BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All religion is wrong yet also correct. What if the real religion of God is seen by looking at all.

There is a famous quote from the great Atheist and a great hero of mine, Christopher Hitchens who said "A claim brought forth without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence." This axiom applies to essentially all of your arguments. They are brought forth with no or minimal evidence and therefore can be dismissed with no or minimal evidence. Point 1: What if they are? There is no evidence that any of these gods have ever existed (I personally doubt that any of them have ever existed). Why would all of them exist? What is the upside of that? Point 2: The 10 Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path are mutually exclusive, or if not mutually exclusive are at least quite disjoint. The Noble Eightfold Path talks about giving things up, practicing meditation, not giving in to gluttony, giving up all sexual acts, and being conscious of all that is around you. The 10 commandments mentions none of these things. They don't seem to be particularly related. If the 10 Commandments are the rules for the Eightfold Path then I think we have the wrong Eightfold path. Point 3: This is easy to answer. They are extremely related because they are from the same area where there are the same principles and many of the same beliefs. Note how the two symmetric religions were formed in bordering countries a 10 hour drive away from each other instead of on different continents. Point 4: This is possible I suppose but once again there is no evidence for it. The problem is that there is no evidence and no special coincidences or points which serve to connect the religions you are talking about. You need to ask yourself: 1. What would the upside of god manifesting himself to all these different peoples in different forms thereby creating a lack of unity which would cause endless problems and hundreds of thousands of deaths? 2. Is there even the slightest vestige evidence of these religions being connected? Also in your connections I can really hear your Christian influence (not that this is necessarily a bad thing). You have generally used Christianity as a starting point and then tried to connect all of the other religions. I would recommend, if you are going to try and form a religion based upon many different religions to be a little more open-minded and try starting with a different religion as a starting point. Thanks and good luck to my opponent.
All religion is wrong yet also correct. What if the real religion of God is seen by looking at all.

Thank you batman01 for choosing my debate. Also this is my first debate so it might be a little sporadic. So point 1. Forms of power. In the bible it is said that the devil took the form of a snake to deceive Adam and Eve, it also says that God is the holy trinity. So my connection is God has 3 "forms" what if God also took the form of the different gods in Greek mythology, or took the for of Brahman, in Hinduism, and his many forms to show his power to others. So what I'm getting at in this point is maybe the bible is the start and Greek mythology and Hinduism are parts along the way. Point 2. Jesus and Budda. Both important people in their religions, what if they are the same person under two names. What if Budda is Jesus trying to connect with his people, and then later on tried to reveal him self and it didn't quiet work out the way he planned (this goes into another philosophy I have about God having more than one plan to get us somewhere, and since we've been deceived by the devil that even we surprise him, but that a whole other thing). Also what if the Ten Commandments, of Christianity, are the rules for the eight folds paths, Buddism. Point 3. Islamic and Christianity. Both believe in One God, and in believe in hell. Both believe that there is a Holy Book, Bible and the Qur'an. Belief in prayer, and declaration of faith. Both have a place of worship Church and Mosques. Point 4. Christianity and Judaism. Well Christianity has the same bible just with the New Testament added on, and what if Jesus was just a prophet of God. Let's think about this it is said that God created the universe and everything in it, so if you look at that and think where the devil did the devil come from. Well God created him, and what if he created Jesus. A yin yang situation, and the bad in side the good is the forbidden tree in the garden, and good inside the bad is Jesus went through hell. So I say Jesus is a prophet of God, his most trusted creation and that he is like a son to him. This is just connecting the top religions of the world that I have thought about and connected, given I am a Christian so I can not at this moment in time connect them all to each other so I have connected them to one religion.
All religion is wrong yet also correct. What if the real religion of God is seen by looking at all.

