BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The meaning of life is that God is good

the argument that supports the claim that the meaning of life is that God is good is this..........for the third or fourth time, who's counting? ...... the supporting argument is your assertion that life has no meaning if God did not create it.....so your whole argument has no meaning I guess.........why don't you try saying "life means God is not there?" that is actually what you are saying, right? then offer support ......then you will be beginning something more creative than using my supporting point of the meaninglessness of life without God as your refuting point. You are trying to argue against my assertion by using my supporting point as your refuting point.....but you are agreeing that life has no meaning if God did not create it........talk about brain dead, I was hoping to get a better argument.......let's try this........if you can do whatever you want, why can't you do it forever? why do you have to stop? I'm trying to help you formulate a better argument. Now can you make a better argument against the fact that life means God is good? If life does not mean God is good, then it really is not good that you live, is it? it is meaningless, right?..........fear God, it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Don't be a fool.
The meaning of life is that God is good

Are you kidding me? You haven't given one argument for you claim. The only thing you've done is talk around the subject and argue whether or not I agree with you. I obviously don't. I believe god did not make the earth, therefore the meaning of life is not that good is good. I don't have to elaborate on that, I don't have to give proof. It's your job to give arguments supporting your claim.
The meaning of life is that God is good

You are agreeing with the supporting point of my argument........I'm asserting that the meaning of life is that God is good, and the supporting point.....which you felt (according to the way you assign meaning) should have been my supporting argument for round 2........the supporting point is that if God did not create life, life has no meaning and you are agreeing with me in the supporting point and trying to use it as the refuting point in the argument. You need to come up with something more original for your insistence that life does not mean God is good.
The meaning of life is that God is good

I am, you're supposed to form your argument in round 2. But fine, I'll go first.Life does not show that good is good. Life does not have one absolute meaning. A meaning of a person's life is given by himself, not by God. And since you have the burden of proof, you will have to prove that the meaning of life is that God is good. And I wish you good luck on proving that.
The meaning of life is that God is good

My claim is that god does not exist and life has no meaning given by some supernatural force. You can't do whatever you want forever because you will be arrested and convicted. There's no god present, just the law. Pro has failed to give any argument supporting his claim and has only asked me to make an argument for mine. Pro had the burden of proof and he gave no proof. He has only claimed that if god is not the meaning of life, then that is not a good life, which is a personal opinion and certainly no argument.
The Current Drinking Age

I think the drinking age should be lowered to around age 12. People gotta grow up. If they learn to drink up at an early age, they'll get swole as hell. Not physically, but emotionally. Just a couple swigs and your average 6th grade band student is transformed into a BEAST of a human being. We need more strong folk in society, not these lankyass BlTCHES, you feel me? When I was young, I took that there bottle and chugged the SHlT out of it and look at what it made me: tall, black, and handsome. Sometimes, you just gotta let a boy get wasted, you dig?
The Current Drinking Age

Many young Americans believe that lowering the drinking age would be beneficial to the safety of teenagers. However, the reality of a lower drinking age has many disadvantages that outweigh the benefits. The national drinking age has saved many lives since it has been set in 1984. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that current drinking age of 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18 to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1984-2008. Underage drinking has shown serious effects on the brain. Heavy and extended alcohol use by teens is associated with a 10% reduction in the size of the Hippocampus, which is responsible for memory, causing the memory of an underage teenager who drinks to be significantly inferior to an underage person who does not. The Prefrontal Cortex, which is responsible for behavior and decision making, has shown a reduction in size for underage teenagers who drink frequently. The decrease of size in the Prefrontal Cortex can cause poor grades and behavioral issues. A lower drinking age may sound like it could solve many underage drinking issues in the United States, however, U.S teens actually show a lower rate of binge drinking than teens who live in Europe. In Europe, the drinking age is 18. The lower rate of binge drinking among teens in the United States goes to show that having a lower drinking age does not ensure safe drinking.
Opponent picks topic.

Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides. Topic should not be about religion or celebrities etc.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 3 days.Character limit: 5000Thank you.
Opponent picks topic.

Please note that rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent (special condition can be included). Also, justified rule breakage (including forfeiture due to previous opponent forfeiture) does not count as rule breakage. TOPIC: Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables. Tomato: a type of fleshy, juicy fruit, usually red, used in salads, sauces etc. Fruit: the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food. Vegetables: a plant or part of a plant used as food, typically as accompaniment to meat or fish, such as a cabbage, potato, carrot, or bean. My side: ProPro argues tomatoes are fruit. Con argues tomatoes are vegetables. ARGUMENT True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and usually contain a seed. So, oranges, which contain a seed and develop from the ovary are considered fruits. "Once the ovules in the ovary have been fertilized, the ovary begins to develop into the fruit (tomatoes). " [1] This signals that tomatoes devolop from the ovary. Also, tomatoes contain seeds as you know. (. http://wiki.answers.com...)[1] . http://www-plb.ucdavis.edu...
It's Legal In The USA To Marry Several Women Without Them Dying Or Getting Divorced

Thanks Con for...accepting? Writing an incomplete sentence about your thoughts? Thanks for whatever that was, Con. This should be fun. *Marriage* In the United States of America, marriage is a sacred custom that not only serves as an outward expression of two people's commitment to one another, it has tax implications, it impacts social structures, and can sometimes serve as a fundamental base to create a family unit. Which is why I myself have married over seven women, legally, right here in the U.S. of A! Some people hear that and are taken aback, but I'll have you know that not only did all of the women consent to the marriage, it was all originally my wife's idea; she thought we could use the extra income. I married one woman in Virginia, one in Pennsylvania, and five women right here in the Free State of Maryland. It certainly increased our income; my wife was right. The USA and the governing bodies there within have absolutely no problem with me marrying all of these women, in fact, I received a thank you letter from three of the county clerks in whose jurisdictions I married the women; you're welcome county clerks. I consider what I've done a great service to the local community and to all those women who just want to be married to someone they love. Since I've now married seven women, it seems like every other day another woman wants me to marry them...how can I say no? They want me to marry them AND increase my income; sign me up! My sister asked me to marry her as well, and I said "absolutely, I would love to," but unfortunately she found some other guy to do it. I never miss an opportunity show how much I love my family; I *really* love them. I also married my best friend's fiance; he cried when I told him that I would marry her. Ah love...isn't it grand? That's why all of the seven wives whom I've married have expressed to me how happy they are. One was adamant enough to vocalize her appreciation for me during the honeymoon, if you know what I mean... What's better is that these ever-pleased women recommended me to others, so I can marry even more women; the more the MARRYer I suppose...a little marriage humor for ya. One day, thanks to the permitting laws of this great nation, I hope to marry my daughters. I'm certain they will know that they've found the right man, and that would be the reason I would marry them. Why wouldn't a loving daughter want their dad to marry them? Surely my daughters love me enough to let me marry them. *Conclusion* The fact that I'm an ordained minister/officiant, affords me the ability to marry any woman (or man for that matter) and any amount of women in any of the 50 United States, though Virginia's Attorney General did kinda give me crap for not being a member of a brick and mortar church, but whatevs, Virginia's not even a state; it's just a commonwealth. We ministers legally marry people all of the time. The resolution is affirmed.
It's Legal In The USA To Marry Several Women Without Them Dying Or Getting Divorced

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.*1st round is for acceptance.*By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to be used.*I request that moderators actually remove crappy votes.Full ResolutionIt's legal, in the United States of America, to marry several women without them dying or getting divorced.ProHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Pro also has the BoP to show that it's legal, in the United States of America, to marry several women without them dying or getting divorced.ConHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.Definitionslegal - permitted by law.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...United States of America - a country occupying most of the southern half of North America and including also Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...marry - join in marriage.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...several - more than two, but not many.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...women - adult human females.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...without - in the absence of.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...dying - being no longer alive.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...divorced - legally dissolved of one's marriage with someone.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*May the better debater win votes from voters following Opt-In voting standards.
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

