BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ultimate Team War: Pandora

Thank you, Mr_Anon, for challenging me to this debate.My five team members:1. Harry Potter (book series, epilogue of Deathly Hallows), the Boy Who Lived and the Chosen One, a powerful auror. He posesses a wand and an invisibility cloak, and is most especially skilled in Defense Against the Dark Arts.http://harrypotter.wikia.com...2. Magneto (X-MEN comic series), a mutant with the power to manipulate magnetic fields, giving him great control over metal. He is powerful enough to significantly shift the earth's magnetic field and to move mountain-sized objects or larger. "He can completely assemble a complicated machine within seconds through his powers. He can erect magnetic force fields with a high degree of impenetrability protecting himself or others from almost any psionic, energy, or physical attack... Magneto's suit is made of flexible metal bonded on the molecular level, providing protection against projectiles, energy weapons, and concussive force; his helmet also provides further protection from psionic attack." He is also skilled at hand-to-hand combat.http://www.superherodb.com...3. Paper Mario (Super Paper Mario), Mr. Nintendo in paper form. His main form of attack is still jumping, but he has the power to flip through dimensions. He also has lots of items for use in battle. He brings with him two Shooting Stars, a Flame Burst, an Ice Storm, two Thunder Rages, two Block Blocks, a Stop Watch, and a Sleepy Sheep, as well as his Key Items and the Pure Hearts. He's at the peak of his gaming, posessing all Catch Cards and maximum level, etc.http://www.mariowiki.com... 4. Link, Hero of Legend (The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword), equipped completely with pre-battle equipment (Hylian Shield, three bottles of Guardian Potion +, two bottles of Air Potion +, a Potion Medal, and an Iron Shield). He expertly weilds the Master Sword that he forged with sacred flame with all of his experience of both the Knight Academy and his many adventures, as well as such versatile items as the Bow, the Double Clawshot, and the Beetle. http://zelda.wikia.com...5. Kirby (Kirby: Right Back at Ya!), the lovable pink puffball that loves to eat things. His powerful inhalation allows him to eat his foe, then absorb its powers. He also runs really fast. http://kirby.wikia.com... All of my team members will start in Hell's Kitchen. Good luck, Mr_Anon.
Praying for Victory in Sports is Blasphemy

Thanks you to my worthy opponent for exploring this issue and searching for truth. I continue to believe that my statement is correct despite the arguments presented so far. First, the bible of Christianity, of which there are many, is not the definitive authority on blasphemy. Blasphemy is a concept that extends across spiritual traditions. Asking Divinity to ensure the game goes they way you want is belittling to all. From the sources cited, the theme seems to be having God in your heart and maintaining an ongoing dialogue. Having God in your heart wouldn't prevent one from attending a softball game, or rooting for one particular team over the other. It doesn't prevent one from asking that the players do their best and are not injured. But trivializing the almighty in the interest of something that is meant to bring people together is so outrageous it is offensive. Consider the difference between praying that you are able to find the love of your life, versus praying that So-and-So finds you the love of their life. The expectation that those with power use that power justly is ingrained in our concepts of heroism. Where motivations are selfish or in other ways impure the achievement is tainted. Asking a super hero to help you gain would be regarded and received poorly. The higher the power the more insulting such a request is,; asking an all powerful being to abuse their power is the most insulting. The one who asks that of an all powerful being is worse than somebody who doesn't believe in an all powerful being in the first place. It is spiritual equivalence of cognitive dissonance.
Praying for Victory in Sports is Blasphemy

COLOSSIANS 3:17, "AND WHATEVER YOU DO, WHETHER IN WORD OR DEED, DO IT ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, GIVING THANKS TO GOD THE FATHER THROUGH HIM." In a religious battle, the Bible is the most accurate source for a debate. You are seeking thanks to the lord when you are praying to him. You are seeking his salvation and prayer that your games goes well. There's nothing wrong with this. If a player gets injured on the field and you say prayer, you are going to call that blasphemy? No because you are giving thoughts and prayers. Just like when someone dies or is shaken by an event in their life. Saying it's blasphemy is offensive to some people. But if you are talking about victory, let's talk about Psalm 20 May the Lord answer you when you are in trouble! May the God of Jacob protect you! 2 May he send you help from his Temple and give you aid from Mount Zion. 3 May he accept all your offerings and be pleased with all your sacrifices. 4 May he give you what you desire and make all your plans succeed. 5 Then we will shout for joy over your victory and celebrate your triumph by praising our God. May the Lord answer all your requests. 6 Now I know that the Lord gives victory to his chosen king; he answers him from his holy heaven and by his power gives him great victories. 7 Some trust in their war chariots and others in their horses, but we trust in the power of the Lord our God. 8 Such people will stumble and fall, but we will rise and stand firm. 9 Give victory to the king, O Lord; answer[b] us when we call. Your asking the lord to grant you a victory. You can not call this blasphemy if the Psalms say so
Polygamy