My argument is that what if all the religions of the world are connected. What if they are all just pieces of God. Maybe each section of religion is a different piece of the whole. As in God showed others different religions as a test to see if we are all ready for the bigger picture? Pro is agree with me con is against. Plz let's have a nice calm debate. I look forward to it. Anyone who wants to leave a comment due to the fact they couldn't challenge this cuz it was taken plz do.
Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting

This is a Round One debate in Subutai's "Revive DDO Tournament." I think I speak for both of us when I say we are honored and excited to be participating. Round One will be for acceptance only. Some important information--as well as our rulebook for the round--are both listed below. Topic: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Information: We ask that only judges that are officially part of the tournament cast votes on this debate; however, we would appreciate comments and feedback from all users. Please keep an open mind as you judge the debate. Thank you! Rules: 1. Round Two will only be for constructive arguments; no rebuttals should be offered at this time. 2. Rounds Three and Four will be rebuttal rounds. 3. No new arguments should be offered in the final round (Round Four.) 4. BOP will be shared. 5. Both debaters are free to offer and to contest definitions. I am happily anticipating a high-quality debate, and I must also extend our joint thanks to Subutai for coordinating this. Once Con's acceptance is forthcoming, the debate shall begin!
Yu-Gi-Oh! is better than Pokemon.

Yu-Gi-Oh! has always been better than Pokemon. Section 1: Pokemon cards can't hold a candle to the way YGO cards. The YGO cards look like pure awesomeness, and are much more powerful. Like Exodia for instance. In the forum post down below this section, the writer says that having all 5 pieces of Exodia made you the "cool kid", the one all other duelists looked up to and wanted to rob. He also said that being able to draw all 5 pieces was like getting an extra chicken nugget in your happy meal, or watching Goku go Super Saiyan for the first time. Nothing in Pokemon has ever given anyone that feeling, because they don't have any cards similar to that. Unlike YGO, Pokemon doesn't have a lot of ultra rare, super rare, or normal cards that are really good but really hard to find. Every card in Pokemon is super common and extremely easy to get a hold of. But in YGO, people will spend long periods of time looking for a certain card, or set of cards, to "complete" their deck. Like me, for instance, I've been looking for the Melodious Fusions, and once I get them, I'll feel really good, like I have a very powerful unbeatable deck (until I get defeated lol). Pokemon players, don't get that feeling. They don't know what its like, and probably never will. . http://www.complex.com... Section 2: In this Forum on Yahoo Answers, just about everyone picks Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon, and they bring up some good points. The YGO card game requires strategy unlike Pokemon, and the show is much better as well. This is clearly plain to see. The Pokemon show is just like the Elder Scrolls series. Sure its full of adventure, but it's literally the same thing over and over again, with no character development and no improvement in the story line at all. In Yu-Gi-Oh on the other hand, the characters are always being developed and there's always something new going on. The only thing that's really repetitive in YGO, is Kaiba's constant desire to finally beat Yugi. . https://answers.yahoo.com... Section 3: And then there's this section. This is another Yahoo Answers Forum, where everyone picks YGO over Pokemon. They either have YGO in first or second place with Pokemon always in third. . https://answers.yahoo.com... Conclusion: The people have practically spoken for me. Yu-Gi-Oh is better than Pokemon. Hands down. But out of respect for those who manage to find a use for those other wise useless cards that are the Pokemon cards, at the end of the day. We'll all enjoy playing the games that we do, and no one can take that away from us.
Feminism is Cancer- rapid debate!

I'm typing as fast as I possibly can, because you only gave me 5 minutes to answer. DISCLAIMER: I actually agree with Pro, but I'm arguing for argument's sake. Definitions, since Pro didn't put any: - Third-wave feminism: Feminism that started in the early 21st century that dealt with women's portrayal in society and media. - Cancer: Repulsive, detrimental to society Let's start the debate, shall we?
The DDO member known as "Lexus" has trolled a substantially large number of members.

