BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for and or about the ENTIRE human race - not just part of it which means this so-called unproven god is a bigoted racist pig who loves to sandwich in people for his own private little affairs and that's according to the powder puff cookie dough bible. And since this god doesn't care nor love the ENTIRE human race, then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that uprisings and bloodshed will occur especially when it isn't necessary which is not love nor care that is if god is a true god in which he is not because nobody can prove that this god even exists? And why be evil and hate in the first place, in which is what this god truly is as he's admitted to evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy of all things, rather than bringing in peace, harmony, love, care, kindness etc in which this so-called god could have and should have done ? Nah. So either way its a losing proposition for those that believe. But have at it. And another question that remains is why believe in this travesty god in which has done nothing good for the human race? dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

Your first RD had---no---purpose. And you think you should not be insulted, degraded and dehumanized? ESPECIALLY considering the fact that you list yourself as "secular" thus showing yourself that you should have NOT ACCEPTED THIS DEBATE FOR ANY REASON. And then even worse you you show off your utter lack of an edumacation and intelligence as you completely waste a RD as "acceptance" in which I NEVER guided you to do. Yeah. That's right - get right into the debate considering the fact that that debate only allows 5 RD's tops and here I only allowed 4 so you offed 1 RD thus leaving you 3 RD's to debate. Wow utter genie-us on YOUR part - right? Um no. Absolutely NOT can you READ worth a flying pregnant fetus screw that is sprinkled on your tummy. Seesh what a total idiot you are.
Videos for people is still the best YouTube channel.

Ok, great, sir! I am all set! Remember, reasonable, logical arguments, ok? Be sure to cite his videos as evidence. Videos for People is not a troll. i don't know how on Earth you could think that. His channel is nothing like any other channel. His channel is not a troll channel. He does not insult things without some sort of reason. He has strong opinions, and he's not afraid to speak them. Also, some troll videos have much less quality than his does. His are well structured. Now take Pewdiepie. he does video games and he talks in an annoying little whiny voice. Videos is not like that. His stuff has plots, even if the plots are a little ridiculous, and even the videos without any plots make some kind of statement. His main gimmick is that his intellect is hidden behind a cloak of idiocy. If you just take a quick glance at his stuff, it does look stupid and mindless. But, as you look closer, you begin seeing little hints and stuff. he knows about politics, evidently. I guess you could say he pretends to be mindless, but the stupidity of his videos is only satirical. Behind them, I'm sure he has something cooking in his brain. Watching his videos is like psychoanalyzing someone. You can see what his view of the world is, and so on. He also presents his complex ideas in a very entertaining way. This is what i can say about his videos right now. I am ready for your counter arguments.
Videos for people is still the best YouTube channel.

This is a new debate, and I hope that you are able to defeat me this time, instead of using strange vocabulary like you did last time. Please try to create a rational, logical argument, and tell me why Videos for people is not a good Youtuber, using reasonable evidence from his works. I made our last debate a bit too short, and I apologize for that. I await more invigorating discussion once you accept my challenge. I will start by stating that the title is subjective. Surely, videos for people is not the best. There are probably other good ones out there. But he is relatively close to the best. His strategy is genius. he is a genius. his videos are amazing, and every time there's a new upload from him, I am overcome with joy. He's not like any other thing I have ever seen. His comedy is incredibly unique. the way he executes comedic sketches is amazing. He's like Saturday Night Live, but even more funny than that. The way he sets up characters in odd situations is exemplary. Now, think about his art. he's not a master, but he doesn't try to be. The videos are supposed to look bad. Stick figures drawn out on MS paint, and sometimes actual pictures, but only seldom. His art is like something from an old cartoon, i don't know, Blondie, maybe. Really, it's that good. His videos fill me with nostalgia. I don't know why. they just do. Finally, you say he's a troll. I say he's not. trolls do videos that have no meaning. His videos have meaning. They sometimes have plots. They talk about complex issues. Videos knows what art is. Some of his videos don't even insult people. And his videos aren't tasteless. Some have less quality than others, but they all have some kind of point. He doesn't play video games, or do unboxing videos, except in parodic terms. I hope you accept, ShyreWolf. I look forward to this debate. Please, bring a valid argument this time. Good luck!
Death Penalty

