BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Glimbozonous

The Big Bang sucked up God's power.(I mean, what else could have created an all-powerful mighty energy bang that created the universe? Only energy could have created energy. The Bible says absolutely nothing about refuting the proof of the Big Bang.)You still have nothing disproving whether it is God himself still existing or just a small part of God. There is no proof of anything mighty happening after Earth and those septillions of planets being created. Glimbozonous explains how "God" was able to create earth super-fastly and the Big Bang, but unable to do anything nearly as mighty from them on because his energy was spent on doing those things, following the laws of Conservation of Energy, and explaining the daily "miracles" and "bad coincidences" (because each action has an equal reaction, remember? That would explain all the miracles and lucky things happening to everyone everyday but the bad accidents as well.You source the Bible. The Bible says God created earth in six days? What the hay man? My religion shrinks it down to six planck time. There. Much better. The Bible talks about how God created the Garden of Eve but there somehow being a snake there that God somehow did not know about, and even if he did, he did absolutely nothing to rid of it. This shows that he respects balance and the fact that duality exists in every element of nature. Because of the duality, he spent much effort on the Big Bang and creating Earth, so much that he was destroyed himself. Logically, nothing can ever be "infinite", because even if God has "unlimited power" he can still be two times as powerful as himself. (on and on forever, and thus "infinite power" cannot be reached) Because of the impossibility of getting to infinity, God does not have infinite power and isn't "omnipotent" by the definition of omnipotent. Because the Christian "God cannot exist, my "god" can exist. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It therefore must be infinite; if one is unable to add/subtract energy from the total amount in the universe, its value cannot be defined.", "Infinity isn't real in that it has no definitive value. Infinity is a result of reality because not everything in reality can be viewed as being real."In other words, infinite is "unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless" as seen on http://dictionary.reference.com.... Because this Christian God isn't made of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The Christian God can talk, create things like he's lucid dreaming, and decide the ultimate statement for laws of nature. However, within Glimbozonous, the God can do none of the above. He just creates everything silently, and peacefully because of his sentience nature. unlike Glimbozonous's God, the Christian God are made of matter (which was created after the Big Bang). Because such the Christian God is impossible. Glimbozonous God rules!Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com... Sources: http://www.ted.com...
Glimbozonous

There was no reason to put the definition of logic; we all know what it is. Also, the websites do not prove anything except there are more people like you like are scared of and illogical God. I noticed you ALSO repeated a lot of the things you first stated. Thank you for that, as if I didn't catch that the first time. You say that God does not help us in crucial times. God allows things like plagues and wars to happen because this world cannot be perfect. If He ceased a war at the word "please", people would only take advantage of Him and the things He is so very capable of doing. God has PLENTY of energy to stop a war or a plague, or anything traumatic at all. But the truth is, God doesn't have "energy". He is not a THING with something magnetic flowing through him, like potential energy. He has power, and this power is energized by "love". I suggest looking up a few of God's miracles. If He does not love us, why would He do the things He has done. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, Jesus, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." Meaning those who love Him can be forgiven, thus "Free Will". God gave us free will so we can choose to go against him, you being an example, or we can choose to love Him back, for what He has given us, myself being an example. Let us move on :) You may still be saying, "If he loves us so much like you say, why does he still let terrible things happen to us?" God allows evil to occur partly for reasons we know and partly for those we do not. See carm.com(If God is all Powerful and Loving, Why is There Suffering in the World?). We know God uses evil things to discipline us (refer back to free will) when we go against Him, as you can infer from my first debate. See Proverbs 3:11. He also uses pain and suffering to TEACH us. If we have never pricked our fingers on a fish hook, how do we know not to do it all the time? Also see Proverbs 15:32. It is not logically necessary to assume that just because God has allowed pain and suffering during crucial times, it means he cannot. He can do so at the snap if His fingers. "Only tiny tiny parts of God's power still exists"? That is your excuse because you don't want to believe. And, no offense, but if God's power has been destroyed, as you stated with no reliable proof to back it up, then WHAT destroyed it? God created the universe, you said so yourself. He made man in His image. Could you honestly believe that the universe turned on the One who created I and destroyed His power? That made the Top of the most ignorant things I have heard. Glimbozonous is a grain of sand on a huge beach when it comes to Him. He can prove Himself. Can your belief do that?
Glimbozonous

