BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Glazed donuts are sinful

Pro Writes:"Gluttony is defined as "an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires."http://www.deadlysins.com......Of course people "love" donuts because, did they not, they could not be gluttonous towards them. I am not a glutton for doing my taxes each because taxes are a living hell and I am too cheap to pay someone else to do them. The Con demonstrates they clearly have no idea of what "gluttony" is. Perhaps English is not their first language.Look at the nutritional scores of a modern donut:http://nutritiondata.self.com......It is chock full of carbs and fat, but low on vitamins. Even the types of fats and carbs it has are not the best kind but, rather, those which are most readily broken down into artery-clogging fats and triglyceride-raising and glucose-level spiking sugars. Unlike more fibrous carbs or fruit sugars, the body does its worst with these. Considering this, how can anyone eat them but a snorting, piggish glutton?"___________________________________________________First off, the first couple of sentences you wrote were very funny. Thank you.Now,Everything that he wrote in the paragraphs above is completely irrelevant to this case. We are not hear to discuss how many donuts you should eat a day or how donuts are not good for you. Last time I checked, the title of this argument was "Glazed donuts are sinful". We are here to discuss whether or not they are sinful to religion. My opponent clearly shows no evidence and I am starting to wonder whether or not you know about this topic................... About the link ------------------------ It shows no evidence about it being a sin to a religion. It only talks about how it is unhealty to eat donuts.
Glazed donuts are sinful

It is a sobering experience to be accused of not being in the proper mind by an "EliteMadMan." Were it a "sub-parMadMan", I might not be so taken aback. Godwilling, I will recover, though. The Con writes, "Everyone loves donuts, if you don't then you don't know what you are missing. I don't know what was going on when you submitted this for a debate but you sure weren't in your right mind." Gluttony is defined as "an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires." http://www.deadlysins.com... Of course people "love" donuts because, did they not, they could not be gluttonous towards them. I am not a glutton for doing my taxes each because taxes are a living hell and I am too cheap to pay someone else to do them. The Con demonstrates they clearly have no idea of what "gluttony" is. Perhaps English is not their first language. Look at the nutritional scores of a modern donut: http://nutritiondata.self.com... It is chock full of carbs and fat, but low on vitamins. Even the types of fats and carbs it has are not the best kind but, rather, those which are most readily broken down into artery-clogging fats and triglyceride-raising and glucose-level spiking sugars. Unlike more fibrous carbs or fruit sugars, the body does its worst with these. Considering this, how can anyone eat them but a snorting, piggish glutton? This website gives an overview of the teachings of the major faiths when it comes to indulging in donuts: http://www.beliefnet.com... Anyway, if donuts aren't a sin, the Con will need to do a better job of proving it. Your amateurish and ineloquent assertions do little to help your cause.
Evil and Suffering fails

okay i get it but i think you havnt answred my question from round 1. "well apparently in the bible its written god created everything.. clearly he made evil as everything hasnt stopped following his perfect plan?" is evil not in gods plan? and if it is then god pretty much is the evil, and satan is god by fear.. if god was walking around mountain high and commanding us to do his bidding, i wouldnt disagree with you about gods existence.. i see god in that case
Evil and Suffering fails

As mentioned earlier in the debate, the purpose of this debate is to show that the argument of evil/suffering is insufficient to disprove the existence of God. The default position is not, that since this particular argument fails to prove the non-existence of God, that God now automatically exists. It is also not required of me to prove the existence of God in order to show that the argument fails since this is a common ATHEISTIC objection to the existence of God. I will have to deviate from the current topic we are debating to answer your question how I know whether God is real or not. If you agree I can deviate and answer your question in the last round. But first I would like to know what proof you would find convincing in order to be persuaded that there is a God?
Evil and Suffering fails