I cant really argue this subject with you James becuase you are too lacking in science and Chemistry, fuel and combustion technology. the argument I made is that hydrogen is the only possible and best fuel for transportation. It has nothing to do with hybrids or not Cars are not running on water- water had nothing to do with hydrogen. Finally, your silly conspriacy theories about "secret carborueators" that would somehow triple gas mileage is just silly I appreciate your attempts, but you really have to have a clue about Chemisty and combustion, and such in order to debate this topic the debate primarily hinges on Ethanol and biofulels, the current attempts at alternative fuels, being disasters and never being able to make a significant impact, thus we are wasting time going down the wrong road.
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

In response to that although I don't have a background in science, I still think that a hybrid car would be more efficient.Next Please. Water does not burn it is the additives in the hydrogen that burn which would cost much more than the regulation of the gas that is already being produced. Gas additives do not work due to the fact that hydrogen is part water and carbon dioxide. it is the carbons that would be emited into the air not water. Hydrogen would be more expensive to produce than water or gasoline produced today. This would not be cost efficient. To regulate gas would mean bringing down the prices we are paying at the pumps today. The solution to gas burning cars is to look for cost efficient ways to cut down on fuel costs. Next Please. Car Dealers have a device that can be put into the carbourator that can give the driver 50 to 100 mpg. The government does not want the general public to know about this, they would rather look for alternative fuels which would cost the public more money for the research and development of this.
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

Hi James I dont know how much background you have in the subject, but your points are quite wrong. #1 Alcohol, or EtOH as I call it , is ethanol, the widely touted "new" alternative fuel It takes 3 times as much energy in fossil fuels to make and transport a gallon on EtOH to the pump as gasoline it is an inferior fuel, having less BTU/ gal it also emits aldehhydes, like formaledyhde finally, it is dependent on photosynthesis to start, which is 1% effieient Bottom line : EtOH is a total loser and is only being pushed by misguided politicians with no clue by the farming lobby hers is just one of many technical links to educate you , or just type in "ethanol is a disaster" is a google search http://www.lewrockwell.com... #2 yes we have gasoline electric hybrids, which are more efficient and intriduce regenerative brakes and and electric drive train Hybrids will eventually be hydrogen-combustion - electric hybrids #3 This is where you obviously have no background in science " Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe." How can H2, which burns with O2 to make H2O, emit hydrocarbons (HxCy) this is nonsense. Hydrgoen is split from water, through electrolysis, and remade into H20 there is no pollution whatsoever, unless you think water is a pollutant #4 The ONLY way to fuel the ENTIRE transportation sector is with hydrogen and electricity, produced from renewable resources. this is a plain and simple fact that is irrefutable why havent we done it yet ? becuase gas has been 2$ a gallon until recently hydrogen costs about 5$ / gallon equivalent (in Germany currently- where gasoline is 7-8$) that is the only impediment IT does need to be a TOP-DOWN, i.e federally mandated transition
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

In response to your challenge, I find that maybe using alcohol might be better due to the fact that we need a cleaner way to fuel our cars. As you are probably aware we already have hybrid cars which run on battery or gas in the vehicle. Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe.
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