1. Death Penalty Isn't CostlyIn my opponents opening argument he argues that the Death Penalty is costly to even use. It actually isn't, but the system needs to be adjusted for it to be more economically beneficial. The main issue that makes it seem like its costly is the portion called "Death Row". Death Row is the time a criminal waits until they are executed, and can either be very short or very long (1). The fact is that the length before someone gets executed can be depicted withis the following graph. That's a long time, especially for an average person on Death Row. And with this comes the cost of keeping that person within the cells. The fact is, it isn't the actual procedure that costs alot; it's keeping the prisoner alive within the cells (2). My solution is shorten the Death Row so the benfits can be recieved. According to David Muhlhansen: The Death Penalty can deter crime as well as economically benefit society if Death Row is shorten, instead of dragging it out for a long time (3).2. InnocenceMy opponent then brings up another common argument for being against the Death Penalty about the possibility of innocence I will argue that the chance of innocence is so low that it will not be a huge factor within the system. In fact, there is only a 1 in 25 chance that someone executed is innocent (4). That number is pretty low, and really not to impactful. I like to compare this same scenario as getting ran over by a car. Does it stink? Yes, but stuff happens. Just because one car killed one innocent bistander does not mean that society should ban cars now. Stuff happens, and we move on; and the same can be said about the Death Penalty.Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...3. http://dailysignal.com...4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Death Penalty

This is a debate concerning the death penalty and as the side arguing against it, I would like to make the following points: 1. The death penalty is costly When I say costly, I mean that according to NBC it costs about 1.7 million dollars to execute someone. New Jersey got rid of the death penalty because it costed 4 million dollars per inmate and they hadn't executed anyone since 1963. Plus, inmates staring into the face of the death penalty are entitled to two lawyers which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars alone. 2. What if they're innocent The fact that the risk of ending the life of an innocent person should not be permitted, Killing an innocent person is morally reprehensible, so why should our justice system allow that possibility to exist? By eliminating the death penalty we eliminate any chance of this happening. 3. Does the death penalty deter crime "There's no credible evidence of deterrence," concludes John Blume, a law professor with the Cornell Death Penalty Project. (Excerpt from the Denver Post). There's no way to tell if a murderer was aware of a state's death-penalty status when the crime was deliberated, or what impact the knowledge had. (also from the same article). In, conclusion I believe I have shown the death penalty to be more of a hindrance than a help There's my argument(s) and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
Death Penalty

For this debate, since I have not debated in a while, I will argue the Pro side of the Death Penalty. My opponent will argue the opposite.Rules: No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game. No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other. No Trolls please! If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category". Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rulesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was. Definition:Death Penalty: The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a serious crime.Good luck to whoever accepts!
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

My opponent starts off by saying that because of the drive to be the best, there will always be continual triumph and you will never know who the best due to constant usurpations. This may be the case, but for a time, even an incredibly short amount of time, a single person would have to be the best, until he is overtaken by another. I am saying in this debate that, at this exact moment, Kongregate. com is the BEST flash-gaming website there is. This may not be the case in a year, or a month, but, in my belief, it holds true for this exact moment. Then, my opponent mis-represents my statements. She assumes that my statement of "The part that I see that proves my point is "Has my opponent heard of Ma Lin, arguably the world's best table tennis player? " Arguably. Showing that perhaps my opponent agrees that there is no set best. " Arguably here means that no one is going to agree. I could post a debate saying that Ma Lin is the world's best ping-pong player, and I am sure someone would take me up on that argument. Also, my opponent must be misinformed on good gaming sites during her three year quest for the ultimate gaming site. It can't have been a very extensive search. If you search up "free online gaming website" on google, Kongregate is the 7th result, not too hard to find. Then my opponent says "Okay if my opponent knows everything on the Internet I will give my opponent $670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Of course I don't have that money, and of course he does not have that knowledge. " This is a laughable statement. How can she give me something she does not have? If I did know everything about the internet, she would be screwed. Also, nowhere did I claim to have this knowledge, I merely stated it was possible for someone somewhere do have a claim of knowing everything there is to know about the wonderful connection of computers through primitive tubes which we so tastefully called the internet. I know you're probably bored out of your mind, readers, but please read but one more rebuttal. My opponent then says "My point is there is an infinite amount of improvements and additions, to games. Yes infinite, because it never stops, thus there is no end, thus there is no numerical value. " My argument concerned a website, not a single, or collection of games.
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

