BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My pen is better than yours (this is what most debates really boil down to)

People here debate as though they have an important point to make. As if they care about the topic of the debate. We all know the truth however. We all know what all this verbal diarrhea, and all these brain farts are for. We all know that in the end, all we care about is: whose pen is better? So let's skip all the formalities and get down to it. Let's skip all the nonsense and talk about what really matters. Whose pen is better? Mine or yours?My pen is better than yours. Here are the reasons why:1. It is longer length-wise and it also has a larger cross-sectional area2. It is harder, firmer, sturdier, whilst still maintaining a soft comfort grip for ease of use and entry.3. Your pen can fit through the eye of a needle. Mine doesn't even fit through a tunnel made for cars to pass through. But it does so, by breaking the walls of the tunnel apart. Completely consesual yet forced entry.4. My pen is clean and smells nice. Yours smells like Dick Cheney's sweaty armpits.5. My pen is well-lubricated. Yours is dry and shrivelled.6. Your pen is Justin Bieber, my pen is the love-child of Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Stallone, and the entire cast of the Expendables (it was an orgy, all their best genes were fused together).7. My pen graduated with a Ph. D in quantum mechanics from Harvard. Your pen flunk out of Clown School.8. My pen is Bronn, your pen is Joffrey.9. My pen shines and glows in the dark. Your pen doesn't even have any ink left.10. My pen drives all the girsl crazy. They always ask me if they can use it. No one asks for your pen, except for your socks.Thank you. My pen is superior.
(Lightning Debate Alpha Test) No Gods Exist

1. A jerk like you having a 12 inch (supposedly) member is proof that there is no god. 2. You probably never even get to use the thing because it smells like a rotten slim jim. 3. You're superficially displeasing and also you're displeasing to my sixth sense somehow as well. My sense of balance is fine, So there's that. 4. Therefore no God exist.
(Lightning Debate Alpha Test) No Gods Exist

Testing a format. Must accept format to accept to debate. Round 1A: Opening Round 1B: Rebuttal of R1A Round 2A: Rebuttal of R1B Round 2B: Interrogation (5 Questions only for sake of testing until I know better) Round 3A: Answering R2B Questions and then interrogation. Round 3B: Answering R3A Closing.
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate because as I mentioned above, I have never known someone to believe in God and evolution. Thank you for the education as well as the invite to debate this topic. In my conclusion, evolution and God cannot work together because evolution has been known just to be a theory and God is a Being which is self-existent. My opponent has given mere things to clarify how unrealistic this concept of God and evolution working together. God and evolution can become relative (absolute) and postmodern truth. It either is one or the other. Animals may or may not look with DNA stances alike to humans, but that does not in any way imply that they are from evolutional matters and evolved to become humans. God is the more logical stance because He created all things by His own mouth. My opinion still stands. Best wishes to my opponent!
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

I don't take the bible as a factual source for this debate. Even in the bible, it never says that god made any other human beings. The bible implodes itself there.I am not saying the bible is true. You should think the same after all of the evidence i showed you. God isnt the bible. God can be true, but not the bible.Fun fact: the catholic church, dispite believing in the bible, has accepted theistic evolution as posible. I have proved:Evolution to be trueYou need god for it to be possibleThank you.
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

Thank you for the next round and your reply. Let’s see now. My opponent suggests that I do not know what God has planned, but if we take a look into Genesis 1; we can see that God was the from the Beginning creating everything by just the Word from His mouth. He spoke and it came to being. And then when we look into Genesis 2, we learn that God created Adam and Eve and put them in the midst of the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God, they were forced to leave Eden and had their family outside of it. When we read the following of their firstborn son; Cain killing the younger brother Abel and then God excommunicated him from his family. Long story short, Cain was able to marry, so my questions to my opponent is, if Adam and Eve were the only ones created, who did Cain marry? There was no sister at that point for him. And if God created everything by Words from His own mouth, how do you explain the contrast to your claim of evolution being true even if the rays of pictures you showed are exceptionally good, how does that justify to evolution being true and the Bible being true? Just does not coincide together. http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblegateway.com...
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

Despite her best effort, he could not refute this to her best ability. Skulls show the evolution process. (1) as you can see from the link, you can easily see evolution of the human skull. Again, huge similarities. I have provided DNA proof of evolution. He also do not know what god planned. We deal with mutations every day. Mutations is how evolution started. For example, an increased number of people are being born with two sets of DNA. This may be the next step in human evolution! (2) see how you something as simple as this can alter humans this much. This shows how easy evolution can start. Now, just like regular evolution, it may take a lot of years for all humans to be like this. This proves evolution again. Simple mutations an trigger evolution. As you can see, the evolution of the human skull keeps changing until it looks like the skulls we have today. "How does something "evolve" into being though?"Mutations of the DNA and selective breeding."You might as well say that there is no God if you are going to imply of evolvementation."How so? God would have to make the universe, elements, and cells." Either God created the chicken or He did not? Or Evolution is correct. It simply cannot be both"God created the chicken's ancestor. Then it evolved into the chicken.Case 3:For creationism to be correct would mean we would all have to be related. In the bible, the two humans are Adam and Eve. If they were the only humans, then we are all related. The bible also says that you should not go date your relative. This is a conflict of interest!1. http://www.infovisual.info...2. http://santacruz.hubpages.com...
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