EtOH is a disaster - both using more energy than is produced, and also depleting food sources (ie corn ) for humans, which is more important Biofuels are OK but have major problems and will never make up even a FRACTION of our energy usage in the transportation sector (cars, planes , boats, trains, trucks etc) Bottom line :any source of energy based on current photosynthesis, which is 1% efficient, is meaningingless in the long term or from an efficiency standpoint Hydgrogen can be made from any source of electricity and water. the world is 2/3 water the sun provides about 15000 times the energy we need on a daily basis just in the US lower 48 territory alone to produce the hydrogen to run our entire transportation sector at only 5 % efficiency. photovoltaics, nuclear, wind power, hydrolectric, coal, gas, and and other sources of electricity can all be used to produce hydrogen hydrogen will only make water when burned stoichiometrically (correct 1:2 ratio), and some NOx if not, no CO2 for all you scared global warming schmucks Cars should go from gas- electric hybrid, to nat gas / electric to hythane hybrid, to hydrogen / electric hybrid Planes run fine on liquid H2 I would love to hear some schmuck who wants to try and push Ethanol or biofuels, or someone who thinks we can drill our way away from the muslim nutckaes and loser dictators (saudi, Iran, Venezuela, etc) who WE ARE COMPLETELY DEPEPENDENT ON cheers hydrogen guy
What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

In response to your previous argument, no you don't know my background . Which has nothing to do with this debate. Although I am not a combustion scientist I am well aware of the gas prices today. This is why I ask you to prove your theory of why we need hydrogen cars as opposed to gas burning ones. I have some knowlege of how a car engine works which gives me some leverage to continue debating this issue. You obviously have not looked at a car enging lately to study how it works, as opposed to someone who is curious about it like me. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to have a curious mind. Now to learn about the thing called a combustion chamber. This is the little chamber that the gas goes to when it enters the tank this then fires off sparks to help make the car go. Although I do not know as much as a scientist might I try to analyze how and what would make a car or other vehicle run. Hydrogen is a molecular structure , made up and split from different structures. This would be a more expensive source of fuel to use in our vehicles, looking for other sources of fuel would not be the solution for our problem with oil and gas. We should regulate gas so that we can put a seal on how much our gas costs,by doing this we can look to renewable resources, we can convert our recycleables into oil which would cut down on fuel costs, because we would not have to rely on overseas oil as much as we do now.Plus we have alot of oil off the coast of the United States that we have never drilled. Scientists and chemists are not automechanics, so your theory about this is unfounded please back up this arguement, because this sounds like nonsense. Please read Automechanics 101 to find out what makes the engine of the car go. You will find this book in the local library this will blow your mind. You in the last 2 rounds of this debate you have not proven why we should use hydrogen instead of gas in our cars. In response to you personally attacking me and my character I do not appreciate it ,Also I will not dignify those with a demeaning or malicious statement I am only directing the arguements to the debate at hand not at you in any personal way,as you have done to me.
There are more churches than Circle Ks

What is needed is some way to resign. The voting system should evaluate the merits of the arguments. It seems to be mainly for the benefit of management. How about some more flexibility or even negotiability during the debate of the debate parameters: number of rounds, time, length... How about a forum for discussing these topics? Do the Terms of Service permit posting of links to other debate sites such as http://www.greatdebateforum.com... ? Is it really appropriate to do so?
There are more churches than Circle Ks

An assumption so obviousit I shouldn't have to state it nor the assumption that what I really meant was that there are more pictures of churches than pictures of Circle Ks. Of course every Circle K sells Hallmark Cards and newspapers and magazines with lots of pictures in them but the churches do not have pictures of Circle Ks. But we are debating what I said, not what I meant, and that Circle K thinks it's in Tampa. Besides people have gotten married in Circle Ks so they are churches too.
There are more churches than Circle Ks

Not so fast. Maybe what I really meant was there are more churches than convenience stores. Such a figure of speech, a synecdoche, is a type of metaphor and one could not be blamed for supposing that common parlance to be intended. Who knows, maybe even grocery chains are similar enough to Circle K stores to be included. If churches are also similar enough then you have an auto win. No geographical scope was specified so maybe there is a part of the world, certainly any Circle K. Out of space.
There are more churches than Circle Ks

The Circle K corporate website states that "there are more than 4000" Circle K stores internationally. (http://www.circlek.com...) I will be generous and say that this number is 4,999 for the purpose of this debate. (We know that there are less than 5000 stores internationally or the website would state so. Now the know how many Circle K's there are internationally let's examine how many churches there are in New York City. ROFL I just realized that I read the topic wrong. You win