BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

Was it deliberate or a mistake o. O? Basically, my opponent centers his entire argument by dissecting one of my sentences, then attacking each of these two parts individually. I'll explain: =====Counterarguments===== 1. Some argument about the amount of Christians OF COURSE the majority of Christians believes God's judgments of morality are important. That is very essential to a religion, and I am in no way refuting that. My opponent seems to make a horrible straw man argument. The second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma states that if what is moral is commanded by God, then that makes morality "arbitrary to God's whims". For example, God could've made rape, murder, and theft morally righteous acts. This is supposedly seen as a problem for theists. HOWEVER, I argue that if God, by virtue of the definitions I gave in Round 1, is omnibeneveloent, then whatever he decrees will be morally righteous since HE IS MORALLY PERFECT. My opponent's argument ENTIRELY misses my argument, and this very debate topic. It's quite irrelevant to put it bluntly. 2. Argument pertaining to arbitrary Once again, my opponent's argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Any simple knowledge of what Euthyphro's dilemma is show's that my opponent is way off-track. I argued that while some would argue that if morality was arbitrary by God's whim, then this is a problem for theists. As I have previously stated, this is NOT a problem because if God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect), then it doesn't matter if morality is arbitrary. =====Conclusion===== I ask of my opponent: did you really read my opening argument or tried a very funny semantic argument? Or perhaps you just misinterpreted it? Whatever the answer may be, one thing is clear. My opponent's argument are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. He has yet to show why the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma (the one I'm targeting) is a true problem for theism. You see, I've been debating on the side of atheism too much, and I thought I would try to argue on a theist's side. I was hoping this debate would reach into some yummy topics, like divine command theory. But if my opponent continues to make irrelevant arguments, then I have nothing to refute.
Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

Quote of Opponent: I argue that it doesn't matter if God commands what is moral....... Sources: http://www.infoplease.com... First of all, America is ruled by the majority. This is a proven fact. Majority plays a pig part in decision making. It decides laws, the fate of one's life (capital punishment), even our future President. According to the first website stated above, the top religion in the world is Christianity with over 2.1 billion members, 33% of the world. That's a huge number. Those 2.1 billion people believe that God does command what is moral. Many of them follow the ten commandments, and outline of what is and what is not moral. This means that the MAJORITY feels God commands what is moral. Indeed, many would agree the opinions of the majority are often seen as the opinions of ALL. Now, if it did not matter if God commanded what is moral, there would be no sins, no churches, no Christians, not even this religion to begin with. The churches that you drive by almost everday is solid CONCRETE proof that God's commands of morality are in fact significant. Of the 2.1 billion christians, if at least the majority believes that God's judgements of morality are important than this first statement can be proven FALSE. Quote of Opponent:..............whatever is moral is "arbitrary". Sources- dictionary.reference.com Definition of Arbitrary- up to ones judgement. Whatever is moral is not arbitrary. We base things on example, teachings, pressure, society, etc. Thus our judgments of things are not up to ourselves. When you dress for school, you dress according to what you may think is cool, what you see other kids wearing, what you have seen on T.V. etc. This means our judgements are effected by others. This means that morality is based on other things such as God's judgements, what you have been taught, and what you have been brought up by. So morality is in no way arbitrary. You must first see a basic outline of what is generally concieved as moral and not moral. This basis can not be shown by yourself because you don't even know what morality is! This basis for your own judgement must be set by someone else. So then you make your judgements off of them. So now your judgement is based on another person's actions, not your own. For example, when you judge if something is safe or not, your certainly not going to test it our yourself. Someone else will test it out. You will watch what happens and depending upon THEIR actions, you make your OWN ACTIONS AND DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO. Summary Euthyphro's Dilemma is real. Everyday, someone ask's themselves," Is this right? Should I be doing this? Just because someone says one thing, should I go along with them?" Thus this is basically the same dilemma Euthyphro was experiencing. For example when you go cite sources for debate. Someone states Wikipedia and someone else states The Library of Congress. You would obviously believe the second one. But does this mean you should believe that source because it sounds official? Is it true because it is THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS?" Same principles of Euthyphro's Dilemma! Good Start PRO:)
Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

I am contending that the famous Euthyphro's dilemma is in fact a false dilemma. The dilemma basically asks: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" [1] Usually involved in debates with monotheistic gods, I will define "God" as it commonly is defined: -Omnipotent -Omniscient -Omnipresent -Omnibenevolence *NOTE* - I am NOT debating about whether or not this God exists. Of course, if God didn't exist, then this dilemma wouldn't apply. However, in the context of this debate, let's suppose it does. I argue that it doesn't matter if God commands what is moral, or whatever is moral is "arbitrary". Because God is omnibenevolent, then his moral commands are "good". I will leave it as this for now, and await my opponent's argument. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mom is Pulling me and my sisters' hair!

