BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a church full of copy cats, bounsing ideas off each other.

The line between parody and plagiarism, while fine, has begun to obfuscate your view of the goodly Church of the FSM and its tenets. FSMism was never meant to be a standalone (read: true) belief system; rather, it was started simply to illustrate to the directors of various state school boards, including that of Kansas, that the idea of teaching intelligent design in a high school curriculum is patently ridiculous. (While a well-worn debate, its finer points don't belong in this round.) Because its conception was brought about as a response to religious activists--those who advocated ID education--FSMism has begun to adopt elements from the very source of its creation, Christianity. This includes most of its details and subculture. A comparison between parody and plagiarism is in order. To begin, I'll define both of these terms (using Princeton WordNET--thanks, Google): Plagiarism--a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work Parody--a composition that imitates or misrepresents somebody's style, usually in a humorous way The main difference between these two concepts is the amount of deviation from the original. In plagiarism, there is none. In parody, though, there's a fair amount of difference from the original for the purposes of humor. I offer as evidence a few of the iconic images of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with their traditional counterpart below: 1. http://www.venganza.org... 1a. http://www.jillstanek.com... 2. http://www.venganza.org... 2a. http://z.about.com... 3. http://www.venganza.org... 3a. http://www.quantumyoga.org... The deviation from the original in all of these pictures is obvious. Where Jesus or some other icon of the Christian faith once stood, the artists have replaced the visage of FSM simply as an attempt at humor. Thus, the resolution as GodSands has worded it is false--FSMers aren't copycats anymore than MAD Magazine has committed intellectual theft from Highlights with the creation of Melvin and Jenkins as a counterpoint to Goofus and Gallant. They've simply taken the trappings of their foil, Christianity, and lampooned them. Note that further attacks on FSM's inherent untruth and further contentions of Christianity's truth are non-topical (and thus inadmissable). This resolution speaks of FSM's theft from other sources and "idea-bouncing", not whether anything it says is true. The further wording of "bouncing ideas off of each other" is also significant--this seems to imply that the people aligned with the Church of the FSM collaborate on ideas. This is also known as "education", and it's an integral part of the human condition. Asking the negative to refute this is akin to asking him to disproving the effect of the human condition on humans themselves--limiting his ground in the broadest sense of the phrase. As a burden, I ask my opponent to justify this idea as applying to the Church of the FSM in a way it doesn't for anyone else. In conclusion--it's just a joke, GodSands. Praying for it may defeat the purpose.
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a church full of copy cats, bounsing ideas off each other.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a church full of copy cats where it is a cool thing or a new trend. It clear that they do not believe in the the FSM but only use it to comfort them from the truth. I have to be careful talking about this though, God will lead me through this. You people who are pretenders in you faith are exstordernaily people. You give commitment into a faith you know is wrong based and off the Christian faith which you know is right. All you are doing to tranclating God into the FSM, I could think of God as anything. All it is, is a mockery of God's image, ofcourse we do not know what God looks like, so it is quite likey that a atheist would come up with the FSM. All the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster proofs is how stupid people are for following that image of God. God is not made out of the imagaination of men but men are made out of the imagination of God. You people are so delusional. Those who follow. A bunch of copy cats, it is a sneaky way that you think you can ease pass people from knowing you know the truth is right. By making your faith seem dumb. You who ever follows this is a copy cat. It is like you are confessing in silence, locked in your bed room whispering the truth to your self but covering it up by the image of the FSM. Thank you. This debate was always going to be short.
Sugar Tax

Ok so I think your points have not been thought out properly. Here's what have to say about them "1. If we are going to put a tax on sugar for diabetes. Are we going to put a tax on meat for heart disease? Milk for osteoporosis?" - We are not talking about meat or milk are we?!, its incredibly irrelevant! "2.It's not just sugar that causes diabetes. Bacon, cows milk, white bread, fruit juice, and so much more, lead to diabetes." - what sugarless fruit juice are you drinking?!, anyways I can't talk about milk and meat because poultry and dairy are both very much different to sugar. 3. "Your body, your choice. People need to do research and learn what's good for your body and learn to reduce/eliminate consumption of these bad foods." -one the common folk do not have access to information as much as you think -you can still purchase sugar with a tax applied Nonetheless, here are the points I am going to highlight -Like any other product, increasing the price restricts the market segment, thus reducing your national obesity crisis -Sugar literally has no nutritional value, AND IT CAUSES TOOTH DECAY -Addiction is very much real, and the control aspect you talk off is not always a conscious discussion -Withdrawal from sugar happens and it takes 2-8 weeks to detox -Tax means more financial contribution towards for your public services Depending on your response, I'll go into depth in round 3 on these highlighted bullet points.
Sugar Tax

