BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we believe in God

My opponent has seemed to veer completely off track. Almost all of his last argument was devoted to showing why he thinks God is evil. As much as I would love to debate that, I must adhere to the resolution at hand. Thus far, my opponent has given no solid evidence as to why you should not believe in God. As the instigator, he has completely blown off his burden of proof. "First I will say the miracles performed by Jesus in the new testament also break the laws of physics but you still choose to believe this man did them even though it is impossible." You seem to have missed my last point. These things are impossible through natural means. Therefore, a supernatural entity is necessary. Jesus was not an ordinary human bound by the laws of physics. "Ok how was god created if matter can not be created then it means that he couldn't have been created to create matter and if matter cannot be created how did he create it so how can he exist." Again, He is not bound by the natural laws of science, since He created them. (And everything else on this Earth for that matter) Much like a cartoonist binds his artwork to the page, so has God bound us with physics. God can (and obviously has) create(d) matter because He is not physically bound. "Also if the universe needs a cause then why doesn't god need a cause[sic]" I'll take the hit for an ad-hominum. You really aren't getting the idea here are you? As your Richard Dawkins will tell you, matter does not spontaneously burst into being. He will also tell you that he knows that he exists, and has matter. We can then deduce that his matter did not spontaneously burst into being because it is physically impossible. Mr. Dawkins will then tell you that he doesn't know how the universe started, but that he knows what kind of event must have taken place. (See previously posted video) When asked if God is a possibility, he says that he cannot prove that God doesn't exist, simply because God is non-falsifiable. This is true. However, he still leaves a gaping unanswered question of how matter came into existence. Physically, it is impossible. I should not exist, you should not exist, and even the great Richard Dawkins should not exist. Funny story though, he exists. So do you, and so do I. If we exist, and we could not have gotten here by natural means, then we must have arrived by something greater than natural means. Could the answer possibly be a....... supernatural being? God? Until my opponent can provide me with a valid alternative answer, he has no case. I therefore rest mine. The resolution remains affirmed.
Should we believe in God

First I will say the miracles performed by Jesus in the new testament also break the laws of physics but you still choose to believe this man did them even though it is impossible. Ok how was god created if matter can not be created then it means that he couldn't have been created to create matter and if matter cannot be created how did he create it so how can he exist. Also if the universe needs a cause then why doesn't god need a cause There is no way this being could have been real as it defies everything . Both sides have there floors I will admit but Christianity has a lot more floors but also who would want to believe in a racist ethnic cleanser that according to a service I had at a Catholic school a teenage girl. In real life this person would have been the most wanted leader in the world and would most likely have been put to death, assassinated or put in a mental asylum for being a psychotic killer responsible for more deaths than anyone else ever. Is the a good influence to bring the next generation up on. You could argue that the new testament teaches love and peace through Jesus but not even Dawkins will deny that this illegitimate rebel was most likely a good teacher and I will say that if the world followed his teachings it would be a better place but the debate is should we believe in god his son ( who was a normal person) may have been good but God is a maniac. The God from the old testament was awful. This video maybe comedy but the quotes at the bottom of the screen like the first one e.g. 1 Samuel 15:1-3 says how ruthless he was. So get a bible out and watch the video read all the parts that it tells you do at the bottom of the screen and see how many people god killed http://www.youtube.com...
Should we believe in God

Sorry ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has misspoken. Well it appears that my opponent does not believe in God after all. God -A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Here we go in science lesson 101. I will introduce my opponent to the Law of Conservation of Mass (Matter). Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a natural law, as well as a physical law. Well, matter exists. How did this matter come into existence? It could not have been by natural methods, since it is physically impossible to create matter. If it could not have happened naturally, it must have happened supernaturally, since matter does indeed exist. No scientist, not even my opponent's famed atheist Richard Dawkins, has claimed to know how the universe started. http://www.youtube.com... If even the "leading" atheists cannot explain the start of matter, then how is it that a theist can do so in a single paragraph? *cough cough God exists cough cough* You now have reason to believe in God. God explains what Mr. Dawkins cannot. The resolution is affirmed. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should we believe in God

