BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That only financially capable men be allowed to marry

As the Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso once said, "If you don't have money, you'd better not get married. It is difficult to me for someone without means to win people's respects." You know, this is a big issue in every culture. We know that real love and affection don't require a salary of five or 6 figures, but to institutionalize that love and start a family? You hear about people having financial problems right? You hear about people giving up babies for adoption because they don't have enough money to support the child and want to give it a better life, or couples breaking up because one partner is a lazy bum or can't find a job, so they're not contributing anything other than themselves physically. So why not establish yourself as a person, find a good job and save money before marrying? Love should be the reason for marriage but unfortunately it's not the only thing to sustain it. I ask you, is "love" going to ensure that you and your family have food and clothing? It might be nice to think so; but it's not true. Fact is, as much as people hate to admit it, wealth is strongly related to a man's mate value. A wealthier man is more attractive to women. Why? Because Money makes men a better provider. According to http://www.guidedones.com..., After tying yourself to a woman, a man assumes the full responsibilities of a husband. Typically, he becomes the head of the household, the breadwinner. He does not have to be confined by pregnancy; nor feed children from his breasts. He is therefore always ready to go out and search for sustenance. According to B D SHARMA of http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com... "without living means, be it money, land or job, one should not seek the company of another dependent. Otherwise both will suffer. You may live in any part of the world, and still need money in any form to survive." It's a good idea for poor people not to get married. That is, not until they are financially capable. Marriage can always wait. Don't just say that you'll wait until after you get married before finding a job. The more you wait, the more you won't get around to doing it. Besides, how can you earn the approval of the girl's parents if they can see that you plainly won't be able to support her? I think that actually a very good piece of advice and probably the most important wedding planning that you can do is the financial side of things. As posted by just sayin in http://www.freemoneyfinance.com..., If you want to stay home with your children for a few years, you are better off marrying a man with money. If you want your children to have more opportunities, you are better off marrying a man with money. Even if you get divorced, your children will likely be taken care of. Face it, we live in a 3rd world country, and as McCain stated in the book "Crocodile Tears" by Anthony Horowitz , money is the god of the 21st century. It divides and defines us. Let's just put it this way: In this times love can't withstand money. Ultimately money wins.
I claim there is no God

I want to start with a quote from Blaise Pascal; "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadow for those who don't." I am certain that no one can force you to believe in God or become a Christian against your will. It seems to me that God loves giving freedom, and he will not force you to do anything. He wants you to put your trust in Him, to get to know Him and eventually to fall in love with Him. Because that is His desire he will not force you to believe. With that said, there is lots of evidence for God's existence and activity in His creation. CON claims "there is no God" more properly worded, CON refutes my claim that God exists. I will give legal / historical evidence for the existence of God. It is evidence that meets the burden of proof in any court in my country. I will give scientific evidence about the complexity of creation that points to an intelligent designer. I assert that it takes more blind faith to believe that these things happened by chance than to believe in God. I will give eye witness testimony of people familiar with God (Father, Son, Spirit and Angelic messengers) The sheer volume of testimony of people who met with God is hard for an intelligent person to dismiss. I will point to some of the philosophical evidence for the existence of God. Some of these arguments are more compelling than others, but the brightest minds over thousands of years have found them worth deep consideration. If space permits I will give my personal experience of God's work in my life. These are factual events from my life, and they are hard to explain if you reject God's work in His world. Since CON initiated this debate and is taking a minority position I expect him to present his reasons for claiming that there is no God. Also, Since CON initiated the debate I suggest that CON should give compelling reasons for 4 -6 billion theists to abandon what they know to be true. For definitions, lets limit the debate to God as revealed in Christian and Jewish scripture. As to proof, I am looking to give enough evidence for a thoughtful and intelligent person to have a desire to know God better. Belief in God is not enough. Jesus invited people to follow him which is much more than a belief in the existence of a god. I look forward to CON presenting reasons for rejecting what most of the planet knows to be true.
I claim there is no God

This is another attempt at a fair debate. No debaters with a 100% winning record The first two voting catagories are: 1 "Agreed with before the debate" 2."Agreed with after the debate" Those two do not involve points and you are welcome to vote on those. You are NOT welcome to vote on conduct, grammar, arguments or sources. Thank you. Comment all you want, but ANY Vote that involves points will be considered a vote bomb. I want a real debate, with FACTS, otherwise it's a waste of time. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).
anything you want

