BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government Stimulus Is the Best Way to Get Out of a Recession

I am interested to see if Duncan wants to defend the statement he made in the comments. I know this current resolution is a slight deviation from the first resolution, but this current resolution is a consequence of the former. Please read everything below before accepting, as you will need to post your opening arguments in round 1. Full ResolutionGovernment stimulus is the best way for an economy to get out of a recession. BoP is on pro.DefinitionsGovernment stimulus: "A package of economic measures put together by the government to stimulate a floundering economy. The objective of a stimulus package is to reinvigorate the economy and prevent or reverse a recession by boosting employment and spending."[1]Best: "Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable."[2]Recession: "A significant decline in activity across the economy, lasting longer than a few months."[3]Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Presentation all arguments by conRound 2: Presentation of arguments by pro and rebuttal by conRound 3: Rebuttal by pro and defense of original arguments by conRound 4: Defense of original argument by pro. To make for an even number of rounds between both debates, con should only post, "No argument will be posted here as agreed."Sources[1]: http://www.investopedia.com...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: http://www.investopedia.com...
Ontological Argument

My opponent started going on about a god, namely a christian one. The ontological argument does not focus on any god of any religion, but on a "maximally great being," who many would refer to as a god, but that is not part of the definition. As such, my opponent has not argued for the ontological argument at all, but that is okay, because this debate is actually structured so that I can start the debate without strawmaning. The reason that the OA fails. The OA applies a string of logic but fails to test the logic. If the same string of logic can be used to come to an opposite conclusion, then the logic has been disproven through contradiction. As such, I will disprove the OA's logic through this contradiction. 1) It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world. 3) If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world. 4) If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world. 5) If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist. 6) Therefore maximally great being does not exist. This uses the exact same logic to reach an opposite conclusion that is at odds with the original conclusion. This proves that the logic of the OA is completely faulty and as such, illogical. Breaking this down one line at a time. 1) As there is no proof either way, this is clearly a possibility 2) If it is a possibility that it doesn't exist, then in some worlds where all the different possibilities are played out, the possibility of it not existing is played out. In such a case, there is no MGB in that world. 3) If a MGB does not exist in one or some worlds, then it can't exist in any. This is because a MGB would exist in all if it existed in any as per point 3 of the original OA. This cannot be denied without denying the original logic of the OA. 4) Obviously if the MGB doesn't exist in any world, it doesn't exist in ours, which is a part of the many worlds group. 5) This is just repetitive, but to keep the same format of the OA, I kept it. 6) The conclusion from this OA.
Ontological Argument

point 1) It is very possible that a being exists, now to me it is fact that one exists but I say very possible to indicate to those that do not believe get offended. point 2) from the side of Christianity, and forgive me because I will probably discuss all points in this paragraph as I do tend to ramble. If by "some possible world" you are indicating possibly an imaginary world or maybe a world that may exist but has the probability of not existing entirely then by all means yes it is highly possible. depending on which religion you are referencing as I do not know how far the spectrum goes on all "Gods" in all religions, in Christianity our God does not exist on some possible world. He exists in Heaven which I know this occurs to many people but Heaven in my opinion is like a friend of mine said about God is "outside the space time continuum". In this case he does exist in all worlds considering God takes a huge role in part of them but does not inhabit the earth himself. His reach extends to all worlds.
Ontological Argument

Pro will need to argue that the ontological argument proves the existence of a maximally great being. Whereas a maximally great being is defined based on the words used. Maximally - of highest quality, nothing higher. Great - superior attributes. Being - A something of existense. The ontological argument that is to be argued by my opponent is listed below. Do not accept this debate if you do not intend to argue these points. 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world. 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6) Therefore maximally great being exists.
god according to the bible would ---never--- use text as a form of communication

Are you unable to control yourself, or unwilling? I asked you, very nicely, to not insult your opponent. Telling me to "grow an ingrown toenail for life" is childish, disrespectful, and irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise is your usage of "imbecile", and saying "your God is stupid". I do not have to sit here and talk to you. If you are unable to engage in this honestly and respectfully, you will soon find that nobody wants to talk to you. Beyond that, I'm not going to bother reading, or responding to your post if you're unable to express it maturely, and without insult. I'll give you a chance to restate your argument in the next section. If you are still unable to restrain yourself, then you will find that you have lost someone willing to discuss this with you, and that you have gained nothing at all.
god according to the bible would ---never--- use text as a form of communication

