BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is Immoral.

God is improbable for the following reasons: 1. Evolution trumps all creation myths carried out by a God. If God didn't create man, then God most likely does not exist. 2. The 'big bang theory' also trumps creation myths carried out by a god. The big bang theory does not include a god at any point. And we have valid reasons and evidence to prove an initial start to the big bang. Reasons and evidence for the initial start can be found in Lawrence Krauss's book titled "A Universe from Nothing". I highly recommended reading it. 3. So called spiritual experiences cannot be evidence for a God. They are experiences that you may associate as a foundation for your belief in God or a religion. But they are merely experiences. These things occur in or out of a religion or a belief in God. Neurology can easily explain such experiences without the need for there to be a spirit or God. 4. There are reasons aside from the few mentioned. I know God is improbable. If God existed, then we would need an explanation as to the origin of God. And complex ideas, require complex explanations. We can explain the origin of man and the universe without a god. So why do we need one? We don't. If I'm not mistaken, it sounds as though you agree with my point. You stated: "Now I have to accept that every incidence is in accordance with my personal account. And if I am displeased I'm sure there will be an answer." You want to be accountable for your actions. And so do I. Letting someone else take the fall is weak and doesn't allow me to stand on my own and be man. But the scriptures do not justify your logic or mine. Jesus was punished for your sins.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is Immoral.

OK. As I understand it the protocol was changed to "do as you would be done by"; This overrides previous protocols. Your argument then is amended to: God's system required penal substitution; The conclusion then is amended to: If god's system included penal substitution, then it was immoral. The proof of the existance of God is highly subjective with only personal experience to support it. Naturally we doubt it untill we recieve sufficient evidence. Just because you personally have not yet received sufficient evidence only makes God an improbability to yourself. This doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but only that you haven't recieved sufficient evidence to support a subjective opinion that God does exist. The modification of behaviour is something I struggle with. I accept that a sin is doing something to another that I don't want done to myself (new protocol) and if I feel sufficient remorse then my sin is foregiven. Now I have to accept that every incidence is in accordance with my personal account. And if I am displeased I'm sure there will be an answer.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is Immoral.

If god's plan required penal substitution, then God is immoral for having created a plan that required penal substitution. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my opening argument. Here is an altered syllogism to follow suit. Minor: Penal substitution is immoral. Major: God's system requires penal substitution. Conclusion: If god's system includes penal substitution, then it is immoral. I thought it an axiom that the system would fall under moral scrutiny. Furthermore, to respond to your first remark, Jesus was punished for our sins. He did not take our sins. Then he was punished for them, so now we can go to heaven. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to your statement with rearrangement. If God is truly keeping a tally of our sins, and he sees these sins as currency, then why can't we pay God back for our sins?You might say, Jesus was the only individual who could pay God back for the debt accumulated because he was perfect or the son of God. Why? Why was he the only human capable of perfection? Am I not the son of God as well? Why? Why? And why? Furthermore, why can't God simply forgive us for our sins? And if you believe Jesus to be God, why would he punish himself, and who is he trying to impress?? Why create a system based on such nonsense and an economic for sin? The answer to these questions is obvious. God is improbable. And we should not base our lives on nonsense. I also believe that the idea of sin as a form of debt is misunderstood. You may feel a sense of debt to Jesus Christ because he was substitute for the punishment of you sins, and you may modify your behavior. But he did not take our sins. He was punished for them. If he had taken our sins, he would be with sin. And he would cease to be perfect. If he is not perfect, how could he atone for our sins if a requisite for the task at hand is perfection. The idea of debt is nothing more than a feeling you have towards Jesus Christ. And as I stated before, the feeling of debt may lead to behavioral modification. But it does not guarantee modification.
Homeschooling

" Say that parent decided to homeschool their child. The child cannot get a second view of the difference between right and wrong." I don't know where you get the idea that homeschooling is about drilling opinions into children's head. Homeschooling is about providing an alternative education to the student. The main type of homeschooling, (parent teaching child) the parent acts as a teacher, but closer to the child. A child gets as much if not more sense of right and wrong than a traditional school student. "Their is a HUGE difference. 99.7 children in America who were raised with abuse are growing up to be abusers themselves. That percentage can go down when children go to school and learn." First of all, you did not cite your sources. Second of all, you have not shown the correlation between homeschooling and abuse. 1. Individualized education In a traditional public school, the teacher to student ratio is very high. At around 30-1, in a homeschool environment it is around 2-1. This provides a more individualized learning approach, such as focusing more on the students needs, giving student one on one lessons, and more. One size does not fit all. 2. Education. (Most) Homeschool students do better in academics. The homeschooled typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.) Homeschooled students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents" level of formal education or their family"s household income.[1] I have other reasons to support this but I would like to hear rebuttals first. [1] http://www.nheri.org...
Homeschooling

