BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

"opinions are not valid arguments. "Duh, thats why none of my arguments are opinions, simply facts. "Actually, cats eating the animals can sometimes help humans, for example they eat insects, and some insects are harmful. "First off insects are only one of the many innocent victims of cats, there are also birds and mice as well. Secondly, insects are a part of an important food chain and cats killing billions of them a year disrupts that. In some areas house cats disrupt the ecosystem so badly that people petition to having cats as pets be BANNED:. http://www.cnn.com...http://www.mnn.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "Pro provides a bunch of "facts", but I will refute them using the argument for cats from ignorance:P1. If satan is more evil than cats, then satan is more evil than cats. C. Satan is more evil than cats. "Pro once again tries to use (some pretty crappy) smoke and mirrors to try to deny all the valid evidence I have given which show the evilness of cats compared to the evil of Satan. Here is a list of all the arguments and points that the pro has now completely failed to counter:1) Pro drops the argument that cats kill billions of insects, birds, mice, etc a year2) Pro drops that Satan has only ever killed 6 people3) Pro drops the fact that the last time Satan killed, it was over 2000 years ago4) Pro drops the fact that cats are evil since they kill mostly for fun, not because they are hungry or anything5) Pro drops that cats often leave their pray to rot rather then eat them, which shows just how sadistic cats are6) Pro drops the fact that cats are actually arsonists7) Pro drops the fact that Hitler is indeed a cat8) Pro drops the fact that there are books to warn people of the evilness of cats, but not the evilness of Satan9) Pro even fails to give any additional evidence to suggest that Satan is evil! Basically the Pro has conceded every argument I presented as evidence that cats are more evil then Satan and instead has only tried to deny that this is valid evidence.
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evilIt does not mean nothing could be evil, it just means that whether they are evil is affected by people's opinions, and opinions are not valid arguments.Even if a bird or a mouse was = .0001 of a human, then they still kill 291,000 people compared to just 6 from Satan. No matter how much you value the life of a bird to the life of a human, the sheer body count from cats alone make them more evil then Satan. Actually, cats eating the animals can sometimes help humans, for example they eat insects [1], and some insects are harmful. [2] By killing harmful insects for their owners, they benefit their owners who are feeding them food.Pro provides a bunch of "facts", but I will refute them using the argument for cats from ignorance:P1. If satan is more evil than cats, then satan is more evil than cats.C. Satan is more evil than cats. [1]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[2]http://wiki.answers.com...
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

"Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective."So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evil2) Cats are Killing Machines"According to your source, they kill critters, not humans."Even if a bird or a mouse was = .0001 of a human, then they still kill 291,000 people compared to just 6 from Satan. No matter how much you value the life of a bird to the life of a human, the sheer body count from cats alone make them more evil then Satan. "The other arguments simply fail because of the Cat argument from ignorence razor"No they arent, its a fact that cats - 1 - leave their prey out to rot, - 2 - kill for fun when they arent even hungry, - 3 - kill on a regular, often weekly basis, - 4 - that Hitler is currently a cat, - 5 - that cats are cynical bastards, - 6 - that cats are also arsonists, - 7 - that there are numerous books on the evilness of cats but NOT the evilness of Satan, - 8 - and also that SATAN HASNT KILLED ANYBODY IN 2000 YEARS.This is all valid evidence that shows how cats are more evil then Satan, and if you cant prove me wrong than that does in fact make me right because thats kind of how debates work!If you cant dispute these points or prove just how evil Satan is, then concede. I extend all the dropped arguments.
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective. My arguments:1 out of every 3 cats kill animals, and of those that do kill, they kill on average about twice a weekAccording to your source, they kill critters, not humans. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...However, remember that satan killed 6 HUMANS, not random animals. When you do that math, Cats are exactly 173 times more evil then Satan when you look at it in terms of how frequently they kill.If you count how frequenty they kill humans, which is not documented at all when I search it (http://www.bing.com... found nothing related other than an Uncyclopedia article) and do the math, you get ? because cat related deaths were not even documented.The other arguments simply fail because of the Cat argument from ignorence razor:P1. If you cannot prove I'm wrong, I am rightP2. You cannot prove I am wrongC. I am right.
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