I hope it stays this way the whole time. My opponent's first argument is: "My opponent says that "there is always one better. " This is an absurd assumption. For everything and anything on this planet Earth, there is a person or thing that is better than all the rest. If, as my opponent says, there is something better than everything, then why does every sports player, every company, every university, strive to be "the best? " There always has to be someone at the pinnacle, someone at the tip of the mountain, who is the best at this moment, but may not be In the future. " I disagree, because there will constantly be one better, because of that drive. Most people live in the moment and most things are set in a very limited area, thus making easier for everyone to want to be the best. Thus they believe they are. Until they find one has bested him/her, showing they aren't the best. You can't exactly say that Dell is the best company. You may believe so but other computer sompanies offer different perks, thus other people view them as better. Then if we are looking at something else entirely. .. . you get the point I assume. Then my opponent goes on to unintentionally prove my point. "Then she goes on to say that "If Kongregate. com is 'the best' why have I not heard of it? " Is she the ultimate in deciding what is good and what is crap? Has my opponent heard of Ma Lin, arguably the world's best table tennis player? Has she heard of Zarkava, arguably the best racehorse in 2008? How about Marilyn vos Savant, with the highest I. Q. Score in the World? " I will say, no I'm not, but I spend hours a day looking for online games to play. If it was truely the best after several weeks, surely someone would have mentioned it. Seeing as the search has gone on for nearly three years. The part that I see that proves my point is "Has my opponent heard of Ma Lin, arguably the world's best table tennis player? " Arguably. Showing that perhaps my opponent agrees that there is no set best. "And, lastly, my opponent says that "the Internet is vast thus it is impossible to know half of what's on the internet. " This, again, is absurd. Just because something is intricate, large, and complicated, does not mean it is impossible to understand and know fully. It would be very difficult, but not impossible. " Okay if my opponent knows everything on the Internet I will give my opponent $670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Of course I don't have that money, and of course he does not have that knowledge. My point is there is an infinite amount of improvements and additions, to games. Yes infinite, because it never stops, thus there is no end, thus there is no numerical value. Thus one website can not be the best.
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

I'm first going to negate my opponent's arguments. My opponent says that "there is always one better. " This is an absurd assumption. For everything and anything on this planet Earth, there is a person or thing that is better than all the rest. If, as my opponent says, there is something better than everything, then why does every sports player, every company, every university, strive to be "the best? " There always has to be someone at the pinnacle, someone at the tip of the mountain, who is the best at this moment, but may not be In the future. Then she goes on to say that "If Kongregate. com is 'the best' why have I not heard of it? " Is she the ultimate in deciding what is good and what is crap? Has my opponent heard of Ma Lin, arguably the world's best table tennis player? Has she heard of Zarkava, arguably the best racehorse in 2008? How about Marilyn vos Savant, with the highest I. Q. Score in the World? And, lastly, my opponent says that "the internet is vast thus it is impossible to know half of what's on the internet. " This, again, is absurd. Just because something is intricate, large, and complicated, does not mean it is impossible to understand and know fully. It would be very difficult, but not impossible.
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