Hopefully we can have a friendly and kind debate about this issue. First, I want to talk about parenting types. Not everyone is sure of what happens in people's homes. It can be physical abuse, verbal abuse, starvation, child molestation, etc. .. That is a parenting type. Say that parent decided to homeschool their child. The child cannot get a second view of the difference between right and wrong. If you are raised poorly, you would grow up to be just like your parents. School teaches you want is right and what is wrong. Their is a HUGE difference. 99.7 children in America who were raised with abuse are growing up to be abusers themselves. That percentage can go down when children go to school and learn.
shoul pda be banned in schools

I do not understand how you can make a fair comparison between alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, all of which are harmful and banned in schools, to PDA. PDA is a separate issue from them. Of course you can't force people to not show eachother how they feel, but a public display of intimacy between two individuals does not just show eachother how they feel, but everybody in the immediate facility. No doubt a PDA can be fairly normal and mundane, but in some cases, it can essentially be based on sexual desire, as opposed to emotional affection and nobody likes to be a third party to that, unless they do. Moreover, showing how one feels in a relationship is more than physical displays of affection, as that is all to often tied to sexual desire.
shoul pda be banned in schools

I find the premise of your argument questionable. The debate is about should PDA be banned in schools and your opening line is linked to the fact that the adults, I assume, treat your generation like children when you PDA. This does not link to your argument at all, but appears to indicate that you are speaking subjectively, from a teenager's point of view and, as such, the argument is invariably flawed in its concept. This suggests that your opinion is liable to be inexperienced of what it means to be an adult, moreover to the fact that adulthood is merely attained by "real world hugging, kissing, holding hands, and sex.' Indeed, your argument is subjectively held by your peers and will contain much to that effect. I must, however, ask con to outline a reasonable argument as to why PDA should not be banned in schools.
Justin Bieber is very sexually attractive

Justin Bieber has been involved in several legal issues as of lately as regards to battery and assault. In Sweden, officials found marijuana on his tour bus, indicating he possibly could have been smoking. Do these things really make a person attractive? I wouldn't think so. Also his music is dreadful and is hated by most. On Youtube, his Baby video has a 1:3 ratio like to dislike. He is majorly disliked, thus making him unattractive. The only reason he looks "attractive" is because he has all of this makeup and pampering put on him before he starts a show or photoshoot. That boy is probably terribly ugly without it. I would too if I knew that most of the world despises me. Ask yourself - would you want to be known as someone who thinks Justin Bieber is sexually attractive?
Justin Bieber is very sexually attractive

Alright then!First, I would like to call attention to several pictures of him.First, from the early years of his fame. s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />DAT HAIR! I admit, I used to like it a lot more like that, but I still think that he is attractive today, especially as his voice has deepened signifigantly. Next, a more up to date image. s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> Oh yeah, he still got it! And now plus ear piercings!Finally, I bring your attention to one of many similar images online. s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> DROOLLLLLL
Riddle Debate

Sadly, you are incorrect. The answer to this riddle was simple. There is an initial $30 charge. It should have been $25, so $5 must be returned and accounted for. $3 is given to the 3 friends, $2 is kept by the bellhop - there you have the $5. The trick to this riddle is that the addition and subtraction are done at the wrong times to misdirect your thinking - and quite successfully for most. Each of the 3 friends did indeed pay $9, not $10, and as far as the friends are concerned, they paid $27 for the night. But we know that the clerk will tell us that they were charged only $25 and when you add the $3 returned with the $2 kept by the bellhop, you come up with $30. Since he didn't get it right, I get all seven points.
Riddle Debate

