BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I would like to point out, if god was so smart, why did he give humans a choice on whether to be evil or not. Why did he give us the power to kill each other in masses, if he was so smart, why isn't he stopping global warming, if he can change all of this why doesn't he do it? What concrete evidence do you even have that a god exists? For everything that had happened in this universe we have a logical explanation, gods were invented to explain things that humans couldn't years ago. All in all, i don't believe that there is an all powerful god.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Be prepared...
All students should have an after school job.

Ok, I know that students can't get a job 15 or younger. I agree that 15 or younger shouldn't be allowed to get an after school job, but since that topic didn't mentioned the age, I assume that underage students are excluded.I agree that students should have an after school job because they can learn how to manage their time. They actually can learn the skills of how to spend their time wisely and not using homework as excuses.
All students should have an after school job.

You may say that students should have after school jobs right, well as being a student in high school in modern day society, the schooling is getting harder and harder, we have a lot of homework, and usually most of the time the age for a job is not for 15 years or younger so most students can't get a job. Now there is the homework task, it is hard to have homework form the teachers in school, but add to that about 1/3 of the students are in either AP or Honors classes, the homework would be so much harder. So trying to juggle a job and all the homework would have each of the students up very late and may have a chance to fail each of the classes. The students like me should finish high school first then get a part time job so we can pay for college.
why snail more snail

why snail more snail 1- Snail is so much heavy and strong. if snail does not kill you he can hit you with it. weight is a sign of reliability. 2- the slug got evict from shell because he is poor. 3- slug get crush easy, snail shell get crush, snail crawl away to find another. it is like having 1up. 4- shell is more stronger than no shell 5- snail evolve shell out of itself, internal slug shell is copy of superior snail technology. 6- your sexy little sister lift up her skirt when she see snail. over 9000- if you trow snail at wall, wall will catch snail and happy. 8- trow both on water see wich can breth underwater wich has surfase for air 9- snail at mate will find a quiet leaf or hotel, slug is brazen hussy 10- snail is hermaphroditte faget becaus he hate biches only care for monie 11- snail is nail with curve added. slug is fake monie because he is poor. 12- snail only feast on finest foods, snail is coinessuer. 13- slug is 100000 years undeevolve, only survive because affirmative action.
internet surfing good or bad

Internet is an ADDICTION that is DRAINing the SOULS out of people. Peoples lives are being destroyed by their inthernet addiction and families are being torn apart. No one cares about family values and society is falling apart. All the porn on the internet is turning people into drones... b/c everyone has access to 1000's of pages of porn from the time they are 6 years old. It affects our minds and makes people believe that they should be think porn stars. everyone is the same. The internet is destroying world cultures and languages. Making everyone the same. It is evil and destroying the world. it must be stopped. Facebook is "BIG BROTHER!" the government is taking over with the internet!!!
internet surfing good or bad

see first of all internet surfing is related to too many "pro"s.and as all ur business are mostly globalized i think dat internet has b'com an inseparable part of our lives as it not only allows one to gather information from any part of the world but also it allows yuo to connect u to different part of the world.also e-commerce is important as internet is considered .as it has been found dat the total businees profit is going up due to internet usage or e-commerce.so if anyone thinks dat it is bad using internet i think he is wrong in his point of view....!!
Flag burning

