BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anything We Disagree On

This is my answer: A panentheist is someone who believes the universe is part of a gender neutral god, and that this god is iunfinantly bigger than the universe, and essentially according to panentheists, we are part of god. I used to be a panentheist, until I became a Christian when I was 15. Monotheists teach that Yahweh or Allah God created the universe, and that God alone is divine.
Anything We Disagree On

I didn't know what panentheism was, so I had to look it up. Anyway, I would argue that monotheism "makes more sense" since I am monotheistic since I am Catholic. Anyway, I could try debating this even though I don't know much about panentheism. Anyway, I will let you state your beliefs, then I will try to refute your argument and defnend mine if you believe in panentheism. Good luck, and please keep it civil!
Anything We Disagree On

I am willing to debate a lot of stuff with you. Here are a few examples that I am willing to defend: 1. A baby's life begins at conception, so abortion should be illegal. 2. People should have the right to own guns. 3. Cigarettes should not be banned. 4. Etc. I am a republican and align with many of their beliefs. 5. I am also Catholic and align with their beliefs. If you are Catholic, or know enough about Catholocism, we could debate something that is taought in the Bible or something if you don't feel comfortable debating anything listed above. 6. Anything else you can think of that you think we have differing opinions on. *Please keep the debates civil and realize I'm never trying to offend you or anything when debating you.
The Bible condones slavery

Thanks to my opponent for his opening arguments. My burden here is to prove that the bible condones slavery. We have established the definitions of both "condone" and "slavery". P1) Leviticus 25: 44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [1] The above quote from Leviticus should be evidence enough to win me this debate. The first sentence shows the acknowledgement that people will buy slaves from surrounding nations. It then goes on to say that one is permitted to purchase the children of neighboring strangers and they will become your property. There is very little vagueness in this passage, and it is clear from reading it that the bible most definitely condones slavery. P2) Exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." [2] The above quote from Exodus shows another example of the bible condoning slavery. It is very clear that beating a slave to death is a punishable offence, but owning a slave is not (nor is beating them within inches of death). C1) I believe that the two quotes I have shown are ample evidence that the bible condones slavery. Regardless of what the bible says against slavery in other areas; that does not change the passages where slavery is condoned. If the debate was directed at proving that the bible preached against slavery, this would be an entirely different debate, but that is not relevant here. The bible is not consistent with its message throughout, and I am only here to prove that there are places in the bible where slavery is condoned. I will leave my opening arguments at this and await my opponent"s rebuttal. As per the debate rules laid out in round 1, I will reserve my rebuttal to my opponent"s argument for round 3. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
The Bible condones slavery

I would like to clarify the following definitions: condone verb : to forgive or approve (something that is considered wrong) : to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue . http://www.merriam-webster.com... slave noun : someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay . http://www.merriam-webster.com... If Con does not agree with these definitions, I would ask that he clarify the definitions that he intends to use for this argument to ensure we are on the same page. I look forward to this debate.
The Bible condones slavery

I defined slavery as "The outright ownership of another person, for no other reason but that a person paid to own them, or abducted them and held them as slaves. " The slavery in the Old Testament referred to those who had performed criminal acts, were conquests of Israel's war against some really heinous people, who sacrificed their own babies, among other atrocities, or people who actually sold themselves to pay a debt or support their families in times of hardship. These are the REASONS they were slaves. My definition stated 'for no other reason but that a person paid to own them, or abducted them and held them as slaves. ' My opponent has used quite a bit of verbal gymnastics to try to steer the debate in his favor. In round one he stated "If Con does not agree with these definitions, I would ask that he clarify the definitions that he intends to use for this argument to ensure we are on the same page. I attempted to do so. He insisted that we have the debate, based on my original definition of slavery. These are in the comments section. I suggest you read them, before voting. Now, let's look at pros definition of condone. condone verb : to forgive or approve (something that is considered wrong) : to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Hmmmm. Something that is considered wrong. The slavery practiced in Israel was not considered to be wrong. Checkmate. Finally, I'll remind you that the verses that pro provided for this debate simply REGULATE something that already existed. It does not mention, in any way, whether it is right or wrong. To regulate something does not indicate approval. Pro has failed, utterly, to provide the burden of proof. Thank you for your time. I now turn it over to Pro, for his closing argument.
legalization of weed

