BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why do some males sag their pants down?!

Wow, I am impressed by my "opponent's" knowledge of sagging...and I'm sure now EVERYONE has a GOOD understanding of why some males don't wear pants correctly!!! To reveal my last bit of knowledge I will first give a few sites (and a video): http://www.boldomatic.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.theroot.com.... http://weirdworldnews.org... http://www.sodahead.com... It's funny because this topic actually leads into...why sex happens outside of marriage, which leads to why abortion happens, which explains one reason the society gots it WROWNG...you know, saggy pants tend to be attractive [to most girls], and as it said in one of your websites some prisoners and trend-ers people who had their pants down are "free for sex." That sounds awful and it is a testimony to ALL MEN/BOYS: sagging pants means that you are... -available to have sex outside of marriage to anyone -WANT to have sex -WANT to be liked/loved/attractable -more likely to have complicated situations that could ruin your life Thanks for debating me on this--I agree--odd topic. It has provided information people otherwise wouldn't think of finding!!!!
"principle of double effect" opens a slippery slope, see ectopic pregnancies

Again, I am going to try really hard not to be a jerk here. But my opponent COMPLETELY mis-understands how a ectopic surgery works. It is impossible for me to debate the Pro when he literally doesn't know what he is talking about. It is impossible to have an abortion, beause the fertilized egg is attached to the fallopian tube. I laughed a little as I read my opponents previous round. This debate is kind of an embarrasment, and I would have not accepted, knowing that my opponent was oblivious to this fact. However the fact remains. I thought he was trying to argue that an ectopic pregnancy was the same thing as abortion, thus making his assertion relative that abortion is similar. And yes, he was kind of still saying that, but now that he reaveals the the crux of his argument was to prove an abortion would be preferable. . http://www.medic8.com... So I accepted this debate for the purpose of proving the slippery slope argument didn't equate to the double effect. Both my arguments have been dismissed by my opponent. In fact, he only argued on false information provided in his example. So the philosophy of the double effect argument and the slippery slope were 100% entirely dropped by my opponent. I don't know what more to argue, as my points have been un-touched, and my opponent has un-sourced, illogical information used as examples in this debate. To conclude, I thank my opponent for offering this debate, and appolagize for accepting this debate not fully understanding your stance. However, before starting debates like this I would personally reccommend doing a bit more research about the topic. Again, completely no offence intended.
"principle of double effect" opens a slippery slope, see ectopic pregnancies

"To clarify what that is, he relates the pro-lifer argument of "the end justifies the means" to abortion when removing the fellopian tube in order to save the mothers life, to an evil action. However, not even an avid pro-lifer could argue that an ectopic pregancy is an evil means. this doesn't make much sense. pregnancies are not evil means, not one said they are. if you meant that removing the tube no one considers and evil means, sure I agree no one does. but that shows my point, once you accept that, then you have to accept the removal of uteruses, then what about just removing the baby etc. I can accept that a direct abortion is not the same necessarily as removal of tubes, uterus, baby etc.... but I think it's close enough that it's morally really indistinguishiable. even if we don't put direct abortion into the mix, there's no reason a person couldn't just remove the baby and let it die, as the intention to kill and direct killing are both absent... why can't a person just remove the baby if they can remove the tubes and the uterus? why must there be sacrifice of body parts etc? the baby is the thing causing death, so you just remove it. cons arguments seem to be going all over the place
"principle of double effect" opens a slippery slope, see ectopic pregnancies

"pro-lifers cannot make a slippery slope argument, or a double effect argument, because the surgery being neccesary would mean that both the mother and the childs life are in danger. So removal of the tubes being a must, would mean that pro-lifers would have to value between saving one life, or allowing both to die. This makes my opponents example completely null and void, as the purpose of the double effect argument in this case would be to prove hypocrisy in a pro life argument. you miss the essence of the issue. prolifers who believe the ends do not justify the means, cannot abort a baby to save the life of the mother. it would be an evil means, to the end of saving the mother. double effect says that no one intended the baby to die in the removal of the tube, so it's legit morally. but that opens the way to removing a uterus when a baby poses a risk at all. which opens to just removing the baby. and to some extent at least arguably, why not just abort and save the mother all that damage and potential li the baby is likely going to be the same anyways. hence, the slippery slope. it's here too, with the double effect argument... not just with people who preach the relative truth. (where its usually applied
"principle of double effect" opens a slippery slope, see ectopic pregnancies

people say the ends do not justify the means. they use the principle of double effect as a way around what might otherwise be thought of a an evil means etc. but at least as applied in any cases I can see, and probably in theory too, it opens up to a slippery slope. people like to say these hardline rules, the ends don't justify the means but principle of double effect works, help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope an example is ectopic pregnancies. they say you can just remove the tubes with the baby inside. so couldn't the principle be extended to removing uterus's with the baby in it, when the baby poses a risk to the mother? isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc? and if you could just remove the uterus with the mother in it, why couldn't you just remove the baby without the uterus? how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion] directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.
Children should be beaten

