BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible does not condone drinking alcohol for recreational purposes

My opponent claims that the verses I proposed as evidence are invalid, because they do not say it is okay to drink alcohol if the water is sanitary enough to drink. The verses also do not address if it is okay to drink whenever you have died your hair red and are in the middle of a native american tribal dance. You know what these two statements have in common? Both are completely unrelated to the question of "Does the Bible permit the consumption of alcohol". Sure the water may have been a bit unsanitary in bible times, but no the bible did not ONLY allow the consumption of wine because of this lack of sanitation. My opponent then claims, "I never said the bible doesn;t allow for drinking alcohol" Besides the terrible grammar in the statement, there is another critical flaw here. Is not this what the debate is about? My opponent is arguing pro, so he should be arguing from the standpoint that the bible does not allow the consumption of alcohol. My opponents entire argument seems to be the "We cant drink alcohol if the water is clean" claim. Again, the water being clean has little, if anything, to do with the consumption of alcohol. My opponent cannot simply refute the verses as insufficient because of something she THINKS is connected, without offering evidence as to HOW they are connected. My opponent finally says, "[for some reason i feel compelled to say i dont really believe what i'm arguing, playing devil's advocate. but i do know others who argue this to me, and i'm looking for decent responses." This is the kicker. My opponent herself just said she does not believe what she is arguing. If she does not even know why she is arguing her side or how to argue it, how can she expect you, the voters, and I to do so? I could consider this my opponents forfeiture of the argument, but I doubt that was its intention.
the bible does not condone drinking alcohol for recreational purposes

your verses in support of drinking do not say it's okay to drink if the water is sanitary. it merely say it can make one's heart merry and to drink it with gladdness. i never said the bible doesn;t allow for drinking alcohol. it forbids drunkenness, but it doesn't mean it doesn't extend to not drinking alcohol if the water is clean. [for some reason i feel compelled to say i dont really believe what i'm arguing, playing devil's advocate. but i do know others who argue this to me, and i'm looking for decent responses.
the bible does not condone drinking alcohol for recreational purposes

My opponent states "i do not have to debate that the bible forbids the consumption of alcohol. just that it's not clear enough that it's okay to drink when the water is sanitary. " It is odd, though, my opponent took the pro side to a debate then claims she does not have to debate it. This is the THIRD time she has used the sanitary water argument, and I have refuted it twice before. This is repetitive, and to me seems like a filler for having no other arguments to provide. My opponent then says "those verses do not say drinking is a good thing, all we can deduce was that it was permissible. " The verses say "and wine to gladden the heart of man", and "drink your wine with a merry heart. " Those sound like the descriptions of a good thing to me, and if you split apart the definitions of these words, you will see it is almost irrefutable these verses talk about alcohol in a less than negative light. Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent has, again and again, offered lazy arguments in the form of about 3 sentences a piece. She used the same exact argument all 3 rounds, even though I successfully refuted it, and offered no viable refutation of my arguments. Most importantly, she herself admitted " I don't really believe what i'm arguing" and if that isn't the deciding factor then I don't know what is. As I said before, if my opponent admits to not believing her own claim, then how does she expect us to?
human gene or human environment determines human quality

there are 2 factors which determine human quality. what is human quality? human quality is capability of invention or creative capability and it also includes talking, walking, look like a human.why these are called human quality? because only human being behaves like this in this world.now there 2 factors that determine human quality. one is gene and another is environment.now there was a debate as to who will determine human quality? the communist/socialist people says environment will determine human quality and others say gene is determinant of human quality. i also say that gene is the determinant factor of human quality after considering a short experiment: a chimp is put under human environment. it was taught human behavior which it could easily copycat but it has not gained any human quality i.e. it still remain a chimp and not turned into a human.on the other hand: a human child was kept with a chimp family. he used to play with chimps but he will not gain any chimp quality i.e. he did not look like chimp, he has creative faculty intact, he walk and talk like human etc.the result can be presented in the form of a table: Case gene environment quality Human Human Chimp Human Chimp Chimp Human chimp now friends can you see the relation between gene and quality? see even if the environment is chimp the human quality is intact and even if the environ is human chimp quality is intact. so there is no relation between environment and quality. but see if the gene is human then quality is human but if the gene is chimp the quality is chimp. there is a clear relation between gene and quality.this experiment can still be done today with minimum cost/ tiny cost. but the result is awsome.
Relaxing Immigration Laws

