BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science says you have no brain

You really lost me with that response."Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsiable claims does in fact provide evidence and sufficient justification that we have a brain."Ok I suppose I'm with you so far..."Without one, we can not think."Right..."Scientists have confirmed that every habitable species (Including us human beings) were created with a brain and has provided proportional, adequate evidence."What is a "habitable species"?So are you conceding that you've lost this debate, or are you being sarcastic? I really do apologize, but I just can't tell.
Science says you have no brain

Whoops... My bad. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsiable claims does in fact provide evidence and sufficient justification that we have a brain. Without one, we can not think. Scientists have confirmed that every habitable species (Including us human beings) were created with a brain and has provided proportional, adequate evidence. It was just an example, by the way. Anyways, thank you for bringing up my mistake.
Science says you have no brain

In a previous debate you said the following: "Have you ever touched, smelled, heard, seen, or tasted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly. That's what keeps things alive and moving. " Yes I have seen my brain in various scans/pictures, and I contend that science can easily demonstrate that I have a brain, and that no faith is required to belief that I have a brain. Faith, I think we agree based on what you've stated previously, is defined as the belief in something without any evidence. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsifiable claims is what provides evidence and sufficient justification to believe any claim, including the claim that I do in fact have a brain. In order to move forward, we both need to reject the idea of hard solipsism, namely that one can only one's own mind is sure to exist, in other words nothing outside of the brain can be known to exist. If you do not accept this starting premise, we can't really have this debate, as you would be conceding that you would in fact be debating yourself inside your own mind, rather than another thinking human via the internet.
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

Round 1: State your arguments. Round 2: Refute your opponents arguments as well as rebuilding you own. Round 3: Summary of arguments and rebuttals. To help clarify this debate I would like to provide the definition of joke. According to princeton.edu, a joke is defined as something that is said for humourous amusement, not to be taken seriously. I stand in firm negation of the resolution for these two main reasons. 1. Racist jokes are derived from generalizations, and generalizations are based upon fact. Therefore, racist jokes have areas of factuality in them. 2. According to my definition of joke, making racist jokes is not to be taken seriously. Meaning that the person saying the joke does not believe in what he says, he merely says it to invoke laughter.
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

Regarding my definition. A) my opponent provided no link for his and thus we have no way to verify it what it says and b) the only thing on MSN for racial intolerance is this: "refusal to accept differences: unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own"[1] which is defining intolerance. You are telling a joke based on fact. When you tell a joke you are making light on something humorous or annoying thus it fits in my definition of intolerance. Then we look to my definition of racist and we can see that when you tell a racist joke you making light of a generalization that causes you annoyance and/or you find funny and thus that fits in the definition of racist making you a racist. My opponent also dropped the argument that "it was not meant to be taken seriously" and thus that flows to my side and I urge a Pro ballot. [1] http://encarta.msn.com...
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

I would first like to point out that my opponents definition of intolerance from princeton does not apply to this debate because the important definition is Racial intolerance not intolerance. They may seem similar; however, their definitions are actually fairly different. My opponent needs to prove that you are a racist because you made a racist joke. However, if I can disprove his claim, then logically the Con should win. He said that "since the person telling a joke that is based on generalizations and ultimately fact, then he/she is believing what is being said." I simply do not see the logic in this statement. Just because you say something that is based upon small amounts of fact that is meant for the purpose of amusing others doesn't mean you believe in it.
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

Why thank you :) You seem quite smart yourself. I was agreeing with your first contention that racist jokes do have portions of fact in them. I would first like to provide a counter definition to intolerance: "impatience with annoyances"[1] My definition is from Princeton and therefore we can assert that it is more credible than MSN.com. But moving on, a joke can be intended to not be taken seriously whist the person saying it still believes it. If you tell a racist joke and are annoyed by the race or the generalization, by definition you are racist. A key point that must be stressed is that the joke not meant to be taken seriously makes no claim about the person telling it. Since the person is telling a joke that is based on a generalization and ultimately fact, he/she is believing what is being said and is racist. Thus we can see that if you tell a racist joke you are agreeing with a generalization based on fact and intolerances are based upon this fact which you are joking about thus proving you are racist. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

To start off i would like to say that my opponent makes a compelling argument and that I am thrilled that an intellectual accepted this debate and not some ignorant person. However, I do not see how my first contention could also apply to my opponents argument. Partially because i do not fully understand what my opponent is trying to say underneath his definitions of a racist. Anyways, my opponent agreed with me that jokes are based upon generalizations and ultimately facts. However, he also states that racist jokes are based upon racial interlerance which implies that the person making the joke is a racist. This is simply not true. Racist jokes are not based upon racial intolerance because of the fact that, as i stated previously, racist jokes are not to be taken seriously. According to msn.com the defintion of racial intolerance is a refusal to accept people who are different from you. In order for a racist joke to be based upon racial intolerance, a person must first "refuse to accept people that are different from them" which basically means that in order for the person saying the joke to be a racist they have to believe in what they say. And as i stated previously, a joke is not to be taken seriously. I am not saying that there aren't racists that tell racist jokes and they believe in what they are saying. I am merely trying to prove that telling a racist joke does not automatically make you a racist.
Making racist jokes means that you are a racist.

