BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: It is more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God

Before I even begin with definitions, do not take this debate if you are Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Definitions: Stars: Massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. Rational: Agreeable with reason. Burden of Proof: The BoP will be shared. Con cannot win just by poking holes in my vase, he must build his own that worshipped God is both better and more rational. Think of it as a tug of war: Con must build his own case and argue effectively for the win rather than the entire burden being on me.
Baby Carrots Should Be Bannd

The FDA is not a "friend company" it is a federal agency to check the safety of products. Also, if chlorine is so bad to consume and have in your digestive system then why do we use it to clean our tap water. THats right! it is in our tap water and it does nothing to harm us. It actually kills many waterborne diseases. Chlorine is fine to use when deluted with water, which it is in the production of baby carrots. Baby carrots are not a harm to the human body and should be kept. Chlorine is not bad if it is used in moderation and prevents many diseases.
Baby Carrots Should Be Bannd

Chlorine is not for humans to consume though the digestive track, lets say you swallow a bunch of it from your local pool, you would end up puking it back up, along with your whole stomach, they need to stop with the chemicals, everything was fine back then, people got all they needed from eating the food without all these chemicals, hey meet two food company standards, obviously their own, and a friend company, nowadays its all about chemicals if chemicals harm the environment of which they do, you wouldn't care if all the trees in the world were to be cut down
Baby Carrots Should Be Bannd

firstly if they are cut down from bigger deformed carrots this sounds like a great idea. It is a way to prevent waste. And yes they are cleaned with chemicals, but these are the same chemicals you soak your body in at the pool. I am talking about chlorine. Should we stop eating corn because it is sprayed with chemicals??? No! Also these companies meet all FDA and EPA regulations. Also, while the company at a whole might not go under, it will still effect the bottom line, and the jobs related to baby carrots will be needed no longer. Also the farmers will have to find new people to sell to and distribution companies will lose some business. Banning baby carrots is not worth the backlash it will create. They are not harmful to the human body
Baby Carrots Should Be Bannd

first off, it is not from your local pool! it is the same thing used in a pool, but it is not from there. If im sick you must be stupid. Secondly, i would rather drink water cleaned with chlorine rather than drink water with deadly waterborne diseases. You would be stupid not to clean the water with chlorine, and if you didnt you would only die faster from disease. Thirdly, if you believe everything we eat is bad for us and killing us then why do you only target baby carrots. The fact is without chlorine many things would have dangerous amounts of diseases. I think its funny how much of a problem you are making about this. We are in a first world country, and we are trying to get rid of a food product while people starving in third world countries would kill for this food. They would not care if it was cleaned with chlorine or not! Also, you never presented any evidence that the chlorine from the baby carrots has harmed anyone. I have evidence showing that baby carrots are good for you. My opponent has still not acknowledged why the FDA and EPA allow the production of baby carrots. It is because they cause no harm to you. This should be an easy vote con seeing how my opponent NEVER showed that baby carrots have hurt anyone. http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.waterandhealth.org...
Writing Exercise #2 500 words or less

TranscriptFollow the race of words below. Follow them in order. Read left to right. Read bottom to the top afterwards in reading right to left. Believe me. Obey me. Don't question me.Trust your enemies. Distrust your friends. Trust the predictable. Distrust the unpredictable. Trust actions. Distrust words. Distrust what is said. Follow my solution to take care of your enemies. Obey the my solution to finish off your enemies. Etch my solution into your brain, for ETERNITY! Convert your enemies. Disarm your enemies. Curse your enemies. Curse your enemies with incantations. Curse your enemies with his gods. Eliminate or neutralize the non-convertable enemies. Eliminate the dangerous. Invite him to his own destrruction. Let your enemies throw a punch. Take that punch. Show no mercy. Show no there is no hesitation in your heart. Show the enemies the consequence of attacking you. Embrace all the hate and scorn you are capable of mustering with fanatical fervor. Raise your head. Lift up your heart. Turn your enemies' cheek, then punch. Punch again. Punch again. Punch again, again, again, and again. Punch your enemies until he is incapable of moving.Finish him. Kick him in the groin.........or kick them in the chest if it is a female.Follow my solution to take care of your friends. Obey the my solution to find who your friends are. Etch my solution into your brain, for ETERNITY! Test your friends. Question your friends. Work with your friends. Work hard. Find true friends. Like your friends. Care about your friends. Help those who will help you. Sit in silence. Hear the voices of friends and enemies. Take action on what you heard.Obey the will to power. Love thou friends. HATE, HATE, and HATE YOUR ENEMIES.TranslationP1: Follow what I said without question.P2: Trust your enemies because they will never wish you will. Your friends are far more unpredictable in behavior compared to your enemies.P3: Simple, eliminate or neutralize your enemies.P4: Also simple, find out who are your true friends compared to the fake friends.P5: Find out who your friends and enemies are and then act accordingly.P6:Love friends and hate enemies.
Writing Exercise #2 500 words or less

