BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animals should have the right to bear arms

Animals should have the right to bear arms because they are otherwise left defenseless against hunters. Animals cannot at this moment defend themselves against poachers and hunters. With this civil right, animal will be given weapons donated to them and allowed to shoot or stab each other, and all hunters and poachers. The main rule of nature is survival of the fittest, and we are just leveling the playing field. If needed, the animals will be given a long sword and duct tape, WITH their consent.
Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

It is sad that Con forfeited this round for unknown reasons. However, this shan't be the reason for the termination of debate. For his sake, as Instigator, I am revising the "overview" of this debate. This round, shall be Con's rebuttal to my argument stand. My counter-rebuttal will be next, on round 5, also the closing of my argument. Con can respond to my counter-rebuttal or simply state his closing remarks (in round 5). I wish Con the best.
Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6 "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:40 These verses can mean something else. It is possible that what Jesus meant was not exactly a "follower" of him in a way praying or worshiping him. But rather, being a follower of him in a way of doing good deeds. Yes, These were the most important commandments he gave to his disciples: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. Matthew 22:36-38 "Love" can have hundreds of meaning. Certainly, "love", as stated on Jesus' first commandment did not say to "worship nor believe". Love, as stated there, means to love God by way of doing good works. As I said, God, the christian God is omniscient, therefore he is just and fair. If he would cast down people to eternal damnation even though they were good in their entire lives, is he still just and fair? We keep hearing the saying, "God is good, all the time and all the time, God is good" For God is good, He, by default shouldn't even do that. For he loves everyone, all of His creations and he hates no one. But, for those who were really bad, had serious crimes against life and haven't changed, God has no choice, as the perfect Judge he should cast those to hell. There is nothing wrong with the verses. But rather, the people's wrong use of it's meaning to it. The Bible does not speak for itself, it cannot defend itself, it's a book, a non-living thing. So there can be a lot if interpretations from scholars and religious people alike. The important thing is, we should use everything "goodest" (if you will) possible way. The "love" that Jesus wants us to do. I await your rebuttals.
Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

And Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6 According to the new testament, the only way to enter Heaven, is to accept Jesus into your heart. You must accept Jesus into your life, only then will you be with God in his kingdom. Also, consider this verse. "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:40 I do not see how any Christian could deny this. Only though Jesus Christ can one gain entrance to Heaven. If you are a non believer and you have not accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior, According to the Christian Bible, you will not go to heaven. If you are a good person, you pay your taxes, you don't lie as often as most, you are kind and courteous to others, you will still not be able to go to Heaven if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

I thank Alexander_The_Great for accepting to refute the above topic. Expectations: 1.) He is a christian and has vast knowledge about his religion. 2.) Accepts the rules Let us now begin. We know that God, is an omniscient being. He is a just, merciful and fair deity. He is the perfect judge this world has ever known. He loves everyone and hates no one. But only the worthy should be allowed to enter His kingdom in the afterlife. By "worthy" I meant it as people who have been good throughout their lives or has done bad but changed. People such as Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Gays/Lesbians, Serial Killers, Robbers, Prostitutes-- can, for me, be allowed to enter Heaven, if and only if, they were good in their entire life, or has done bad but changed for the better. For any people to enter Heaven, he/she should not be required or forced to even believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But rather, and simply, done kind acts, or is kind, or is bad but has changed for the better. To understand this further, let us translate this, into a situation. "Farooq is an Atheist and a famous local serial killer. He has killed dozens of innocent people. Raped dozens of little girls. Stole a heap lot of money from poor people and also burned sacred images from the Church to the ground. After a couple of days, he was arrested, found guilty and sentenced 12 years in prison. Even in jail, he has caused trouble with his fellow inmates; trying to have a fight, plotting to escape and attacking several guards. His uncontrollable behavior forced them to put him on a special cell and also adding 3 more years for the offenses he has done. After his 15 years in staying in jail, he was now a free man. His family is now gone. No one was there to even fetch him. He felt a little sadness, but his mind and heart made him strong. The next months, he has done everything for his community. He helped the elderly on a local home-for-the-aged. Volunteered for the fire department. Donated blood on his local hospital monthly and being a model for those who want "change". Yes, he is a changed man. After years of good service and still doesn't believe in the Christian God or bashing people's beliefs, he died of old age." QUESTION: Will God, allow the Man enter Heaven?or will he cast him down to burn in Hell for eternity for the sake of not being baptized or not believing in Him, despite his good contributions at the final chapter of his life? If God would to put the man on hell, "just because he isn't a believer or baptized, which was the only stumbling block for his entry in heaven" is God still just and fair? CLOSING: With what I said above, there is no reason for God to block the entry of the souls who are worthy by logic to enter his kingdom. I await your arguments. *I have placed no sources at the moment, as all of these are of my own knowledge and intent.
Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

