BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god has no moral compass

I may be 15, It I have more wisdom and knowledge than you ever will. You say all this stuff about "my" God, Which is my God, Your God, And everyone else on Earth"s God. And you say that God is evil and everything else, It all comes back to free will. Even though you say, If you believe in God, You have no free will, This is false. God is so powerful and so awesome, That he created a being capable of independent thought. Nothing else could"ve done that. I don"t care how disrespectful, How rude, And how false your arguments are, My God will defend me with his Shield of Righteousness. Even though we may disagree on many many important issues, God loves you and will forgive you no matter what you have done. And you talk about issues such as child abuse and rape, None of it comes from God. It comes from the evil one. By the way, Yes Satan, Formerly Lucifer, Was created by God as an angel in God"s everlasting kingdom in heaven. Where you are wrong is that God gave angels free will as well as humans. It was Lucifer and his followers" choice to turn away from God, Same as it was the humans" choice. I don"t understand what isn"t clear here. You call me a stupid 15 year old who is stuck in high school. The happiest, Best moments in my life are when I am one with God and my brothers and sisters in Christ. No one can ever take that away from me, Not even an evil warrior against Christ like yourself. If you actually read the Bible outside of a literal sense, You might understand what I"m talking about. Until then, Stop talking out of your anus and see the beautiful creation that God has made for us. And all of these horrible trials and tribulations are just a test to see if you are worthy of entering the kingdom of God. You say you have morals, And I say "bullcrap". By supporting abortion, You are supporting the murder of millions of children worldwide every year. Just remember that God loves you, And that even though you are defiling his name and his word in every possible way, You can still be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven, Where you will live in a realm without sin for eternity.
god has no moral compass

Before I start, I just want to tell you that Jesus loves you, No matter who you are, What you have done, Or what religion you practice. The big debate here is that "God has no moral compass". You have provided a list of 70 instances in the Bible where numerous individuals have failed to trust in the Lord, Have used their freedom of free will to do evil, Or instances where Satan shows up, Trying to cause the discord which led us to having this debate today. #33-34: You say that God has hardened Pharaoh"s heart any many others as well. This is completely and utterly false. God is not the one that hardens a person"s heart, But it is that particular person themself. By giving us free will, God gave us the right to choose either to listen graciously to his word, Or to harden our hearts and turn away from him. Plus, God wants each and every one of us to get to heaven, But it is by our faith and by our actions that determines if we get to heaven. You say that God is the root of all evil. This is incorrect. God created the human race with the intent that we would all go to heaven. It was the humans that made the choice to sin and turn away from God, Leading to this immoral world that we live in today. Even though these things happened, God did not want them to happen. However, He cannot intervene, And I"m going to tell you why. God can"t change them because we have to have the immense faith, Love and other things required to get into heaven. We actually have to live the morals that the Bible teaches, Not just say them. As I say fairly often, " if you talk the talk, You better walk the walk too". What I"m saying is, It isn"t the times of great prosperity and happiness where your faith in Christ is tested, But in the times of trial and tribulation. Another good quote on this topic is " A healthy person doesn"t need to see a doctor". If you want to see an instance of great, Undeniable faith in the Bible, Read the book of Job. It might even soften your heart to the unique relationship that Christ has in store for you. I know you might not agree with this, But I will be praying for you. It says in the Bible, " Love your enemies, And pray for those who persecute you. " Also, It says " all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, And all who humble themselves will be exalted. " If you desire to live in everlasting glory in heaven, Then you must pass the many tests put before you on Earth.
The Flood (Halo) v.s. Necromorphs (Dead Space)

I have also decided to have the three remaining rounds as categories: Round 2 will argue about the infection forms, the process of infection, and how effective they are. Round 3 will talk about the forms that the infected take and their combat efficiency. and finally, Round 4 will be about the hiveminds (Gravemind/Brethren Moon) and it's capabilities. The Infection Forms for the Flood are small, balloon-like creatures that use tendrils near the bottom of their bodies to infect their prey. They can grow from Flood growth pods that grow in Flood hives. The Infection Forms don't come in singles but in packs of at least 5 or more to overwhelm their prey. Their bodies, however, are weak and will violently 'pop' if shot or attacked. This can prove effective against shielded enemies for their pop can weaken their shields, and multiple pops can render their prey exposed. At the same time, these pops can also start a chain reaction, popping the other infection forms around them. When exposed, the Infection Form penetrates the skin of a victim with their tendrils. Their objective, to make direct contact with the spinal cord to attack the nervous system and instantly kill the victim. After that is done, the flood begin to rewrite the neural pathways to the brain of the victim, forcing a match in resonating frequencies between the host and the infection forms' neural signals. When that is done, the Infection Form releases a Flood Super Cell, which causes instant mutation of the DNA in the victim. This mutation liquefies the organs of the host and redistributes them elsewhere, like the claws used in the left arm. Finally, the Infection Form burrows itself into the host's chest cavity. This process can happen in a matter of seconds. Should the host of an Infection form become useless or heavily damaged, the Infection Form will abandon the host to find another. The infection form doesn't require there to be a corpse to begin the process of infection for it can kill a living organism in the process. Also, with the numbers it comes in, an infection is almost guaranteed. I believe that is all for my opening argument, I will now pass it on to my opponent.
The Flood (Halo) v.s. Necromorphs (Dead Space)

