BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of God (Christian)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
Existence of God (Christian)

God is perfect and since he is perfect he was able to create us perfectly. In the beginning God and man were able to communicate face to face, but that happened before sin entered the world . Even though there is sin in the world now ,God still gives us a way to become once again perfect which is through his one and only son Jesus Christ. As for your statement "Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists. " You too have stated an improbable as an argument. As for your statement about "I have clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have. " You misunderstood the meaning of the sentence, only man have the feelings but it does not mean that the feelings can only be possed by man, God can have those feelings but he doesn't because it is a sin. And finally, one does not need to die ,to know what death is. I have defeated cons arguments but he chooses not to accept, I have not stated any grammatical errors but con has already stated a few. Just incase it is unclear, minute means small.
Existence of God (Christian)

Rebuttal: “Scientific studies show that for the big bang to have happened it would have to be planned because even if there was a minute mistake we would not exist ,” Please give links to the scientific studies that prove your point. If the Big Bang was not controlled, then it is impossible to have any mistakes. Only living things can make mistakes, a rock can’t make a mistake. This sentence has zero worth. “for it to have just happened without being planned is like the chances of getting tails 1000000000000 when your flipping a coin” Even if this were true, it still doesn’t have any value for it only states it is improbable, it does not prove it wrong. There are estimated to be at least 100 BILLION galaxies, and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies in each one. Resulting in MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of planets. The chances that on one, just one of these planets life would occur is reasonable guess given that it had 14 billion years to do it. Saying that this is improbable is false. “i clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have. ” The bolded words that obviously contradict each other, “I am the only one who feels lust, I am not the only one who feels lust. ” If only man know lust and envy, then that is something cannot do making him not omnipotent, not a god. Bu if God knows lust too, then he has broken moral perfection, resulting in God cannot exist. “you did not state how it was impossible ,one can know about death without having to experience it. ” Yes I did. You totally misunderstand again. The argument knows, you cannot know death and not know death, not about experience. I’m pretty sure I’ve said this multiple times. “The world was made perfect ,but since we have freewill it was our doing that had caused sin, freewill is not imperfect it is our choices that are imperfect. ” If free-will is not imperfect it is perfect. A perfect cannot make imperfect things therefore, the byproduct of free-will; choices has to be perfect, you entire argument is false. Conclusion: My opponent has cheated in the second round by stating rebuttals. I have defeated all of my opponents arguments while she has defeated none of mine. My opponent obviously has lost the grammatical part, his arguments were all defeated and none of mine were.
Existence of God (Christian)

Scientific studies show that for the big bang to have happened it would have to be planned because even if there was a minute mistake we would not exist ,for it to have just happened without being planned is like the chances of getting tails 1000000000000 when your flipping a coin i clearly stated that the feelings lust and envy are feelings that only man have, not only man can have. "An omnipotent being would be able to know about death, without knowing about death. Which is impossible, which is why omnipotence is impossible." you did not state how it was impossible ,one can know about death without having to experience it. The world was made perfect ,but since we have freewill it was our doing that had caused sin ,freewill is not imperfect it is our choices that are imperfect.
Existence of God (Christian)

