BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormons

In ConclusionAgain, in your last argument you posted no sources so how can I take any of your interpretations to be accurate or true? You again, have posted scripture from the very book you're trying to defend. You can't source the thing you're defending as a source of it's own defense. You have dropped numerous numerous points I have made leaving many arguments undefended. For example, you never explained how the Book of Mormon is the Stick of Joseph. You have nothing to support this except for your own understanding and some vague Mormon verses. So, in conclusion, since you had the burden of proof in defending Mormonism I feel as if you have not successfully fulfilled this burden.
Mormons

Stick of Joseph = the Book of Mormon: The Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, Josephs children, were among the ten tribes of the Northern kingdom of Israel. One part of Josephs decedents came to america in 600 B.C. The records of their doings is known as the Book of Mormon hence it is the stick of Ephraim or Joseph. The Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah (the Bible) form a unified testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, his resurrection, and his divine work among these two segments of the house of Israel. A branch of Ephraim will be broken off and will write another testament of Christ, JST, Gen. 50:24-26, 30-31 The stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph will become one, Ezek. 37:15-19 The writings of Judah and of Joseph shall grow together, 2 Ne. 3:12 The Lord speaks to many nations, 2 Ne. 29 The keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim were committed to Moroni, If the Book of Mormon is true then the Mormon church is true. The only way to really know is to read the book yourself and take Moroni's promise at the end of the book Moroni 10: 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. If the Book of Mormon is true then the Mormon church is true. The only way to really know is to read the book yourself and take Moroni's promise at the end of the book Moroni 10: 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World.

I think that there's one clear point that Pro and I agree on: "evil" is a word, the meaning of which is hard to pinpoint.Okay, so, where do we go from there? I suggest that we look at the context in which the word is being used in the resolution and, instead of getting hung up on the word and its possible interpretations, we look to see what the meaning of the resolution is.So, perhaps we can ask ourselves this alternative question first:Is it possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the reality which we know?Now, if we find that the answer is "no" because of some aspect of our reality, we must ask whether the word "evil" could be used to describe that aspect; if so, we have to reject the resolution.So, again:Is it possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the reality which we know?It seems to me that the reality we know can coexist with a tri-omni being IF AND ONLY IF this reality is the best of all possible realities. If there were a better reality possible and there was a being wise enough, with power enough and with desire enough to achieve it, it would already be achieved.SO, we look at the World to see if it could, just possibly, be the best of all possible Worlds. Is it? Let me remind you of two things that Pro has said:"No degree of suffering is irrelevant to an omnibenevolent being""I do not believe that we live in the best possible world (or instant)."Now, Pro has also graciously conceded this:"...he [Epicurus - see Footnote] defined evil as pain and suffering in general, either physically or mentally. Since this is the foundation of this notion, you can refer to these things as evil if it is easier."Okay... thank you... so... putting it all together:If you don't think that we live in a World that has the absolute minimum of pain and suffering theoretically possible, you must find against the motion.Footnote:(from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...)For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia - peace and freedom from fear - and aponia - the absence of pain - and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and evil; death is the end of both body and soul and should therefore not be feared; the gods neither reward nor punish humans; the universe is infinite and eternal; and events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space. Sounds like a rational egg to me! Indeed, I've been a fan of Epicurus' original ideas for nearly 20 years. All this marvellous thought nearly 2500 years ago, too... what a legend!
It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World.

I wish to argue that the Argument from Evil [1] is unsound, and that a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being can coexist with the evil which exists in this World. My goal of this debate is NOT to prove that such a being actually exists. "If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist." The characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence in of themselves are not within the scope of this debate, but they shall infer limitlessness. My proposed definition of "evil" shall be: [Noun] Profound immorality and wickedness. [truncated definition from Oxford Dictionary] The only defined structure of this debate shall be that Round #1 shall be for acceptance of the debate, and of the definition of "evil". I am open to expansions or modifications of this definition if you wish to suggest so in Round #1. I possess the Burden of Proof, as I am making the positive assertion. [1] Wikipedia: The Problem of Evil - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Theoretically, Discord cannot be defeated by any villain

