BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
3 divided by 0 is 3

Okay to start I can understand where pro is coming from as yes math is a complex subject and can be difficult to understand and know how everything works as it does. So let"s start with multiplication and how it works so let"s do 3*5=15 the way this works is we have three groups of five dots and thus we have 15 as three groups of five dots adds up to 15. With that there let"s do 3*0=0 so if we use the same process as before with zero groups of three dots as you can possibly have three dots but you don"t have any groups of three thus since as you said as before zero means nothing aka zero and since you don"t have any groups of three you can"t have three you have zero; you never lose three as you never had three of anything to begin with thus you don"t have a place holder of three as you don"t have anything to hold that place.
3 divided by 0 is 3

3 sodas shared by 0 people is 3 sodas, as nothing is being divided. dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because there is no division going on, I cant share 2 pizzas with myself, and I cant share them with an imaginary man if 3 sodas become imaginary by an imaginary man drinking it, then you are right, but matter can never be destroyed 0 people doesn't exist in reality
God is Perfect

My apologies for missing a round, I was on my way back to college and didn't have much time to be online. "for his own glory and to the furtherence of his kingdom he puts sin in the world." I wouldn't think that a perfect being would engage in selfish acts such as self-worship. A being that is perfect would strive to make themselves better in order to better the people around them, not induce evil in the world in order to further their own interests. "And its not just so he can show mercy to them every move you make and every move that an evil man makes is according to his plan to make a greater good. Actually if you new anything about the bible you would know that God is going to make a new heaven and earth on the last day. Where everyone will be perfect and there will be no tears of sadness and that day will be glorious." Your argument here relies upon the concept that evil is a prerequisite to achieving a great good, but you don't establish this with any evidence. On the contrary I would argue that evils which exist in the world-sadism, torture, natural disasters, the death of innocents, are all proof as to why God is not perfect. A perfect being would not allow for these things to occur. Remember that I have defined a perfect God as 'a being with the qualities of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence'. You have yet to show that why a being with these qualities would not A. Have the power to stop evil (omnipotence) B. Have the knowledge to know when and where evil is occurring (omnipresence) C. Have the desire to stop evil (omnibenevolence) Judging by these qualities, there should be no evil in the world. There is evil, so God cannot have all those qualities. Therefore, God is not perfect. To sum things up: You fail to answer the problem of Evil adequately. You still haven't answered the fact that the Bible is written by human hands and is therefore invalid as the source of a claim of God's perfection. You offer no other evidence besides the Bible for God's perfection, and therefore concede that you have no legitimate support for this claim. Thanks.
God is Perfect

"1. If God is perfect, shouldn't he be able to create human beings who don't commit acts of evil? It seems rather silly to me that he would go through the trouble of imparting within some humans the desire to do evil, just so he could be merciful to them. Why not just do away with the evil impulse all together, and therefore create a world without suffering, where no person does evil to begin with?" Just because God is perfect it doesn't mean that he is going to create someone perfect in this day of age. God does have the power to do that obviously but for his own glory and to the furtherence of his kingdom he puts sin in the world. There are many examples that are in the Bible and in real life that when God uses bad people to do good things for his kingdom. And its not just so he can show mercy to them every move you make and every move that an evil man makes is according to his plan to make a greater good. Actually if you new anything about the bible you would know that God is going to make a new heaven and earth on the last day. Where everyone will be perfect and there will be no tears of sadness and that day will be glorious. He actually did make a world where there was no evil to begin with when Adam and Eve were first made.0 dfjhgudfhgarghu
God is Perfect

