BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Incapable of Dictating Morality

Good luck, and I hope we can have a good debate. Now, as we begin we must pay close attention to the attributes ascribed to the God that I am arguing, which is the God of Christianity. My opponent allowed a God of my choosing, that comes with all the attributes ascribed to him, this including but not limited to Omni-Excellence. In this debate, i will be arguing that the Christian God does in fact have the ability to dictate morality. The two attributes i will be primarily focusing on, are God's omnipotence and God's Omni-benevolance. Meaning, he is infinite in power and authority; AND, all good. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) "Possibility 1: "God says that these things are moral or have meaning, value, and purpose, and therefore they have morality, meaning, value, or purpose. " "Presumably, the statement "I have faith in that what God says is true" is not to be found too far from this statement. Unfortunately, the statement "I have faith" quite literally is an admission that "I do not have justification for what I believe. " But let's ignore this and move on. " Unimportant, we are assuming that the Christian God and all attributes ascribed to him exist. "If God says that X is wrong, then I ought not do X") as being true in the first place. But this is independent of anything that God could ever justify, or, more precisely, be used to justify. This requires you, the human, to make the first "move," so to speak, in order to justify God's morality; you have to put meaning into God, otherwise everything that God says has no justification. Ergo, what God says has no ultimate justifiable meaning, because it requires a human to say, "I agree with this" in the first place. So it cannot be "absolute" in any sense of the word. " This is not true. Logic dictates that as the creator of the Universe, God has the capability and authority of setting the standards of morality for his creation. Basically, his game his rules. ~~~~~~~~~~ My arguments: ~~~~~~~~~~ As God is the creator and ruler of this known world, which is pre-established along with his Omni-excellence it is absurd for one to think that he could not lay the laws for his creation. As my opponent allowed, God is infinite in power and authority. It is also absurd to say that we must first put meaning into God before he has any justification powers, like i said above his existence is pre-established. As well, because God is infinite in power and authority, and everything he wants is good and/or moral (definition of benevolent) in that infinite power and authority, he has the power to dictate the moral code for his creation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Presupposition Fallacy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When my opponent says that God does not have the ability to do something by our logic, he is presupposing that God is bound by the same logical chains that we are, which is most definitely not the case, if this were to be true than God would not be omnipotent which contradicts the agreement that was aforementioned. I await the next round.
Bryan Mullins, The Shriner's Necrophiliac Society: Children were having sex with dead dogs

This is just a theory, it's not like I'm saying it is fact, it is just a theory. You don't just attack a theory for being a theory. Let me quote you in simple terms. "Burden of proof: It is an established rule of logic that a person who makes a claim, has a burden to prove their claim. (pro) has made a VERY outlandish claim, and he has not backed it up with any sources. What links he has provided serve only to establish the date at which the Shriner's Hospital has been founded; and to play Music. . which is in my opinion, a bit creepy. " Does the founding year not have to do with the calculation I made? It does have to do with the sum, if it didn't, you would obviously know that I made up a random number, which would be blatant. Which I did not make a random number. The numbers all add up, you don't just attack a theory for making sense. Reinstating the calculation for the refutation of Con's overestimated claim: "Since each Shriner's hospital has 162 rooms, then there are 22 of those hospitals; and, they've been around for about 96 years, they've had sex with 342,144 dead dogs. " 162 Rooms per hospital/ Number of child patients X 22 hospitals X 96 Years Estimated History ------------------------------------------------ 342,144 Dead Dogs! Let's define Necrophilia. Necrophelia: "sexual attraction for or sexual intercourse with dead bodies Also called necromania, necrophilism" [1] The Burden of Proof counterclaim is not necessary to just attack a theory without being proven yet. It is to counterclaim something that is obviously opinion, which in this case, doesn't necessarily need to be used. Let me reinstate my theory after making all of this clear to you. "First, let's say we interview a Shriner's hospital child patient, or Alec, for example, you'll ask him "what do you think is cute and can help you do anything you want it to? " Alec responds "A dog or a puppy" and you respond "what would a dog or a puppy do for you? " Then, he responds "fetch me a ball or help me get to where I want to be" then you'll argue and prove that disability isn't even a thing, like saying "If you were really "disabled" or if it was even a thing, that wheelchair would have to be required, but it wouldn't be required because you're not "disabled," you have sex with dead dogs just like every other child patient does here, at Shriner's Hospitals For Children. " Alec would freak out or even cry because they knew what they were doing, but at the same time, failed to make an excuse to avoid the truth. " Sources used in debate: [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://m.youtube.com...
Bryan Mullins, The Shriner's Necrophiliac Society: Children were having sex with dead dogs