Good. I accept MODOK as a villain that Discord has to face. So, what powers do Discord have that make him hard to defeat? As can be seen from http://mlp.wikia.com..., Discord has many powers.Note: when I say "hit", I mean him getting damaged by lasers.WHY MODOK CANNOT WIN AGAINST DISCORD 1. Discord is extremely skinny, making him incredibly hard to hit 2. Discord can fly around very fastly, making him hard to hit3. Discord can teleport, making him impossible to be hit 4. Discord can warp minds around with a snap of his fingersMODOK's mind would have the complete opposite personality...which wouldn't exactly help him. An evil genius robot mastermind turning into a rather-dumb nice robot would make MODOK completely unable to hurt Discord, don't even talk about defeat!5. Discord could physically shape up MODOK into the weirdest shape possible just to entertain himselfAs sited by the MLP wikia, "Discord is able to warp reality on a fundamental level, changing the physical properties of the world around him and altering natural laws almost beyond recognition. As his power is chaos, he does not seem to have an easily determinable limit to what he can alter". However, it is shown in the episode Keep Calm and Flutter On that he can manipulate abiotic objects to become living, and still control them even when they are in their biotic form. It is safe to assume that Discord could manipulate MODOk easily.These two photos show Discord's living objects doing his bidding: As you can see, there is clearly no way for MODOK to defeat Discord.Onto you, con!
Theoretically, Discord cannot be defeated by any villain

Discord is a mighty villain from MLP:FiM. I think he is so powerful that he cannot be defeated by any villain. That's right. ANY villain, from any movie, show, or book.Discord is defeated if any one if these conditions occur:-he is killed -he is sealed in stoneHe is not defeated even if the villain can fight him off to a forever standstill. (becuase that's technically a tie)"Theoretically" means that if I can find one situation where Discord cannot be defeated, he cannot be defeated. It must be noted that in this situation Discord is probably not full of himself and tries his very hardest to finish off the villain, however, other than that twerk to his personality trait, the battle is otherwise fair.The battle takes place in a neutral situation that provides enough energy for both villains so the fight is "equal", other than their abilities, powers, and etc.You must state the villain Discord goes against in round one.Villain: a malicious being that uses innocent or good people, in order to fulfill his or hers or its own selfish needs. Examples: The Lich from Adventure Time, Incrediboy from The Incredibles, etc. etc.RULES-breakage of any rule results in a 7 point forfeit-Discord may not go against himself-Discord may not go against villains who are still drafted or with unknown abilities (like, the "miner" presented at the end of The Incredibles)
Fortnite is the best game known today

well to start off just because it sells more does not mean its better especially with a free to play game vs a paid games. and the reason it got so big was almost purely from you tubers or famous people, so it would be stupid to compare them like that. the reason it made more money was because of micro transaction witch most people dislike. i do think that fortnite is just overhyped. the game is largly base around luck an then skill, unlike dark souls 3 where almost any weapon can be used effectively(not including meme weapons)
Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering

The answer to your point about the money saved is simply that human life has no value on it. The human life is priceless and there's no amount of money that you could put on it. In this case you are right, but instead of using Euthanasia to end your life then the patient could just accept a natural death, natural death is definitely the cheapest way to die either way. No matter the amount of pain choosing your own death is not the right answer and it also doesn't matter if many people do it. If everyone was jumping off of a bridge for no reason at all would you do it too? Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't justify it.
Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering

What about the money saved when someone chooses to end their own life. They are no longer accepting materials that could be used to save someone else who might have a chance at living therefore they are participating in promoting the common good of society. This also affects the family. The family saves money and is not put into a serious situation of debt on top of the already costly funeral and burial that is coming in the future for them. What about unbearable pain, is that not a reason to want to end your suffering through death. If so many people choose to end their lives to alleviate suffering then how could it possibly be wrong.
Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering

Their suffering may be ended, but at the cost of someone's life! This is the issue of Euthanasia. At the cost of someone's life they're dying to "relieve" suffering. They don't relieve suffering through euthanasia, when you've been euthanized you are then dead. There was no relief to begin with just a cause of death, which would be the "medicine" that the doctors inject into the patient. With Euthanasia there is no Autonomy, meaning that there is no choice if you kill yourself, and objectively speaking no one chooses what is right or wrong. What's right and what's wrong is determined by natural law. Also we as human beings need to protect the right to life that we are all given at our conception and this right cannot be taken away, if by saying that you believe that it is your choice whether or not and when you choose to end your life is a right then your definition of a right is confused. It is in fact not selfish to say a person should not be able to kill themselves but what is selfish is taking away what was given to you. Your life was given to you and to decide to take your own life away is the ultimate act of selfishness and only puts others in more pain than they were before, and a person who decides to kill themselves is the same as a person who decides that Euthanasia is the correct decision. There isn't something correct mentally with the patient that wills them to wish to end their own life. There are no valid reasons to end your own life and there are good things that come from the suffering that we go through in our lives. Things like humility, enlightenment and reparation all come from suffering and are GOODS that come out of going through it.
Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering

