BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

agnostic ["gG2;n;4;st=8;k] n 1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible 2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty a"the"ism (G2;e=8; _2;iG6;=8;z əm) n. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. The other part of the argument shall be an Agnostic atheists, AKA. the "Don't know" atheists who believe that there is absolutely no way to know that God existed, and for that reason they are atheist. Note that this is different from gnostic atheists who claim they know God does not exist. I am going to attempt to prove that this principle makes little to no logical sense. Thus it is false and can't be relied on. R1 will be for acceptance. It is expected for the arguments to be logical since the topic's title carries a philosophic theme. Btw. I am NOT an atheist, NOR I am a Christian or a young earth creationist.
4chan is the site of Internet Superstars

To begin, I would like to say that my opponent's insults toward myself and newgrounds were completely uncalled for. To my opponent's rebutals: I never said those two people were the ONLY people that you were referring to. In fact, you did not provide an example of an "internet superstar". Second, how was I supposed to know you were not referring to those two? You provided no examples, so you have no grounds to support what you were referring to. I brought up newgrounds to disprove your thesis, "4chan is the only site for internet superstars", by showing an "internet superstar" that did not come from 4chan. org Disregard the fact that they have a lot of yuri and yaoi? I'm sorry, but when you refer to the WHOLE of 4chan as "family friendly", you cannot simply disregard that part and use the rest as an argument. Now, to negate my opponent's arguments from the 1st round. "Its portable" I'd first like to point out the gramatical error, in that "portable" does not belong to "it". The fact that 4chan is portable (if it is portable, that is) has nothing to do with my opponent's thesis, so I will not bother arguing against it. "its affordable" Same for this statement as in my rebuttal to "its portable" "its acceptable by all cultures" Quite simply, 4chan DOES include pornographic images, which ARE NOT accepted by all cultures. I am not going to offer any more arguments regarding the subject, because I feel as though I need not.
4chan is the site of Internet Superstars

To begin, I will negate my opponent's arguments. "4chan is the only site for internet superstars" - I actually mean alot more than just two, and I didn't mean those two. For that you fail. - I can't believe you brought up newgrounds. Newgrounds is the child of 4chan and Something Awful. Newgrounds is obselete. Stupid. Unimportant. And faggy. "4chan is family friendly" - Disregard the fact that they have a lot of yuri and yaoi on the site. Those things are great for the family. Families around the world should partake in the watching and viewing of yuri and yaoi.
4chan is the site of Internet Superstars

To begin, I will negate my opponent's arguments. "4chan is the only site for internet superstars" (definition of superstar: any very prominent or successful person or thing) Due to the unclear definition of "internet superstar", I will assume my opponent is regarding to something along the lines of Star Wars kid http://www.youtube.com... or Gary Brolsma http://www.youtube.com... . The latter of the two was actually released on www.newgrounds.com , so that alone proves this argument void. "4chan is family friendly" (definition: suitable for the whole family) On the front page of www.4chan.org, there is a category by the name of "Adult", and it is specified as 18+. The "whole family" would include those under the age of 18, so the argument is void. Due to the lack of time, I will not be able to offer any more arguments until the second round.
Marijuana Legalization

Observers, I apologize for the lack of a lively debate. It takes two to tango, and my date seems to have stood me up at prom. Unfortunately I left the options for an opponent wide open, and a member who joined six months ago and has not had one debate (ie. a duplicate account, vote bomber, or troll) accepted the debate, but basically forfeited every round by not presenting an argument. He has done nothing but offend the intelligence of his opponent, and the observers, and use ad-hominem attacks that bear very little logic or reason. "1. I ask people to answer this question in the comments section: Is my opponent high while he writes his argument?" -If I am high, then that would bolster my argument. It would prove that someone under the influence of marijuana can be more logical, reasonable, articulate, and respectful than someone who opposes legalization of marijuana for no rational reason. "If your life sucks so bad that you need pot, go right ahead and smoke it." -No one "needs" pot. But life does suck. People get sick. People get depressed. People want to distract themselves, and have a little recreation. Be it drinking, smoking marijuana, playing video games, or watching TV there is very little harm to society as a whole, and there is no rational reason to oppose legalization of marijuana for personal use. "My opponent has provided reasons we should tolerate pot heads" -My opponent is arguing the strawman. I have not defended potheads at all. What I have defended is the position that marijuana should be legalized for personal use by responsible adults. A responsible adult can be defined by law, as with alcohol, and the sale, possession, and use can be regulated with much greater ease than the status quo. "I'm ready for the next one to try and break in my house." -Has a person exclusively high on marijuana ever broken into your house? Do you have proof that this is a trend amongst responsible marijuana users? Note the references I provided- over 400,000 people arrested each year for simple possession. Simple possession means there was no other crime attached, including breaking and entering. "he's right, we should all save our money and let the people who want to smoke pot do it" -My opponent concedes the debate. People, trust your own intelligence, and vote accordingly. Thank you.
Marijuana Legalization

