BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same sex marriage in the Philippines

Well I really thought that I would have an intelligable opponent but I guess it"s not my lucky day. Anyways, to answer your question, no this is not Reddit nor am I gay but that doesn"t stop me from promoting same sex marriage in the Philippines. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." meaning that same-sex marriage is not totally banned due to the fact that it is the right of a person to marry someone he/she loves. Not legalizing same sex marriage would be minor discrimination and would depict that the country has second class citizens which would violate the fact that all humans have equal rights.
Men are oppressed in today's society.

I will respectfully debate right back with you. I will also follow that definition of oppressed. I am first off a little confused about your claim, I feel like it is worded a little weirdly. But in any case, I will try my best in this debate and show my claim. My Claim: In today's society some think that in a twist of fate, men are actually oppressed rather than women, who are currently fighting for their rights within many countries, yet women are much more oppressed than men are in today's world. Good luck, hope to have a nice and respectful debate.
Men are oppressed in today's society.

In this brief debate, I wish to respectfully debate how men are being oppressed in today's society. During this debate, we will follow Collins Dictionary's definition of the word 'oppressed'- "People who are oppressed are treated cruelly or are prevented from having the same opportunities, freedom, and benefits as others." This debate will consist of a mere three rounds; the first being devoted to acceptance and addressing your claim, the second being devoted to evidence and support, and with the final round being the conclusion to our arguments. I will take pro, as I believe that men are- according to the definition above- oppressed in society today. My claim is that men are oppressed in several ways today's society- one being their suicide rate, for example. I'm happy to debate with anyone who's willing, no requirements. Feel free to leave me a comment or message in the meantime. Thanks everyone! Looking forward to this debate with you.
a simple argument pro God's existence

Pro states she can claim it’s the most straightforward position. I already explained why this was wrong. It assumes the conclusion. You’re trying to rebut my arguments by claiming it’s simply the most straightforward position, when my arguments attack that claim. Appealing to the Catholic encyclopedia is an appeal to authority. Pro then talks about evidence vs proof. However, this goes into principles of parsimony and intuition, which falls back on our previous discussion. Pro talks about not following how the logic follows from my argument from temporal ontology. She says she thinks it isn’t just her, but that the logic really doesn’t follow. I believe I have demonstrated that it does. Let me explain it again. In order for something to begin to exist, it must not already exist. This is obvious. That temporal state in which it exists must begin. There must only be the present, not the future or the past. Otherwise some object would exist, even if it doesn’t exist presently. This means at the present isn’t the first time it begins to exist. It would have already existed ontologically even before that moment. I have demonstrated that the past and future exist. So, when we think back to the start of the universe, even at T=0, there would still be true facts and existing things in the future , so T=1 must still exist. It doesn’t exist presently at T=0, but it still exists. This means T=1 didn’t ontologically begin, as it still would exist at T=0. This all follows. My argument remains standing, as all Pro did was claim it doesn’t follow, even with further explanation, she just restated it doesn’t follow. Pro claims I asserted presentism has been refuted. This clearly isn’t the case, as I presented comprehensive evidence from science and philosophy disproving presentism. In the last section, Pro essentially argues that we do see violations of natural law. She says the principle of something coming from nothing and the 2LOT are violated. However, this has not been demonstrated. Simultaneous causation offers an explanation for the universe, but doesn’t claim something came from nothing. The 2LOT isn’t violated either, as the second law states entropy increases in an isolated system. Pro just showed how the start of the universe must have the lowest entropy states. This doesn’t mean that entropy increased in an isolated system. Pro has not shown any violations of nature. Natural causes are more parsimonious and intuitive. There is no good argument for there being any type of violations of natural law. My argument from the best temporal ontology remains standing. It has not been challenged outside of asking how it follows, which I explained how it does.
a simple argument pro God's existence