Alrighty, my arguments that cats are more evil then Satan1) Its possible that Satan doesnt existI cant prove for a fact that he doesnt exist, but its a possibility, just saying2) Satan has only killed 6 people in the Bible, whereas cats are killing machines. 1 out of every 3 cats kill animals, and of those that do kill, they kill on average about twice a weekCats live for about 10 years, 10 years x 52 weeks x twice a week = 1040 days of killing in their lifetimes. Satan on the other hand spends most of his days as the Chicago Cubs general manager, a job that requires no killing at all (minus killing the dreams of Cubs fans) Satan has only ever been proven to kill 6 people if you accept the Bible (radical, I know), but the Bible lasts over a period of 30 years. This means that Satan kills on average of once every 5 years. Satan: One day of killing every 5 yearsCats: 1 out of every 3 cats have 104 days of killing every 1 yearWhen you do that math, Cats are exactly 173 times more evil then Satan when you look at it in terms of how frequently they kill. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...3) Cats are merciless bastards while even Satan shows mercyOf the all the animals that have been killed by cats, a study has shown that21% of them are given to their owners as a present30% are eaten as a snackAND 49% OF THEM ARE SIMPLY LEFT TO ROTWhen Satan kills people, even HE has a reason for doing so. Cats show no mercy towards half of their victims and kill just for sh*ts and giggles, meaning they are clearly more evil then Satan. Keep in mind, these cats are usually well fed, meaning that they are doing a lot of their killing JUST FOR FUN. When Satan kills he always has a reason... Cats dont. 4) Total Body CountOf the 84 million cats in the US alone, about 28 million of them are cold blooded furry killersThe total body count from cats is currently estimated at 2,912,000,000. Yes, that is in fact almost 3 BILLION deaths a year from Cats EVERY YEAR. Remember, Satan has only ever been accounted for 6 deaths, and those were like 2000 years ago. http://theoatmeal.com...http://articles.washingtonpost.com...5) There are books that outline the evilness of cats but not the evilness of Satan. "How to tell if your Cat is trying to kill you": http://media.npr.org..."How to tell if Satan is trying to kill you": No results 6) Cats are Arsonists, Satan keeps it cleanhttp://lh4.ggpht.com...^ See, cats are arsonists7) Cats are cynical bastards, Satan has standardshttp://img.izifunny.com...http://toddtipton.files.wordpress.com...http://4.bp.blogspot.com...http://25.media.tumblr.com...http://www.knowmemes.com...8) Hitler is now a cat, Satan is nowhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com...Thats all for now, over to the Con :D
Noah's Ark's Occurence

In a comment on a poll, you said that Noah's Ark could not have happened. I would like to debate with you on that matter. I think this debate should be rather straight-forward. Format: Four Rounds 6,000 characters 72 hours Rules: Be polite and courteous All sources must be cited We both must show proof Please ask in Round One if anything should be added/removed (Further discussion in comments if necessary) Round Format: Round One- Acceptance and inquire about changes, opening statements Round Two- Rebuttals, first arguments Round Three- Rebuttals, second arguments Round Four- Rebuttals, closing statements That should be everything! Greetings! It is a pleasure to be debating with you concerning Noah's Ark, and it's literal existence, as noted in the Bible. I would like to point out that I hold the Bible to be completely factual, and will regard it as so. I understand that you may feel otherwise, however, that does not discredit my information, unless you can undoubtedly prove otherwise.
Noah's Ark's Occurence

I will offer the courtesy of treating my opponent's comment as a debate argument in deference to his forfeit of round one (perhaps accidental/unintentional). You provided the biblical argument that "water falling on Earth and geysers sending water" provided the source of water for a global flood. I will refer you to my previous post in Round one where I scientifically refuted both possibilities. To add to my previous statements, there is no geological evidence supporting a global flood. I will cite the book "A review of The Rocks Don"t Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah"s Flood, by David R. Montgomery" http://www.skepticblog.org... Some other fine arguments relating to how it would have been impossible to store enough food on the Ark to feed all the animals (and many others) can be found here: http://skepdic.com... My opponent suggests that the bible is literal, and that it is in no way allegorical. I suggest that interpreting the Bible through Biblical Hermeneutics is the only approach to extract value and meaning from the Bible in a modern scientific context. The literal approach only serves to turn the Bible into a modern comedy act. For instance, a literal interpretation of the Bible asserts that the Earth is flat and is sitting on pillars that cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It also maintains that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). If one is of the position that Bible is literal and that the story of Noah's Ark is literal, then clearly great sea monsters must exist guarding the edge of a flat Earth. Why did the Ark not get gobbled up by these sea monsters or fall of the edge of the flat Earth during the flood? I maintain that such a nonsensical stance damages the credibility of the Christian faith. My mother-in-law, who is a church minister is also in agreement with my position that an allegorical approach to the Bible is the only relevant direction to take; especially in the context of our modern world of Science. Furthermore, using Biblical Hermeneutics to interpret the Bible is far more personally rewarding and enriching than the vastly more limiting literal approach.
Noah's Ark's Occurence

