BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no true evil naturally, and absolute good doesn't exists too

G"day and Thank you for joining my debate. And Ill be quick. Evil is the fear that we all know that is bad. But I would like to say that absolute evil cant exist naturally. Because of animal or any other species could be evil. Even humans, that are very intelligent, cant be evil without any disease or psychological problems or bad childhood... At animals or other species: Evil cant exist, because the main meaning in the life of animals is for a species to survive. Many carnivorous plants have been seen as evil, but we do know that these plants cant know if they kill a prey, they just do it because they evoluted so and because they need more nutrition. The only amazing here is Cannibalism, but it does make sense since after all specimens survive, prevent starvation and an epidemy.Many cultures and believing say that there are many evil species. The tipical Christian problem is the snake. Some think that spiders are evil. And many propaganda and media stereotypes have made even other species "evil" like: Bats, Scorpions,... But we do know, that all species of these aren't evil at all. Some are just aggressively protecting them, other feed that way, some don't even have the properties like shown on the TV and many other reasons. But we do agree that none of all existing species (including plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, archaea...),do this on purpose. For instance imagine an animal loving biologist, that killed a wolf only to protect him self, the other wolfs sure would think that his evil, aldue the man wasn't evil. At Humans (H. Sapiens): The evil doesn't exists as well. But all your beliefs say that there is some and that you have to pray to stay alive. Well who are the most evil persons that we can imagine: Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, (some include) Napoleon... But do you know what caused this. No , it wasn't God or their will. Osama has been believing too much in his religion. Hitler survived the 1st world war and was teached nationalism, Stalin was partly psyhologycaly ill. Even killers always come from suffering childhoods, bad education, humiliation, depression and so on. Diseases and age can also cause problems. This is visible if we compare Texas and Denmark, the higher equality and personal care in Denmark, causes less crime. So in all conclusions the "evil" exists only in forms of diseases or problems. So naturally there is no evil. The most of us, wouldn't attack the president or kill all people naturally. Perfect absolute good, doesn't exists as well. First ,nothing is perfect. Second of all, a "good" person is seen as a man that helps you and other and is generous. And even God is seen as Omnibenevolent, but if he possesses infinite love for the H. Sapiens, than why do we still suffer. And jet more "because" will be revealed in the next round. Amazing video:http://www.youtube.com... Thanks, its time for your argument.
Censorship is ethical in internet when only the immoral or unethical content removed.

My opponent's claim is that "Censorship is ethical in [the] internet when only the immoral or unethical content [is] removed", therefore his BOP is that he must prove that censorship is acceptable as long as the content removed is immoral. My opponent used three examples in his R1 argument ("drug trafficking, cyber terrorism, and social engineering"), all of which are illegal. Yes, they are also obviously immoral, but many other things are legal yet immoral. My opponent's argument is the same as saying "People should be arrested if they commit a crime. If they aren't, then crime will increase" Pornography, for example, many people (including myself) believe to be immoral. I am not a supporter of pornography, however, due to the First Amendment, the creators of pornography have the right to express themselves however they so choose, as long as all parties being filmed are of legal age. The simple fact in this argument is that while disappointing in some situations, the First Amendment to the Constitution provides all citizens with freedom of speech. The government has no right to censor what some people deem to be "immoral" or "unethical", as long as they are legal.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

1) MLK My point was that MLK wasn't liked at the time either. Anyone that supports black rights is vilified. After King gave his "I Have A Dream" speech, the FBI described King as "the most dangerous . . .Negro leader in the country"; the FBI tracked King's every move. [1] Regardless, the resolution says "and." My opponent must prove that Sharpton and Jackson are racist. It's not sufficient to prove they are "no MLK." He never shows that either hates white people. He also fails the BOP for Jesse Jackson, since he focuses the whole debate on Al Sharpton. 2) Sharpton I personally don't believe that the tea party is racist merely because they are composed of mostly whites. However, their candidates have made racist remarks, specifically in regards to Jesse Jackson. [2] Regardless, advocating for only black people is not "racist" or the whole NAACP would be racist. MLK also only advocated for black people. outofcharacters [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

