BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is wrong.

Nihilism My adversary has misinterpreted the resolution of his own debate. He has claimed homosexuality is wrong, therefore this means homosexuality must be wrong in every possible mind. If there exists a possible mind where homosexuality is not wrong, then homosexuality is not wrong. Homosexuality is wrong is an affirmative and objective statement because of the lack of clarification He would have to state Homosexuality is wrong in my mind Homosexuality is wrong in (x) place On balance homosexuality is wrong None of this was stated so we are debating an objective statement. He has to show homosexuality is objectively wrong or he does not fulfill his BOP. Morel relativity or moral subjectivity is a short step from moral nihilism. Once you admit that morals are subjective dependent on culture, you have to acknowledge there is no need for morality. If morality varies from culture and location, then there morality is a man made concept that is intrinsically useless. My adversary has already conceded that he can not prove this is objectively wrong, meaning he acknowledges that homosexuality can be right in a given circumstance which refutes his resolution. Solipsism If something does not exist, there can be no practical way to confirm its wrong. If something does not exist in any possible mind, it cannot be possible conceived or understood. If something cannot be understood it cannot be wrong. Therefore since I am the only possible and verifiable mind, there are no other possible minds. Since there are no other possible minds, there is no possible way homosexuality exists or can be understood. Therefore since we cannot understood the nature of homosexuality because it does not exist in my mind, it is not wrong. My adversary still has the BOP to show homosexuality is wrong, which he has failed to do.
Homosexuality is wrong.

I think you've confused Nihilism with a sort of Situational ethics. Nihilism as you correctly said is the belief that there is no morality and that what one finds in the different cultures is a testament to this 'absurd' idea of an objective morality. You seem to espouse this notion yet you go on to subscribe to a form of situational ethics when you said "Anything can be justifiable at any give point. Murder, rape, and even gay sex is all plausible and acceptable given the right mind and perspective. While my adversary thinks it wrong, he has the BOP to show homosexuality is objectively wrong." This wouldn't make sense. How can I prove to you something to be objectively wrong, when you don't believe either wrong or right exists in the first place? On Solipsism. Apart from the fact that you presuppose the truth of solipsism. Your argument still fails. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The mere fact that something does not exist, does not imply it's correctness. It is conceivable, that in some possible world that there are no antisemitic sentiments such as was displayed during Nazi Germany. But the mere fact that such an idea does not exist in some possible world, does not imply the correctness of it in said world. Therefore, thus far, you have not really responded to my argument. In fact you shouldn't even debate this because as a Nihilist you don't believe in an objective morality, so words such as 'should' and 'ought' has no real meaning in your vocabulary.
Homosexuality is wrong.

"This point brings me to my conclusion. I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay." I was going to make a long case but my adversary refuted his own resolution and thus concedes the debate. The resolution is homosexuality is wrong, but he claims he does not have any solid reasons to refute this. This debate is probably over from here because he has the BOP. Nihilism There is no such thing as morality, right, or wrong. They are concepts that exist in the mind of an individual and it varies from culture, perspective, and ideals. Anything can be justifiable at any give point. Murder, rape, and even gay sex is all plausible and acceptable given the right mind and perspective. While my adversary thinks it wrong, he has the BOP to show homosexuality is objectively wrong and he has already states he cannot do this or thus far does not have an argument do do so. Solipsism [P1] My mind is the only verifiable mind that exists. {P2] Since no other verifiable mind exist, no one can have a homosexual relationship [C] Homosexuality does not exist, therefore it is not wrong.
Homosexuality is wrong.

