BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

"I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks on my character. " Tough. I have an extreme distaste for those who do not have an education or intelligence on the subject(s) that they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don't, And yet they pretend that they do. And because they don't they invent excuses for that specific subject and or flat out lie. When this happens, Which happens quite often, They will soon have no genuine friends or loved ones if it keeps up (hey they may not now) and their teachers will ALWAYS mark that paper with an F. And it is my right to degrade, Dehumanize and belittle them or walk away in which I sometimes do with my brand of sarcastic, Dumb, Idiotic, Original, Gone from this universe, Blah blah black sheep have you any fool insults. This is something that is taught in college. I'm not here to please you or make friends with you. And if you don't like it, Leave. "This is a basic logical fallacy, " and you lost by quite a large margin IF your teeny bopper brain were to even have taken a look at look at most of the Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common in which you clearly didn't do to find out that they have one thing in common on which a half a pea of a yodeling Buddhist monk could figure out. Nah. Not you tiger. "And would lose you serious points in a real debate competition. " Actually I wouldn't. Here on DDO nearly everybody is tame as compared to live debates, And nearly 85% tame in comparison to Trump sand 100% tame in comparison to your god of the bible. "And, Yes, You did acknowledge the the God from the Bible, " Actually no dimwitted dullard snot meat sow I acknowledged YOUR god of the bible, Which does not make me believe in it, And even by doing so this by no means makes this god real. Got it? YOU still, And so does everybody else, Have to prove this god exists. See, You think like a 15 year old. I think like a 57 year old, Experienced, Well studied, Well researched, Knowledgable, Unlike you on this subject of YOUR god, Bible and religion in which I will always know a lot more about than you ---ever--- will. "By even criticizing him in the way that you did, You spoke as if he was a real entity. " WRONG. "My arguments are still valid, " OK I'm done. I'm not going to bother arguing with a teeny bopper who doesn't know s--t about, Well not even his own hairlines.
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks on my character. This is a basic logical fallacy, And would lose you serious points in a real debate competition. And, Yes, You did acknowledge the the God from the Bible, By even criticizing him in the way that you did, You spoke as if he was a real entity. My arguments are still valid, And if you change your stated belief, It is only avoiding the arguments I made. I did read your list of comparisons, But several were immediately discounted because they could not be logically supported. For instance, "Both Trump and god are cabbage batbrains. " These (admittedly creative) insulting names don't actually mean anything, And can't be supported or disproven. I didn't address every single point, Just a few that stood out to me, As I said before. Your insulting of both Trump and God in this unprofessional way is too ambiguous to even argue against. If you could give an example of both Trump and God being a "cabbage batbrain, " that would make it possible to defend or defeat for the two of us. Just because I can't disprove that statement doesn't mean you win. As for all of the scriptures you cited, The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ. None of those laws actually apply to the Christian Church. Your human morality test doesn't apply to God anyway. The Native Americans used to kill people if they stole from them, And we consider that to be immoral, But the Natives saw the whites' expansion into the West as a sacrilegious (aka, Immoral) act against their lands, People and culture. So even within our species, What exactly is morality is still up for debate. And God from the Bible isn't even human. He almost certainly has a different understanding of life, And therefore, A different set of morals. It would be as unfair to judge him by your own set of morals as for an alien species to judge you for not murdering your spouse after your offspring are born.
Same Sex Marriage should be legal, because religious observance and parenthood are optional.

Before we can effectively determine this topic, we must resolve the opposing issues within it. Point number one, legality and religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." With this in mind, granting something as legal or illegal with any basis resting on it's ties to religion in any form is unconstitutional, and therefore cannot be enacted into law. Point number two, marriage as a word. The term marriage is in essence a technicality that is being use by both sides of a very impassioned argument. One side seeks to protect what they see as sacred from what they see as unholy, while the other side in many cases simply wishes to be granted the same benefits afforded to everyone else in their community. The easy fix to this would be to re-categorize at a technical level. Classify a marriage as a religious institution, left to the discretion of the individuals particular denomination, and register the category of Civil Union to be entered into by all those wishing to be legally viewed as a couple. As it currently stands, in order for a "marriage" to be "legal" in our current government (USA), the individual officiating must be registered and empowered by their respective state. This requirement would not need to change, as all marriages would require registration as a civil union to be official in the eyes of the law. Point number three, parenting. I do agree with my opponent on the point of the ability to procreate being for all intents and purposes immaterial in deeming people suitable for being joined as a couple. As previously stated, medical conditions, abuse, and unfit personalities are present at what I would imagine are close to the same across both gay and straight couples on a per capita basis. In conclusion, I feel that the religious communities should observe the love and tolerances appropriate for their specific denominations, and be compassionate to their communities at large. I also feel that the communities at large should respect the beliefs of their religious communities, and understand that they are as entitled to cling to their beliefs and tenants as anyone else is to live in opposition. Same sex marriage should not be legal, but there should be a legal recourse granting the same rights and benefits to those that do not fit the mold of what is commonly accepted as "traditional".
Same Sex Marriage should be legal, because religious observance and parenthood are optional.

