BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay's and Church

Jenx did not post an argument, but someone in the comments named carpediem presented an objection. It's not a good one, but at least it's something to argue against. I love playing team debate! What a naughty caprice!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------She objected to my statement, "God has made it clear that he thinks homosexuality is immoral, sinful, and unnatural; he will not offer a spot in heaven for a homosexual." Her objection was, "The Catholic church is open to the possibility that homosexuality occurs genetically and does not condemn homosexuality whether it were to occur through genetic, social, or personal situations. What the Catholic church does condemn, however are homosexual acts. This condemnation of homosexual acts does not make the church 'anti-gay.' On the contrary the church teaches that 'homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care.'"My Rebuttal 1) The particular statement I made was concerning the position of God on homosexuality, not the Catholic Church.2) If the Catholic Church produced a doctrine stating homosexuality and homosexual acts were normal and fine, that would not be the position of God. God's word always supercedes and invalidates the contrary teachings of the Church. Period.3) By accepting homosexuals and not accepting homosexual acts, the Catholic Church would be commiting cognitive dissonance. We perceive the world through our cognitive models; if the model opperating in someone's mind is that he is homosexual and the logical continuation of such a model is to be romantically involved with other homosexual men, then the Catholic Church cannot logically justify homosexuality but demonize the acts. God makes it clear that both the model and its continuation are sinful. Why kind of nutjob says to someone, "I know that is the person you are, but don't act life as that person." The ridiculousness of that can be applied to a great deal of scenarios to demonstrate its inherent absurdity and cognitive dissonance (e.g. I know you were born male, but you shouldn't act on it; I know you were born with higher intelligence, but don't seek truth and wisdom; etc, etc).4) The position that homosexual acts are immoral and ungodly does constitute being anti-gay. The position holds that a homosexual person cannot experience the height of romantic closeness with another human being. Placing a value on what goes on in someone's bedroom is the epitome of psychological repression. God and the Church are both masters of the arbitrary guilt phenomenon.5) Thousands of children, even male children, have received the "pastoral care" you refer to by being raped by pedophilic priests. I must ask, if the church is so anti-gay, why are priests still being prosecuted for the most depraved homosexual rape against children? Perhaps the Catholic Church should deal with the issue of pedophilia in its own organization before flaunting its blatantly gay rhetoric?Hopefully Jenx will post this coming round.
Bush and Obama are puppets

Obamas administration has spent including QE going on 12+ Trillion dollars to prop up a failed economy and system. When I say they are controlled by Money I mean the forces that make the decisions for them. The CFR, DoD, Industrial War Complex, AIPAC, Wall Street and Big Banks, Huge Multinational Corporations, Federal Reserve, Other Huge Donors, Foreign Governments like Israel, or others. They all ended up getting what they wanted from Bush and Obama. The President has to make the donors happy and follow orders or he gets the same result as JFK. The President can't go against the Big Money in Politics, it would be suicide.
Bush and Obama are puppets

This will not be a debate, since debating is an argument which discusses topics in a formal way. Instead this will be a lesson for you, saying Bush and Obama are puppets to money is like saying cows produce milk. When you stated Bush and Obama were controlled by money you were supposed to say why you think that, and give your evidence to prove your argument. For instance, Bush and Obama are controlled by money is as just alike as cats drink milk to hydrate themselves. It is human nature to give into our instincts lust,greed,wrath,envy,laziness, gluttony, and pride even if you are not religious you can take a few things from the bible. There is no human being that is immune to these instincts and won't succumb to them, yet I have not seen a time of place where President Barack Obama has sold America's secrets for trade. I do not like Bush so I will let that be, but saying Pres. Obama is a puppet is absolutely absurd, he has brought down unemployment rate down to 5.0%, brought more trade and value and higher-ed our GDP value.
Flag desecration should remain legal in the United States

This is my first debate. Resolution: "Flag desecration should remain legal in the United States."Definitions:Flag desecration: "...[A] term applied to various acts that intentionally destroy, damage or mutilate a flag in public." [1] In our case, the flag will be the American flag. Should: Ought toLegal: LawfulTermsThe first round will be reserved for acceptance. ---[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Amerca should use its oil reserves and give it to only two companies.