This is an argument where my opponent will choose which side he/she would like to stand for. I decided to make this argument because I've always wondered which side would win in a war between them. Both the Flood and the Necromorphs are parasitic organisms with a goal to collect enough bio-mass to create their hive-minds, Graveminds in the Floods case, and Brethren Moons for the Necromorphs.
Atheists have not properly refuted the arguments "proving" god.

Based on an opinion poll. Pro asked me to challenge him if I disagreed, so here we are.The BoP will be on Pro to show an argument that atheists are unable to properly refute.I will have to "properly" refute it, without using logical fallacies or dodging the question.In example: "If there is no god, where did the universe come from?""That's a stupid question, and you should feel bad. Dork"This would be an example, of ad hominem, dodging the question, and is not acceptable for me to do in this debate.Furthermore, if Pro makes the claim that I do not refute one of his arguments properly, he must back it up.In example, if Pro thinks I did not refute an argument from intelligent design properly, he is free to call me out but must explain why I was wrong,No "shot gun" attempts are allowed. In other words, Pro cannot put so many arguments down that I would have no space to refute them. Multiple arguments are accepted, but please don't abuse this.To be fair, Pro starts out with his arguments and accepts the rules in this round. He does not put anything in the last round. Thank You.
Death Penalty

It provides retribution at a cost of an additional $90,000 per inmate on death row. Life imprisonment is less costly, and an equally valid form of retribution." Life imprisonment is less costly? According to New York Times, New York City's Correction Department spent about $56,000 per inmate in 2003. Now lets assume that somebody(living in New York) is convicted of murder but instead of being put to death they are jailed for the rest of their life. Now lets take the Average age of a serial killer which is about 28 years of age without the death penalty they will spend the rest of their days in prison lets assume they live till they are 78 years old which is the life expectancy rate of a American born in 2005. Lets multiply it now, $56,000 multiply that by 50 years what's the answer? $2,800,000 That is quite a lot of money wouldn't you say? Now lets compare that to 20 years in prison on death row. $56,000 multiply that by 20 you get 1,120,000 now lets add to that number, the cost of lethal injection according to my opponent is $90,000 add that into my number above and it becomes $1,210,000. That is less then half the amount of money it costs to put someone to death. Imagine how much more money this country would save if we put our murderers to death the moment they are convicted of the crime. http://www.nytimes.com... "The death penalty does not deter." Says you? I am pretty sure that is a matter of opinion. The death penalty is more then enough deterrent to keep me from murdering somebody. "If incapacitation alone could justify the death penalty, then it would be proper to extend it to every instance of every criminal act ever conducted. After all, the argument goes, they wouldn't reoffend." The death penalty would in fact prevent more people from being murdered. In the end you are saving more lives then you are killing. You cannot compare the unlawful taking of a human life to any other crime. "If the death penalty does educate the public, it doesn't do it in the way it aims to.By increasing the incidence of homicide, the death penalty clearly could not accomplish its ends under this criterion." The overall murder rate jump doesn't prove that the death penalty doesn't work the way its supposed too, that is do to a multiple of different factors including the moral decline of the U.S. The state of North Carolina banned the death penalty in 2001. North Carolina had seen a pretty subtle decline in the murder rate for many years leading up to 2001 after it was decided to ban execution in the state, North Carolina has seen a subtle increase in murder rates in more recent years. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Thanks for the debate. ;D
Death Penalty

