BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Online chirping

You don't quite understand the point of online chirping. It is to test the limits, it is to talk about how you can overcome your challenges, it's about making fun of not other people, but making fun of other things. It is not about insulting the other person, it's about screaming into the mic, saying random things, until they crack and challenge you to a one on one. You don't try to insult the other person, you just try to make them mad, using tactical techniques and getting under your opponents skin. It is wrong to make fun of another person, unless they make fun of you. Online chirping is to use a play on words, accents, and other cracking jokes to get under your opponents skin, to weaken them, and than you can have a easy match. Insulting your opponent, is one different thing, chirping is to make practical reasoning and to make other things look like a joke, not to insult. Telling some one they suck is a minor one, but that is cyber bullying, playing and his name is john cena, into the mic, countless times, is chirping. have you ever even played a first person shooter, you will hear people screaming into the mic, trying to get under a opponents skin, but leaving the life scaring insults out of it.
Online chirping

Online chirping can be co-related with cyber bullying, but on a less personal level. However, does this make it right? Online chirping can really bring out a person's character, whether it be insecurity, or the easy fact that they are hiding behind a screen so they feel that they posses an imaginary set of balls and try to pump their own tires by bringing other people down. Regardless, the relation between online chirping and cyber bullying is pretty direct. You gave the example of call of duty insults. Now I propose the question, is cyber bullying fun? Because it appears that you find online chirping fun, and I really don't see a difference between the two. Are you one of these people who are insecure and seek pleasure by bringing other people down?
Online chirping

The definition of chirping on UrbanDictionary.com with the best like/dislike ratio is: Chirping 1.To insult someone 2. To have an insult battle 3. To burn someone The context that you have provided in your round 2 rebuttal is different from that of your initial statement in round 1, where you use "black ops 3 insults," as an example of "online chirping." The key word there is insults. Yes, I do agree that playing John Cena's theme song into the mic is not insulting someone, (I too find it quite funny) but, you specifically used the word insults. According to Merriam-Webster.com, the definition of "insult" is: to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone) Now, the intent to offend someone sounds like cyber bullying to me. Also, I have played many first-person shooter games, and I have heard people play the John Cena theme song, and I have also heard many racial, homophobic slurs as well as other insults. In conclusion, there are people who chirp online with good intentions and bad intentions, but based on your original statement, which is the focus of this debate, you gave the example of "black ops 3 mic insults." So it appears that the subject we are debating about focuses on the people with the bad intentions.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday)

I think you're missing the point actually. I actually care if what I debate is true or not. When one enters a debate, They cannot just impose limitations in how the opponent presents evidence. This is a recipe for believing untrue things, Which explains why you're a Christian in the first place. I'm going to juxtapose two of your quotes to show that you should seriously reconsider how you apply your logic. "It would be virtually impossible for me to try and convince you that there is a God. " "There are plenty of ways one can prove God scientifically by studying the understanding of consciousness" These two statements that you wrote don't match up at all. If you had good scientific evidence, Then you wouldn't have a hard time at all convincing me that god exist. You think there is plenty of evidence for God, But if there was then we wouldn't be having this conversation because people would just accept it the way they do other scientific facts. People might say they doubt gravity, But those people aren't willing to jump off a building and prove it because it's a fact. When people take god as seriously as gravity, Then you should believe in him. Otherwise, You're wasting what little time you have left on this earth hoping and praying for an afterlife. Live for your life, Not your afterlife. Because only one of those lives are guaranteed. I would also like to add that you made no disclaimers about what kind of debate you wanted to had, So you should have been ready to face and atheist and at least have some answers for them. You could have just told me you don't have proof and argued from there, But you didn't.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday)

I feel like you're missing the point of what I was saying. I personally believe in Christ and the Almighty Father. Whether you do or not isn't my focus. If it were I would have made the title about whether they exist or not. My walk in my faith is just that. It's Faith. There are plenty of ways one can prove God scientifically by studying the understanding of consciousness, Morality, Complexity of organic structures and how they react within their environment but being honest I'm not a scientist and I have no clue what im talking about when we start getting into detailed scientific questions because I'm not a science major. Sure, You can find that unacceptable as an answer but that's just fine because it's not the topic of debate. If you really are struggling with the idea of a divine creator I recommend studying prophecy and it's fulfillment throughout the ages.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday)