As multiple comments say, if shes actually hitting you like that and acting like that and your dad is doing nothing then call someone. That's not behaviour that should be expected from a five year old, so coming from a parent that's wrong. If what you are saying is an accurate representation of the facts then call child services or the police. There is nothing really left to debate on this topic. This really shouldn't have become a debate but I took it cause comments were not satisfactorily addressing the issue. Now with further information there is reasonable cause for calls to someone on this issue. I would now urge you to ignore round three and I will do the same and simply follow the advice given by myself and the commenters.
Mom is Pulling me and my sisters' hair!

The problem is is that it's not just me getting my hair pulled it's my other sisters too! I can't hit her back because that would just be flat out wrong! And seriously no weave or nothing she pulled my hair and started hitting my nose to my mouth. Then I went to my dad and told him that she as pulling my hair. When I came back she made me wash a pot load of dishes and while I was doing so she kept calling me a "snitch" or a "Tattle Tale Twit". That's when I decided that I would leave the kitchen and go downstairs because their was no way I could wash the dishes while she as doing that. I came back about 10 minutes later and noticed she washed for me. Not to sound lazy by the way. When I went to the side of the table she came in the kitchen and said in a grouchy voice to my sister that "I don't want you butting in" Then my mom charged at her and my sister started to run,but my mom grabbed her shirt dropping 3 chairs and pulled her back by her shirt and pulled her hair then slapped her also on the nose and mouth. I just stood there in shock. Then my mom turned around and gave me a dirty look. Also the chairs DID NOT fall on her. I picked them up after they dropped.
ban islam

Though I disagree with the banning of Islam, the religion, I do concur with my opponent on the opinion of Islam being a religion of violence and is a deadly ideology to the civilized world. It is objectively clear that the right to the expression of one's religion is an inherent right, so long as the followers of that religion does not impede upon humanity as a whole. In the late 20th and recent 21st, radical Islamic organizations have been deemed as the root of evil in the world, that is a proper fact that can be agreed on by any sane person, however, Muslims constitute as equals to these heretics. The United States, as many countries have guaranteed the ability to freely allow the individual the choice of their religion and to worship any entity that which they pertain themselves to. In the United States of America, it is a guaranteed right to the individual provided by the First Amendment; The French Constitution allows Freedom of Speech by Article's 10 and 11, however, it is limited to an extent but still recognizes the fundamentals of the right; South Africa even recognizes freedom of speech and religion in its South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2, Section 16. Therefore, it is an agreed right of a person to express their religion. A sophisticated mind must endure the contradicting opinions and cultures that are seen throughout the world. To understand and learn ourselves of other cultures is a necessity if we, as the Human Race, are to ever progress. Banning a religion is not going to solve the problem for the ideology is still within the mindset of its followers. It is with that that I would like to make particularly known that Islam is the fastest growing Religion in the world. According to an estimate by the Pew Research Center, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world- that is nearly 23% of the Global Population. The reason for this increasing amount of persons in this religion is due to fertility decline in other popular religions. In fact, it is projected that by 2060 that Jew's will no longer be the largest second religion to counter Christianity- Islam will. Should current trends occur, could Islam be expected to surpass the number of Christians in the world? It is not inconceivable and is a very likely chance. Notice how Pro insists that Islam is a curse to the world, and how he fails to acknowledge the extensive branches of Islam. The Ahmadiyya is a very popular branch of Islam that is the holiest. Though quite young in spectrum of Islam's age, Ahmadiyya was founded in Punjab, British India in the late 19th century and originated from the teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This is a religion of peace, and should not be banned for it would violate the basic right of the Freedom of Speech. . http://www.pewresearch.org...; . http://www.pewresearch.org...https://blogs.loc.gov...;
Menstrual products should be free

Of course periods aren't just menstrual products. Never said they weren't. But HuffPost is very left-wing (https://mediabiasfactcheck. Com/huffington-post) and not trusted, So I wouldn't reccomend using it in a debate. I already made clear that I don't think students should be provided with free condoms. Not sure why we are debating that. Toilet paper is needed by all sexes and all ages to stay clean after going to the toilet. Menstrual products are only needed by around half of women, And only a few days a month. So there is much less demand for menstrual products and they are more expensive than toilet paper. Which is why they're not provided at bathrooms and schools. I am not aware of any US state of country that doesn't tax foods. We tax foods, We tax soap, We tax dental products, We tax clothes. . . Why shouldn't menstrual products be taxed? They are used by a smaller fraction of the population than all the other products I just listed, So why shouldn't they be taxed? You haven't listed a single reason why menstrual products should be free/untaxed and why other necessary products used by a much higher percentage of the population shouldn't be.
Menstrual products should be free