Although many religions entertain marriage ceremonies, no religion can place its own restrictions on the civil marriages of people who choose not to follow the tenets of faith presented by the religion. Example: If religion A does not approve of marriages of people in religion A to religion B, people in religion A can still seek civil marriages with people of religion B. Although child rearing is heralded as a cornerstone of marriage, no opposite-sex couple is ever prevented from getting legal marriage on the basis of 'not being able to procreate together through copulation'. Therefore, to use such a stipulation only against same-sex couples, and not all couples, is unconstitutional. Example: Heterosexual couples who are sterile, disabled, HIV+, or beyond the age of safe procreation are not governed by any rules concerning procreative ability when seeking legal marriage, but somehow homosexual couples are in many US jurisdictions. Arguments that have any reference to the well-being of children are flawed, because banning same sex couples from getting legal marriage does not prevent them from raising their children. Heterosexual parents that abuse, or even murder their offspring, do not have their marriages invalidated for failure to provide a good environment for their child. If anyone can refute my arguments, I would appreciate the effort.
Adults shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts.

You are talking about a country based on freedom. Having the government control your life is totalitarianism not freedom. Yes, we should wear seat belts, there are thousands of things we "should" do, but should we be forced to do them? No. The government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. This isn't about the government protecting people, it is about the government controlling people. I wear my seat belt every time I get into a car, cause that is the responsible thing to do. Now the Government comes in and says I have to wear my seat belt or I will get a ticket. Now, the problem here is I was a responsible adult before the law, but after the law I am just a law abiding citizen. Laws like this remove responsibility from people, it removes common sense, and it takes away from our freedom to be idiots. My question is where does it stop? Something as simple as wearing a seat belt and it is a law? Who does not wearing a seat belt affect? Nobody but the person not wearing it. Laws should be made based on who is affected by the action. If I want to drive without a seat belt I should be able to. If I want to drink, smoke, or shoot up black tar heroine in the privacy of my own home I should be able to, there should be no law saying I can't. If we let laws slip by us making us wear seat belts, then what else could they make us do? How long before you have to wear a helmet everywhere you go, or how long before salt, cigarettes, beer, contact sports, red meat, and McDonald's are all illegal? When will the speed limits be changed to 35 MPH on the freeway? All to protect the retarded American citizens that can't think for themselves. You may want to be bubble wrapped to protect you from the big bad world, but I like freedom. If I no longer have the right to make stupid choices then I am no longer American. Urge: To push or FORCE along; impel with FORCE or vigor. So, I agree they are "Urging" us.
Adults shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts.

Thanks for taking the debate. I want to start by saying breaking down every word I wrote with your discount psychology doesn't help your case, it is just pathetic. I will just jump into the ridiculous points you made. Not to say you didn't try to make good points, but they were pure fantasy. 1. To link 9/11 to seat belt laws is a little more than just idiotic, the two are not related in any way. If you want to link fear to seat belt laws, then it should be the fear that the government is taking too much interest in the way people live their lives. "Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually." My point isn't that people shouldn't wear seat belts, they definitely should, but they shouldn't be forced to. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives. But if you want everyone to be safer, why stop at seat belts? Outlaw ATVs, contact sports, swimming, and spending more than 2 hours outside, that should keep people safe. 2. If it was just commercials saying you should wear a seat belt you could call it urging. There is a difference between urging people to do something creating laws to force them to do it. Saying that it is demoralizing to want the freedom of choice, it just ludicrous. Yes, seat belts can protect, so can helmets, roll cages, and titanium plating. Should there be a law that requires all those things on a car? It would save lives! I think it is demoralizing to think that the government thinks so little of me that it makes laws to protect me from myself. As an American you have to right to be an idiot as long as you don't infringe of the rights of others. If you want to drive without a seat belt, go sky diving, play football, or stick your hand in a blender you should be allowed to. You should also be able to accept the responsibilities of your actions. People don't need the government to think for them, that makes people stupid, and eliminates the need for common sense. Would you rather live 100 years being shielded by the government or 60 years as a free man? Seat belt laws are just an example of how the government invades our lives to try and control our personal choices.
Adults shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts.