So whoever accepts this can come up with any resolution they want no matter how ridiculous. Only 1 catch logical fallacies and semantic arguments are totally acceptable this is essentially going to be a debate about making some ridiculous claim seem reasonable to a layman. EDIT: ok so it's been pointed out to me that I have not been very clear on the general rules so here's a more specific list. Fallacies your allowed to use(fallacies your opponent can't simply negate by pointing out their fallacies) appeal to probability bandwagon argument from ignorance correlation proves causation ludic fallacy fallacy of single cause false attribution- you are NOT allowed to use a fabricated source but you can use a heavily biased source.
anything you want

Ok so my opponent seems to fail to understand that this is not meant to be a logical debate but despite this I will do my best to respond to his logical rebuttal with non-sensical and misconstrued nonsense lets begin. contention 1: My opponent claims that my clearly logical assertion about hermit crabs is false because really hermit crabs are not a combination of hermits and crabs but rather "The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY sociable, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". However we can see but the law of non-contradiction that this cannot be true". However IF Hermit crabs are extremely sociable than they should be called "social crabs" but since hermits are by definition not social then by the law of non-contradiction they cannot be both hermits and social. This tells us one of two things either A) my opponent is talking about a totally different "social crab", in such a case my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that hermit crabs live longer than a year as needed by his BOP, OR, B) my initial observation about this non-existent creature stands in which case again my opponent would have failed to fufiled his BOP. contention 2: My opponents two arguments are that since he has disprove my first contention it must stand that I am not always right and other sources say I am wrong. Lets first examine his first objection: "Because I disproved your contention that Hermit crabs cannot reproduce and contention 1, your second contention is wrong" As I pointed out in my rebuttal you have failed to disprove my first contention and as such my second contention still stands. Now lets focus on his second objection "Just because you say something doesn't mean it is true. So if you say "Water is a solid" or "The sun is not a star" it is true? I Already disproved your statement saying "I am always right", so that is ALSO wrong. According to HERMIT-CRABS.COM, Wikipedia, and a hell bunch of other sites I do not have enough time to list down, hermit crabs live for more than one year." First of all if I say something then it is true as I have clearly shown in my second contention and I would never say water is solid since that would be wrong. Since I am always right it must stand to reason that I would never make a false statement such as "water is solid". Now my opponent also goes on to mention that "a bunch of sources say so" now my fellow DOD members I ask you who would you believe "a bunch of sources" OR "one who is always right" I think the awnser is rather straightforward. In conclusion: I have upheld all of my contentions and refuted all of my opponents in a logically sound matter therefore you will clearly be voting con in today's debate( I know this to be true as I am always right)
anything you want

Con Stated: "ok so the resolution is in general hermit crabs live more than 1 year. contention 1) the sum of the parts equals the whole. Pretty simple concept for example if their are 4 bad band members I'm going to get a bad band. If I have four talented band members I'm going to get a good band. We can apply this same logic to hermit crabs which means that are hermit crab must be a combination of a hermit and a crab. The problem with this is that this creature is not biologically feasible as hermits and crabs are not genetically similar enough to reproduce. Therefore since a non-existent creature cannot exist it also cannot live for more than 1 year. contention 2) I am always right P1) I am always right P2) I say hermit crabs don't live for more than 1 year C) therefore from P1 and P2 hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year premise one: we know this premise to be true since I am always right. Since I am always right it must be true that I am always right. premise 2: I think this is self explanatory conclusion: If I am always right and I claim hermit crabs don't generally live more than 1 year than it must be true. In conclusion: I have provided a foolproof logically sound case so vote con" This doesn't make sense at all. i will provide some REAL "logical" support to my refute of your argument. RE: Contention 1: Not true at all. The reason that this species is called "Hermit Crab" is because back in the 1800's explorer's found these animals snd noticed the shell they could pop in and out of and live in. This is why they gave them the name"Hermit Crab" because they live alone in one shell. The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY socialble, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". So your "Foolproof" contention is actually Follish. RE: contention 2 : "im always right" Because i disprooved your contention that Hermit crabs cannot reproduce and contention 1, your second contention is wrong. The definition of disproove in my webstter's dictionary means to "proove something wrong", i disprooved your first contention so you are not "Right", you are wrong ,eliminating your second contention. Re: "I say hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year" Just because you say something dosen't mean it is true. So if you say "Water is a solid" or "The sun is not a star" it is true? i Already disprooved your statement saying "i am always right", so that is ALSO wrong. According to HERMIT-CRABS. COM, Wikipedia, and a hell bunch of other sites i do not have enough time to list down, hermit crabs live for more than one year. It is a FACT of nature and science, so you can't alter that. So that disprooves you once AGAIN. I disprooved all of your argument leaving nothing from your argument that sounds "logical" like you said. So that must mean that you have lost the debate. In that case i WON the debate.
anything you want