con merely argues that there are other possibilties to our beginning than us having a firm beginning. he says i can't just say the most straight forward notion is that we apparently did have that firm beginning. why can't i make that observation? even the catholic encyclopeia says it, not just me, that if observations are sufficient for a scientist, it should be for a theologian or philsophoer too. this really gets into proven v. evidence etc. sure,. we only have evidence that there was a definite beginning, and it's not proven, but it's still the most straightforward evidence i see. that there are other possibilities doesn't mean we cant argue we have not proven something. most or a lot theories are considered proven.... until somethign comes along to say it's wrong. that it's possible it may later be wrong doesnt mean we can't call it proven. i still am having a hard time following his ontology temperal points. i think it isn't just me. "In order for something to begin to exist, at "t" is the first time it exists. It must be the first time "e" exists. It violates the definition of begin to exist." i just can't see how any of this stuff makes any sense. i see he's referencing his past post, but i can't follow that either. or this. "Furthermore, in order to set the clocks in motion, the clocks must have not been in motion at one time. But this was shown to be false. If T=1 is when the clocks were set in motion, the only clocks would be at T=1. This assumes presentism, which has been refuted." i don't follow the logic, and it has assertions like 'it has been refuted'. but i can't follow how it's been refuted, or really what 'it' is referring to. these are just examples. i think there's something to it, but it's just not being explained in a very coherent way. i can appreciate that he argues that the most intituive response is that there are natural explanations for this stuff. perhaps. but it still on its face has no explanation and are pretty major 'apparent violations' of laws a we know them. this is different than 'what caused the tides' or tons of other things that people have always attributed to God until later information came along. those are similar enough to make a point, but they are inherently different. something from nothing, and not following thermodynaics are apparent violations, not just things that aren't understood, per se.
a simple argument pro God's existence

There’s a minor technical error Pro keeps making. At the start of the universe, the entropy levels would be at its lowest, not highest. Anyway, onto rebuttals. Pro’s first paragraph is essentially a restatement of the argument. It’s question begging as she says “the most staightforward argument is that it looks like we did have a first beginning.”, but this ignores that I am arguing against it. You cannot refute my argument by saying you think your argument is more straightforward. Along with saying maybe God shouldn’t be reduced to a sentient being. However, I will still accept the definition of a supernatural cause of the universe. Pro attempts to refute my argument from temporal ontology by saying she’s not sure how it follows. I have shown how it follows. In order for something to begin to exist, at “t” is the first time it exists. It must be the first time “e” exists. It violates the definition of begin to exist. She admits there may be some substance to this temporal ontology, but “if we look at nature for what it is, we see a big bang, and can infer something set the clocks in motion at the highest entropy levels of thermodynamics.” This is question begging, as the 2LOT and big bang are compatible with these temporal ontologies and Pro is rejecting the argument like above. She assumes the argument is sound and ignores all arguments against its soundness because the argument seems sound. Again, you cannot rebut my argument by claiming your argument seems sound. It’s essentially a “your theory doesn’t work under my theory, therefore your theory is wrong” argument. Furthermore, in order to set the clocks in motion, the clocks must have not been in motion at one time. But this was shown to be false. If T=1 is when the clocks were set in motion, the only clocks would be at T=1. This assumes presentism, which has been refuted. My argument from simultaneous causation is argued to be unlikely because it’s intuitive that the cause is supernatural. This is clearly not as intuitive as my natural cause. Because when do we ever see natural laws violated? It seems more intuitive that the cause follows laws, as we’ve never seen a breach of these. It is much more intuitive to propose a natural cause, as we know the natural exists. At least most agree that the natural exists, but the supernatural is in heavy debate. Pro herself agrees it may not exist. Why add assumptions? We know the natural exists, we see everything follows laws. There is good reason to think it’s a natural cause, it’s both intuitive and parsimonious. My argument remains standing, Pro has yet to touch on it. Science and philosophy disprove the notion of an ontological beginning and there’s good reasons to think the cause is natural.
a simple argument pro God's existence