I negate the resolution that, "America should use its oil reserves and give them to only two companies" Before I begin making my own case, I'd like to start with my opponents. "Those two companies will have competitive prices, avoiding a monopoly. And other gas companies will have to lower their prices just to compete. " What my opponent is insinuating here, is that we should give two companies a larger competitive edge over smaller companies, which will, in turn, be forced to lower their gas prices. However, we must examine the benefits of this action. With large amounts of oil being sent to only two companies, they would be able to lower their gas prices. Smaller, less-wealthy companies, will not be able to make this shift, forcing them to either A) be bought out by another company or B) shut down. There is no benefit in this action, because we would see all the smaller, less known, less used oil companies eliminated it would almost eliminate pluralization of companies. Eventually, there would only be two oil companies left, and one would, eventually, succeed the other - forcing us into a monopoly. Using the oil reserves in this manner is only going to eliminate the large pluralization and selection of companies that we have now. "This will bring the cost of gasoline down significantly and help the economy tremendously. " My opponent claims that depluralizing the oil business will be beneficial, however we can clearly see that it is not. Our country is currently facing a recession, and with depluralization of oil companies many, many workers would need to be laid off. This A) causes large amounts of unemployment, B) puts a large strain on the government through payment of unemployment. Couple these effects with the fact that we're facing a recession, and you see that it would not be beneficial, but in fact tremendouly detrimental to the economy. "This will also get other oil companies to try and find alternative resources so they can compete or simply lower their prices. " This claim just exemplifies the point my opponent is trying to make, that forcing unfavorable oil companies to find another source of income or die out is just, however it clearly is not. Despite the individual strain on the thousands of workers who work for said oil companies, there's a large economic strain on these people as well. So as I've clearly shown, giving oil to only two companies would be economically and domestically detrimental because of the removal of pluralization of companies and the large economic strain on the government As you can see, my opponent has flimsy cases based completely off of the idea that "lowered gas prices would be beneficial" which is easily batted away by the above refutations.
Amerca should use its oil reserves and give it to only two companies.

America has its own oil but we refuse to use it. There is American oil that is drillable in parts of the country and oil that is reserved. Gas is at its highest price ever. This is the perfect time to use our oil. But we can be strategic and give it to only two companies. Those two companies will have competitive prices, avoiding a monopoly. And other gas companies will have to lower their prices just to compete. This will bring the cost of gasoline down significantly and help the economy tremendously. This will also get other oil companies to try and find alternative resources so they can compete or simply lower their prices.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

1st Pick-Up Line: 1.Are those space pants because your butt is out of this world. This might just be the lamest line I have ever heard, very cheesy. 2nd Pick-Up Line: You like math? Maybe we can go home, add the bed, subtract the sheets, divide the legs, and multiply. Okay, this one is just....crude. If a guy ever said this to me I'd probably punch him.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

Once again, I have a very strong complaint with my opponents argument. She is giving me some good pick-up lines, but isn't specifying why they are bad. She just thinks they are "hilarious". The next pick-up line I have is : Try to put your arm around her. If she pushes you away, then say: "Relax! Relax. I'll pay for the first abortion!" Seriously? This is in no way at all a smart thing to say to some random girl off the streets! In fact, she would have all the inclination to call the police! "My favourite number's 69." Talk about immature. This infamous number is something you shouldn't even mention to the girl you're looking to impress. The only reaction you'll get is a stunned silence, followed by an almost pitying look, and maybe a punch to the face.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

Well sometimes, Pick-Up Lines can be so bad and horrible, that they are funny! Pick-Up Line #1 Do you want to see something swell? Like really....Do I need to even explain this one? lol Pick-Up Line #2 Was your Dad a baker? Because you've got a nice set of buns. While this line may work for some people, it wouldn't work for me, though it is pretty hilarious!
Worst Pick-Up Lines