It has been a while since my last debate so I may be a little rusty, but I'll give this a try. Kongregate. com cannot be the best best flash gaming site. The reason I say this is the fact that there is always one better. You have included facts about the website, that I will trust are true. There may be a website that is even better. "If there is a better one, than why haven't I heard of it? " you say. That is a good question, the answer is in another question. If Kongregate. com is 'the best' why have I not heard of it? The answer is the internet is vast thus it is impossible to know half of what's on the internet.
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the web for the following reasons: 1. No pop-ups 2. Huge selection of games (11,949 currently) 3. Badges (achievements) 4. Kreds/tips 5. Ad revenue is partly shared with game developers 6. good community and forums 7. Video game-making tutorials I hope someone decides to take me up on this debate. Good luck to whomever does.
GMOs are the next step in helping to solve world hunger.

why would they lose their land? most farmers have had their land from generations to generations using normal seeds. It because they don't have to buy new seeds. They sell 3 fourths of all their seeds and keep 1 fourth so that they can reuse it and not have to buy more seeds to make more money. If natural seeds have been used for thousand and thousands of years and its been working 100% okay, why change it?
GMOs are the next step in helping to solve world hunger.

If the farmers were to buy organic seeds, their crops would not yield as well as competitors and they would also loose their land. And with seed companies raising prices, this must not be a very large problem, or they would not be in business, because nobody would or could buy their seeds. And I don't see what you mean by the companies not letting farmers plant the seeds. If this were the case, they would never grow any crops, which is simply not the case.
GMOs are the next step in helping to solve world hunger.

What these companies do is, put a patent on these GMOs that give the companies authority to declare what the farmers can & cant do with these seeds. they tell them that they have to sell all the seeds & cant reuse them or they will sue them. They obey and sell all their seeds. Then the companies raise the prices of the GMOs to where the farmers cant pay for them. the companies give the farmers credit for the seeds for their land. If the farmers do not make there money, they lose their land.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

That evidence could have been from a year ago and the crime rate could have easily rose up again. "some residents" doesn't mean all of them. Some of them could feel very attacked right now, like the plan is spraying cocaine crops but sometimes they spray good crops causing people that depend on their crops to make a living into poverty. How do you know the plan is on its way? why should it have to take 10 years and billions of dollars for a plan to be finally "on its way"
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

We haven't been ignoring it, we have spend tens of billions of dollars and spent over 10 years working on the plan. We've spent too much time and money on the plan to have it not change even a little bit. We have been working on Plan Colombia for a long time and nothings changed so thats why we need to move onto another problem thats facing our country right now. If we end the plan i would guess that we would still be extra cautious.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

We can't just ignore this problem, its a problem that could become very major and already kinda is. We have to at least try to get rid of the problem instead of ignoring it. The United States does have many problems but if those problems were taken care of when they first started they wouldn't have erupted into this huge problem that will take a lot of time and money to fix. Our technology is very advanced and hard to get by but people still find ways to get by because there is drugs in the United States that originally came from Colombia.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

I understand that its going to take time but who has the money and time to be dealing with other countries problems right now? Colombia cant even afford to be taking care of this issue right now so that's why we are giving them money to do so. The United States has many other problems and battles, like against terrorists groups like Isis who threatens and KILLS United States Americans. We are also in our own debt with trading partners, I know that the cartels will eventually effect us but our technology is very advanced an is very hard to get by. We have way bigger problems to deal with right now.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

The plan is working but its not gonna be 100% successful in 10 years when there's decades put behind very powerful Colombian Cartels. Our money is not being wasted because its going towards protecting the United States too. Colombian cartels are taking an interest of setting up in The United States because there's a lot more people with a lot of money. If some of the cartels set up in the United States our economy would go down very quick. The spread of cocaine and other illegal substances would be spread out through out the United States and the problem would just go from very bad to worse.
Resolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech ought be valued over community moral.

We will be arguing the value of morality based on the resolution. I will be affirming the resolution so the negative side must debate that the resolution is untrue. Here is the round format: 1. Acceptance. 2. Constructive. 3. 1st Rebuttal. 4. 2nd Rebuttal. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate resolution.