame of when it will occur in 8 years. We could climb out of a depression as we have done so in the 30s, but that has lead to the rise of Hitler and the Axis powers. Doing so might lead to similar people rising up again. We can also see that these impacts will have a greater threat of what my opponent is bringing up, which I'll explain next contention on why that's not an issue, as well as harm the world more in the long run. Contention 2: Private MilitaryMy opponent follows the same skep as many other people go through. IF these armies exist then all these terror groups would rise up and we would have anarchy and mass violence. This isn't true. For an example with the US military in the private sector is Boeing. Boeing produces things from US military craft to NASA's rockets. They are a private company and the only US company permitted to due this as all of the others are surpressed from entry into the market. Boeing has been seen, since it's creation, to have not gone out and sold fighter jets to private citizens or attacked the government. All of which are things that my opponent is talking about would have happend here with the US's number one arms manufacturer. [2] WIth this occuring my opponent's issues with this are all negated. Out of some of the issues my opponent has brought up, the US Federal government does not even currently combat, so these are irrelvant. They would handle these threats as the government would order them to. With that I thank you and please vote Con!Sources1. (https://www.quora.com...) 2. ( http://www.boeing.com...)
On Balance, The US Federal Government should continue its funding of the military

Conduct to Con. Defense: Contention 1: US Debt: "Today the US debt is climbing to astronomical numbers. It is $19 trillion and climbing. This disaterous spending causes US inflation, and on top of the US debt this will cause a catastrophe for the US and nations all across the world. [1]" The problem with this argument is that the weight of the impact is not as significant as some might think. This is because America owes a lot of there debt to China. China owes debt to us. The question my opponent does not answer is where our debt comes from. Here are the statistics: "We owe most of the money to ourselves. "We owe a big chunk of the money " about $6 trillion " to the Federal government. So if there ever were a default (hopefully there won"t be) the government would also be stiffing itself. "We owe about $5 trillion to other countries. We owe China 1.3 trillion dollars. . http://www.theblaze.com... Keep in mind, China also owes us over 1 trillion dollars in debt which makes us even. My opponent has to answer 4 things in order for this argument to be acceptable. 1. What is the real impact of our debt increasing, because we really just owe debt to ourselves. 2. What is the a timeframe of a crash happening, and how significant would it be? 3. How do you know that we cannot just climb ourselves out of the Depression or Recession? We did this with the Obama Administration. 4. Does the impact of our debt outweigh the constant threats America faces around the world. Contention 2: Private Military Private Militaries would bring a lot of unintended consequences if this were possible. First of all, Con would need to answer the following questions: 1. If a private military overpowers or strides away from US interests, how will the US handle it? If you say regulation, this is too simple of answer seeing as how millionaires and billionaires would control politicians. Also, there are a lot of private military groups that could take advantage of what the US allowed them to do. This could give rise to organized crime, and groups such as The Ku Klux Klan. My opponent would have to be more specific when talking about private militaries. How can private militaries handle all of these threats: Al-Quada is a terrorist group in Iraq which is dedicated to destroying America, and have put there motivations into conquering Iraq and Afghanistan leaving the two nations unstable. Hamas is a local terrorist group in Palestine that wants to bring down the Israeli government, and also support the destruction of America. The Armed Islamic Group in Algeria has dedicated itself to wiping out villages, and ethnic cleansing promoting disorder in these regions. Boko Haram is also a terrorist group that gained notoriety when kidnapping innocent girls, and subjugating them to rape, slavery, and labor. They also support ISIS's ambition to destroy America. I also think that combining the terror groups, and Russian or Chinese ambition will create huge problems for America and Democracy itself.
Resolved: God Is Weak

For whatever reason, my opponent has forfeited round two. This is a shame, and may throw the debate of course, considering round two was a vital round (arguments and evidence were scheduled to be presented in this round).In any case, please extend all of my arguments and refutations in regards to his cross-examination of my analysis of the resoluton put forth. I have nothing else to discuss but this.Whatever my opponent decides to do in the next round his up too him, but it would be helpful for both sides if you include a rebuttal statement AND outline of your points.Thank you.
Resolved: God Is Weak