Well there are a few ways I can start here, but I suppose I'll go from the beginning. The first is that your rationality for God being perfect is based upon statements in the Bible. However, to achieve this, one must first prove that the Bible is infallible, which you don't do. Assuming that you will do this, I would argue that Bible is inherently imperfect as it is created by man. The standard argument in response to this is that the Bible is the word of God transcribed by man, but I would contend that any document filtered through men has the potential of being unduly influenced by the writer. This cannot be disputed unless you were to argue that man is perfect, or at the least, that the authors of the Bible are perfect. Next, through the Bible, God upholds principles which go against the common welfare of humanity. Forgive me for not quoting specific examples from the Bible on this one, as I don't have time to do the research right now, but principles such as the degradation of women and the legitimacy of warfare and destruction (God leading the Israelites to slaughter their enemies, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) We decry these things when they happen in modern-day society, but when they occur in the Bible, they are either ignored or praised as instances of God's glory. I don't think however, that the slaughter of populations should count as an attribute of perfection. I would then like to ask that we assume that God truly is perfect. If this is so, one would assume that all creations that come from God would also be perfect- flaws in God's creations would reflect on God's perfection. As you quoted 'his works are perfect' In light of this, I think we can agree on two things. First is that humanity is certainly not perfect. We can look at the traditional attributes of perfection associated with the Christian God, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If we continue assuming that God is perfect, and that God does have these attributes, we must then question why humanity was not given these attributes when created by God. If God were truly perfect, then God should be able to make humanity perfect as well-but we are flawed. Then we can move to the problem of Evil. If God is perfect, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does Evil exist in our world? The fact that God is attributed with omniscience means that God knows where all evil is. The fact that he is attributed with omnipotence means that God has the power to stop evil. Lastly, the fact that God is omnibenevolent means that God has the desire to stop evil from occurring. So why is there evil in the world? If God were truly perfect, there should be no war on Earth. Death, disease, rape, murder, famine, drought, natural disasters-would a perfect being truly allow for this? Finally, as I brought up earlier, God even endorses these horrific acts as shown to us through the Bible. I cannot understand why a perfect being would endorse pain, suffering, and war rather than peace, harmony, and love-can you?
God is Perfect

I belive that God is perfect because The bible says he is perfect Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. 2 Samuel 22:31 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:33 It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect. Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
Casual sex is irresponsible because it has great potential to cause suffering

There is no 100% contraceptive--the methods that are closest to less than 1% failure rate (there are NO 100% methods except for removal of the female uterus) are all very expensive, starting at $500 and up for IUDs and contraceptive implants and going up to multi-thousands of dollars for sterilization surgery. All others have at least a 2-25% failure rate even when used properly, which means to get even these rates you must never miss a pill, slip a condom, or be late for a contraceptive shot. [1][2] Also, there are no birth control methods that will prevent both STDs and pregnancy, save condoms. According to the American Centers for Disease Control, even when used properly and without breakage, condoms can only reduce--not eliminate--the risk of STD's. [3] Although this is your best chance for avoiding both, my opponent argued that sex with condoms does not render the same benefits for the woman as sex without--therefore condom usage after you strip your clothes will also strip women of some key benefits of intercourse. Cervarix and Gardasil only prevent a single possible virus--the HPV virus. [4] These are the only two STDs listed for which vaccinations are available. The CDC recommends long-term monogamous relationships with an uninfected partner or abstinence as the only ways to completely avoid STD reception or transmission. Apart from that, they recommend each partner be tested for STDs before any sexual relations together--proving that one night stands and relationships with individuals whose test results you have not personally witnessed and other such casual sex very likely to cause STDs and thereby prone to causing human suffering. [5] These risks all outweigh the benefits that sex brings outside of a long-term monogamous relationship. Sex inside of a long-term monagamous relationship (the opposite of casual sex) can bring all of the benefits mentioned while maximizing mitigation of the risks mentioned. [1] http://www.americanpregnancy.org.... [2]http://www.plannedparenthood.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.webmd.com... [5] http://www.cdcnpin.org...
Casual sex is irresponsible because it has great potential to cause suffering

RebuttalWhile my opponent is correct that there is always a chance of pregnancy as a result of having sex, due to the fact that we have had quite a bit of advances in birth control; it is now possible to drastically lower the chances of unwanted pregnancy to almost zero percent. There is many different wethods and forms of controseption ranging from lubricans, to condoms, to pills, and injections [1]. With all these, the possibility of a pregnancy resulting from sex is unlikely. Disease also be prevented. There are many vaccines such as Cervarix and Gardasil, which can prevent most STDs [2]. These are all cheap low cost methods of making sex more safe, and therefore there is nothing wrong with casual sex[3] [4]. My argumentsI will be stating only one point, and that is the fact that sexual intercourse is healthy for people, therefore it is not irresponsable. There have been lots of studies that have shown that sex is one of the most healthiest activities that a human can perform. Sex is a very good cardio workout, and studies have shown that it cuts your chances of getting a heart attack in half, also the workout burns three hundred calories an hour [5]. Another study has shown that after having sex the brain releases endorphins, that decrease stress, inducing a state of euphoria, so it stops depression. Sperm has also been proven to have a property that releaves stress and depression in women. Women who have sex with a condom are more likely to suffer from depression, then women who did't says another study [6]. Now tell me, is it irresponsible to look after one's own health? Conclusion In conclusion, due to the fact that there are an overwhelming amount of health benefits from have sex often; and that there are many different ways to prevent pregnancy and diseases; it is safe to say that casual sex is not irresponsible at all. Vote Con! [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.webmd.com...[3] . http://img.webmd.com...[4] . http://img.webmd.com...[5] . http://www.thesun.co.uk... [6] . http://news.softpedia.com...
Casual sex is irresponsible because it has great potential to cause suffering