Hello, The legalization of weed should go through because first, it should be removed from a Schedule 1 drug: as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples are:heroin,LSD, marijuana, ecstas. If one reads this, you would imagine marijuana has no medical use when we all know at this point, this is not true. I can imagine that with the legalization of marijuana, just like those who smoke cigarettes and everyone else has to deal with it, they should have places where it should be allowed and not allowed as well as DUI"s can be issued for driving & smoking
legalization of weed

weed should not be legal because people abuse the fact that it is legal and just smoke it any where they feel like, they go out and buy a lot of weed and turn around and sell it on an abandon road or smoke it and then go drive. people have lost there lives to people who smoke weed and drive I can relate to that on a personal level. I also know a lot of people who use pot not for medical but to get high and I affects people in may ways but that's not what I'm getting at the point is that people like me who are allergic to weed can get a lethal reaction when people smoke it where ever they want and people like me have no choice but to go threw it to my destination. that is why weed should not be legal
legalization of weed

sorry for not responding it was a long week anyway weed should not be legal because people abuse it and do what ever they want with it so that's just all i am going to say about this debate i guess i should have researched it out better before starting this debate i was trying to build up my debate skills for Thursday in my English class we are doing debates so i figured i check this site out and build my debate skills up. if you could give me pointers on how you debate that might give me the upper hand in my debate class.
No home work over the weekends

Work work and work is base of human life success.Work which is bothering you today on weekend is key for your success. Have ever great people thought about it what is time to do something great for their nation and for their country?If today you are not able to face such difficulties you are not able to solve difficulties of people around you. If you are supporter of concept that weekend is for enjoying weekend is for playing then only my answer is "whole life is there to enjoy but days of education are days of hardships people who turn their face from hardships of these days and wanted to live life in ease they face hardships for whole life" my suggestion to you is to work hard do something for yourself your parents and homeland
Should you be consuming caffeine

I'd like to point out that 15 thousand years ago, People scarcely lived beyond half the age we can live to today. I'd also like to point out the fact that everything that exists at this moment on Earth has originated from something naturally occurring in nature. I agree to the fact that some of our bodies cannot tolerate certain substances, But most of these cases are not life threatening or extremely harmful. Painkillers are 'absolutely necessary' during surgery. You say thousands of people die each year due to accidents with prescribed painkillers and medication, But think of the even bigger amount of people that live due to the medication. Painkillers would not be used in surgery if they weren't required and they also wouldn't be used as prescription if the person couldn't get by their day without them. Since society and the physical world around us is changing, We also need to change with it in order to survive. And if that means using drugs and painkillers, So be it. I think if caffeine was going to be extremely harmful in the future, We'd know about it now. Besides, If I had the choice of having a few decades' worth of energetic mornings and good night's rest, Or the sure promise that my future is going to be without complication or worry, I'd choose the first option. Good luck
Should you be consuming caffeine

I would argue that it is not best for humans to be consuming anything that is not naturally occurring in nature. To be more specific, I believe in the Paleo ideaology which believes that if humans weren't consuming certain things 15 thousand years ago, They shouldn't be consuming it today as our bodies have not yet effectively addapted to using these foods, Drugs, Or chemicals for energy. Just think of all of those people who can't consume milk because there bodies reject or cannot tolerate it. Humans should not be consuming painkillers as painkillers are very hard on our bodies and inhibit our bodies natural ability to sense pain in response to an outside stimuli. Any drug that affects your brain chemicals should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. Thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents with prescription pain killers and prescribed medication. Bringing attention back to caffeine, Caffeine I'll admit for most people is ok as in they will not be debilitated by it at least in the present. But that does not mean that caffeine is safe on our bodies long term health. The effects of caffeine on our bodies in the long term is unknown and therefore should be avoided.
Should you be consuming caffeine