Why would it not be a solution to the problem. If the live of the person ends then the suffering that they are facing is also ended. I believe that it is a right that we have as individuals to decide when, where and how we die. I believe that it is more humane because of the fact that instead of going through all the suffering caused by a terminal illness we are able to end what misfortune we have been put into in this life. If it is my life then it is my choice whether or not and when and how i want to end it. If you were going through an unbearable pain for the remaining time that they say you have on earth wouldn't you just want to get it over with an end it. It is selfish to say that a person should not be able to decide when and how they die especially if they are going through such grave circumstances. It causes not only the pain of the patient to go away but it also causes the pain of the family to go away as well. To see their loved one is in a better place than the situation that they were put in on earth is a peaceful and good way to say goodbye to them. It is a logical and uplifting act to choose when and how you die and no one should be denied that right when put in a terrible situation or has a terrible illness.
Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering

Euthanasia is not a reasonable answer to suffering because taking one's own life does not solve the problem of suffering but only takes away what was given to you. No matter what amount of suffering, people should not be able to decide when their life ends. Euthanasia is not an answer to suffering because although it seems to "end" suffering for the person it, in reality, doesn't end suffering, but only ends a life. Ending a person's life in order to relieve suffering doesn't make any logical sense. It's doing something terrible simply for what the person thinks will help them. How could ending a person's life be helping them? In any instance of Euthanasia it is either murder or suicide which are both objectively wrong.
Profile picture debate

My opponent did indeed point out some of my past exploits (i.e. saving the world) however he covered it with tales of drug abuse and banishment. This is all we expect at this point from a DMT junky who also smokes an AK-47? How he is smoking an AK-47 I am unaware but surely it must be part of his delusional nature. In fact, I stand corrected and I found a picture of my opponent smoking his AK-47, and let me say it certainly is not Putin. I leave that however for the voters to decide for themselves. My opponent may not have liked my Scientist tune, but let that not hinder you from listening to another tune that I enjoyed penning while sitting around and saving the world from the ego invasions. I also should point out that my opponent certainly agrees I am cool. This is expected from someone who has the pinkest of cheeks when they gaze upon the magnificence that is my profile picture.http://www.youtube.com...Now it is but a matter of time before my opponent comes groveling to my profile page and comments about his shame that he could ever believe his Putinesque picture with a blush is ever close to the emotional and professional quality that is original and not copied.http://www.queerty.com...Thanks to my opponent for the laughs, but in the end there can be only one. That one is I and I am him.
Profile picture debate

Oh the shame as my opponent has to default to slanderous remarks. Honestly, its what I expect as he knows that he is up against the person that can never be wrong.http://www.debate.org...The fact that you are Putin in drag makes me not fear you, as I know an impostor when I see one. In fact everyone knows that Putin is really working under a pseudonym on DDO, that pseudonym being KingDebater.http://www.debate.org...But back on point, my profile pictures captures the angst of an artist screaming in pain as the depression of the world wrecks havoc on his soul. The lighting captures the moment when I wrote the song for the band Coldplay linked here. http://www.youtube.com...Needless to say this photo shoot was conducted by my good friend Henri Cartier-Bresson before he passed away. He in fact refereed to it as his masterpiece. Here is another photo taken by my good friend. This picture of the literary genius Truman Capote he deemed worthy to compare to my profile picture. Anyway, I feel I need to go to my profile photo exhibition at the Tate Modern now.Farewell good opponent and don't blush now that you reside in the presence of greatness.
Profile picture debate

( I was not expecting a challenger this worthy) Bit*ch please, playing a guitar is a dark room with a filter, i'm Puttin! Not only am I just Vladimir Putin, I'm in my most powerful state! I am GLORIOUS and that's just fact. I got gays riding my d*ck, what kind of hate you even got bro? You better have some game to spit, because I will lay it down on my next argument. YOU MAKE ME BLUSH MORE...
Profile picture debate

This is a debate for anyone that thinks they have a better profile picture and why. "Better" as in just the reason for thinking ones own profile picture is superior in whatever way and why. This is all argument and opinions. Its up to the voters to decide. (if there will be) Pro/Con does not matter. First round will be acceptance I guess. Whatever. Rules: 1. My opponent has to have profile picture haha 2. Have some respect but not a lot. Accept?
Cohabitation is a good idea