I do not believe in God one bit lets make that clear I was theoretically saying where's your "god" when you need him to show that there is no reason to believe in him but seems like you have no reasons of your own. One thing is that Jesus did exist but he WASN'T THE SON OF GOD he was a normal man but most likely a rebel against organised church who was seen as a threat so pray to the rebel who destroyed temples before you give your next argument
Should we believe in God

It seems that my opponent already believes in God. He says that God is responsible for many bad events. While I disagree on several points, my opponent has already conceded. "he [sic] actually died on a cross because the jews [sic] told the Romans to who didn't want to upset the Jews." You just admitted that Jesus (God) existed. "he [sic] was responsible for the crusades and many other wars which killed thousands upon thousands." You did it again. "You mean Benedict the 16th who will not let africans have condoms and was A MEMBER OF THE NAZI PARTY enough said." Oh I'm sorry, I did not realize that the Pope was God. As of now, my opponent has conceded his own defeat. He says that God was responsible for many terrible things. Would you not believe in a person who is REAL and HAS CAUSED MANY TERRIBLE THINGS. (According to my opponent) Why would you not believe in Someone who clearly exists. (My opponent claims that God exists through his claims that God causes strife.) The resolution is affirmed. I will post more reasons to believe in God in the next round if need be.
Should we believe in God

Should we believe in God. A big question to us all. An omnipotent being that lives in heaven who created the world who sits around all day doing good and answering prayers. WRONG Here is a quote from famous atheist Richard Dawkins. "the most unpleasant character in all fiction. a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" Can anyone really argue with that. 9/11 did God stop it NO boxing day tsunami did God stop it NO to name a couple of the things God didn't stop. People die of hunger everyday in Africa does GOD HELP NO!!!!!!! Now people could say he was busy and you're looking at the bad points. Ok the good points......................................? Jesus the man who walked on water he must have been good he died to save all sin. WRONG he actually died on a cross because the jews told the Romans to who didn't want to upset the Jews. Well at least he did good WRONG he was responsible for the crusades and many other wars which killed thousands upon thousands. ok,ok the pope You mean Benedict the 16th who will not let africans have condoms and was A MEMBER OF THE NAZI PARTY enough said. Adam and eve then who responsible for creating the humans so you want to believe you created by inbred siblings who slept with each other for generations e.g. adam and eves son slept with his mum now that is not right. God will at least help us in our time of need not again ...... he was responsible for the deaths of well read the old testament and find out. The prophets gave hope to people in need especially Jesus well that depends if you are a jew or not. Abraham tried to kill his son because God told him Wrong he was told by voices schizophrenia which i have seen and is the only explanation for why these people would do such things. Now read Genesis 6-10 not including 10 and tell me if you can honestly believe it. I have answered alot of questions so try and put a better argument across to me than that.
The first two "Shaft" movies were really funny nonsense

The first "Shaft" film was a rather bizarre movie. It was like some of sorta shock value soap opera. The second "Shaft" move attempted to have a story but rather fell into the same drama of the first film.The third one was developed well. It was about a black man who fought for his people who were being enslaved and exploited.The first and second were more like music videos, stupid ones at that.
Animals are sentient

Rebuttals:"First of all I would like to define sentient. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Or in other words be self aware. "I agree on this definition. Self-aware: When an individual can identify, process, store information about the self, and has knowledge of one's own mental states they are defined to have self-awareness. [1]Koko learned sign language from a tutor. If you tried to teach it to another animal, it would fail. Koko can identify the sign language, process it, and store it in her brain. This matches all the definitions of self awareness. [2] "Animals are not self aware. Their brains can be described as a computer, a computer is given a problem and can solve the problem given a certain set of rules. An animal is given the problem (ie. finding food) and it solves that problem through a set of extremely varied instructions (i. e. hunting for food or asking for it using sign language). "But animals are not used to learning sign language, they are used to hunting for survival. It is not common to go to the zoo and see an ape that can juggle, or a gorilla that can use sign language, or a chimp that can write words, because it isn't natural for the animal itself. Arguments:Mirror Test [3]This "mirror test" is a test, where they put a 80 inch mirror in a room with another animal, to see how it will act with it's own reflection. If the animal does ANYTHING to the mirror (for example, attack it, bark at it, or threaten it) they fail. The objective is to see if they know it is themselves in the mirror. MANY animals have passed it, including bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, killer whales, dolphins, even elephants. This can prove that animals are self-aware because they can see themselves in the mirror, and recognize it is them, and not another animal. Mark Test [4]Other parts of the mirror test include the mark test where they put the animal to sleep, then but a very strange mark which is difficult to see on the animal's body. When they look into the mirror, if they point to the mark or even look at the mark on themselves, this can prove that they are self-aware, because it shows they know what they look like and what they perceive themselves as. The BrainThe brain of the animals are not so different from human's, some are smaller, some are bigger, but they all basically have the same shape. They also have most of the same parts that human's have, so shouldn't they have no problem doing what human's do, which is being self-aware? (. http://scienceblogs.com...)Cites:[1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...(gorilla)[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Animals are sentient