Hello and thank you for the debate. I am very much against the notion that polygamy is "ethical". I feel it is immoral, unjust and often devastating for the people involved (women and children mostly). Here are some of my arguments against polygamy. 1. If a woman doesn't get along with her husband, they don't have to work it out, the man can just turn to his other wife (wives) and ignore her. She has no choice but to be submissive and helpless. This is the essence of the master and slave relationship. 2. Polygamy produces excess men. For every man who marries 4 women, three men can't find a wife. They will never have kids or buy a house or need to work hard and contribute to the economy. In countries where it is practiced, they tend to turn to gangs and rebellions. 3. Only the most wealthy man can afford it, but many others will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. This leads to major family crisis and money issues. For example, The FLDS polygamous Mormon sect took in millions in government money to keep going. 4. With polygamy wives have to compete for affection, time, food, and essentials for their own children. Men have little interest in being the referee. They often turn the money over to one wife and all others have to beg for items. They all want the best for their own kids at the expense of the other kids. Inequality among wives and children is inevitable. 5. Polygamy is mainly practiced in backwards countries (http://en.wikipedia.org......). No one would want to move to one of these places. It only works when women's rights are eliminated so they have no choice. Again polygamy is a very unequal, and slave and master-like practice. Basically polygamy is a miserable life for all but the dominant husband. Now here are some facts/statistics: A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. (http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca......) Polygamous households contain jealousy and conflict among co-wives and Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious. This leads to the tearing up of families.(http://www.jstor.org......) For all these reasons I don't see how polygamy is ethical or simply right in today's world. I look forward to your response.
Should the United States have Dropped the Atomic Bomb

On August 6th, 1945 America dropped the first atomic bomb "Little Boy" on Hiroshima in Japan. A week later they surrendered ending World War 2. Even though the first bomb killed more than 100,000 people it saved the lives of many more. Also Japan had attacked us first with no warning, and had committed many war crimes such as a death march in the Philippines. The dropping of the two atom bombs on Japan were both just and moral. I start with my first point. Dropping the atomic bomb saved lives. According to japan-talk.org there are 6852 islands in Japan. To take control over Japanese territory enough to force a surrender they would have had to take many of these islands. As we learned in previous Japanese island battles this was difficult. For example at Iwo Jima there were over 29,000 casualties on this small island alone over a month. "The Japanese garrison defending this small volcanic island fought from the cover of a complex network of caves, tunnels, and bunkers, which allowed the defenders to hold off conquest for more than a month" As you can see it was not only costly casualty wise it was also a long and laborious process. In fact two reputable sources The Story of All of Us by Pamela D Toler (PHD) and fofweb.edu a reputable historical database predict that there would have been more than 300,000 casualties if not for the surrender of the Japanese. I move on to my next point. Dropping the bomb was a just and moral event that we were right to do. Japan had given up the right to be dealt with kindly when they attacked Pearl harbor unprovoked on December 7th, 1941 killing 2,836 and injuring another 1,139. But we did give them a chance! At the Potsdam Conference we told them that (and I quote), "The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." They blew us off anyways sealing their fate. On the topic of immoral and moral. After the Japanese captured the Philippines in April, 1942 they forced marched 76,000 people 60 miles to death camps. On the way over 15,000 died with another 10,000 dying in the camps. They also joined in, in the mass genocide of surrounding nation to at the time economically strangle them into submission. So when you say that it was immoral to drop the bomb, you are telling a lie because it was in retaliation to heartless acts that needed to be stopped. Thank you for reading my first set of arguments. I rest my case. Good luck!
Nationalistic Ukraine must be banned from the EU!