Ok I agree that they can know each other characters better but why after cohabitation when they married they divorce where is the evidence that cohabitation helped them. Over 30% of partners which married after cohabitation are divorced, according to sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University.I think most partners are didn"t show their true face before because if they do so may be their partner stops communicating with them and only after marriage they start to show their true face.
Cohabitation is a good idea

1.Cohabitation is a good idea. The biggest advantage of cohabitation before marriage is that it gives both partners a fair idea of how it would feel to be married to the person. When dating, people naturally put their best foot forward but sharing a life with the same person can turn out to be a different ballgame altogether. Living together can be a good way of getting to know about the other aspects of your partner and get a feel of the commitment and practical responsibilities that sharing a life and home demands. Cohabitation lets you know how being married is different from merely dating your partner.
burger king is better than McDonald

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. Pro has pointed out the many fattening foods present in McDonalds. However, there is no reason to think that Burger King is any better. Look at their menu- http://www.burgerking.co.uk... . Clearly full of fattening foods (the salad is just there for show). Plus, that information was taken from the 'supersize me' film, and McDonalds have taken steps to make their food (mildly) healthier since then. Pro has provided no compelling reason to choose Burger King over McDonalds and has dropped 2/3 of his arguments- vote CON. http://www.youtube.com...
burger king is better than McDonald

my opponent say that burger king might be more healthier than McDonald but The newest additions to these fast food menus are McDonald's Chicken Selects Chicken Strips and Burger King's Chicken fries. For a 3 piece Chicken Select from McDonald's, you will consume 380 calories, 20 grams of fat, 28 grams of carbohydrates and 23 grams of protein. For a 6 piece Chicken fry, you will consume 260 calories, 15 grams of fat, 18 grams of carbohydrates and 12 grams of protein. this is another reason burger is better the McDonald . http://www.youtube.com... i hope vote for burger king in stead of McDonald.
burger king is better than McDonald

I stand in negation to the proposal 'burger king is better than McDonald' --Responses-- 1. Here, my opponent points out that Burger King 'have better burger'. Presumably, the quality of 'having burger' has some relevance to this debate, but at this time I am unsure what it is. Perhaps my opponent could elaborate in the next round? If my opponent means 'Burger King have better burgerS, then we're in business. However, he has presented no good reason to think so. 2. I must say, I was totally unaware that Burger King was selling 'buger' or indeed that McDonald was. This could be a matter for the health inspectors. In any case, if they sell it at the same price, that is no reason to choose one over the other. 3. Even granting this unsubstantiated claim, this isn't necessarily a good thing. The bigger the burger, the more fattening it is. There is a huge obesity problem in the developing world today, so bigger burgers are a bad thing, not a good thing.
Islamic terrorism the new Soviet Union, how empires invent enemies

From Agamemnon taking advantage of the fact that Helen his brother's wife had been kidnapped by Paris the son of Priam, to wage war upon Troy to the Romans deeming themselves superior to other cultures to justify their outrageous imperialism, from the USA using the threat of the Soviet Union as a pretext to invest more and more amounts of money into its military development to the current war on terror. From the 2996 deaths from 9/11 used to cause 500,000 deaths in Iraq to the propaganda that fuels hatred for Isis. I want to argue that George Orwell's vision of "made up" enemies created by the state to give society a common enemy has not only been a historical feature of various empires and civilisations, but that it is a recurrent theme since the end of world war 2 for the USA. I will be arguing that islamic terrorism is the new Soviet Union and by this, I mean that islamic terrorism is the pretext used by the USA to invade those countries that represent a threat to its noxious interests.
This House Believes That Hosting the olympics is a good idea

My argument is that the Olympics are ultimately a good idea and boast more pros than cons. One of your main points was the economy, so I'm going to refute that. Let me point out a couple of pros for the economy: 1) Job Creation The years of planning and investment years before the Olympics begin can help depressed parts of cities. It creates local jobs up to 4 years before the event, by making new stadiums and hotels,. An example of this is the 2012 Olympics, which created around 8000 full-time jobs and an economic output close to 2 billion pounds. 2) Long term investment Firstly, the city hosting the event will enjoy improved sporting venues for quite a while. Not only that, but such events usually require upgrades to transport and infrastructure , which leave a lasting legacy on the city. Better transport reduces congestion and improves the efficiency of local businesses. From the 2012 Olympics, East London has benefited greatly from the improved public transport.