I disagree. Caffeine helps you get through the day and tires you when it's time to sleep. Yes, It does have the ability to become addictive, But doesn't something as innocent as chocolate have the power to become addictive too? It can lead to health problems but too much of anything can also. There are many things we consume often that is a type of drug. Saying that humans shouldn't consume caffeine is like saying we shouldn't consume alcohol, Painkillers, Or prescription drugs. Due to these facts, Caffeine shouldn't be something we should consider dangerous or harmful. Good luck on your next argument
Extraterrestrial Life Must Exist in an Infinite Universe

My opponent has generalized my arguments quite a bit. I hate to waste your time by repeat things that have already been said, so please keep in mind the things which I stated in the last round. Some points of clarification -I know the Earth is not a closed system. Please stop using the straw-man fallacy. -Voters-Possibility does not equal probability! I will prove this throughout the round. I will first address my opponent's "thought experiment." It seems reasonable right? However, my opponent only showed you one piece of this puzzle. (The piece that supports his case) Let us have a look at the WHOLE experiment. In my opponent's experiment, he says that a trick-or-treater picks two out of five candies, and they become reality. He then asks you to imagine the person picking an infinite number of times. Eventually, he would pick all of the candy, right? Wrong. Think about it this way. 5=5. 10=10. Infinity=infinity. Go ahead and imagine a person picking candy an infinite number of times. Keep in mind though that there is an infinite amount of candy as well. In addition, the "candy" is replaced after every pick! Just because one planet picks the water candy does not mean that that candy is gone forever. For sake of clarity, we will assign the candies numbers, 1-5. Is it possible that the picker could pick through the candy bag ten times and never pick candy number five? Of course. Similarly, flip a coin a couple times. Isn't it possible that the coin will land on heads both times? Of course. Now, imagine flipping that coin an infinite number of times. Was it not possible for the coin to land on the same side twice? Why then would it not be possible to flip the coin on heads an infinite number of times? Is it possible that the coin would eventually land on tails? Absolutely. Is it even probable that it would eventually land on tails? Yes. Can it be PROVEN that the coin will eventually land on tails? If it could land on the same side twice in a row, why could it not do the same for all of eternity? My point here is that even though something is possible, it is not automatically deemed a reality. How can my opponent prove that life exists elsewhere in the universe? He can't! The world's leading scientists still cannot prove that. What you must realize is that my opponent has NO WAY to PROVE that life exists elsewhere in the universe. For all he knows, and for all anyone knows, the coin flipped the exact number of times necessary for the rest of the expanding universe to be made out of swiss cheese. It is possible, isn't it? Therefore, under my opponent's ideology, it MUST happen, since live in an expanding universe. Would that not then cancel out the possibility and reality of life elsewhere? His own reasoning contradicts itself. Not all possibilities are realities! Until my opponent provides solid, testable evidence that life exists somewhere in the universe besides Earth, I have won the debate. His "laws of probability" (which were never adequately defined) have obviously crumbled before reality. Opponent, I eagerly await your cold, hard evidence.
Extraterrestrial Life Must Exist in an Infinite Universe