My opponent hasn't given any credence that this man(Al Sharpton) is no peace maker, which is where I get the NO MLK part. You can attack MLK and use someone else's "review" on him, but the fact is that it was him who truly conquered the barrier between whites and blacks. We can go back and forth finding websites in the "shadows" of the internet, everyone has their own opinion and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data on individuals and subjects, however, you focusing on MLK and not the basis that I have made on SHARPTON NOT BEING AN MLK FIGURE still has yet to be answered, not surprised either. Al Sharpton cannot be called on "words" for racism against whites, its his actions. Representing "only white" people in this day and age has been deemed racist. The tea party is deemed racist for being mostly white. Al Sharpton has actually said that on his show, that they are. He only represents blacks and has always been against the white p. http://www.theblaze.com...
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

Thanks RTN. 1) Jews "Jewish" is not a race. Anti-semitism is a different thing from racism. Sharpton's comment was made in regards to the Crown Heights incident. My opponent has his facts wrong: Sharpton's protesters didn't kill anyone. And the allegation was that a private ambulance chose to treat the Jewish driver, rather than the black man that he had struck with his car. The black man died of his injuries. This had nothing to do with a shop. 2) Rape If a girl says 6 men raped her, I commend anyone who advocates on her behalf. It's unfortunate if she is lying, but most cases of rape are not lies. 3) MLK The evidence I provided was a reproof of MLK by Jackie Kennedy, America's sweetheart. If SHE was disparaging MLK, this shows you that he was anything BUT a revered and respected figure among the white community during this time period. He was reviled for his views, particularly his anti-war views. MLK got flack too for his beliefs. My opponent hasn't proven racism yet.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

The problem with CON's analysis of my comment is that he says "Being an advocate for the black community doesn't make you a racist" which I never said that was a bad thing nor makes you racist. He is right it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with standing up for a specific race when you see unjust, which he had shown Al Sharpton has done, which I applaud him for. However, Al Sharpton has also intensified situations (this is what CON doesn't want to bring up since it negates his argument). "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house".-Al Sharpton This was a situation that took place in the mid 1990's where Sharpton inflamed his followers against a Jew who was expanding his shop in NYC. His followers then killed that Jewish man, Al Sharpton being indirectly responsible. "Sharpton had no way to know Brawley had fabricated the charges" However he ruined the lives of the accused without any proof. Btw, MLK was for equality for all.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

Thanks RTN. There's a few problems with my opponent's argument: 1) Being an advocate for the black community doesn't make you a racist. Pro seems to think that advocates are REQUIRED to advocate equally for everyone. The entire NAACP would then be considered equally as racist as the KKK. Pro must prove that Sharpton and Jackson hate white people to show they are racists. 2) Viewing events through the prism of race is not "racist" Whites generally want to believe that nothing is racially motivated. This is shown by the Trayvon Martin shooting, in which 55% of whites but 90% of blacks believe it was racially motivated. 3) Sharpton had no way to know Brawley had fabricated the charges And even so, for every mistake, he has also done good things too. For example, in Bensonhurst, a gang of 20 to 30 white Italians beat 4 African Americans and got off with a slap on the wrist. Sharpton organized protests. People were also unhappy with many of MLK's comments. http://tinyurl.com...
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are NO MLK and are racist!

For years, Al Sharpton and the Jesse Jackson have called themselves Revs of god and yet they never utter more than two words on the subject! These are individuals that take any situation involving a black individual and spin it in the opposition of the other person within the situation. In other words, they intensify a situation in order for their own political and economical gain; and lets not forget....PUBLICITY. If you even try to argue with these individuals they use double talk and rabble rousing to their advantage in order to side step from the comment or point stated to them! There are many situations including the 1988-1989 Tawanna Brawley case in which Al Sharpton used race baiting techniques to back up a black girl who claimed white men raped her. She was badly beat but no evidence or forensic analysis proved it was the men who did it, however, more pointed out she had it done to herself! The point is, AL Sharpton and Jesse jackson are for blacks ONLY!
X-Box 360 Vs. Ps3

Hello this will be my first debate on Debates.org and I hope it to be a good one. Let the geek war commence Alright It's quite an age old question whether Microsoft's X-Box 360 is a better gaming system then Sony's Play-station 3. For me, I believe the X-box is the greater system. The X-box has games like Gears of war 1-2 and soon to be 3. It is the system that started the Halo franchise. Yes the X-box may have a few problems but what console doesn't?
Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant and not worth discussing.

