BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Punishments over crimes

Before I begin accidents do not apply to my definition of a "serious murder" that I should've specified. By serious murder I mean terrible, but not legally insane people, who tortured or killed multiple people. for example that babysitter who drowned the kids because she wasn't getting paid enough. For people like that we should go medieval on their a$$ and put them a brazen bull or the rack. The death penalty is not unconstitutional http://constitution.now77.com.... That example is extremly you presented unlikely and this person definitely wouldn't be put in jail for life and wouldn't apply to be apart of the torture methods.
Punishments over crimes

.. I hope. To start out, I would like to define the key terms of this debate, as my opponent has failed to do so. Crime: any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. [1] Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. [1] Now, I would like to refute my opponents sole argument. Refutation 1: My esteemed colleague stated the following: "sick people who committed serious murders who will be in jail for life should be publicly embarrassed, raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered. Let's not be easy on these terrible people and make sure when someone does a terrible crime they know what could be the consequence. " I disagree with him for a few reasons actually. 1. Why? Why should we unjustly treat criminals? He hasn't stated a reason why. 2. This is unconstitutional. We have a constitution and laws to prevent against sick people like my opponent who believe this. There are laws regarding the punishments, and going this far would be breaking these laws and going against the constitution that our country, the USA, was founded on. 3. Put yourself in their shoes. I would like to ask my opponent to follow this, and imaging everything I am saying. Imagine that a burglar broke into your house into the middle of the night. You have your handy gun on your night stand as protection. The burglar comes into your room, and you get scared. You grab your gun, pull the trigger, and next thing you know, you killed a man. But it wasn't a burglar, it was your father. The cops come and arrest you. Now, you're in jail. You're in court, and you plead innocent, and your lawyer tries the case and to give you a fair chance. But, with your idea, opponent, you, the innocent man who did not mean to kill his father, will be "raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered. " I'm sure you wouldn't want this to happen to you. I will not formally present main arguments in this round, as they have been intermingled into my refutations. However, in round two, I will separate them to give my opponent the ease of refuting them, if he dares to do so. Thank you for creating this debate, opponent. I would like to welcome you to DDO and wish you good luck!
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Ignatious Creek; The world's greatest dragon detective - part 1[The setting is an dark alleyway. Two men in dark suits appear at either end. They are oth carrying suit cases]Dorothy [in a deep russian accent]: You have the weapons?Stevooo[High pitched and nasal]: N'yeeaas. Meeehehehehehehehe. [Snorts] Have you got the money? Dorothy: Oh I have want you want...[He opens his case and a grizzly bear leaps out]Stevooo: N'yeah. That line only works if you are killing me by giving me too much of something I want. N'yeah. Not a massive f'yan on b'years. [Backing away from the bear] S'yoo... [looks up] One muffin says to another muffin; "you ever danced with the devil in pale moonlight?" The other muffin says; "No", the First muffin says: "Oh, you should its good fun", the oven says "Aggh talking muffins.". [To himself] I can see what he meant about using a shyortah code phrase.Dorothy; I will enjoy watching you die. Then, going to pizza hut for celebration.[Suddenly a dragon swoops in from above, he punches Dorothy]Ignatious: Crime never prevails sexually confused russian mobster! Strictly speaking, it often does, but I'm trying to reduce that percentage. Spice things up a little.[He hits dorothy again, with the words Shazaam next his punch][Stevooo thanks Ignatious. He then exits, chased by a bear]The end.
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