Before we can begin this debate, my opponent (Con) should be a Christian. Con's job is to refute the above topic, according to his/her point of view or the teachings of his/her Church. Just to clarify, I myself, is a Roman Catholic. My Church greatly opposes to this and I am having my perspective and knowledge of my years of understanding as a Catholic, be my basis in defending the above topic. Overview: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Presentation of Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter Rebuttals Round 5 - Conclusions RULES: 1. ) Legitimate sources is required 2. ) No Ad Hominem Attacks * My opponent can feel free to add more, "sensible rules". But, he/she should ask my permission, as the Instigator, before such rule will be implemented on this debate. Also, he/she should do it in his/her "Acceptance" speech. Definition of Key Terms: 1. ) God- an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. 2. ) Heaven - where God dwells and the souls departed 3. ) Non-Christian - a non-believer of the religion "Christianity". E. g. Atheists, Muslims and other factions of religion.
Evolution is more likely than intelligent design to account for our modern selves.

Evolution has many supporting factors that, in weighing all of the ideas on the origin of life, push it above all of the other origin points. I am not saying that it is one hundred percent undeniably the only source, but the margin between it and the next best thought (intelligent design) is quite great when one looks at every bit of information from every possible point of view and comes to a conclusion without a predetermined belief in this or that. One should not look at something as an absolute truth, as those are extremely rare in any subject, but base their personal beliefs on careful and thoughtfull analysis from every angle through all others beliefs and work to make our own conclusion. When one goes through these steps without already having an answer in mind, I strongly believe that they would agree on the point that evolution is far more likely. If we look at the anatomical makeup of the human body, it seems to me that the vertebrae are compressed more than they should be, but have been decompressing slowly over the past few hundred years or so, and that is simply caused by the need for our vertebrae gain a a greater span between each other to account for our growth into a bipedal animal. Being able to observe fossils from thousands to millions if years ago has given us such a great span of life and growth to study that we can almost watch the history of evolution play out before out very eyes. It is quite a wondrous thing on its own that believing in intelligent design is a downplay on the fantastic greatness of nature.
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

Even if imagination was digital (which it is not, it is analogous in value and you can have a barely, somewhat or very imaginative life) this does not explain how us leading anon-imaginative life would make us worms, as there are far more possibilities of us not being worms and thus it's the safer bet. My definition of worms comes from a very reputable source: http://bit.ly... Any of a number of creeping or burrowing invertebrate animals with long, slender soft bodies and no limbs.
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

my previous argument,if read carefully,provides all the ans.There is only 2 things in this world-yes/no,black/white,ie opposites.Thus,2 types of lives are present-one imaginative,other non-imaginative.there are no more alternatives.And as per your arguments,I feel that you have taken the meaning of the title literally.here worms dont mean real worms.the topic is a contrast between imaginative and non imaginative lives.thus in that context,I find that these 2 arguments of yours are irrelevant
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

Okay let's drop number three. We are still left with these two undisputed matters: (1) If we do not have an imaginative life, then the alternatives are limitless, only few being that of us being a worm. Thus, it is far more likely that the minority of possibilities that include us being a worm are not the ones that finally get chosen. (2) If we have never lived, we can't be worms for worms have lived.
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

As my opposition suggests in his 3rd point,I would like to say that imagination is not seeking the unknown,but it is the evaluation of all the possibilities that future may have proposed for us.As for your first argument,i would say that there is only 2 things in this world-good/bad,yin/yang,black/white,ie,opposites.Thus the only alternative of not leading a imaginative life is leading a unimaginative life bound by hard and fast rules. As for his 2nd point,i feel he has taken the title literally
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

There are several paradoxical lines of logic that this resolution proposes. I shall list them one-by-one: (1) If we do not have an imaginative life, then the alternatives are limitless, only few being that of us being a worm. Thus, it is far more likely that the minority of possibilities that include us being are not the ones that finally get chosen. (2) If we have never lived, we can't be worms for worms have lived. (3) If we are worms, we have had the imagination to dig into the unkown.
if we dont have an imaginative life we are worms who have never lived

I think that without imagination, humans are just shells with organic matter. Imagination is something which lends us the creativity to do what we desire. Without imagination, we wont be able to any of the complex works provided to us. Human kind has progressed this far only because humans have the imagination to see themselves with a brighter future, lending them with the necessary to impetus to carry on with their works and duties diligently
'Quote Battles' are not debates.

http://www.Debate.org... They do not argue or discuss; therefore, it is not a debate. Debate-a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides http://www.merriam-webster.com... As we can see in an example of the 'debates' I have in mind, they simply throw out quotes. While this is relevant to the contention, they do not argue why their quotes are better or funnier. In this manner, this is no debate.
'Quote Battles' are not debates.