"Derp"? "Derp". That's your response. You're a weak man. You're nothing. You're so intellectually inferior that you cannot even articulate a semi-coherent sentence, and instead feel the need to resort to pathetic monosyllabic terms, like "derp." You need to go. You would be better off quitting whatever feeble excuse of a day job you have, and investing in $6000 worth of lottery tickets. This is just tragic. You open this debate like an insecure bully, directly attacking another member of this humble website, and naming him a troll. You truly are a shocking case. What horror did you have to worm your way through in some past life to be this awful to the world? What did poor Lexus ever do to you? You would waste your time and intellect (although there is very little of it) by censuring and bullying a person you have never even met. You are the lowest of the low. You are the scum at the base of the earth's pits. I see now that you are 18 years of age. What are you doing with your life? I honestly hope no serial murderers have taken you in as their apprentice yet. You still have a chance to turn this all around. You just need to get out of the abuse game and pick yourself up. Step out of your mother's basement and into the light. You can do it. I know you can. Fool.
The DDO member known as "Lexus" has trolled a substantially large number of members.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Presents a list of victims with evidence of the trollingRound 2 Con: RebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4 Pro: Final RebuttalRound 4 Con: Waives round (To be fair, since Pro has the 100% Burden of proof)Resolution: There is a substantially large number of cases in which the DDO Member know as "Lexus" (whose profile link is give in Round 1) has trolled other members on this site.Profile Link: http://www.debate.org...Burden of Proof: Pro, Innocent until proven guilty.Definitions:Substantially Large: 3 or more people (Not just 3 instances to one person)DDO: Debate.orgMember: A person whom belongs to a groupTrolled: Deliberately trying to make one upset, attempting to change the intended topic to something else, or using sketchy practices to win a debateSketchy: Not ethical, unfairRules: 1. If you are Lexus or are an alternate account of Lexus, YOU MAY NOT ACCEPT. After just having one debate with you, I know ever allowing you to accept one of my debates would just result in the topic changing to something completely irrelevant.2. The definitions presented here are UNDISPUTABLE. Any definitions presented afterwards are all debatable.3. You must follow the debate structure as represented at the top of Round 1.4. Breaking of any rules results in immediate loss.If you feel as though Lexus has not commited the crime that I am about to argue she did, please except.
Legalizing Drugs

……………………………………..________ ………………………………,.-‘"………………."~., ………………………..,.-"…………………………….."-., …………………….,/………………………………………..":, …………………,?………………………………………………\, ………………./…………………………………………………..,} ……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..} ……………/……………………………………………,:"………/ …………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../ …………./__.(….."~-,_…………………………,:`………./ ………../(_…."~,_…….."~,_………………..,:`…….._/ ……….{.._$;_……"=,_……."-,_…….,.-~-,},.~";/….} ………..((…..*~_……."=-._……";,,./`…./"…………../ …,,,___.\`~,……"~.,………………..`…..}…………../ …………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-" …………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__ ,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-, …..`=~-,_\_……`\,…………………………………………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__ ……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==" …………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&``................`l
Legalizing Drugs

Legalizing drugs is seen by both users and non-users of illegal substances as a way to deal with the problems they cause or to simply allow people to give themselves more freedom of action. However, it is for the greater good of people that governments must and should regulate this substances. It is well known for decades the many effects that the use of drugs cause and that is the reason for their banishment. The legalization of drugs would bring many bad consequences that we must avoid at all costs. Among them we can highlight: 1. The irreversible demand of drugs generated. If you look at the search for cigarettes and alcohol we see today, as a way for human beings to seek comfort, you can observe that a part of this demand would develop to a search for stronger drugs that would harm individuals. Demand generated for something as powerful as the current illegal drugs is dangerous. 2. The preservation of public health. As a way to avoid harm to the whole society, the society itself walked, along the time, toward better health conditions. Due to this research field, we have today sanitation and hygiene. For health purposes we also have some environmental laws and we are constantly verifying the conditions of establishments that provide food. The prohibition of drugs is also a matter of public health. It was decided to ban this substances (among other reasons) because cause diseases, damages to the brain, dependence and death. 3. The way to stop the leak is not to destroy the whole dam. It is well understood that drugs make their way to the society either they are or not legal and that this reach is a problem. We can not act towards this by simply allowing, as the fight goes much deeper. Education and strong law enforcement are a better way to the health and safety to the society. 4. Illegal drugs will become a product. Cigarettes and alcohol are well known to the harm they already cause, ranging from violent behavior, addiction, cause of diseases such as lung cancer and cirrhosis. This drugs are not as strong as the illegal ones, and is presumable that the harm that the banned ones would cause, if consumed as the currently legal ones, is enormous. Illegal drugs would be promoted, wide spread, part of the public consciousness. The access to them is a harm yet to be seen.
Legalizing Drugs

Last time I tried to debate this, my opponent forfeited before finishing the debate. Please only accept this debate if you are going to finish it. My position is that all illegal drugs should be legalized. I'll post arguments supporting this in the next three posts. Definitions: Illegal- Currently banned under US law. Drugs- There are too many illegal recreational drugs for me to mention them all, but specifically, I will discuss heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, ecstasy, and PCP, and any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention. Legalized- Currently illegal drugs would be given the same legal status as tobacco or alcohol.
It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

