BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

As a non-Christian, I fail to agree with one of the premises put forward by the opposition. Premise 1: Evil exists. I agree with this premise however do not fully understand the scope of the term- evil. Premise 2: Objective morality exists As with the first premise, I agree. If something is to exist, its opposite must exist also. Premise 3: Morality without god is impossible I can think of many examples of how morality exists without the requirement of God. Morality exists within all of our population whether the concerned are religious or not. Someone can be evil and not have religious affiliations. I believe that the case put forward by the opposition is not a valid statement and is flawed.
God exists.

My argument will revolve around morality, but I will definitely answer concerns that my opponent has about other areas of my contention. My opponent did raise concerns about my religious views, and quite simply, I am a Christian thinker/philosopher. My argument is as follows. Evil in the world exists. Therefore morality must exist. Morality must be objective, because it would contradict itself otherwise. So objective morality exists. If God doesn"t exist, objective morality doesn"t exist. Objective morality however does exist, so God exists. Premise 1. Evil exists Premise 2. Objective morality exists Premise 3. Objective morality without God is impossible. Conclusion: God exists.
God exists.

In this debate I will be arguing that God exists. Specifically of the Christian variety. First round is definitions and acceptance. Objective- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings Morality- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent God- (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being Good luck, and I hope this is a good debate.
God exists.

The path in which this debate is travelling along is a well worn road. Points brought forward by the affirmative can be simmered down to the famous (or infamous) debate of whether our existence upon this planet is due to the work of God or natural selection (i.e evolution). Hence a debate such as this can become a competition between two equally determined forces that leads to no unanimous resolution. However, as this is a debate, I will rebut the cases put forward by the affirmative and then commence to raise my own arguments regarding the topic stated ('God Exists'). To begin my case I ask the question: what was it that God revealed to man? He did not reveal science as the whole structure of physical science as been gradually built up by man. He did not teach man geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology nor did he teach man how to cure disease. God did not teach man agriculture, mathematics or any form of the arts. Solely, man developed the steam engine, the aeroplane, the submarine, the telegraph and the wireless. These things are indispensable and without them- civilisation would be impossible. These advances made by men are behaviours that would have taken place whether man had heard of God or not. So, what is there left for God to have originally given men? The affirmative states that is morality; the ten commandments. God told man not to steal, commit murder and for children to honour their parents. In upmost importance though, God told man to honour him above anything else because without their loyalty- decency would disappear from human society despite the many advances that men have made over their generations of existence. The Oxford Dictionary define morality as: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Some examples of morality (as explained in the ten commandments) are the love for a child by their mother and the idea that murdering another human is an evil doing. In frankness, I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves. Today, a non-Christian mother can love her child more than a Christian one does. The reverse is also true. If we are to use the affirmative's 'game analogy', although the creator of the game can be placed in an amoral state- the players of the game are powerful enough to sense an evil within an unjust set of rules and, if given the power to adjust the game code, CAN create a more 'moral' version of the game where all players benefit. In summary, a person can be moral without religious beliefs and this can further be proved by the fact that animals of a different species to us have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian. The alternate world that the affirmative persists that I create is not alternate but in fact that one in which we have and continue to live in today.
BDSM should be legal.

== Framework == Pleasure is a basic good; it's valuable in and of itself. People value pleasure for its own sake even if they can"t demonstrate its value empirically. Some philosophers even argue that pleasure is the *only* thing that has intrinsic value. [1] Sexual pleasure isn"t less valuable than other types of pleasure. The law shouldn"t curtail pleasurable activities unless the activity causes a serious harm. The calculation should weigh the severity of the harm, the likelihood of the harm, and the cost of prohibiting the activity. The value of the pleasure itself enters this calculation as part of the costs of prohibiting the activity. == Argument == The purpose of BDSM is to cause intense sexual pleasure. Violence is employed as a means to achieve that sexual pleasure. There's no doubt that people experience great sexual pleasure from consensual BDSM. Thus, BDSM should be legal unless it causes a serious harm that outweighs its value. I argue that safe and consensual BDSM practices don't cause a serious enough harm to merit a criminal prohibition. My opponent has the burden to prove such a harm exists. == Rape == My opponent raises concerns about rape. The argument seems to be that individuals who sexually assault their partner may argue that the rape was consented to as part of a BDSM relationship. However, in the context of BDSM, proof of consent isn't actually that difficult to prove. The BDSM community has extensive norms about what's safe and acceptable, including extensive discussion about the acts beforehand as well as ensuring there's a safe word. BDSM should be legal when it's done in what in a safe and acceptable way, as determined by the BDSM community. If there's no safe word, and if the practices weren't discussed beforehand, then BDSM isn't a defense to a rape charge. In terms of proof, parties could provide testimony not only about safe words and discussions prior to the acts, but they could also provide testimony about of the limitations they negotiated. Testimony about how consent was conveyed would play a crucial role. The point is that BDSM should be legal when done in a safe and consensual way. Requiring such proof of consensual BDSM in the context of a rape charge isn't a problem, since the BDSM community already encourages the production of such proof, via safe words, and the necessity for discussions about the acts beforehand.
Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who can beat a Republican in 2008.