Ok first, start at the top, where he says driving cars can kill people too, i agree but id say cars are a part of infrastructure and are necessary unless you wanna ride horses,unlike protests, which people can find other less radical ways to express. Once again,m he ridicules the notiom of sending someone to jail fr leaving on a curling iron, i contend that if that curling iron starts a fire and kills someone's child, i think society would agree thatm person should ACCEPt PARTIAL BLAME. Go to how he says i shouldnt belittle the power of protests, i will belittle the power of protests in the situation of genocide, because honestly if something like the hitler regime was going on, i would not rely on the "power of protest" and neither should you. We definitely differ here(on smoking). We'll let the voters decide if people should be able to decide what they ingest or if we should have a fascistic authoritarian government. Don't let him link everything to a "facist government" he does this nonstop, don't let him do this hes trying to get you to perceive me a tyrant, but smoking and alchohol doesnt necessarily have to be STOPPEd, it just has to be LIMITED, unless you think people should have so much autonomy they can get drunk and smoke and spend all their money on drinking instead of their families, then id say youd be advocating the state of nature. "Are you saying that there has never been a campfire to get out of control? And kids never go camping?" True, kids go camping and campfires happen, but once again, campfires unlike burning falgs are not started in the middle of a street. Furthermore, not all kids go camping and those who do dont do it too frequently, whereas burning a flag can be done anywhere anytime, as protests are normal. he says who cares what it looks to a patriot or a american, i'd say it matters because i think we can agre most americans like america, even though they might not like the politics, they can agree they like the place. He mentions racists, first off, hard core racists are not as plentiful as patriots, racism is growing less and less with integration. Judaism is a religion and yet they were stigmatized for hundreds of years. And regardless of whether certain religious groups are stigmatized or not(they are) you still ignore the fact that they cause much more violence then any flag burner. Ok good point, but judaism is only 2% of the world religions , on a scale factor, that's like 100 to 2, so im saying groups such as christians are stigmatized alot less, plus in the current era, jews have faced a lot less stigmatization.
Flag burning

My sole argument is that protests are allowed, so long as they don't harm others. For example, if my way to "protest" against obama was to shoot him, that would obviously not be permitted. Thus if i can prove burning flags becoming a social norm poses a serious threat to others, then we must prohibit it for concern for the societal good. http://www.baptistboard.com... this essentially shows several risks the flames emitted from the flags can do. Examples of consequences are accidental fire starts as flags are highly flammable as well as children being exposed to the smoke. There are other ways to protest other than burning a flag. Now imagine if every american or obama hater decided to burn a flag. Imagine what that would do to the enviorment as well as the children of the enviorment. Second: The govt has an obligation to protect everone, and in some instances protect them even if they dont want to be protected. Burning flags is often one of the most despised things to see by us patriots, and the majority of americans tend to, well, i don't know, like america. So imagine if you see protesters burning flags everywhere, this would obviously enrage protesters. They would perhaps resort to violnt acts to retaliate at their flag, symbol of their nations pride getting demolished. Even if its not violence, the people burning flags would be looked down upon and subjected to social stigmatization as many people would form opinions about these people as traitors which links to discrimination.
The Avengers would defeat the Justice League in a fight

I propose that this debate be split into several rounds of battles between the heroes. Round One The first casualty in the battle would be Superman, as he would be the one to quickly engage a battle, most likely with the Hulk. Now the two heroes are both evenly matched, but Doctor Strange and Scarlet Witch would severely weaken Superman with magic, which is one of His major weaknesses. Black Widow would quickly find herself in defeated based on the sheer power of the Justice League, and Quicksilver would be outmatched by Flash. Ironman and Cyborg would be evenly matched but Ironman would eventually win due to his combat experience fight other techno-heroes. Batman and Captain America would fight in a stalemate, as would Hawkeye and Green Arrow. Thor would be fighting Wonderwoman and Aquaman, but he would be able to barley take down Aquaman due to his type advantage over water. Lastly Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter would be able to neutralize Vision. Avengers left Hulk, Doctor Strange, Scarlet Witch, Ironman, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Thor Justice League left Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Batman, and Martian Manhunter
The Avengers would defeat the Justice League in a fight

The fighters for this battle will be as follows. Avengers Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, Doctor Strange, Captain America, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and Vision Justice League Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Aqua-man, Martian Man-hunter, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Flash (Barry Allen), Green Arrow, and Cyborg
Homosexuality is not a sin