I'd like this to be a Philosophical discussion. I'd also rather not have any Religious arguments as I don't think we derive our morality from religion and I don't think this idea is even a necessary religious belief. I'm also agnostic so this would just be rather useless. Now, this is not a traditional argument against homosexuality. Firstly, in terms of argument, polygamy, cannibalism, incest (PCI) and homosexuality seem to be in the same class. Please note that I'm not saying that PCI are just as bad as homosexuality. This would be a value judgement; which I'm not making. I am simply saying that when it comes to arguments these moral issues fair no better or worse than homosexuality. In fact, the same arguments that we use to defend homosexuality are the same arguments we use to say PCI is wrong. Secondly, we consider PCI to be wrong even without the arguments I mentioned above. Take polygamy for an example. The most convincing argument against polygamy is that it might promote gender inequality; for example, one man marrying two women or one woman marrying two men, but even this is not a problem that is hard to solve. Think about those very horrible love triangles that people tend to find themselves in. Let us assume that two girls are best friends, but unfortunately they like the same guy. This guy on the other hand isn't really some patriarchal dictator, and tries his best to make both of these girls happy. He never planned to like both of them; it just happened. Unlike our currently monogamous society, where he'll probably have to hurt one of their feelings or leave them both alone, a polygamous society might be more accommodating. But let's go even further, suppose these two girls are both bisexuals, and they not only like this guy, but they like each other too. All three could marry each other. In such a relationship it is hard to see how inequality would come about especially if the guy designates equal amount of time to both girls. But why does it even have to be two girls and a guy? It might be three girls and then you wouldn't have to think about gender inequality. So as far as I can see there really aren't any arguments against polygamy; yet it is still seen as wrong regardless of the lack of arguments. This point brings me to my conclusion. I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay. You might respond that I could use what I'm saying to defend any sort of evil, but the fact is, there are many more moral issues just like PCI, for which we have absolutely no convincing argument and we are nowhere near even considering that these things might even be okay. I think I'll stop here and will rebut if you make any response
Sniper rifle(pro) vs bazooka (con)

Wow! you, as a con should not start the debate opposing yourself!!. OK.. Let me firstly rebut What you just said... "A sniper rifle does low damage" A sniper rifle very very rarely does any injuries... it always KILLS.. DEATH not injuries... "takes only slightly lesser reload time" even if the difference is a second, its better. " short impact radius" well.... if a sniper rifle shot at a target out of range, the bullet just goes and beat the ground, without harming anybody... as for a bazooka, if shot out of its range, can harm many things.. crops.. civilians..animals.. bulidings...................and much much important.... THE INFRASTRUCTURE Let me now get to my own points after the rebutting... 1 With a bazooka, you can destroy a tank without killing its driver..... With a sniper rifle, you can kill the tank driver.... AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THE LOSSES IN LIVES ARE MUCH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT FOR ARMIES THAN THE LOSS IN TANKS ........etc 2 If you want to kill a person, just him, without harming anybody other than him, and you use a bazookah, you kill the person , his bodyguards (if available), civilians, ....etc and even injure people without killing them With a sniper rifle, you can do the job perfectly..
LIVE DEBATE: Right to Housing

IntroFaust accepted my open debate challenge to do a live debate and selected the housing topic and the Con position. This is a live, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate, which makes it all the more exciting for me, since I don't get to do these often anymore. This debate is scheduled to take place today (7/15/2017) around 11:30pm, EST.Since not all judges are familiar with the LD format or with live debates in general, I have nominated some judges who I believe are more qualified than most to adjudicate this kind of round. Those judges are: whiteflame, Hayd, Tejretics, Warren42, Raisor, Thett3, Airmax1227, and bluesteel (since I've seen him online lately). If Con objects to anyone on this list, or wishes to add names, Con should contact me before accepting the challenge, and we can discuss the issue. Judges, if they accept, agree to adjudicate this debate impartially and without outside assistance; judges are, of course, free to decline their nominations. The voting period is 1 month with a select winner system. TopicThe United States ought to guarantee the right to housingRules1. No "kritiks" (i.e. challenging the assumptions/premises of the resolution)2. No "flex prep" (i.e. using prep time as CX time or vice versa)3. No trolling or deliberately non-serious/humorous/absurd cases4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Debaters must have, upon their opponent's request, citations or working URLs for their sources. Citations must contain roughly all that a regular MLA citation might. Citations or links can be exchanged in-between speeches (with no loss of prep) over DDO PMs, in the comments sections of this debate, through the G+ chat function, through email, or can be read out loud into the video.6. In the event of mic problems, each debater must have their constructive case ready to share with their opponent in-between speeches (with no loss of prep) through one of the methods described in the rule above. Debaters cannot be required to share their constructive cases if the mics are working properly, though they may still opt to do so.7. The first round is for acceptance only8. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossNon-Live Debate StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro posts a Video-recording of the Live Debate; Con posts "no round as agreed"Live Debate Structure6min - Aff Constructive (AC)3 - Neg CX (1CX)7 - Neg Constructive and First Rebuttal (NC/1NR)3 - Aff CX (2CX)4 - Aff First Rebuttal (1AR)6 - Neg Second Rebuttal (2NR)3 - Aff Second Rebuttal (2AR)w/ 4 minutes of prep time each to use at their discretionThanks...to Faust for this debate; I am really looking forward to a great round of LD!
Heavy metal is not Satanic

