BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better having sex with younger people

As PRO will be arguing that sex with "younger people" is superior, I will show why this is not the case. PRO's ArgumentPRO's argument is that younger men are better at sex because they:a) Have more energyb) Last longerc) Like to experiment, andd) Have more staminaa) I concede this point. b) False. Being able to last longer in bed is a learned talent, and men learn it by having more sex. Therefore, a younger guy, without much experience will not have the control to last as long as a mature man who has more experience [1]. c) Not Necessarily. My evidence for this is purely anecdotal. I know when I was a younger guy (teens, early 20s), any sex would do for me, but now that I'm older, I am more interested in experimentation. No doubt men differ in this respect, but to make a blanket claim that younger men are more experimental is fallacious. d) Not Necessarily. Stamina has to do with physical condition [2]. No doubt age is a contributing factor, but a younger guy is not necessarily going to have more stamina simply by virtue of his age. Finally, I would like to point out that PRO's claim states that it is better to have sex with "younger people," while the arguments presented only cover younger men. PRO has made no argument as to why sex with younger women is better than with mature women. Sex With Mature Partners Is BetterAt this point, I will offer a single argument. Sex improves with age because older individuals don't have the urgency associated with raging hormones [3]. They can take their time to both enjoy the experience and to please their partner. I have already shown the mature men have the skills to last longer. Also, in my experience, mature lovers have learned how to please, making them far better at pleasuring in the bedroom. ConclusionPRO has not sufficiently demonstrated that sex with younger individuals is superior. I have shown why three of PRO's four points fall, and PRO has not even tried to address sex with young women. Finally, I have shown why sex with mature partners is superior. [1] . http://www.health.com...[2] . http://www.livestrong.com...[3] . http://www.today.com...
Resolved: That, on balance, Iran should be sanctioned by the United Nations Department of IA

The Federalist Papers are however not a part of the Constitution and were just the opinions of a few influential people of that time. Also the times have changed and this is no longer the 1700's. Also there is already an international organization to deal with crimes against humanity. It's called the ICC. Also he said its our duty to protect the world. FROM WHAT? !? ! He has yet to mention what Iran is doing that is causing "problems" in Middle Eastern Nations or what said "problem" is.
Resolved: That, on balance, Iran should be sanctioned by the United Nations Department of IA

"First of all, who says that the United States has to become the World Police in the first place. " When the framers of our own US Constitution gathered to break from Britain, they stated verbatim within the Federalist Papers, "The US shall become one of the leaders within the free world and spread democracy for the better good as a WORLD POLICE". Clearly the Con's arguement that its not the US's job to protect the world is moot.
Resolved: That, on balance, Iran should be sanctioned by the United Nations Department of IA

First of all, who says that the United States has to become the World Police in the first place. Who died and made America supreme chancellor overlord of the world. Also you mentioned what Iran is causing economic problems in the Middle Eastearn countries but never said how they are causing problems, in which countries their causing problems, or even what those problems where. So for all we know you are making this all up looking for a reason to sanction Iran.
Resolved: That, on balance, Iran should be sanctioned by the United Nations Department of IA

Iran. A country that has been the center of attention for more than 50 years, however, in recent times has presented a problem to the economies surrounding in the middle east. By placing a sanction on Iran we would be showing them that we do take up a role as the World Police and we would be possibly taking a threat out of the Middle East. According to the US Department of Defense report released November 21, 2008, Iran is becoming a super-power in the economic world and should be dealt with. ty
Rocky was there ever a better movie in this genre

As an avid movie goer , I am still struck by the fact that I still after all these years have not seen a film that I enjoyed more than Rocky Rocky - a guy from the wrong side of the tracks , a man with a good heart , who finally gets a chance to make it big Adrian- shy girl working in a dead end job living with an abusive brother who after meeting Rocky blossoms and grows as a woman and person Apollo Creed - the champion and showman who gives Rocky a chance. A love story ( Rocky and Adrian ) , a story of never giving up , of doing the right thing of treating people with respect and an ending where even though Rocky loses the fight he realizes he has won so much in the experience
Rocky was there ever a better movie in this genre

I agree with every one of your points. However, our definition of 'best' is what differs. As I stated before, Rocky may be the most entertaining movie about boxing. However, using Merriam-Webster's definition of best, we must choose the movie which is "better than all others in quality or value", not what leaves a warm fuzzy feeling. In this case, because of its scale and the greater philosophical depth of the film, Raging Bull is clearly best. It has been a pleasure debating, pro. Good luck in the votes.
Rocky was there ever a better movie in this genre