1. I ask people to answer this question in the comments section: Is my opponent high while he writes his argument? 2. I'm persuaded. If your life sucks so bad that you need pot, go right ahead and smoke it. My opponent has provided reasons we should tolerate pot heads, I will try to do my best, but I'm ready for the next one to try and break in my house. I thank my opponent for taking time out of his pot smoking to persuade me not to pay for him to stay in jail, instead, he's right, we should all save our money and let the people who want to smoke pot do it. Hopefully they'll drive themselves off the road, in their fog, and rid society of themselves. ......no no no.....I hope that doesn't happen.
Marijuana Legalization

First, I'd like to say that I don't care if marijuana was at one point grown by Jesus, the fact is that it is a completely unnecessary nuisance to society. It's clear what will happen if my opponent has his way, just like the cigarette companies, their will be marijuana companies making their product irresistible by lacing it with addictive substances, people will become slaves to it and loose great sums of money that could be used in MUCH more productive ways. My opponent will probably say, "well, we'll just let people grow it", and that's a great idea, put it right in the open for all the youth to get a hold of and become pot heads. Stats show that smoking marijuana leads youths to try worse drugs like crack cocaine and eventual death. Once people are addicted, they will do anything to get that drug for their "high", this is why we see so many addicts resorting to theft to get money to pay for their drugs. I don't see a benefit for society by legalizing marijuana.
Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana has been in use as a food, medicine, and for textile use since at least 6,000BC. The early American settlers planted hemp for it's various uses. In the 1800's, pharmacies in America began selling cannabis based medicines, and hashish. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was the first regulation passed on marijuana in the US. Between 1915-1927, several states banned the 'non-medical use' of marijuana. In 1936, the propaganda film 'Reefer Madness' was released to scare youth out of using marijuana, and is filled with many falsehoods that are still widely believed today. A year later, marijuana was further regulated to the point of prohibition through the Marihuana Tax Act. Then, in 1972, the Nixon appointed Shafer Commission recommends the re-legalization of marijuana. In what can be seen as the start of a conservative right wing led effort to contradict science with self-righteous reasoning, the Nixon administration ignored it's own commission's recommendations. Then in 1975, the FDA briefly established it's Compassionate Use Program for medical marijuana, which now boasts only 7 patients. I present this brief history of marijuana, and the following: the prohibition of marijuana is based on ignorance, self-righteousness, and the lack of common sense legislation. My stance is that marijuana should be legal in modest quantities to responsible adults. I present the following definitions: Marijuana- the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plant that yield THC and are smoked in cigarettes for their intoxicating effect (http://www.merriam-webster.com...); cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, and cannabis ruderalis, mainly. Legal- conforming to or permitted by law or established rules (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Because I am the affirmative of a commonly negative position (marijuana is commonly viewed as a drug, drugs are commonly viewed as bad), it is difficult to argue my position without hearing the offensive. I will allow my opponent to present his argument, and I will structure my responses around his arguments. Thank you, and good luck.
Marijuana Legalization

My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.
Marijuana Legalization

This is a four round debate. The first round is for presenting our positions, but the debate officially starts in Round 2. I would prefer to debate this with someone who feels strongly about the position, and not just playing devil's advocate or semantics. This is my basic position, and will get into further detail pending my opponent's response. Do not accept if you are only going to debate the specifics of my position rather than the overall legalization position. If your concern is regarding the personal preferences I set forth in my own hypothetical situation legalizing marijuana, then you are not truly against the legalization of marijuana. This is not a debate about degree of legalization, nor is it abut decriminalization vs. legalization. This debate is about the status quo vs. ANY form of legalization, liberalization, or reform of marijuana laws in favor of non-violent users. Thank you. 1- Marijuana should be legal in small quantities (3 oz. or less) for personal use to responsible adults over the age of 21. 2- Marijuana should be considered for medicinal purposes for a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to depression, fibromyalgia, scoliosis, crohn's disease, HIV, AIDS, patients on chemotherapy, migraines, insomnia, and others. 3- Marijuana should be taxed and regulated by the individual states, and proceeds from taxation should be used to fund treatment for drug abuse, studies for alternative medicines like marijuana, youth education programs, etc. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should not be considered a crime. 5- Means of legal acquirement of marijuana should be established with federal protection so that those which follow their state laws need not be worried about federal prosecution. I await my opponent's introduction, and hope this turns out to be an informative debate for all.
Christian rap battle