When using the argument of evil and suffering to disprove the existence of God, it is usually directed against a good God. Arguing against a good God can only establish a 50% probability that a good God may not exist. That is the problem with the argument, because there is still a 50% likelihood that a bad God may exist who is causing it. This means that the existence of God was not disproved 100% but only a 50% likelihood established that a good God cannot exist. That a good God cannot exist while evil and suffering is present is also debatable. Most religions believe in the existence of good and bad gods. So in order to disprove these religions it must be established that a good AND a bad God cannot exist because of the presence of evil and suffering. As for your reference to the God of the Bible, it is said in the Bible that God created evil. The question is how is that possible? Evil is not something materialistic. There is no object that can be observed that represents evil. If I tell you that it is good not to kill someone is it then not obvious that it is bad to kill someone? If I give you a gun and tell you it's for hunting to provide food for your family and you decide to kill someone is it therefore impossible for me to exist because I gave you the choice and means to commit an evil act? Of course not, and the same is true about God. The moment God said what was good the possibility of evil was created. Think of something GOOD that cannot be perverted or does not have a negative opposite. God must have had the knowledge of what is evil before He created everything good like Genesis says. If He did not know it then how was it even possible to distinguish or lable something as good? The concept of good is meaningless if it is not contrasted or compared to something else. Is something good? Good as opposed to what? You can only answer that question by comparing it to something that is not good. The Bible states that God cannot lie. It is therefore obvious that the knowledge of evil was present before God created everything because He knew what a lie was. When God created everything this knowledge was imparted as a necessity for the sake of sanity. I say sanity because as I explained before, it will probably be impossible to understand or comprehend that which is good without knowing it's opposite i.e. that which is bad or evil. I have wondered off the topic somewhat and will try to summarize the point I tried to make here. Proving a 50% likelihood that a good God cannot exist does not prove that NO God, good or bad, cannot exist. The argument therefore fails when used by an atheist because the atheist must show that NO God is able to exist.
The New 52 is a good series.

"While my opponent has yet to say more than a sentence in favor of why the New 52 is a great series," I have said a lot more than just one sentence. My whole argument last round provided details and thoughts to my side after each counter of your quotes. It will be relatively the same this round. "So just an understanding of flash-point is necessary to be able to tell me what happened in the War of Green Lanterns or how Damian became Robin." I am not completely sure of what you're trying to say there, but an understanding of flashpoint is not all that is needed. To understand the War of Green Lanterns, you just have to read the War of Green Lanterns. To understand how Damian became Robin, you need to read separate storylines like the Black Glove. "He also claimed that DC did not erase anything, which I will then ask what happened to Wally West one of the greatest and most well known characters in the DC universe who does not exist anymore or have not yet because of the New-52." I never claimed that DC did not erase anything. If I did, I didn't mean to. And I will tell what happened with Wally. Wally is just benched for now, meaning that he is on a halt to appear and/or he just hasn't shown up yet. He has been confirmed to appear in one of Grant Morrison's fourthcoming storylines."Is indeed an alternate reality" It is indeed an alternate reality but it isn't an alternate universe. Don't ask me to explain that because I don't know if I can correctly. "and Joker could have easily had is face removed in the books before flashpoint." Untrue. It is obvious that the Joker's face was removed after flashpoint, because we know that his face was cut off by the villain Dollmaker. Dollmaker's first appearance was in the New 52, so it is outright impossible for the joker to have had his face cut off any time before that.
The New 52 is a good series.

While my opponent has yet to say more then a sentence in favor of why the New 52 is a great series, I have attempted to make a cohesive argument against the New-52. To rebut his arguments, if you look at some of the many arcs that came to a close only a couple of months ago in batman and green lantern, these arcs were started and drew upon events and characters that were only seen in books before the New-52, so just an understanding of flash-point is necessary to be able to tell me what happened in the War of the Green Lanterns or how Damian became Robin. He also claimed that DC did not erase anything, which I will then ask what happened to Wally West one of the greatest and most well known characters in the DC universe who does not exist anymore or have not yet because of the New-52. They have erased large chunks of continuity in some books, but have kept large chunks of it others. This was not a clean reset, the editorial board decided to restart some books, but kept others while condensing years and years of remaining continuity into 5 years. As for Earth-2 I apologize for a typo that was a mistake and I ask you to read the trade back of Earth-2 's first issues. You will see that it is indeed an alternate reality and universe which is the whole point of Earth-2. Earth-2 is the Earth is not the same Earth it is the alternate reality where Darkseid managed to defeat the Justice League and kill Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. While I will argue that the New-52 did not change characters enough to warrant a reset of their entire continuity, your argument is not exclusive to the new-52 as the Joker story line in Death of the Family had many references to events that happened in books before the New-52 and Joker could have easily had is face removed in the books before Flashpoint. The new-52 was called the new-52 because there were 52 titles. They have always canceled the same amount of books that they have added to keep that number. That was part of their original plan so I would look into that before you dismiss my claim as June was the first month it did not happen and they have waited to start the new series until after Trinity War and Villains Month was concluded. I conclude my defense as my opponent has not given any evidence of his initial argument.
The New 52 is a good series.

