BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam Is A religion of Peace

Look, don't get me wrong. To me, Islam may not be the most hand-holding, peace-loving religion there is, but the people are one of the nicest I've met. This debate is to argue the religion and its text.To the debate:You gave us a context of "cutting off fingers" as an "effective" way of "disarming a swordsman". This seems very causal and "eye-for-an-eye" to me. Yes, this method is effective-- almost TOO effective. Can you imagine what the loss of your fingers would mean to you? Especially in the CONTEXT of that time period, without your fingers you couldn't work, and without work you died. Do we poke out the eyes of philosophers?Do we cut off the tongues of people who start rumors?Do we chop off the hands of a thief?These are all effective methods of stopping crime, but are methods that should NOT be condoned.Your ENTIRE constructive case is revolving around providing context and justification for quotes in the Quran.I have proved that point moot by proving in some cases, no matter the context, the ends DO NOT justify the means.Meanwhile, my two arugments remain untouched and not have been directly rebutted against.With 3,820 characters remaining, I rest my case.
Should one be allowed by law to use any force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home

I would like to point out that I am not insinuating that people should use 'nuclear forces' if/when their house is being invaded but just have the security that they can take force.'The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.' when i say the words 'force' why do automatically think of nuclear forces?? this force could vary to anything as innocent as pepper spray. When you say reasonable force, where will the line be drawn in the sand under this case. If you do have a burglary and you are faced dead eyed with the intruders. While your loved ones are in the other room your first reflex is to protect them in anyway you see fit and i believe it is about time that the law should protect these innocent human beings from these unavoidable experiences.
Should one be allowed by law to use any force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home

First, I would like to draw from our topic: "Should one be allowed by law to use any force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home" if we draw directly from this then we must allow nuclear defense of your home, so your claiming that we should allow all people in the United States to obtain and then use nuclear weapons. I instead throughout this debate will claim :"One should be allowed by law to use any reasonable force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home".
War on Terror

8,000 characters Time to argue - 72 hoursResolved: The positive impact of the war on terror on the United States outweighs the negative impact of the war on terror on the United States.I will be arguing against this resolution, or that the United States receives more of a negative impact from the war on terror than a positive one.First round for acceptance. No semantics or trolling please.Forfeited rounds = Lose the debate
There is a such thing as Debate Virginity.

Thank you, Brie, for requesting this debate. Though my R1 will be short, I am quite sure I will enjoy it. You state that: "Virginity- the state or condition of being pure, fresh, or unused. Debate- a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers." Though I prefer Merriam-Webster, these will do just fine. Virginity: Simply summed is unused. Debate: a Formal contest in which there is an aff or a neg. Debate Virginity: Unused advocation of the negative or affirmative on a resolution esp. in the sense of a formal contest. If one has yet to debate, they have not used debating skills before. Therefore, they are pure or unused. I believe my opponent has actually provided my evidence for the win but I shall also propose: Since I had willed it as a term, both corresponding words in the human language that may be compatible, I have made it existant. Such as the concept of the word "Pie." We all know what pie is. If you don't... Well, you are missing out. But a word or phrase is set in place to affirm in a vocalized sense what the image or idea is. In this case, the word "Pie" represents the image or corresponding idea of the pastry. This being said, rather than saying "That pastry filled with the fruits and sugar." We call it pie. The same caqn be said for debate viginity. We have a concept of a first-timer's debate I just gave it a name. Therefore, you no longer have to say: "I have taken your first debate." You may say "I have taken your debate viginity." Thank you, -EG
There is a such thing as Debate Virginity.

Debate Virginity, wow. I am immensely intrigued on how you came up with that. It's bloody brilliant! But unfortunately doesn't exist. Anyways, the definitions below are provided by Dictionary.com =P Virginity- the state or condition of being pure, fresh, or unused. Debate- a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. I fail to see how by not having a debate, you are pure, fresh or unused. We have all had arguments before!
There is no logical proof for the existance of God.