con basically just argues other possibilities of theories for our beginning that show we dont have to have had a true beginning. this may be true, but the most staightforward argument is that it looks like we did have a first beginning. the big bang started it all. and thermodynaics says there must have been "something" that caused the highest energy levels. again, these are both things that vioalte the laws as we know them. this phenomenon is "god". while merely applying labels doesn't do much, i would even say the 'supernatural' apparency lends itself to more common definitions of God, that in olve things such as sentience. con said he thoughti would agree with that being part of the defintion of GOd, but i would quibble that we shouldnt reduce it to that necessarily, but again the evidences do lend itself to something like that. im not following con in how he says we have no beginnng because past present and fugure "all exist". he acts as if it is all one, and thus always was and had no beginning. maybe there is something to this stuff, but if we look at nature for what it is, we see a big bang, and can infer something set the clocks in motion at the highest entropy levels of thermodynamics. con argues that the cause be something natural. i agree, ockhams razor is best, the simplest solution prefereable. saying God as an omniscent being etc isn't most simple. but if we reduce "god" to just soemthing that doesn't coincide with the rules as we know them, that makes it make sense. it's intitutive too. we see something instead of nothing, and we know that it doesn't follow the rules of thermodynaics. this intution is what many refer to as God. | not to throw a wrench and get the debate distracted, but it's like when a "miracle" occurs to a believer, and the intiution point says "he prayed. he got better. therefore, praying can make you better". it may not be true, but there's an intutiive thing there is my point.
a simple argument pro God's existence

the law of thermodynamics says energy is always breaking down from higher states. that means, if you take things back further and further in time, something must have caused the highest energy level after the big bang. we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it, the law of thermodynamics. thermodynamics, as we know it, basically negates the idea that there is something in our physical universe that goes on and on back infinitely. there can be no infinite beginning, because there is no infinite end. we see an end point coming. that means there must be a finite beginning. this acknowledges that there could be other naturalistic explanations. nothing has to be definitively proven for it to be a proof. and, given what we know, the fact that there is something rather than nothing, combined with the issue with thermodynamics, both seem supernatural, cause they do not accord to our rules as we now them. sure there are many fancy footed lousy ways to 'define' God into existence where it isn't appropriate. but at least here, but definiing it that way at least has some substantiation to it.
We do not need Government

Pro has described certain organizational processes that would occur under anarchy (described below). The existence of these processes is evidence of a government. This government would undoubtedly be different in nature to the current government. However, the existence of a government of any kind under anarchy makes the discussion of anarchy irrelevant to the resolution.Pro said: "We would...always have meetings to talk about how to improve the society."These meetings would be either compulsory or optional. If compulsory, it means rules for attendance and some level of enforcement, which is a clear governmental process. If optional, it means that decisions are made by a sub-group of the population, which has taken the authority to act for everyone. This is another clear form of government.Even apart from this, a meeting with a large number of people talking about how to improve the society would have its own structure and rule system. For example, there might be rules about one person talking at a time, and rules about how decisions are made. Once decisions are agreed upon, certain people would be given authority to implement the decisions. People with authority to implement decisions is a sign of government.Pro's description of left-Anarchic society and meetings is very positive. It may be a particularly benign form of government. However, under the terms of the resolution, all discussion of left-Anarchic society is irrelevant to this debate, because left-Anarchic society does possess a government as defined in the previous round. Pro said: “Everyone would have a job” and individuals would have jobs that suit their leanings and temperaments. Assigning people to jobs where they’re needed is something that requires a massive organizational effort. Also, there are some jobs that nobody wants to do, such as cleaning toilets, and giving people pedicures and enemas. Somebody with authority must be constantly deciding, persuading and bribing people to do what’s needed. This is also a form of government. I agree the people are capable of organizing a system among themselves to share resources. Such a system is a form of government. People need to share resources to satisfy their fundamental living needs. Therefore, a government is necessary for our fundamental living needs.***Pro also made arguments relating to neurophysiology and the interference of the US government in the elections in Central and South America. I have a particular interest in both those topics, but they are not relevant to whether or not we need government for a fundamental living needs, the topic of this debate.Twice in the last round, Pro referred to people becoming "aggressors" under anarchy. If someone does become an aggressor, what happens to her? Is she shunned, banished, punished, treated or ignored? Just interested.Rule Britannia! :-)
Calvinism

I would like to tie this debate and start over. Let me answer your questions, and then we will restart. Define where TULIP is misleading and we'll go from there. Calvinism is a cult in that the first 4 points are heretical, at least as I understand them. Yes, the burden of proof is on me to substantiate the claim. I argue from the Bible that TULI is heretical, and you argue from the Bible that TULI is not heretical, but orthodox. You may cite anything you feel needs citing, its at your discretion. Since this debate deals with the Bible, providing verses should be enough reliable sources. Understand? Let's tie. You set up the next debate so I can follow your rules. I will wait for you to issue me a challenge.
Prostitution should be legalised in the US