Thank you for your opportunity of letting me debate against you. I will try to convince the audience that immigration laws should not be relaxed but instead tightened. Illegal aliens should not have access to the same luxuries and benefits that regular hard working citizens strive to achieve. I will follow your proposed outline to the fullest of my abilities but it will not be extremely important to me. Instead, I will focus on the facts as to why immigration laws should be constricted. I await the pleasure of debating with you!
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

I see that those are cartoons. Not real life. Stalin constantly sang the song "If I was your boyfriend" to Hitler,but he replied with the following "Stalin I love you as a brother and nothing" 1 If we embrace the idea of Stalin Hitler relationship with Hitler consenting is embracing a bap van doe philosophy. Which is gay and fake. Killamanjaro pointed out that hitler loved stalin as a friend and not gay. Pat mc patricks said in order for hitler to be gay with stalin Hitler wouldve needed 3 nipples. and he only had 2. So the resolution is false. 1. Hitler, Adolf. 1948. Letter to stalin
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

At a first glance you are right, Stalin and Hitler had such a brutally conflicting personality combination that oftentimes their relationship appeared... BUT................This was actually to cover up the extreme BDSM relationship they had! First of all HITLER (great as he is) USUALLY preferred to be SPANKED! HOWEVER Stalin would sometimes demand the feeling of Hitler wearing the pants in the relationship! THEY HAVE SUCH A DEEP EMOTIONAL CONNECTION xoxo And if Slin realcould be a woman, their baby would look like this:
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

They're similar so Hitler couldn't be gay for him. It's a known fact stalin has gay orgys. Stalin suffered from gay bowel syndrome. And that's what he died from. Hitler had a love of the female fruit so much. It's rumered he became a mormon to have more then one wife. Stalin acted out plays of Romero and Juliette but Juliette was dresses as hitler. Hitler thought it was cute but didn't surcome to Stalins seduction. Straight is great but gay is the jayyy
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

WHY DO MEN AND WOMEN F*CK? COS DEY R OPOSITTS!WHY DO BLACK MEN WID BIG COX AND WHITE WOMEN WID BIG TITS ATTRACT EACH UDDA? COS DEY OPPOSITTE!OMG IT LIKE THIS:HITLER = Fascist DICTATOR OF CAPITALIST GERMANYSTAILN = Communist DICTATOR OF SOVIET RUSSIADEY BOTH SIMILAR THING (Dictator) like both ppl who be banging in da bed be HOOOMANZ BUT YOU SEE... DEY NOT BE DA SAME POLITICAL FIGGAZ IT LIKE Causain b!tches and Niggaz innit?OOOH YEAH MY LOGIC IS SOOO TRUE.And while they were going at it (hitler takign it up the A55 of course) Stalin said "OH DEAR NAZI I CAN TAKE YOUR SH*T FOR THE SAKE OF THIS OOOOOH DAT A$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$................http://t3.gstatic.com...;
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

oh hi voters. May Hitler and God bless you. Stalin was most definitely gay for Hitler. But Hitler didn't concede to Stalin"s sweet a$$. Hitler stuck with women but did flirt with gays(like me) to make them jizz themselves. But he did this out of the kindness of his heart, not from the lust of his loins. Raty mud man posted 2 videos which seem legit. If you look closely however you can see they're fake as Dolly Parton"s breasts. http://www.youtube.com... The second video is obviously fake as jink stanks. Look at the video I posted. The subtitles can be reedited. And that quality of video wasn't around then. Ratty mud man is trying to decieve us for his sexual gay pleasure. Don't be decived voters. Hey voters..... I think RMM wants my booty. Please watch him!
Troll debate: Hitler was gay for Stalin

It is that time of year when we all must wonder if Hitler was gay for Stalin and the answer of any sane lunatic (as I am) is. .. YES! Not only did he shake the old man's hand several kinky time but unlike a 'spit shake' he did a jizz shake! OMGI shall now let you watch the video displaying a common 3-way combo in world war two, the two already-heavily-gay buddies Mao+Stalin and their capitalist/socialist enemy-with-benefits HITLER! OMG THEY R SO CUTE TOGETHER: . http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Morality only truly exists without God.