Since we are talking about homosexuality being a sin in the PRESENT TENSE, you must prove that it is a sin NOW. This debate is about whether or not homosexuality IS a sin, not if it WAS a sin. The verses that you quoted in Leviticus do not prove your point. I have shown that it had to do with lying with a man on the bedding of a woman. So, looking at the meaning of the original text, we get a little closer with "Likewise male shall not lie bed wife is hated it". Fixing the grammar just a touch can give us a better translation of "Likewise, (you) shall not lie down with a man in (your) wife's bed. It is hated." This actually makes sense in the context of the entire chapter, which also prohibits incest of various forms, and other sections of Leviticus that prohibit adultery. Many Christians don't realize that some men today will pretend that homosexual sex isn't adultery because it's not "real sex"; I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on in the days of Moses as well. And of course, it makes sense that the Bible would prohibit same-sex adultery. What doesn't make sense is why the Bible would prohibit two males from having sex (under any circumstances) and not prohibit two females. I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. So you have NOT "proven: anything at this point. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak." Before you claim victory, you should at least wait for my response. I am asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is sin, according to the Bible. I fail to see how you have done that so far. Furthermore, you said that you have proven "many times with the Bible that it is a sin". I don't agree that 3 verses is a good example of "many".
Homosexuality is not a sin

It does not matter whether I do or don't follow all the rules in the old testament, all that matters is that according to such, homosexuality is a sin. Even if there is a new covenant, in the Bible, at one point it was a sin. So, in the end, according to the bible, homosexuality is a sin. I have already proven this. If this isn't enough, I can quote from the new testament as well.1 Corinthians 6:9–10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." See, even in the new testament it says that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who do such will not inherit the kingdom of God. I have already proven many times that according to the bible, homosexuality is a sin. My opponenent is unable to counter such. According to the bible it is a sin, so I have already proven my point, and won this debate.
Homosexuality is not a sin

As you have already explained, this debate must be based on the Christian beliefs. Because of such, this debate will only consider homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. There are so many versus in the bible explaining how homosexuality is wrong, and therefore a sin according to the bible. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22 ESV "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)"-Leviticus 20:13 " Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13: As I have just proven, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, therefore a sin to Christianity.
Homosexuality is not a sin

If God chooses our sexual orientation for us and reveals it to us by our gender, why did he create AIS hermaphrodites or "intersex people" as they are now known as? These individuals have vaginas, female breasts, and are hormonally more women than the average female, BUT they do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. They DO in fact have testicles and their DNA is MALE. http://www.isna.org... If this person chose to marry, which sex should they marry? How does one reconcile this miracle of nature with the position that God only created male/female? Can your argument be backed up with scripture? Clearly science contradicts the Conservative Christian's position that homosexuality is "wrong" by the AIS condition that absolutely NO ONE can argue with the fact that they are born this way. Furthermore, I would like to challenge anyone to show me where the Bible condemns homosexuality.
ISIS is bad

ISIS, or the "Institute for Software Integrated Systems," is a research organization housed in the School of Engineering found at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee [1]. I will be arguing against the idea that they should be considered "bad" by any means. bad - not such as to be hoped for or desired ; unpleasant or unwelcome I wish Pro the best of luck in the coming rounds. Source(s): http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu...
ISIS is bad

Isityourboiyesitisthereisnosstemmanimgoingtoletyoupoisonmeithrewyouonyourfaceyoumustthinkthisajokethisisntapartofyoursystemareyouisisyesyouareyouareaboiandihatethatboisareisisbutinthebeginingisaidthatiamyourboijkyoujustgotfooledandspeakingoffoolyoujustgotfooledforbeingafoolimin1stgradejkimin2jkimin3jkimin4jiimin5jkimin6jkmin7jkimin8jkimin9jkimin10jkimin11jkimin12jkimincollegeyoujustgotrektijustautomaticallywontheend
It is hypocritical to believe the American Revolution was justified and the South's rebellion wasn't