Wow, I realized I am really bad at debating. . . . Anyway, Periods aren't just menstrual products, There are many other things people buy to help them get through their periods. Https://www. Huffpost. Com/entry/period-cost-lifetime_n_7258780 You don't have to have sex in college, You don't need condoms if you're not going to be doing it. Yes, People need food, Water, Etc. But I believe that menstrual products. Many foods also aren't taxed (depending on where you live). I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in public places, Like toilet paper. When you are having your period, You can't just drive home to go get a pad or tampon, Especially at school. I see your points and now realize that it would be somewhat hard for menstrual products to be totally free but they should at least be free in public places such as bathrooms and schools.
Menstrual products should be free

So, You change your argument from "menstrual products should be free" to "menstrual products shouldn't be taxed". Let's get to that, But first some of your arguments. You say that condoms are free. I personally don't think condoms should be free, As they are extraordinarily cheap and accessible. But colleges don't want students to get pregnant, So I see the reasoning. Saying that people won't have to pay a lot for free menstrual products is ridicolous too. Does that mean you can tax them because you don't want to pay for your own hygiene products? Of course not. Why should men and women in menopause pay for something they will never use? The argument that menstrual products are very important doesn't mean they should be free or shouldn't be taxed. Dental products are important, Toilet paper is important, Soap is important, Shampoo is important, Clothes are important, Food is important. . . Something being important for humans to live doesn't mean it should be free or not taxed. Please find a better argument than "women need menstrual products". I need to floss my teeth everyday, But do I advocate for floss being free or not taxed? Menstrual products are very cheap. You can go and buy 30 tampons for $7 at Walmart. That's cheaper than condoms, Which you are so against being free. Don't tell me that an average American woman can't go to a store and buy cheap menstrual products. That's crap.
Menstrual products should be free

I see your point, And I guess I might change my argument a little bit. I think that menstrual products should at least not be taxed. Menstrual products add up over time and the taxes just make it even more expensive. I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in schools and other similar places such as public bathrooms. Toilet paper is free in public bathrooms and is used for hygienic purposes. Condoms are free at most colleges whereas menstrual products are not. This shouldn't be the case because condoms are not needed for health purposes. Even if we would have to pay taxes, It wouldn't be that much, Especially if it were split between everyone in the U. S. Menstrual products are very important because if they aren't used, Women will bleed through their clothing and stain it.
Menstrual products should be free

From what I understand, You want menstrual products to be completely free because they are necessary for women. I disagree with that so let's begin the debate. First of all, Using the logic that "people need that for hygiene" doesn't mean that we should make that free. People need dental products for hygiene, But do you make dental products free? People need toilet paper for hygiene, But do you make toilet paper free? If you went around and made things free just because "people need that for hygiene", You would have to make a lot of things free. Such as: menstual products, Dental products, Toilet paper, Soap, Shampoo, Tissues, Deodorants, Etc. Second, Nothing is free. The only organization that can provide free things is the government. Companies don't produce anything for free. Which means that you will have to pay taxes to get free menstrual products, Which is completely pointless. And should men have to pay these taxes too, Or only women? Most women enter menopause at about 50, Would they have to pay such a tax too? Taxing others just because you don't want to spend a few bucks is ridicolous.
Menstrual products should be free

Menstrual products should be free. All women need menstrual products to prevent/soak up the flow of blood caused by periods. Without menstrual products, The blood can stain clothes and is very messy. Menstrual products are also taxed as luxury items and are, In no way, A luxury. Condoms are free in places such as colleges. Condoms are not needed for hygienic purposes whereas menstrual products are. Menstrual products, Such as pads and tampons, Can be expensive costing people lots of money. It's already expensive to be a human, Why should you have to add the cost of menstrual products onto it?
People who support gay marriage and homosexuality are delusional.