As a response I must confess I am whole heartedly disappointed. As of this moment, we are no longer friends. You will not be expected at my birthday party and I am burning our scrapbook. The most succinct response I could devise was; What?You see my general impression of your round 3 argument was one of total bewilderment, you hardly defend your own arguments and the defence you provide is so weak it could compared to the "Iron Lady"'s attempt at being oscar bait.While we are airing our dirty laundry I think I ought to point out that I never liked your avatar. OpinionatedMan, you are not a ninja, you will never be a ninja and you smell bad. Ninjas can't smell bad. If they did, they would be detected. If that happened they wouldn't be ninjas. When you walk into a building the whole block "detects" you.You also never watch Jersey Shore ironically with me.Say we grant your statement of tests being unable to be unfair as true, this does not preclude the possibility that there is no test. Life being a moral test is not a criteria for god's existence. Its not even a part of Christian theology.Anyway, back to ranting.Chocolate? What the fudge (see what I did there?) is up with chocolate nowadays? Most of it doesn't taste like chocolate. You have your mint chocalate, your chocolate oranges, your chocolate with rice in it. Hell I even saw a chocolate stick with some icecream attatched. The icecream was much bigger than the chocolate with a cone and everything! Speaking of cones; is that a really weird shape. Its kind of got the whole circle thing going, but also with a triangle vibe. I think I like it.Has anyone watched the latest Sherlock Holmes movie yet? I didn't really like. Not anywhere near as good as the recent T.V series.If I were running for president, would you guys vote for me? Who I am kidding? Of course you would. I have Lupus.I don't actually. Did you know that one of the members of this site has the surname Actually? Must be awesome if anyone gets her name wrong. "Yo Igglestigo - what up?""My name is Igglestein* Actually"Heh. Love it. Reminds me of a great joke I heard the other day. So; there were two pencils having a race, y'know how it is. Yeah, they drew. Got another one; what's the difference between the french and toast?.....Oops I forgot I was talking to myself. Anyway, you can make soldiers out of toast.One of the dudes in my hall just merked a guy. I should probably go check that out. I'll write you a play for the next round if I've nothing better to do. Check out my early plays some time. I like the ones with zombies in them.* not her actual first name. But I think it should be. That would be cool.
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Hmm. It seems my buddy and I have a communication problem. I shall reiterate what I said in the previous round, but without the jokes.Your 1st argument ( now called A) is as such;1. "God" would have to be infinite in all dimensions2. Something which is infinite in each of these dimensions cannot be described as existing in them. Your second argument (now called B) is as follows;1. People believe this entity which provides a moral code (and subsequently, must be a perfect source of this moral code). This is how your argument reads. However, us being such great friends, I know that what you meant was not that god must be benevolent because people believe he is, but rather, because it is part of an idea often presented as a god by such individuals. Please correct me if you did mean the former. 2. This moral code is a test 3. The test is unfair 4. A perfect God can not be unfair (implied – you didn’t state it) 5. Therefore God can not exist My rebuttal to AWhy would a God, under any reasonable definition, necessarily need need to be infinite in all dimensions (x,y,z, time etc)? This was not explained in your argument. Secondly, it is an assertion without warrant that being infinite in a dimension means that the dimension does not apply to it. Surely if something has an infinite amount of quantity q, the attribute q is relevant to it? For example, take the line X = Y; it extends infinitely in both the Y and the X axis, yet X and Y are still dimensions attributal to line. In fact, they define it. It would be absurd to say that that the line can not be described in the dimensions X and Y. In this case it is opposite, it can solely be described in the X and Y dimensions. (B) now; Your argument here was quite confusingly worded, so my interpretation of your argument above may be flawed. I’ll try my best to do you justice. The rebuttal here is that God may have a sufficient moral reason for not making everything equal or fair; it may not seem probable, but it certainly is possible, which fulfils my burden of evidence.To explain further here; a sufficient moral reason for creating an unfair test would be a moral condition which would make it the moral action to create the test in its unfair state. I can't give an example, but that doesn't preclude one existing. There are more intelligent responses here about how it in most theologies isn’t a test, but rather Hell is justice or how it is not necessarily an attribute of god to be just (as it could be a subjective human characteristic/attribute), so a god could easily exist who is unfair by human standards, but I don’t really see the need so I won’t unless my opponent tears this argument down. Defence; A god, as defined, does not have any self contradictory elements; we may not have much or any evidence, but it certainly could exist. Being able to demonstrate that a God could exist fulfills my burden of evidence.
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

No, the God I am referring to has nothing to do with handsome men nor the force or manifestation of a supernatural being. I shall go with your definition of "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."I stand by what I said in round one and also I do not understand a word of what you said apart from the definitions. I have read it three times through and still don't understand that point you are trying to make?
Colonizing Mars