Nationalism:First all countries are nationalistic, what are you talking about? This includes the EU member states. OUN-UPA:As a liberal I'm concerned about the claims you make against the right, not very "left" of you now is it? Allow me to copy and paste here:" was a large and well organized Ukrainian nationalist military and later partisan army that engaged in a series of guerrilla conflicts during World War II against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and both Underground and Communist Poland. The group was the military wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists — Bandera faction (the OUN-B)"Source: http://en.wikipedia.org..."The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) (Ukrainian: i4;l8;k5;k2;l5;o0;k9;k2;m4;o0;n3; i9;l2;l8;k2;o1;l5;l9;n0;l2;l0;m3; i3;k2;m4;o0;l6;l5;k2;l3;o0;l9;m0;o0;k4;, Orhanizatsiya Ukrayins'kykh Natsionalistivor i4;i9;i3;) is a Ukrainian political organization which as a movement originally was created in 1929 in Western Ukraine (at the time interwar Poland). The OUN held violence to be an acceptable tool in the fight against foreign and domestic enemies particularly Poland and Russia. The OUN's stated immediate goal was to protect the Ukrainian population from repression and exploitation by Polish governing authorities in particular; its ultimate goal was an independent and unified Ukrainian state that would include territories inhabited primarily by ethnic Ukrainians" And "The Ukrainian nationalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries had been largely liberal or socialist, combining Ukrainian national consciousness with patriotism and humanist values. In contrast, the nationalists who emerged in Galicia following the First World War, much as in the rest of Europe, adopted the form of nationalism known as Integral nationalism. According to this ideology, the nation was held to be of the highest absolute value, more important than social class, regions, the individual, religion, etc. To this end, OUN members were urged to "force their way into all areas of national life" such as institutions, societies, villages and families. Politics was seen as a Darwinian struggle between nations for survival, rendering conflict unavoidable and justifying any means that would lead to the victory of one's nation over that of others. In this context willpower was seen as more important than reason,[4] and warfare was glorified as an expression of national vitality. Integral nationalism became a powerful force in much of Europe during the 1920s and 1930s" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...Case and point: those "righties" were actually liberals/socialists, and furthermore, they fought against Nazi's, Communists, and Ukranian Independence. Those guys ARE liberators and should be seen as heros. Finally, none of this history of Ukraine is a valid reason why today the Right wing should be abandoned, and why the EU shouldn't allow Ukraine to join. It's a giant non-sequitor. On the contrary of a democratic society; the idea of democracy is more than one view, and thus, my opponents argument is null-and-void. Vote for meeeeee! :D
Nationalistic Ukraine must be banned from the EU!

Recent rise of far-right parties in the Ukraine is alarming. The country is firmly set to join the EU. It could mar the EU democratic reputation and result in more nationalistic trends in heart of Europe. I guess the EU leaders must focus their attention on the effort to make Ukraine healthier. Unfortunately we missed the chance with the "orange leaders" (Yuschenko, Timoshenko) who were painting OUN-UPA nationalists as national heroes and fighters for independence of Ukrainian state from Hitler and Stalin. Now it is absolutely clear that the "orange" regime was doing just a criminal thing by concealing OUN-UPA participation in Holocaust and Volyn massacre of the Poles! They did one more very bad job by brainwashing the populace. And EU will have to apply great effort to bring things to normal in the Ukraine. Now what? The nationalistic All-Ukrainian union Svoboda (which follows the way of sadists and rapists who killed thousands of Jews and Poles) is gaining popularity in the Ukraine rapidly. BTW until 2004 it had the eloquent name of the Social Nationalistic Party of Ukraine and it was notoriously known as the disturber of peace in a few regions in the Western Ukraine. In think, in a year or two it will be too late to improve things in the Ukraine. We may get just a classical nationalistic regime there! "Svoboda" and all the far-rights must be just banned in the Ukraine in nearest future!
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

==Refuting your claims Morality was practiced, Long before religion came up. Such, Religion was a diversion and is a hinderance to people who express morality. Religion drew us away from seeing and/ or learning to rely upon our judgement which is really only how we can seem to be 'human'. == "Religion. . . Divides people"? Some researchers at the University Of Central Florida have actually have researched such a topic, They found that local religious rituals helped to forge strong small scale community links which delayed the development of large state institutions. The scientists were studying the period from approximately 700BC to 250AD and found elites came to dominate religious life and controlled the connection between communities and their gods - leading to conflict with traditional community leaders. Such, DIVIDING people amongst each other for some beliefs of the "supernatural". ==--- "Religion. . . Controls people". . . For good During many points in history, Was religion used in the wrong way. Notice that Europe was kept in the Dark Ages for centuries because a power elite " consisting of the kings, The noble class and the church hierarchy " used religious doctrines to get the people to accept that their lot in life was inevitable, Even mandated by God. Such the system of Hierarchy and Tyranny at some, If not most points in History, Was controlled and caused by rational beliefs of a Remote God. I accepted that the core values of religion as SIMILAR to basic values of a human being. Saying so the Church or Temples, Etc. Are not needed to enforce such practices or beliefs. For we have Judgement, Character, And Law for that. And it may not work for everyone, Nothing ever does, But similarly religion is not always able to provide"good judgement" for everyone, Everywhere, All the time. =="Religion. . . Deludes people". . . So what I have stated that it COVERS for such acts, But never stated if it was or was not OK to do that. "So What? "- As humans the one thing we all deserve is the truth, No matter how Sad, Or disturbing it may have been for the individual to have found out. Delusion is never right, No individual has the given right to trick someone into submission. == "immoral teachings" Isolating people for being who they are is not a "minuscule negative". As for food, Sure it depends on ones point of views or choices, But my point was, That we may be forced into stuff we do not perceive as our "wants" because of our religion, Even if it may be good for us. ==Your summary the population will need rewards or punishments to achieve morality, But religion is not answer. Religion is an ancient "institution' used to teach one of the ways of "god". I have accepted Religion was an asset at one point, But the point is long gone and it rather has become something of a "nuisance" upon us. Great thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens, State the clear nonessential being of religion: "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes.
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