I almost overlooked this debate, but I would hate to look back one day and realize that I 'could've been the contender'. Rocky is, undeniably, your stereotypical feel-good underdog boxing film. It separates itself from other movies in its genre by also being an excellent character piece. It effectively tells two compelling stories- that of a struggling athlete and his completely separate romance. That dual-story is the reason this movie is so often seen as superior to others like it. Movies like Warrior are perhaps better on the athletic side, but miss the mark on a personal level. Films like Aronofsky's The Wrestler are emotionally gripping, but don't have the adrenaline contributed by meaningful and well choreographed fight scenes (not that The Wrestler ever was intended to be any type of sport film). However, the movie that I would propose is equal or better than Rocky is Scorsese's Raging Bull. It may not have the popular appeal of Rocky, but its scale is much greater. It focuses on the whole man (De Niro) showing boxing as part of him, while Rocky tells of a boxer who also happens to have a personal life. Ultimately, after viewing the two side by side, I suggest that one would have to admit that Raging Bull has the most intrinsic value, although Rocky may have the most entertainment value.
If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.

Ah. So now you've posted something that actually clashes with my arguments, in the third round.To be honest, you haven't countered any "corruption" at all in any of your speeches, nor have you really done anything to counteract anything I've said except slander me. Lets just point out some major flaws in this.. whatever it is this is. You made an example about I believe pure cold without heat. I argue this can happen. If heat is nonexistent because every star was destroyed, every sun disappeared, and every last Joule of thermal energy was made into potential, then yes, we would only have cold. This is viable, just like my argument for the Aff. If evil is impossible to grow, or BE THERE, just like life cannot exist in the midst of a hydrogen bomb detonation, then evil is nonexistent. This topic is undebateable to begin with, due to the silliness of the resolution created by the Con. It so drastically favors the aff to begin with, that it is ridiculous for he/she to say "This is unfair because he's abusing how right he is!" while they made the resolution themselves. God, according to Christian texts, is all powerful, and can do whatever he wants. This means he has no reliance on Satan for anything. Before the snake was created and Adam met it, there was no problem at all with Good vs Evil. It is the existence of the snake that is the problem and creates evil. If you remove the snake, as it was in the early days of the existence of man, which is entirely possible because it was once the status quo, then there is no evil. God doesn't depend on anyone. I argue that to be good is not in fact to be absent of evil, but to be good is to be the status quo in a world without Satan. There is no evil, there is only the status quo, which is above all the only way to be. It is not restrained by petty concepts of "good" and "evil", but simply its there, following the greatness of "God", which assumes it is better than good. I ask that my opponent's final arguments not be something about how abusive I am despite his creation of the resolution, but something that actually relates to case and the round.Thank you.
If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.

My opponent clings to religious texts and his case revolves around the theory that one day the only person to worship will be God.I ask my opponent to now explain, without plagiarising from religious texts, how good can exist without evil.To me good is merely the absence of evil. My opponent propose that one day it is as if we will have pure cold without heat. How on earth can something be 'good' if there is no 'evil'?Hell cannot function without a person ensuring the punishment of all, to do such an evil task would conflict with God being omnibenevolent.Thus God depends on Satan to carry out such brutal tasks.My opponent is trying to render this entire debate UNDEBATABLE since he said Satan will not exist which is a rather self-destructive argument as then there will be no one to punish the wrong-doers, since if God were to cause eternal suffering he would be evil and hence no omnibenevolent.I believe I have now countered the corruption and unfair debating method being used by my opponent.
If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.

I am thoroughly displeased with the accusations made by the hands of con on this issue. I am simply abiding by the resolution which states as follows: "If the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God." I am pro, and I'm stating why.My opponent has no real argument against my case positions, simply stating that I'm making it seem as if "Stan is dead or eternally nonexistent", however he clearly is misinterpreting my argument.I'm simply stating that according to the own religious books my opponent advocates, God will EVENTUALLY destroy evil and therefore, render Satan non-existent as according to the book of Revelations [refer back to 1]. That is not to say that if Christianity is right, Satan IS real but will one day be stamped out. Your opinion of "true hell" with Satan ruling it is ridiculous, true hell would be the worst possible scenario for anyone in the afterlife. Hell under Satan is not the worst position for people like Hitler, which is what you blatantly say in you constructive speech. Unless my opoponent can come up with concrete arguments against my case points, Aff should win this debate. And please, stop whining that I'm taking advantage of prophetic timelines.
If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.