Money:Like I said, no buisness can start up without a loan and startup costs but eventually it will pay off. Economies change, who knows maybe the space industry would help grow the economy? With research and development plus the potential of opening it up to companies and advertisers and investers money really isn't that big of an issue. It's something you can get around. Biodomes:With great success and strives in the field for a one time experiment it was actually a success. It was only tried once. If we tried it again and again, trial and error testing eventually we would get the system to work properly. Just because it doesn't work now doesn't mean it won't work ever. The idea is possible, probable even. Population: This does not have to be the only reason we expand to Mars and there are other reasons for doing so. This argument has so much wrong with it. Not every square inch of an area is inhabitable. For example:mountainslakesriversswampsdesertsAll of these places pose potential problems for sustaining millions and millions of people like you are suggesting. Everything would have to be trucked in from elsewhere because farmland and forests and water reserves would be inhabited by millions of people. This would be a disaster. What I'm saying is colonizing Mars would help to prevent this future for our race. Inherancy:I don't understand what you're trying to say. I've made my point. Terraforming and biodomes in combination with each other could work to make Mars permenantly inhabitable. Space Treaty:You look closer. Like I said we do it for the good of humanity in the name of peace and science thus taking away "national aspiration" meaning empire building. "by means of use or occupation" meaning we cannot conquer space by force which we wouldn't be doing. Meaning we cannot conquer or possess areas in space against the will of humanity. If we do it in the name of science, exploration and mankind there would be no problem with this treaty. This treaty was signed to prevent the US or USSR from trying to conquer space with nuclear weapons. Sex in Space:How can something be "illegal" for health benefits? Also how do you know that if its never been attempted? Even if you needed straps (which you don't just lock your legs together) who cares? People will have sex no matter what. a) gravitythere is no irregular blood flow because blood is pumped and does not rely on gravity or else astronaughts would have blood problems in space which they don't. Gravity does not factor into bodily functions. Sex is part of man and space would not impede this proccess. Also it would take roughly 260 days to reach Mars [1] so if it really isn't possible to have sex in space you would only have to wait 260 days because there is gravity on Mars so you can just do it when you get there. Thus your point is moot.A fun debate. I thank you. [1] http://www.astronomycafe.net...
Colonizing Mars

1. You can't spend something you don't have. We're in debt, we shouldn't go any further. 2. You don't have a figure to work with however I provided one already and with one that high it would cause deficet spending. 3. The key is the program has been tested and failed 4. Have you not been reading my agruements. Lets do the math pop today. 5 billion times by seven to get to your figure. seven or even eights Texas can fit into Asia leaving the other coutinents available. 5. so you're admitting there is no inherancy. In debate there are 5 stock issues and since you said your self you have no inheracy that wins me that. Also in debate the Con has just to win one stock issue to win the debate, but I'll contiue. 6. Look closer, "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means, that means no colonizing or mining 8. you must not have read far, it is illegal for health benefits to have sex in space. and second of all with the zero gravity in space you'd need strapps and such to even keep you together. second, no gravity= irregular blood flow= no boner= no sex Have fun
Colonizing Mars

1. The U.S. national debt clock reads $15 trillion and more spending will push us over the edge for another Depression. Just look at Greece. 2. The resolutions was the United States Federal Government to where the U.S. only does it. 3. If they've fixed it then why haven't they tested it. I've to given evidense http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov...... 4. If you'd read the article it said if everyone had the same living space as the people in New York city. 5.evidense... if we have the tech now then how come we haven't done anything yet 6. sure, http://www.unoosa.org... 7. ??? 8. no sex in space. http://www.space.com..., http://articles.nydailynews.com..., (NASA even says no sex in space.) Enjoy
Colonizing Mars