okay first of going of of the statements given:: -"grown people should not be forced to wear seatbelts" you are not forced but urged to do so, you still have the choice to not wear them as there is no mechanism for the govt. to insure its use. The faulty logic should not be accepted -"The fact that you can get a ticket for not wearing a ticket is crazy!" crazy in the common language is also known as amazing which he uses(common/colloquial language) therefore he may also be urging for my side not his -"I am to lazy to write more so i will end there." the personality behind the advocater of the topic shows his agent for reasoning. rather then looking onto what can benefit society he goes of to his own satisfaction to his laziness okay i am just going to give reasons as to why topic is flawed:: 1) on a timeframed basis we can conclude that society asks for seatbelts to be there (imply) events such as the 9/11 caused for us to be in a state of fear and the fear brings about the need for us to be safe. then we can conclude that the totality of society ought to prefer seatbelts due to the benefits that it can provide. according to the almanac of policy issues "Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually." urging for seat belts not to be used becomes detrimental to the value then of human life 2) the value of human life is my second point,we have the obligation to ought for issues that increases the value of human life and being that seatbelts allows for its protection the mere choice for urging it increases the life value on a national basis, being that again seatbelts can protect, the idea of urging for the protection of human life shows that there is still today sufficient value to it and going against such things would show the demoralization that the person against is urging for due to how you are going against something that can uphold life. "The government shouldnt force people to be safe" in the mere sentence given by him the process of demoralization of life is in the process 3)Which is my 3rd point, the wording of the statements given by him, should not be voted for as it urges for a demoralizing society--follow through from second point, he urges for government not to urge for the protection of individuals although there is much to be said i end with that, i now conclude that we should not accept what he is urging for due to the clear impacts, to harming society, that can be done when we accept the resolution itself and the reason(and how it was reasoned) by him.
You only have two permanent rights that no one can take away no matter what.

First off let me clarify and I should of known better, that I was referring to your rights in the United States not the entire world. I made an a## out my self for assuming that's what the challenger would think. As far as the right to bear arms that right can be striped from you for committing a felony crime. so it is not an absolute right no matter what in the United States
You only have two permanent rights that no one can take away no matter what.

There is no right to legal council in Saudi Arabia, it is flatly stated. "Under the Saudi legal system, detainees have no right to legal counsel, no right to examine witnesses, no right to call witnesses of their own;" (. http://www.krysstal.com......) Detainees at prisons in Guantanamo and Abu Graib have been held without the right to legal council, not to mention that in countries such as Russia, China, and Sudan, people are killed or imprisoned without any legal trials. Did the Darfur refugees get to go to court over before the Sudanese government ordered the Janjaweed to kill them? Not to mention that the constitution guarantees many other rights including the right to bear arms, which has never been completely taken away and i doubt ever will.
Trump was not exonerated by that report we did not see

So, Disproving your title argument is simply a matter of definition. See there are 2/3 definitions for the word exonerate. The claim could be made that as a "straight talking" president he wasn't using the legal definition of exonerate. He could be simply stating that the accusation was over. (https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/exonerate? S=t) The legal definition actually doesn't apply. Legally he was never charged so he could never be convicted of a crime. In order to be exonerated he would need to be found guilty and then at a later date found innocent. To be as simple as possible the President is innocent until proven guilty. (https://definitions. Uslegal. Com/e/exoneration/) On the subject of innocent until proven guilty: Nobody has a right to your personal information. In order to get the presidents personal information you need a subpoena. The people are not privy to classified information on a trial that never made it to court. Even if it did go to court, Or someone else attempts to charge him extra judicially, The case could still be sealed. The President would have a right to a public trial meaning he could force it to be made public. He can't force the trial to be private but I'm pretty sure the judge would agree to make it private considering the amount of classified information they might have to go through.
Trump was not exonerated by that report we did not see