This is another debate. Here is the format of this "debate". In this round, I will say the riddle, and the opponent will try to guess. Please note, you can only pick one final answer. If I stump the opponent, i get seven points. And if the opponent gets it correct, he gets the seven points. This is a classical riddle.Riddle; Three friends check into a motel for the night and the clerk tells them the bill is $30, payable in advance. So, they each pay the clerk $10 and go to their room. A few minutes later, the clerk realizes he has made an error and overcharged the trio by $5. He asks the bellhop to return $5 to the 3 friends who had just checked in. The bellhop sees this as an opportunity to make $2 as he reasons that the three friends would have a tough time dividing $5 evenly among them; so he decides to tell them that the clerk made a mistake of only $3, giving a dollar back to each of the friends. He pockets the leftover $2 and goes home for the day! Now, each of the three friends gets a dollar back, thus they each paid $9 for the room which is a total of $27 for the night. We know the bellhop pocketed $2 and adding that to the $27, you get $29, not $30 which was originally spent. Where did the other dollar go????This may be easy... but my friend asked me this and I didn't get it. So I'm seeing if The_Master_Riddler will get it Correct.
For morality to be real it must be absolute. Moral Relativism means morality is an illusion.

I'm arguing against the idea, "morality must be absolute to exist or to be real" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morality must not be absolute in order to exist, or it doesn't have to be absolute to be real. Morality is absolutely a relative term because it should be appllied to people in multiple different situations. We don't live in a world where everything happens systemically or in exact same manner, but reather in a world where random incidents can interrupt our situations occasionally. Also, morality tends to be based on different ethical standards, but it exists in every nation. Morality is evaluated or treated differently by regions or religions. What someone thinks is moral in France cannot be moral in the United States. For instance, people in France do not think eating snails or horses is immoral, but if there were a restaurant in the U.S., it would be packed with protestants who think it's against their values of morality. Everyone's morality has to be relative because they value different things. A vegitarian probably chose to be one because either he thought eating meat is immoral, or simply unhealthy. The idea that morality should be absolute disrepects people's different attitudes toward different issues and prphibit people from having different values.
For morality to be real it must be absolute. Moral Relativism means morality is an illusion.

Hello, To start I would like to clarify that I Believe that morality is merely an illusion...but I also believe it is one that we should act as if it is real. This, however, is a theoretical debate. It states that morality must be absolute if it is to "exist" at all. For morality to be relative would mean that it is completely conditional, and is to the whim of those who follow it. The concept of morality is basically the same as rules, and if no one has to follow the rules exempt people who want to, than they aren't really rules. For Reality to exist, it must be fundamental. Otherwise, it leads to the inevitable and correct conclusion that Morality does not exist. I hope somebody accepts this. -Harlan
Marijuana Should be Legalized in the United States of America.

First, I would like to apologize for my delayed response, but some things came up that hindered my time to argue. Now, let's begin, shall we? I will argue that marijuana should be legal in the united states because: (1. )Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming marijuana, and it does not stop traffickers from producing and selling it. (2. ) If used correctly, marijuana is a great alternative to many medicines. (3. ) Marijuana is a lot safer than tobacco and alcohol. My first point, prohibition does not stop users from consuming marijuana, but quite the contrary. Actually, prohibition makes purchasing marijuana for children a lot easier, because a dealer doesn't care if you are 12 or 22, as long as you have money. today, the United States consumes marijuana at a rate some three times that of Europe, although in most European countries, marijuana is legal. (Source: Hakim, Peter, "Rethinking US Drug Policy,") For my second point, that If used correctly, marijuana is a great alternative to many medicines that may cause liver failure, overdose, and even death, I cite a dispensary in Denver. They are ". .. careful to avoid that stoner vibe. .. " and they call ". .. marijuana 'medicine' and his customers are 'patients. '" these places are state ordained, and are noted to be a safer treatment to many diseases, and the people that they see are teachers, lawyers, doctors and retirees, who have afflictions like cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and chronic pain. They are state oriented medical users, and have the right to use it. my last, (and probably most predominant point) is that Marijuana is a lot safer than tobacco and alcohol. To argue this, please look at some statistics for me. Each year in the United States, approximately 440,000 persons die of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million years of potential life lost, $75 billion in direct medical costs, and $82 billion in lost productivity. Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U. S. government study suggests. Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits. Now, what we are all waiting for: Hoe many deaths from marijuana? 0. Not a single case of death ever recorded in the United States that was caused by marijuana. This concludes my arguments, again, I apologize for my delayed response. . http://www.gazette.com... . http://www.cdc.gov... Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Hakim, Peter, "Rethinking US Drug Policy," also, I would like to link you to a youtube video, it is an interview with a medical marijuana patient. www. youtube. com/watch? v=B8_5Ebsjk8I That is all. Thank you for your time! (:
Marijuana Should be Legalized in the United States of America.