Burden of proof: It is an established rule of logic that a person who makes a claim, has a burden to prove their claim. (pro) has made a VERY outlandish claim, and he has not backed it up with any sources. What links he has provided serve only to establish the date at which the Shriner's Hospital has been founded; and to play Music.. which is in my opinion, a bit creepy.Absurdity of the claim: It's an absurd claim. people are having sex with dead dogs in Hospitals run by a charity group. What sane person would consider such a thing let alone act on it? And for there to be such a wild and socially unacceptable thing happening by such a large organization would require a cover up of massive proportions. Is that a reasonable assertion.. The answer is clearly No.Demand for Pro to produce credible sources: In light of the unreasonable claims, I demand (pro) provide sources supporting their claim.
Bryan Mullins, The Shriner's Necrophiliac Society: Children were having sex with dead dogs

First, let's say we interview a Shriner's hospital child patient, or Alec, for example, you'll ask him "what do you think is cute and can help you do anything you want it to?" Alec responds "A dog or a puppy" and you respond "what would a dog or a puppy do for you?" Then, he responds "fetch me a ball or help me get to where I want to be" then you'll argue and prove that disability isn't even a thing, like saying "If you were really "disabled" or if it was even a thing, that wheelchair would have to be required, but it wouldn't be required because you're not "disabled," you have sex with dead dogs just like every other child patient does here, at Shriner's Hospitals For Children." Alec would freak out or even cry because they knew what they were doing, but at the same time, failed to make an excuse to avoid the truth. Here is an interesting fact however, Since each Shriner's hospital has 162 rooms, then there are 22 of those hospitals; and, they've been around for about 96 years [1], they've had sex with 342,144 dead dogs. Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://m.youtube.com...
Bruce Arians is a bad offensive coordinator for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

As I am playing the devil's advocate in this debate among my family, I will let my opponent present the arguements with which I will refute -- however, I will state that Bruce Arians (currently before the Super Bowl on Sunday) has won a Super Bowl as an offensive coordinator, two AFC championships, and was the wide recievers coach for the Steelers when they won Super Bowl XL in 2005 with Cowher, and thus Arians has proven himself, at the very least, that he is capable of preforming well at his current position as offensive coordinator of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Floral shirts should be compulsary school uniform

I am not wrong. Most boys will choose not to vote in favour of wearing floral shirts to be compulsory because they believe it is a feminine pattern: "not a pattern widely embraced by the everyday male " perhaps due to its feminine." I understand that there are many causes of bullying but this would increase to number of reasons why people get bullied. It has been proven that people wearing there own clothes for mufty day has led to students behaving badly and work not being completed because they feel that while they are in their own clothes they can mess around and have the freedom to do what they want to do, this could lead to people being distracted in lessons and work not being done. This could then impact people and cause them to fall behind in school work and then affect them in life if they do not get into the university they wanted and may have to choose a different career as a result of this. Overall I do not believe that floral shirts should be compulsory uniform in 6th forms as it has been shown that it can affect people's lessons and education which in a society like we live in today is a bad thing as it is becoming increasing harder to get a well paid and long term job.
Floral shirts should be compulsary school uniform

You are wrong because there are many other reasons why bullying takes place, not just because of floral shirts. Besides, if everyone is wearing a floral shirt, bullying is not likely to happen because if someone is bullying another person about the shirt, they should look at themselves in the mirror as they are wearing a very similar design so could easily be bullied themselves. Also, if people argue to change the school uniform, how is this any different? People may ask to change the colour of the tie (e.g) some people may vote in favour of the change, whilst some may vote against the change. Either way, some people will be displeased with the end result. You state in the above argument that "You are suppose to dress like you want to learn and succeed not like you are going on holiday to Hawaii." However, the clothes a person wears does not affect their attitude to learning, if a person does not want to learn, they just won't put in the effort.
Floral shirts should be compulsary school uniform

I do not think the floral shirts should be compulsory across post 16 center's across the united kingdom because I believe that it will cause bullying as it is not to everyone's dress taste. Not only will it cause bullying but it will cause a protest from other 6th former as they would want to wear their own clothes and not have to wear these floral shirts. You are suppose to dress like you want to learn and succeed not like you are going on holiday to Hawaii. Therefore I do not think the floral shirt idea is one that should be made compulsory.
God isnt real

Unfortunately we are at the end of our time together, I have enjoyed it. . . Thoroughly. Now Mein Kampf as one of sacred texts of Islam also provides us devout Scientologists with some glorius insights in to how Tom is f**king gay. It is true that the answer to your proposed question about twin dick size is just like Jesus himself, They're both gay, And thus both deserve to die in the fiery pits of Hades. That about wraps up my arguments thank you very much. However before I go I would like to say I'm actually in a mental asylum and your'e all gay.
God isnt real