Transcript of motivational speech/Google Actual Meaning Translation [Transcript]: Communicate. Show your employees you care about them. Love them. Communicate that everyone is on a level playing field, no one is better or worse. Communicate your vision to the world. Be fair. Be honest. Be sincere. Be Authentic. Come to see this is success; no greed, no individualism, no competition, be actual concern and reciprocal respect for others. Turn your organization into a family. Give them your total respect. The manager is your sister. The mid-level employee is your brother. Even lowly janitor is your cousin, your uncle, a part of the family. Create a family. Make kinship, create an environment where love radiates, flows naturally, where love is the key to success. Never lie. Always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Never deceive, people can see falsehood from miles away. Realize success derives not from money but from openness, transparency, and straight-talk. You must be ethical. Ethical behavior is what capitalism is about. You must make ethical values the only value. Treat everyone equally. Be honest and open in your organization. Be authentic. Follow your dreams. [Google Actual Meaning Translation]: Lie. Be insincere. Feign sincerity because it saves time. Fake concern. Make them believe you care. Lie but use fraudulent meaningless terms including “level playing field,” “equality,” and “fairness.” Make money through good advertising slots. Maintain the best lawyers. Make everyone stays on message. Monitor employees just in case. Maintain your role. You must continue to play this part. Success is about money, about the self. Do whatever it takes to inspire to realize this, even if it means cutting benefits, firing employees, or sending jobs to Bangladesh. Like to employees like your family member. Be petty. Hold grudges. Create a bifurcated a self for work and a self for work. These people are not your friends. You pay them. They should be grateful. Make sure they know you're the boss and everyone is below you. Watch out for potential lawsuits. Create an environment, where an elite few can do lines of blow in the bathroom while your secretary fondles your junk and everyone else only knows you through the billboards and the smiling face on television. Don’t be mediocre, lying is everyone in this business. Stick to the script. Listen to your attorneys. Never deviate from their advice. Realize truth is what they say it is. Keep in mind the only valuable principle: never get caught. Success derives from market share, from increasing shareholder profit. You should take risk. Engage in illegal behavior if it’s worth it. Deny it if question arising. Act ignorant when asked about questionable behavior of the company. Value is increasing value for shareholders. Do that and never look back. Treat work like a dictatorship. Trust no one. Keep a couple of cronies and yes-men around. Have someone who’s willing to get his hands dirty. Never get caught.
Writing Exercise #2 500 words or less

I will pick up where I left off from last time. Here is exercise #2: Imperative: Write a fragment of a story that is made up of entirely imperative commands. For example, ‘Do this;’ Do that;’ this exercise will be a sort of second-person narration (a you is implied in the imperative). 500 words or less This exercise is straight forward. Rules: This probably does not have to be said but BOP is 50/50 Stick to the basic premise of the prompt above There are two rounds.
God of slaves.

------------------------------------- This debate has four rounds and a 24 hour reply time. My opponent may use the first round to accept, or post a argument. FF is acceptable if valid points are given without rebuttal. Which means, if a strong undeniable argument is presented in round one, you can win the entire debate. All points and arguments must be within the allocated boundaries of this debate. ie- atheist or agnostic doctrine isnt permitted due to their nature. This debate isnt about the idea of winning, but seeking truth. ------------------------------------- Topic: God of slaves. The god im referring to isnt any specific god, but the basic idea of god. The universal meaning of god is creator of life or origin. The use of specific gods isnt permitted, only the term 'god the creator.' The word slave is used to describe all human relations between god, and that all humans owe a debt to god by default. Therefore humans owe their lives to this creator since without god they wouldn't even exist. Side point, God prevents free will. God the creator never asked people if they wanted to be born indebted to him. If god did ask, it would mean they were given freedom of choice. Since we're born without the ability to choose, we're forced to pay back our debt to god. - - PRO - I agree the above statement is correct. Humans are enslaved to this universal idea of god, the god of slaves. God the creator is a ruler over slaves, that humans owe their lives and origin to god, and have a debt to pay without choice. If humans don't repay their debt, they're unjustifiably condemned to hell and torture. CON, must show the term god ive used doesn't impose a debt, and allows freedom of choice.
God of slaves.