That's nice. But shouldn't you be asking yourself why you can't debate it with me? Don't you care about what's true? If you religion was true, Wouldn't you be able to debate it with anyone like you could with gravity or evolution? I'm not trying to suck the air out of your argument, But if you really want to find out if the sabbath is good or not, You have to eventually ask yourself the god question. That's the only way to belief it in a way that's honest. If you want to sit and stroke egos with sky daddy worshippers, Then maybe you're missing the point of debating. It's to get new ideas and find the truth of the matter. Not to build up more lies.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday)

I'll keep it simple. I will concede the debate if you can do the following: Prove the existence of god so that it is demonstrable and anyone can verify it without taking your word for it. Prove that god wrote The Bible Prove that god did not lie about anything in the bible After that, I will have no reason to acknowledge the sabbath, Because if god doesn't exist, Then I have no reason to care. I will also accept any evidence that Saturday itself has some special scientific quality that we can measure if it is treated as the sabbath. But I highly doubt you have such evidence. Your floor
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday)

It's been a while since I've been on this website so I'm a bit out of the loop in terms of the general outline of how these debates go about. I will present my case in the second round after the con's initial arguments by refuting them and providing scriptural evidence of the necessity of keeping God's holy seventh day as it being a required "Holy convocation" Leviticus 23:3 and that God is no respecter of persons whether Jew or Gentile. Galatians 3:29 also points out that there is a spiritual element to being a Child of Abraham or Israel. If we follow God's commandments to the best of our ability we are most certainly a spiritual Jew. Romans 2:29 explains this. Exodus 31:13-16 states that the Sabbath is a never ending covenant meant to be observed to recognize God as our creator and that in seven days he created the Earth and all things that exist in our physical universe. The Sabbath was never changed in scripture and it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible because that is a creation of man. Specifically during the Roman Catholic church era. I look forward to a great debate!
Morality comes from religion

I think it is wrong to say morality comes from religion. Morality comes from religion = without religion (anyone in particular, or any or all faiths), we would not / could not be moral. I assert that people who claim that without religion we would have no morals are mistaken. Firstly, religious books such as the Bible are not exactly articles which contain high standards of morality, or at least not exclusively. Secondly, religious texts, from the book of Mormons to the Koran to the Bible to Enuma Elish to Hesiod's Theogony are fabrications which contain very little if hardly any metaphysical truths or truths about the origin of our species or cosmos or the world. The fact that the foundations of religion are epistemologically false burdens it greatly, and to say that morality can be based on false teachings is self-refuting. Thirdly, and keep in mind I am only outlining these arguments, I think the natural argument for the development of morality is good or at least better than the supernatural one. Our species developed culture, and culture, as anthropology tells us, wasn't just a new manifestation of evolution but an actual tool in itself for survival. I'm being very terse for now, and I await to see my opponent's argument for why morality could only come from religion.
Abortion is immoral in every trimester

I don't believe abortion is always immoral. Adoption is seen as an alternative but it is not always a good one. In a country with an increasing population, the quality of adoption centres is getting worse. 1) In a country like India, abortion should be an option because the population is heavily increasing and poverty is rising. Couples cannot afford to take care of their children and the government cannot take care of a 1.2 billion population that lives on a $1,497 average annual income [1].2) Again, I'll bring up a poor and heavily populated country like India. If a woman is raped there and got impregnated, abortion should be an option. Giving it up for adoption can be an option but as population gets higher, quality of anything worsens like adoption centres, schools, hospitals, etc. 3) If the mother is a drug addict and is pregnant, abortion should definitely be an option because the baby will become addicted to drugs and will suffer mentally and physically. 4) If the mother is sick and her health will get poorer if she proceeds to childbirth, do you think she should abort the baby or give birth?SOURCES:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Abortion is immoral in every trimester

I accepted a debate like this before, and found that I was enjoying it, but then my opponent never responded to anything, so I decided to start another one myself. I want to stay away from the topic of it being legal or not, and just focus on its moral value. I hold the position that in every trimester, in the case of a healthy fetus and healthy mom, that abortion is immoral, my opponent must prove that wrong. I have no structure for the debate and I will let my opponent have firsts response for round 1 if they want to, I don't mind. Good luck and I look forward to a good debate.
Your Pick