1. If we are going to put a tax on sugar for diabetes. Are we going to put a tax on meat for heart disease? Milk for osteoporosis? 2. It's not just sugar that causes diabetes. Bacon, cows milk, white bread, fruit juice, and so much more, lead to diabetes. 3. Your body, your choice. People need to do research and learn what's good for your body and learn to reduce/eliminate consumption of these bad foods.
Sugar Tax

Tell me we don't need a sugar tax fat people!!, diabetes is literally killing everyman left, right, and centre, especially my Indian peoples!, who are at the most risk of type 2 diabetes. It got me uncle FFS. On a serious note, I believe we need a sugar tax, esp. because I have a Lucozade addiction, and the cost of soda-sugar needs to increase to reduce the ease of access for the betterment of society.
Sugar Tax

Yes I did say people need to do research, but even if people don't have access to that info (like you said), they still know its not good for them. Meat and dairy are absolutely relevant to this topic. You said "Tell me we don't need a sugar tax fat people!!, diabetes is literally killing everyman left, right, and centre." I'm saying to you sugar is not the only obesity problem, so are meat and dairy. I'm not discussing the addiction and health aspects because, yes they are bad. There are a lot of bad things in this world and we can't put a tax on everything. I'm saying a sugar tax isn't going to help with obesity. It's easy to think, sugar causes obesity, so put a tax on sugar. But sometimes simple solutions don't work. Food taxes would be detrimental not only to these processed foods producers, but to the farmers producing sugar beets and fruits down to retailers and small shop owners. It would also promote cross border shopping and illegal trade to avoid the tax. So whats the solution? Education not taxation. Governments should be encouraging people to eat healthy, not taxing them. I'm sorry you felt like my points were not thought out well.
Sugar Tax

You said "People need to do research and learn what's good for your body and learn to reduce/eliminate consumption of these bad foods.", therefore they need access to information. Diabetes is not the MO, sugar is, diabetes is just an example, so meat and dairy are irrelevant to this topic. Plus you've not discussed the addiction and health decay aspects of sugar. I might have to restart this debate w/ someone else soon, sorry but I feel you haven't thought about yr arguments thoroughly.
Sugar Tax

I dont think you understand what I'm trying to say. Diabetes and heart disease can go hand in hand, so if we are going to try to reduce diabetes by taxing sugar, why aren't we going to reduce heart disease by taxing meat and dairy. They can be just as bad as processed food. People don't need to have access to information to understand that sugars, processed meats and foods, dairy, etc, are bad for them. I understand what you mean that a tax on sugar would reduce obesity, but I don't think it is fair or that it will work. There have been many studies on this. http://www.abc.net.au... http://news.cornell.edu...
LM Classic R1: ToastOfDestiny vs. rougeagent21

Once again, I have waited as long as possible to give my opponent a fair chance to respond. Time to argue! I will start by clarifying the "weaknesses" that my opponent points out about my characters. ============= Demon King ============= My opponent claims that the DK can only retaliate, and not attack on his own. This is not true. My opponent provides a video that demonstrates the DK's lack of attack. If my opponent has ever played the game, he would know that the DK can attack on his own. In the game, the DK spends his first turn spawning minions. If the player of FE8 had taken another turn to defeat him, he would realize that the DK DOES attack after spawning his minions. That strategy by the DK is used in the game, but by no means must be used in all of his battles. Since he has the ability to attack, I could easily command him to do so in this battle. I also believe that my opponent's video helps me more than him. Look at the weapons used to kill the DK. They are "legendary" weapons. They are infused with special power used by the heroes of old. If you use normal weapons, they give him little to no damage. Also realize that FE is a strategy game. You move, then the computer moves. In this battle, everyone is moving at the same time. There are no "turns." Notice also how much damage the DK gives while fighting the player's team. He kills and comes close to killing several other characters. The characters he is fighting also have built up resistance to his magic attacks. This resistance is not built up by my opponent's team. If he can so easily kill people who have resistance to his strength, how much more so would he obliterate my opponent's team? Unfortunately, that is all the time I have to post right now. As I have been more than gracious to my opponent, I would ask that he allow me to post my full argument next round. Thank you.
LM Classic R1: ToastOfDestiny vs. rougeagent21

To keep this debate as normal as possible, I will only post my promised videos this round. Rouge can post his arguments in the next slot (R2), and we will both argue in rounds 3-5, giving us each 4 rounds to have our say. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... Skip ahead in the first video until the fighting begins (1:40). Once you are there, please note that the Demon King can only attack if he is first assaulted, or once the opposing team has finished attacking. In the second video, note how Taboo pauses between his attacks and can only teleport over short distances.
LM Classic R1: ToastOfDestiny vs. rougeagent21