With all due respect, your personal bias isnt a foundation for truth. Therefore we cannot make conclusions based off our understanding - we must use a reference. To owe someone, or to be obligated is rooted in morality and legal requirement. And someone obligated can be punished if they dont fulfill the legal or moral requirements. If god did not make his intentions clear, it wouldnt remove the fact all creation is subject to his authority. If im raised and educated by my parents and conclude I dont owe them anything, it's my opinion. But if I own a large company and hire someone and provide training, clothing, food, shelter and education they owe me because of our written contract. If the hired person decides they don't owe me anything, that's their opinion but the legal contract says differently. So to reference my first example, if the child's opinion is they dont owe the parents anything, it's only their opinion, not truth. If obligation is both legal and moral, then clearly moral obligations do exist regardless of opinion. When children are raised, they're obligated to obey their parents orders and conditions. If they decide they dont owe their parents loyalty or respect, they're punished. This is moral obligation demanding loyalty and obedience. If god wields the power of life and death, he may fashion a tree into a walking stick. But if the tree rebels and decides not to obey, he may dis-guard the walking stick for another. So god the creator has the same right over all creation which decides to obey or rebel. If god made his intentions clear or not, it still wouldn't excuse humans from an obligation, it would only mean that god hasn't asked for anything. Example, if I work for the BBC im obligated to uphold there conditions. But if no conditions are listed, im obligated to the BBC and to any conditions they present in the future. So god may not have listed any conditions to you, but that doesn't excuse your debt. Example for debt - If I owe money to the Mafia and they ask for a favor instead of cash, im obligated to payback the debt on request. Side topics- Free will rross has made a good observation that my statement wouldn't make sense. But my question wasn't banking on logic, rather justice. It's unjust to force someone into debt without choice, so to rephrase my original statement ill say: It's unjust to sell your child into slavery to pay for a parents debt, since the child is innocent and didnt choose to be born with this debt. Similarly, children aren't given the choice to be loyal to parents, they're usually forced by punishment via: sent to their room, time-out or no dessert until they listen and be loyal to their parents. This treatment is similar to training a dog to be loyal and obey, but to children. Children dont exactly chose to be loyal, they're forced by discipline. Therefore children are referenced to parents, just as humans are to god their creator and master of life which has utter authority over creation.
God of slaves.

Hello Albert. Thank you for proposing this debate.I don't see that all humans owe a debt to god by default. Pro argues that this is so because "without god they [humans] wouldn't even exist." This is true (assuming god the creator), but it is true for lots of things. Without our parents, we wouldn't exist. Without the oceans, nitrogen, the sun, gravity, forceps, farmers, all our ancestors including the pre-human ones, we wouldn't exist. We're not obliged to pay back a debt of gratitude to those, so I don't understand why we must to god. Further, if we were in such an enslaved-to-debt situation, surely god would have made the terms clear to us? And as far as I know, he has not.About the free will part. God never asked us if we wanted to be born indebted to him, as far as we know. But if he had asked, the question would not have made sense because for us to listen to and decide on this issue we would have to exist, and our existance is dependent on our answer to the question. Would this have been a real choice anyway, if the wrong answer would snuff us out? I suggest that such coercive terms do not allow freedom of choice in any case.Further, Pro has not shown how the lack of free will on this one decision would rule out free will on all other decisions, and therefore even if such a debt existed, it wouldn't rule out free will.
The US ought to submit to an international court to prosecute CAH. (See debate for full resolution)

To start things off, I will defend my own case, and then refute my opponent's. My opponent DID NOT attack my case WHATSOEVER. Therefore my value, criterion, and contentions still stand. I will now attack my opponent's case. My opponent values Justice. As I do as well, whichever side better upholds justice will win this debate. His criterion is protecting human rights. (Could you define these please?) I see human rights as important. However, the affirmative case does not protect human rights. (See my contention 1) The ICC VIOLATES US citizens' rights. His criterion flows into the negative case. Criterion-Negated. He gives only one contention, which is essentially his value of justice. He attempts to show you how the affirmative provides for justice. This is simply not the case. He gives the example of GITMO. The US has recently SHUT DOWN GITMO. We can end these atrocious crimes ON OUR OWN. We don't need other nations telling us how our country ought to be run. The US can provide for justice on its own. Contention 1-Negated. So, the negative has won the value debate. He has also won the criterion debate. The Negative's case stands strong, having no attacks on it. The affirmative however has essentially no case. His value, criterion, and contention have fallen. If you vote affirmative, you are voting for an insecure United States, that forfeits the rights of its own citizens. If you vote negative, you are voting for a secure US, that protects its citizens' rights, and JUSTLY prosecutes crimes against humanity. "Resolved, the US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." Negated.
Animal Testing does more harm than good

