BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trolling Badge

Why the last page of the internet should be banned1. The final boss of the internet hides in there As far as we are concerned, there are many speculations about who is really the final boss of the internet. For our purposes, let us assume it is a cross between all those crazy men, Rainbow Bunchie, Derpy, Anonymous, and etc. etc. Even so, this final boss has not yet been defeated by anyone. Whoever claims so has no proof, no screen-shot, no photo, nada. It can be thus claimed that the final boss cannot be defeated. Furthermore, the final boss of the internet kills many people every day, striking in secret so that no one notices. Because so much people already die per day. It is because of the deaths that the last page of the internet should be banned.2. Even the president doesn't support it. I mean, seriously, all that's needed are the major of congress's vote, and Barack Obama just checks it off and....voila! The final page of the internet is banned.3. It is completely useless (Except for evil people, who hire the final boss to kill others)The final page of the internet is not a social website. Neither is it a search engine. All that is on it is four measly lines of text. Which is just there to fool you anyways. You'd laugh, attempt to close the window....and that's when the boss strikes, killing you. People who switch tabs have a 50% chance to instantly gain cancer. People who try to crtl+alt+delete automatically get a huge headache. Any resistance is futile. If you go outside as the website says, well, that's proof that your mind has been taken over already by the final boss. Terrible!DO NOT CLICK: http://www.1112.net...4. It doesn't have a lap dance, as CinemaSins would sayHey, it doesn't even have cute anime girls or anything! As I stated in point 3, the site is completely useless to good or normal people, and it even gives danger to them. The last page of the internet doesn't even have sofcore porn! We are all angry.5. few people can visit the page without dying, making it more uselessList of known people who can visit the last page without dying:--9spaceking--Chuck Norris--The Devil--The Creator of the Website and his good friends--Adolf Hitler (if he was alive)--Osama Bin Ladin (if he was alive)--You (but only temporarily and for purposes of this debate)--The president of the United States (he bought 10,000 freezing potions to freeze the final boss, and he succeeded--but very very narrowly. And by very very narrowly I mean he closed the website within one planck time within the time of the boss awakening.
Trolling Badge

Hello, Jonbonbon, holder of the Trolling Badge! After I defeated Actionspeak (because there's no way he can win after forfeiting the 3rd round in this debate: http://www.debate.org......) I'm here to get it from you by defeating you in debating! The topic will be: The Final Page of the Internet Should be banned. I am pro, you are con. Round one is for acceptance only, and I define "Ban" as to prohibit by law and stop people from reaching the page by shutting down the website permanently!
Intentionally taking a life is morally equivalent to allowing a life to be lost.

"You yourself concede that 'if you just don't care, you aren't wrong'. Therefore you have admitted that a scenario in which the inaction resulted from apathy, it would not be morally equivalent to intending death which you say is wrong. " But killing can be from apathy. If I don't care what happens to people, if I have no respect for their life, my apathetic killing of that person is equivalent. Basically, what I'm saying is that since I don't care, I can make the conscious choice to kill or the conscious choice to let die simply because I don't care. If I do care then my action or inaction is wrong. So basically, if one cares killing and letting die are both wrong, and if one doesn't care, neither are wrong. "Involuntary manslaughter is outside the range of this debate, making this point moot. " No, it's voluntary, he just doesn't care that they die when he kills them. His intentions aren't bad, he's simply having fun killing people. The other person who lets a child drown in a pond also doesn't care. He just doesn't feel like saving the kid. "The term 'intentionally taking a life' does not include having no purpose in mind for where the bullets from your gun will land. Also you clearly state in your scenario: 'he doesn't care. ' This is therefore the exact same scenario as complete apathy, and therefore does not prove your side of the argument. " He made a conscious choice to kill those people, it is intentional, it is just apathetic. "You contradict yourself by first stating that one scenario is wrong, while the other is not wrong, and then directly afterwards that they are equivalent. 'Wrong' and 'not wrong' are not equivalent, therefore only reinforcing my argument. " You misunderstood. What I meant was that an action done because you want someone dead is wrong, so killing and letting die because you want a person dead are both wrong and equivalent, and an action that is apathetic can't be wrong, so killing and letting die out of apathy are not wrong, so they are equivalent. What I am saying is that if killing and letting die are done under the same motive, they are equivalent. For example, if I shoot someone because they are wearing a stupid shirt, I am immorally killing them. If I let them drown in a pond because I don't like they shirt, I am just as immoral. However, if I run someone over with my car, intentionally, simply because I don't care enough to swerve out of the way, I am not wrong, and if I let a child drown in a pond because I don't care enough to get my clothes wet to save him, I am also not wrong.
Intentionally taking a life is morally equivalent to allowing a life to be lost.