Case 1: I did view the links as suggested, certainly we may be "alike", but that, however; does not indicate that we are in fact from evolutionary stances. As of the dog, sure, I will also say, that yes, we could again be "alike", but that still does not mean we are from evolutionary origin. It just implies that we are somewhat alike, no big deal. Case 2: How does something "evolve" into being though? You might as well say that there is no God if you are going to imply of evolvementation. Either God created the chicken or He did not? Or Evolution is correct. It simply cannot be both. My opponent suggests that, "I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today.", but in reality it does not add up. This is saying, God does not have part at all in anything that happens on the nature of earthly things/situations. Rather just the evolvement, instead?
Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

Case 1:First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! I think I have proven evolution true. However, I will now prove it is not possible without the existence of god. Case 2:Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say that god created the chicken, or god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken. My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the non self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve.I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today. Thank you for reading my argument. 1. http://www.amnh.org... 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Females are the victims of sexism.

Before we begin, I would like to point out that this debate is only about females being the victims of sexism. I am aware that men are subject to sexism as well, but women are at a higher level. Now, let's begin: Equal pay "Women 'receive only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.'" [1] Now, this statistic isn't fully accurate, but it provides an overview of the discrimination women face in the workplace. A female and male can have the same credentials, identical work schedule, and and identical profession, but the male will always earn more. I do not understand why they can be paid equally. Job opportunities I will provide you an example: A male graduates at the top of his class from Harvard University. A year later, a female graduates at the top of her class from the same university. They have identical credentials. They then apply for the exact same job. A majority of the time, the male will get the job just because of his sex. This is wrong. Pornography I have never watched pornography nor will I ever view it, but I can say this: Pornography is unjust towards women. A majority of women performing in pornography only do so because they need the money desperately. When they are being banged by two men in a hardcore porn video, she is not enjoying it like the viewer would assume. She may be screaming, "Oh yeah," but she is really thinking, "I hope this is over soon! Oh, that hurts!" I am not trying to be graphic or disgusting, but this example perfectly illustrates my point. Source [1] http://www.politifact.com...
Females are the victims of sexism.

Ok, before you say that I support sexism...I DON'T The way you worded your question, it made it sound like women are the SOLE victims of sexism. And I don't think this is the case. Sexism affects both males and females. They are both given unrealistic expectations by society. For example, people saying men have to be strong, dominant, and natural leaders. Not all men are comfortable in this position
God more likely than no, exists

http://www.nderf.org... that site is a little more fact specific than the last one i cited. but, the last one i cited was not lacking. if people share NDEs and later reaffirm it in person... or can see things when they are dead, that is not due to the brain firing oddly. that explanation doesn't explain things like this. witness accounts like in court have some credibility, and these are credible people doing objective things that are inexcplicable. also... your links about NDE's has been debated before: http://www.nderf.com... basically, the results of the lobe stimulation simulated some effects similar to NDEs, but nothing concrete and very rarely... nothing like a full blown experirenece and more like feeling detached from yourself. it seems like you're trying your hardest to avoid what's the most apparent explanations with obscure studies that don't hold up upon scrutiny... just vague ideas like "there must be another explanation...." also... as for miracles... it's not just in people's imaginations. most creditble and famous atheists i know, like richard dawkins, do not dispute that they occur. they claim other explanations though. http://macroevolution.narod.ru... here's his book. he doesn't explain miracles adequately at all. he sort of hops around it. i'd recommend wikipeida "miracles"... do some research on the congregation for the causes of the saints.. etc. basically, the only thing you could argue, is that miracle looking things happen to athestis etc. which would require that you actually provide data. i've never seen a comprehenstive study on this. so, i'd guess you have nothing. but if you do, i'm all ears and that's why i'm here.
God more likely than no, exists