So your first argument (rather, the one you stole from a video instead of thinking of yourself) is that God's word is ambiguous. Whether or not the word of God is ambiguous has no bearing on whether or not he would choose text as a form of communication, on top of speech, which he also used. The argument you stole from the second video is that the Bible has be re-written many times. Yes, but assuming we live in a world with an omnipotent God, which is an assumption implicit in the topic of this argument, God is fully capable of making sure that the Bible properly reflects his will. Alternatively, if the Bible does not reflect his original Word, it must be his choice that it changes, because he is omnipotent and has power over all things. Your quote from Christopher Hitchens is not relevant to the discussion, because it does not address what God, according to the Bible, would do. So you have not demonstrated, in any capacity, that God as he is portrayed in the Bible, would not use text. The Bible shows that he does use text, and specifically requests the use of text. I have demonstrated this in my initial argument. I would also like to note that I do not appreciate your disrespectful tone. There is no need to insult your opponent.
god according to the bible would ---never--- use text as a form of communication

The argument posited by my opponent is that God, as defined and contextualized within the Bible, and only regarding the Bible, would not have used the Bible as his choice of communication. In order to disprove this claim, I must therefor present evidence from the Bible, showing that God "would" use it as "a" form of communication. I would like to start by citing John 1:1, which states that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". The emphasis here, within the very first verse of one of the gospels, is that the Word of God is vitally important to the faith, and to God himself. In fact the two are inseparable. This is to say that it is not the Vision, or the Feeling, that is important, but the Word. John clarifies that God is embodied within the Word, so clearly the Word is how God would have himself be transmitted to the masses. In 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible explains that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,". As the instigator phrases it "according to the bible", all Scripture is breathed out by God. Obviously he "would" use text as a form of communication because he did, as is made clear in the Bible. In Habakkuk 2:2 the Lord says "write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it". God himself, in his own words, demands that his word be written down, so that it can be read by people. Obviously God would use text as a form of communication, according to the Bible, because he demanded that it be so in the Bible. He breathed out all scripture, and demanded, directly, that his word be written on tablets, specifically so that people may read it.
god according to the bible would ---never--- use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. http://www.youtube.com... - Christians don't understand the character of God" 6:45 or watch the entire thing. http://www.youtube.com... - The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! http://www.youtube.com... - Atheist Experience 21.49 with Tracie Harris and Don Baker. Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 and really gets into it 1:03:30 - 1:11:30. Pay attention everybody to vidie #3 and how YOU as a christian can easily misinterpret YOUR bible which is one of the reasons why YOUR god would --- NEVER --- use text as a form of communication. Don Baker, one of the hosts here in the vidie also briefly mentions it. And he's 100% correct! Rules: For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
god according to the bible would ---never--- use text as a form of communication

I only read your first two sentences of your RD 3 and then I stopped. I told you a dimwitted dullard snot meat sow EXACTLY why you deserved to be insulted. Not only that but with your obvious lack of intelligence and an edumacation on something that you obviously know nothing about and yet you pretend that you do, you deserve to be humiliated, degraded and dehumanized. Since it is obviously and blatantly clear that you did not read a single word that I had to say which presented both insults in which you rightly deserved, as well as rock solid evidence in which your teeny tiny little happy hairy hard off brain cannot refute, I'm not going to bother with what you have to say because not only is there nothing that you can say, but who cares what you have to say? I don't. I don't have the bloated superior ego complex that your unproved god does. This debate is now over. You had your chance. You blew it. Bye.
Medical Marijuana should be a legal option

1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, "There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases," Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, "That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, "Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke," This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.
Medical Marijuana should be a legal option

My opponent chastised me for mentioning other drugs when the debate is on marijuana, but I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in our drug laws. Furthermore, he goes on to cite the smoking baby, and since he is addicted to regular cigarettes and not marijuana that too would not be relevant to the debate at hand. "Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. " Yes, and the same such warnings may apply to marijuana for legal reasons, that does not prove that it is so much worse for you. "Same thing with drinking alcohol and then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. " Yes, exactly, that just reinforces what I was saying that you responded to. Any time we discuss drugs we must weigh the benefits against the risks. There are some in the medical community who promote marijuana as an effective treatment option. [1] You mention how marijuana is not for everyone, and it is not the first choice. That may be true, however, that does not mean it is not a choice at all. It works for some people where other drugs have failed. If you are concerned with the risk of abuse, dispensaries can have the same oversight as any pharmacy. [2] According to many experts, if a lethal dose of marijuana exists it is almost impossible to attain, as opposed to other drugs which can be quite easy to Overdose on even accidentally. [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I would look forward to his conclusion. 1 . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2 . http://www.lansingstatejournal.com... 3 . http://www.druglibrary.org...
Medical Marijuana should be a legal option