=== Refuting your claims You keep mentioning that a person can be moral without being religious, But this is totally irrelevant to this debate. --- "Religion. . . Divides people"? Due to geographic obstacles, Religions grew up isolated from each other. During this Isolation Phase, Religion provided the major benefit of UNITING a population around a common morality. Much later, Populations with different religions began to interact. In this Mixing Phase there are examples of both religious division and religious tolerance. Much later, Nations began to merge with religions. During this National Phase, There are examples of divisions a) between nations of the same religion, B) between nations of different religions for religious reasons, And c) as noted last round, Between nations of different religions for purely non-religious reasons. Throughout all phases, The UNITING effect still prevailed within nations and religions. In the Mixing phase and a minority of the National phase, Division was a minor effect. Overall, Religion has done much more uniting than dividing. --- "Religion. . . Controls people". . . For good Yes, Religions have always exercised social and formal pressure, Which you may call control. Modern secular ideologies are very similar to religions in this way. The primary reason modern philosophies attack religion is because they don't like to compete for control. Each institution is attempting to "control" people to follow its version of "morality. " In Round 2, You accepted "the core values of most religions" as "basic human values. " Application of these values by religion thru history has produced GOOD effects even if you call it "control. " --- "Religion. . . Deludes people". . . So what In Round 3 you admit that delusion is not a problem. --- "immoral teachings" You mention "isolating" the LGBTQ+ community as an immoral teaching of religions. At worst, This is minuscule negative for a short duration on the historic track record of religion. You also mention "steering clear of certain food, " but this is not a negative at all. If it is, The harm is from consuming animals, Not from abstaining. === My Summary Populations will always need external rewards and punishments to achieve morality. Religion does this better than any other ancient or modern institution. Further, For almost all of human history, Religion was the only tool used to encourage people to behave morally. You accepted that religions were good before, But you clearly feel they are horrible now. This contradicts two significant modern sources. Over 200 years ago, George Washington agreed with my position in his Farewell Address. He said religion is "indispensable" to political prosperity because it is the "firmest prop of the duties of citizens. " In present day, The book "Liars and Outliers" says, "[religious pressures] are still responsible for most of the [moral behavior] in society. " Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

==This debate is NOT about your clear hate for Christianity. We are arguing about the overall effect of all religions thru time. I apologize if I made it seem as if I had a "clear hate for Christianity". My intentions were none of a sort. I am an atheist and my arguments were based upon the most widely known and practiced religion- Christianity- to make my point clear. If that was making you uncomfortable I sincerely apologize. ==No one has been made worse by becoming religious. Let me start by saying, That is a completely contradicting statement. Religion is affecting us little by little. Sure we all didn't start out as amazing people, But over time our religious beliefs have limited us from becoming as compassionate or accepting as we should be. Take the LGBTQ+ community for example, We have isolated them, Or labeled them as "sinners" or "awkwards" (depending which religion you are implying) because of beliefs or "rules" from an non-existent being up there "telling us" what we should or should not accept. Or something as small as my Indian parents steering clear of certain food because they are not "acceptable" in our culture, When they may have health or fitness benefits. In they end we have become worse due to religion in a more broader sense than we expect. C === Non-religious Wars While I did ask you to name such wars, I did add that religion may not be a primary cause, But I was one of them. Most of the wars which you have stated, Did at one point being involved with, Or were cause by religious differences. And while the war would not have just disappeared with no religion, Some levels of such a war would have decreased, Even if it was just a little. Now, You can argue that its human nature that causes war to be brutal and I agree, To some extent. Like I said before religion is one of the thing which pushed humanity down, And caused certain views to come from certain people. == The Crutch and Its Replacement Religion is a like a crutch, Of some value to the lame, But a hindrance to the healthy. One does NOT NEED RELIGION to HAVE MORALES. If you CANNOT tell RIGHT from WRONG, You LACK EMPATHY, NOT RELIGION. The idea of a God or Religion was used to explain the unexplainable, An escape from reality, It "soothed our minds". That was ok, Till an extent though. But then it became an absolute power, And absolute power ALWAYS CORRUPTES. But moral and religious pressures are NOT always the best way to go about something. While it will not be easy there are ways to get PEOPLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, Believe it or not. In the end "Religion does three things effectively: Divides people, Controls people, And Deludes people. "