I would like to start off with reminding that the topic of this debate states that they are morally "equivalent", therefore making my opponent on the side that there is absolutely no difference morally between the two options. Not only that they are both wrong, but that there is no variation. Death is not wrong but murder is. The scenario you have chosen is a unique one which plays in your favor. Most of your argument hangs fragilely on the idea that the older brother wanted the six year old to die. This, however, would not necessarily be the case. You yourself concede that "if you just don't care, you aren't wrong". Therefore you have admitted that a scenario in which the inaction resulted from apathy, it would not be morally equivalent to intending death which you say is wrong. I have now come to realize that maybe my header was slightly vague. It is too late to change it now, though, so we must run with the topic line we have. What was negligently not specified on my part, however, must not be assumed in the debate. Therefore it is an unreasonable assumption that the person allowing death had the desire for death to come, and that point of my opponent's must be ignored. "Being apathetic can occur just as easily with killing. For example person Q loves to shoot his Uzi off in malls. The bullets that fly out kill tons of people, but he doesn't care. He is simply having a fun day at the mall, shooting off his Uzi." Involuntary manslaughter is outside the range of this debate, making this point moot. If you notice the topic of this debate is: "Intentionally taking a life is morally equivalent to allowing a life to be lost." The term "intentionally taking a life" does not include having no purpose in mind for where the bullets from your gun will land. Also you clearly state in your scenario: "he doesn't care." This is therefore the exact same scenario as complete apathy, and therefore does not prove your side of the argument. "So basically, if you intend death, you are wrong, if you just don't care, you aren't wrong. They're still morally equivalent actions." You contradict yourself by first stating that one scenario is wrong, while the other is not wrong, and then directly afterwards that they are equivalent. "Wrong" and "not wrong" are not equivalent, therefore only reinforcing my argument. My opponent has inadvertently conceded my point of view, and has thoroughly contradicted his official stance in the debate. Vote CON. -Harlan
Intentionally taking a life is morally equivalent to allowing a life to be lost.

Scenario: Drowning child-Version 1 Person X is babysitting his 6 year old brother. X's father is an extremely rich widower, who although X is older has put the younger child as his heir. X drowns the child while he is bathing, and calls it an accident. Version 2 Person X is babysitting his 6 year old brother. X's father is an extremely rich widower, who although X is older has put the younger child as his heir. X sees his brother have a seizure in the bathtub. He decides not to act, and his brother dies. I contend that because the result was the same, and X could have prevented the result, X is just as wrong in version 2 as he is in version 1. In short, X's actions/inactions led to the same result, ergo the actions are morally equivalent. X made a conscious choice, and his choice lead to these bad consequences. X only let his brother die because of his "malicious will" "The main difference between making someone die and letting them die is not the outcome, but the attitude and nature of the action or non-action." Killing and letting die are both conscious choices that result in someone's death. The attitude is the same. "To make someone die is to want them to die. This is to have desires and self-purposes that drive you. You are either crazed with rage, or dangerously driven by a malicious will. To make someone die means inevitably that you care about the outcome, and are willfully trying to take control over the outcome; taking action towards a goal." The same is with letting die. X cared about the outcome. He wanted to kill his brother, he was simply giving great luck and his brother was put in a life threatening situation. "However allowing an event to happen does not necessarily mean these things. You are indifferent to the outcome. This does not display hate or malice, but acceptance and lack of regret for what will happen. If you are without goal; without desire; without emotion about what happens; if you simply do not care, than you cannot have sinned." Being apathetic can occur just as easily with killing. For example person Q loves to shoot his Uzi off in malls. The bullets that fly out kill tons of people, but he doesn't care. He is simply having a fun day at the mall, shooting off his Uzi. "Sin stems from Human desires and the terrible purposes of Humans. Though if one has detached himself from this Human desire and is simply apathetic and accepting of all events, then he is wholly incapable of sin of any sort, just as all things inhuman are incapable of sin." So under this logic, the killer I described is also equivalent. So basically, if you intend death, you are wrong, if you just don't care, you aren't wrong. They're still morally equivalent actions.
Intentionally taking a life is morally equivalent to allowing a life to be lost.