These arguments are presented in ascending order of the instigator's belief in their philosophical importance. There is ALWAYS a risk that having sex will create life, which you will then have to either raise or terminate. To create a human life without being ready to provide for its happiness is irresponsible because it causes human suffering to that created child, and may even create suffering to the zygote if it is terminated (please note with respect the "may". We don't know whether or not a zygote is capable of suffering). Casual sex is also dangerous because of the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, which you can suffer from, and/or knowingly or unknowingly risk transmit to others, which also causes human suffering.
Casual sex is irresponsible because it has great potential to cause suffering

I would like to refute my opponent's (non-referenced) claim that STDs happen as a result of sex within commited relationships. This is not true--according to my above posted links from the U.S. Center for Disease control, you cannot contract an STD except from someone else with an STD. Therefore, if two people without STDs mate, neither will spontaneously generate an STD--and his private clarfication that sex is never committed because everyone lies to each other simply supports my claim that casual sex is irresponsible. It has also been claimed, in the comments, that you can contract STDs from public fixtures and bathrooms. This is patently false;""To my knowledge, no one has ever acquired an STD on the toilet seat -- unless they were having sex on the toilet seat!" says Abigail Salyers, PhD, president of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)." [1]Regarding my opponent's claim that there is no such thing as a committed relationship, I would like to point out that neither myself nor my spouse has ever had sex or sexual relations with anyone else (beyond a few high-school grade kisses that didn't even involve the tongue). There is an element of trust there, and it is not a given--and is impossible for my opponent to prove--that all intimate pairs are doomed to betray their commitments and go engage in casual sex. The emotional detachment argument is a change of subject--we are attempting to show that casual sex is irresponsible--not that emotional attachment is irresponsible. It is also a matter of my opponent's opinion that I challenge him to back up.Many will disagree with my argument based on their own sexual decisions. I ask you to instead consider the quality of my argument. I have used facts and logic based upon those facts, where my opponent has fatally strayed. Based on the quality of my debate:Vote Pro![1]http://www.webmd.com...
Casual sex is irresponsible because it has great potential to cause suffering

Ok, so first I would like to point out that none my opponent's points have anything to do with c. sual sex being irresponsable. The points she has made can also be applied to a committed relationship. STDs and pregnancy are out comes of sex, not just casual sex. Untill my opponent gives a outcome from which the people suffer that is only an outcome of casual sex, her arguments are invalid. As for my defense, it is possible to have sex that is responsable, and has not comitment. It being healthy is a vert good example of it. I will state a second point. A good example of being responsable would be that you resist being put into a emotional crisis. When someone gets into a serious relationship it is most of the time not going to last, therefore at the end of the relationship hearts get broken. At the same time sex is a natural need in the human body. It is a instict that we all have. So, the solution to this is that one has sex and not get into a committed relationship so they don't get hurt and still get sex.
Bullying is bad

The thing that is wrong with your argument is that bullying doesn't make people stronger. Have you been bullied? https://www. Googleadservices. Com/pagead/aclk? Sa=L&ai=DChcSEwiGq6r-pcrdAhUJ2WQKHaXzB2oYABAAGgJwag&ohost=www. Google. Com&cid=CAESQOD2qxfrLHgIB8f0WMsbE8V5Qs0aqseY1b-hH58pnbYPuq0loJzSWPln6RicCUB_9jce-x8-Xslpml3Sv7ivy-o&sig=AOD64_30EBUAxkAOuZVaP8vq9M-F0xhfrQ&q=&ved=2ahUKEwje8aL-pcrdAhXaJDQIHR7eDDEQ0Qx6BAgAEAI&adurl= That is the effects. It just brakes people down. There maybe bullies in the real world but we should be trying to change that and not blame the victims. I don't know where you got the idea that bullying makes people stronger.
Bullying is bad