Reagan welcome the thanks. "The beginning is always the best place to start, and so I shall. My criterion for judging this round will be Maddox himself: that is, this man has risen in status from a lower middle class Armenian[1] to a king[2]. The conclusion that logically follows is thus that whatever parental styles Maddox's parents used are ideal, since this is the single most accomplished man in our generation, an art critic[3], a grammar enthusiast[4], a political pundit[5] a genius[6] among much much more. This is a God among men if there ever was one. "I think George W bush is more godly. Had it rich, became a druggie, became an alcoholic, was NOT beaten, is from texas, became president, was the opposite of a grammar nazi, was kinda over average intelligence, became presdent, AND his VP shot someone. GWB is more godly then Maddox, with no beatings. "When I was a kid and I screwed up, my parents beat my @ss. We didn't have a conversation about it. I didn't have a "time out. " In fact, I've never even once been grounded in my life. What's the point? " [Censorship mine]. The resolution is already affirmed, because if Maddox says something it must be true. " Blue = corperal punishment is banned in schools. California is blue, the song california girls says they are pretty, pretty people rule the earth, therefore child beating is bad. Also there are many types of abuse, Physical sexual etc. That means a slippery slope occurs, and hitting a kid can lead to sexual abuse too. So a beating might end up like this. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "He argues further that a beating is the only way to teach children a lesson, because other parental punishment methodologies are useless. He criticizes grounding/time outs as useless"Again do you want this kid to be raped? .. .. .. .. .. . "Indeed it seems that beatings are the only effective discipline. One can do no better than to quote Maddox again"Not in liberal states, and liberalsm is the dope. "Maddox is correct on all accounts, and the effects of what our complacency has done to our children is all too clear, and equally disturbing"Kids opinions matter! We are the next generation, and being able to it on a desk without bruises on our @ss or a a creeper in our room is better. And again, California agrees with me. "The fact of the matter is that children are worthless, almost as bad as old people who we all know need to be shipped into the sun" Kid working for terrorists. Very productive in ending america and spreading muslimism. How is that not productive? Old people, thats a different matter. GO KIDS!
Children should be beaten

Thanks to Ronald Reagan for agreeing to debate this with me. The beginning is always the best place to start, and so I shall. My criterion for judging this round will be Maddox himself: that is, this man has risen in status from a lower middle class Armenian[1] to a king[2]. The conclusion that logically follows is thus that whatever parental styles Maddox's parents used are ideal, since this is the single most accomplished man in our generation, an art critic[3], a grammar enthusiast[4], a political pundit[5] a genius[6] among much much more. This is a God among men if there ever was one. Maddox elaborates on how his parents raised him[7]:"When I was a kid and I screwed up, my parents beat my @ss. We didn't have a conversation about it. I didn't have a "time out." In fact, I've never even once been grounded in my life. What's the point? " [Censorship mine]. The resolution is already affirmed, because if Maddox says something it must be true. He argues further that a beating is the only way to teach children a lesson, because other parental punishment methodologies are useless. He criticizes grounding/time outs as useless[8]: "Send your kid to his room and make him play video games and read comic books all day? Great idea, why don't you take him to a psychiatrist while you're at it so she can pull some disorder out of her @ss to hide the fact that you're a bad parent?" [Censorship mine]Indeed it seems that beatings are the only effective discipline. One can do no better than to quote Maddox again[9]"Kids today need a good beating every now and then. If you don't beat your kids when they fall out of line, the next thing you know your son will go off and bang some dude in the @ss just out of spite. You tell them to clean their room, they say "no," you smack them. It's simple; it works." Maddox is correct on all accounts, and the effects of what our complacency has done to our children is all too clear, and equally disturbing[10]:" The problem is that kids today think their opinions matter. By not beating your kids, they get a skewed perspective of reality where they start thinking that they have it rough and that they can get away with dying their hair and listening to Insane Clown Posse. That's where you need to come in and put the law down. "The fact of the matter is that children are worthless, almost as bad as old people who we all know need to be shipped into the sun[11], and it is for this reason that we need to bat children to mold them into worthwhile human beings. The resolution is affirmed. Spare the rob, spoil the child.Citations:1. Maddox, First. I am better than your kids. 1. New York: Gallery Books, 2011. Print. 2. http://www.facebook.com... 3. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...4. http://maddox.xmission.com...5. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...6. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...7. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...8. Ibid9. Ibid10. Ibid11. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...
Children should be beaten