To begin, good way to argue and nice job. Now to rebuttal: 1.Nothing to refute. 2.". Con states here that he can decide how he feels about trolls. I.e. whether he hates them or not. This however is completely incorrect. Pro is saying that he has control over his feelings towards other things. This is extremely unlikely considering almost no other human possesses this ability." Notice that it says extremely unlikely. Not impossible. Plus the fact that one cannot understate the power of the human mind. "Whether an individual loves/hates something is not a choice, but rather a trait. So it is irrational to think my opponent can simply 'choose' to no longer hate trolls. On top of that, who's to say he isn't just lying to win this debate?" Whether or not you hate someone rather is a choice. You can choose to accept or reject or certain type of person. As for the lying, let me point out this. In the comments 9spaceking says, "lol pro is such a troll". So we can assume that the choice of topic that pro made was a troll choice. Now despite this choice I have not taken issue with this and am debating it, not raving for him being a troll. 3.(4)". I've no intention of arguing how Con feels, but rather what he feels. I need not read his mind to know that he hates trolls." Rather or not he can tell I hate trolls is impossible as humans are given the ability of choice. I can choose to hate a man or forgive him and accept him anyway. II. Construct: "It's actually quite simple to show that Con hates trolls. Just go to his profile. He clearly states that he hates them. Since we know that him hating trolls is a trait rather than a decision, we can be sure he was stating this as a way to communicate his feelings about trolls. This is also supported even more by the fact that this is in his "about me" section of his profile. Another thing to note is that according to his profile, he updated this information 3 weeks before the time of this argument. Meaning that he had no bias of this debate. So it can be safely assumed that this information is true, whereas any recent statements are made with this debate in mind and could therefore influence my opponent's choice of what information to present." As for looking at my profile, you do have to remember that it is 3 weeks old and so not up to date with my personal ideas and so using something posted over a month ago is of little use as proof. I thank you for a weird debate:)
Your Pick

I. Cross-Examination Con offered a small argument in round 2 for me to refute. 2. Con states here that he can decide how he feels about trolls. I.e. whether he hates them or not. This however is completely incorrect. Pro is saying that he has control over his feelings towards other things. This is extremely unlikely considering almost no other human possesses this ability. How one feels about another thing is not decided by that person, but instead by the mental complex of that person. I never decided to hate rapists. It was just naturally the case that I did. The fact that I do is solely based on pre-conceived ideas as well as social influence paired together with the unique processing system in which I interpret information. Whether an individual loves/hates something is not a choice, but rather a trait. So it is irrational to think my opponent can simply 'choose' to no longer hate trolls. On top of that, who's to say he isn't just lying to win this debate? 4. I've no intention of arguing how Con feels, but rather what he feels. I need not read his mind to know that he hates trolls. II. Construct It's actually quite simple to show that Con hates trolls. Just go to his profile. He clearly states that he hates them. Since we know that him hating trolls is a trait rather than a decision, we can be sure he was stating this as a way to communicate his feelings about trolls. This is also supported even more by the fact that this is in his "about me" section of his profile. Another thing to note is that according to his profile, he updated this information 3 weeks before the time of this argument. Meaning that he had no bias of this debate. So it can be safely assumed that this information is true, whereas any recent statements are made with this debate in mind and could therefore influence my opponent's choice of what information to present. III. Closing remarks So, here is what we can conclude from my argument. 1. Con hating trolls is a trait, not a choice 2. Con cannot choose to not hate trolls 3. Con's profile says he hates trolls 4. Con's profile was updated before the bias of this debate 5. The information in Con's "about me" section is therefore most likely a correct representation of his feelings towards trolls 6. Con hates trolls. IIII. Appendix http://www.debate.org... (Con's Profile) https://answers.yahoo.com... (How our brains decide what it likes and dislikes) http://healthland.time.com... (Further reading into how our brains make choices)
Your Pick

That is definitely not what I expected but I guess I will make lemonade. I am going to make this quick. 1. I am LostinTheEcho1498. 2. I can decide how I feel about trolls. 3. I do not hate trolls. 4. No one can argue how I feel at this current moment unless they happen to be me, which they are not or they an read minds over the internet which is very unlikely. I hope for...a good debate?kinda?
Change the date of Australia day

