BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is rape fantasy linked to rape

I am obviously against rape fantasy being linked to the act of committing rape. I fantasize about rape play but I will never commit rape or any form of sexual assault, in fact non consensual sex being committed disgusts me. The main reason why I argue against this is because people have all sorts of desires and as you cannot control which gender you fall inlove with you cannot control your deep desires within your conscious or your unconscious. You can control your behaviours/actions but not your desires.
Christianity's corrupt history makes it seem highly likely that it is not a valid religion.

The Catholic Church was burning people at the stakes. The popes were very immoral and unfair. They were passing on the robe to their family members, people were buying the robe, and the worst part INDULGENCES. The popes were making people have to pay large sum of money to buys their way into heaven. How do you justify that? The people were putting up with that and killing heretics left and right. I don't think that adds up.
Celebrate Columbus

I thank ConservativePolitico for starting such a fascinating debate. It is worth noting that Pro conceded that Columbus did not discover America. Now on to the arguments:1) From the opponent's source: "[Trade winds were] a closely held fact discovered by or otherwise learned by Columbus." [1] Hence, based on his source, I put into question the claim that the opponent made about Columbus discovering trade winds. Until this is established, the opponent's claim has no validity. If further evidence is valid, then I will take time to refute. 2) Columbus' travels certainly did not launch the Age of Discovery. Earlier in the century, a number of explorers (such as Gomes, Eanes, and Cao) preceded Columbus. [2] [3] Nowhere in the opponent's source does it say that he launched the Age of Discovery. i. The Columbian Exchange led to the introduction of myriad invasive species. Moreover, it led to the spread of deadly diseases that led to the deaths of many Native Americans, more than the number of deaths they faced in any war. [4] Despite some of the trade benefits that came out of it, the Columbian Exchange should not be celebrated, since it did led to a serious tragedy; moreover, such a celebration would be profoundly offensive to the U.S. Native American population, since it marks the deaths of their ancestors. ii. Indeed, one can say that Columbus was adventurous. There are many people in history that had positive traits and whom the American public can relate to. Nonetheless, we do not celebrate Einstein Day (for his intelligence and innovative thinking) or Cosby Day (for his brilliant sense of humor) or Thomas Payne Day (for his inspirational philosophical thinking.) Is Columbus' adventurousness enough to justify making a holiday for him? Let's remember that there were plenty of explorers at that time who were most likely just as adverturous. ---In conclusion... The opponent has not yet made a valid argument for why we should celebrate Columbus Day. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://bruceruiz.net...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Celebrate Columbus

My points will not be based on the fact that "Columbus discovered America" for that is simply not true. Instead they will focus around traits that Columbus displayed and other significant discoveries he made. Points1) Discovery of Trade WindsColumbus discovered and solidified the fact that the Atlantic Trade Winds blow in a circular fashion. [1] Using this knowledge he was able to sail both to and from the America's with relative ease and is one of the most important nautical discoveries to date. The Atlantic Trade Winds curve around in a circle making it possible to sail to the Caribbean from the Canary Islands and also making it possible to sail from the Caribbean to a place where the westerly winds will blow you back to Europe making Transatlantic travel possible and easy for Europeans. [2] <--- picture of wind patterns. 2) Launched the Age of Discovery Columbus's travels launched a period of history known as the Age of Discovery [1] which by chain reaction led to a series of events that changed the world. The Age of Discovery would ultimately lead to the rise of Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and Britain as global power's which led later to the foundation of the United States. No Columbus, no United States. That's something worth remembering. i. Columbian ExchangeAn introduction of food, disease, animals and culture that spread rapidly and would eventually affect everyone on Earth. It led to the introduction of tomatoes and corn to the world which boosted crop production and quality of life in many places. It also led to the introduction of horses to America as well as turkey to the Old World [3] The Columbian Exchange was not all good but the event was so massive and world changing that it deserves to be recognized. ii. Spirit of Adventure Columbus exhibited a spirit of adventure that Americans can closely relate to and admire. He was a daring man when he suggested a trip by sea to Asia via the Atlantic [4]. This spirit of adventure, discovery and trailblazing closely relates to similar American ideals seen in the Thirteen Colonies and the founding of the west. ConclusionBased on his discoveries of the Trade Winds, launching of the Age of Exploration and set of adventurous virtues Americans should still consider Columbus a revolutionary figure in the world of exploration. His actions directly led to the creation of the United States and is natural that we should celebrate his voyage and support the spirit of adventure he displayed to the whole world. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Who is this man DONALD TRUMP