My opponent drops that Maddox is a god. Uhmmm pretty important reason to vote pro. He just says that George W. Bush is more awesome, yet Bush couldn't even keep approval ratings above 50% and lost to a pack of tic tacs in a scienntific poll about who would be a better pressident (See R2 source 5). My opponent says california rules. That's false, california sucks. Its filled with gays liberals dirty mexicans and whatever else. ITs gross.My opponent said that beatings could lead to sexual abuse TURN: Sexual abuse good, keeps the children from spreading their legs too much when they grow up.He aruges further that kids work for terrorists. TURN: Terrorism good, brings down the evil empire that is the U.S. You're on the phone with your girlfriend, She's upsetShe's going off about something that you saidShe doesnt get your humour like I doI'm in the room, its a typical Tuesday nightI'm listening to the kind of music she doesnt likeAnd she'll never know your story like I doBut she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirtsShe's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachersDreaming bout the day when you wake up and findThat what you're lookin for has been here the whole timeIf you could see that I'm the one who understands youBeen here all along so why can't you see?You belong with meYou belong with meWalkin the streets with you in your worn out jeansI cant help thinking this is how it ought to beLaughing on the park bench thinkin to myselfHey isnt this easy?And you've got a smile that could light up this whole townI havent seen it in awhile, since she brought you downYou say you find I know you better than thatHey, Whatcha doing with a girl like that?She wears high heels, I wear sneakersShe's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachersDreaming bout the day when you wake up and findThat what you're looking for has been here the whole timeIf you could see that I'm the one who understands youBeen here all along so why can't you see? You belong with meStandin by, waiting at your back doorAll this time how could you not know that?You belong with meYou belong with meOh I remember you driving to my house in the middle of the nightI'm the one who makes you laugh when you know you're about to cryI know your favorite songs and you tell me about your dreamsI think I know where you belong. I think I know it's with me.Can't you see that I'm the one who understands you?Been here all along so why can't you see?You belong with meStanding by or waiting at your back doorAll this time how could you not know thatYou belong with meYou belong with meHave you ever thought just maybeYou belong with meYou belong with me
god does not exist logic version

If God has created reality, our notion of absurdity in that reality is inherently dependent on his creation of reality. Ergo, he does not have to operate within that reality. The concept of God allows for Him to operate outside the existence of this universe or creation. Anything outside of this universe is also outside the laws of reality as we know them. The concept of God is an infinite being. One all powerful and outside time and space as we experience them. Everything is possible for this God.
god does not exist logic version

You seem to forget the reason that God sent the flood in the first place. It wasn't to mindlessly kill everyone, but to preserve the pure life on the Earth, being Noah, his family, and the animals. The very credible theory of the Big Bang states that matter was created from nothing. I already explained in detail how this fits with the concept of God. I explained how your "proof" of the universe always existing only applies to this universe, and I delineated how God exists outside of it. The burden of proof has been on you to explain how He can not exist. I explained how He can exist in both the logical and absurd views. I also thoroughly refuted all of your arguments.
god does not exist logic version

I Gave two definitions of omnipotent the first having the ability to do anything which is the one you agreed with in round 1 and the 2nd one being god can do anything as long as it is logical. You agreed god can do illogical things in round 1 but then change in round 2????? and you cant consider god t o be all good when you pay attention to the story of noahs ark he sends a flood that wipes out the population of the earth. The act of killing is evil and in this case shows wrath which is a sin. And again creating a being that surpasses god is impossible due to the laws of logic which you clearly stated was within gods ability. And then you go to say that the universe was created when i just proved it always existed???
god does not exist logic version