"My initial statement was that morality is most pure when it is performed without warrant." You have the burden to prove that morality can exist without warrant! If I say that it is wrong to dance and you tell me it is not – who is right? We both appeal to the same thing – no-thing. "What makes God the authority on morality?" My point is that moral objectivity and moral obligation exist with God. "And let's just assume for a minute that I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, but I still perform moral deeds…" What are these moral deeds? How do we define moral deeds? Where do they come from? Why must we obey them? And how are they universally applicable? Morality without warrant is no morality at all! "God is not influencing my decision to do ‘right' or ‘wrong.'" And God does not necessarily influence the Christian. The Christian may very well do things simply because they are right – without God's influence. HOWEVER, the Christian has warrant to call the thing in which he has done "right." "True, they may have been more immoral in those times" How do you know they were immoral? What standard of morality are you judging them by? You are assuming that an objective standard of morality exists, but you are not giving any warrant for its existence! "Humans have learned and adapted to behaving in a moral way over time, with little to no relation to God. " So morality did not evolve? Humans only evolved to fulfill that morality? My opponent did not answer and/or refute any of the following points: 1. Warrant for right and wrong Rightness must have a source if it is to actually exist – and just as heat has a heat source – rightness must have a right source. God, is defined as perfectly moral, the only plausible source of rightness. Heat becomes less as it distances from the heat source. These levels of heat imply a source for that heat. Just as levels of right, imply a source of rightness. Therefore, before my opponent can be correct about morality, he must first define the warrant to call something either "right" or "wrong." 2. Christian morality I do not kill because it is wrong. I can call it wrong because God has commanded it as such. An atheist does not kill because it is wrong. The atheist has no warrant in which to call it so. True morality can ONLY exist with God because there is an objective standard in which to determine "right" and "wrong."
Morality only truly exists without God.

My opponent says that morality only exists in the presence of God because God is a being that can warrant morality. My initial statement was that morality is most pure when it is performed without warrant. What makes God the authority on morality? And let's just assume for a minute that I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, but I still perform moral deeds in spite of his presence. God is not influencing my decision to do "right" or "wrong." Where do you suppose polytheists learned morality? There were no writings of morality, and there was a god of morality. True, they may have been more immoral in those times, but still knew that certain things were right and wrong. Humans have learned and adapted to behaving in a moral way over time, with little to no relation to God.
Morality only truly exists without God.

Morality (according to thefreedictionary.com) is defined as "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." Now, morality may be able to exist with the presence of God. I did not say it couldn't. I did say that morality in its truest form exists in the absence of God. When religious people do something good, they usually do it because they feel God wants them to do it, and they usually don't do wrong because they feel God does not want them to do it. A friend of mine who is a fair dedicated Christian told me he doesn't swear or use God's name in vain because he was taught it was wrong by his church and by the Bible. He did not do it because it is an inappropriate and vulgar way of speaking, but because he believed God thought it to be wrong. Several atheists, however, will do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing because they are aware that it is the wrong thing to do, based on general knowledge and feeling. This is not to say, however, that atheists always do the right thing, but religious groups have also not done the right thing. War has been waged over differing religious beliefs... war, which is composed of killing, killing, which is an immoral act. Had it not been for religion, there would be no Crusades, no World War II, and no War on Terror. The religious groups involved in these wars have done the wrong thing in the name of God.
GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

I believed that my opponent conceded in the comments section of the debate but it was slightly ambiguous. This forfeit may be an indicator of his concession. I ask that the audience vote PRO since all my arguments extend and I am unable to respond to whatever it is my opponent decides to post. Please recall that this debate is not about the existence of God, but the validity of this one proof, which I have shown to be logically invalid as per the resolution. Thank you.
GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

First, I need to note that my opponent has not read my argument and despite the fact that he claims that he understands the resolution and what he is responsible for doing, he absolutely does not. As I have made clear in both my first post and in the comments section, this debate is not about arguing the existence of God, but rather, discussing the logical validity of a particular proof. Namely, the one that I mentioned, and not an entirely different one. The one I am referring to is the following: "If by definition God can create, make and do anything what stops God from existing? And if God was really God, wouldn't God just exist? Sound shollow but it has an edge of truth to it. " I was hoping that my opponent would bring this argument up so that he could clarify things, as I have said in my first round, but since he has not, I shall simply respond. 1. "Necessary judgments will never yield absolute necessity for things and their existence. " The definition only applies if the thing exists. 2. "If we include existence in the definition of something, then asserting that it exists is a tautology. " From the statement prior, we know that the attributes come after the primary question of "does it exist? ". If existence is an attribute that follows, it becomes tautological and logically flawed. 3. "Being is not a predicate. To say that something is or exists is not to say something about a concept, but rather indicates that there is an object that corresponds to the concept. " If you were to have a concept of a unicorn (horse with one horn) and you discover one, the concept of a unicorn does not change to become "horse with one horn that exists". The existence is OUTSIDE the concept of the unicorn. I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that if he wishes to change his resolution to a debate about a new proof involving DNA, he shall do so in another debate challenge. Thank you.
GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