Greetings all. This is quite the interesting topic. It reminds me of a certain recent family guy episode. Go watch the multiverse episode on hulu, NOW. Its hilarious. Anyways, lets have a good debate! Unfortunately, I am quite pressed for time right now. I am only going to read what my opponent posts in the debate, as I don't have time to look up and read short stories. It sounds interesting though, I might look into it later. The last thing I will point out before addressing my opponent;s arguments is that he has set himself up with quite the burden of proof. Please do not say that I am being abusive with this, my opponent made the resolution. In order for my opponent to win, me must PROVE that extraterrestrial life MUST exist in an infinite universe. That being said, lets begin. "The universe is infinite, that is, there is infinite matter in the universe." For the sake of the debate, I will agree. Sure. "This means that there is an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of possibilities for what can exist on each planet." Hmm, last time I checked, a possibility did not mean the same thing as a fact. Sure, extraterrestrial life is POSSIBLE in an infinite universe, but is it MANDATORY? "Because there are infinite possibilities and infinite matter, all of these possibilities (that fall within the laws of reality) must exist somewhere in the universe." Simple reply: Who says? Why? "Because life can exist within the known boundaries of reality, life must exist on countless planets besides our Earth. Indeed, there must be a planet somewhere out there that is exactly like our Earth but with one tiny change." My opponent makes the mistake of saying that because something is possible it is reality. Read his statement again. He claims that since life is possible, it exists. Think about this: It is possible that I will be killed tomorrow by a resurrected Viking that flew to my house on the back of a zombie whale. Is that possible? As far as we know, yes. Does that mean it will happen somewhere in an infinite universe? Well, that is for you to decide. Voters, the human mind cannot comprehend the infinite. Everything we know has an end. Lives end. Airplane flights end. Pieces of string end. Batteries run out of juice, and end. We know nothing of the infinite. For all we know, in an infinite universe, there could be nothing but lego blocks for the rest of eternity! It is possible right? But is it true? WE DON'T KNOW! My opponent cannot win this debate because he cannot PROVE that there IS life elsewhere. The negative rests his case.
Extraterrestrial Life Must Exist in an Infinite Universe

Please do not accept this debate if you are unwilling to agree that the universe is infinite, and that there is a single universe. Whether or not this is true, it will be considered as such for the purposes of this debate. This debate should be centered around logic, but sources may be cited if they are necessary to support your logic. My argument is that in an infinite universe, extraterrestrial life must exist. My logic is as follows: ---- -The universe is infinite, that is, there is infinite matter in the universe. -This means that there is an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of possibilities for what can exist on each planet. -Because there are infinite possibilities and infinite matter, all of these possibilities (that fall within the laws of reality) must exist somewhere in the universe. -Because life can exist within the known boundaries of reality, life must exist on countless planets besides our Earth. Indeed, there must be a planet somewhere out there that is exactly like our Earth but with one tiny change. ---- For perhaps a more clear and simple explanation of this idea, see Arthur C Clarke's short story "The Other Tiger."
Voter ID's

While the Help America Vote Act may have passed many reforms to deter voter fraud, fraud is still happening! Id's can help prevent it. I don't claim to get rid of all fraud. What I want to do is help provide people with more integrity in our election system and help to stop fraud, which I can do with id"s. Cost: My opponent while stating that there would be costs didn't quantify his costs argument. Meaning he just threw the argument out without impacting it or letting us know how much these costs will be. If we have no idea what the costs are how are we supposed to weigh it? And whatever they are, they're a mere drop in the bucket compared to government spending. The government can easily afford to issue IDs and besides the citizens are entitled to them. Discrimination: Voter id's will not discriminate because if the government is giving them out then they will only be given to people who are registered. We don't complain about registration disenfranchising people so there is no reason that id's given to registered voters should discriminate against any one. Besides we are discussing id's here and in order for my opponents argument to stand it must be registration that disenfranchises people which is off the topic of id's. My opponent stated that id's would do more harm than good however he only provided one argument about id's harm and that is of discrimination (which I have responded to above). I have provided over 5 instances of where id's would be good and the benefits we would gain by having them many of which he has not responded to. Con said, "Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source". Well here's my source http://www.protectmyvote.com.... I would also like to remind Con that even if something is thought to be rare it can still be dangerous, bad or wrong. I'll illustrate this by an example. Hypothetically speaking only 1 in 1000 people get in a crash because they don"t have their seat belt on. Should we do nothing to protect that person because their crash instance was "rare"? No! We make sure that that everybody wears their seat belt to avoid these crashes. Crashes affect more than just the person(s) in the crash and so does voter fraud. Which is why we need id's. Maybe voter fraud is rare, maybe it's common. We don't know because it's difficult to find when even basic security measures like showing an ID are ignored. Students have to show an ID to take the SATs. Is voting somehow less important that we shouldn't protect it? Responses only and no new arguments please since I will not be able to respond. Thank you for the great debate!