The question that I asked was,"Who is this man DONALD TRUMP," unfortunately we only have Donald Trump's rhetoric to guide us by and of course his personal history. But isn't this true of all Politicians who run for office, that their political beliefs and personal character are assumed to be what the media and they themselves present them to be and the voters, as a consequence, have often been mislead into believing the politicians were one thing and then turned out to be the complete opposite of who they claimed to be. To offer proof of politicians deceiving the voters we only have to look at Obama as a politician who practiced deception to get elected. Obama made grandiose statements about "changes" that he would make if elected president. It has been said that ,"Politician-speak has become so coded that it"s essentially another language...."Author Robert Hutton. The sad facts are that we expect to be lied to by politicians and have become jaded to the point that no one expects honesty from our elected officials anymore. If Donald Trump is just another politician like all other politicians should we be surprised if this turns out to be true of him also. but perhaps Donald trump would grow with the office of president to be an exceptional president as this quote suggests,""It"s not the position that makes the leader; it"s the leader that makes the position." " Stanley Huffty Donald Trump has beeen successful as a business man, maybe he could be a successful president as well and be the one who return America's stature that it once held in the world,the voters, after all, gave an unknown, Obama, a chance didn't they, why not Donald Trump?
Who is this man DONALD TRUMP

Who is this man "Trump." There have been several articles posted on the internet lately that suggest that Donald Trump isn't who he is portraying himself to be, as real conservative republican. In a REDSTATE ARTICLE for instance the author of the article states,"The Bible says not to put new Christians in leadership positions. I don"t think the conservative movement should put new conservatives in leadership positions either. Let them be sure what they believe first." In the same article its stated that Donald Trump has been a contributor to the democrat party and organizations that conservatives were against so that certainly raises the question about who Donald trump reallty is Some have suggested that Donald trump is a spoiler taking away votes that could have gone to another republican candidate running for president who is a more known conservative ruining the republicans chances of winning the White House. Donald Trump covers himself by saying that he was a businessman and as such, he gave money to a lot of different causes and people, that was the way business was done. Isn't the reason that Donald Trump is gaining so much support is because the conservatives and republicans in general are becoming fed up with the way the "Good old boys, "/ Establishment republicans, and establishment democrats, have been doing business as usual in Washington. Maybe though the Conservative republicans think that those who have been elected to office weren't listening to conservatives and independents and haven't been for a long time and are now willing to take a chance that Donald Trump will listen to them and will promote the things that conservatives believed in. Betting on Donald Trump to be the conservatives and independents friend is a gamble, only time will tell whether the gamble paided off,if Donald trump actually believed in what he said that he believed in. Donald Trump is saying what conservatives and independents wanted to hear, but is it a businessman just doing business and saying what he thinks will sell, again, only time will provide the answer, we can only hope that Donald Trump doesn't turn out to be a spoiler and allow Hillary or some other democrat to be elected to office. The conservative and independents are tired of being lied to , we can only hope that Donald Trump isn't just mouthing the words that the conservatives and independents wanted to hear and actually meant what he's been saying
Evil confirms it is likely that god exists

Where to begin? First, evil and suffering are not interchangeable. I'm suffering here at work but no evil has been done to me. I think Donald Trump is evil but he doesn't seem to be suffering. One is an adjective and the other is a noun. Second, you're essentially inverting the argument (probably to suit your proposal). You assume we're saying that if evil exists, god does not when we're actually saying the opposite. We're saying that if god exists, you must accept that these things (that any normal person would consider evil or suffering) are his will. You must accept that a God who loves all his children would allow for, even have planned for that child to be struck down by that car. You should be happy that it happened because after all, it was God's will, correct? We're saying that the driver was not at fault because God planned for that girl to have had only 4 years of life to live. No need to charge him with vehicular homicide, just forgive and forget. You should be thanking God when a child dies at birth because obviously he didn't think the parent was ready. Your 'examples' that atheists use are glossed over. Never is evil or suffering used as evidence against God's existence, but rather expressions of the nature of God should he exist. Your God is a cruel and uncaring God and why shouldn't he be? God is eternal, correct? The existence of man is nothing more than a blink of an eye in God's timeline, which is infinite. That which has no end, has no meaning. If there is no conclusion, there is no evil. Can you honestly name one 'evil' act that doesn't involve some sort of end? If there is a God with a heaven waiting for all (or some) of us. What's the point of this thing we call a life? Is it just some kind of test? And a test for what? Why would a God want to put us through life at all, skip it all and bring everyone who would ever exist to heaven! The simple fact is that you have no good answer to these questions because at most you'll only examine them at a superficial level and ignore whatever reasoning doesn't suit you. God is super-awesome and everything he does is super-right. You've already made up your mind and are cherry-picking the arguments that fit your position. And for the record, just because I have cereal in my cupboard does not increase the likelihood that I'll have milk in my fridge. And no, I don't pour soda or OJ on it. I've eaten entire boxes of dry cereal as a snack before... whereas I guess you feel that's unnatural and throw it on your wall... for decoration?
Evil confirms it is likely that god exists