First of all I thank you for responding. "For example creating a square circle is impossible that is not a matter of power both shapes contradict each other" This does not exist within the confines of common logic. The concept is absolutely illogical. It is logically impossible to create a square circle. God is defined logically. Your definition of omnipotence relies on the ability to do the illogical, and this is fallacious. God is defined, and therefore limited by logic: Hebrews 6:18 states that God can not lie for example. God is limited by his properties - God cannot "lie" because he is necessarily all-good. The ability to create a being more powerful is inherently absurd because it suggests that one can be more powerful than omnipotence. God can not create a rock bigger than He can lift because liftening an unliftable stone is as absurd as creating a square circle. "If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then logically the two must have always existed." "either way somthing had to have always existed resulting in an infinite past" You are correct in asserting that some-"thing" had to exist eternally for all to exist as it does now. For time to be a reality in our own universe, there must be an infinity outside of this creation. The infinite property of God allows Him to be the spark of all creation including the matter and energy of our own. You are limiting God to spatiotemporal reality, when in actuality, He obviously must exist outside of our own universe in order to create it. In a multiverse view, this is absolutely possible. "That being said if god can only do things logically then he must a be made of matter or energy in order to influence our universe" Again, God does not exist within our universe. This may come as a surprise, but the laws of matter and energy are a part of this universe. All physics exist in this universe, and we have no means by which to suggest than anything outside of our own must exist within these same confines of physics. God is non spatiotemporal, ergo, He is not necessarily composed of the matter and energy, and bound by the same time that we observe in our universe. I again thank you for the response.
Australia is a better place to live than the USA.

4 rounds,.. dang. Ok,.. well here goes,.. My opponent has NOT eliminated the subjectivity, objectivity,.. from the topic or their stance. Australia is NOT a better place to live than the USA because my opponent has not explained to whom Australia is better suited for living!! It is simple! This is not a matter of patriotic honor! My opponent simply states that Australia is a better place to live than the USA!!! I only have to provide one example of Australia not being a better place to live in order to contradict my opponents position. If I am successful in proving solid contradicting evidence,.. I win! So here is one and last piece of evidence,... The USA has more Agriculturally employed citizens than Australia has population!! The USA has 1,867,059 acres of productive rich land, one of the richest nations in natural resources!!! Australia has only 468,502 acres of arable land! That is pretty limiting! So just make things fast here, and not go through every area that the USA excels in much better than Australia and the millions of people that MUST live in the USA in order carry out these areas of superiority, I will finish with this contradictory chunk of evidence! My opponent's position on this topic is false,.. I showed how over 21 million people LITERALLY could NOT have a better life in Australia when compared to the USA!! Vote Con,. thank you.
Australia is a better place to live than the USA.

It seems my opponent has given up on refuting points as well as presenting his own. To be quite clear, I feel I have eliminated subjectivity. I have presented three empirical studies, all fully supported by the United Nations that demonstrate overwhelmingly that Australia is a better place to live than the USA. These aren't even close wins, either they are total blowouts. To repeat myself, Australia ranks third in the world in the Human Development Index, third. The USA ranks nine, that's right, nine places under Australia. They rank twelfth, and Australia ranks third. If you want to cry conspiracy and say the UN hates the US then go for it, but the people voting this know that three separate studies supported by the UN is about as objective as it gets. It is very possible for this debate to be objective. For instance, I can freely admit that Australia probably isn't the best place in the world to live, in terms of health care/public transport/democratic freedom/etc there are probably better places. I'm sure many other people can admit this as well. It is a bit sad that you've decided to essentially stop arguing and have just begun coming up with stories about random people. As I set out clearly in the first round: ". .. just providing an example of one person living happily does not make any country a better place to live than any other. " These sort of tactics get us nowhere. I could very easily come up with random 'feel good' stories of "The young American engineer who made it big in the Western Australian mining industry" or "The Australian athletes who have won 121 gold medals at the Olympics" (A much more impressive feat, when you consider the USA's population is 15 times that of Australia). But these sorts of stories prove nothing and they just turn these debates into matters of opinion. So summing up. .. I've shown that, through statistics involving the USA national debt ($31,000 dollars per person roughly, taking upwards of 7 generations to pay back), as well as stats and facts involving social problems in the USA such as child abuse, poverty, murder rate, literacy, and unemployment, that the USA is a comparatively poor place to live when compared to Australia. I've also shown, through three separate and UN approved studies on standard of living (that exact thing we are debating about) that Australia easily outranks the USA in terms of living standards. These studies haven't been answered nor even addressed. My opponent will try make you feel national pride and get all the Americans on his side through patriotic remarks about the USA medal tally and things like that. But this has little, if anything, to do with living standards as I had clearly set this out at the very beginning. The resolution was "Australia is a better place to live than the USA", and I feel I have demonstrated this clearly.