BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I have Moral Authority

You tell me I ramble, yet you have not said how I am wrong. What of your ramble that only exposes you for who you are? First, how is it a maze if you only see one path? Can dominos choose the place to fall? If it is a maze, then argue the other path to take. You say "god loved the world so he sent jesus to die", I ask what if He sent him so Jesus may live? You imply death is absolute, but I imply that life is not. Tell me o' pessimist, why should I share your view? Should God love his way or is yours the only one? You have forgotten the balance that needs to be made and so your ego will be your undoing. I will not judge that of which is in the past for I was not there, but you only think in so few dimensions of which you can only judge from the shoes you are in. You laugh at the notion of religion o' Atheist, and yet you offer no replacement. Is it worth destroying the hope of the less knowing for only to see them suffer? I share the love of Christ and I will serve my neighbor for it, no matter how much the world will despise me. We are two sides of the same coin, but it seems you only have one. The only way for you to prove me wrong is to deny the existence of Humanity. Get behind me o' god of the earth for you have the things of men in mind. So to start off. you have not proved me wrong. All you have is done is "ramble" with no reason to why you are right. You are simply stating the negative aspects of Religion thus creating the argument to abolish it. Sounds like an Atheist to me. What you fail to realize is that since this theorem is complete truth, any argument against is going to fail. Since this is an objective theorem, your argument must be subjective. Now what I can do is point out that subjective part of man which I have done. Now you can try to speak horrible pseudo again, but it's not going to work. You also can try to insult me because your ego is now bruised, but I will show that bias as well. You may have established power by ridiculing others opinions, but you have faced the one person that can always beat you. And I can always beat you because my theorem cannot be wrong. Since I was the one who formed this morality, I will give credit to God and not to me. Thus I have moral authority based on the love of God. Prove this theorem wrong or argue for extinction. I'm going to beat you either way. Even though I cannot be proven wrong, I will always reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. Can the same be told of you?
I have Moral Authority

You premised your position, "I have moral authority based on the love of God", and then you chunk a lengthy ramble about the accumulated actions of humanity in a domino effect reality along with your maze of etcetera at me. You mentioned the John 3:16 bit about god loved the world so he sent jesus to die. Animal sacrifices were intended to feed god. The priest shall offer it as food, an offering by fire; all fat is the Lord's. ( Leviticus 3:16) As Judaism evolved it jettisoned this primitive notion in favor of a Hellenistic friendly philosophy, god does not eat the flesh of bulls. (Psalm 50:13) 1st century Christians, heavily influenced by Gnostic/dualist philosophers, viewed Jesus's death as a blood atonement "in the heavens", for the earth was under the dominion of Satan, " the god of the earth". ( Hebrews 9:12, 2nd Corinthians 4:4) Blood sacrifice contributes two things to advancing mortality, nought and nil. You hinted that religion seeks to preserve humanity from extinction. Unfortunately, I read this while taking a sip of Pepsi; it burned my nostrils on the way out. As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands. (Quran 5:38) If a woman grabs a man's penis during a fight, you shall cut off her hand. Show no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:12) Mutilating body parts is not the peak of morality and both books prescribe it for various offenses. Jesus did not love the world, nor did he seek to preserve humanity; "how I wish the world would burn," Luke 12:49. Daily,we're reminded how the faithful want to speed up the process. You claim you have moral authority? You have more authority over which direction you sneeze. Nope. Morality is self preservation. No hocus pocus about it.
I have Moral Authority

Your sentiments of a deity's emotional status grants you absolutely no credence over behavioral (moral) matters. The only thing you have authority over is your bodily functions, unless someone stronger imposes their will upon them. Morality is governed by self preservation. Vandalize, steal, or slander,and risk getting a knuckle sandwich. Superstition may influence illusory perceptions of morality, but such is moody, and minimal.
Bryan Mullins, The St. Jude's Memory Terror: Child patients sexually assaulted and beheaded women