First, in regards to Anselm's proof: I disagree with your definition of "greatness", meaning 'having more attributes'. Anselm's whole proof lies on the premise that an entity would be "greater" if it existed, rather than if it did not. How "great" is something that exists in thought alone? How "great" are the giant squirrels juggling the planets (referring to Round 1). You go on to say that "God would be ...omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent.." This brings about a paradox, because no entity could be omnipotent and omniscient. Does an omniscient God have the power to change his mind? Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't push it? There are many well-known paradoxes to the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent entity. Moving on the necessity: You make an interesting point that a circle square cant be imagined, but nonetheless, just because something can be imagined does not mean it is possible. You said you couldn't find a reason while being necessary is greater than unnecessary - I will assume this point is conceded unless you offer some new ideas on that argument. On the complexity argument: You mention that God, as only one entity, would be more simple than many others, but I return to one of my original arguments. If God could create all those many many entities, then he would have to be more complex than each one of them, and more complex than the whole of what he has created. You say that the odds of life evolving on Earth without outside interference are rather staggering. I dont disagree - but that changes nothing. The question is, which is more staggering? the odds of life evolving with God, or the odds of life evolving without God? So while the odds ARE staggering for either answer, that does not help us get closer to the answer we're searching for. Some people say, as you have, that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. According to the Bible, the earth is roughly 6000 yrs old, and the earth was created in 6 days. According to evolution, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the earth was created over a period of 10 billion years. There is quite a big time difference there!!! If you did reconcile evolution with God, you could only do so by admitting that the earth wasnt created in 6 days...or by saying that "one day" was really 1 billion years. And even then, if the meaning of "day" is 1 billion years, and that error is in the first line of the Bible, then how reliable is the rest of the text? got to run, although I'd love to continue this post. Look forward to your reply
There is no logical proof for the existance of God.

Okay. So, I looked at your last two debates on the matter, and I think those arguing for God presented some of the weaker points on the matter (Focused more on the bible and beauty of earth, which are still good to take into consideration, but are not the said "logical arguments" you requested.) And I was curious what your thoughts would be on more "logically" based arguments. Most of my proofs are from Anselm. (Only philosopher who I feel has provided okay/substantial proof.)[Though, I'm probably butchering his arguments quite a bit.] Okay. God is going to be defined as "Greatest possible being." (Have another definition or is this one agreeable?) 1) God exists in the understanding. (Or else we couldn't very well be discussing his existence/lack of existence.) 2) The understanding/mind is not as great as reality/the tangible. 3) God is the greatest possible being. __ 4) God exists in reality. The only way I really see this argument failing is by proving that the understanding/mind is greater than reality/the tangible. But um, next the necessity argument. If it can't exist, you can't imagine it. You can imagine god, so he can exist. If he can exist, he does exist. 1) Being a necessary being is greater than being an unnecessary being. 2) An existent being is greater than a non-existent being. 3) God is the greatest possible being. ______ 4) God necessary and exists. As to why the earth sucks: (poverty, violence, whatever) This world is the greatest of all possible outcomes. Having not seen the other options, as humans, we are unable to base our judgement of this world off anything substantial. And, the complexity argument. I've always preferred to think of it differently. The whole, Earth is complex and needs a complex creator argument fails, because our creator would need a creator, etc. I've always been in favor of the 'if their is a simple solution available, then there's no reason to posit a more complex solution' idea. God would appear to be to me a far more simple solution than evolution. "God did it" is the simplest solution, not the most complex. Okay, those arguments were a bit jumbled and I would definitely recommend actually reading Anselm's ontological proofs for the existence of God yourself as they are much more clearly laid out and in general better than the arguments I tried to present.
Should All Government Services be Privatised

There's no reason this would strengthen the economy or be better in any way. How do private business (vs government) strengthen the economy? Government is a reliable buyer of goods and services. In many places the government is the largest buyer. Government is also a predictable employer. Taxes essentially force spending on basics, which is good for the economy. So shrinking government would weaken the economy. You are setting up a system of negative incentives. For instance, these private services could charge more when there's greater risk of crime or fire and would suffer in safer environments -- an obvious conflict of interests. How many investigations and lawsuits would be required to discover that the police service is enabling or tolerating criminals to keep demand up? Therefore you need to police the police. Very inefficient.
Should All Government Services be Privatised

I believe that we can strengthen the American economy by making police, fire, jails, and other government services owned by private businesses. These businesses would be regulated to make sure that they are acting fairly and they could not form any partnerships with other businesses. Instead of allowing the government to get bigger and bigger, private services would receive government contracts to work in an area. This way, taxes could be lowered and only those who worry that a fire could happen or a crime would happen to them would pay.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