The story of Noah's Ark in the Bible is a scientific impossibility, but it is still useful mythology. First of all, if all the glacial and continental land ice on the planet were to melt, the oceans would rise only a meager 216 feet: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com.... This is simply insufficient to place Noah's Ark at the 13,000 foot level on Mt. Ararat where Christian researchers claim to have found the Ark. Other possible sources of water cited have included water from the atmosphere. Again, if all the moisture from the atmosphere was stripped and deposited into the oceans, the rise would be minuscule. Thermal expansion through global warming is capable of raising sea levels, but only by several feet at most. The last theory I have encountered is that water came roaring up through the Earth's crust from some imaginary place in the bowels of the Earth; this theory is quite frankly comical when the Scientific method is applied. I suggest that any attempt at creating a literal interpretation of the mythology of Noah's Ark actual undermines the strength and usefulness of the story. Allegory and mythology are useful teaching tools for morality, and to reduce their usefulness, credibility, and enjoyment by attempting to pass them as scientific fact does a disservice to the Bible. In this way, scientific knowledge and fact can be respected and valued without undermining the credibility and value of the Bible. The only loser when allegory is placed in a direct confrontation with scientific fact is allegory. Such unnecessary confrontation only serves to undermine the value of the Bible and the Christian faith.
Ethical naturalism is the only authentic metaethical philosophy.

Okay, then! More definitions, both for my opponent and for readers possibly not familiar with ethical philosophy. Propositions are the meanings behind statements that can either be true or false. By arguing that ethical claims are propositions, I'm arguing that one can be wrong by saying that "Murder is right" just as one can be wrong by saying "Ants are bigger than humans". By saying that some such propositions are true, I'm arguing that there are statements in the form "It is either wrong or right to do X" that can be true.ï¿½ "These moral features of the world can be reduced to some set of non-moral features."ï¿½ This means that I'll argue that ethical truths are reducible to something less glamorous than that. They are also reducible to something more continuous with aspects of the natural world. "Supernatural/metaphysical claims are unacceptable bases for ethical claims." This doesn't mean that I necessarily reject supernaturalism. I'm just rejecting supernaturalism as an authentic — genuine — epistemic basis for ethical claims. *** I also need to define ethics, as there are two senses of the word, one Aristotelian and the other more...modern.ï¿½ Ethics in one sense deals with leading the good life, and doesn't have the social emphasis that "morality" does — it's more general, including all activities that lead to some good. It includes morality, but includes amoral issues as well, like eating too much. Morality is just a type of good, you see, a moral good. But ethics in the moral sense deals specifically with social imperatives, like justice. When I speak of "ethics" from here on, it'll be in the Aristotelian sense. When I speak of "morality" from here on, it'll be specifically in the social-moral sense.
Ethical naturalism is the only authentic metaethical philosophy.

As my opponent has the self-imposed BoP I will not utilize this round to posit any arguments against the Pro's position. I will use this round only to properly define the term 'authentic' in the resolution. I will assume that here authentic is used to mean sound. Therefore in order to uphold the resolution my opponent will need to prove that the premises making up metaethical naturalism are all true. These premises will consist of the five tenets of my opponents position which he provided in the introductory round. In order to uphold his BoP my opponent will need to uphold all five of these premises ad I will need to disprove at least one of them in order to disprove the resolution.
Ethical naturalism is the only authentic metaethical philosophy.