Your argument is inherently faulty due to its built-in ambiguity. Beginning the debate without stating the specifics of your premise is bad form as well as ignorant. "A popular argument" implies one argument so which 'argument' are you referencing precisely? And beyond that, you've stated that you believe that the aforementioned argument 'proves the likelihood that a god must therefore exist', yet you never delve into HOW you believe it proves this. You could at least say something like "All suffering is caused by satan, since there's a satan, there must be a god" (despite that being completely idiotic) and that would be an attempt at a chain of reasoning. A very loose chain, but still. And proving a 'likelihood' is hardly convincing. I can have Cheerios in my cupboard, but I'm not going to say that proves the likelihood of there being milk in the fridge. Say "It proves it" or "there's a likelihood", not both.
Evil confirms it is likely that god exists

The burden of proof is simply not upon me. If you wish to argue specific points then state specific points. You are remaining intentionally ambiguous so as to not have to defend any one thing. Your first link is an article written by someone who obviously has a strong belief in god. It is not in any way someone using "evil and suffering" as a reason for not believing in god. Your second link is simply your argument, with a bunch of empty circles so I'm not sure how it relates. You then go on a rant that seems more like an argument for polytheism than it does supporting your initial position. Then you proceed to discuss cereal (which was initially meant by me to be a simple example of logic) more than you support your initial premise. Any athiest you've ever heard discuss evil in the world or suffering is not trying to prove there is no god, we're theorizing what the character of god must be in order to allow such atrocities (which, ironically is how most of us became atheists). You posed the notion that somehow the presence of 'evil' and 'suffering' in this world support the fact that God exists but somehow keep skirting around how this relationship works. We simply say that these are man-made constructs, easily explainable by natural processes. To use your example from earlier, is a young girl being run over by a car evil? Is the driver inherently evil? Or is it possible that he was distracted? Perhaps he just happened to be driving west at the end of the day and the sun was in his eyes and he couldn't see. Perhaps he was speeding because he just got the call that his wife was going into labor and ran a red light. But now he's killed some other man's little girl. You purported to provide direct correlation between the existence of evil and suffering and the existence of God. I'm simply saying that you have not.
god's existence cannot be proven

<< Anyone can define things randomly... you haven't proven anything substantial, other than the fact you are good at labeling things randomly. >> How have I not proven anything? I have proven that God can be proven to exist through pantheism! How can you say that I have not proven anything? <> You never specified that people could not argue as a pantheist. You also never said what you were looking for. And it was not clear. < > What do you mean, I joined with no purpose? I joined this debate to show that it is possible to prove god's existence as a pantheist. This is just a personal attack. In the end, I have shown that your arguments can all be proven wrong through pantheism. In conclusion, pantheism defines the Universe and everything in it as God. You can prove that the Universe exists, and therefore God exists through a pantheistic point of view. This debate is solely about whether or not God's existence can be proven or not, and because I have show that you can through pantheism, I win this debate. Footnote: The religious views presented in this debate do not represent that religous views of the debaters necessarily. Thank You
god's existence cannot be proven

Anyone can define things randomly... you haven't proven anything substantial, other than the fact you are good at labeling things randomly. I have acknowledged that God's existance could be proven that way. you should have not taken this debate, because I said that was a cop out argument, in my mind, and I was looking for more substantial arguments. That should have been clear. sp If you did more than just declare God is existence, then you'd have a purpose to join the debate. But you didn't. So, you joined the debate with no purpose, and there's no way you could win a debate like that. or... I've always agreed you could define God that way, so I don't know what your point is. can you tell me ?? (though even if you did tell me, which i'm pretty sure you couldn't do... it shouldn't have taken you till the third reply to tell me, when i have no chance to reply)
god's existence cannot be proven

"I am going to take this debate in a pantheist's point of view. Pantheism, by Merriam Webster's definition, is a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. For a pantheist, the Universe and everything in it is God. The Universe exists, and so does everything inside it. Therefore, I have just proven that God exists, with a pantheistic point of view. Thank you." As I said for "God is existance", this argument is essentially that. You can call it God if you want, but it's not really proving much of anything. It seems more like a catharsis for theists can feel they've proven God. Do you think defining God that way proves anything substantial? There's not really much of a debate here if you simply want to call existance etc God.
god's existence cannot be proven