My opponent aims to prove or at least give evidence that God is weak, as you can see the burden of proof is squarely at the feet of my opponent. In regards tot he definition of God as creator of the universe, it is interesting that he regards the creator of all the universe to be weak. If my opponent is a subscriber/follower to the theory of biological evolution, he is essentially saying that that theory and mechanism of biological evolution is weak as it came and was designed from this weak God. I suggest my opponent take a look at an atom bomb and the Big Bang theory and argue sufficiently that the being who caused that to happen is a weak and feeble being. Considering that in the recent discoveries the Big Bang theory, where particle physicists believe the Big Bang was a huge explosion of energy. In fact this explosion would be astronomical compared to an atom bomb. [1] Consider this God merely spoke the universe into being-a universe that astronomers estimate contains more than 100 billion galaxies. But all the power contained in this entire universe is but a small representation of the unlimited power of God. The combined energy of all earth's storms, winds, ocean waves, and other forces of nature do not equal even a fraction of God's almighty power. [2] This God my opponent likes to verbally bash seems more powerful than superman and all the action heroes put together, because this all powerful God does not "fix" things the way my opponent wants them to be done. It seems my opponent has self proclaimed himself God and now falls subject to the criticism he presents. My opponent represents a theological debate, thus requires theological responses but I will not be limiting myself to these types of arguments unless absolutely necessary. My main focus will be scientific and philosophical rebuttals to any sort of evidence my opponent presents. 1. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 2. . http://www.discovergod.com...
Resolved: God Is Weak

Thank you to anyone who participates in this debate. Special thanks to my opponent for either accpeting or declining this debate. Good Luck.Because of my personal opinion with the resolution put forth, I am obliged to argue in acceptance to the resolution that states, 'Resolved: God Is Weak' This will be a four round debate. The criteria in which the debate will flow is as follows--- Round One: ACCEPTANCE ONLY (and key terms in regards to resolution) Round Two: Main contentions/arguments put forth Round Three: Rebuttals/cross-examination of opponents points---NO NEW ARGUMENTS Round Four: Closing statements---NO NEW ARGUMENTS Before passing this debate onto my opponent, I must lay out some key terms in regards to the resolution... God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being.Is: self explanatoryWeak: Of a low standard; performing or performed badlyWith those statements put forth, it is obvious to see that I am arguing the fact that God is weak in the sense that he fails to perform what must be done, what should be done, and ultimately what can be done in regards to his position as supreme ruler.With our criteria at hand, our definition at equal opportunity, let us see if CON shall accept. Thank you.Sources:[1]-http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]-The Oxford American College Dictionary
Resolved: God Is Weak

For Whatever reason, my opponent has once more forfeited a very vital round. At this moment, this debate seems to have become a tad tumultuous in the fact that I don't believe my opponent has anything else to say or do. It is quite undeniable that PRO has won this debate. Please, once more, extend all of my arguments and refutations. My opponent can do whatever he pleases in the next round, but the winner is already certain.
Jesus Christ loves gays.

My opponent claims I am the one that is crazy, simply because he is backed into a corner. I will demonstrate this through two of his contradictory quotes. "First, Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Taking all of man's sins onto himself. " -My opponent "In other words, my opponent claims God hates all humans. This is because we are all sinners. Now if I remember correctly, nobody through a stone, meaning everyone had sinned. " - Also my opponent If Jesus took all of man's sins onto himself, then how could we all be sinners? My opponent's attempts to equate God hating sinners with God hating everyone is a logical fallacy within itself, but furthermore proves the double standards found within the bible and this is one of the main reasons he fails to prove his point - the bible is rife with double standards. My opponent contradicted himself within two arguments, one right after another. His argument is therefore null because of the contradiction. My opponent also failed to address my equating of an act with a person, nor my example of the eighth commandment. I will assume that this is because he knew it was a valid point and he had no rebuttal. This point alone debunks his 'God loves everyone, therefore God loves homosexuals' point, as does the fact that the bible is littered with double standards which he himself proved through his own contradictory points. Thank you to anyone following this debate.
Jesus Christ loves gays.