"it in fact makes things more confusing." Not really. All you really need to know in order to understand the New 52 is an understanding of the events in Flashpoint, and it is quite useful to read the New 52's Zero Issues."...DC decided not to erase it." Of course they did. The New 52 didn't technically erase anything, all it really did was change some things up. So that argument is kind of pointless."Not leaving the fresh start that my opponent claims to be the reason the New 52 is a great series." It is a fresh start. The New 52 is taking the same universe we've known this whole time and tweaking it up a bit so we can fit in more new, fun, fresh, and original adventures of our favorite superheroes."While there is the potential to completely retell the characters stories, only a few series like Earth-52 completely re-imagine the DC Universe." Like I said, the New 52 is not trying to retell character's stories or events or whatever. I told this in my above point. Also, there is no series called "Earth 52". There is one called "Earth 2", but not "Earth-52". Earth 2 is about a separate earth where heroes are different. It exists in the same reality and universe as the regular Earth."...by changing characters outside of what they already know." Yes, the New 52 changed characters. But for the better, and they involved storylines and plots that explained how the character got that way. Like The Joker with his new uber creepy peely-face thing. That was because Dollmaker cut off his face and gave him a new one so the Joker could be "reborn"."DC also would maintain that they would publish 52 books every single month." That is not true in the slightest. The idea of the New 52 when it came out was to release Zero Issues for 52 new comic book series. Most of these series would go on, but some were canceled. Other series sprouted out of the original New 52 series, expanding this post-flashpoint universe. So, to sum it up, DC never even said or implied publishing exactly 52 books every single month. The "52" in "New 52" is just saying how many series came with the start of the post-flashpoint DC Universe.
The New 52 is a good series.

I welcome all who are reading this debate and will first counter my opponents argument and make one more of my own. Rebuttal While yes the purpose of the new 52 was to clean up the DC Universe, it in fact makes things more confusing. DC had many comics before Flashpoint and the beginning of the New 52 which were selling in big numbers that had big names on the books in the middle of long story arcs like Batman and Green Lantern. These books are rich in back story with numerous Green Lanterns and many Robins and other supporting characters for Batman. These characters existence can only be explained by the long back story and continuity that the New 52 was going to erase so DC decided not to erase it. So now years and years of story have been condensed into 5 years and continuity that can only be understood by reading pre-Flashpoint books are still in effect, not leaving the fresh start that my opponent claims to be the reason the New 52 is a great series. While there is the potential to completely retell the characters stories, only a few series like Earth-52 completely re-imagine the DC universe. The DC writers still draw on continuity and in effect, brings a tinge of uncreativity to the books as many are focused on slightly tweaking origin stories of villains or trying to shock readers by changing characters outside of what they already know. Now onto my own argument, that the business model of the new-52 actually impedes creative processes with DC's lower selling comic books, many of which are some of the better series both in artwork and in stories. With the New 52, DC also would maintain that they would publish 52 books every single month. Writers had to maintain their book, not matter how well written, to be selling well or else they would get cut and replaced. This with DC's usual editorial meddling made many of comic book writers leave DC and head elsewhere to have more freedom to write good comic books. This has decreased the quality of the DC universe and the New-52 series as a whole. I look forward to my opponents response
The New 52 is a good series.

I thank you for allowing me to debate you on this topic and I too have am a huge DC fan and have especially been following the Justice League, Justice League of America, Green Lantern family, and scattered readings of the other new 52 comics. While I have came across many great books (Green Lantern 20 was a masterful send off for Geoff Johns) I still have my doubts about the New 52 as a whole.
The New 52 is a good series.

I will start off my closing argument for thanking my opponent for the debate and thanking anyone who has read this. I would like to remind voters that since I am the con for this debate, my goal was not to argue that the New 52 was a bad series, but that it was not a good series. To restate my arguments, I will first start off by saying that the New 52 was not the complete fresh start needed to succeed. It still brought in large chunks of continuity into the timeline that creates a more confusing and convoluted universe. This has made it hard for readers to figure out what has and has not effected the characters actions and their personality. Also many plot points and story arcs have drawn things that happened before flashpoint, defeating the point of giving new readers a new jumping in point. My second argument is that the business model governing the New 52 is bad for attracting good writers and keeping good stories. The editorial pressures and controls have driven away many good writers and canceled many good books in order to bring new books needed to set up the universe. My opponent neglected to contend this point besides a misinformed argument about keeping 52 books going at all time. My opponents arguments have been few and scattered as he spent most of his time picking at the details of my argument. His only claims are that that some things were erased and changed but nothing too major and that it provided a fresh start. While I have already proved that the fresh start was not effective, I will spend the rest of my time rebutting his claim that nothing major was cut out. As whole pieces of story line was either compressed or deleted, the characters themselves did not change. They maintained the powers and personality brought from these stories, but without the history to support it. I now conclude my time by again thanking my opponent and the readers.
The New 52 is a good series.