Yes, I do agree that the NOUN form of this debate was used, however, a debate in your NOUN definition, is a proposal that is contended by 2 matched sides. In these cases the proposal is "Who has funnier/happier/better quotes?" and the 2 matched sides are the 2 contenders. "There was no discussion, and there is no argument. My opponent cannot source a time in which one side argued that their quotes were better." As a matter of fact, I can cite where they say it was a debate and which side to vote for because their quotes were better. Furthermore, the arguments in this situation were actually, quotes! The following excerpt is from the debate that MY OPPONENT even cited (making it a reliable source): ============================================================================ "theitalianstallion Pro First, I thank my opponent for this DEBATE and such a fun one at that. Now, for my quotes..." ============================================================================ "theitalianstallion Pro Thanx again for the DEBATE and best of luck. ============================================================================ "theitalianstallion PRO Again, thanx for the DEBATE. And a reminder to vote Con ============================================================================ (funny thing was, he was pro) Well, even the competitors consider this a debate. Theitalianstallion (a prominent member of DDO) even said so. Clearly my opponents argument is wrong because, while he states that there is no arguing in a quote battle, there is because you are arguing which quotes are better and also because he states I could not cite where there was a mention of a debate or which quotes were better. Well, I provided 3 and can provide plenty more, but i dont feel lik plucking through every quote battle on DDO. I urge a CON ballot on this debate. I thank my opponent for studiously bringing this topic up and thank all of the voters and viewers for observing. Thank you ALL!
'Quote Battles' are not debates.

"That was the noun form, the VERB form states the debating is to contend words to see which side is better." In the resolution of this debate, the noun form is used. "I knew immediatly that the deabte was about which quote was funnier. Theitalianstallion had clearly won. This proves that my opponents quote above this very paragraph is wrong, because they were debating which quote was funnier." Having a resolution does not make it a debate. There was no discussion, and there is no argument. My opponent cannot source a time in which one side argued that their quotes were better. Because they did not argue or discuss, there was no debate. Vote PRO. Thank you.
'Quote Battles' are not debates.

"As we can see in an example of the 'debates' I have in mind, they simply throw out quotes. While this is relevant to the contention, they do not argue why their quotes are better or funnier. In this manner, this is no debate." When I clicked on the above, said debate, I looked immediatly at the topic. It said "Funny Quotes". Because the topic said "Funny Quotes" I knew immediatly that the deabte was about which quote was funnier. Theitalianstallion had clearly won. This proves that my opponents quote above this very paragraph is wrong, because they were debating which quote was funnier. "Debate-a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Well, I also clicked on this link and saw the definition and you are clearly right. A debate is a proposal that is debated between 2 matched sides. That was the noun form, the VERB form states the debating is to contend words to see which side is better. Well, your definition is right, as well as mine. Debating is a contending of words, and if those words happen to be quotes, so be it.
Marijuana should be legalized.

It's too bad Red24pat12 didn't want to actually debate. Because of this, here isn't much I need to say, so I won't waste your time with a lot of rhetoric or crystallization. Let me quickly summarize the reasons why you should vote Con. 1. Marijuana has a number of harmful societal effects. 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. 3. Teenagers will use marijuana to a greater extent if it is legalized. 4. The marijuana ban is justified paternalistically. 5. Red24pat12 never clarified the topic. 6. Red24pat12 forfeited not only one, but two rounds. From all of that, it is pretty clear that I have won this debate. In addition, let me encourage a seven point vote in my favor for the following reasons: 1. Red24pat12 forfeited two rounds, while I forfeited none. --> I have had better conduct. 2. Admittedly, Red24pat12 had few grammar mistakes* (See my note below), and no spelling ones, but - then again - neither have I. I have said a great deal more with fewer mistakes than my opponent. --> I have had better spelling and grammar. 3. Red24pat12 had only two constructive arguments (as I explained right in round one, his second argument was defensive, not persuasive). He never warranted or justified any of them. I provided a total of six persuasive arguments which I thoroughly warranted and which my opponent never refuted. --> I have made more convincing arguments. 4. In terms of source usage, he never used any. He had the burden of proof, so until he provided empirical evidence for his case, I had no need to. He failed to provide any evidence for his side, so there was no reason for me to waste effort in pursuit of reliable sources. That said, I still used the most reliable sources available to any debater: logical analysis and simple reason. Red24pat12 didn't even use those. --> I used the most reliable sources. I'll gladly debate this with someone else in the future if someone wants to redeem Red24pat12. Thank you, vote Con. Zabcheckmate * In his first argument, Red24pat12 uses the phrase "common legal drugs". Properly rendered, this phrase would read either 'commonly legal drugs' or 'common, legal drugs'.
Marijuana should be legalized.