Watch this video: . https://m.youtube.com...It is basically describing that St. Jude's child patients made this "9/11 hoax" so they can behead and sexually assault 1,750,000 women every year since September 11th 2001, as explained in this video. They fake this "tragedy" to prove that being exposed to smoke causes cancer. Cancer is fake, If anybody can get exposed to smoke, nobody will die. If you smoke cigars, you will still live over 100 years like this old Vietnam veteran, as shown here: . https://m.youtube.com...They also do it for money (charity)This video pretty much proves my point! My conclusion is Child Patients beheaded and sexually assaulted millions of women and faked it all for money (charity). 9/11 is a hoax trying to desperately prove that Cancer is real. This video explains everything. The choice is clear.
Bryan Mullins, The St. Jude's Memory Terror: Child patients sexually assaulted and beheaded women

This is rediculous but here goes: Pro I assume is Bryan Mullins, the same Bryan Mullins in the youtube clip. There is absolutly no evidence to support this claim about St' Jude's patients. Nothing on the internet anywhere besides his made up theory. Based on Bryan Mullins own comment: "I made this theory up based on the fact that 56,000,000 people die every single year and made up the rest of the theory.A279;" Key words, "made this theory up", So that's debunked. The second point which doesn't seem to make any connection to the first is clearly "hogwash" and personal rehetoric. Where is the connection between 9/11 event and smoke causing cancer? Nowhere to be found in this one round debate. To debunk the video and he rest of the claims: @2.46, his secret is god for life longevity. God is a figment of the imagination,debunked. Very easy to read article about cancer, what causes it, the different types and so on: https://thetruthaboutcancer.com... Debunked.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

"The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets." Respectfully, Con strays from the entire point of the debate in round 2. The previously sourced fact is 40,000 military personnel were in Hiroshima and 20,000 military personnel in Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were dropped. I grew up in a town of 27,000 people. It wasn't a metropolis, but seemed like a lot of people to me. I'm a United States navy veteran. I don't know if Con has either volunteered or been conscripted to serve in her military, but to this veteran if 20,000 or 40,000 military personnel are concentrated in one area, it is a legitimate military target. There were two factions in Japanese government at the end of world war two. The military faction, who were willing to fight to the last person, and the Emperor's "Peace Feelers" coalition who wanted a negotiated peace. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, and tragically for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese military was in complete, utter control of Japan. There is a difference between "defeat" and "surrender" as Con correctly cites. The Japanese military was in fact defeated, and no longer an effective force. The Japanese military still did not surrender until after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been attacked with atomic bombs. There were several targets discussed for a possible atomic bombing. Among them, the Emperor's palace in Tokyo. Kokura. Kyoto. Yokahama. Niigita. If as Con argues, the whole point of the atomic bombings was to kill civilians and show off to the Soviet Union, why was the most populous city, and modern capital Tokyo not bombed? Why was the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto, the city of 10,000 shrines, a culturally rich, heavily populated, and militarily worthless target not bombed? Because the US wanted to kill soldiers. 29,000 soldiers as previously cited were killed. Mission accomplished. Finally, if the US just wanted to murder civilians and pay Japan back for Pearl Harbor, why did they accept Japans surrender in the first place? The Potsdam declaration demanded an "unconditional surrender". President Truman accepted Japan's surrender with one condition. Japan got to keep the Emperor. Truman broke the Potsdam declaration to end the war. The scientists who built the atomic bomb could build one every two weeks. If Truman wanted to murder Japanese civilians he would not have accepted a conditional surrender. He would simply have made another Japanese city disappear every two weeks. The US dropped two atomic bombs on two cities and killed 29,000 military personnel. Japan surrendered. World war two was over. "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over." -General William Tecumseh Sherman, Union Army, U.S. civil war
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