"Your one and only argument so far is that the New 52 has cleaned up the DC Universe and provided a "fresh view"." No, it isn't. My past arguments have featured more elaboration on that subject and more reasons why the New 52 is a good series.I will save a spot in this argument for me to clear up my views so you and the voters don't get confused."When I confronted him about that "I never claimed that DC did not erase anything. If I did, I didn't mean to." I said that DC did not technically erase anything. Technically. You're missing out on a key word there."Who have yet to be seen like Cassandra Cain, Stephanie Brown, Azrael, and many more." I will elaborate on the status of each of Con's mentioned characters below, my source being Wikipedia.Cassandra Cain: The status of Cassandra Cain following the events of Flashpoint remain unknown although Grant Morrison has said that she will be appearing in the "New 52" somewhere. So she, like Wally, is just benched, but will appear soon.Stephanie Brown: Wikipedia has this to say about her in the New 52: With Barbara Gordon becoming Batgirl again after the events of Flashpoint, Stephanie Brown is no longer Batgirl. As of May 2013, Brown has not reappeared in a DC comic. Fans of the character attempted a letter movement, sending waffles, waffle mix, and/or letters to the editors, expressing a wish to see her published once more. Dan DiDio revealed in an interview that about ten waffles had arrived as of that time and expressed doubt that her fandom was really as strong as it appeared.Azrael: Your statement about him is outright false. Azrael has appeared in the New 52, the Michael Lane one. I am going to say what Wikipedia said: Azrael has recently appeared in the rebooted The New 52 continuity. The Michael Lane version of the character was originally featured in Batwoman issue #2 as a cameo, which was written before the relaunch but published after, however the art was edited in order to remove him. Regardless, Michael Lane appeared in issue #10 of Batman, Inc. His absence from Batman's organization is explained by his choosing seclusion and daily prayer as a way of repenting for all that he did as a tool of Ra's Al Ghul and Doctor Hurt, believing himself to hold an important role in the apocalypse. So there ya go."...could have created brand new origin stories," It kind of did. Many characters, like Guy Gardner for example, had their origins massively altered. CLEARING UP MY BELIEFS I know I needed to do it, so I'm going to. What I think about the changing and erasing of things in the New 52 is that some things were changed and some things were erased, but nothing too major.
The New 52 is a good series.

I will continue to respond to my opponents critiques of my argument: In his first argument my opponent claimed that "All you really need to know in order to understand the New 52 is an understanding of the events in Flashpoint, and it is quite useful to read the New 52's Zero Issues." When confronted with examples of storylines that continued into the new 52 he then said that "an understanding of flashpoint is not all that is needed" which is exactly my point. Your one and only argument so far is that the New 52 has cleaned up the DC Universe and provided a "fresh view". This is not the case as represented by your own statement how you need more then just flashpoint to understand many of the New-52 story lines. When I made the argument about the decades of continuity and the many characters DC has erased my opponent claimed that "the New 52 didn't technically erase anything." When I confronted him about that "I never claimed that DC did not erase anything. If I did, I didn't mean to." While I have not heard about Wally being in one of Morrison's new projects there are still many of characters who have yet to be seen like Cassandra Cain, Stephanie Brown, Azrael, and many more. The Earth-2 comics brought back the concept of the multiverse which if you just look at the word is the multiple universes of DC but that is not consequential to this debate. Both the creation of a new character and the ripping off of Jokers face were not dependent on the New-52. The New-52 could have created brand new origin stories, untangled itself from the continuity and stories of past writers, and created a whole new never before seen universe. What happened was that part of continuity stayed and part did not creating a tangled, nonsensical timeline of events that obscure what is and is not still part of the characters past.
Britain is not a meritocracy

The European Parliament (EP) is elected by the citizens of the European Union to represent their interests. Its origins go back to the 1950s and the founding treaties, and since 1979 its members have been directly elected by the people they represent. Elections are held every five years, and every EU citizen is entitled to vote, and to stand as a candidate, wherever they live in the EU. The latest elections were in June 2009. Parliament thus expresses the democratic will of the Union's citizens (more than 490 million people), and represents their interests in discussions with the other EU institutions. The present parliament has 736 members from all 27 EU countries.Parliament has three main roles: Passing European laws – jointly with the Council in many policy areas. The fact that the EP is directly elected by the citizens helps guarantee the democratic legitimacy of European law. Parliament exercises democratic supervision over the other EU institutions, and in particular the Commission. It has the power to approve or reject the nomination of commissioners, and it has the right to censure the Commission as a whole. The power of the purse. Parliament shares with the Council authority over the EU budget and can therefore influence EU spending. At the end of the procedure, it adopts or rejects the budget in its entirety. I only used the U.S as an example, you see parliament is very much the same as congress and the king or queen is like the president.