Hello, The main difference between making someone die and letting them die is not the outcome, but the attitude and nature of the action or non-action. To make someone die is to want them to die. This is to have desires and self-purposes that drive you. You are either crazed with rage, or dangerously driven by a malicious will. To make someone die means inevitably that you care about the outcome, and are willfully trying to take control over the outcome; taking action towards a goal. However allowing an event to happen does not necessarily mean these things. You are indifferent to the outcome. This does not display hate or malice, but acceptance and lack of regret for what will happen. If you are without goal; without desire; without emotion about what happens; if you simply do not care, than you cannot have sinned. Sin stems from Human desires and the terrible purposes of Humans. Though if one has detached himself from this Human desire and is simply apathetic and accepting of all events, then he is wholly incapable of sin of any sort, just as all things inhuman are incapable of sin. -Harlan
The God Of The Bible Is Omnipotent

Assumptions: 1. The resolution implies that the God of the Bible does exist Contention 1: Miracles If we are to talk of the bible, we must bring up evidence found within the bible. Jesus, who, according to Catholicism and several other religious sects, is God, was responsible for several miracles. In fact, 37 miracles are accounted for in the bible (http://christianity.about.com...). This means that God is capable of manipulating the environment that people are capable of seeing and understanding, and, therefore, is omnipotent in the only sphere of understanding that humans are privy to. As such, God is, for all intents and purposes of human experience, which is the only experience we as humans can talk of, omnipotent.
The God Of The Bible Is Omnipotent

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*Definitions and rules below are agreed to by accepting the debate.Full ResolutionThe god of the bible is omnipotent.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to AFFIRM the resolution that the god of the bible is omnipotent.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to NEGATE the resolution that the god of the bible is omnipotent.Definitionsgod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...omnipotent - having unlimited power; able to do anything.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...unlimited - not limited in terms of number, quantity, or extent.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...extent - the particular degree to which something is the case.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...VotersOnly legit voters using the opt-in voting standards can vote on this debate.RFDs are what make this site awesome, so bring a good one to the vote.Death23, Uniferous, and hoppi cannot vote on this debate, which should be understood given the voting requirements.
God Is the Universe

The universe is everything. That is a property, or even the definition, of the universe. (See Wikipedia contributors. "Universe." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 1 Jul. 2017. Web. 16 Jul. 2017.) If God exists, then the universe includes God. If God has always existed, then the universe has always included God.Conversely, God is always omnipresent. That is a property, or even the definition, of God. (See Wikipedia contributors. "God." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Jun. 2017. Web. 16 Jul. 2017.) If a thing exists, God is present there and includes the thing. So, God is everything.So, both the universe and God are everything. There can be only one such thing that is everything. Therefore, the universe and God are the same one thing.My claim that "God is the universe" is a literal claim, not a metaphorical one.God couldn't have existed before the universe, as God must, by a property of the universe, be in the universe.
God Is the Universe

However, 1k characters is very, VERY limiting. .. I will debate against god being the universe. Whether the sentence is metaphor or not, the burden of prrof is upon your shoulders; as you haven't proved the existence of god. Assuming that god does exist, I'd like to say that your sentence doesn't make sense. The universe is merely a creation of god following the christian, jewish, and islamic scriptures. Being a creation, the universe cannot be 'powerful', unless you take into account the laws of physics which rule the universe itself, but are part of it at the same time.
God Is the Universe

First off, you are bringing up the "The omnipotence paradox", which is a family of paradoxes that arise with some understandings of the term 'omnipotent'. We have to draw a line and properly define what "omnipotent" means.God is described as a being that can do everything and anything. "God sayeth be, and it is". He only has to think about something for it to exist, in other words he can create matter, space and time out of his own will."And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." He created forms of energy.We can safely conclude that the christian god has enough power to break laws of thermodynamics, as well as bending human logic to form logical absurdities:"And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness." The very notion of contrast, good and evil, light and darkness, which are all notions assumed to be ultimate, have been constructed by god.You say that everything in the universe causes everything in the universe, but that is false.
God Is the Universe

When I said "The universe is everything," I suppose my domain of discourse for "everything" was everything that existed, exists, or will exist, or as you say, everything that exists within spacetime. You claim the universe refers to a notion. We just described what the universe is. And it is not merely a notion. I suppose I agree that "[f]or something to be part of the universe, it has to be subject to the relativistic flow of time, and it has to abide by the laws of physics and logic." However, God is omnipotent does not imply he does not abide by any rules whatsoever. He may be omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything, where the domain of discourse for "anything" is anything that is logically possible. It seems not even God can have a square that is a circle. That doesn't even make sense. Material implication suggests everything in the universe causes everything in the universe. The only complete reason for anything is the universe. It would make sense for this to be God.
God Is the Universe