Your argument is built upon your definitions (which are inaccurate). You define "having sex" as the scientific process of reproduction. I agree, but we can make it more a little better by defining it as "the engagement in the physical act that can lead to reproduction." Your definition of "rational" irks me because of it"s lack of elegance and accuracy. You define rational as "strategic efficiency." This is, with all do respect, one of the most worthless definitions of rationality. This definition"s lack of worth is due to it"s very nature; "strategic efficiency" describes the goal of the conception of a process. Rationality extends far beyond the conception of an idea; rationality is the descriptor of a process in which predictable variables lead to an accurate predictable result without fail. Rationality is often referred to in terms of mathematics, so this is an example of a rational equation: A+B+C = A+B+C. If A+B+C = A+B+C+D and D was not = 0, that would not be rational because the predictable variables did not lead to an accurate predictable conclusion (according to the laws of mathematics). "Making love" cannot be defined as "thinking about how another physically feels while another thinks about how someone physically feels" because "making love" and "having sex" are denotatively the same. This means that when someone says they are "making love" and when someone says they are "having sex," they are fornicating (in both scenarios). Now I need stop dissecting your argument and will go on to make my own. If "Making Love" and "Having Sex" mean the same thing denotatively, that means that they differ only connotatively. The title of this debate argues that "Having Sex" is rational and "Making Love" is not. However, "Having Sex" is a biological imperative (or a biological suggestion). The difference between "Having Sex" and "Making Love" is that the emotion "love" is involved in "Making Love" whereas only gratification exists in the connotation of "having sex." Due to the biological urge for sex (and lack of emotion) in the connotation of "Having Sex" and the emotional connotations in "Making Love," I"d argue that "Having Sex" and "Making Love" are either both irrational or rational (depending on your perspective). Biological needs are rational because, given the same circumstances, they have a predictable outcome. Similarly, emotional needs or situations in which "love" is involved are equally rational because, given the same circumstances, said events will have a predictable outcome. Additionally, "love" can be considered a bonding emotion. That bonding emotion can be considered a biological imperative similar to the biological imperative for reproduction. Therefore, I cannot accept that "Having Sex" is rational and "Making Love" is not because, as I have shown, they are either both rational or both irrational (not different). Even if you disagree with my definition of rationality, I think you will find my conclusion valid and sound.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

Before starting, please note this categorized in arts, not education, health, philosophy, politics, or society. Being "rational" can be, but doesn't have to be, "good" or "proper". For those judging, please make sure you judge accordingly.Now to start, let's consider what these three concepts mean: "having sex", "rational", and "making love".The first simply refers to the scientific process of reproduction, the second refers to strategic efficiency, and the third refers to someone thinking about how another physically feels while another thinks about how someone physically feels.In biology, the scientific process of reproduction coincides with what's called "evolutionary stable strategies". Organisms in an ecosystem satisfy naturally selective nash equilibriums in terms of survival of the fittest. Those organisms which strategize most efficiently have the greatest fitness, so their offspring live on.However, "making love" isn't this. It's taking quality time, energy, and attention to rhythmically synchronize with one's partner. The goal isn't "to win" but "to relate". The goal isn't to simply "get one's rocks off" but to express oneself intimately and romantically with one's partner to realize a mutual identity.Now someone might argue that this is still rational, but individually, not collectively. After all, the goal includes getting one's rocks off and to enjoy oneself as much as possible. It would be efficiently strategic to "make love" in order to "have sex".The problem is that attitude itself inhibits "making love". When people focus on strategic efficiency in order to win, they rush through things in order to get as much done as quickly as possible as well as doing as little as possible to get as much as possible. The notions of passionate foreplay, teasing, and "taking your time" get thrown out the window because they're inefficient. The notion of playing language games to symbolize suggestive mysteries is also thrown out the window because it artistically synthesizes, rather than rationally analyzes, communication style.There's also the matter of mistaking the ends for the means or outputs for inputs. What's proposed here is that making love itself is not rational. Being used for a rational end or output does not make the means or inputs rational.Let's also be clear that being thoughtful is not the same as being rational. Rationality is not the only way that people think, and people can feel what's rational as well. That is people can coincidentally behave with efficient strategies just by feeling them out if their feelings coincide. As an analogy, consider two people playing poker who don't know any winning hands, yet one feels joy having one's cards all of the same suit. In poker that's called a flush, so if one trades in cards or bets when feeling joy, one will be rational. "Having sex" is biologically acting out one's feelings where strategically efficient animals reproduce. "Making love" is thinking before you act in order to relate.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