First of all thank you for sharing your wonderfully enormous penis size. . . Daddy. Hit me up on Grindr <3. You being a flaming, Flamboyantly fabulous homosexual who hates gays aside, The communist manifesto "the word of the lord" is true, God is Gay, However as the trinity states he is both fully gay and fully straight (also fully trans fluid but we won't get into that now. ) Also for your response about the Jews is similar to the answer for the blacks, However the jews are there to be the slaves for the black people. Also known much like my favorite song (despacito squared) the jews are evil squared. And I believe we have found common ground in that a second Holocaust is more than late, 100% support killing all the Jews and lesbians (praise be to them). Additionally as stated in The Very Hungry Caterpillar, In order for there to be humans, There must be a creator. Yes that may be a paradox but just like Stephen Hawking who DIED trying to calculate the square root of Despacito trying to solve this question is not advised otherwise you will end up in heaven with papa stalin and daddy hitler. The fact that you play pokemon go is great! Tom cruise our lord and saviour does as well! Anyone who doesn't must be forced into the gulag and sit in the "naughty corner" as daddy our Lord and Saviour Adolf Hitler pounds you again and again, Spanking you with his hardcore REASONING AND LOGIC. God Bless, All Rangas should die in a fire
God isnt real

GOD isnt real. My penis is 23 inches long! This has nothing to do with the debate but i would bed anyone i want. Also, If God was real then his thirsty a** wouldve hit me up by now! As delineated in the communist Manifesto, The so called divinely inspired word of God, "The lord is gay and we need the Holocaust 2" If God was real, Then why are there still jews in the world. Why havent we gotten rid of the pest that is Jews. Moreover, You refer to the big bang as god taking a sh*t, But if there was a god, Then who vreated that god. And if that person created god, Wouldnt that make him the God. Exactly, A pardox. Therefore, We need communism and as a result of Despacito 2, Suicide rates drop to 0. I rest my case, I play pokemon go everyday and i desperately need someone to tear me a new a**hole :P
God isnt real

Hello, First of all thank you for posting this debate topic, As a devout Scientologist I thoroughly enjoy spreading the wonderful word of Lord into the hearts of all who are willing to accept it. First of all Black People? Easily explained, The only purpose of black people in life is that the Gods from Uranus created them to be our inferior slaves in heaven. As quoted in the bible Genesis 3:16- "And God said, Let all black people be a tolerable evil". What our lord Tom Cruise means by this is that we must tolerate these stinky black people, Who else will serve us in the afterlife? Secondly your explanation for your "devious desires" as I'll put are also completely explainable in the words of our Lord. God is in fact a chronic masturbator (which also explains the meaning of rain but that is for another topic. ) I mean why else would it feel so God. You say "Thus, God made me to be bad". He didn't. A common misconception is that masturbation is bad, Its great, In fact so good for your health that the World Health Organisation recommend "jerkin the gherkin" approximately 69 times a day. Finally we were created from the big bang, The Big Bang rather than being a purely scientific event was actually God getting a bad case of diarrhea and sh*t all of us out. As the lord describes in the Pokemon Go Trainer Guide Book : "Cr*p that was a big one, Better get some more meth to deal with it. " Once again thank you for this opportunity and God bless, Let the Lord penetrate you, With his thrusting words and wisdom. God Bless.
God isnt real

God isnt real. If god is real, Then why are there black people who are polluting our world. Have you seen the smog in the skies, People are blaming it on factories and carbon emission, However it is the air that black people breath out from their lungs. If God was real then why does he allow this to happen. Furthermore, If God was real then why am i horny and masturbate. God is apparently all good and made us in his image. Therefore, God made me to be horny and commit sin. Thus, God made me to be bad, Which means that he is not a good being. NO good being would make someone to be bad. Ultimtately God isnt real. We were created from the big bang. I dont relaly understand how it works but believe me im right :) PS: if we evolved from monkeys, Then why are there still monkeys? ! ? ! ? ! ? Anyways God isnt real!
Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S.

Contention 1: the Penny is Useless?Yes, garage sales are still a thing. The average number of garage sales in the US per week is 165,000. The average cost of clothing is $0.59, CD's/DVD's $0.47, and household articles are $0.57. You see all of these things do not have a round number and you're own video depicted that that it would round these things up and thus costing more to the average Joe. (http://www.statisticbrain.com...) Contention 2: Sales TaxMy opponent goes on to say that 1-2 cents is not much of a problem, but if that is true then Pro's own original point has been proven invalid. You see that Pro said that the cost of making a penny was .0126 cents and that's barely that much compared to the few cents that getting rid of the penny will cause. Please do not let this pass by.Contention 3: The NickelMy opponent's only argument here was that the nickel will be impossible to get rid off, but he does not actually offer up any evidence to defend his point. You see that currently the Nickel is worse than the penny and Pro does not attempt to defend this point so please extend this point across.
Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S.