I stand by my previous argument that one can't be labelled a hypocrite for believeing what he sees; it would rather be illusive to justify a 'rebellion' that failed or to vilify a 'revolution'that did not produce a failed state. I would however add a few points: -The American Revolution was based on pure self determination and true liberty from the heavy tax burdens and arduousness of laying at the feet of the British crown. The South's rebellion on the other hands was a selfish and inhumane move to retain slave labour. Thus while one struggle was to attain greater human freedom for the common people of the colonies, the other was to maintain the absence of freedom for black slaves. -The south was bent on an agriculture-based economy while the north was moving to industrialize. See what happened to the other Spanish colonies of the America's that remained agriculture based and thrived on slave labour? They never became the super power that the industrialized North made out of the USA. It is evident that if the CSA succeeded, it would have had an economy on par with those other agriculture based economies of Central/South America. --Justification's reference is ultimate good and ultimate evil. The former should be justified and the latter not. Was the South's intention of basing their economy on slave labour a good thing? I believe not.
It is hypocritical to believe the American Revolution was justified and the South's rebellion wasn't

Well well well. Not the angle of attack I expected, but an interesting one nonetheless As for your allegations that the potential effects dozens of years of the future, that could not be foreseen, somehow alter the morality and justification of wars fought over other issues not pertaining to anything but present disputes, what logic is in it? 1) First of all if either the CSA had been successfully created, or the USA not so there would never have been the same sort of events that would happen, for even the smallest changes would alter world history in large unpredictable ways. World War II never would have occurred, at least not the same fashion. For example if you own a gas station, and plot to blow up a competitor's franchise with the sole purpose of getting more business for yourself, are you justified if by doing so you end up causing a series of events that lead to the police intercepting a stolen nuclear warhead found buried in your competitor's lot? Certainly you have done more harm than good, but had no intention of doing such, only malice and avarice as your guides. The future is unpredictable, which why it is important to think of probable cause-and-effect, not every unforeseeable possibility. Neither revolution in question did the rebels think of preventing future genocide or warmongering, only of the needs of their region at the time. 2) Even one puts aside the notion that the rebels had no idea the value of their super power status would provide the world in the 40's and 60's, it still is poor logic. Likely a more internationalist dominated CSA would have moved to support her allies in Britain and France far more so that the isolationist Republican north, but I will not expand on this due to the fact it is pretty irrelvent. 3) Yes people are usually justified in their own eyes but the purpose of this debate is to judge and critique from an unbiased non-involved position. And so I say, if one weighs the values of self-governing and democratic values and finds them worth more than racial equality and peace than by all means, feel that the American revolution was justified, but also treat the Confederate rebellion as such as well. If not, than spit on the names of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, but do so on Davies, Lee, and Benjamin as well. Believing otherwise is hypocrisy
It is hypocritical to believe the American Revolution was justified and the South's rebellion wasn't

I acknowledge you have well thought out proposition and I will proceed by challenging the very root of your argument which is that ONE REVOLUTION WAS JUSTIFIED AND THE OTHER WAS NOT. Every side involved in a struggle is justified in their own eyes- the British felt justified in their cause as much as the American colonies were. The side that comes out victorious is therefore reassured in their justification and thus convinces the world and their progeny as such. Today we see that the USA is the superpower that came to quell the Nazi terror-it would be painful to imagine what the world would have been after 1945 if the USA didn't exist. There is therefore no hypocrisy in justifying the American Revolution that led to the birth of USA. Similar thinking can be applied to the South's Rebellion, had they succeeded, there might no longer have been a superpower that could stand up to the Axis powers. This line of thought might have been the other way round if the American Revolution did not succeed or if the Confederate States of America emerged. Somehow, the victor lives to tell the story and shape the opinion of generations following -the commoner who justifies the revolution should be justified because he heard the story from the victor and has seen the effort/performance of the victor subsequent to the revolution. We can conclude that the end justifies the revolution.