"we would make more money from their taxes but just think people that could be doctors scientist or people that could find a cure or aids or breast cancer will say man that is too much hard work then they will say prostitution easy and I can make a lot of money you see they could have been someone big in life and they could maybe have change the world instead they took the easy way out and then sooner or later little kids will start saying I would to start being a prostitute like 12 or 13 ma7y do it in high school and it will corrupt the young minds now a days" --> Prostitution would clearly not be an option for someone below the legal age limit, and would be illegal, not a legal, form of prostitution. Furthermore, prostitution works to provide supply to a demand. There can only be so many jobs provided by prostitution, so the idea that a whole generation of girls will become prostitutes is false. It is the same argument as saying a possible scientist might end up on the production of a factory, but it doesn't justify outlawing factories. My arguments stand unrefuted. Back to my opponent.
Prostitution should be legalised in the US

yeah true we would make more money from their taxes but just think people that could be doctors scientist or people that could find a cure or aids or breast cancer will say man that is too much hard work then they will say prostitution easy and I can make a lot of money you see they could have been someone big in life and they could maybe have change the world instead they took the easy way out and then sooner or later little kids will start saying I would to start being a prostitute like 12 or 13 ma7y do it in high school and it will corrupt the young minds now a days
Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

BURDEN OF PROOF Good question When it comes to the burden of proof, I think the gay marriage advocate should have majority of the burden since you are the ones who want to change the definition and purpose of marriage and/or claim that this is a civil rights issue. Therefore, you should go first. However, I still have some burden in regards to public policy, so I will just explain what Civil marriage is and the purpose of it and how gay marriage interferes with this (if necessary) In this debate, make sure you include in your argument the following: Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time. One last thing: As you may already know, there is a marriage amendment that is about to be voted on in your state. So you better bring your A-game when it comes this debate to possibly convince the majority (if the chance comes up) in your state let alone yourself why we should go along with this proposition. This is a good place to test it out.
The Death Penalty

1. In your Osama Bin Laden case it was justified to kill him. However did not receive the death penalty, for he was not killed through the legal system. We are arguing about the death penalty, not other forms of legal killing (including ordered assassinations from the government and wartime). 2.The death penalty also is cruel and unusual, for if it isn't then what is worse than it? The finality and the violation of the right to live, no matter what circumstance causes this punishment to be cruel and unusual. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. About your cost argument, although the often death row inmates have to wait and be taken cared of for a long time, often up to thirty years, and even without that, although execution in itself is cheaper than a life sentence, there are other costs associated with it. If a suspect know that he may die he certainly will not plead not guilty thus creating big trials that include the cost of lawyers and prosecutors for both sides, and if a man is sentenced to death, he will appeal the ruling and ask for pardons from the governor and the president. Basically he will drag out the case for so long that the cost of the trial will be enormous. If he was not going to die he might plead guilty or he will be willing to not appeal. Along with other costs, the process of getting a suspect to die is actually more than life in prison. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. Your assumption that felonies do not have a life is biased and false. First of you do work in prison. Secondly, income has the opposite effect of the normal assumption that the poorer people are the more the commit crime. http://financesonline.com... http://www.newrepublic.com... 5. Life in prison can be so boring it could be worse than death therefore having rehabilitative effects . The death penalty is just all the sudden you are dead. The death penalty does not punish people because it is psychically painless and it is not emotionally painful because you die and you don't reflect on anything. Life in prison is tough and you have your whole life to think about what you have done.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

No problem. In conclusion, my analogy was not over the fact that it was duplo blocks, but that in comparison to the deliberate design choice of Minecraft, the designs were childish and unfinished. True, it is a game designed for children, but the continuos monetisation of these children only makes this worse. Lego has done deals with both games, that was not my point. Minecraft is a game designed with creativity and adventure both in equal mind, where Roblox has the gameplay and aesthetic of games such as Garry's Mod in early access, leaving it a derivative, inferior and downright immoral. I hope my opponent has experience a pleasant debate and I leave this debate in the hands of the voters. Duncan.