"The bible says 'Let he who is innocent walk blameless' ",/ its not that line, but your definition of rhyme thats anus,/ aimless, speech confused, its just babel,/ up dung's creek, in a canoe, with no paddle,/ yo words scrabble, in deep thought you dont dabble,/ me, I put on the armour of God for any battle,/ I'm well traveled, well trained, and free from sin/ wherever my lord may send me, I return with a win,/ and in the end, when the judgement begins,/ I wont have to worry 'cause the judge is my friend,/ im disciplined, and at the same time disciple,/ enemy of my lord, makes you and me rivals,/ soul survival, and I can see you 'bout to fail,/ lack of the bible's knowledge gone have you headed to hell,/ losing to me is one thing, as you can already tell,/ but surrendering to Jesus Christ is how you really prevail,/ Lef Illegal
Christian rap battle

You look like you freestylin instead of rap battlin' You have no style, no swag, your mind rarely paddlin As Con try to come up with corny lines, i'm draggin' him I don't even have to try, this guy already did suicide n' died The minute you pressed accept challenge, you were small fry Stop yappin', cuz you just made your momma n demons cry Clearly this kid wants to battle like me, let me give you the situation Spiritually get in the place where you can lyrically make deliveries, meditation How the hell are you going to heaven when you fail at rivalries, you an imitation I'ma recycle one of my lines used last time to show this mime the definition of a rhyme The Bible says "Let he who is innocent walk blameless" You sinned when you faced me, now you shall remain nameless Fameless you lay like a dead carcass, brainless n' in lameness Won't say i'm Jesus, but i think i did you a favor in leavin you faithless I overcame temptations while your still in inner trials n' tribulations Sure hope you can rap better get divine inspiration in the next creation
Christian rap battle

Heard me speak about moses, now you mention his name,/ God's wrath is his vengeance, yet you mention the same,/ like the voters wouldnt notice you attemptin the vain/ I'd rather be an heir of seth, than descendant of cain,/ You proclaim the profane, "that our lyrics the same"'/ thats the spirit of the anti-christ doin his thang,/ Takin claim of my words, changed and rearranged,/ like you the one who came up with the thangs I explained,/ thats so lame, and such a shame, souls get slain,/ for being insane, duranged, sons of the estranged,/ pretending they overcame, Yahweh's reign/ enter into heaven's gate, where every wild beast tame,/ and us named, exchange shame for fame,/ honour and God's glory, for tribulation and pain,/ so blame the devil, "to hell!!!" :where yall appointed,/ "HOW DARE YOU TRY TO TOUCH ONE OF GOD'S ANOINTED!!!,/
Christian rap battle

your choice of lyrics closely mimics mine guess that means that I can write a rhyme Bout to show you the light make you go blind make a brother stumble in a way you can't find since you talked about Moses, let me give you a history of Israel you lack the feel of ancient steel so let me show you that it's real see back in the day, people couldn't write from the bottom of their hearts, they memorized till they got it right like what I'm doing right now, killin you in broad daylight to the dead of night life and death is in the power of the tongue, so I say this battle I've already won I'm not divine, but I'm your personal father rebuking his own stubborn son the wicked lady a snarefor the righteous so come take it from the hands of your waitress I aint God, but I know your flow doesn't exist because I move it like the ocean and it doesn't resist so we going back to the main creation you should have never mentioned my nation as if you are going to receive any salvation deep down inside, you act like a freemason like Moses, I shall smite you with vengeance then you will know what it means to beg for repentance I'll steal the life of your first born, make your head shorn have your ligaments torn and make you blood sworn But we both know i must follow the good rabbi that's why I can't leave you dead exposed in a drive-by I show compassion on you, next you're going bye bye
Christian rap battle

I'll treat you like the pharoah since you seekin truth,/ bring the plagues like Moses since you needin proof,/ smack my staff on the earth and let some creatures loose,/ turn your water blood red like that jesus juice,/ you and your heathen spooks, gone catch the "b" in boot,/ runnin from Jesus Christ and his legion of troops,/ because the season's due, when we seizin you,/ and overturnin everybody in your treason crew,/ and thats the reason few, ride in the car with you,/ they dont wanna be apart of hell's bar-b-que,/ so without further ado, I shall eradicate you,/ send you back to the father, so he can evaluate you,/ calculate fruit, and tabulate goofs,/ add up all your sins and decapitate you,/ plus all of the followers in your treacherous coupe,/ same sentence as the devil and the rest of his group,/ Gods wrath, and one failed swoop/ story of yo life, and your attempts at the truth,/ betta think twice when approaching us Christ-like/ before we have you like gremlins, scared of the notion of bright light,/ an emotional spot light, for souls who aint got right,/ and dont know that the vengeance of the lord is not nice,/
Christian rap battle