A2:Animal testing can help us find new amazing discoveries. R: Many amazing discoveries have resulted from animal testing E1:"In the early 20th century, most medical professionals suspected polio was an infectious disease, but had little proof. In 1908, Dr Karl Landsteiner and Dr Erwin Popper used extracts from the spinal cord of a boy who had died from polio to replicate the disease in monkeys. These experiments allowed the disease to be transmitted from monkey to monkey, providing an invaluable model of the disease that could be studied." E2:It has helped advancements for rabies treatment,malaria, smallpox, diphtheria, inhalers,Parkinson"s disease, and many others. E3:The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s. - Understanding Animal Research Organization E4: Cetirizine,diphenhydramine,ibuprofen,aspirin,and NSAID have all been tested on animals and are available over the counter. E5:"Viral diseases, however, remained difficult to study. At this time, Dr John Enders and his colleagues developed a culture technique which allowed the polio virus to be grown in human tissue. They discovered that the virus not only grew in brain tissue as expected, but in other types of human cells. As the virus was too small to be seen with any available technique, there was only one way that Dr Enders could check that he had extracted the virus from mouse brain tissue and grown it in culture. This was to inject the culture fluid into mice and monkeys, where it produced paralysis typical of polio." I:Animal testing can produce amazing results.
Animal Testing does more harm than good

Please Only put an argument if you have supporting evidence! A: The animals are tortured in the process. R: These animals are being hurt during the process. If they die, they won"t yield accurate results. E:"Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc. Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or "knocking out" of one or more genes Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination Prolonged periods of physical restraint Food and water deprivation Surgical procedures followed by recovery Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming Other manipulations to create "animal models" of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means"-www.hsi.org I: Many animals are tortured and are unnecessarily harmed. Without animal testing, many animals would not die.
I am awesome

PRO claims he is awesome because he do many things--but at this point this is nothing more than an assertion and cannot carry his burden of proof. Further, he doesn't tell us what those many things are. The main objection I have to this resolution is as follows: if PRO were truly awesome, why would he need to make a debate telling us as much? If he were truly awesome, he would be secure enough in this that he woudln't need to make this announcement to the forum. Further, he's a new member, so we don't even have a debate record or any experience with him--and thus have no idea way to discern whether or not he is awesome.
Applejack is Best Pony

Before I begin my just-over-2500 character last round proper, Dashy wants me to say that she doesn't actually have any issues with Applejack, and that the two remain best of friends. CaringNo engagement with my issue that even if Applejack does more, that does not mean RD did not do as much as she could. RD definitely has shown just as much concern for other ponies as Applejack.In Last Roundup, running away might be excusable, but not lying or running from her friends.Alleged "uncaring" nature of RD based on assumptions, as pro points out (ie assuming that the herd knocked out the ponies not the incoming evil commercials). "Caring for other ponies for attention" is a mistake RD learnt from. She hasn't done it since.Rainbow's element is loyalty. Point dropped by pro.Conclusion: neither pony is more caring. No surprise since both are main characters in a show that's primarily about the value of caring for others.MoralsAJ may have written a nice letter, but it wasn't nice of her to deliberately limit supply to annoy RD."No evidence" of RD learning is clearly false - when have you last seen Mare-Do-Well? She clearly abandons much of her ego there.Nothing "proves" any metaphor ever.Other Applejack mistakes and analysis of "Wonderbolts Academy" twister dropped by pro.Neither pony has stronger morals. No surprise since both are main characters in a show with good moral messages.StrengthOn the train formation, Applejack was not using her tail but her forehoof. For pro to base their whole argument on this is not very intelligent because he already conceded RD's forehooves are stronger. Proof: Holding half of two ponies with a tail (actually less because 3 of Twilight's hooves are on Pinky) is empirically easier than tossing a pony into the air that distance. Anybody with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics can see that.The argument for ignoring wings continues to fail. If one race of ponies is stronger, that may be an unfair advantage, but the resolution is not who would be the best if they were all the same race. The question is who IS stronger. Still in a wingless competition Applejack has never beaten RD.Applejack always loses her competitions, Rainbow always wins. Simple as that.DreamsRainbow DOES serve the whole town. No engagement over why "keeping ponies healthy" is less worthwhile.Wonderbolts may not have solved every problem, but they do their best. Just like RD. But RD has come further as the show has gone on towards realizing her dream.Kids must dream high, but that dream does not have to be in athletics. My opponent has not argued against the third point, only his own contrived subissue.CoolnessMy opponent concedes RD is cooler. My argument for why coolness is important (premise of the show) has been dropped by pro.SourcesMy opponent has on multiple occasions miscited episodes (ie with the fog) or lied about what they contain (ie with the formations).ConclusionDashy is best pony.The resolution is negated.