*Summary* Since Red24pat12 forfeited this round, all of my arguments against the legalization of Marijuana stand. All of my attacks on his argumentation stand. He's essentially already lost the debate by dropping everything I've said. I won't waste much time reiterating my arguments, let me just remind you of the tag-lines. 1. Marijuana has damaging effects on society and individuals other than the user. 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug, and by banning it, we reduce hard drug use. 3. Marijuana use for teenagers will increase. 4. A ban on marijuana is justified paternalistically. In addition to proving each of these things, I made it clear that Red24pat12's arguments are invalid, and he needs to make up a great deal of ground at this point to win the debate. *Theory* In addition to all of the topical analysis I have given to show why Red24pat12 is wrong, I would also like to make some theory arguments about why Red24pat12 should lose this debate, even if he is right. 1. Clarification of the topic. I asked Red24pat12 to clarify the topic of the debate in Round 1. Not only did he drop all of the argumentation in this debate by forfeiting Round 2, he also failed to make clear what this debate is even about. He should lose at face for refusing to take a clear position. He should also lose at face for not making it clear to me what exactly I have to prove. On both of those accounts, this round is effectively over. 2. Forfeiture of a round. Obviously Red24pat12 doesn't care much about debating. Whenever someone forfeits a round, they should lose the debate. This is now an open and shut case. Once he forfeited the last round he demonstrated: A. He doesn't care about debate B. He doesn't believe his position important enough to defend C. In a comparative sense, that I deserve to win this round more than he does. *Please...* I accepted this debate because I wanted to have a good discussion about Marijuana legalization. I still want to have this debate. Red24pat12, please actually debate with me instead of just forfeiting the next round. Thanks. Zabcheckmate
Marijuana should be legalized.

I propose the legalization of Marijuana. One of the most used arguments for the legalization of Marijuana is that it will produce massive tax revenue. I'm no economist. I want to look into the morality of marijuana. 1) Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. 2) Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. 3) Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals.
Utilitarianism is an unsound ethical system

1. The debate should be impossible to accept. Finding a way to accept without permission will result in an automatic loss for Con. If you would like to accept, please say so in the comments section, and I will challenge you in a few days. 4. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to use the following definitions: Utilitarianism- the doctrine that "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" should be the guiding principle of moral conduct. Unsound- not based on sound evidence or reasoning, and therefore unreliable or unacceptable. Good luck, Con.
The Church of Scientology is a cult that should NOT have protection from the IRS.

Well, it appears you have no retort for my assertions nor any defense of Scientology so I'll make this short and sweet. Scientology is a dangerous cult and I'd strongly urge anyone involved or considering becoming involved to thoroughly investigate organization outside of the "Church's" propaganda literature. That you "know" about Xenu without being an OTIII has nothing to do with doctrine. If you learned of Xenu before that level you did so outside of Scientology as the cult demands members who reach that level not to discuss it with anyone as knowing about Xenu before you are ready will cause serious injury or even death. And it's not just Russia. The U.S. is the only true safe haven for Scientology now. Most of Europe has shut down or greatly curtailed the activities of this cult. These countries didn't run Ron L. and company out of town because they disliked him or out of religious persecution, they did it for the welfare of their citizens and out of recognition for what this organization actually is.
The Church of Scientology is a cult that should NOT have protection from the IRS.

The Tom Cruise couch jumping religion isn't a religion at all but a cult, and a dangerous cult at that. I would LOVE for a Scientologist to take this, but I doubt if any are in here they'd have the guts to do so. It would just cost too much in auditing sessions afterward. Any OTIII's out there want to take me on?