Please see this: http://www.washingtonpost.com....To sum it up, evidence have been found of the big bang.If you still don't belive me visit these links: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...http://sploid.gizmodo.com...;http://www.nbcbayarea.com...;Now, when I said "nothing" I did not really mean nothing. The universe is theorized either made out of "strings" or "quantum foam", both of which are only one planck lengh, a length so small that it is not even imagined. Because they are so small, it takes a billion years to create enough potential energy for a Big Bang.I never said that all of God's sentience has gone, I merely said "pure energy became very very massive within a condensed space, and because such, it collapsed upon itself and created....THE BIG BANG."It may not be very clear to you, and I'm sorry for not stating this before, but "God"'s consciousness still remains throughout the universe, attempting to save people, but unable to save millions of people. This explains why "God is so cruel" and doesn't stop wars, plagues, and etc.etc. --it's because God does not have enough energy to do so! Why can't we see god? His energy got massively destroyed! Only tiny tiny parts of it remain throughout the universe, and energy can be potential, unseen at the same time! Example: if a glass of water is just sitting there, do you see the potential energy? Nope. " because God is not a logical spirit...." logical: according to or agreeing with the principles of logichttp://dictionary.reference.com...logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. http://dictionary.reference.com...;I never stated whether god was a logical spirit or not, I only said god had enough consciousness and reasoning in the first place to create a world of life, and able to sustain it. After it created the world of life, it lost most of its consciousness, and struggled to obtain it back, failing finally, and destroying itself with the Big Bang, explaining the evidence of the Big Bang and how earth is a unique planet and why "God" does not help us in crucial times. (Because only limited consciousness is left of "God".)In conclusion I still believe in Glimbozonous.
Glimbozonous

This is not a debate that can be rich in opinions. I can just as easily explain why this "Glimbozonous" belief is absolutely absurd as you explained it to be true, which, by the way, was not very plentiful in facts to back it up, only what YOU believe is true and why you believe so. It is logical that in the process of billions of years, something could form from SOMETHING, but there is no possibility of something being formed from NOTHING, thus the theory of Biogenesis, the scientifically proven belief that everything comes from something. The human race is a skeptical species. We have a hard time believing anything unless we see it. Therefore, the thought of "God" scares us. How could something or someone be real if we can't see it? It says in the Bible that God presents himself at least once in everyone's lifetime, whether it be from another human trying to educate us about Him or God Himself saving our life in a way that appears to be "good luck". But because God is not a logical spirit, humans like yourself attempt again and again to contradict what the Bible says. Now, about the Big Bang Theory, it is just that. A theory. It has not been scientifically PROVEN whatsoever. Yet the acts of God have. The calculated possibility of the "Big Bang" being true is 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000ths of a chance, so slim that even scientists have said it is An impossibility. It also says in the Bible that God puts doubts in our minds to test us, and the one who is continually faithful in him is the one who will be blessed. Bad things happen to good people, but He says He will bless those who stay faithful through the things endure. I don't see anyone being blessed when they stay faithful to the "Big Bang" or, "Glimbozonous". Wouldn't you rather believe in SOMETHING an find out it's not true rather then not believe in THIS and find out it isn't when it's too late? Please attempt to prove me wrong. Thank you.
Ahmed on universe believe memory genies and original god memory genies

The universe is not full of memory genies. Ahmed has not supported his case with any evidence, and seeing that he initiated this debate, he has the BoP. I am the winner of this debate, because my grammar is better. Ahmed failed to capitalise his letters, therefore I should at least get better S&G marks. Everyome vote Con! You will if you have any sense. Thank you :)
Spring is better than winter

I meant to say that Pro ForfeitedReason 3 Pro's Standingpoint Pro had the perfect chance to win this debate. Honestly, supporting his stance is easier than supporting mine. However, Pro decided to forfeit, show no sources, and only used mere opinion. He also had a couple spelling errors in the one sentence he typed. Conclusion In conclusion, Winter is better than Spring because Pro's lack of evidence, and obvious things Winter has.Sources("Basic Debating Skills", Actdu)("Top Tips", DebateWar)
Spring is better than winter

Reason 2 Weather Con's statement that people feel more comfy outside during the Spring is false. During the Winter there is a lower amount of CO2 in the air which gives many that go outside a unique feeling while breathing, and better air. Some like this. Also what Pro said is mere opinion. He showed no evidence.Sources (Ray D., John, "Winter Air Quality Study", National Park Service, 2004-2005)Con forfeited by the way.
Spring is better than winter

Once again, I am limited to 50 characters. Reason 1 Pro said that the Spring has more activities than the Winter. This is wrong. During the Winter one has snow, and with this snow you can do numerous things. You can make a snowman, an igloo, a fort, you can ski, have a snowball fight, and numerous other things not said. There is also sports such as Track, Basketball, Snowboarding, and other things to do/watch. If creative, one has plenty to do. Sources (50 Fun Winter Activities, Realsimple)
Donald Trump is a good president