You are seeking warranted assertability for the existence of god, not proof. I will grant this, as it is obvious that there is no conclusive proof either way. >>"you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explanation, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists)" I'm not sure what Near Death Experiences (NDE's) have to do with the existence of god. NDE is far more likely a result of damage or unusual circumstances in the brain, rather than the influence of some deity. >>"if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. " Exactly - people in general DON'T have miracles. Nor do people on death beds. This evidence is AGAINST theists, and favors science. I'm not how you can argue that lack of miracles speaks in favor of theism. >>"if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption." When the distinguishing variable is belief in the case of a NDE - that's yet MORE evidence against theism. If only theists interpret this phenomenon as a NDE or religious experience, then that simply supports the fact that it is religious conditioning warping their opinion, rather than an actual experience of a deity. Atheists are under no obligation to refute the claims of science. >>"the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case." This is a terrible argument. You argue that people's belief in God indicates his existence. Well what if I believe in unicorns? Does that indicate their existence? What if I believe in the NON-EXISTENCE of god? Does that indicate his non-existence? Using your standard of proof as outlined in the last paragraph of your arguments, I submit that not only does god NOT exist simply because I believe it, but that unicorns, leprechauns, demons, the hydra, mythical monsters of all kinds, etc... all exist simply because I believe they do. In all cases concerning evidence of god's existence, it is FAR more likely that there is a logical explanation than that there is a mystical deity undetectable by science.
God more likely than no, exists

God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation. as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law. (proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense. theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc. you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists) if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption. the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case.
Gay men should be forced to use the women's restroom

1. Pro clearly does not understand this argument. He states in his first round that gay men would be "eyeing" him, and I made the statement that homosexuals would not be "eyeing" men in the restroom and he completely mis-understands it. Furthermore he states "Having different gender roles is only important because of sexual orientation. " False. We have sex-segregated bathrooms becauce of the biological difference between males and females.2. Pro makes an almost laughable response to this argument. He states "cops aren't at the entrance of every restroom now, yet the system works fine" The system works because there is a physical difference that divides all men from all women. The is no known physical difference between a gay man, and a straight man.3. Perhaps it would be uncomfortable because like I've stated, there is no physical difference between a straight man and a gay man. They have no way of knowing whether it's a gay man, or a pervert who wants to see them in the bathroom. Irionic how you state we shouldn't cater to prejudice, but that's all this entire resolution is.4. Pro merely states "no". This objection stands.5. Pro tries to state that because Americans are "fat and uneducated" we somehow have the right to discriminate. He states that we have an entitlement complex, and more totally ir-relavent statements. Pro has not shown any good reason for discrimination. This objection stands. In conclusion, Pro gives absolutely no valid reason to change the status quo. Pro wants us to discriminate on other people based on his own personal prejudgice.
Gay men should be forced to use the women's restroom

On 1: The idea that somehow a women would make it out of the men's restrooms safely at the same rate as they currently do is by far the worst argument I've ever heard in my life. Having different gender roles is only important because of sexual orientation. On 2: Semantics are gay, cops aren't at the entrance of every restroom now, yet the system works fine. On 3: Why would it? Your notion of catering to the prejudices of women is counter-intuitive to your own pseudo-egalitarian communal. I'm sure white people felt uncomfortable with black people during the civil rights movement but that wasn't adequate enough to garner any mitigation of the emancipation that followed. Furthermore, this discomfort is actually progressive in and of itself, (see 5, or Nietzsche) On 4: No On: 5 The "progressively" egalitarian collective, have been forcing this leveling mechanism where, all people regardless of there complacent prerogative are for some reason equaled by the destitute, that through there oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute acumen. Certainly, there is a sense in which without these antagonisms, under-stimulation infects the zeitgeist of the American population and creates a sort of entitlement complex, where being fat and uneducated is ubiquitous, and accepted. Which is actually happening in the status quo (Obesity is number one in the U.S., while education is 14th http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) To those who think there ought to be quandary that the resolution confronts I think the turn on five is an adequate amount of offense to consummate a burden of proof.
Gay men should be forced to use the women's restroom

This is ridiculous.1. That's like saying you would eye every woman in the bathroom if you were in a womans restroom, just because gays are attracted to men doesn't mean they'll be "eyeing" you in the bathroom.2. How do you even know if someone's gay? It isn't as if gay people all look the same, so how would such a rule be enforced?3. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for the women to have a man in the bathroom, even if it is a gay man.4. Would urineals (can't spell it) have to be installed in womens bathrooms?5. Why is it ok to discriminate against people?That's all I have to say for now, negate this ridiculous resolution please.
God Exists

Rules:1. No forfeits2. Citations may be posted in comments3. No new arguments in the summary4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)8. Violation of any of these rules, or of the debate structure, merits a loss9. A Burden of Proof has not been assigned as this is a common point of contention, and I imagine it will be brought up some time during the debateStructure:R1. Acceptance.R2. Pro and Con present their cases.R3. Pro and Con rebut the other's case.R4. Pro and Con respond to rebuttals.R5. Pro and Con summarize their cases. No new arguments.Definitions:God - An extremely powerful, incorporeal mind that created the universe and is the source of morality.