BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Redemption By Christ Gives License to Sin

My opponent has made a very good argument and this will be tough to follow, they sound like they know the Bible well. I am a 13 year old Christian (Brethren) who doesn't know as much about the Bible as I could, but I will try my best "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3 v 16. This shows us that that God sent his son to die for us. To die for me, to die for you, to die for my English teacher. "...should not perish, but have everlasting life." this tells us that the Lord came down for us and dies on the cross for us and that is we accept him into our hearts that we would not die, we would not perish, but that we would live forever one we die. No, being saved does not give us as humans the right to go and murder, or commit adultery. Even if we do, do these things, God will not take away the privilege of heaven away from us. Jesus died for us once, we only have to do one thing to be able to go to heaven. We have to take him as our own and let him be inside our hearts. If we, as humans do that one thing, then we will be able to live our lives knowing that if the Lords comes today, we will be ready, waiting for him with open arms. We don't have to go to church, we don't have to pray everyday, we don't have to give money to the church to be saved or to "stay" saved we need to say one prayer and that's it. It is good if you do pray every day and go to church every Sunday or give money to the church, but it is not necessary. No minister or priest can save you. your Sunday school teacher can't save you. You and you alone are the only thing that will save you. Verse from John ch 3 v 16, King James Version (Authorised).
Contrary to popular belief, strategy is important in the game of rock paper scissors.

In addition, I would ask that people only vote if they actually read the debate and vote based on who won this debate rather than what they already believe. With that said, let us proceed. In this debate, I shall only begin with one argument. >>> 1) It is most likely NOT IN FACT CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF THAT STRATEGY IS OF NO IMPORTANCE in the game of rock/paper scissors. First, I would like my opponent to provide some decisive evidence which would show that his claim concerning "popular belief" is in fact correct. Since he made the claim, the burden of proof belongs to him. If he fails to do so, you have no reason to accept his claim, thus should dismiss it, thus should vote CON without any hesitation. Second, although I don't have to, I shall go ahead and provide evidence to show that this claim is most likely incorrect. Exhibit A: . http://www.worldrps.com... This is often titled as "The Official Rock Paper Scissors" website. Here, we see that tournaments are ran on this game as well as a plethora of actual strategies to employ as well as statistical data concerning the game. In fact, there are even world championships hosted for this game. Surely given all of the above info, it is most likely not CONTRARY to popular belief that strategy is important or else this game wouldn't be played competitively via nation/world tournaments. We must keep in mind that a tournament is a test of skill, not luck. Like games such as blackjack and poker, there must be some luck in the game, but for the most part, strategy is what is very important according to popular belief, hence why such games at recognized as a international or world wide SPORT. >>>2) Putting popular belief aside, strategy may or may not be important depending on the intent of the game. If players are simply trying to use the game to make a decision at random, then no, strategy is not important as players have the intent of letting the decision be random. For instance, let us say that two indecisive individuals are trying to determine whether or not they should eat at McDonalds or Burger King. While player Rock-paper-scissors, strategy will not be important here as neither player is necessarily trying to win, but rather simply using the games as a means of making a decision. The above arguments may need some elaboration depending on my opponent's rebuttal. But yeah, that'll do it for now.
Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality

I think we may be getting into a confusing mess of terms here. "Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality" is equivalent to "If you fear punishment, then you are moral.". However, it is not equivalent to "One is moral iff they are afraid of punishment.". The topic would have to be "Fear of punishment is necessary to explain morality" for this to be true." I described a type of person for which fear of punishment may be the only thing preventing them from acting immorally. For such a person, fear of punishment is enough to explain why they act morally. I also explained a more generalized system which accounts for people who act morally because of an internal desire to be a certain type of person. Punishment and pain are not equivalent. The fear of not being a part of the "acceptable persons" group is a pain, but is it a punishment? (the classification problem rears its ugly head once again) Let's consider the act of touching a hot stove. It will cause pain, and the pain is a result of the action. I don't consider this to be a form of punishment, though, because it is the action that causes the pain, not an external agent. Now let's consider an example that we'd both agree is punishment. A child smacks his younger sister, and his mother grounds him for a week. Here, there is an intelligent agent who classifies an action as good or bad and inflicts a pain on the acting agent. It is difficult, but not impossible, for a person to punish him or herself. If a dieter slips up and has an extra slice of pie, they might choose to punish themselves but denying themselves any dessert for a week. Although the punishing agent and the acting agent are the same, the punishment is distinct from the action. I explained that we are naturally inclined to feel pleasure in being part of a significant group and pain in being expelled from it. Performing an immoral action directly causes one to be somewhat or completely removed from the "acceptable person" group, which directly causes pain. Hence it is more like touching a hot stove than being grounded for taking the heads of your sister's barbie dolls.
Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality

Wow. Once again, I took way too long. Also, I am on vacation in Arizona right now, so my access to my computer might be somewhat sporadic. So, don't expect immediate arguments. In our brains, we have a kluge that it builds upon itself instead of changing. As a result, we still have a very strong egocentrism. Based on society today, it seems like our brains would be better suited to serve others before ourself, and some do, to some extent. However, the human brain is specifically formed for survival first and foremost, and survival often equates to greed. In modern times, the greed is for a happy life and a good reputation. Some feel that more than others, but everyone feels it to some extent. Now, the punishment, whether intrinsic, extrinsic, or spiritual, will make their life (or perhaps death) less happy, and doing bad stuff will hurt their reputation. People hate that, and if you are of sound mind, it will cause you intrinsic suffering, which equates to a punishment. Often, the contrapositive (If you aren't so great at geometry, converse of inverse; always same truth value as original) of a conditional statement makes it more clear or disproves it entirely. However, we must first get the subject in conditional form. We have "fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality." As a conditional statement, that would be, "If one is afraid of punishment, they are moral." However, it is an interesting case, because you wrote "is sufficient," making it a biconditional statement (dear god, my geometry terms are bamboozling even the spell check. I need help). That would make it, "One is moral iff (if and only if) they are afraid of punishment." since it is biconditional, any of the four basic forms are true (Inverse, converse, contrapositive, and original). Let's test a few out. "One is immoral iff they aren't afraid of punishment." Well, I might as well get the hard ones out of the way first. Obviously this is purely hypothetical, as nobody of sound mind can be completely unafraid of punishment. But, to explain it, If you don't care about any forms of punishment, and by extension, reward, you will still satisfy the greed factor, so you will not be moral. But, again that is really hypothetical there. Now, let's switch it around again. Try, "One is afraid of punishment iff they are moral." Everyone is afraid of punishment, to some extent, but if they are moral, they definitely favor the alternative over the punishment. I am excited to read your rebuttal.
Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality

Wow. I'm REALLY sorry that took so long. It was completely my fault. Anyhow, I think my saving grace in this debate will be the fact that any time you are offered a reward for ding something, and then you don't do it, your punishment is that you do not get the reward. My other saving grace will be that remorse is also punishment. That could well result from "man-made" evolution, so to speak. In other words, the homo erectus probably didn't care much about right and wrong, and felt no remorse. However, as civilization grew, and especially harsher penalties, those who didn't like the feeling of remorse were taken away, killed, imprisoned for life, castrated, you name it, but anyway, they couldn't have children, so that trait ultimately died out, at least for the most part. Back to the argument. Anyway, there are 3 types of reinforcement: Positive (reward), Negative (punishment), and intrinsic (conscience). However, without reward, there can't exist punishment, and vice versa, and conscience speaks for itself. Every single thing you do in life is influenced by all three reinforcements (to some extent), and whichever one the subject feels is strongest is usually what they follow. I am excited to hear your argument, as I'm sure it will be very good.
Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality

The question of this debate is: Why should anyone even try to be moral? Any other time you use the word "should", it is implied that the action will result in something desirable. "You should exercise three times a week [because that will help you stay healthy]". Even if the person agrees that the sentence is true, he or she only needs to follow this advice if they actually want the result. When talking about morals, however, the implication is suspiciously absent. "You should not kill." Why? One rational answer is the fear of punishment. At the scale of person to person, we don't cross one another because we fear they might reciprocate the action (a derivative of the Golden Rule). At the scale of the state, we don't cross the laws because we fear imprisonment, or worse. At the scale of the spiritual, we don't cross laws because we fear we will be punished by a higher power. In this debate, I will argue that fear of punishment is NOT a sufficient explanation for why anyone would prefer to act morally. I won't deny that there do exist some people who only refrain from theft and murder because they'd rather not go to jail, though. Despite my stance as CON, I am giving myself the burden of proof. I framed the debate this way in order to avoid a pesky double negative.
Poverty reduction is the only way to ensure economic solvency