ok so the resolution is in general hermit crabs live more than 1 year. contention 1) the sum of the parts equals the whole. Pretty simple concept for example if their are 4 bad band members I'm going to get a bad band. If I have four talented band members I'm going to get a good band. We can apply this same logic to hermit crabs which means that are hermit crab must be a combination of a hermit and a crab. The problem with this is that this creature is not biologically feasible as hermits and crabs are not genetically similar enough to reproduce. Therefore since a non-existent creature cannot exist it also cannot live for more than 1 year. contention 2) I am always right P1) I am always right P2) I say hermit crabs don't live for more than 1 year C) therefore from P1 and P2 hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year premise one: we know this premise to be true since I am always right. Since I am always right it must be true that I am always right. premise 2: I think this is self explanatory conclusion: If I am always right and I claim hermit crabs don't generally live more than 1 year than it must be true.
Barack Obama a Good President

First, He is not allowing cartel members to get guns that kill law enforcement. He is making gun laws to protect the American people. By keeping guns away from people with past criminal records or people who are mentally insane, you protect innocent citizens. Second, why would someone not want to have healthcare. With healthcare, the provider will pay about half of any medical costs. Without healthcare, you have to pay for the entire medical bill by yourself. So before Obamacare, poor citizens were living life too carefully, because they knew that if they got injured or sick, they would go bankrupt. Third, Obama is promoting the use of MEDICAL marijuana. Medical marijuana is used only for extreme medical problems. Anyone who needs medical marijuana at least has the option of using it. Forth, he is acting peacefully in foreign affairs unlike George Bush who, in my opinion, WASTED $10 TRILLION in two wars. Obama has kept countries in line, but also has not gotten our country in expensive wars. Fifth, Obama is fixing our economy. He has made 4.7 Million new jobs for unemployed workers and doesn't intend to stop now. He also making the debt fall faster than any time since the end of World War II.
Barack Obama a Good President

I disagree. Barack Obama has done terrible things. For one, he allowed firearms to fall into cartel member's hands that killed law enforcement officers just to try to ban guns. His gun control schemes are against the American way of how we were created. Along with this, ObamaCare is terrible thing. It makes it mandatory to have health insurance or you can be fined. It also covers every person and forces it upon companies that don't agree with it. Obama also has promoted the use of marijuana and told lies of how it is good, when in fact it is one of the worst regularly used drugs.
Barack Obama a Good President

I have been a strong supporter of Obama ever since 2008 and am disappointed to see so many people not support him. Here are some reasons why Barack Obama is a good president. President Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month) and led us out of it (now creating 170,000 jobs a month). He saved 1 million auto-related jobs with the auto bailout. He cut taxes for small businesses 18 times, and small businesses are the anchor of the American economy. He cut middle class taxes an average of $3600 over 4 years. Banks have paid back the money loaned to the them from the Bush financial bailout. Obama required CEOs at banks that received bailout money to agree to executive compensation limits until their loans were repaid. Obama passed comprehensive health care reform (Affordable Care Act) that Presidents Truman, Nixon, Clinton, and others have been trying to do for 70 years. The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion because the government doesn't need to pay for benefits so that citizens have to get their own health care that it out of their price range. President Obama encouraged states to set common academic standards and provided support for the nation's best teachers through his Race to the Top education initiative. He reduced student loan payments for college students and borrowers to 10 percent of their discretionary income. Home prices are finally coming back after the 2008 market collapse. Supports more gun control which would give safety to American citizens. Supports raising the minimum wage which boosts the economy and gives citizens an opportunity to better support their families. Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
Barack Obama a Good President

