BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ohio State is not just the best college football team now, but they are the best all-time

Since my opponent is not post and I have nothing to debate against I am going to use this 8 minutes to tell some jokes. Schools have come under pressure recently as a large number of students have been getting bad exam results. On the plus side pregnancy test results are at a all time high. There was a strike today at work! After waiting a long time finally someone turned up who actually knows how to play ten pin bowling. Knock Knock whose there? no one *
Ohio State is not just the best college football team now, but they are the best all-time

In the modern era of NCAA football (since 1946) the Oklahoma Sooners have the best record in the NCAA with a .718 winning percentage and a 606-185-13 record. The Oklahoma Sooners hold the NCAA football record for most consecutive wins in a row at 47 straight from 1953-1957 The Sooners are the number one team in the nation with 35- ten win seasons and 21 eleven win seasons. The Oklahoma Sooners have the fewest losing seasons in the nation with only 12 7 National Championships Only team in NCAA football to appear in all five of the BCS bowls Only program with four 100- win coaches
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1D

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, but I lament at the fact that he not argued for the existence of God at all. =====Arguments===== I won't go through every line because simply, 90% of it is gibberish. His "argument" is more of a conversation than actual argument. In fact, a close reading of my opponent's argument shows that he unwittingly CONCEDES THE DEBATE. "no one know who god is this debate is point less" ----> Then why the hell did you waste my time by accepting this open debate? "so think to your self is god real does god exist who is god those questions can't be answered" ----> Again, you shouldn't be debating "but its up to the person wheather god is real or not" ----> Truth is determined by the subjective mind of an individual? Interesting... =====Conclusion===== At most, my opponent's argument is a testament for agnosticism, and that's giving the benefit of the doubt to him. He has not shown any evidence or proof for the existence of God. A potentially good debate has unfortunately been ruined.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1D

ok i would like to thank you for this debate so does god exist of course god exists he is the creator of the world matter of fact he created everything the reason that god exists is not by he said she said but rather do you believe god is real the fact on life is that everyone thinks of a higher power we all really choose god some choose others but the majority of the issue is if god is real is he or is he not matter of fact no one can rather choose if god is real no one know who god is this debate is point less know if god even exist matter of fact god could be a girl no one knows i'm done debating this round i just wanted to point out a couple of thing this all really is just logic but its the true so think to your self is god real does god exist who is god those questions can't be answered and mabey they can be but its up to the person wheather god is real or not ty for this debate have a nice day =)
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1D

Note: the "1D" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com............ 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com............ 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Resolved: Morality (full resolution in debate first round)

Resolved: When forced to choose between two immoral actions, an individual is justified in choosing the choice that benefits them the most, even if it creates more harm to others.Burden of Proof: All on my Opponent. My Opponent must convincingly argue against the resolved, in accepting this, my Opponent acknowledges that to win all I have to do is refute his arguments, not post my own, and that I reserve the right of cross examination.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Jainism is one way of life that people can practice. With the Jains every action they take they consider life and its consequences and its moral consequences, just because the Jains do this does not mean that everyone practices their way of life this way. I agree that every action does have a consequence, but that consequence is not always going to be a moral consequence. Why else should an action have moral consequence to it if in the first place no one values life? To go with this, just because an action does not have a moral consequence does not mean the person doesn't value life. Many people go through times that are not pleasurable to them but they have to go through that pain to get to their ultimate pleasure. Just because they are going through a painful experience does not mean that they don"t value life. Valuing life and moral consequences are two different things. You give the example of eating breakfast in the morning and it is a morally wrong consequence if you do not eat breakfast to nourish yourself. That is not necessarily the case, what happens if a person is in a rush and they do not have the time to eat breakfast because they need to be somewhere else? Or if they just choose not to eat breakfast, they do not have a moral consequence to this situation. Every act has a consequence to it, but the consequence is not a moral consequence, there are no moral consequences for human actions.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Yes I do post these arguments to challenge your arguments that there is no possibility of human action without moral consequences. I have given examples of how there is possibility of human action without moral consequences. Going back to your example of a person smoking in a room of children, you state that they think it is okay to smoke a cigarette in a room full of children. You stated that there is a moral consequence to this act, what is this moral consequence? This is an example of where someone doesn't think about what they do before they do it, and he started smoking around children. Many times we have no choice but to go through pain in order to get to the ultimate pleasure we want. There will not always be moral consequences to what a person choses because a person is not always going to be happy and satisfied. Therefore, it is possible for human action without moral consequences.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Everything you have stated in your post below what do you base it on? as I quote: "A moral consequence is something that a person chooses that will make them feel the satisfaction of happiness. They do it to feel happier instead of feeling sad. I do believe that every cause has an effect, but the effect is not necessarily always going to be a moral effect. I believe that our actions do have consequences and every cause has an effect but it is not necessarily always going to be a moral consequence. There can be times when we do something and it does have a consequence to it but it is not a moral one. When you stated Mill and that a person makes an assessment in their brain as to whether the result they are going to obtain is good or bad I believe that there are often times that a person does not make an assessment in their brain about the action they are going to do, that they just do something without even assessing it. For example when a person is angry they may do something in the moment without even thinking about the consequence or result of what they are going to do, so this shows that Mill"s example that people already have made assessments in their brain before they do something is false. When you ask the question, why do we ever act in ways that would not satisfy our happiness/interest, it is because there may be times where we have no choice but to be stuck with an option that does not make us happy or does not satisfy our interest. For example there are many times when we don"t want to do something but we have no choice but to do it such as going to school or taking a specific class that we don"t like. These things don"t satisfy our happiness and don"t satisfy our interest but in order to get a degree and graduate we must go to school and take classes that do not make us happy and are not interesting to us. Continuing with Mill"s essay on Utilitarianism, one point you made was the process never escape their mind and whether right or wrong is not the issue, but it is the moral consequence that is determining if right or wrong comes after, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? If two people are in the same situation, one thing may be right for the one person but for the other person it may be wrong. Each person is different and each with have a different effect from their causes. There is no such thing as a moral consequence that is determining if something you do is right or wrong" perfect example is your post that I am reading right now; by you posting those statements it is an action that you have taken to challenge my argument so then what follows next? I say moral consequences....
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