I will be arguing that ethical naturalism — defined on wikipedia as involving the following propositions: Ethical sentences express propositions Some such propositions are true Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion These moral features of the world can be reduced to some set of non-moral features Supernatural/metaphysical claims are unacceptable bases for ethical claims. I will have the burden of proof in this argument; the opponent will only have to successfully contradict these proofs. The opponent's response and the Second round deals with definitions, and progressive rounds will consist of arguments and rebuttals. A player may decide not to participate in R5 if he thinks his position is strong enough already.
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

First off, not every prisoner at Gitmo is interrogated in a violent manner, many aren't even interrogated. Thanks to CNN and action TV shows, people assume GItmo is just a dark deep prison of torture when in reality it is a maximum security facility. The detainees are allowed recreation, prayer, and even given a copy of the koran. Most of this "torture" is psychological and not physical. Plus most forms of "torture" you hear about are a punishment for their behavior while in jail or must be done. Many prisoners attempt to starve themselves, so they must be force fed. Many attempt to hurt themselves, so they must be tied down. And let's stop with the hypotheticals these aren't pieces of paper or anything they are animals and they are barbaric. They are one in 7.5 billion and they are awful beings and they must be dealt with and not kept in a comfortable cell for the rest of their life getting fed, clothed, and educated for free.
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

You do not seem to get my point, I can see that. Call it interrogation or just extracting information this is torture. I can tell you a source of a video I watched which tells you what goes on in Guantanamo Bay or GITMO. Ignore that the people locked there have done wrong things and that the guards there torture them. Think of them as paper men. Now imagine that the guard, makes a little hole in one of the prisoners. Initially, you would think they deserve it, but these are terrorists these are paper men. If they were normal people you would say that's wrong. I think any person would say that. I do not blame you that you think it's right, I originally thought they deserved it too. Then suddenly realised we are all papermen, and there are bad papermen and good ones. The good ones keep the bad one in a cage, and that's all. And carefully proceed to extract information in a non-violent manner. Please, look in my point of view. No one deserves to be treated like that.
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

First off, Islam is not a terrorist religion, but these are Muslims and the Muslim people must continue to condemn them. Here is our morale, it is to stop the bad guys, to be the sheep dog. When a group of people begins to murder anyone that doesn't agree with them we have to step in, and many we jail. But when we are after the bigger targets we need to do something to get information so we interrogate. I would not like this to turn into a debate on religion I would like to keep it strictly about Gitmo. You seem to be contradicting yourself though, saying they should get no respect or kind treatment, but that we should be moral... the way I look at this they are not citizens of any country and they should not be treated as such. Gitmo is a facility that is needed and I feel more comfortable with a facility like that located outside of the continental US and not right next door.
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

Yes, it is true that terrorists are bad people. They hurt people, but think about this. Wouldn't we be the same as the terrorists if we hurt them the way they hurt us. I am not feeling bad for them, I am simply stating the rights each of us have as equals. Those scumbag terrorists have violated those rights, but we shouldn't violate theirs, because then we're nothing but hypocrites. I'm not saying that they should run Scot free but the Judicial branch should do something about it. Another bad thing is that I go around and hear people say that the Islamic religion is a religion of terrorism. The believe of Allah is to respect all others and never discriminate each other. These terrorists aren't Muslims. When will people get that. Stop for a moment and look in my point of view. Stop, and read. Stop, and think. Do not sympathize for them. Think of ourselves as beings with morale and those terrorists merely as animals. But, keep those animals in a small cage, but do not torture them. If we torture them, what is the point of morale. Answer that.
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

I support Gitmo You are wrong in that the US Constitution and the 8th Amendment applies to citizens of the US, not any terrorists. I'd assume you believe enhanced interrogation techniques are a violation of human rights but isn't terrorism the same? Why should we show respect and restraint to such barbarians and to people who would be more than happy to do worse to us? I support Guantanamo because I believe not only its' information but its' reputation are valuable to national and homeland security. There is a major difference between torture and interrogation. Torture is purely used to hurt another individual, which you can see used by terrorists today and governments throughout history towards people to bestow fear upon the enemy, but the "torture" at Gitmo is actually interrogation, and not all interrogations are as bad as they seem. The thing with interrogation is that after a certain point of pain an individual won't want to talk, interrogation is a delicate balance of mental and physical deprivation and manipulation. Now if you want to talk about torture I suggest you look at punishments in places like Saudi Arabia, where a lone Journalist is receiving 1000 lashes for criticizing the government. Thank you very much for this opportunity I look forward to my first debate!!!
Is Guantanamo Bay a good or a bad facility

I believe that Gunatanamo Bay is a bad idea. According to the eigth amandment of the constitution of the United States of America, no unusual or cruel punishments bestowed on people. I believe that this is Rumsfeld doing and that Barack Obama didn't have the balls to do anything. But, I cannot ignore the fact that torture and other extreme punishments are being forced onto muslims. They may have done bad things, i will get a lot of hate for this. The people locked at Guantanamo Bay deserve to go to jail, but never ever deserve to be tortured for a life time