This is a Socialist idea, and it's a complete false assessment. "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill "The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build." -Margaret Thatcher -- This concept is demonstrated in the following example: If a class in school handed out grades by a Socialist ruling, a student could make a 100% in the class, but wind up with a 63% percent per Socialism. Thus, the next time, the student who got the 100% doesn't try as hard, and gets say, a 59% on the test, but because those getting lesser grades the first time decided to work a little harder, he gets a 65% in the class. He did better by doing less. Now, he does about the same and the ones who worked harder the second time think, "hey, I got about the same grade as the first time when I did nothing. So now, both do very little and all students get a 45%. So now, nobody has a good grade. It's the equal sharing of misery by default of hard work not being rewarded. -- Pro offers us a model that uses magical thinking to assume you can wave a wand and eradicate poverty. It's not reality. Here is reality 101. You go to a poverty stricken area and give each person $500. Many use the $500 to buy drugs, go to the movies, go out to eat at a nicer restaurant, take a trip, etc. Since they have little, drugs enduced reality vs poverty reality wins many times. Many splurge the money just to feel like they have something that resembles a life. And...their economic situation has not improved. The money simply goes back to the rich. Would some save it? Yes. Enough to affect the economy? No. And if they all did save it by a miracle, the prices would now simply go up because everyone now has more. Now we are back where we started. -- What it would take is a legaly bound service. And I don't mean simply giving them a foodstamp card. Many people in poverty trade food stamp items for drugs and drugs for foodstamp items. This is defeating as far as the economy goes. There would be a community building where people could go with the card. You would go in with your card and be able to purchase one meals' worth of food, and no food could be taken out of the facility. In other words you must eat it there. Security measures would be in place to check you. If you violated the rule and were caught 3 times, your card would be revoked. The same with bills. If you had a bill, you would go in, they would apply the allotted amount to your bill, and no money or goods would trade hands, only a transaction. Those wishing to donate to help you could look on a board of people needing help and apply however much to the person needing helps' bill. The system would be set up so that people needing help could advertise their issue in a way available for all unpoverished people to see to help. It would show a copy of the bill and needs, and they could deligate however much they want to individuals and families. The person and family could choose to be anonymous or open. The donater could do the same.
Poverty reduction is the only way to ensure economic solvency

Well, what is the economic solvency? It means where there is nothing to worry about your economy. But when you are in such a condition of poverty, that means you have a lot of things to worry about. You will face shelter problem, food problem, blah blah blah..., won't you? So simply it can be asserted that to get rid of the above problems poverty-reduction is the only way,isn't it? So whoever you be, I expect anything more and more easier than poverty reduction from you. Please fill my expectation.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!!!

Let me first begin by defining recreational drugs: Recreational drugs, which wikipedia has defined as those which have no "work, medical, or spiritual purpose". . http://en.wikipedia.org... I agree with nearly all my opponent's contentions, complete prohibition is doing more harm than good. However, the answer is *not* as my opponent contends, to legalize ALL recreational drugs. While my opponent's points were pretty much on the mark, he did forget one important thing: Drug addicts. Whereas he addressed nearly all the social aspects of drug use, he has conveniently glossed over the worst part, which is how people, after periods of drug use, become physically and psychologically dependent on these drugs and require larger and larger doses in order to obtain satisfaction. Although most of those other nasty things my opponent spoke about would certainly drop, the amount of drug addicts would skyrocket, purely from use. My method for this is simply to have the FDA rank drugs based on addictiveness both physical and psychological. All types of drugs that are highly physical and/or psychologically addictive should remain illegal to own, use, produce, sell, or buy. Making sure that the most highly addictive recreational drugs stay illegal would hamper their usage, and when paired with the legalization of many other drugs, would offer a good supply of other things to provide a high that will contribute to the overall health of society. Thus, I must negate my opponent's contention in that SOME drugs should always remain illegal. I await my opponent's response.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!!!

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by submitting, as his or her response, the phrase "Thank you for this debate" repeatedly until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!!!