I agree with everything you said about Huckabee........ I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but I would like to reiterate that Obama does not support the war in the middle east, so your statement about this fulfilling the christ/antichrist and revelations component is irrelevant. Evangelicals will prefer Obama to Kucinich based on his morals that are more closely linked to theirs. Both advocate peace. And actually, you contradicted yourself because you said that "Kucinich advocating peace would attract Evangelicals" or something similar to that earlier, and now you're saying Evangelicals are for the war...so that's not very clear on your part. I could definitely be corrected, and I don't want to speak too soon, but especially now with Oprah (one of the most revered public figures in all time) backing Obama, I feel like it's in the bag. He has the respect of our nation-Republicans and Democrats alike. Kucinich is laughed at by Republicans, even moderators of debates laugh at him (watch the one where they ask him to clarify about the UFO sighting). Like you said, it's not about Obama vs. Kucinich...your point is Kucinich is the only Dem that would win, and that will just simply be disproven 1/20/2009. WHOEVER wins the Democratic Primary....be it Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich even....they are going to be the next president. America feels mislead by the Republicans, and aside from this-the pendulum always swings. This can be seen in history. EVEN if George W. Bush hadn't screwed over the nation so bad, it would still probably be a Democrat. Therefore, whoever wins this primary is going to beat a Republican. And I don't think there's a chance that Kucinich will get it. Please don't take this so personally! I REALLY REALLY like him. I think he's great, and I adore his wife. And in my opinion, they would be great for this country. But the United States isn't quite ready for him. I guess my closing point is, I strongly believe the President is GOING to be a Democrat. It doesn't have to be Kucinich to beat a Republican. In fact, a more moderate candidate will get the independent voters to come out to the polls and vote for him, so the REAL tough race would be between Guiliani and Obama....because Guiliani is not at all a social conservative.....I still think Obama would win, based on the 70% disapproval rate of the country towards the war. Guiliani still supports it, and EVERY DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE opposes it; some just have better track records of proving it (not Clinton, even in recent voting).
All Cat's Are Feline

I said that to show that they are the same. To extend I will give you a quote from an encylopeadia," feline (family Felidae), any of 37 cat species that among others include the cheetah,puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cat. Cats are native to almost every region on Earth, with the exception of Australia and Antarctica. They are carnivorous mammals that live in a wide variety of habitats, but they are typically woodland animals." (http://www.britannica.com...)Here this shows that all cats are felines.
Poetry Debate

Great selection by Lazy_Lipids! For Round Odes, I will offer "To Autumn," by Keats. [1] It seemed appropriate for the time of year... Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun; Conspiring with him how to load and bless With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run; To bend with apples the moss'd cottage-trees, And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core; To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells With a sweet kernel; to set budding more, And still more, later flowers for the bees, Until they think warm days will never cease, For summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells. Who hath not seen thee oft amid thy store? Sometimes whoever seeks abroad may find Thee sitting careless on a granary floor, Thy hair soft-lifted by the winnowing wind; Or on a half-reap'd furrow sound asleep, Drows'd with the fume of poppies, while thy hook Spares the next swath and all its twined flowers: And sometimes like a gleaner thou dost keep Steady thy laden head across a brook; Or by a cyder-press, with patient look, Thou watchest the last oozings hours by hours. Where are the songs of spring? Ay, Where are they? Think not of them, thou hast thy music too,-- While barred clouds bloom the soft-dying day, And touch the stubble-plains with rosy hue; Then in a wailful choir the small gnats mourn Among the river sallows, borne aloft Or sinking as the light wind lives or dies; And full-grown lambs loud bleat from hilly bourn; Hedge-crickets sing; and now with treble soft The red-breast whistles from a garden-croft; And gathering swallows twitter in the skies. An Ode is "a formal, often ceremonious lyric poem that addresses and often celebrates a person, place, thing, or idea. Its stanza forms vary." [2] To me, this poem just typifies this genre beautifully. And, Keats is amazing. Citation One: http://www.poetryoutloud.org... Citation Two: http://www.poetryoutloud.org... I look forward to reading your next poem!
Poetry Debate