Thank you for that response Pro. Rebuttal: Pro didn’t have much to say but whatever. “First of all are we debating about the existence of God or whether God is perfect ? If we are debating about the first your quoted are then useless.” To answer your question, we are debating God’s existence, it said so plainly in the 1st round, please explain how you were confused on this. I don’t understand how my argument was useless. (This is also a rebuttal, which is illegal. This is cheating, but I will continue anyways.) My argument proved how God cannot exist since perfection is impossible. Please explain how this is useless. “Secondly,the evolution of the earth or more commonly know as "the big bang theory" shows that there is a creator to have made this universe.” This is absolutely false. I think you have Creationism and the Big Bang, two rival theories, somehow intertwined. These are two separate theories, I don’t understand how it is possible to think these two are the same. Please explain. “Thirdly, God made this world perfect which means without sin, but since we have freewill to choose there was sin.” This contradicts itself. You say the world is perfect, which means everything in the world is perfect. Then say that free-will is imperfect, yet exists. It is impossible for free-will to exist in a perfect world. This argument is a fallacy. I am confident the voters will see the obvious contradiction. “The feelings lust and envy is also sin that only man have ,” Ah, but you accepted the definition of God as omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If God were to exist he would be all-powerful and not having something that only men have would falsify the omnipotence making the being not a god. You prove yourself wrong in this argument. “but as for your statement "God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more." This is yet another rebuttal and will be ignored and penalized. “Let me ask you a question :Can you know of something without having to experience it.can you know of murder without having to kill somebody.” I can see what Pro is trying to do this time. I’m pretty sure this is an attempt at defeating my argument about lust and envy. This is again against the rules, cheating, but I will continue anyways. You word your response incorrectly. The correct rebuttal would have been, “Can you know about death without knowing about death?” It is not about experience, my argument was proving God cannot exist through the avenue of omnipotence. An omnipotent being would be able to know about death, without knowing about death. Which is impossible, which is why omnipotence is impossible. Conclusion: In my opponent’s short response, Pro managed to break the rules three times, get two rival theories mixed up, state wildly incorrect information, contradict himself and fail to give an argument. Whatever, looking forward to my opponent’s response.
Existence of God (Christian)

First of all are we debating about the existence of God or whether God is perfect ? If we are debating about the first your quoted are then useless. Secondly,the evolution of the earth or more commonly know as "the big bang theory" shows that there is a creator to have made this universe. Thirdly, God made this world perfect which means without sin, but since we have freewill to choose there was sin.The feelings lust and envy is also sin that only man have ,but as for your statement "God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more." Let me ask you a question :Can you know of something without having to experience it.can you know of murder without having to kill somebody.
Ban Highly Processed Foods

I believe Pro has fallen well short of justifying a ban on "highly processed foods". The arguments put forth indicating that these foods are unhealthy were anemic at best. None of the chemicals Pro mentioned behaved like, say, cyanide. These are more of the "consume it everyday for years and MAYBE there will be health concern. " Even then, the evidence is correctional at best. Everyone eventually dies. The question is the expediency. Should foods contain labels that indicate the ingredients used? Yes. Should foods that contain chemicals that are lethal from short term exposure be banned? Absolutely. Should ingredients that have weak or non-existent empirical links to adverse health conditions be banned? Obviously not. We don't restrict freedom without a really good reason. Pro has NOT come near a good reason. Thank you.
Ban Highly Processed Foods

I did not say that any inorganic foods or organic foods that gone through any process are highly processed and must be banned -I believe I had made myself clear after I stated, "A highly processed (also known as a highly refined) food product, like all other products, undergoes a process to produce it and make it to the shelf of a store. However, its process is more complex than other foods and involves adding chemicals not found in nature; non-organic ingredients such as chemical additives(includes things that increase shelf life[preservatives]), artificial flavoring, and artificial coloring." Basically, I noted that "highly processed foods" contain highly refined and inorganic ingredients, including chemical additives and so on. Plus, I did not cherry-pick the best examples of bad chemicals in highly processed food. The least carcinogenic chemicals were included in my list of bad chemicals in our food as well as the worst. (From small carcinogens such as food dyes to nastier carcinogens like TBHQ)You are 100% correct that spoiled foods(bacteria growth) are far more harmful than foods with chemicals that increase shelf life because they cause disease. However, such chemicals are not necessary to get foods sold -their sole purpose was for the sellers to save money (not having to spend money replacing the expired food). Banning them would only force the sellers to sell the new products faster or trash them earlier if not bought -they would not leave them on the shelf to accumulate bacteria. For No. 2:People would not buy the highly processed food products anyway if there were warning labels informing them that the products cause greater risk of cancer. Tighter regulation of highly processed foods is not sensible. The chemicals within them are carcinogens -from fluids in insects(barely carcinogens) to refined versions of things like crude oil and coal tar(not only cancerous, but possibility of DNA damage). It is just like trying to regulate poisons to a safe level -then they would not be poisons, and it would be practically banning them. People are simply unaware of the chemicals they ingest when eating things like Doritos chips, smoked-meat-flavored red ham, microwave sausages, and more. If they knew, they would not touch another one (exceptions include withdrawal symptoms), and there would be no point in freedom of choice.
Ban Highly Processed Foods