fuels my opponent how its "delusional" to have" freedom when getting married to the same sex?" This is a loaded question. I didn't say it's a delusion to have freedom to marry the same sex. My point is, gay supporters are delusional for believing that allowing gay marriage is marriage "equality" when other types of marriages aren't legal. By definition, equality means equality for everyone. if it's "equality" for some, then its not "equality". some people would like to marry their sisters or more than one person. those people can't marry who they want so therefore, there is no marriage "equality" "Because if we still continue to follow the definition of "delusional", it means to have an unrealistic opinion" Believing that allowing gay marriage is marriage "equality" is clearly a delusion when other types of marriages aren't legal. "Is my opponent claiming that an opinion is wrong? An opinion, stated from the article "Fact, Opinion, False Claim, or Untested Claim", it states that an opinion is: "An opinion is a self-report of feelings or personal judgment" A belief is an opinion and an outrageous, false belief is a delusion. Therefore, believing that allowing gay marriage is marriage "equality" is a delusion "In this case, the LGBT Community have an idea that they should have a right to marry someone as the same sex" The belief that fuels the idea is a delusion "That is not unrealistic, but is a fact that can happen in society. My opponent is making a claim that all Gay Supporters are "delusional" because of having an opinion that is opposite to his" Again, you spewed a straw man fallacy. My point is, the belief that fuels the support is a delusion "Technically being Transgender is a choice, it falls more under the category of a choice in being rational" Using my opponents logic, If a man who's darker than Michael Jordan Chooses to be Caucasian even though his DNA clearly shows that he's black, that man's choice is somehow "rational". In reality, That man's "choice is clearly fueled by a delusion Any man who thinks he's a woman even though the scientific evidence clearly shows that he's a man has to be delusional. Gay supporters are delusional
People who support gay marriage and homosexuality are delusional.

I ask my opponent how its "delusional" to have the right to have freedom when getting married to the same sex? Because if we still continue to follow the definition of "delusional", it means to have an unrealistic opinion. Is my opponent claiming that an opinion is wrong? An opinion, stated from the article "Fact, Opinion, False Claim, or Untested Claim", it states that an opinion is: "An opinion is a self-report of feelings or personal judgment". In this case, the LGBT Community have an idea that they should have a right to marry someone as the same sex. That is not unrealistic, but is a fact that can happen in society. My opponent is making a claim that all Gay Supporters are "delusional" because of having an opinion that is opposite to his. Secondly, my opponent gives the following quote: "An example is, if a man thinks he's a woman, gay supporters would embrace that delusion even though he's clearly a man". First off, I wish to state the fact of what the LGBT Community stands for, which is the rights for Same Sex Couples, Bisexuals, and Transgenders. Through research, I found out more information about a Transgender and that its a choice to be the opposite sex. Stated under "Do Transsexuals have a Choice" it states: "The rationality of decisions is very much about the way you view the options. This culture wants to convince us that no rational person would do either, and enforces that decision with stigma". If we define "rational", it is defined as: "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic". Technically being Transgender is a choice, it falls more under the category of a choice in being rational, and rational is the usage of logic. That is not delusional because of the decision being more logical, than "unrealistic".Sources: http://www.gendercentre.org.au... http://www.auburn.edu...
People who support gay marriage and homosexuality are delusional.

You spewed a straw man fallacy. In other words, you argued against a distorted version of my claim. I never claimed the legalization of gay marriage is unrealistic. Just because something is legal doesn't mean its supporters can't be delusional. Some countries consider atheism a crime and that law is rooted in the belief in God. As an atheist, I don't believe God exist. Like the legalization of gay marriage, that law is rooted in a delusion. Many gay supporters also embrace delusions. An example is, if a man thinks he's a woman, gay supporters would embrace that delusion even though he's clearly a man. Living in these modern times does not make humans immune to mass delusions.
People who support gay marriage and homosexuality are delusional.

I have accepted this debate because I thought it would be fun, and disprove my opponents point on how supporters of Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality are not "delusional". To begin, I wish to provide the definition of "delusional" since my opponent has not. The definition is defined as: "Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions". First off, I ask my opponent if it is "unrealistic" that Same Sex Marriage was legalized in all 50 states? Its a fact that they did, and is realistic; and not the opposite. So technically if it is a fact that they legalized it, is it still unrealistic? A fact does not fall under the category of being "delusional" because its a truth.
People who support gay marriage and homosexuality are delusional.

Marirage "equality" cannot be reached unless ALL TYPES of marriages are legal including incestuous marriage and polygamy. Excluding other types of marriages violates the marriage equality argument. An example is, racial equality cannot be reached unless it applies to ALL races. Therefore, anyone who thinks allowing gays to marry is marriage "equality" is delusional. 2. Gay supporters view gays as if they were a race. People who oppose gay marriage see gays in the category with incest, bestiality and pedophilia. Who's right? Race is not even a behavior. Like homosexuality, incest, bestiality and pedophilia all involve high health risk sexual desires. Race has nothing to do with sexual desires or behavior. Therefore, gay supporters are delusional for even comparing gays to race.
Flat/Spherical earth MEME WAR

This is a meme and video war. The majority of the arguments must be memes, either created or borrowed from the net. I've dropped the character max, so a small explanation, if needed, can be provided, and any arguments that can't possibly resolved by meme or video can. Videos aren't required, and no One is expected to watch any videos that are over 15 minutes long. Videos over 15 minutes posted should get timestamps for relevant parts.