Well, you are welcome! I will begin with one of the most beautiful sonnet by Shakespeare (Sonnet 18), better known as "Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day?' Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimm'd; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd; But thy eternal summer shall not fade Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou growest: So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. http://shakespeare.about.com...
Poetry Debate

Thanks for accepting! I'll begin with some classic Shakespeare, specifically Sonnet LV. Not marble nor the gilded monuments Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme, But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn, And broils root out the work of masonry, Nor Mars his sword nor war"s quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. "Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room Even in the eyes of all posterity That wear this world out to the ending doom. So, till the Judgement that yourself arise, You live in this, and dwell in lovers" eyes. Citation: http://www.poetryoutloud.org...
Poetry Debate

Round One - just confirm your acceptance Round Two - write the verses of one Shakespearean sonnet Round Three - write the verses of one Ode Round Four - write one Limerick (no more then 10 lines) Round Five - write one free verse poem One--and only one--of your poems should be your own work. The rest should be the work of others, and there should be a link directing readers to the cite from which you acquired your transcript of the work. I hope this will be a fun debate! Gracias for accepting!
Poetry Debate

FREE VERSE ROUND Mahatma Gandhi is remembered in the world for four major virtues. They are non-violence, truth, love and fraternity. By applying these four virtues he brought freedom to India. I have a self-composed poem on Mahatma Gandhi, fondly known as our Bapuji or Father of Our Nation(INDIA) GANDHI - THE DOVE WITH A FIRE Like a dove holding an olive branch He marched across the saltwaters of dandi Creating an event that marked The birth of a leader-Gandhi His pursuit was crystal clear His desires widely known: A broken rifle, a nation awakened To rise above the torture it had been shown A frail frame, a bony structure An awaiting senescence-that's what he was; From the outside-but this skeletal creature inspired an undivided Nation to heal its inflicted scars. The broken wings, the crushed dreams Of an entire generation Were brought back to life under Gandhi's Relentless patience and determination Be it Awadh, Ahmedabad or Surat Gandhi left no stone unturned To free his motherland from the clutches Of the invaders, who had so gravely erred; You can't hold back a wave of gushing energy You can't stop a celestial hand Likewise the rush of Patriotic emotions Works like a magical wand So lets immortalize the essence of Gandhi There's still time to turn around Lets reincarnate the figure of peace and harmony cause our existencwe is time bound Lets not be resilient, tolerant of injustice Lets follow the golden path Gandhi left behind Lets reignite the fire, the agitation in our hearts To fight back the evil with our might.... - Shivani Prasad
Poetry Debate

Since the rules require to me to post at least on original poem, this is one of my own creation, and I really hope it is both well-written and enjoyable. For round free verse, here is "The Young Porch Dog." (the really is a working title--any suggestions on that or on the poem would be great. Just post in comments! Thanks!) I look out from the porch: I sense the still grasses The rhythmic harp of the Cicadas in the trees. The sunbeams warm my bones And I am loathe to move. I should be out hunting I should be active, but I am content. There is Nothing that I need now. Why should I bestir myself? My natural urges Are suppressed by comfort, So I lay here, aimless Wondering why I am Not fully content here. Thanks to Lazy_Lipids for a great debate. Check out our Poetry Debate 2 if you liked this one! Thanks, please vote for me!
Poetry Debate

This round is limericks, which are by nature humorous. They tend to be about 5 lines, and are associated with sailors and sea-faring shanties. Here it goes--"The Barmaid." On the chest of a barmaid from Wales was tattooed all the prices of ales Whilst on her behind For the sake of the blind Was the very same thing, but in braille Citation: http://blogs.herald.com... I have found a few variations of the limerick, and it seems as if the author is unknown. I hope it amuses everyone.
abortion

I take it that he is against abortion in all cases, because he argues in his opening statement that anyone who does abortion should be killed without giving any clarifications or exceptions. My position on the matter, therefore, is that abortion should be allowed under some conditions and in some situations. .. which I will be hopefully describing in round 2. I also disagree that people should be killed if they are "for abortion. " Mainly, because I disagree with killing people based on their personal preferences, opinions or even thought crime. I'll be explaining this further in the next rounds.
abortion