There are 2 very key points I think my opponent is missing in his argument: 1) Pro defines the food to be banned is everything non-organic. That's a lot of different foods that millions of people eat every day (most meats, breads, juices, canned food, milk). The reasoning is that they are ALL bad and then proceeds to mention only a handful of chemicals that are a bit lackluster in terms of their lethality. For example, the aspartame article indicates there is barely any correlation linking it to health problems nor when giving exorbitant amounts of it to monkeys did they find anything damning. Furthemore, pro doesn't address the benefits we get from things like increased shelf life. The bacteria in spoiled foods is much more harmful than the additives used to prevent them (it says this explicitly in pro's last link). 2) The most important part of Pro's argument was glossed over in two sentences: why the government should make these foods illegal. The argument is not for tighter regulation. The argument is not for a stern warning label. The argument is to make these foods ILLEGAL to produce. I'm afraid Pro has much work to do in explaining why the freedom to choose what people consume should be so greatly restricted.
Ban Highly Processed Foods

I also apologize for expecting spectators and my opponent to know precisely what I meant by "highly processed foods". Clarification(What I refer to when I mention a "highly processed food product"):A highly processed (also known as a highly refined) food product, like all other products, undergoes a process to produce it and make it to the shelf of a store. However, its process is more complex than other foods and involves adding chemicals not found in nature; non-organic ingredients such as chemical additives(includes things that increase shelf life[preservatives]), artificial flavoring, and artificial coloring. Please note: When I refer to chemicals, I do not refer to obviously natural, and unharmful ones such as salt, water, and sugar; I refer to highly refined ones that are rarely or even never produced by nature, but made by machinery, such as artificial sugar, BHT, and BHA. Background Info:The nonorganic and highly refined chemicals added to highly processed foods serve many purposes, such as enhancing the smell, taste, appearance(mostly color), and even shelf life of the foods. For example, most highly processed ham(special pork) may not actually consist of 100% organic pork, and may have had chemicals added to enhance the taste, and then painted a beautiful pink using chemicals, to attract consumers, along with more chemicals that extend the expiration date(AKA, increasing shelf life). Health ConcernsFirst of all, since they are not made of natural ingredients, human bodies cannot keep themselves alive and fighting against the chemicals that are entering, without suffering side effects. There are short term side effects(headaches, nauseau, and burning sensation on neck that last only a few seconds) and major allergic reactions(diarrhea, large patches of red skin, ulcers, and more), but the long term health effects wave the biggest red flag. For example, food dyes cause hyperactivity in children and most are carcinogens. (Blue 1, Blue 2, Red 3, Yellow 6)Specific carcinogens that millions of people intake:Sodium Nitrate (Many meat products) . http://healthychild.org...Saccharin (Found in many sweeeteners) . http://www.askmen.com...Aspartame (Found in gum, sweeteners, drinks, and more) . http://www.cancer.org...There are also kinds of chemicals that convert to fat after being consumed, but the fat that would result, is not listed under Nutrition Facts. If such chemicals were eliminated from our stores, it would help reduce obesity as well. Here is an example:Reese's Puffs cerealSource: . http://www.fooducate.com...Most Dangerous Chemical additive: TBHQ TBHQ, or tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a petroleum derivative and a carcinogen. More useful links:. http://www.nap.edu...http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...Millions of Americans consume these cancerous foods and are not aware of the risks they are taking because they do not bother to read the label on the back of the food products and research the ingredients. I believe it is best to simply ban them, resulting in a reduction of cancer cases.
Ban Highly Processed Foods

This debate is nearly unwinnable for the pro side. The term "highly processed food" is wide open and must be properly defined. Making any food involves some sort of process. The apples that grow from tree are the result of vegetative processes. Secondly, the pro side must show strong empirical evidence that foods fitting in their "highly processed food" banner DOES cause negative health effects. And lastly, the pro side then has to make an argument for why these allegedly unhealthy foods ought to be banned.
NSA spying