First, there are no Scriptures to support that God condemns heavy metal. Of course it may have bands which engaged in Satanism, but as Christians, we had origins of evil as well. Just because it had "evil" origins doesn't mean that it cannot be used to glorify God. Praise is just music made to God, there are no restrictions in the Bible as to what music is to be forbidden. It is said that we need to focus on love when choosing our music, but love is not an emotion that we feel or an environment that we feel "safe" in, it's a commitment to others. We praise God not because we love the music, but because we love and adore him. Psalm 33:1-5 " Rejoice in the Lord, O you righteous! For praise from the upright is beautiful. 2 Praise the Lord with the harp; Make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy. 4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord." I wait for my opponent's rebuttals.
The Production and Selling of Cigarettes is Murder

I'm Sorry, I should not have accepted this debate. I learned that you are new from your last post, and while I am not old, I'm older than you and its bad practice for members like me to debate new members, fault is mine, I appologise. However, I will still attempt to negate the given resolution. To do that I will point out some flaws in my opponents case and state my own arguments as well.Rebuttal:1) reversed BoP2) dangerous chemicalsArgument:1) Freedom of choiceRebuttal___________________________________________________________1) Burden of Proof.My opponents case works from the assumption that if something cannot be proven to be the case, then the opposite must be true. Quote from Pro: 'How ISN'T it murder?' So she assumes that everybody knows that it is murder and that any other notion is a compeltely alien idea. However, the resolution states: 'The Production and Selling of Cigarettes is Murder.' In which case Pro must answer the simple question of why? Why is the motion true? This burden of proof remains unfulfilled as per Pro's previous post. She did not answer that question or affirm the resolution. We did not enter this debate with the pre-concieved mindset that a certain side was right, so whatever claims are made must be supported.2) Harmful Chemicals.The chemicals listed by Pro do not prove that selling cigarrettes is murder. It merely proves that there are dangerous chemicals in cigarrettes, which is not murder, as I will address in my first argumentArgument___________________________________________________________1) Freedom of choiceConsider this senario: You have a knife and you wrap it up in paper with warning signs all over it. Let's say that you wish to sell such and item, which is lawful in whatever country you live. Now say that someone comes and buys your knife. He reads the warning labels on it but proceeds to open the parcel up anyways and commences cutting himself. This man is harming himself because he enjoys it, even if it will lead to his death. Whose fault is it if he dies? Is it the seller or the customer? Ultimately, its the customers fault for killing himself. He chose that he would like to buy the knife and cut himself apart inwhich he has full responcibility for his actions. It is unfortunate that it happens but the person who sold it can have no blame. The seller after all went through the effort to warn any customers that the product could be dangerous.Concluding___________________________________________________It is not possible to blame companies for the choices of their customers. Pro has not shown a reason to think otherwise, so I look forward to hear her case next round.The resolution remains negated.
The Production and Selling of Cigarettes is Murder

Good luck to you also. Do you agree with smoking at all?? How ISN'T it murder?? Or manslaughter. It kills, does it not??? Do you know what is IN those things?? The following chemicals are contained in cigarettes: Acetic Acid: vinegar Acetone: nail polish remover Ammonia: cleaning agent Arsenic: poison, used as an insecticide Butane: lighter fluid Cadmium: found in batteries DDT: insecticide outlawed by the US Government in the 1970"s because of human teratogenic (birth defect) properties Ethanol: alcohol Formaldehyde: substance used to preserve body tissue; a known carcinogen Hexamine: barbecue lighter Hydrogen cyanide: gas chamber poison Methanol: rocket fuel Naphthalene: moth balls Nitrobenzene: gasoline additive Toluene: an industrial solvent Vinyl chloride: plastic piping (http://www.med.upenn.edu...) You know ... I am a female, and so I do paint my nails and do HAVE things like nail polish remover. On the bottle, CLEARLY it says: CAUTION Keep out of reach of children Do not swallow ----- Main POINT Read safety directions before using Highly flammable Poison - not to be taken ---- another main point! I mean obviously it isn't instant death. It's slow and dragged out. Making people look older and their teeth gross and decreasing the healthy function of the lungs. I'm fifteen, I probably shouldn't know some of this. But my parents are both smokers, and it's hard to know that they're dying from something so stupid. I also apologise for not knowing how this site works :) I joined ... Today :D
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

Lets be real, Pro is just making up a bunch of crap (as I was too in the beginning, but let's get down to business). Charie is/ was actually a junkie, who smokes. Chuck Norris is an esteemed martial artist with a black belt. This debate is worthless. Obviouly Chuck Norris would kick this junkie's as*. Case Closed.
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