No, Donald Trump is not a racist, a lot of people believing this is simply cites like CNN, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and Daily Mail's clearly biased opinion towards Trump and the fact Hillary didn't win. He is not racist, he is here to help all Americans, in 1990 Donald Trump fought to include Jews and Blacks at Palm Beach Golf Course in 1990's. He's met with multiple popular black figures such as Martin Luther King III, Kanye West, and has multiple black people supporting him, and he's not said anything particularly racist. No, Donald Trump is not sexist, he's hired Women in his office, that's like saying black people in the U.S have oppression after we just had a black President for 8 years. And his "grab her by the *****." comment? That's over exaggerated by the media, It's locker talk, and that's clear, if a women said someone similar to that and was filmed saying it would anyone really freak out like all these celebs and women's marchers are? No. It's a joke, don't take it too seriously. Donald Trump also before being President-Elect on his campaign a bit after the Orlando shooting said, "Only weeks ago, in Orlando Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist, this time the terrorist targeted the LGBTQ community, no good, and were gonna stop it." When also being interviewed he stated about gay marriage that the supreme court ruled it and he is fine with and It's not a big issue. It sounds more like he is okay with Americans to choose their sexuality rather than make a big deal about it. Donald Trump is definitely not a xenophobe, he said this "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally," wrote Trump. "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans-many of them are working for and with me"and, just like our country, my organization is better for it." and what he said here he has clearly shown, legal good people, can come in the U.S and make our country better, but illegal's that cause crime is no good, and you don't want more crime do you? He simply wants the people to come in here legally, nothing wrong with that. He's outright stated he loves China, and the Mexican people. How has he done anything related to white supremacy? That's lunacy, he hasn't shown any signs towards white supremacy, the media and Hollywood elites need to stop making people think these things. And withdrawing from the TPP is a good thing, trust me. Hollywood and the media is ruining people's views on this, trying to obscure them, don't listen to the Hollywood elites, the crazy feminists, they aren't fighting for anything, it may seem like they are but they aren't. Trump is only a week into his Presidency and he's working on doing the things he promised he would, so if the things he said are any indication, Trump is none of these, and It's clear to see. He's not a racist, a xenophobe, or a sexist white supremacist, nothing should lead you to believe that, I think if he truly was these he would not be President right now.
Donald Trump is a good president

Donald Trump is not a good president. This an openly racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. He stands for everything that supports white people and furthering white supremacy and white privilege. He's already taken some major actions by withdrawing the US from the TPP. Also has already taken action against minority groups such as Native Americans and their situation in North Dakota. Trump is already trying to make plans to build this wall between Mexico and the US which won't work because we already have a wall in place. That's all for now. vote for the negation. Thank you
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Ill start by defining the topic Military Conscription is known as the draft where the military forces teens and older to join the military. Contention 1 It has been realized by people 30 years ago that this is a bad idea. During the Vietnam war hundreds of people skipped out because they did not want to give their life for something they did not believe in. A few years later our president Jimmy Carter had the common sense to grant these people amnesty. This an example of how Military Conscription is wrong and the choices made to amend this mistake. Contention 2 The Federal government has no right to mandate that citizens should have to go into the military. Under the Constitution we have the right to do as we choose so long as we don't infringe upon other peoples rights. As such since none of that has happened the government has no authority to implement this. Contention 3 There are other things to do to benefit the US in a positive manner then fighting in a war. Artistry technology and politics are just three of many examples that helps maintain the wonderful society that we live in today. Again for those who think enlisting is the right choice then that is the right choice for them In conclusion Military Conscription has no lawful backing and is unfair and unjust to those who do not wish to be involved in dangerous conflicts
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Alllrighty then: "This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time." It is seemingly unclear as to how this counteracts my assertions and points of contentions made in my Round 1. I fail to see any rebuttal continuity. Therefore, my arguments are standing quite firmly, residing intact. If it were not implied in my Round 1 argumentation, I remind readers, voters, judges, and my opponent that, as stated in the comments section, my value and criterion for this debate are basically as follows: As implied in my opening round, the central value I, as the contender, am utilizing is justice. In order to achieve justice, societal benevolence is essential, aiding in greater ethical parameters and social order. I await the remainder of this debate.
The death penalty should be made illegal worldwide