My opponent has taken the crazy stance that God hates sinners. I rarely use the word crazy, but I think the situation merits the usage of this word. In other words, my opponent claims God hates all humans. This is because we are all sinners. One of the most famous lines Jesus says is "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.[2]" Now if I remember correctly, nobody through a stone, meaning everyone had sinned.Is this really what the Bible is portrayed as, a book of hate? That Jesus hated all the people who would not throw a stone, because they all sinned. I don't know why my opponent is trying to twist the words of the Lord, but I will do my best to remedy the situation. The simple answer, no of course God doesn't hate all mankind. [3] I have proven that God loves mankind and shown the discrepancy between a sinner and sin. I have also shown that Jesus loves us despite our sins. Thank you for the debate.Sources.2. http://biblehub.com...3. http://www.apologeticspress.org...
Jesus Christ loves gays.

My opponent has attempted to trap me by using a logical fallacy. The problem being, that if God dislikes sexual activity with another of the same sex, but does not explicitly say that he doesn't hate homosexuals is not proof that he loves them. In fact, I would put forth that hating an act that is a characteristic of a person is the same as a hatred for that type of person. I will present an example to illustrate this fallacy. The eighth commandment states 'thou shalt not steal, but nowhere does God say that he hates or condemns thieves. This does not prove that God loves thieves, and in fact, it is implied that he does hate and condemn them. Another thing I would like to address is the fact that the burden of proof falls upon my opponent to prove that God loves homosexuals. His argument that God loves all, so He loves gays is a fallacy for the same reason his first argument is. It may be said that God loves all, but as you have pointed out the bible is full of double standards, this included. Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates." This is proof that God hates sinners. Amount these sinners we find homosexuals (or people who perform homosexual acts, as my opponent would appreciate the distinction between two things that are indeed the same).
Jesus Christ loves gays.

RebuttalFirst, Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Taking all of man's sins onto himself.Second, my opponent is blurring the lines between being gay and homosexual deeds. This is seen by using the word homosexuality. "1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex." [0]As you can see there is great chasm between the two definitions. Now look at the word gay I used in the topic. [1]"1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex." [1]Now which one is it my opponent? The 1st or the second or both? I have already proven God loves gays in r1. Now an argument could be made that God dislike the homosexual orientation, yet that is a red herring and irrelevant to the debate. A case could also be that God hates sexual activity with a person of the same sex, nevertheless that is also a red herring and off topic. I conclude that my opponent's entire r1 argument is a red herring and should have no impact upon the resolution. Meanwhile I have proven that God loves gays, a person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex. Thank you for the debate. May gays go to heaven. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Jesus Christ loves gays.

It is said directly from the bible, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Jesus was noted to expose sinful hearts, and was a believer in god and Christianity. Therefore, he was against homosexuality primarily based upon these facts.
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

Before I get to my rebuttal to Pro's teenager argument, I must point out that Pro plagiarized his entire elderly argument. I do not debate plagiarized arguments because it should be the person who made the argument to argue its validity/soundness, not someone who copy and pasted it. If Pro posts an argument he wrote himself, I will rebut that, but as far as I am concerned, he forfeited round 3. http://www.nolo.com... http://nihseniorhealth.gov... I will also point out that there is a striking difference in the parts of his teenager argument where Pro copy and pasted his argument from the listed sources and where he wrote his own material. That said, at least he actually wrote something on his own for his teenager argument, unlike the elderly argument he completely copied. I will now give a point by point rebuttal to his teenager argument: "This shows us that teenagers are too early to drive cars. They can practice driving, however they can't do it in a street because, it is too dangerous. They could do it in a safed secured area to do all those things to get a license" No, it shows us that new drivers get in more accidents. This, in no way, shows that there is something special about being a new driver as a teenager compared to a new driver as an older person. Additionally, practicing driving only helps if it is done on a road. Pro's suggestion would be like playing Guitar Hero as preparation for playing a guitar. "In many places it shows that teenagers are not safe enough. I think that teenagers should wait until they are twenty to be driving." Explain why new drivers at 20 will be better drivers than new drivers at 16. Use actual evidence.
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