According to her profile, her gender is male. That's why I referred to her as a male. And I didn't understand that she got pregnant at 15 from her previous round. Anyhow, my opponent has not presented any argument supporting her position, and only raised one obection to A2, A3 and A4. She claims that the girls could get an adoption, but that doesn't solve the issue. A girl who is not ready for motherhood would be attached to the baby if she gave birth to it, even though she is not ready to raise it. Giving your baby out is not an easy thing, but aborting the fertilized egg before it becomes a baby is much easier. Moreover, a girl in dire economic conditions might not even afford to be pregnant, so it doesn't make sense for her to give birth and then give the child away because she is too poor to support it. Finally, a mother in a culture that punishes for premarital sex would be really stupid if she allowed everyone to see her pregnant, because that would mean that she would be killed for her pregnancy. My opponent then says, " I'm talking about the abortion cases where they got pregnant and just aborted it because they didn't want the responsibility. " It seems to me that my opponent shifts goalposts in every round. I do agree that such abortion cases must not be permitted, but my opponent never made it clear in the previous rounds that she is arguing against those cases. In summary, my opponent has not provided a clear resolution and argument and has shifted goal posts in the two rounds. . http://www.debate.org...
abortion

I'm a girl :o and for a2 a3 and a4 they could choose adoption ? Sorry this is my frist time on this so don't get your panties in a bunch because I messed up :b I even said I had a baby ? I don't think a guy could have one of those , anyways I'm talking about the abortion cases where they got pregnant and just aborted it because they didn't want the responsibility , excuses are like buttholes everyone has one . I especially don't think they should be available over 9 weeks unless medically necessary or insest and rape.
abortion

Okay for all you people who are not clear I am debating that it should not be used so much as it is , but yes I would say under SOME major conditions it should be acceptable, but here's a true story , my sisters friend when she got pregnant her baby girl had a rare disease where she wasn't developed with a hard skull so she basicilly lived for 10 seconds. The point of that story is that yes she could of got an abortion from the begging because the condition was obvious in ultrasound , but she stuck by her baby and let it pass away when it was ready to she wanted god to take it on his time not at a scheduled time so I feel it shouldn't be a popular as it is , because people get an abortion because oh I'm not to mature for a baby well you were old enough to have sex , trust me your not gonna tell me about hard I'm 16 and got pregnant at 15 .
The U.S media is responsible for many anti white hate crimes.

Sitting her and staring at this, I am left with a question. Do I even need to rebut this incoherent nonsense? To avoid repeating myself like a broken record, I'm going to go point by point on his argumentation itself. The places that my opponent claims to get your information from -- the FBI, the Bureau of Justice are the exact places I've been sourcing. Why is it that when I cite a statistics from them, I source them, and my opponent doesn't? Well, click on the links and you'll find out. There isn't one race related statistic that I haven't mentioned. All the information that you are getting from me on this subject, is all the information that you are going to get. On my opponent's side, you'll of course get anecdotal evidence. This is not telling in the whole of things. The point of this is to throw out words like rape, violence, and stories of horrible things happening to people. These are meant to make you feel the way that they should make you feel. He is trying to scare you into feeling how he does. He is the embodiment of old conservative white guy, afraid of his own shadow because it's black, the yearning for the time of the confederacy, and, above all, as admitted by himself, pure propaganda coming to you straight from Infowars.
The U.S media is responsible for many anti white hate crimes.

Here are some stats. According to the national crime victim survey there are 62,000 black victims of white violence a year and 320,000 white victims of black violence. There are 15-20,000 black on white rapes and 30 white on black rapes. Yesterday on November 30th a Bosnian man named Zemir Begic was driving when a group of black and Hispanic teens attacked him and began beating his car. After he got out to confront them they beat him to death with a hammer. There is video of a witness saying that the killers were running around yelling "kill white people". Cnn did not mention the killers races. Infowars has a article up that has links to the video where someone who witnessed the killing says the teens were yelling "kill white people". If you look at infowars now they'll have that article and you can see for your self. In st. louis near where Michael Brown was killed by a white there is a anti white hate crime. This would not have happened of the media didn't bring race into the story and over report it. Also on infowars is video of a driver being assaulted by protesters as he is driving home and a white women and her white daughter being harassed by protesters inside a target. A man named Christopher shafer was beaten by protesters. Whites make up 70% of America and blacks make up 12% of America. That's why there can be more anti black hate crimes than anti white and black people can still be able to be more likely to commit hate crimes against whites. I know the conservative media covers these stories. I know they also cover any stories where a muslim does something bad. The liberal media (cnn, abc, msnbc, nbc) will cover up black on white hate crimes. I learned of these stories from american free press and infowars. I was looking up articles on Trayvon Martin and I came across some about how the media covers up anti white crimes.