REBUTTALSPro has 4 main arguments:1: "GOD" IS SUBJECTIVE; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTSPro states: "God is a subjective concept and therefore not easily defined. Therefore ascertaining whether or not their is a certain God does not prove anything about other types of Gods."1: A god does not need to be subjective, as can be seen in the examples of gods that I provided. This means that objective proof of a god is possible.2: It's irrelevant what the qualities of other gods are. This is like kritiking the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain thermodynamics. Proving that a god exists is enough to be able to understand that the existence of that god exists, and thus is enough to understand the relevancy of the existence of said god. One needs only prove one god to have an impact.2: THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW IF SOMETHING IS A GOD; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTSPro states: "Whilst you may prove the existence of an individual or object that indeed does 'punch people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday,' you cannot prove anything else about that individual. Thus, the individual may well not be a God."1: To rebut, we need a definition of a god. Google provides, "a superhuman being or spirit ... having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" [2]. It is entirely possible to prove that something with some form of superhuman powers exists; if a being had telekinesis, telepathy, teleportation, or any of a variety of other powers, then it would have superhuman powers and would be able to control, to some degree, nature and human fortunes.3: EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD DOES NOT EXIST; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTSPro states: "However, there is no way to prove or that a God exists that will stop global warming if we all become pirates due to lack of good evidence for either side. Thus there is no point discussing whether or not there is a God as there is no evidence for any Gods, there is also no evidence to disprove any God exists."1: Pro provides no proof that no evidence exists. Because Pro has made a positive claim, Pro must back it up. Until Pro does so, reject the point.2: There are HUNDREDS of proofs of the existence of gods [3]. Pro must reject each, single proof individually and in full in order to win point 1.THERE'S NO REASON TO WORSHIPPro states: "Even if there was evidence to prove that a God exists ... that does not prove that we should worship God."1: This is irrelevant. The existence of a god in and of itself is important, as I have proven, and thus is relevant, providing plenty of reason to affirm.2: Of course there is. If being a pirate is worshipping a god, and if being a pirate would stop global warming, and if you want to stop global warming, then of course you would be a pirate and thus worship said god.REFERENCES [2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://web.archive.org...
Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant and not worth discussing.

Round 3 My opponent argues that you are able to prove the existence of a God who, for example, 'punches all people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday.' Whilst you may prove the existence of an individual or object that indeed does 'punch people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday,' you cannot prove anything else about that individual. Thus, the individual may well not be a God. Thus you have not provided evidence for a God, you have only provided evidence for a being whom punches people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday. You can make no other assumptions from this. My opponent goes on to argue that 'if a god that will stop global warming if we become pirates [1] exists, then we would know that becoming pirates is a good idea.' However, there is no way to prove or that a God exists that will stop global warming if we all become pirates due to lack of good evidence for either side. Thus there is no point discussing whether or not there is a God as there is no evidence for any Gods, there is also no evidence to disprove any God exists. Even if there was evidence to prove that a God exists, which is impossible, that does not prove that we should worship God. All you would have achieved is prove the existence of a deity. This would not mean that religious people were right to worship the deity. Nor would it prove that scientists should look to a certain type of religious text for advice as the deity may not have had anything to do with the writing of it. Perhaps, even if a deity was proven to exist, the deity may be an advocate for murder. Then what? Do we decide that 'well what the deity decides is right so we'd better do as they want.' No, there would still be arguments about whether or not we should do as the deity thinks is right. Over to you, con.
Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant and not worth discussing.

I'm pressed for time, too.My argument basically goes like this:It's possible that a god exists.It's possible to prove that certain sets of gods do or do not exist. For example, a god that punches all people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday, is disprovable and provable.Of those provable gods, there are impacts if those gods exist. For example, if a god that will stop global warming if we become pirates [1] exists, then we would know that becoming pirates is a good idea.Thus, it's relevant if certain gods exist or not, and it is thus relevant to discuss whether or not said gods exist.REF[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Quality of headline news

When the media refers to the history of the end of the cold war, the Malta Summit Bush -Gorbachev is never mentioned or given any importance, when actually it was the beginning of the end, certainly, not the fall of the wall, which came after. This is a classic example of how our so called professional journalists react -Malta, WHERE it happened is not worth of news coverage, But, was the WHAT happened- the summit, worth of prime coverage? Big brother is influencing , or dictate, the main stream head lines, very unprofessional!
Quality of headline news