Thank you for making your elderly case. In this case I will say the elderly is 70-200.1. First it is not safe for elderly because they can't drive. For many elders, and their loved ones, determining when they are no longer safe on the road is a difficult and heart wrenching process -- but ignoring the issue can be dangerous. According to a recent study by Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and the AAA Foundation for traffic Safety, drivers 65 and over are more likely to get in traffic accidents than younger drivers. And those 85 and older log a fatality rate nearly four times higher than that for teens. On the flip side, senior drivers cause fewer pedestrian and motorist deaths and are more likely to follow safety rules such as wearing seatbelts and not drinking and driving.2. They can't really do things that adults do. Changes in vision and hearing. A loss of visual acuity can make it harder for drivers to see essential traffic signs, lane lines, and other drivers and pedestrians. Conditions common for older eyes -- cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration -- make it harder for drivers to see, and may also limit peripheral vision. A sensitivity to light at night, or night vision, can make the glare of oncoming headlights dangerous. And the loss of hearing can mean usual signals used to alert drivers, such as horns and sirens, go unheeded. Limitations in physical fitness. A loss of muscle strength and flexibility can make it more difficult to steer, maneuver, grip the steering wheel, and pivot the head to check for traffic in the blind spot before changing lanes. Slowed reflexes. Slower reflexes mean it may take a longer time for a driver to react to traffic signals, unexpected behavior in pedestrians and other motorists, and to gauge appropriate speeds. Side effects of medication. People age 65 and older consume more prescription and over-the-counter medicines than any other age group. Taken alone or interacting with one another, medications may cause drowsiness or confusion and make it difficult to focus. Many also have the unexpected side effect of lowering tolerance for alcohol, which can notoriously affect driving skills. General health conditions. Physical and mental conditions common to the older population, from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's disease, can also affect a driver's agility and judgment on the road.3. Physical ChangesAs people age, their joints may get stiff, and their muscles may weaken. Maybe they have trouble walking or feel pain in their knees, legs, or ankles. All of these symptoms can make it harder to drive safely. A person may not be able to turn his or her head to look back, turn the steering wheel quickly, or brake safely.Thank you.
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

My case for the elderly is going to be even simpler than my case for teenagers. First, Pro never defined what elderly means. So on that alone he has no case to even make, but that is a bit nit picky. It is prejudicial to deny people the right to drive due to their age. The goal of people who want to deny people the right to drive based on their age is not to be prejudicial, rather it is to reduce traffic accidents. Requiring people to take a driving test at specified intervals will allow us to weed out people who have lost their ability to drive without unfairly taking away the rights of those whose driving skills are still intact. Thus, the proper and fair solution is to require additional driving tests, not to take away licenses just because someone hit an arbitrary threshold. If pro manages to find data showing that after a certain age, people tend to get in many more accidents, then all he has done is shown that people nearing that age should take another driving test so that those who are no longer able to drive safely are removed from the traffic pool.
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

Thank you for making your arguments. I will start making mine also.Teenagers1. It is a dangerous zone for teeenagers to drive and be in the street.New York Times says,"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 16- to 20-year-olds, with about 5,500 teenage drivers or passengers dying each year. In addition, about 450,000 teenagers are injured, 27,000 of them requiring hospitalization"Also experience mattersAlthough factors like alcohol, drugs and distractions like the stereo naturally come to mind, the single biggest reason for both fatal and nonfatal crashes involving teenage drivers is inexperience. In one study, the highest crash rate occurred during the first month after teenagers got their license. That rate, 120 crashes per 10,000 drivers, dropped to 70 crashes within five months.This shows us that teenagers are too early to drive cars. They can practice driving, however they can't do it in a street because, it is too dangerous. They could do it in a safed secured area to do all those things to get a licenseSafer DrivingIn many places it shows that teenagers are not safe enough. I think that teenagers should wait until they are twenty to be driving.For these reasons vote for me!Also read my sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...