Here is a third counter argument: The emotional aspect of sex is to create bonds to another person. In this way, "Making Love" would be hyper-rational as it allows an individual to bond with another person for the sake of happiness/survival/stability. Even with your definition of rational, this does not change. This means that your argument, that "Making Love" is irrational, is countered. I"ll end this section with my conclusion: "Making Love" and "Having Sex" are equally irrational or rational because they both are non-logic-based decisions. ======= My argument is not circular as it begins with the assumption that is is possible to know where logic, emotions, and sexual urges arise in the brain and it ends with those answers. Humans aren"t subjectively evaluating their logic centers, but rather they are able to identify, through the use of large scale studies, the parts of the brain that activate in those areas. This doesn"t require humans understand the entire domain of logic, but rather that we understand how to interpret brain activity (which we do). Logic could activate where it was undiscovered if we evolved further, but it hasn"t in the studies thus far, so your argument is moot (because if that argument were valid, nothing would be valid-including your argument-because everything could change sometime in the future). Your argument is predicated on artistic and rational being mutually exclusive. Every artistic decision is based in rationality. Art models language. Language can be modeled using mathematics (although it is non-optimal). Math can be called a rational language. This means that there is rationality can model art. Your argument about empathy is flawed. Empathy is, by definition "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." (source: http://dictionary.reference.com...). Empathy is one of the few emotions that is not egotistical in nature as it involves understanding others. This may be done by one"s subconscious recognition of the physical manifestations of another"s emotion. This is rational as it is in accord with logic. Humans are social creatures. We create bonds to others as a method of survival. Empathy is a way to create bonds and that is rational. A rational person is not always unsympathetic and egotistical. A rational person would create allies to help them survive in this world. I don"t know why you brought children into this because it didn"t make sense in the context of your argument. You make a whole bunch of assumptions here that you can"t justify. For example, "communication problems precipitate due to ignored foreplay" "you can"t make that statement without backing it up. I don"t know what you mean by "This destruction of artistic license from not uniting in common language arts." Also, "rationally controlling" is an oxymoron. I"m not going to go after your conclusion out of respect (you won"t be able to go after mine).
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

At this point, I'm going to advance all arguments instead of repeating myself. My opponent's neocortex argument is circular too. Human beings would subjectively evaluate their own objective logical capacity. This assumes human beings know the entire domain of logic to begin with. Logic's domain could activate where it's previously undiscovered. Music is not merely rational either. Yes, it involves mathematical rhythms, cadences, modes, and tones, but those devices are used to symbolize artistic expressions.Instead, I'll focus on thoughtfully irrational yet artistic qualities of making love. I wish my opponent didn't go on tangents to distract discussing art beforehand. As said before, thinking about how someone feels isn't a rational process. When people make love, they caress and cherish each other's bodies, wear and strip provocative clothing, dance erotically, play smooth music, burn scented candles, embrace and massage and pet each other, eat food suggestively, bathe softly, and sensitively joke around. This gradually teases each other's senses, and leads to varying positions and paces instead of jackhammering away like a machine over and over. The goal isn't to merely empathize; no two lovers need to feel the same way. Lovers are like pieces of a puzzle, uniting even if they aren't the same. The key to making love is sympathy, not empathy. Empathy would be egotistical in projecting one's feelings upon another.Rationality is unsympathetic. A rational person just thinks about oneself, so would play with toys, fantasize on one's own, hire a hooker, or efficiently strategize how to get one's rocks off. Again, many relationships fall apart from this. Partners can be unoriginal, and many people enter relationships because they're desperate or mutually hateful of third parties. One obvious example of this is "bad-boy/nice-guy" syndrome where someone gets into a relationship with a bad boy who makes fun of nice guys in order to efficiently strategize status. As the relationship goes on, there aren't nice guys to make fun of. Partners don't get in the mood to enjoy and relate with each other. Unfortunately, some relationships here involve children, and partners blame them for things going wrong in order to have someone to make fun of and feel good about each other. Furthermore, many of these relationships are divorced, and children are guilt tripped. On top of this, communication problems precipitate due to ignored foreplay. Partners argue over stupid things such being too serious, not serious enough, or both. This destruction of artistic license disables making love from not uniting in common language arts. Instead, partners obsess over rationally controlling the relationship.In conclusion, partners make love because they do not just efficiently strategize how to get what they want. Instead, they think about how each other feels. When the expression of artistic license fails, so do partners' relationships.