One of the biggest and most-criticized Obama-backed reforms is the historic Affordable Care Act. Five presidents actually failed to create a health insurance plan that was not exorbitant and that Americans, across the aboard, could participate in. This year, more than 30-million Americans will finally gain access to quality and affordable healthcare insurance coverage. Former President George W. Bush could not do it, but our President did! After nine long and debilitating years in Iraq, 4,000 U.S. soldier deaths, and 32,000 U.S. troop injuries, the war that began in March 2003 under Bush"s watchful eye came to an end in December 2011. Obama had fulfilled one of his central campaign promises to end the war that he once referred to as "dumb," vowing at the time to bring the troops home under his administration. Osama Bin Laden was a dastardly terrorist who masterminded a devastating attack on these shores. The Al Qaeda terrorist group leader and the most-hunted man on the planet, who had eluded the CIA and the U.S. military for nearly a decade, was finally killed in May 2011. The defining moment in the American-led fight against terrorism that took place under Obama"s command gave further impetus to the President"s agenda of finally bringing the American troops home. Bin Laden"s demise came nearly 10 years after Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four American passenger jets on September 11, 2001, crashing three of them into the World Trade Center in New York City and the U.S. Pentagon outside Washington D.C. The fourth hijacked jet, United Flight 93, crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside after passengers fought the militants. Our president is one of the eco-friendliest we"ve had in power. Obama pushed federal agencies to become more eco-conscious. More than four years ago, he issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to make plans to curb their environmental impacts by 2020. Goals included a 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, 26 percent boost in water efficiency, and sustainability requirements for 95 percent on all federal contracts. Since the federal government is the country"s single biggest purchaser of goods and services, the push is very likely to have ripple effects throughout the economy for years to come. With his First Lady Michelle by his side, together, they fought the good fight of putting in place healthier school meals in an effort to wipe out childhood obesity. President Obama signed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010, mandating that $4.5 billion be allotted toward developing higher nutritional and health standards for this country"s children"s lunches. The bill meant that the amount of nutritional fruits and veggies are doubled and require that only whole grains in food be served to school-aged children. Source: http://newsone.com...
Series 1 Episode 3 : Heroin legalisation .

'You crazy man.' I would call this another light conduct violation . '.Heroin makes you jumpy and does the exact opposite of what you said.' Heroin doesn't work like meth it's an opiate it's similar in structure to morphine which is specifically used when the user is in pain , can you provide me a source that claims heroin makes you physically active and energetic? these are some of the things heroin does (From an anti-heroin website!) ( http://www.stopheroin.net...;) ' Heart, blood and circulation – Heroin slows down your circulation and heart rate. Heroin also increases the size of certain blood vessels (making you feel warm). Stomach – It depresses bowel activity, which can result in constipation. Heroin can make you feel sick, and first-time users often vomit. Lungs – Heroin suppresses your cough reflex and slows down your breathing, causing hyperventilation. This can put you at risk of lung disease. An overdose of heroin can cause respiratory failure and death. Nervous system – At higher doses, sedation takes over and you become drowsy. An excessive dose can produce stupor and coma, and possible death. Sexual organs – Heroin can cause irregular periods in women. In both men and women, it can make you lose interest in sex, and it affects your sexual performance. ' ' Your yahoo answers source is sooooo unreliable. ' I just used an anti-heroin website to prove that heroin calms you down . 'You say they are wonder drugs IF YOU DON"T OVERDOSE, but heroin users get so addicted they can not stop. ' Overdose would become much less common as users would buy from a regulated legal market , most heroin users overdose because they don't know the strength of the heroin they are about to inject . Addiction is a complex thing , you cannot get addicted after the first time that is scientifically impossible addiction is a result of continiously putting feel-good chemicals like dopamine (cocaine for example releases it) inside the users brain that it is tricked into thinking you need it . Estimates show about 23% of people who have used heroin become dependant on it , the amount of nicotine users who become addicted is over 30% . http://www.drugabuse.gov...; 'In 2011, 4.2 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 1.6 percent) had used heroin at least once in their lives. It is estimated that about 23 percent of individuals who use heroin become dependent on it. 'Heroin is bad END OF STORY.' Once again I have to remmind my opponent that this is not a debate about if heroin is good for you but if it should be legalised .
Series 1 Episode 3 : Heroin legalisation .

You crazy man.Heroin makes you jumpy and does the exact opposite of what you said. Your yahoo answers source is sooooo unreliable. Do you know how many people lie and just try to rip you off. You say they are wonder drugs IF YOU DON"T OVERDOSE, but heroin users get so addicted they can not stop. It may help with all the things you stated but then the user gets hooked because it is so addictive. So heroin makes you better than you are sick then you die. Heroin is bad END OF STORY.