The Pro is trying to destroy this debate by making it seem as if Satan were dead or eternally nonexistent.If Satan has become eternally nonexistent, Satan is not real.The Judeo-Christian devil is blatantly this one: http://en.wikipedia.org...I shall quote my source so you understand what it would mean if this entity were real (and not eternally non-existent which is the equivalent of not being real)"In Christianity the title Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan), "the opposer", a title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Jewish Bible, became the name of the personification of evil. Christian tradition and theology changed "Satan" from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to God's godlike fallen opponent: "the Devil", "Shaitan" in Arabic (the term used by Arab Christians and Muslims). Traditionally, Christians have understood the Devil to be the author of lies and promoter of evil'. However, the Devil can go no further than the word of Christ the Logos allows, resulting in the problem of evil'. Liberal Christianity often views the devil metaphorically. This is true of some Conservative Christian groups too, such as the Christadelphians and the Church of the Blessed Hope. Much of the popular lore of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology."Blatantly, if it can merely be seen as a metaphorical personification of evil, it's impossible to render Satan non-existent so I think this rather filthy form of debating should be abruptly stopped.My opponent must present a case obeying the guidelines that I set out (which he chose to alter).I specifically said that anyone who accepts this is accepting that "Satan will punish those who served him in this life less severely the more evil they have been and that he does so by giving them privileges and higher ranks in hell but that God gives all who enter heaven equal treatment." My opponent cannot suddenly twist this as he sees fit and instead say that "whatever treatment Satan had previously given to his most prized evildoers will disappear, and they will fall into true hell, not the prized afterlife that Satan used to give them." Because, if Satan were real, true hell would be the one in which Satan him/herself ruled.
If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.

Hello everyone! I have returned to DDO after my kinda longish departure for personal reasons. I'd let to set the context for this round since the instigator has not fully done it himself: to assume that God and Satan are real is also to assume that all christian/biblical texts are correct. Following this logic, we can assume that after God defeats and forces Satan into nonexistence as predicted in Revelations [1], whatever treatment Satan had previously given to his most prized evildoers will disappear, and they will fall into true hell, not the prized afterlife that Satan used to give them. After this, the original followers of the Christian God will live forever in his "kingdom" while the "sinners" will remain in hell forever, or disappear into nonexistence. If Satan loved Hitler before he was defeated and spared him pain, Hitler will be thrown down to the petty criminals' level of suffering. We can also assume something else from this. Since we are following Christian doctrines, God is more powerful than Satan. If this is true, then it is within his power to give his followers a much better afterlife than even Satan's most prized serial killers. Thank you for the odd topic, and I'd like to end my speech with just over 6650 characters remaining. http://www.biblegateway.com... [1]
Universities should endorse respect as a value

If someone tells you that you can live 900 by choosing the right diet, they are trying to full you. Blasphemy is an example of how to endorse respect to the point of making idea to question an idea, the idea of religion. The idea of sickness generated by daemons, is in deed idiotic, and it deserves no respect, however the people who hold that idea do deserve respect, (but not their ideas). Questioning ideas can be offensive for some people, but endorsing bad ideas (such the religious idea of daemons provoking sickens) can be fatal to everyone. Most Christians in our days do not accept the demonic-sickens idea as part of their religion, but this is something it happened in the past, that is why is so easy to laugh at that idea. The point is ideas should not be protected by laws, we should be able to question ideas freely, this is not only free speech, this is also education. This is why I invite everyone to re-think about what do we meant by showing respect. Thanks for arguing.
Universities should endorse respect as a value