In an effort to eliminate unnecessary and useless squabble over a very trivial fact, I have decided to make this into a debate. I would prefer that GodSands take this debate, but have decided to make it public to some extent as well, since the topic is familiar to many. Anyone who has had Philosophy knows that Ontological proofs revolving around the usage of the term "exist", also knows that the proof seems to be completely true. In other words, it is tautological. Tautologies usually occur by way of circular logic. For example: 1. The Bible makes references to God's existence 2. Anything that God inspires is truth 3. The Bible is inspired by God 4. The Bible is truth 5. Therefore, God must exist. The logical proof ends up true, but where is the point of contention here? Doesn't it seem like a victory too easily won? That is because this argument is TAUTOLOGICAL in that one of the premises is FALSE and is HIDDEN. This is obviously a proof of God's existence. However, notice that #2 and #3 both rely on the ASSUMPTION that God exists. Thus, the user of this argument is saying that God exists because God exists, and thus, is really saying nothing. This is a similar situation with GodSands' proof. GodSands thinks he has found this unbreakable proof, because it seems to be true in all circumstances. What a brilliant weapon against atheists! Like the idiot proof shown above, GodSands' proof is merely rubbish in disguise. It also has a HIDDEN and FALSE premise that makes it TAUTOLOGICAL. I now invite GodSands to post his famous argument, so that we may analyze it together. If indeed I have judged that argument incorrectly, then I shall not only apologize, but also convert to Christianity and spend the rest of my days evangelizing like St. Paul
This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

Pro is still claiming that his argument had nothing to do with the world. At this point it's just a matter of which one of us is speaking English. Let's take another look:"Riiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. Boom"Notice how Pro bolden's "the idea of God" to emphasize that this is what he is referring to. He then immediately follows with "it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite". What is the "its" in that sentence? Pro is obviously not calling God imperfect and finite because then he would have immediately contradicted himself afterward, so the only possible alternative is our world because that is the only other subject in his statement. If the argument had nothing to do with the world then Con needs to learn English.Pro then states that his argument was "rebutting via circular logic". I have no idea what this means. First of all Pro has the burden of proof so rebutting anything does not help his case. Second, this was Pros first round argument. There was nothing to refute.I don't know what BINGO BONGO BANGO means, or how it helps Pros case so I'll just move on.Pro apparently has a problem with me addressing him as Pro, calling it a stupid tactic. I don't consider professionalism in a formal debate to be a stupid tactic. Pro could learn a thing or two about it.According to Pro, the only way to take the lords name in vain is to reject him. To reject God is not believe in him. To not believe in him makes you an atheist. So according to Pro, the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" was a commandment to atheists. Because that makes sense.Pro claims that he has proven the existence of God because since being contains occupancy, there must be something outside of the natural system that contains mental occupancy. But why is mental occupancy required? Oh yea, that's the part Pro is supposed to be proving. Proving a statement such as that requires an argument. Four rounds and I am still waiting for one.Pro has utterly failed to offer anything of value in this debate, other than the curiosity of trying to figure out if he is serious. I would normally conclude by stating how the resolution was negated, but in this case Pro provided nothing to negate.
This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

Stop hitting the pipe man. Argument number oneGood skywalkerRiiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. BoomIt had notin to do with the world's existence. My argument from sh1t was rebutting via circilar logic. You have to assume flies are great. They are dirty insects that fly around having sex and breading on sh1t (like atheists). to prove flies are great. BINGO BONGO BANGO I DONT WANT TO LEAVE THE CONGO OH NO NO NOOOOOO! No nonon onooo noo. doesnt make us feel good. thats not what moral beuty is. Then Cun copies my arguments but replaces cun with me (pro). which is bullsh1t and is a stupid tactic. He fails. I didnt take the God damn lords name in vain. In order to take his name in vain you have to reject him. So I can say god damn jesus christ all the god damn day. Argument threeNaturalism is suppose to be a self-equaling system, but the fact it isnt because it contains omnious beings shows that it is wrong because it contradicts the first law of logic! !! !! ! I did prove that a being must precede a natural system because since being contains occupancy, then there must be something outside of the natural system that contains mental occupancy! !Con has failed to understand this argumentDo the right thing, do the godly thing.