"If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. " --- Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. Marijuana has a much greater statistic of harming a person taking it than if one was to take another legal drug. Also, morphine is an addictive drug, but we are not arguing the merits of morphine. I ask that my opponent drop this point, as there are many drugs that are perscribed that are not as addictive as marijuana or opiates. "There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6]" -In source 4, the author never lists the benefits, and in source 5 the person asking the question suggested the benefits of marijuana, marijuana was not suggested. In the same source, the person answering the question said that it was highly controversial. In source 6, it was a nice story, but what about lond term side effects? My second source says that there are long term side effects to this addictive drug, and whos to say that the kid will not grow up an addict? There are many cases in which a child is given a drug that he or she quickly becomes addicted to. . http://www.break.com... "Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. " -Same thing with drinking alcoholand then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. "There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. " -Yes, I know. But that was listed as a method in my source, and I support it still. Any way one ingests marijuna is bad. "For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? " -Totally agree with you on this one, but this debate is about marijuna, not opiates.
Medical Marijuana should be a legal option

First of all my opponent points to where his source says "medical marijuana is not right for every patient. " If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. [1] [2] [3] There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6] " Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. " Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. "Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. " This is also true of many antidepressants when prescribed to teenagers. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke" There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? I thank my opponent and look forward to the next round. 1 . http://www.softlandingrecovery.com... 2 . http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk... 3 . http://www.kstatecollegian.com... 4 . http://www.thenewstribune.com... 5 . http://news.google.com... 6 . http://www.kxly.com...
SEND THEM A MESSAGE THAT THIS LIMIT TO MESSAGES IS RETARDED PLS, 5 messages omg..... MAKE IT ENDLESS

you are wrong about everything you say... obivusly, you can not say before hand how long a fight is going to be, so this is just useless, 100 percent and totally utterly brainlessly useless... I have a hard time accepting humans with intelligence made this websaite. sry you accept retardation limitation the debate ends... because I am right and you are wrong :) that's how it works
SEND THEM A MESSAGE THAT THIS LIMIT TO MESSAGES IS RETARDED PLS, 5 messages omg..... MAKE IT ENDLESS

That would not provide a authentic formal debating sense. There would also be no conclusion to the debates, allowing for many rebuttals and many new arguments which is an awful as any seasoned member of this site will tell you. If someone brings in a new argument before the previous claims are resolved, the debate is practically restarted. There can also be too many debaters on one team. And with too many members arguing on your side, someone may bring up arguments that you don't agree with. When debating, for the time being in the opposing debate team's eyes and opposing audience members, you represent everything your side believes in context with the debate. Let's say you are debating drug legalization. For argumental reasons, let's say I'm against it and you are for it. If your reasoning is "drugs make me feel good so that's a good reason to legalize it", you may upset those who agree with your side of the resolution. If we use the YouTube comment format, then there will be arguments within the same teams, going essentially away from the main resolution. Overall, this website provides a formal feel to debating. There is more freedoms in the format my opponent proposes, but debates are structured, which the opposing format is not. There are things called forums that ask for help, and you can voice your opinions. Use those. This site's debate section is for debating in a formal setting, this formal setting having a limited number of rounds and participants. By the way, they are called rounds, not messages.
SEND THEM A MESSAGE THAT THIS LIMIT TO MESSAGES IS RETARDED PLS, 5 messages omg..... MAKE IT ENDLESS

This website is for people who want to debate in a formal debate setting, like one you would find on the debate team at school. If this was like YouTube, the debate would never end, no winner would be declared, and people of different debating skill levels would be going at it. This website is like when two political figures are going for a place in some office. Who is correct? The formal debating setting is not present in youtube comment sections. People become rude, lack sources, and the topic of the debate can change. This is structured in such a way where you're restricted to debating the topic on hand and you are judged on grammar and validity as well as conduct. Again, something Youtube lacks.