This should be fun. I will define racist: "based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks""[1] Cross apply my opponent's 1 to me and add 2. It is true that jokes are based of generalizations and ultimately facts yet regardless of whether or the not the joke is meant to be taken seriously has no bearing on whether the person believes what he is saying. You can still believe what you say yet have it not be taken seriously and thus they are racist AND if you look to my definition of racist, the joke is based on racial intolerance and is said by a person who has made a generalization which is also racial intolerance and thus the person is racist. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
the united federal government should substiantially decrease the production of military warfare

The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of militaqry warfare not only because it will save money but because it will also get troops out of foreign countries. By reducing military warfare we arent stopping our progress in foreign countries just saving the lives of some of the people over there. When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected. Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives
the united federal government should substiantially decrease the production of military warfare

It is in our best interest and the country's being occupied for the U. S. to not pull out for their protection and ours. These bases may also help us deploy troops to areas hit by disasters and potential war zones in the future. These bases de[ending on location would be closer than deploying from the U. S. It is also in our best interest to keep weapons stockpiled so that in events of a major world war production would cost as much money and can be used for other things.
the united federal government should substiantially decrease the production of military warfare

The united states should not decrease the production of military warfare. The troops stationed in other places besides a war zone are for protection of the people inhabiting the area and us as a country. The U. S military cant pull out of certain places such as south Korea due to the fact that a war treaty was never signed between North Korea and the UN after the Korean war. The U. S. stockpiles weapons in case of an outbreak of war so that we will not have to produce as much. "The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of military warfare not only because it will save money" how much money will this save and what will it be used for? "When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected. " The U. S. may direct these troops to other places such as Afghanistan, just because they are not needed in one area doesn't mean they are not needed in another. "Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives. " what if the U. S. pulls out of other places and these other countries become invaded by groups of extremist due to the U. S. threat being gone, and what if the U. S. doesn't save money as you predict?
Marijuana should be legalized

I never said that everyone lives in boxes outside. Also, that is very offensive. I understand what you are saying about it helping the economy and what not but it just isn't right. Marijuana is a drug and it is harmful to the body. Have you ever thought about why marijuana is only legal in Colorado? I just feel that if the government approves drugs like marijuana, people will think it is alright to use other drugs that are illegal, such as cocaine and acid. I also want to make not of a few things: I not once said it was my "job" to tell other people what they can do for fun or even for medical reasons. It makes perfect sense that you are from Colorado because the other states are clearly against it. I was just stating my opinion. You had some decent points, but marijuana is a harmful drug that should stay illegal (In everywhere but Colorado that is.) Thanks again for challenging me to this debate.
Marijuana should be legalized

First of all not everyone lives in boxes outside. Our current top class is the middle class. You are right that Marijuana will not be cheap. Are computers cheap. .. .. no Are and video games phones or other devices cheap. .. .. no How about cigarettes they have a tax of about 5.00 making one pack almost 7.00 and people still buy them making the government loads of money. The point is people will still buy Marijuana. So small pot shops will start showing up everywhere. You said I used the Denver post link. You said it was bias if you had clicked on the link you would have seen that it is both for and against Marijuana. I also used Colorado because they have the experience had I used the New York Times it would have been unreliable. I also live in Colorado and I can see all of the small shops starting helping our local economy. If we make this national we would be very successful. To finish off my argument I would like to say that local governments can outlaw Marijuana in their county. My personal county outlawed it and is already regretting their choice. While small business growth is booming in other counties. Ours is being setback. The schools are getting hurt as well as the police force. It is not your job to tell other people what they can do for fun or even for medical reasons. Marijuana should be legal.
Marijuana should be legalized

"The use and selling of Marijuana will tremendously boost our poor economy." If people don't have enough money to even live in a house then how will they have any money to buy this so called economy saver? I know for a fact if Marijuana was sold it would not be cheap. I feel that it wouldn't be bought because we have more than enough problems in America right now. I also noticed that you used a website called the denverpost. That website seems incredibly biased considering it is in Colorado, the only state that has legalized marijuana.
Marijuana should be legalized

So you said "The United States is not just a place for people to do whatever they feel like. Americans have freedoms but we can't just do whatever we feel like." First of all The United States is a place for people do whatever they feel like as long as it does not cause any harm to someone else or fatal harm to themselves. As I said before alcohol does more damage then Marijuana. That is legal so why not Marijuana. Now I will begin my second point in this argument. The use and selling of Marijuana will tremendously boost our poor economy. When the pilgrims first got here they had nothing and were dying just like every other civilization tried. Then they planted tobacco. The Europeans loved the pilgrims tobacco. The soil that it grew in made have something new to it. So European countries would buy them instantaneously. They begin to trade and sell trade and sell. Tobacco saved the economy. Was it healthy? Absolutely not. Another case of this is cotton The slave-based TOBACCO ECONOMY that sustained the Chesapeake region was in deep crisis in the late-18th century and some Virginia leaders even talked about ending slavery however Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin a device that separated the seeds from cotton balls. This saved another economy. Marijuana can save our economy it can be that plant. It has been estimated that it can raise 60 million in a year. http://www.denverpost.com... http://www.ushistory.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