The death penalty is useless. It is morally wrong, inefficient, and observably ineffective in accomplishing several key goals. Historically, there have been five presumably legitimate purposes for punishment: (1) Retribution, (2) Deterrence, (3)Rehabilitation, (4)Incapacitation, and (5)Public Education. [1] For a punishment to be morally permitted, it must justify itself by fulfilling at least one of the aforementioned criteria. The death penalty is justified only under one criterion, and that criterion is not enough by itself to justify any punishment. (1) Retribution The death penalty does provide retribution. It provides retribution at a cost of an additional $90,000 per inmate on death row. [2] Life imprisonment is less costly, and an equally valid form of retribution. Even assuming that retribution is valid, the death penalty is still inefficient compared to life sentencing, an equally valid alternative. Where two processes are proposed to meet the same end, assuming the same result, the more efficient process should be favored. Life imprisonment and the death penalty both remove the freedom of an individual to act. One method is simply more costly and eliminates all of the offender's potential value. Therefore, the death penalty is the worse of two methods of accomplishing the same ends, and must be discredited under a theory of retribution. (2) Deterrence The death penalty does not deter. [3] (3) Rehabilitation The death penalty does not rehabilitate, obviously. (4) Incapacitation The death penalty does incapacitate. Incapacitation, however, is an invalid goal by itself. If incapacitation alone could justify the death penalty, then it would be proper to extend it to every instance of every criminal act ever conducted. After all, the argument goes, they wouldn't reoffend. Similarly, most people who argue for prison reform are concerned for rising costs. Life imprisonment is just as valid a form of incapacitation. It is also less costly. If incapacitation is the goal, then life imprisonment is still the better alternative. (5) Public Education If the death penalty does educate the public, it doesn't do it in the way it aims to. [4] [5] By increasing the incidence of homicide, the death penalty clearly could not accomplish its ends under this criterion. Conclusion The death penalty is therefore not justified. If the death penalty is not justified, it is the unjustified taking of another's life. The unjustified taking of another's life is murder. Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, the death penalty is morally wrong. The death penalty is therefore inefficient, ineffective and morally wrong. It should be discarded. Sources [1] http://www.wcl.american.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] http://www.prisonactivist.org...
The man-woman wage gap in America is not what you think it is.

You sound like a troll but I'll pretend that you aren't for the time being, If i were you I might say Did you just assume my gender? How dare you. just kidding But anyway there wasn't a single argument in that you just name called a lot. The "wage gap" is an untrue name a better name would be the earnings gap because men on average work longer hours and in higher paying fields then the average woman, I hate to repeat myself but you are ignoring it. In America it is illegal to pay a woman less then a man for the same job The Equal Pay Act is a thing its been around for quite a while now. You should take a look at it. If you're a troll this is all irrelevant though so if that's the case, troll on! :)
The man-woman wage gap in America is not what you think it is.

Wow, first off, you are a man. So you can't know what we are paid. Second off, i bet you are a cisgender, transphobic, misogynistic, SCUM. i bet you don't even know what a wage gap is, it's where men are paid more than woman, OK? So i don't even have to have this argument but it seems like you are an uneducated moron :).
Should all Drugs be Legalized in the US

You just said it is killing the economy with the smoke. First of all, I don't think you know what 'the economy' is, because it is definitely not hurt by the smoke. If anything, the economy will be supremely bolstered by the increase in taxes by the buying of drugs. What you must have meant to say was 'ecology' which is completely and utterly different which is 'the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms.' http://dictionary.reference.com... . Also, the smoke from drugs doesn't kill trees, and what about drugs that don't even produce smoke? Heroin is injected, shrooms are eaten, cocaine is inhaled, and many others are taken in the form of a pill.
Should all Drugs be Legalized in the US

1. Response to asthma attacks - With nicotine already legalized this problem is already present. 2. Response to distracting drivers - These drugs such as marijuana, heroine, or cocaine would be treated like alcohol when it comes to driving. Anyone caught under intoxication or high would be charged with DUI. 3. The drugs are being used illegally already, and in different parts of the world and therefore are already causing this problems.
Should all Drugs be Legalized in the US

The problem of what substances should be legal or should not be legal has been debated over and over in the past. Firmly, I believe that all drugs in the United States should be legalized. 1. Firstly we must recall the main argument for pro-choice members of the US. They use the argument 'It's her body' with that in mind, anything you do to your body should be legal. The fact that a woman can cut a fetus out of her body, but I can't smoke a bit of weed is illogical. 2. It would be a major source of revenue for the United States. Instead of not being able to tax the hell out of all drugs. Right now, even though people are getting drugs, the government doesn't have anything to tax because the dealers definitely aren't the most legal people themselves. If retail stores such as Walmart or Target carried narcotics, it would be a large amount of goods taxable by the US government. 3. People are stupid. They are going to acquire drugs one way or another even if it is illegal. This would also clean out our prison system by keeping people who aren't really hurting anyone in jail, while we are wasting money fighting drugs instead of important things.
Should all Drugs be Legalized in the US

Now you are just going off topic. Those you just mentioned were already legalized and are not part of this argument... And what of my comment about all of the drugs that are not used by smoking? You had no retort for heroin, cocaine, lsd, shrooms etc. These drugs have no harmful effects to the environment whatsoever. Really, the only two drugs you could say produce smoke harmful would be smoked crack, smoked opiates, or weed.
I will not contradict myself.