This has come to an end.I have shown that Charlie Sheen has various superhuman attributes.I have shown that Chuck Norris created lies because they sounded like "dies."I have shown that Charlie Sheen is closer to God due to his near-death experiences.I have shown that Charlie Sheen is not a drug addict because Sheen said so.I have shown that Charlie Sheen is part God because of his Adonis DNA.I have shown that Charlie Sheen's magic stops any "moves" from Chuck Norris.I have shown that Charlie Sheen inspires kids to do good.I have shown that, with a gun/tiger-blood, Chuck would die.I have shown that Charlie Sheen uses days of the strong.I have shown that Charlie Sheen should be trusted due to his awesomeness.Good luck. May Llama-Lord spit on us all.
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

"How so?"You are just making up a bunch of things."This is true, but is irrelevant. After Charlie Sheen is done, Chuck will be a black-and-blue (with splashes of red) belt-wearer."There is nothing to support my opponent's above assertion. Chuck would probably win the fight, as he has been a professional martial artist for years. Charie is a drug addict. "But Charlie Sheen doesn't use days of the weak. He uses the days of the strong. Chuck Norris cannot beat Sheen any day of the strong!" I meant week. There, problem solved."My opponent continuously claims that Sheen is a drug addict. The fact is, Sheen said he wasn't an addict. This is proof that he isn't." Charlie definitely said "I was banging 7 gram rocks, that's how I roll". "My opponent has yet to show why we cannot trust Sheen." I did show why. He does cocaine and crack."My opponent claims that the case is closed. He right. I HAVE WON!" Impossible, as you are backing a drug addict. I am backing a black belt. I self-evidently win. Charlie Sheen is LOOOOSSSIIINNNGG
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

My opponent's last round was more or less just a bunch of nonsense.How so?Chuck is a black beltThis is true, but is irrelevant. After Charlie Sheen is done, Chuck will be a black-and-blue (with splashes of red) belt-wearer.Also, Charlie Sheen ccan buy a gun! would whoop Charlie Sheen's drug addict a*s any day of the weak.But Charlie Sheen doesn't use days of the weak. He uses the days of the strong. Chuck Norris cannot beat Sheen any day of the strong!Drug AddictionMy opponent continuously claims that Sheen is a drug addict. The fact is, Sheen said he wasn't an addict. This is proof that he isn't.My opponent has yet to show why we cannot trust Sheen.My opponent claims that the case is closed. He right. I HAVE WON!
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

I can tell you that Charlie Sheen is telling the truth about everything because Charlie Sheen SAID so.Chuck Norris invented the idea of "truth".This is inaccurate; he invented the idea of a "lie". It sounded like "die".Jesus prays to chuck norrisCharlie Sheen has the DNA of a god. Adonis DNA. Adonis is beautiful... So beautiful...Chuck Norris actually has movesChuck's moves don't affect Sheen; Sheen is a warlock!Charlie Sheen is a drug addictNo he isn't; he said so. That cigarret he's holding is for show! It is to inspire children to do good things in the world! Also, he looked AWESOME! I wish I looked that happy!Chuck Norris Is OldCharlie Sheen is fairly old. He has to be at least 45. Also, how many near-overdoses has Sheen had? Millions more than Norris!What Chuck says is irrelivant to thanks to one immortal phrase:"I'm Bi-Winning!"My argument is that your argument about my argument being in valid is invalid!"Wow, winning!"
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

All of my opponent's arguments were bare-assertions, accompanied by quotes made by Charlie Sheen himself, who most likely is not telling the truth. However, Chuck Norris invented the idea of "truth". Therefore, you can bet you bottom dollar that everything I am saying is true. If you think that is a non-sequitur, just remember, Chuck Norris is logic itself. DivinityJesus prays to chuck norris Proof Of Fightning SkillsChuck Norris actually has moves (Check Video)http://www.youtube.com...Chuck Norris Is Not A Drug AddictCharlie Sheen is a drug addict, and this would hinder any abilities my opponent claims he may have. Just look at this mess of a man: Chuck Norris Is OldChuck is in his 70's, this means he is closer to God than Charlie because God is the oldest person there is. This alone would not give him extra powers, but he is Chuck Norris.ConclusionJesus prays to Chuck Norris, and Chuck Norris is devine. There is evidence that Chuck can actually fight, there is no evidence that sheen can actually fight. Charlie Sheen is also a drug addict, and probably said all the things my opponent quoted while he was high on cocaine. Chuck norris is also closer to God, and God gives him powers to overcome Sheen because of this? Why? Because he is Chuck Norris. I win. Why? Well, my friend Chuck has something to say...