That's about it in terms of strategies from me. I believe the tactics I have detailed above should be more than enough to give me victory. When voting, please consider the following things, in addition to the above strategies. 1) If Team Con tries to speedblitz, they would rely on Sonic. Jean Grey could easily take over his mind giving me three team members with great speed. This results in my victory. 2) The Demon King can only attack if he is first attacked or if the other team has finished attacking. My team doesn't 'finish' like the fighters in Fire Emblem 8. The Demon King's normal adversaries can only attack once, whereas my team can attack for extended periods of time. 3) Taboo is also useless - he can only exist in Subspace. 4) Any tricks or cunning that Team Con attempts are likely to be found out by my team. Haru has a very keen mind thanks to the Rave of Knowledge that he possesses, and Jean Grey can always find out Team Con's true intentions. 5) As an extension of the above, any strategy that Team Con tries can immediately be found out by my team via a simple mind-read.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

Research from NASA could eventually save the human race as we know it. Unforeseen things could come along that NASA may have the technology to combat. It is a gamble, but a gamble that has provided us with so much innovation thus far. It is a great program and it should not be cut back. Is it really far fetched to envision a need for another human colony in space when our population is increasing at a ridiculous rate? I think not. I would cut back other programs based on their success rate. NASA has time and time again been successful. I will never be convinced to cut back something so great for mankind.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

Although NASA once consumed a lively chunk of the federal budget (like over 5% in the 60's) you are correct in assuming that it no longer eats up very much in the grand scheme of things. Neither does funding a major hospital in Tampa. Neither does the Senate's salaries. Neither does phasing out a few coal plants in Missouri. Neither does Chicago's welfare program. Neither does the US's Darfur aid. Neither forming a new mechanized battalion. The list goes on, until you have pretty much the entire US budget conglmerated out of many different little things. Just think of how much money could be saved if something went through them all and cut out all those uselessl little expendutres. And the space program is not least of these. "NASA is one of the things you cannot fully appreciate until you need it" you stated in your last arguement. What if you don't need it? Isn't this total gambling? There is no finacially feasible sort of colony that could ever be established, and I for one do not want to see money drained away for some fanatic's dreams of developing light-speed or building a Martian colony. Sure there is much mineral wealth around space, but it costs far too much to transport it. Insane amounts, which why no one has ever considered doing it. As for astronomy can you actually think of a way it has benefited anything? We have gotten what we need out of it: asteroid rebuttal scenarios, navigation, etc but doing we really need a multi-billion dollar telescope to tell us how many stars Andromeda has or the diameter of Betelgeuse? Sure those pretty pictures of nebulas and such are nice but wouldn't it be nicer if that money had been invested in helping rid TB from a few more patients saving a few more lives, or paying for something else? I certainly think so. Yes people belived the earth was flat and sent explorers like Columbus about. Yet you must realize that Columbus was not exploriing for exploration's sake, he was trying to improve Spain's commercial status by finding a trade route to Asia. There are no trade routes in sapce, and little money to be mind, most of NASA seems to be jsut dedicated to exploration for exploration's sake. There is no concrete idea about how to invest with profits being reaped soon enough. They don't lack vision, the trouble is they have too much of it and need to think of practicality instead.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

I can totally see your point with America needing to focus on the home front rather than on the space frontier. Yet, I totally disagree with you. You talk about the need to cut back funding because of our budget deficit as well as social programs etc. But, you fail to realize that we can cut many other things than one of the proudest and most beneficial programs in the US. Domestic programs can be refunded based on their success yet some show that these programs are not worth the investment thats why they are doing bad. Also, why not take some money from foreign aid? We spend millions on that but you seem to be fine with that expanding the debt. The fact is that the debt we have in place now is basically impossible to climb out of. We have an intertwined debt with nations such as China that are set at a dead lock. Cutting NASA funding wouldn't magically climb us out of debt. If anything the money gained from cutting NASA would be spent immediately on other stuff that wouldn't pay off the debt interest even. NASA isn't privatized because it is such a good program and there is a lot of discoveries there that the government doesn't want people and most importantly our competitors in the world to know about. The space program can provide even more wonders than it has in the past. And you are wrong to say we can't dwell on the past. We learn from our past achievements and failures and NASA is obviously positive aspect of US government investment. Why would you want to cut back a program that has done so much for our society making us the SUPERPOWER you talked about in the previous post. NASA and the efforts in the cold war has given us this leg up in the world and continues to separate us intellectually and technologically from many other nations. Everybody in the world comes to America for education and to learn NASA, to take back the knowledge to their own nation. Debt and domestic programs can be addressed without cutting NASA funding. If we ever were to cut back NASA some of our countries greatest minds would be out of work. And also the amount money it would cost to revamp the program and bring it back to where it is at today would not be worth the cost and extremely expensive. NASA is one of the things you cannot fully appreciate until you need it. Exploration outside this world is necessary because it leads to magnificent discoveries. Remember people thought the world was flat, but when it was explored a new world was found. Who is to say NASA cannot find something that could completely revolutionize the world as we know it today. Thinking about America's future any intelligent person would say that our state of the art space program is an asset that we should keep thriving and prosperous, not cut down and lose interest.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