Logical fallacy: cherry picking. Let us PROPERLY define the universe: The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents; from a physical point of view. It's the congregation of the fabric of space in which matter and particles and energy all alike reside; along the flow of time... so it's not EVERYTHING. It is everything that exists WITHIN spacetime.God cannot be part of the universe, let alone BE the universe. As the universe refers to a notion; and notions are inherently powerless by themselves. For something to be part of the universe, it has to be subject to the relativistic flow of time, and it has to abide by the laws of physics and logic. God DOESN'T due to his omnipotency abide by any rules whatsoever. First and foremost, the existence of God itself breaks many laws including laws of thermodynamics.To conclude, you are saying that god couldn't have existed before the universe, as god must be part of the universe. That's false, since it's based on a false premise.
Abortion is WRONG!!!! ):

I shall now refute my opponent argument. "It kills many lives and they don't even deserve it" --> While it kills life, killing anything is killing life, as something must be alive before it can be killed. The issue at hand is whether or not foetus' are human life. "The babies didn't even do anything wrong........the baby deserves to get killed" --> While I do not agree with an abortion for the sake of an abortion, this does not cover the case of a rape, where it is not the woman's fault. "That was the womans fault the least she could do was give it to an adoptive family" --> Again, the fault argument is not applicable to rape, and n a case of rape, a woman cannot be expected to give birth to her child. Otherwise I extend my arguments and await my opponents response.
Abortion is WRONG!!!! ):

I am presuming I must argue, contrary to my actual position, in favour of legalising abortion, and my opponent will argue against it. As per my opponents request I will limit this first round to solely my case. ---------------------------------------- Pro Argument 1: Ectopic Pregnancy ---------------------------------------- Ectopic Pregnancy - A condition in which a fertilized egg settles and grows in any location other than the inner lining of the uterus. The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (98%), however, they can occur in other locations, such as the ovary, cervix, and abdominal cavity. [1] If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy she is at a severe risk of dying. "There is not enough room or the proper environment outside the womb for the fetus to develop normally. In many cases, as the ectopic embryo starts to grow, it bursts the organ (usually the fallopian tube) that contains it, and is said to have "ruptured. " This can cause bleeding, severe pain, and even death for the mother" [2]. If a woman goes without treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, she is at risk of death. The only treatment is to perform an abortion, via medical or surgical means [3]. If the ectopic pregnancy is left untreated, both the mother and the foetus are killed. Ergo, in this case an abortion is justified. [1]= . http://www.medicinenet.com... [2] = . http://www.ehealthmd.com... [3] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... -------------------------- Pro Argument 2: Rape -------------------------- In the event of rape, the foetus is one which is no fault of the mothers, and one which the mother has no obligation to care for. The foetus is essentially an intruder of the Mother in this sense. Furthermore, the emotional and physical distress following such an attack would leave them in a traumatic state, one which they cannot be expected to carry a child which was caused by their rape. The child is a painful reminder of her rape should she be forced to give birth to it. Ergo, abortion of a foetus as a direct result of rape is justified. Those are my arguments for round 1.
Abortion is WRONG!!!! ):

This round is just for me to tell you how I feel about abortion and why and you tell me how you feel about it! Then in round two we start arguing!! I think it is cruel and wrong! It kills many lives and they don't even deserve it!! The babies didn't even do anything wrong just because the dumb ignerent woman decided to get knocked up doesn't mean the baby deserves to get killed!! ): That was the womans fault the least she could do was give it to an adoptive family!! I THINK IT SHOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yoMamaSMACKDOWN

Yo mama so fat, Dora can't explore her Yo mama is so stupid that when she went for a blood test, she asked for time to study. Yo mama is so ugly that she makes blind children cry. Yo mama is so old that she co-wrote the Ten Commandments. Yo mama is so fat that her bellybutton gets home 15 minutes before she does. ONLY 5 Jokes Per Round!
Flag Burning In All Private Circumstances Should be Legal

Let me clarify something: By private I meant your flags. You shouldn't go around burning other people's flags, let alone the government's. Let them do what they want. I was talking about all flags in general, although mostly the US. And this debate is about constant legality and a bit of morality too. I was not talking about how if the flag touches a floor, you should burn it. That's your choice. First, the flag is just a symbol. Like virtually everything, such as money, it has no real value unless we say it does. It's just a piece of cloth. But what the flag stands for has given us many freedoms. The Founding Fathers literally wanted all Americans to basically have these freedoms (except for slaves, etc but that is somewhat irrelevant). So that shows that 'With liberty and justice for all' should apply to this too. Your flag has no greater value than, say, the French flag. If that was moral and legal (it is), than why not the American flag? What the flag stands for gives us the liberty to burn it. Why is that immoral?