NSA should be allowed to spy on us. In my opinion the only people that are against NSA spying on our phone calls are the ones that have something to hide. NSA has not done anything to a person that wasn't guilty. Them spying on our calls will only help us from, future terroristic acts. NSA has prevented many cyber attacks against USA from hackers MANY THAT ARE FROM AROUND THE WORLD! Hmm the other countries are mad at USA because we were spying on them and their phone calls? Its only to help us and to see if they are doing acts against the USA so they can be aware of them. I AM pretty sure they are spying on the USA equally.
NSA spying

Hello again,I appreciate your well argued and sourced response to my post, I have a feeling the next two rounds will be even more exciting.I however have found one major issue with your argument (much of it I agree with). It is the fact that your primary contention that the "NSA should be allowed to spy on us."You also argued that, "Them spying on our calls will only help us from, future terroistic acts."Yet now you are arguing the following. 1. "It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States."2. "So, despite the fears that Americans privacy is being surveyed, that liberty and due process are being sacrificed in the name of security and that American's protection from unlawful search and seizure is being ignored there is simply no verifiable evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of the above are the case."Essentially what your argument has turned to is, that the NSA is not spying on the USA. When clearly outlined in your opening statement you made the assertion that they SHOULD be allowed to "spy on us... spy on our calls..."This in no way refutes my arguments based on the Constitution of the United States that the NSA having authority to spy on American citizens is wholly illegal and unjustifiable. This shifting of the original contention to attempting to clarify that the NSA only spies on foreigners was addressed in my post extensively, but ultimately is not the contention you must argue nor the one I must disprove.We are discussing the legality and morality of the NSA spying on US, the United States citizens. Something you went a long way to say they don't do, and still have not presented any positive arguments for why they should accept those that have already been refuted in my opening statements.I therefore contend that my arguments against the motion of the NSA being allowed to spy on American citizens still stands, and remains unaddressed.I will allow my opponent to now address the core issue of this debate, and will leave him with this quote from one of our most brilliant and beloved founding fathers."Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin FranklinKindest Regards,TrueScotsman
Nate River vs. Light Yagami (kira)

------>RE:"If you read " The Author's Notes " he states that he had written more to the chat between Near and Mello in their meeting, but cut it as he figured it would cause people to think. In this he had them form a small pact that would help both as the main objective was to catch KIRA and yet not give the other so far an advantage that they would FAR surpass the other in the "race"" Even if Near and Mello had joined forces (which, once more, I'd like to point out that the links I've provided in the previous round suggest nothing more than individual work), this still wouldn't change the problem concerning Mikami's convenient decision to disobey Light and write a name in the notebook. We must keep in mind that neither Near or Mello had the intelligence to figure this out. As Light pointed out, ONLY L would have considered this as a possibility. Hence, still a fluke. Anyway, as you can see, my opponent has stated that you should vote CON, hence I believe my work here has been done. ----RE: "Places down a kuriboh in attack mode, and then sacrifices half my life points to ressurect a card from the grave. Another kuriboh appears on the field. VOTE pro or VOTE FOR CON---Nateriverx" Whereas this could be possibly good move, I'm afraid this duel is finished. First, I reveal my face down card to be "Harpee's Fever dester" This dispels the face down card my opponent has. Finally, my beast "Manga Proof" with its attack power of 5500 destroys the kuriboh in attack mode, hence losing my opponent the rest of his life points. Anywho, thanks for the debate. Later. :D
Nate River vs. Light Yagami (kira)

I see that my rushed arguements have left a blurred impression and a even worse case. I will make this closing statement short, very short. If you read " The Author's Notes " he states that he had written more to the chat between Near and Mello in their meeting, but cut it as he figured it would cause people to think. In this he had them form a small pact that would help both as the main objective was to catch KIRA and yet not give the other so far an advantage that they would FAR surpass the other in the "race" I would like to post these links, but however my computer is. .. acting up due to varius power surges. I once again apologize for my lack of effort, though i do not wish this to sound like an excuse due to the fact that I am posting these of my own free will knowing the consequinces. All that remains is to thank my opponent for a AMAZING match and ask all who will to please VOTE FOR CON. Places down a kuriboh in attack mode, and then sacrifices half my life points to ressurect a card from the grave. Another kuriboh appears on the field.