I understand why my opponent's pick-up lines could be considered bad, but honestly, they aren't the worst out there. I will bring two more to the table. "That shirt is very becoming on you. If I was on you, I'd be coming too." This one hardly needs explanation, but seriously? What kind of girl wants to hear this kind of crap?? "Burger King isn't the only thing that is king-sized..." While this one is, in my opinion, actually very funny, it's so immature and utterly rude that it earned a place on my list. Any girl that hears this is going to run away and not look back.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

I don't really need to explain as to why I picked those line. They are pretty obvious as to why they are horrible. But if you wish, I will explain :) Pick-Up Line #1 Great legs, what time do they open? Like seriously, if a guy said this to me, all they are interested in is sex. No women that I know anyways wants a man just for a one night stand, like seriously? Pick-Up Line #2 Guy: "Do you have any Italian in you?" Girl: "Nooo." Guy: "Want some?' Okay, everybody knows this is a classic. Honestly, I would say "Hell no, I don't want ANY Italian in me" Then I'd probably punch him. But all the same, its a classic line and a horrid one.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

Thank you all one last time. First of all, the biggest issue I have with my opponents case is the fact that she was very vague with exactly WHY those two lines were worse than the one I had to offer in the first round. In fact, she apparently didn't even think that her second pick-up line was bad, instead she thought it "hilarious". I don't know if she is against humor, but I really didn't get any vibe other than the fact that she thought her two lines funny at best. The next pick-up line I want to bring to this debate is ""How much will a 20 get me?". At best, this is just unfeeling. At worst, this is straight-up rude. Essentially, you are telling her that she has no morals whatsoever and holds her values at almost nil. My next worst pick-up line is "Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?" If somebody asked me this, I wouldn't feel flattered at all. Maybe just more than a little scared that the person next to you is going to kidnap you and rape you and a bunch of other fun stuff. Yeah. I'll let you do the math on this one. I hope my opponent has a successful rebuttal. Let me just warn you, it will only get harder from here.
Worst Pick-Up Lines

Remember *2 pick-up lines per round, you only mentioned 1. Just telling you for future reference. :) Pick-Up Line #1 "Get out of your life and into my bed! " Like really? This one doesn't make sense what so ever, it's so dumb it's hilarious though! Pick-Up Line #2 "Screw me if I'm wrong, but is your name Iolanthe? " This one is just hilarious! Your turn!
Worst Pick-Up Lines

I would like to start off by thanking Hannah for inviting me to this debate; it is an honor to debate for you all. Thank you for taking the time to judge and read our debate. Now, I will begin. Pick-Up Lines are all pretty bad (who are we kidding), but some are worse than others. One pick-up line I've encountered on my travels through time and space goes like this: "Your dad must be a terrorist, because he made a bomb." At first glance this seems rather innocent and sweet, but as you begin to think about it, it starts to take a more negative light. Not only are you being extremely blunt in your conversation, you are also calling her father a terrorist. A terrorist is defined (by Dictionary.com) as: "...a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes...". Wow. Isn't that flattering. I would just love some guy to tell me that. I'm making this round rather brief as I wish to see what arguments you bring up. Thank you all once again. :)
Worst Pick-Up Lines

The first pick-up line I have is "You have a beautiful head. It would look marvelous next to the other ones in my freezer. " Wow. Just, wow. You my good friend, need a doctor. And the all-time worst pick-up line I've ever heard is: "Help me! I'm gay but I've been thinking I may actually be straight! Please have sex with me and remove any doubt from my head!" The day I see somebody tell someone this is the day I'll see everything. Thank You all.
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes. l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God. 2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God. 3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God. 4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God. 5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God.
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