I have in no way stated that some benefits have been reaped from the space program in the past such, the most prominent example being the advanced satellite network that currently allows for better weather predictions, better television, better spying, and a variety of other commercial uses. But we as a society must not always be enslaved to past achievements, each generation must re-evaluate the areas which their government funds, and adjust it to fit the circumstances. The United States today is currently struggling poorly funded social programs, a 20 trillion dollar or so deficit, an overextended military, and an imminent economic recession. As America looks towards the future it is going to have to buckle up and change its ways if it is going to survive as a great power. One way to help ease the pain would to cut various programs that taxpayers don't need to really be worrying about right now. As for interplanetary colonisation one must realise that the distances between planets are too far for the future to hold any VIABLE solution to colonisation and know that lightspeed is, as scientists believe today, impossible. Scientific benefits from the space program are certainly there in some fields, but the most prominent of all, astronomy, is completely useless and provides no practical benefits to human kind, especially when there is much good that money could achieve on the ground as for alleviating taxes, funding social programs, or dealing with the crippling deficit. The space program certainly no longer consumes that big a chunk of the federal budget but as I pointed out before, that could be the difference between life and death for a patients on the wait-list for heart surgery or other usage. If the space program has as many benefits as you believe why don't private corporations take it over? There answer is simple, the benefits are far outweighed by the risks and financial costs. You speak of the amounts of medical benefits that biologists can do in space to help cure diseases, but for the same amount of money how many malaria risks or TB patients could it save? Rather than gamble, couldn't we invest in the surety of life-saving that could be reached by building wells in needed locations or attacking TB? If a cure for AIDS was developed, don't you think it would find itself in a similar predicament to TB, eliminating it from the 1st-World and doing nothing deal with it in the places where it is needed most? Overall it is time for America to put the money invested in the space program to better use. The world's pockets are not deep enough to deal with luxuries and unachievable dreams.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

NASA is one of the most beneficial programs ever created on earth. It has provided so much technology in health care, astrology, communication...the list goes on. The cell phone you carry everyday is because of the space program. The use of internet worldwide is a result of research done by the space program. You claim that NASA spends too much money yet we have to think about the future. As our population increases the need for space and more resources may come down to exploring outside the earth. We are such a tiny spec in this galaxy and we face many dangers that could lead to our extinction things in space. Some say the dinosaurs were destroyed because of an asteroid and it could happen again and completely destroy us. Medical experiments that cannot be done on earth have been done in our space hobbles. These scientists are working on cures for cancer, diabetes, and aids as we speak Our future could depend on the technology we find from NASA and the proof is in what they have already achieved in our present town.
NASA funding should be drastically cut.

Although many wonderful things have come out of the space program such as satellites the amount of science being reaped for the amount of money being put in is unacceptable. There is no reason to go to the moon again and the space station provides some scientific benefit overall it is a voracious money-hole that could better be spent on health care, education, or military. Perhaps during the Cold War the notion of SDI being developed would have been a reason to continue, but not now! Based on our knowledge we have determined that things like light-speed or moon/other planetary colonies would be impossible or not viable. Why would taxpayers want to pay for that useless Hubble telescope anyways? Does it really matter if there is a weird nebula in the Andromeda galaxy? We should get our heads out of the clouds and start thinking about actual down-to-earth issues instead.
It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Full Resolution: It is morally permissible for victms to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence.This is an LD (Lincoln-Douglas) debate topic. All Lincoln-Douglas debate cases are acceptable.Round format goes as thus:Round One: AFF POSTS CASE. DO NOT JUST USE THIS ROUND AS ACCEPTANCE.Round Two: Neg posts case and rebuttals. Aff posts rebuttals.Round Three: Neg posts rebuttals, aff posts rebuttals. 2500 ELO minimum to vote. GL to my opponent!