The 400-page Mueller report has yet to be made available to the public, But Attorney General William Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress on March 24 that summarized some of its key findings. Responding to Barr’s letter that day, President Donald Trump tweeted, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT! ” But Woodward (author of the 2018 book “Fear: Trump in the White House”) disagrees with the president’s “total exoneration” analysis. The people have a right to see THAT REPORT
should penguins be allowed to travel internationaly.

Firstly, lastly is not a word (ask the librarian). Secondly, you are coming off quite sexist when it comes to women. Why is it only women that need to learn how to read? Not all men are einstein you know, just look at your typos. Penguins are one of the smartest, kindest animals. My pet penguin Phil is quite the sweetheart, but would CREAM YOU if he saw this nonsense. Get a life, and let penguins travel
should penguins be allowed to travel internationaly.

you are living in a fantasy world, and you are coming off quite incompetent. the fact of the matter is penguins have been known to kill innocent people while in an aircraft. the could live in the most poverty stricken place in the world but they need to become more civilized before they should be allowed to fly. lastly they need to move themselves out of poverty and teach there women to read if they want to be more civilized
Dogs vs. Cats (pro being Dogs, con being Cats)

You say that dogs are "man's best friend", and yet give no proof to back this up. You haven't convinced me of this one bit, and I have as much right to believe that cats are a man's best friend as much as dogs are. I will elaborate on this in my next round. Let's take a look at the comparisons between cats and dogs: Dogs require countless hours of time, attention, and money to be put into them. They are bigger, louder, and at can meddle with things at times when you aren't in the mood for meddling. Dogs need constant walking and exercise, even when it isn't convienent for one to do so. Dogs are more prone to fleas than cats, and spread them quicker across your house and inhabitants. Their boisterous barks and bloodcurling howls keep many awake at night, contributing to the sleep-deprivation most of America has today. Now let's take a look at cats; between 12-19 hours of their day is spent asleep. That's a lot less hours to be taken away from your day catering to them. When they are awake, they do not make much noise, with the occasional mew and soothing purr. They lack the need to be taken out for walks, sparing the ascent into cold, freezing weather on those winter days. Their quieter vocal cords spare sleepless nights, with owners being able to be at perfect states of relaxation. Dogs being "more popular" than cats doesn't imply that they are necessarily better. Fast food is more popular among Americans than health food, but is not necessarily better. Cats are less work, easier than dogs.
Should the Democrats control the American Government

The current state of the United States is an advantage to the government. But is it an advantage to the people? Republicans claim to be 'liberal', but they very much are and support extreme conservatism. While they do support liberal values as well, the United States is overrun by capitalists who legally extortionate the low and even middle income. Poverty and homelessness ever so grows become of the promotion of conservatives and capitalists. Because of our conservatism, we consume over 24% of global energy despite the fact we only make up 5% of the worlds population. I think Democrats are good for the current state. They support a social democracy, and have some great liberal values.
Chris Christie is a bad role model for kids because he is overweight.

I think that my opponent is missing the key point of my argument. If Christie becomes president it will become the social norm to be obese, as the PRESIDENT himself is obese. Kids who are unhealthy and obese will now feel that it is fine to be obese because the president is obese. It will also eliminate all presidential health movement programs that the Obama's have started because Christie is obese. Christie cannot say to the public "hey go out there and be healthy because being fat is bad" when he himself is fat.
Chris Christie is a bad role model for kids because he is overweight.

Chris Christie is obese. Not doubt about it. He is a prominent GOP figure, that will most likely become the GOP presidential nominee in 2016. As the NJ governor he has become a role model in NJ. Children in NJ have looked after their governor, especially since he acted so nobly after hurricane sandy. He may become president, where kids all over the nation, will look up to him and see him as a role model. Since he is so fat, it will make obese children seem ok with their unhealthy body, and lifestyle. He will also make currently non-obese kids, want to become obese as they now will see it as ok to obese, especially since their presidential role model is obese, and their obese piers seem perfectly fine with being fat.