Rap focuses on the Bible Like Jah-men before i serve you like a bowl of Ramen i say "Amen" To seal your fate as your kin livin' in sin, a win is not less than my grin Bombin' the Temple of Jerusalem isn't calmin' the position i'm in Cuz God will come back to establish his kingdom in a walk-in The Bible basically says "The wicked hide in shadows, let the righteous walk blameless" After this, you shall be fameless, your name shall remain nameless The game is, don't change this, your lameness can't surpass that of purple hayness Accept the imminent death that'll come for your breath like crystal meth I'm like Cain, broke Abel, you are replaced by an heir in the line of Seth So let God do the rest, your put to the test, i don't need a cross on my chest to know that i'm blessed I come as David with no bullet-proof vest, you come at me with armor n' a crest lest i destroy you in zest Your kind shall have to commit incest n give breasts to replace the fallen oppressed while your stressed in the mess til you confess that i'm the best Like Enoch n' Elijah, i call on Jah, not a rasta, put i'll end ya fasta than a human made blasta its such a disasta The only reason i talk like this is to intimidate you to thinkin i'm cursin' investin' in your condition so that it worsens I shoot out holy flames, i don't get burned, i make you carry burdens 1 of my diversions to keep you in a mental captivity like under the Egyptians n' Persians I'm not Jewish, but i believe in 1 God divine, i read many different Bible versions, you watch too many sermons maybe believe in too many urbans, you won't escape to the neurosurgeons The supernatural damage done to your Psyche shall cause thee to go on a mass suicide spree makin your generation history to the mystery of this lyrical consistency Bitterly you seek to disrupt my faith lookin' at the Bible to see if it's contradictory
Gun Control

I will try to respect your ideals, regardless of how opposite they are to me and my leftist beliefs. I believe gun control is an absolute and total necessity of all people. Unrestricted access to fire-arms proves an extremely credible threat to an entire nation and removes peace from streets. The United States is not Somalia. You shouldn't be finding shoot outs in every corner. No nation on Earth with a stable and organized government such as the United States has experimented with allowing its people to defend themselves through more weapons. On the other hand, nations like Scotland, Australia, and Russia with the worlds most tightened gun control laws have all low crime rates in terms of homicides and shooting related activities [1]. Furthermore, you cannot expect people to defend themselves. You have a branch of the government to do that for you and more called 'police'. Many conservatives challenge the idea that police officers are slow to respond and so any common man's rebuttal would be "Fund our police departments more.". Police departments with higher funding have all been statistically proven to be more effective and responsive while allowing a nation's people to defend themselves is but a theory, and a radical theory, too. The United States have one of the most permissive gun laws in the entire developed world. It is not a coincidence that the US leads the world and has led it since 1966 as the most amount of shootings in total and in the developed world as well [2]. Your argument that people can defend themselves is also under a very, VERY weak foundation. The US has the world's highest amount of guns per capita and in total, yet we have yet to hear of a story where people have successfully defended themselves in the past 30 years against an armed shooter [3]. Again, if you look at advanced nations with low per capita guns, they hold one of the lowest shootings in their 50 years back into the past. Sources: (Let me also say, [2] is a fairly right wing journal agency) [1] http://www.reuters.com... [2] http://www.wsj.com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

Gun control is a completely unnecessary and near-idiotic idea promoted by the current left wing politicians, both in office domestically, and abroad. In the wake of the shooting of a gay bar in Orlando, it is necessary for members of LGBTQ to take action, and to take the responsibility of defending themselves into their own hands. Already, groups have been formed nationwide dedicated to this idea. Not only should members of the LGBTQ community defend themselves, but the general American public should have access to single-fire and semi-automatic small arms of their choosing without a license, so long as a background check is done, and full-auto weapons with both a background check and Class III license. It is unnecessary for any governing power to excessively regulate, or even ban, what weapons we choose to defend ourselves and our family with. https://s32.postimg.org...
Bring back the death penalty for murderers in England.

Murderers still deserve human rights, because of Pro's evidence:Article 3 of universal declaration of human rights. They should get the rights, because they are still humans. If murderers won't respect other humans' human rights, they should not forfeit their rights, for they are still humans. If they forfeit it, it turns into: murder, suicide, and self-hate. Inhuman describes one who is cruel. Are humans cruel to get food? Murders are still humans, and England should respect their human rights.
Bring back the death penalty for murderers in England.

England wouldn't be murderers if they put murderers to death as , you said yourself, "murderers are regarded as inhuman". People kill animals all the time because they are "inhuman", so why should murderers be any different? Some people say that to keep the murderers living is punishment enough as they will regret their crimes, but if they have no remorse, they will never feel guilty so it isn't punishment for them? Murderers, particularly mass murderers, need to realise that murder is wrong.