A moral consequence is something that a person chooses that will make them feel the satisfaction of happiness. They do it to feel happier instead of feeling sad. I do believe that every cause has an effect, but the effect is not necessarily always going to be a moral effect. I believe that our actions do have consequences and every cause has an effect but it is not necessarily always going to be a moral consequence. There can be times when we do something and it does have a consequence to it but it is not a moral one. When you stated Mill and that a person makes an assessment in their brain as to whether the result they are going to obtain is good or bad I believe that there are often times that a person does not make an assessment in their brain about the action they are going to do, that they just do something without even assessing it. For example when a person is angry they may do something in the moment without even thinking about the consequence or result of what they are going to do, so this shows that Mill"s example that people already have made assessments in their brain before they do something is false. When you ask the question, why do we ever act in ways that would not satisfy our happiness/interest, it is because there may be times where we have no choice but to be stuck with an option that does not make us happy or does not satisfy our interest. For example there are many times when we don"t want to do something but we have no choice but to do it such as going to school or taking a specific class that we don"t like. These things don"t satisfy our happiness and don"t satisfy our interest but in order to get a degree and graduate we must go to school and take classes that do not make us happy and are not interesting to us. Continuing with Mill"s essay on Utilitarianism, one point you made was the process never escape their mind and whether right or wrong is not the issue, but it is the moral consequence that is determining if right or wrong comes after, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? If two people are in the same situation, one thing may be right for the one person but for the other person it may be wrong. Each person is different and each with have a different effect from their causes. There is no such thing as a moral consequence that is determining if something you do is right or wrong.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I will argue that there is possibility for human action without moral consequences. There are times that people may believe that there is a relation between an act you have which will lead to a consequence, but that is not always the case. People relate their pain and pleasure with moral consequences but sometimes we have to go through pain in order to get pleasure and there is no moral consequence for that. 1.At times in order to get pleasure we must go through pain 2.The Hedonistic Clause is an example of the steps a person must go through 3.The things we do can sometimes affect those around us but also can not affect those around us. 4.While making of choices it is important to think about others around us, number seven in the Hedonistic Clause. 5.Making a choice about something is not always necessarily going to have a moral consequence. 6.Therefore, there are no moral consequences for human action. Going with your statement about Betham and the principle of utility, he shows the relationship called the Hedonistic Clause. In this he does show that there is not always a moral consequence for human action. People do think about their happiness and think about what is going to cause them pain and pleasure but sometimes they have to go through pain to get to that pleasure, it is not always going to be a easy thing where they receive pleasure all the time. The stages in the Hedonistic Clause show what a person goes through when considering on how to get to their pain or pleasure but you stated that they do not think about others but number seven in this hedonistic clause is about how many other people will be affected by their pain or pleasure. Also, if a person does not have any morals then it is impossible for their actions to have moral consequences. In the end we are going to do what makes us happy and do what brings us the most pleasure. The thing that we do can have an effect of others but it does not have to be a moral effect.
The united states of america was founded under christian values.

I hope you forfeited the last round because you were busy. I'm a bit busy, so I'll just close my arguments. Anyways the arguments I have presented for Pro were: Article 11 of the treaty of tripoli The constitution 1st amendment The letter to touro synagogue Adam's diary in feb. of 1756 2 Cor. 6:14-17 This was a fun debate that, unfortunately, due to the standardized testing and getting ready for finals, I couldn't go into much detail into. I hope I convinced someone out there my position. Retro OUT
The united states of america was founded under christian values.

Uhh dude, First of all, your pro. Secondly, the bible says, and I quote "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." Basically, shun the non-Christians. (2 Cor.6:14-17) That makes non-Christians second class, if you want a true Christian nation. But I digress. John Locke doesn't say "anyone who doesn't believe in the enlightenment should be shunned"! Also, the idea of religious liberty has a name: secularism. Sorry about this being short as well, the darn math portion of our standardized test was delayed til now, so I had to get busy with that.
The united states of america was founded under christian values.