When evaluating the existence or lack of existence of anything in conventional logic, you require positively correlating evidence, and operation through logical and scientific processes. There are many reasons why I would reject the logical assumption of God(s), or at least warrant a method of living for which I do not recognize the existence of God(s). First, I would like to identify the premise that I advocate which reads "God cannot logically be defended as real." This premise in absolutely NO WAY means that I can defend God(s) not being real. I am making the assertion that the premise of the argument cannot be assumed true on the side of logic. I would however also like to identify the word "God(s)" in the premise. The use of the word identifies three things. The being is 1. SENTIENT, 2. THEISTIC (mono or poly) 3. OF A HIGHER POWER/FORCE. The primary instance for which I identify the logic in assuming that a God is not real is due to where the burden of proof lies. The maker of a positive claim must support evidence to back up the claim that is made. It is absolutely absurd to make a claim and not support the claim made with any sort of evidence, yet use the lack of evidence AGAINST the claim as a vector of truth. I have yet to hear any actual evidence which would suggest a God to be real, to which I hold the assumption that it is illogical to assume a God as being real. Many will assert that "God" is simply a title that can be shared by anything used to which creates the universe. If that is the identification of God that I accepted, I would believe in a God. The way I identified "God(s)" in the premise is as a (or a group of) SENTIENT THEISTIC HIGHER POWER meaning it is identified as a sentient omnipotent, onmibenevolent, omniscient being(s). I will only reject the premise of a logical backing behind the existence of (a) God(s) as defined in the original premise. The assertion of a necessity of (a) God(s) being true is not a reason that the God(s) as shared by a conventional religion be true. Also, a "pros and cons" argument for religion in the context of whether one should or should not believe in a religion out of personal benefit is also a premise I will reject as "logical". Even if the benefits of a God being potentially real outweigh the cons of having potentially wasted your life in a belief are, in my opinion, not identified as logical since the personal reasonability of believing in God =/= any actual, sensical proof of God (I've given up on the whole (s) thing now sorry) being in existence. Note; that I do accept the theory of evolution as true, as well as that of the Big Bang and many other scientific theories assumed to be false by SOME religious people, but I do not use those assertions as arguments why a God cannot be logically defended. I await a con debater at this time
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

It was done in a lab. It was truthful. I think you need hearing aids or something because the video clearly said it was sent to NY for testing, were it began in a lab. Because something like this happened, your only hope was to assume some scientist fudged the data. Really?! Come on! Other than that, you have no argument whatsoever about this miracle. It clearly happened. It was tested. The public heard about it. If we were to go by your logic for scientific testing, everything in the history of testing would have to be redone. It would only be counted valid if someone of the opposite religion tested and confirmed it.
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

I'm fully aware of the potential for great science and religion. That was never the issue. This debate has devolved into this unbelievably watered down argument over a miracle. First of all, the "transferring" of this sample could have easily been manipulated. There is no way that we can actually PROVE that this event actually happened. These people who found, reported, and sampled the flesh could have easily switched out the host for actual heart flesh. This isn't something that Atheists can't explain, its something you can't prove. Maybe if this had been done in a lab, recorded, documented, and confirmed by an actual consensus, this would be more legitimate. The people who brought the sample to the Forensic Scientist could have easily just given him actual tissue from the heart of a human containing human DNA. There is no way you can prove they were truthful.
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

I never said religion was scientific. Point being, you can be a man of God and a great mind in science at the same time. As a Catholic, I believe in the story of creation. But I also believe in evolution. The world was created in seven days by the one true God. "How can that be?" you may ask, "The Bible says nothing on dinosaurs." The reason I believe in both evolution and creation is simple. There was no 24 hour day limit when it occurred. Whatever God willed happened. Going back to the Buenos Aires miracle, you are wrong. First of all, I did not use that website. I used a more accurate Catholic oplaininne. I watched a video too. You are wrong about there being one scientist. There were a team of scientists. I'm sorry. I did a poor job of explaining it. This video does it better. One of the analyzers was atheist(you can relate to that), and then he converted(you can't relate to that).