I am going to take this debate in a pantheist's point of view. Pantheism, by Merriam Webster's definition, is a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. For a pantheist, the Universe and everything in it is God. The Universe exists, and so does everything inside it. Therefore, I have just proven that God exists, with a pantheistic point of view. Thank you.
Freedom of expression - religion is an expression

In this round I am going to prove why even if you give argument number five to my opponent, I should win the round. My third argument in my first speech should win me the round. If my opponent says that freedom of expression is good, yet he doesn't think people should express their beliefs that religion is bad, then he is contradicting himself. He says that freedom of expression is bad, yet doesn't think I should express the views that I am debating. How can he say my view is bad? It is just another expression of my beliefs. So by holding him to his own standard, I must win this round. He says "from the time you are responding on this debate, You, yourself are using your expression that all human being are bound to. Your fundamental right." This is exactly what I'm talking about, and is why I should win this round. Thank you.
Freedom of expression - religion is an expression

Dropping the first 4 numbers, doesnt mean that the respondent fail to rebut the idea of proponent or no idea to respond on it at all. (Honestly those numbers have nothing to do with the main core of argument)I keep ignoring those number because of the parameters setting. >>>to realign in argument No. 5. from the time you are responding on this debate, You, yourself are using your expression that all human being are bound to. Your fundamental right. We are humans, a rational being. being a rational we are bound to express what we feel, even from the time we are born! " Speak out!Express what you feel! this is your right, your fundamental right!" Express your idea by voting! Speak out by voting. this is why human evolve. thank you.
Freedom of expression - religion is an expression

Arguments 1-4 were completely dropped, and just because I spent more time with number five doesn't mean 1-4 don't count. So I'm still winning all of those. I'm still winning number 5 because he makes claims that aren't proven, like the basic value of society is rational inquiry. I say the basic value of society is to provide a foundation upon which all people live, and work off of. We see this happening in everyday life. When that claim falls, then his first precedents don't matter. Not only that, but he still hasn't said why expression is a fundamental right. Even after I said it isn't. So if you look to the first four arguments I presented and also to the argumentation on my fifth argument, then you should clearly see how I am winning and vote accordingly. Thank you.
Freedom of expression - religion is an expression

We both bound in a 10 sentences, I would rather rebut the main core of your argument.I will focus on No. 5 "Right of expression hurts our government. People speak out against our government, and this hurts things like credibility. When credibility drops, the ability to change things in the government decreases. When a government can no longer act, then it has lost the ability to govern, and we see this happening today."-cooperman88 >>>>>>the main reason why governments suppress free speech/expression is to avoid accountability. >>>>>>Freedom of speech/expression is a fundamental right which is essential for the discovery of truth,needed for rational inquiry,the basic value in society.
Freedom of expression - religion is an expression

Since I'm limited to ten sentences, I will give you my arguments, without really backing them up, and if you would like me to back them up then I will feel that I have liberty to go longer than ten sentences next time. 1. Freedom of expression is not an inalienable right, therefore not all people have the freedom of expression. 2. Sometimes by taking lesser rights away from others, we promote more important rights. 3. The idea that religion should not be in the world is just another expression, and therefore you cannot hold the view that others shouldn't hold a view. 4. You haven't said why it is important to have a right to expression. 5. Right of expression hurts our government. People speak out against our government, and this hurts things like credibility. When credibility drops, the ability to change things in the government decreases. When a government can no longer act, then it has lost the ability to govern, and we see this happening today. Thank you, and good luck.
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Pro has asked for a logical and reasonable debate, so that is what I gave him. I copied no sentences off of any website, and I challenge pro to find a website from which I copied anything. Pro is not able to contest my arguments, so as a result, Pro wrongly accuses me of plagiarism. Pro has broken his own rule. He asked for a logical and reasonable debate, yet Pro has illogically and unreasonably accused me of plagiarism, and copy and pasting. Therefore, Pro forfeits all rounds (however this is to not much use as Pro has forfeited the last two rounds).Again, I challenge Pro, and the readers if they so wish, to find any website from which I could have possibly plagiarized, copy and pasted, or reformulated sentences from.Pro has still failed to rebuttal any of my arguments given in round 2. I extend all arguments from round 2.Thanks for reading, I await Pro's final argument.
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Con has forfeited all his arguments by breaking the rules. I clearly asked for a logical and reasonable debate. CON disregarded that and copied reformulated sentences off the internet to help his argument. Then he lies and tries to cover it up by editing fronts in BOLD and ITALICS. I am not going to debate against copy pasted formulaic responses. Voters should take this into account when voting. Thanks for reading CON.