So next is the obvious "why isn't it in the constitution"? Since it's consistently uses, you probably know all forms of the argument. Anyways moving on from that. .. Key founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the mixing of church and state. Madison and other founders frequently wrote about the dangers of government adopting religion. They were aware of the history and people who were persecuted for not being that nations religion. The myth that America is a "Christian nation" is not only untrue, but promotes the pernicious idea that non-Christians are second-class citizens. Washington is the author of one of the great classics of religious liberty"the letter to Touro Synagogue (1790). In this letter, Washington assures America"s Jews that they would enjoy complete religious liberty"not mere toleration"in the new nation. He outlines a vision not of a Christian nation but of a multi-faith society where all are free to practice as they will. You can read it here . http://www.tourosynagogue.org... In February of 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus. When questioned on the matter, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for human understanding. Adams was not impressed. In his diary he writes, "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity. " So there is the first instance of a founding father being openly HOSTILE on religion. My source: . http://www.alternet.org...
The united states of america was founded under christian values.

My first piece of evidence is this quote from article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli 1797: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...". This quote explicitly states my point and was signed by the founding fathers! Here is the rest of the treaty for context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu... I apologies for not showing much evidence in the second round. I got busy with a standardized state test.
Censorship

No, it is not Constitutional not to bring an AK47 to school; it is illegal if you use that with bloodlust on small children. Also, the only reason I brought up the whole religious argument was for liability reasons, as stated. Whatever your expression is, it is your right to practice it, so long as it is peaceful. When churches protest "God Hates F*****s," it is completely constitutional for them to do so, as long as they are not pointing a gun at someone's head, saying, "This is true, right? I'll shoot you if you don't believe this is true." Their right is completely protected, and whether or not it should be is, as said, protected in the First Amendment. On the concern of employment, I find that irrelevant. I'm not talking about the right to fire or not hire people, I'm talking about the right of expression. (However, I believe privately owned businesses have all the rights to; it would be trouble if you walk into a McDonald's wanting to get a job, but they won't hire you because your black, Asian, or gay.) I also deem rating systems unconstitutional, because they're prohibiting, again, freedom of speech and expression. When it comes to television, if you don't want your kid to see something, then don't let them watch it. You seem to know what they show on the news, so with that basis, if you don't approve of it, don't let your kid watch it. My belief is that the FCC, and the MPAA are prohibiting the First Amendment. Oh, and thank you for accepting my argument.
Censorship

Yes Censorship is unconstitutional, but do you know what else is? Not allowing me to bring an AK-47 to a Middle School class room (look at the 2nd Amendment). But just because its "unconstitutional" doesn't mean we should be allowed to do it. Do you think West Bureau Baptist Church should be allowed to protest peoples funerals holding signs saying "Your Son Deserved to Die" or "God Sends Gays to Hell"? it's unconstitutional to tell them not to, but should they really have the right. What about employers not hiring people because of their race or sex. Is it not their constitutional freedom to hire whoever they want? If you look in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they both state how the laws are suppose to be altered throughout the times so we passed laws saying that a kids show can't say "f### her in the a##" or "kill that mother f###" even if it has no sexual or violent content. Also censorship has become almost non existent thanks to rating systems that deem content for everyone to mature content. And to comment on your arguments above, its not a religious or Christian debate for censorship. Its a debate to not show the bloodied corpse of a dead hooker on the day time news; a debate on whether a parent wants their kids to see some content and the privacy all of us deserve in life or death
Censorship

I will be taking the position Con of Censorship. You may have to sign into youtube to watch this video, as it is rated MA. http://www.youtube.com... My beginning argument on this case is that censorship is unconstitutional. If you noticed my most recent debate (on Separation/Church/State), the First Amendment says that there is a right to freedom of speech, and the freedom of press. Now, before I go into this, I want to talk about that. My father always argues with me on the meaning of this. He always says that the Constitution was written with the word of God in mind, so the Founding Fathers wouldn't protect profane words, because the Bible says to control your speech and don't speak profane things. The reason I bring this up is for liability in my case. As I said, if you saw my recent debate, you'll notice how I went into the First Amendment's first clause in historical terms. The freedom of speech and press, I do believe, was indeed written with the word of God in mind, as religion (I believe) was the sole basis of the revolt in Europe. To say that the Founding Fathers would disapprove of "profane language" due to the Word of God while writing the First Amendment wouldn't make any sense, because they just assured that there would be no establishing of religion. So, to not protect profanity because of religious purposes would kick the First Amendment in the rear. (After all, in the fifth definition of "Profane" according to http://dictionary.reference.com..., is common or vulgar. And I'm sure our own Fathers weren't so perfect in their speech.) So, back to the initial argument, censorship is prohibition of free speech and press, thus violates the Constitution. In the way I see "press" is of course, and obviously, newspapers, but it can cover magazines and other forms of public communication. And since the Fathers designed the Constitution with the ability to withstand times of change, it can only be ethical to say that "press" can constitute television, radio, movies, et cetera, et cetera. I hope I will have fun, as well as whoever debates me.