Bullying is good as it creates a stronger person out of the person being bullied. A person grows a thicker skin, Can handle criticism and does not shy away from conflict in the future after being bullied. It makes a person become a fighter and want to eventually challenge the bully and bring him down. Otherwise the rest of the people are just sissies and cry babies that are afraid and wimpy and can't handle and stand up to adversity. Bullying prepares you for adult life where in the workforce there are bullies everywhere and you need to rise above it or be demoted to the broom closet. The strong always come out on top and the whinny babies end up working minimum wage jobs because they can't handle the pressure. It's for this reason why bullying is good and should always be practiced. Bullying shapes you for the future and builds character and resilience and makes a person a warrior and builds strong character. The ones that can't handle bullying are just emotional, Wimpy limp wristed gimps who can't survive in this fast paced no holds barred world. Bullying provides that early character building exercise. Are you going to stand up to the bully or cower like a sissy in the corner crying. Bullying is good
Bullying is bad

alitar you must be a real pansy, Should I call you Nancy? Bullying always happens and it always will because people always want to feel more powerful, More important than others and to make themselves feel better they bully the weak or the timid or the not so confident people. But bullying brings out 2 choices in the victim, 1, Grow a thick skin and stand up for yourself, Or 2, Be a baby and cower and cry and slash your wrists because you are a wimp who can't stand up to adversity. You ask where I get the idea that bullying makes people stronger. Well I am the prime example of bullying and have expertise advice on the subject. I was bullied all in grades 6-8. The reason for it was because I was a new immigrant who came here and did not know one word of English. My family settled in a tiny farming town in Pennsylvania, They sent me to school in grade 6 without knowing how to read or write or speak any English. From day one I was bullied by the local trailer trash rednecks about being an immigrant, I got beat up by groups of people, I hated my life here, But after 2 years of bullying and getting beat up, By the time I reached high school, I could speak English and I refused to give in to the bullies, So I got suspended 4 times in high school because I refused to be bullied and got into fights, Which I never started, But always finished with the bully bleeding on the ground, So I would get suspended. Now I guess I look like a thug on my school record because I fought all these time and got suspended, , But they were all in self defense, So I couldn't care less what my record shows. And now I kick the sh! T out of bullies or anyone bullying someone else. But all those years I got bullied made me who I am today, I had a friend who also didn't speak English he arrived in the same small town as me and got bullied, Would come home with black eyes all the time, He ended up committing suicide at the end of grade 8 because he couldn't deal with it and just wanted to go back to his old country. He never adapted. He was weak. You have choices in life, You can be a wussy and blame the system and complain about everything or you can do something about it. Bullying made me a stronger person, A person with thick skin and a person confident enough to know that bullies are just insecure people looking for a high by bullying others. Bullying will never go away just like greed, Prostitution, Lying, Etc etc. These are human traits that will always be around. So it's up to you of how you will handle bullying, Because if you think that bullying stops once you leave school and join the work force, Think again. There are bullies everywhere. So what are you going to do Nancy, Be a victim of bullying and cry about it, Or do something about it. Bullying is good because it makes you a fighter and a stronger person, As for the rest of the whinny babies, I call it natural selection, Only the strong survive. The rest, You are just pansies or shark meat. Cry me a river mic drop
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. Good luck.
I will not contradict myself

"2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." "10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses." By these two rules, I have won this debate. 1. Do you like waffles? 2. Do you like waffles? 3. Do you like waffles? 4. Do you like pancackes? 5. Do you like pancakes? 6. Do you like french toast? 7. Do you like french toast? 8. Do you like kangaroos? 9. Do you like pandas? 10. Do you like McDonalds?
I will not contradict myself

11. In the scenario presented in Question 1, does the foolish man insult himself? 12. In the scenario presented in Question 2, does the set contain itself? 13. Are you an anarchist [one who believes that the government shouldn't exist]? 14. Is Barack Obama usually politically liberal? 15. Is it justified for the rights of a man to be determined by the opinions of the majority of the people within a boundary set by said majority? 16. Is discrimination based on race ever justified? 17. Is discrimination based on sex ever justified? 18. Should drugs be legalized? 19. Do people have the right to use tobacco? 20. Should the government enforce minimum working standards in all workplaces?