org, and also for your arguments. "Then my opponent gives a very big exaggeration. The fact is, is that Japan had already been defeated. " Con makes the statement Japan had been defeated three times in her opening argument. That is an opinion not a fact. Cite your source if im wrong. "Japan reached out several times for surrender. .. " is untrue as well. Once again, please cite your source. After the test of the atomic bomb July 16th, 1945 and eleven days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the allied leaders including President Truman signed the Potsdam declaration, demanding Japan "surrender unconditionally, or face prompt and utter destruction. " [1] Japan did not surrender. Japan was not defeated. August 6th, 1945 the same day of the Hiroshima attack, the U. S. dropped millions of pamphlets on Japanese cities telling the people the specific destructive nature of the atomic bomb, that it had been used on Hiroshima, it would be used again, and to immediately evacuate. [2] Japan did not surrender. Japan was not defeated. Three days elapsed between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Japan did not surrender. Japan was not defeated. I dismiss the idea that the allies could have blockaded Japan and starved them into surrender. Millions of civilians would have starved to death before Japanese leadership capitulated. That's my opinion, but it's based on the fact that the Japanese were willing to kamikaze themselves rather than surrender. The Japanese leadership weren't willing to meet the terms of the Potsdam declaration before the atomic bombs ended the war. Con focuses on the aiming point of the bombs being the city centre. Although that is factual, it was not to maximize civilian casualties. It was to ensure the target was hit. There were no smart bombs in 1945. No laser or GPS guidance. Bombs didn't fly in specific windows like today. They couldn't hit a given city block, much less a specific building, much less land right on top of a military base. They were dumb gravity weapons, completely unguided. In fact, the reason the much more powerful 22 kiloton Nagasaki bomb killed half as many people as the 12.5 kiloton Hiroshima bomb was it was dropped two miles off target [3]. Target selection is also telling. As cited, there were two bases and the Japan naval academy in Hiroshima, home to 40,000 troops (my source) or 48,000 troops (Cons source). It was also a military port. Nagasaki wasn't the primary target, the much more valuable military target Kokura was. Kokura was covered by clouds and the crew moved on to the secondary target, Nagasaki. [4] [1]. http://www.atomicarchive.com... [2]. http://www.pbs.org... [3]. http://www.toxipedia.org... [4]. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

There were about 48,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and 300,000 civilians. 118,000 civilians were estimated to have died as well as 12,000 solders. And that was just Hiroshima. [1] Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they aided Japan's military is often the excuse provided when the question as to why the two cities were chosen comes up. Let me remind everyone that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities populated by civilians. Let me remind everyone that the target where the bomb was dropped was the centre of the city. Yes, Hiroshima aided the military but the military base wasn't right in the heart of the city. America wasn't aiming for the military base, it was aiming for the maximum destruction of the whole city. Civilians and all. There was absolutely no excuse for dropping the bomb. Then my opponent states some very muddy stats. 14, 276, 800 soldiers died I will clarify that, that was part of the whole of World War 2, not just the Pacific War. May I again remind you that 10,000,000 of those deaths were Russian's and Russia only join into the Pacific War the day before the war ended. [2] Therefore most Russian deaths were because of Germany. The US lost about 111,000 soldiers in the Pacific War. [3] Japan lost about 1,700,000 soldiers and 393,000 civilians. These are an estimation. Then my opponent gives a very big exaggeration. The fact is, is that Japan had already been defeated. There was no need for the atomic bomb and nor was there the need to invade Japan to finish the war. America could literally have pulled all its military forces and starved Japan to surrender. There is no "the atomic bomb saved millions" because there was no need to invade Japan when Japan was already defeated. Many of the major American generals even stated this. President Truman tried to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs by saying, they saved American lives and that they had chosen Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were military bases. Then he goes so far as to state that they had done that to limit the amount of civilians killed. Considering that most of the deaths were civilians, I think that statement was pretty absurd. Japan had already been defeated and had reached out multiple times before the two bombs were dropped for surrender. America prolonged the war only because America wanted to show off how powerful they were to the Russians. [4] All in all, America has no justification of dropping the atomic bomb upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had already been defeated and the US was just prolonging the war until they could use the atomic bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed purely out of spite and to show off how powerful America was. Those bombs were aiming towards the centre of the city, not the military bases. [1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [2] http://warchronicle.com... [3] http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com... [4] http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org...
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