The essence of my opponent's rebuttal is that not expressing an opinion is "pretty much" the same as not having one. This is quite simple to refute, as if there is a rock under the ground and not seen (expressed), then it is still there. So, there is a considerable difference between not displaying and not having, just as there is a considerable difference between a rectangle and a square. If the dictionary is a reliable source, then "Not Saying" is not "pretty much" "No Opinion". If "Not Saying" is not "pretty much" "No Opinion", then the dictionary must be flawed. So, my opponent has contradicted himself.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent's entire argument now lies on distinguishing "Not Saying" from "No Opinion." I think that I can get through this. My response was my use of the option of "Not Saying." Really, "Not Saying" could be anything, you just don't know it. When I used "Not Saying," it meant something along the lines of "No Opinion," except you couldn't be certain until I confirmed it. So, "Not Saying" was "pretty much" "No Opinion." "saying (say)- ...to express an opinion" By "not saying," I am not expressing an opinion. This is considerably similar to having no opinion.
I will not contradict myself.

I believe that I got you on 1 of the 4 ways that I was trying to get you. 1 was not achieved because I failed to word my questions correctly, and the other two were not achieved because my opponent chose to contradict himself the first way instead. Contradiction- logical incompatibility between 2 or more propositions. http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. Not Saying is "pretty much" Undecided, yet The Dictionary is a reliable source. If the dictionary is a reliable source, then Not Saying cannot be "pretty much" Undecided. not- used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition http://dictionary.reference.com... saying (say)- to speak; declare; express an opinion http://dictionary.reference.com... is (be)- used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject http://dictionary.reference.com... pretty- considerable; fairly great http://dictionary.reference.com... much- great in quantity, measure, or degree http://dictionary.reference.com... undecided- not having one's mind firmly made up http://dictionary.reference.com... Not having one's mind firmly made up is not considerably great in measure indentical to choosing not to express an opinion. While one may choose not to express an opinion because that opinion is not made up, one may also not express an opinion because one wishes to be expedient, to keep that view hidden, or to avoid conflict. Just as rectangles are not "pretty much" squares, Not Saying is not "pretty much" Undecided. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Is the above statement true?" No. "2. Is "Not saying" distinguishable from "Undecided" or "Pro"?" It is pretty much "Undecided." "3. Does going to "Not saying" mean that your opinion has changed?" I realized that I knew little to nothing about the subject, so I decided that I didn't have a true opinion of it. "4. Is the above statement true?" No. "5. Does the government instill its beliefs into you?" It tries. "6. When, in the United States, one is not allegiant to the government, is that person threatened with legal punishment?" Usually. "7. When something is mandatory and enforced by the force of law enforcement, is it compulsory?" Yes. "8. Is the C.I.S.D. Student Handbook a credible source?" No. "9. Are you capable of looking definitions up yourself?" Yes. "10. Should debaters do their own research or just guess?" Yes. You were trying to get me to call the U.S. a good, fascist nation, weren't you?
I will not contradict myself.

"At the time I answered the question, my BIG Issues page was equivalent to my opinions. " "Not saying" is not an opinion. My opponent's opinion on the "Tobacco Rights" issue is "CON", though he has temporarily changed it to "Not Saying". 1. Is the above statement true? 2. Is "Not saying" distinguishable from "Undecided" or "Pro"? 3. Does going to "Not saying" mean that your opinion has changed? My opponent's opinion on the "United States" issue is "PRO", though he has temporarily changed it to "Not Saying". 4. Is the above statement true? 5. Does the government instill its beliefs into you? 6. When, in the United States, one is not allegiant to the government, is that person threatened with legal punishment? 7. When something is mandatory and enforced by the force of law enforcement, is it compulsory? 8. Is the C. I. S. D. Student Handbook a credible source? 9. Are you capable of looking definitions up yourself? 10. Should debaters do their own research or just guess?
I will not contradict myself.

I would like to point out that before I answered the question, I decided that there were many things on my BIG Issues page that I was not sure about. For example, I don't really know the difference between the wars in the Middle East, or what they've accomplished, or anything. At the time I answered the question, my BIG Issues page was equivalent to my opinions. "3. Is compulsory allegiance fascism?" "Compulsory- reqiired [sic] allegiance- loyalty" Hmm. Yes. "1. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own homes?" Yes. "2. Is the ability to smoke cigarettes a 'tobacco right'?" Yes. "3. Should people be aloud [sic] to smoke cigarettes if they can afford the medical expenses involved in potential resulting treatment?" Only on private property. "4. Should people be aloud [sic] to chew tobacco as long as the dip is properly disposed of after use?" Only on private property. "5. Is the ability to chew tobacco a 'tobacco right'?" Yes. "Are Wikipedia articles that have over 25 sources reliable?" Yes. "7. When using Wikipedia sources in debates, do you only use reliable ones?" Yes. "8. Was the United States a good country when under President George W. Bush in 2004?" No. We were still in debt. "9. In U.S. history class, was it obvious that the government was conveying its beliefs?" Yes, but on the other hand, they're right. "10. Is the current public education system compulsory?" Yes. I know what you're trying to do.