I think he has made some very valid points but his logic is still sophism. He is confusing " it is not necessary to stop at all hypothetical stop signs" with "therefore we don't need to stop at all stop signs. " Just because in a hypothetical scenario one has good judgement doesn't mean that applies to all drivers in your scenarios. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need stop signs at all because people would have perfect judgement and stop every time necessary. Stop signs are meant to cover all drivers. In a scenario in which there is a stop sign and the driver might go and might not go, this would create much confusion and might be more dangerous that simply not having one. It must be either one stops at a stop sign or one doesn't. If there is a stop sign in an arbitrary position, remove it. Don't get drivers into the habit of deciding for themselves. We shouldn't let stop signs that don't keep us safe taint those that do.
It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

It is necessary to stop at all stop signs regardless of the driver's judgement. Stop signs are put up for a reason, for safety. They aren't just arbitrary signs to annoy us. They are a vital part of road safety. They are in such common use today that the average driver just automatically stops at them without really making an conscious effort. This is a good thing. Stopping at stop signs correctly ever time reinforces our habits. If drivers get into the habit of picking and choosing the stop signs they feel are necessary, they lose that automation and are at risk to running stop signs that actually matter. If there was some obscure hypothetical scenario in which a driver wanted to run a stop sign with zero change of causing damage or being injured, of course I wouldn't have a problem with that. This, however, is not the world we live in.
It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

I will be arguing that it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs. What I mean by this is that there are certain cases in which failing to come to a stop at a “stop” sign will not result in people getting into car accidents or nearly getting into car accidents, or increase the chance of people getting into an accident. I am not arguing that in these cases, people should not stop in certain cases, but simply that stopping in these cases is not necessary and that it makes no difference whether one stops or does not. My opponent must show that stopping at stop signs is necessary in all cases, or that car safety would be diminished if people did not always stop at stop signs, or that accidents would occur or be likely to occur unless people always stopped at stop signs. Dimensions of the Debate: category miscellaneous resolution topic It is not always necessary to stop at stop signs. position (pro/for) number of rounds 3 time to argue 72 hours (3 days) voting period 72 hours (3 days) argument max 8000 characters
It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

You see, I didn't really allocate myself enough time to make my argument as accessible as you did. This is my first debate and I really did enjoy it! Going in, I didn't think the people I would be debating would be so, well, uninternet-like. They use esoteric language, sure, but at least they are words!( haha, as if uninternet-like is) I still believe you are missing my point. I have made your resolution unnecessary by offering an alternate scenario in which not stopping at a stop sign where one is not supposed to is non-existent. Replace stop signs with "yield" signs if the driver really doesn't need to always stop. Stop signs are not a suggestion and should not be treated as such. I honestly believe that anyone who creates a debate in defense of the fact that it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs would not put anyone in danger. I honestly feel you have the judgement to make that call. I do not, however, believe that everyone will.In my future debates I will spend more time creating my case! I really didn't spend more than a few minutes and it shows! Good debate! I still believe with my single argument, I have won.
Scenes in Hollywood War Movies showing Arab men being tortured by US soldiers

In response to my opponents last speech, could we refrain? yes. Should we be forced to refrain? no. Without these horrible scenes, many Americans/others living in the western world, this is the only opportunity for us to see what is going on in the world. As I will go back to the resolved, scenes in Hollywood war movies showing Arab men being tortured by US soldiers. We can see that nowhere it says this is a moral argument. This is an argument about the rights of movie makers. Movie makers have the right to make movies however they want. If we band movies because of a negative effect, action movies couldn't be made because arguably they make people violent, love stories couldn't be created because they show too many sexual references to young audiences, horror movies would be banned because they scare people. Banning scenes of violence in war movies is not only an illogical idea, it is also an unconstitutional idea.
Scenes in Hollywood War Movies showing Arab men being tortured by US soldiers

Thank you for picking such a great topic! First I will be starting my first speech with the first Amendment. The First Amendment would be infringed upon if we ban the scenes in movies featuring victims being tortured by Americans. This ban will infringe upon the First Amendment in two ways, the first way is stopping movies/television shows from showing these torture scenes, and second, banning such scenes is infringing on freedom of the press. If it is a movie or not, movies are still information. The only way my opponent can win this round is he proves that in this instance the First Amendment should be ignored. For me to win this round is if I prove we need to keep the First Amendment, no matter what the situation or consequences are. The only way for my opponent to attack my First Amendment argument is if he or she proves that freedom of speech and freedom of press are no longer needed.