My first issue with the last argument was the statement that the 26 of January was the day that Australia came closer to becoming a nation. Before the invasion of British settlers the indigenous lived in harmony, and had laws based on trust and communities built on respect. How can the introduction of a new system and the forceful confiscation of the land make Australia more of a nation than it was prior to the settlement of English convicts. If the British had come up with a more peaceful and fair negotiation with the aboriginals instead of taking away their children for many generations and removing their land rights from them, perhaps an apology would be easier to accept, but unfortunately for the indigenous this was not the case and their lives have never been the same since. I propose that a more suitable and inclusive day for us to celebrate our country would be the day that the white Australian policy was abolished. "Wouldn"t the day we abolished this act and welcomed non-white migrants into Australia make more sense" wouldn"t that send a better message to everyone?" (indigenousx.com.au).This day would not only resolve the issue of celebrating Australia on a day when the indigenous were declared flora and fauna and their homeland declared Terra Nullius, but we would also send a more appropriate message to the world and our migrant citizens who also regard this land as home. "Changing the date would show we have aspirations for this country to become greater than it is. Our treatment of Indigenous, refugees, the homeless and women (the list goes on) isn"t great. It is not worth celebrating, and there is nothing about the arrival of the first fleet that gives pause to reflect on what it would take to become great."(indigenousx.com.au)
Change the date of Australia day

It has been said that the basic human rights shouldn't have been denied to our Indigenous people but people should stop looking at the negative things that have occurred in the past but look at the positives that came out of it. Even though the human rights were denied to our Indigenous people, we progressed over the years and granted more rights to the Indigenous. We have apologised many times in the past and yet the Aboriginals still haven't forgiven us and still hold a grudge for what happened over 200 years ago. We have granted Aboriginals land rights, we have held sorry days, we have held welcome to the country ceremonies to welcome new citizens, we have spent money on aboriginals to get them out of poverty and yet they still aren't accepting our apologies. I strongly believe that Australia Day shouldn't be changed because it was the day that Australia became closer to becoming a nation and despite the grudges people still hold, Australia has already apologised to the Aborigines for the events that occurred and have said sorry to the stolen generations and what happened was in the past and but now we should focus on the present. The 26th of January is a day to be celebrated and we should look at how far we have come as a country.
Change the date of Australia day

It has been stated that after Australia was invaded by the British that our country began improving immensely, but I disagree with this statement. Although the country may have progressed to reach the standards of British settlers, that does not mean that basic human rights should have been denied to our indigenous people. How can one say that our country has become more multicultural when our original culture has been denied rights from the point in time that the first fleet arrived on our shores. The introduction of alcohol to indigenous australians has had a major detrimental impact on their culture as well as their physical and mental wellbeing. Every week 1,500 aboriginals are hospitalised due to the direct effects of alcohol and for 60 of these people the effects will be fatal (creativespirits.info). Indigenous australians are twenty-four times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous australians, this is often attributed to alcohol. Why would we want to celebrate our national day on the anniversary of when this poison was brought to this "great southern land"? How can we expect the indigenous members of our community to embrace this holiday when every week thousands of communities are affected by our actions. If we had not brought these foreign substances to our beautiful country and claimed that it was Terra Nullius, invalidating one of the oldest cultures in the world, their people would have prospered and their culture continued to grow. How may I ask can we expect the indigenous to forgive us so easily when we celebrate what has been their home for thousands of years on the day that we brought alcohol to its shores?
Change the date of Australia day

Firstly, i would like to point out some of the things that have been said that i disagree with. it has been said that the 26th of January was an event which began a chain of disastrous consequences for the indigenous however i disagree. Ever since the first fleet arrived, our country only improved and people were given more right as time progressed. It was also said that if it were not for the arrival of "the white man" on Australian shores today"s aboriginal descendants would not have most of the problems they face within society, however, if the events that occurred on the 26th of January 1788 never occurred who knows were Australia would be today. After the first fleet arrived, our country began improving immensely and if the English didn"t come to Australia, who knows where it would be today and so these are some our the achievements. Some of these are when in 1901, Australia decided to come together as a nation to become more powerful and to have a better defence army. Another one is when women got given the right to vote in the federal elections in 1902 and we were the first country to give women those rights and Aboriginal men and women received the right to vote in federal elections in 1962. After the first fleet, our country also began to improve in the way that it become more multicultural and even though we had a White Australia Policy, that was removed and ever since then, our population has increased. For example, from 2010 to 2011, we had an immigration intake of 127,460, and 15.5% of them were from China and 8.3% were from India.