It is unfortunate that my opponent was unable to reply in this round, I do hope he will be able to make a final argument, it has been a stimulating debate. This will be my final post (because I chose the Pro side), so to recap my arguments thus far: 1. Because people have legitimate exclusive control over their own bodies, it is their right to do with it whatever they wish so long as they do not violate the rights of others. 2. Prohibition drives the trade to the black market, changing it from the realm of legitimate businessmen to that of gangsters, dramatically increasing the violence involved. 3. Prohibition drives the trade to the black market, making quality a non-concern of the sellers. 4. Prohibition, because it causes sellers to go underground and largely shift from legitimate businessmen to gangsters, is a financial boon to gangs, the mafia, and other criminal elements of society. 5. Prohibition clogs up our prisons with non-violent criminals and makes them into violent criminals. It is important to note that all of the above points are not disputed by my opponent, rather, he took the route of arguing that the harms of drug use on the user are extreme enough to warrant prohibition. I responded with the following points: 1. This is an irrelevant point unless my opponent wishes to dispute the idea that people legitimately have exclusive control over their bodies. 2. There is no evidence to support the claim that drug use would rise after legalization and there is some evidence that points to the conclusion that it would in fact fall. 3. Many of the dangers of drugs are a result of prohibition in the first place, and when legalized, drugs will become safer. In conclusion, from both a rights-perspective and a consequentialist-perspective, it is clear that all recreational drugs ought to be legalized. As a clarifying endnote for those who may be confused, although I argued Pro in the actual debate, because of the way the debate was structured in terms of debate.
Tom Hiddleston's voice is more attractive than Morgan Freeman's

I would like to start by saying that while most of the things you have said may be true in their entirety. it does not defeat my argument in saying that Tom Hiddleston has the more attractive voice. Even if its for just a little while for some or loses its effect. They say a woman decides a mans romantic fate with her subliminally during their first encounter. I believe Tom Hiddleston's voice has an unmatched initial allure. Though unrelated to my argument, i disagree also with your statement regarding the dulling of Tom's voice over time. Though i haven't tried, I assume I could listen to it and not become bored. The same can be said for Morgan Freeman as well.
Tom Hiddleston's voice is more attractive than Morgan Freeman's

It depends who you ask. Morgan Freeman has a voice that makes you want to learn more, and gives you a sense of curiosity(Thus why he narrates many movies.) I don't really like voices that sound as smooth as a babies bottom because they bore me after a while. Both men have good voices, but Freemans has more of a sound that can tell you a story with personality. And my bad, I didn't read every word you said, not everyone is perfect. Surely you make stupid mistakes yourself.
Tom Hiddleston's voice is more attractive than Morgan Freeman's

My base argument in the most heterosexual way possible is that the voice of Tom Hiddleston's Loki sounds and feels like a warm breeze sugarcoated with a thousand peddles of flowers from the greatest tree in Narnia. where as the voice Morgan Freeman resembles that of a culmination of raspy ohhhmmms from forty Hindu monks. the latter being the less enjoyable listening experience by not much but with tom's still taking the lead.
Premarital Sex

You're very welcome and thank you again for starting this debate.ArgumentsLike I have stated in my previous debate, sex has more to do with relationships more than people think. If you're not sexually satisfied, then you're not going to be happy with your sex life. That does INDEED hurt marriages. Yes, talking to them can be also be a good way. I have never stated having sex to know your partner is needed. I have stated it brings you closer to them. You can know your partner without having sex. And again as for the bible, not everyone will believe in it. We must respect that and some people will not consider the bible a fact as you do. It is their life and if they wish to have sex with their partner, which I will state is legal of age, then why should we stop them? I have stated sources that debunks your statements. Rebuttals "There are porn stories online and porn pictures if little girls."-How is child pornography relevant in this debate? Also, you have never used the sources about the stories. "I don't have anything to prove, except for the biblical facts"-Again, some people consider the bible fiction instead of facts and we must respect ones stance on religion and views. "I'm only 13"-I can understand your young age, but this not relevant. I believe 13 year can perform great debates.Summary The main points of this debate was premarital sex, and how CON thinks it is wrong. I have pointed out the facts, and used the sources to prove my points. Premarital sex can benefit you. Being married and not knowing about your partners sexual performance can hurt the marriage. Marriages can indeed fall apart over sexual dysfunction. Like I have stated, sex does have more to do with relationships than people think. I will provide the source below. Conclusion In conclusion to this debate, premarital sex is beneficial. It provides more love, and more excitement in the the relationship with one and another. I provided evidence and sources to prove my debate. I would like to again thank CON for starting this debate. I would also like to wish him the best of luck. Source: https://www.google.com...