I can agree to some aspect that main stream media has ultimate control over what they share with the public. There is plenty of news worthy subjects that should be discussed but are not, such as the Malta Summit. As a Canadian citizen I can give you an outsider perspective on American media- it is completely different than news in Canada and anywhere else. Usually, the news is based around violence and feeds the citizens this violent nature and fear. I feel like this fear that the media instills into it's citizens distracts those same people from the larger subjects they should be paying attention to, as you mentioned. There is absolute truth in that what happens is 100% controlled by the government and what they are willing to share for the sake of their own benefit, but the combination of where also plays into it. A majority of the Western world has no real understanding of what goes on outside of their homelands, for they do not care enough to pay attention. This can also be because of the fact the government wants to censor certain things and events from mainstream media in order to implement ignorance- telling us that our country is the best and therefore rotate consumerism in the Western world. I suppose what can be considered important or worth news coverage is subjective, but I can agree with you that Big Brother ultimately controls these headlines for the sake of their benefit.
Quality of headline news

It is where it happens that matters rather than what happens. Reflecting on a global scale, the Rwandan genocide occurred with absolutely no coverage in the Western countries. This genocide occurred over the span of 100 days and 70% of the Tutsi were eliminated. It is estimated that up to one million people lost their lives during this genocide. The United States government was aware of the preexisting conflict that was happening in this area (power struggle between ethnicities), yet fear of interfering kept them from stopping a mass genocide. The Israeli government was confirmed to have sold firearms throughout the conflict to the Rwandan government, but refused to release any documents saying so. Western countries did not even hear a whisper of what was happening until reporters began to tell their personal experiences after the genocide had occurred. Reporters had the information and were not allowed to fly back home until the conflict had settled and was safe enough to leave; even with making phone calls and connections back home, there was no media coverage or attention brought by the United States government. When you turn on the television and listen to the news, you are mainly going to hear what is happening locally (within the country) rather than news on an international scale. Even so, when global news is being broadcast, it only focuses attention on the violence in other countries, feeding into the idea that Western countries are better than any other. When people hear of international conflict, they are selfish in the sense that they feel bad for a split second and then change the channel, or it creates a great conversation piece at the next dinner party. There are numerous events that occur every single day outside of North America that are extremely serious and news-worthy, yet remain clear from the media. The question really boils down to, do people really care what happens outside of the Western world? If so, it the sympathy genuine, or is it just moral conformity?
Jesus probably did not exist

My previous debate on this topic, coupled with some forum discussions, has clearly sparked a flurry of interest, which I believe is a very good thing. My opponent has offered to have this debate with me, so here we are! Like in my other debate on this topic, I will advance the proposition that on the balance of the evidence available to us, there is good reason to believe that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is probably not historical. I intend to meet this burden of proof using two key contentions: first, that there is no good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and second, that there is good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is mythic. I have the burden of proof. Also, if you don't know how to judge a debate without bringing in your own biases, beliefs or facts from outside the debate, please go away and learn to judge. Or judge not, lest ye be judged. That works too. I'm going to define Jesus very broadly as the character talked about in the Bible. I do not contest that nobody in Nazareth had the name "Jesus" in the first century AD, but rather that the specific "Jesus" talked about in the Bible is probably a fictional character. "Existance" is pretty self-evident, but I do mean in the physical sense of the word. My opponent will be free to challenge these definitions within the context of the spirit of the motion, but if they do so they must provide an alternative definition for me to argue in favor of. I shall begin my case in round two. Because I'm way too over-confident, I'll give my opponent the oppertunity of starting their case right away, effectively giving them an extra round. This will help me target my first contention and spare voters a lot of pointless reading, so it's for my good too. Alternatively, my opponent may choose to use this round as an acceptance round and let me start us off. No other structure will be enforced in this debate. Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
God is a supporter of war

1 Chronicles 28:3 says But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war and hast shed blood. King David himself said this, who was a man after God's own heart, so if God would not allow him to build a house that is in his name how can you say God supports war. Because of what this verse says anybody who has killed In the name of war no matter what war they were a part of, God would not want them to build anything in his name. Also God throughout the Bible talks about how you should love your enemies and how you should pray for your enemies. He didn't say go out and kill them just because they are against you or are against what you believe in. If the United States of America which I still belive is a nation under God went out and declared war against every country who was against us than there wouldn't be much of this world left. It would also mean many innocent Christians would die, because the United States isn't the only country with Christians. God also says to turn the other cheek. So God would not want us to go to war for every hostile act that was commited against us. As Christians we should ask ourselves what would Jesus do. So if you we're to pray to God because somebody has mistreated you whether it's a bully, or a friend and you said Jesus what would you do in this situation I don't think he would ever respond I would go to war.