- Like I said, the economy is improving, and this will be a gradual process over time. I cannot figure a cost because there is no cost to compare this to, its completely new ground. It will be in the billions I can tell you that but it will be over time. The economy will grow with this program, I think you missed that point. - No the ISS cost I gave you was the US cost alone. Also, who says that the US government can't work with other nations? If something like this happened it would certainly be a joint effort. The US government would start it in accordance to the resolution but it never says anything about functioning alone. - It was a breakthrough, once again you make my argument for me "they knew what went wrong" you say. The reason why they never fixed it is because there was no need to at the time. With a project like the colonization of Mars, with a team of experts working on the problem they will be able to fix it in a way that can support life on Mars. Next you say "with terraforming not working", when you have given no evidence that this would not work. In fact I think given enough time and science it would work quite well. Please expand this point. - While the entire population might be able to fit in Texas that would not be healthy nor comfortable. That would destroy the land and in turn destroy sustainibility for such a population. I could probably fit about 500 fish in my fishtank too but they wouldn't survive very long. Just because something fits doesn't mean it can surviv or function. - Once again you base your argument off of today's technology, but in the future mining other planets will be possible. With lower gravity on Mars (1/3 Earth gravity) mining would actually be easier than it is here. There have been studies showing how shooting a rock or rod at a surface could blow a crater out to help speed the mining process or prospect for new metals. Mining can be done off of Earth and will be done on Mars. "Outer Space treaty of 67" --- source please, or expand. Also treaties can be rewritten and reworked quite easily. But until you source this claim I cannot refute any further. - I addressed radiation through my terraforming argument. Once an atmosphere begins to stabilize and develope it will begin to absorb more and more radiation thus neutralizing the problem. Until then it would be no matter to build a biodome out of radiation resistent glass. "no sex in space""messed up babies"These are random jumbles that are not coherent nor relevent. Expand and I might be able to address this. --- Your move ---
Colonizing Mars

C2. If the economy is down and people see that we're spending they aren't going to be happy. You don't even have a figure or cost, no tech, and no suppervisor for this so we can assume anything till then. c3.ISS is indeed $35 billion, but the cost there is split between nations working on the ISS. C4. breakthrough as in they knew what went wrong, but they never fixed it. With teraforming not working how are you going to colonize Mars. C5. You must not of read my card, Whole population can fit in Texas. so even with growth we can move that throught the U.S. and even to other continents. so no inherancy there. c6. . i said with todays tech and I don't think we can mine other planets for that matter. I answered the overcrowded arguement., Future colonizing... Illegal under the Outer Space treaty of 67... and yes we signed it. Points still standing and more. Radiation (still standing) no sex in space messed up babies Your move.
Muhammad was a sincere person

= = = = = INTRODUCTION = = = = = This debate is about the sincerity of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), regarded as a Prophet in Islam. I will be arguing that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a sincere person in his actions and in his words, before and after his prophethood. My opponent will be arguing that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not a sincere person. It is not sufficient for my opponent to only refute my arguments, but must also present a case. The burden of proof is shared. = = = = = DEFINITIONS = = = = = sin·cer·i·ty  [sin-ser-i-tee] noun freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; http://dictionary.reference.com... per·son   [pur-suhn] noun a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons. http://dictionary.reference.com... A sincere person is someone who is truthful and acts (in action) as he truly feels. It is mainly to not employ double standards (hypocrisy, duplicity) and to be free from deception. It is mainly two things: 1. Trustworthiness, honesty etc 2. Freedom from hypocrisy, double standards etc To prove the resolution to be true, I must show that the two points listed above are true based on the definition of sincerity. I have sufficiently defined the resolution, no semantics please. = = = = = GUIDELINES = = = = = I (and if my opponent wants to use) have to use the hadith from this website. The two most authentic collections of hadith are Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, so those ones have higher authority then others (Al-Bukhari having the most authority). The complete collection (all volumes) of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim can be found in this link: http://www.quranexplorer.com... One can find all the chapters of the Quran (must use Yusuf Ali's interpretation) by changing the number in the URL. For example the URL for chapter 2 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... and the URL is for Chapter 7 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... The only difference between the chapters are the numbers, one is 002 (for chapter 2) and the other 007 (for chapter 7). Since Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) name will be mentioned a lot, many characters will used up from saying 'peace and blessings be upon him' (for me at least). For this debate, the phrase 'peace and blessings be upon him' will be abbreviated to the single symbol ℗. peace and blessings be upon him = ℗ = = = = = DEBATE FORMAT = = = = = 1. First Round is for acceptance only 2. Opening Arguments 3. Rebuttals/Arguments 4. Closing statements/Rebuttals