"Marijuana does not cause harm to like any other drug." Marijuana is a gateway drug. The majority of cocaine users started off on marijuana and things got out of control. This may not happen to everyone but it happens to enough people to make it an issue. If marijuana gets legalized in all states other illegal drugs would be used out of proportion. Marijuana can impair learning skills, cause sleep impairment, and increase risk in schizophrenia. Marijuana has many harmful effects on the body, so don't even act like it is harmless. The United States is not just a place for people to do whatever they feel like. Americans have freedoms but we can't just do whatever we feel like. http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

First of all the debate specifically says and I quote "Marijuana should be legalized. " So I am not talking about all drugs just Marijuana. Also Marijuana is already legal in Colorado. So to be more specific I meant it should be legal in all of the states. Medical Marijuana is already legal so it would be pointless in arguing that topic. So my biggest argument is going to say that why not? Marijuana does not cause harm to like any other drug. As a matter as a matter of fact many do not even consider it a drug myself included. Alcohol is more dangerous than Marijuana. The CDC (Control Disease Center) has these statistics- 37,000 annual U. S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado (. http://archive.saferchoice.org...) they do not even have a chart of deaths from Marijuana. People have their rights and should be able to have something that will not harm them or anyone else. This the United States of America the place where people can do want they want. So I say let them do it.
Marijuana should be legalized

Here is just one of my thoughts: If something is currently not legal, then there is good reason for that. I know exactly what you drug legalization enthusiasts think. You think that these drugs could be used for medical reasons. I know some people believe that these drugs could be great help, but I know that there are better options. There are many different medicines that ARE legalized and why can't we just use those? If we already have a solution there is no need to legalize these drugs. Why legalize something that is already being illegally used and sold? If people are already illegally smoking marijuana what is the point? What would stop them anyway?
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

1. god can sometimes take human form. that doesn't mean anyone has seen him in his real essence. 2. sunday as a rest day cause you want to, not cause you need it. same reason we take the sabbath day off.... we dont need to but it's good form. 3. god knew what he was going to do before he did it. he didn't have to test him, he tested him so the person can see what they are made of.4. just because god is 'with you' doesn't mean everything you do is perfect and invincible. 5. a person can be vengeful and merciful, that's just different aspects of their personality, it doesn't mean they are a contradiction.
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

I will give you 5 contradictions, two links to websites full of even more contradictions, and finally an interactive webpage that lets you click on an impressive graphic that links thousands of biblical contradictions together. Note that the 5 I list are ones I actually vetted. The websites have some dubious contradictions, so I rejected some and just picked the first 5 I found that seemed pretty solid. The interactive site gives the exact verses so it is clear when they are showing a contradiction. God can be seen and heard(and is basically a dude walking around) https://www.biblegateway.com... God has never been seen or heard by anyone but Jesus http://biblehub.com... God can never be tired and needs no rest https://www.biblegateway.com... God got tired and needed rest http://biblehub.com... God knows what is in everyone's "heart" https://www.biblegateway.com... God does not know what is in everyone's heart(he had to test Abraham to find out) http://biblehub.com... God can do anything https://www.biblegateway.com... God is thwarted by an iron chariot http://biblehub.com... God is merciless and basically a warlord http://biblehub.com... God is merciful to everyone and basically a hippie http://www.godvine.com... http://www.evilbible.com... http://infidels.org... Here is a really fun site for Biblical contradictions: http://bibviz.com... Just hover over any line in the chart and click for the contradictions. This is an extensive database of detailed biblical contradictions that provides you with thousands of contradictory verses.
you cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

I am sorry, but these rebuttals are basically just rewriting the Bible to remove contradictions. 1) This is a no true scotsman fallacy. The quote from John clearly states that no one except for Jesus has seen or heard God. It does not specify "in his real essence". The other quote has God covering a guy's eyes and talking to him from behind. "When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule" https://en.wikipedia.org... 2) You cannot be refreshed if you were never tired. Refreshed literally means that you have regained your strength/stamina. 3) No. You are presenting something that is not in the bible. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." God specified that it is himself who now knows that Abraham is loyal. He does not say that he has taught Abraham a lesson, he is clearly referring to himself learning something about Abraham. 4) What do you think it means to have God "with you"? If it just means he is observing, then he is with both you and your enemies. It only makes sense to claim he is with you specifically if he is on your side. If he is on your side and you fail, then it stands to reason that he was unable to thwart your enemy. 5) No. The Bible clearly states that he has mercy for EVERYONE and also claims that he has NO mercy for some people. This is equivalent to saying "All people have God's mercy" and then saying "some people do not have God's mercy". It cannot be the case that all of X are Y and simultaneously some X are not Y. "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." IE he will have no mercy over these people. "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works." IE he has mercy over every person.