Thanks very much my opponent but I want you to stop quoting from the bible to support your claim as we are not arguing about religion and besides not every body is religious or even a Christian. However, I will like to support my claim that diseases are not cause by demons. Disease The term disease broadly refers to any condition that impairs the normal functioning of the body. For this reason, diseases are associated with dysfunctioning of the body's normal homeostatic process. [4] Commonly, the term disease is used to refer specifically to infectious diseases , which are clinically evident diseases that result from the presence of pathogenic microbial agents, including viruses, bacteria , fungi, protozoa, multicellular organisms, and aberrant proteins known as prions . An infection that does not and will not produce clinically evident impairment of normal functioning, such as the presence of the normal bacteria and yeasts in the gut , or of a passenger virus, is not considered a disease. By contrast, an infection that is asymptomatic during its incubation period, but expected to produce symptoms later, is usually considered a disease. Non- infectious diseases are all other diseases, including most forms of cancer , heart disease , and genetic disease . Illness "You see, my religion makes very clear the evil spirits (demons) cause sickness. You should stop using unnatural remedies like antibiotics, if we all start only following religion we could all live over 900 years like Methuselah. " It is important to note that religion does not make you live for 900 years,but your way of life(the way you live your life) does. For example,The food you eat,the exercises you do,frequent medical check up etc all these help you to live a longer life. So stop deceiving yourself. And also I want my opponent to know that with with modern medical facilities scientists can cure or prevent almost every diseases in the world which religion or most religious leaders cannot heal. Why do you go to the hospital when you feel sick? It is Because they will give you the right treatment. " The works of Darwin or Galileo were against religion because they highly that the bible is not literally true and that our religious leaders can be wrong. Thanks for the chat." It is important to note that science is not against religion but studied natural laws already existed to prove fact. The works of Darwin's , Galileo and others are a key turning stone in our lives, because they help discover fact which are useful to humanity. These discoveries help with the development of the modern world. If it were not for these early scientist do you think that we should be debating on this website?,Of course no. Thanks once more and please try and stick to the topic at hand and stop posting irrelevant issues. source https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Universities should endorse respect as a value

I"m offended! Matthew 4:18-25, 8:14-17 16-17 And in the evening, they took to him a number of people who had evil spirits; and he sent the spirits out of them with a word, and made well all who were ill; So that the word of Isaiah the prophet might come true: He himself took our pains and our diseases. You see, my religion makes very clear the evil spirits (demons) cause sickness. You should stop using unnatural remedies like antibiotics, if we all start only following religion we could all live over 900 years like Methuselah. And you must show respect for me and my point of view or I will not respect you. Is it clear now, why protecting points of view or ideas as part of personal dignity is incompatible with education? Blasphemy an intellectual crime, is an abuse of power to protect an idea from criticism. The works of Darwin or Galileo were against religion because they highly that the bible is not literally true and that our religious leaders can be wrong. Thanks for the chat.
Universities should endorse respect as a value

Thanks very much my opponent for your views, but I hate when people assume for me particular when you are not psychic and so you cannot read my mind so please stop assuming for me please. Blasphemy noun the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. religion noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. The world is older than religion because for a religion to operate it needs a worshiper(s) and a god(s). The Earth was formed before Humans whether it scientific point of view or religious point of view and because of this any rational person will definitely conclude that the World is older than religion. Also the idea about demons causing diseases is absurd, being that diseases are cause by bacteria, germs,viruses due to poor hygiene, contacting sick people or expose to dangerous gas. Finally, the issue of Charles Darwin origin of new species is not a blasphemy as it did not speak against any god or holy thing but revealed fact. Thanks.
Universities should endorse respect as a value

Dear Med Hanssan, I totally agree that personal insult can lead to social friction, also from the previous post I"m going to assume that you agree with the following claim: "Freedom of speech should not protect hate speech or blasphemy" Here I would like to stop to double check I"m not putting words in your mouth, after all the important thing is what you think and why, but the web page do not allow 50 rounds of posts, so I will keep inspecting the claim. Blasphemy means to get offended on behalf your ideas being question, religions like the world is 4000 years old, demons are the causes of sickness," religions tend to teach how should we run our countries. When Darwin publish the origin of the species, the book was consider a blasphemy: how he dear to say that God didn"t create all species one by one? Is he saying that the bible is wrong? Same to Galileo. From this I conclude that ideas (including religion) should not have dignity, ideas with dignity are i(read more in comments)
Universities should endorse respect as a value

Thank very much my opponent for your opinions. Since you want us to do more of a discussion than a debate, I promise to try and do just that. Let me start by defining certain words. university noun a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done. respect means have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights To endorse is to give support to someone or something. value means principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life. The issue of most organization not allowing people to verbally offend each other is as a result of it consequences which will easily result to pandemonium. for example if Debate.org allows debater to use certain insolent words on fellow debaters it Will cause people to be angry and thereby resulting to problems which will ruin the dignity of that particular organization. Your opinion that respect is given to people base on their characteristics is only true to some extent. University should endorse respect as a value because it helps people to have regard for others right,feelings,wishes etc which will make a conducive environment. Also the issue of freedom of speech does include the use of offensive words which will hurt others or destroy their reputation which will result to slander or blasphemy as the case may be. Thanks once more my dear opponent for your views and I am looking forward to a good a