Forty-thousand military personnel were stationed in Hiroshima, Japan prior to the atomic bombing on August 6th, 1945. Hiroshima was home to the headquarters of both the Japanese second army, and fifth division as well as the Japanese naval academy. Hiroshima is a port city and was home port to many ships that attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. Twenty-thousand military personnel were killed in the atomic bombing on Hiroshima, a quarter of the eighty-thousand estimated total immediate fatalities. Twenty-thousand military personnel were stationed in Nagasaki, Japan prior to the atomic bombing on August 9th, 1945. Nagasaki is also a port city that was integral to warship building in 1945. The ships were built by Mitsubishi steel and arms works which was located in Nagasaki. Torpedoes were developed and built by Mitsubishi-Urakami ordinance works, also located in Nagasaki. Nine-thousand military personnel were killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, almost one quarter of the total forty-thousand estimated immediate fatalities. Approximately 14,276,800 allied soldiers died as a direct result of combat including 407,300 Americans. Military leadership in 1945 estimated between 500,000 and one-million allied casualties during an invasion of the Japanese home islands, as well as one to two million Japanese military and civilian casualties. In a worst case scenario, which would be preferable? The 120,000 estimated fatalities caused by the atomic bombs, followed quickly by the end of the war, or three-million dead after a long arduous invasion of Japan? Even with my public school education, that math seems pretty easy to me. There is a taboo with atomic and nuclear weapons. The radiation factor. Radiation sickness, burns, and cancer that can (and did) happen after the use of the atomic bombs is tragic. Consider this however. The atom bombs weren't individually the deadliest bombing of Japan. In Operation Meetinghouse on March 9-10, 1945 Tokyo was firebombed. One-hundred-thousand Japanese burned to death in the firestorm. Tokyo, unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a political target with no military value except that it may have decapitated it's civilian leadership. Sources: ww2db.com http://ww2db.com... bbc.co.uk http://www.bbc.co.uk... wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org... wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org... history.com http://www.history.com...
The UN should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia until it improves its human rights

Seen as though the last round was forfeited, I will use this round to allow you to make your arguments - round 4 can be rebuttals instead. Whilst I'm here, I'd like to point out my errors in the first piece: I used the phrase 'and and free', which was meant to be 'and are free'. Also, 'fees able' was meant to be 'feasible'. Finally, 'bettered' in the final paragraph should have been 'battered'. I hope to hear your arguments soon!
The UN should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia until it improves its human rights

My first point in this debate is that women are treated worse than anywhere else in the world. Just imagine - you are not allowed to drive, you cannot go and get an education without permission from a male family member, and you are expected to sit at home all day, cooking. That's what life is like for many Saudi women. The truth is, they face things that date back 2000 years, stereotypes from the Qur'an. I appreciate that if you are religious you need to accept the customs of your religion, but still using those now? Can women really be expected to keep on being treated like slabs of meat? Second, there is absolutely no religious freedom. Sunni Islam is the only permitted religion. Shia Muslims are flogged, tortured, executed - you name it, the Saudis have probably done it to the non-Sunnis. King Salman should be allowing anyone to express any views (which will be elaborated on in another point). Again, I understand Mecca is out of bounds for non-Muslims, but to then cut off the entire population from being able to choose what they believe is just plain wrong. This is a short point, but still very important. LGBT have no rights whatsoever. People make choices about their sexuality and and free to feel comfortable in their body, so to then tell them they are not allowed to do anything because of that is not right and should not be tolerated. Lashings are very common in Saudi Arabia. In fact, they are dished out left, right and centre. The question the Saudi authorities need to be asking themselves is, 'why are we doing this?' Not only is it morally wrong, it is bad for the health. A British man was sentenced to lashes for home brewing alcohol. What's more, he's 74 and has cancer. I'm not implying it's only bad because he has cancer, but it seems worse than usual and doctors say it could well kill him. My penultimate argument is that any criticism of the Government is not allowed, including protests. Quite simply, Saudis have no freedom of speech. They are being forced under by the royal family and are expected to behave under their laws, and cannot express their views on ways the country could be improved. Without the voices of the people to change that, sanctions seem like the only fees able option to give the Saudis the freedom they deserve. Finally, migrants are being bettered by the Saudi officials. The majority of them are being deported, yet the rest go into detention. Only a few make it into Saudi without being told to leave or being put into forced labour. Many of these will be skilled workers who could boost the Saudi economy, but they don't take this into account. Humans have a right to choose where they work, where they live and a whole host of other things. They should not be treated like cattle. Sources: https://www.hrw.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://www.bbc.co.uk...
The UN should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia until it improves its human rights

It may not be a big news story, but Saudi Arabia's human right record is not brilliant. Personally, I believe the UN should impose sanctions thereby forcing Saudi Arabia to do something about it. I know it may be difficult to argue against this, but if anyone is interested feel free to begin the debate. Round 1 for challenge acception. Round 2 for initial arguments. Round 3 for rebuttals. Round 4 for conclusions.
Fatness !

Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... “Obesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.” Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a “perfect” body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... “The Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.” Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of “perfect body.” http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed “too fat” women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are “too fat.” Harm 4: Women who are deemed “too fat” may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro’s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.