1. Well that's great, but I don't really care that you use pennies for garage sales. (Wait, garage sales are still a thing? Really?) Considering that we're thinking in terms of actual businesses and services. 2. It's just a 1 or 2 cent difference, I doubt that's much of a problem.3. Hey, I don't like the nickel either, but lets be real here; it's impossible to think we can actually get rid of the nickel.
Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S.

I watched the video, but I do implore that pro actually types out his own arguments.Contention 1: Penny is Useless?In the video my opponent brings up states that the penny is useless. But here's an interesting thing. I actually find pennies and then use them at garage sales where it is easy to use and people do not have a problem with it. Contention 2: Sales TaxIn today's world the sales tax is used and important in the US. Currently the sales tax varies across the US (http://salestax.avalara.com...) But where I live the sales tax is 7.3%. Let's say I go to McDonald's and buy a Dollar menu Cheeseburger. The total would be $1.07. Where I would have to pay with a dollar, a nickel, and 2 pennies. Or I could do a Dollar and a dime, but then McDonald's would need 3 pennies to return to me. A huge thing that the video my opponent is that the sales tax will be rounded up to the nearest 5 cents (at 3:09 in his video). This will cause prices to hike up and more people will be unable to pay for things. (http://coins.about.com...)Contention 3: NickelAnother key thing my opponent misses is that when the penny falls out of contention that the Nickel will cost more to make and the cycle will just continue to go on and on. The nickel costs 7.7 cents to make and when you do the math the US mint can make 5 pennies and still save more than making 1 Nickel. (http://coins.about.com...)
Death Penalty

One of the reason I am for the death penalty is that is deters other people from committing a crime that could warrant the punishment. They might think twice before they commit it knowing that they could face the death penalty. You also know that if someone is put to death then they will not offend again. If they faced that punishment for murder, then you know that they will not ever hurt anyone ever again. You could be saving countless lives by punishing one person that way.
Death Penalty

1) I firmly believe in the death penalty when it comes to another person killing another. Why should the person who took someone else's life get to live? I think they shouldn't. They deserve the death penalty for what they did. 2) Murder of another person seems life a perfectly justifiable crime to have the death penalty used. Suffering in prison for the rest of their life would not be enough in some cases. That would not be a good enough sentence. 3) I am sure in the case of murder the family of the person that was killed would think that the murderer being put to death is justice. They have already lost someone that they care about, so why should the other person's family still get to see them?
Death Penalty

Thank you for accepting LatinaGirl. Resources are not required unless you're using a statistic. Good luck. My argument is standing against the Death Penalty. 1) I believe the Death Penalty contradicts itself by killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong, collapsing the whole idea in on itself. 2) There's no crime possibly commitable that a lifetime suffering in prison would not be worse than death, for example, imagine a gang leader gets caught and sentenced to the Death Penalty..in one day his life is over where as if he got assigned life in prison he would suffer every day for the rest of his life. 3) The thought that killing a criminal is going to solve anything is ridiculous, considering the same crimes will continue to be commited, people will still be murdered, rapings will still occur. One single criminal is dead, and there's no way he'd be able to do anything to anyone, though, right? Correct, but in prison he wouldn't be able to either, and he'd continue to live the one life he has.
Gun Control

The reason i raised the point that EX-criminals would not have access to a gun is because after they servred their sentence in a correctional facility they should not be a danger to society anymore. So if they serve their sentence why cant they have the ability to purchase a firearm? As long as the correctional facility did their job then we should not have to worry about anyone purchasing firearms. What if the convicted felon was non-violent? why should they get their right to a gun taken away? Works Cited Uggen, Chris. "Restoring Gun Rights to Felons?" March 15, 2013:The Society Pages. 22 Oct. 2013
Gun Control

Round 3 ResponseIn response to your point in round 2, the only people who would be discouraged to apply for a gun are those with criminal intentions. Again you allways come back to saying that gun control is about getting rid of guns, when in fact it is about putting tighter regulation on how to get them. Nowhere in gun control is the idea of banning guns. Your point about the black market is mute, only 10-15% of guns used in a criminal offense are stolen. those who have criminal records have lost their right to weapons, just like they lose the right to vote, and with 50% of criminals become reofenders that is just fine. Criminals have allways been restricted to buy weapons and that won't change with gun control.workcited "Hot Guns." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.Round 4 ResponseFirst you wanted to put guns in the hands of criminals, now kids. With gun control kids will not be denied the right to learn how to use a gun although they would have to be past a certain age. Just like you have to wait untill you are 16 to start driving. You wouldn't give a five a ten year old a drivers license nor would you give them a gun license. Like I said in my round 3 response only 10-15% percent of guns used in crimes are from your so called "blackmarket". No matter how you try to spin it gun control is a obvious and reasonable solution.