Addressing my opponent's first rebuttal, I'll like to say that if the boy has nothing and goes into a life of crime, eventually being sentenced to death then what is the big concern about his death? He's not leaving family/friends or valuable property behind therefore the death wouldn't be a burden on society. Upon committing a crime against somebody else(in this case it's murder) is that person not violating their victim's human rights? Everybody has a right to life and the murderer has violated that, therefore why shouldn't their right to life also be taken away? It's just like when a thief violates their victim's right to property. My opponent fails to address that murdering somebody is violating one of their fundamental rights. As for the luxuries in prisons, my opponent failed to address the fact that many people in prisons are better off than many law-abiding citizens. Prisoners have a bed to sleep in, meals on the table, and leisure time, all of which are things many homeless people have to struggle for daily. According to my opponent, criminals deserve more rights than homeless people! As for helping society, killing off some of the more dangerous prisoners who are indeed a threat to society would help make prisons safer for inmates serving time for less serious crimes. It would also prevent over-crowding and staggering costs which could go towards other things that benefit society such as healthcare and education. It would also prevent a dangerous offender from being released back into society upon serving their sentence. Wouldn't it be safer for everybody if a dangerous murderer was kept away from the rest of society? My opponent is indeed correct that sometimes the jury can be incorrect in convicting somebody. However, with today's technology a quick DNA test could be performed to determine the person's guilt. My opponent also mentions countries like China, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan which indeed do still practice the death penalty. However, one could argue that in many Middle Eastern and Asian countries the crime rates are much lower. With harsher laws and harsher penalties comes lower crime rates as it serves as deterrance. . http://answers.yahoo.com... . http://www.nationmaster.com... . http://thegovmonitor.com...
The death penalty should be made illegal worldwide

My opponent states that rehabilitation is an acceptable alternative to punish. However, this isn't the case. This method provides no deterrance to keep a criminal from committing the same crime again. It's easy to go out and do the same thing again when you "have nothing to lose". With death you have EVERYTHING to lose. The recidivism rates in the United States can be as high as 22%(http://www.nber.org...) which could result from a lack of deterrance. Even convicts for less serious crimes should go through a system of punishment rather than a system of rehabilitation in order to deter them from committing crimes again in the future. My opponent also states that death is the "easy way out" while sitting in prison is a punishment. I'll like to address that nowadays many prisons are filled with many luxuries that a criminal clearly doesn't deserve. Does a criminal deserve to sit more, have more leisure time, and more luxuries than an average law-abiding citizen who has to work long hours in order to make a living? This is one such example of these luxurious prisons: http://sabbah.biz.... These prisons don't really punish a criminal therefore death would be the better alternative for crimes such as murder which is considered to be one of the worst crimes in most countries. Also, if somebody killed a family member or friend of mine I would want them dead. It's a common mentality most people would probably have regarding murderers. Lastly, my opponent states that "an eye for an eye" would make the instigator a criminal too. However, the criminal struck first and did harm to the victim. The victim should be able to strike back in self-defense in order to protect themselves and others when their property and/or bodies are threatened. It's not exactly fair justice when a criminal recieves about half a punishment as what the victim recieved by being victimized. If the criminal doesn't want to be punished they shouldn't be a criminal. To address my opponent's last point, for the sake of this debate I'm arguing that the death penalty is acceptable as a punishment for murder.
The death penalty should be made illegal worldwide

The role of Devils Advocate, I believe, will make this a healthy debate & help to improve argumental skills, so, good luck. Now, I asked that my opponent stated WHY the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases. "Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up to later release them to have them commit the same crime again? " Crime is a major issue in today's society, agreed. But, for minor crimes, rehabilitation is offered in the vast majority of cases. Whether the accused is jailed for their crimes or not, there are professionals who are there to help, to encourage the accused that a life of crime is not the way forward, that what they are doing/done is wrong, hence the legality. In more serious cases, murder, rape, kidnapping etc. capital punishment should, in all cases, be looked at as an easy way out. Granted, if someone committed one of the following crimes upon a family member or close friend of mine, yes there would be a side of me that wanted them dead too. But, what would that gain? A lifetime behind bars seems the harsher punishment. Death, is an easy way out. Having to spend every last day of ones life confined to a cell for 23 hours of the day, everyday, having to live with their conscience knowing they will never play a role in society again is surely a more effective punishment than taking ones life away. My opponent claims that, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. I strongly oppose. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalised and the other is not. So, in regards, that would make the instigator a criminal too. People are more brutalised by what they see on T. V. daily. People are not brutalised by punishments. My opponent failed to state where, when and why the death penalty is a fair resolution,also why it is a fair punishment and what positive effects it has on society.