Marijuana should be legal in the U.S. I maintain that there is no reason for it to remain illegal, and that the government has severely over dramatized the effects of marijuana. definitions: marijuana noun ï¿½Drug smoked or ingested for euphoric effect, '. "After smoking a bowl of that fine marijuana, they ate some brownies." legalize verb ï¿½To make legal, to permit under law. Either by decriminalizing something that had been illegal or by specifically permitting. Conditions: 4 rounds, time to argue is 72 hrs. voting period is 2 weeks 8,000 characters max. definitions: Ninjawords.com
Marijuana Should be Legalized in the United States of America.

Marijuana is addictive even if it only causes addiction in a small proportion of people. The Pro said that Marijuana is not addictive whatsoever, I proved him wrong. Im not implying the government has to tell people how to live, dont be stupid. I am saying how some people really dont give a dam about what they do to their bodies and would thus do harm to themselves if drugs such as heroin or marijuana were legalized. Number of Americans who get medical pot from the government = 4, just 4 http://www.cbsnews.com... Marijuana can treat depression for those who have it but it can also cause depression in those who dont have it, see my previous sources Steve Jobs wasnt a pot head, he smoked it a few times his first semester in college and then never did it again so dont glorify him as an example for how Pot doesnt do harm to society The Pro has conceded that Marijuana is addictive and has many dangerous side effects, and the Pro has conceded that there are over 400 agents in Marijuana that cause cancer. Pro has not offered rebuttels to the negative side effects that Marijuana use has been proven to cause or how millions of teenagers do end up in rehabilitation centers with marijuana addiction. His entire debate on why Marijuana should be legal is because it is safer than Tobacco and Alcohol, substances which kill 8.5 million a year combined..... Just because something isnt as harmful as the two most dangerous substances on Earth does not mean it should be legalized, Marijuana is a drug and should not be legalized.
A Resolution to Increase Natural Gas Production

WHEREAS US demand for oil continues to grow, and WHEREAS the United States furnishes just two percent of its supply from native sources, and much of the oil in the rest of the world exists in conflict areas, and WHEREAS the price of oil will likely rise as the finite global supply dwindles further, and WHEREAS the United States economy could be bankrupted by attempts to purchase this unsustainable resource from hostile foreign powers, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress here assembled that significant monies be spent to increase research and development of Hydraulic Fracturing or "Fracking," a process which releases and captures underground reserves of natural gas. Our estimated 2587 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would produce enough energy for US consumption for years to come, during which time more sustainable resources can be developed to replace fossil fuels entirely. You Start!
Guns

Some topics need deep thought, this is not one of those. My point is simple, there is no reason one needs to own a gun. There are numerous reasons that one might "want" to own a gun. Hunting? This is the 21st century, does anyone outside of Alaska still need to hunt to feed their family? No. Would anyone need a gun for self defense, if no guns are possessed by the public? No. There's no threat to Americans way of life whatsoever. So therefore, no guns needed.
Should abortion be legal

1. Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human is wrong, even if the human hasn't been born. 2. Abortion is the killing of a human being which defies God. This is the 6th commandment thou shall not kill. Abortion is breaking that commandment. 3. Abortions cause psychological damage a 2008 review study showed that young woman who go abortion increase risk for depression. 4. Abortion reduces number of adoptable babies. If parents don't want them give them to an orphanage. With that I end my post
Should abortion be legal

I will be arguing that abortion should be illegal. 1. ) Round One is for acceptance 2. ) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed 3. ) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link. 4. ) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed. 5. ) Only 10 cross x questions allowed for both sides. 6. ) optional must give clear road map and go in that order.
It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object.

Although I did present an argument "It helps the human brain learn" to the topic "It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object" which can be found in my initial post, I will concede to the wishes of Pro and call this debate a draw. My final words. It tickles my curiosity that the simple semantic discrepancy of "elude" being incorrectly used in the place of "allude" stifled any hope of an actual debate on the topic, even though the intended meaning of the topic could be and was deduced by both Pro and Con without any sort of intervention. I fully understand that in competitive debate there are strict rules that must be upheld so that fair judgement can be placed. I guess it was my mistake to not explicitly communicate in the beginning that I don't mind that there are grammatical and/or confusing elements within a topic. My goal is to explore meaning through debate and this can be done under any and all circumstances. I wish Pro good luck in all of his/her future debate endeavors.