First of all I would like to define sentient. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Or in other words be self aware. There are plenty of cases of animals behaving in human like ways. One of the most famous would be Koko the gorilla who learned sign language. Some would say that the ability to learn and speak and language must mean that Koko is sentient. However, this is no more then repetition for the sake of reward. There has been tons of research on this topic and is called operant conditioning. It is basically like a extremely complicated trick. For example I can train a dog to roll over, walk on its back legs, do a flip, etc. But this does not mean the dog knows what its doing is a back flip. It is repeating a motion for the sake of a reward. This is exactly what Koko achieved, with the main difference being that what Koko did was extremely complicated. Koko learned a series of patterns that resulted in a reward. Obviously this is only one example, however it can be applied to the whole animal kingdom. Animals are not self aware. Their brains can be described as a computer, a computer is given a problem and can solve the problem given a certain set of rules. An animal is given the problem (ie. finding food) and it solves that problem through a set of extremely varied instructions (i.e. hunting for food or asking for it using sign language).
Animals are sentient

I recently had a short argument with another DDO member on whether or not animals are sentient. I will be taking the position that animals are not sentient and that we are the only sentient beings on earth. Rules for the debate: 1) no trolling 2) no forfeiting 3) no plagiarizing 4) try to keep this from being a religious debate, although it is closely linked to religious ideals I don't want it from being a God vs Atheism debate. 5) If you break these rules it is an automatic forfeit.
You choose the topic

Procedurals/Conduct- 1. The Mill analysis is made in round two, it is not new in round three. Con claims in round two that I fail to rebut his framework, but never responds to the mill analysis. That is on him, don't let him weasel out of his failure to respond to framework now. 2. This debate's messy pacing is Con's fault. He doesn't read the rules closely, and because of that starts debating far too early. I give him a pass there, but he doesn't get to try and call an ethical foul because of it now. 3. the Should/Must analysis in conjunction with the mill analysis means Con doesn't get access to his liberty claims. Do not grant him ANY ground here. The best Con can hope for is a tie, if I show any advantage at all to everyone wearing bowler hats, then that shifts the debate over to the pro. *** 1. The liberty framework is shot. I respond to them in round 1, extend throughout, and shut down Con's baseless conduct claims up top. If there is a risk that we raise the standard of class for anyone, then you vote Pro. Con's only argument here is 'I don't wanna, so we're not gonna'. He doesn't have the authority to make those kind of sweeping claims, and you need to shut down that poorly constructed liberty plea with your vote. 2. Bowler hats don't have to be a single black color. They are defined (by Con in round 1) by a phsyical appearance. They could be pink, checkered, glittery purple or any other color. what matters in making them bowler hats is their form. I agree that making a claim 'If I show one person should wear a bowler hat, then I win' is unfair, but that isn't the claim I make. When Con drops his liberty framework by failing to respond to my consolidated attacks on it, he forfeits all impacts on his singular impact of personal liberty. So, if I show the risk of ANY advantages to everyone wearing bowler hats, then I win when burdens are balanced. Con frames the debate through Mill, but NEVER responds to my analysis that the Harm Principle is an incomplete and flawed weighing mechanism for justice. The entirety of his advocacy is centered on the principle, yet he glosses over my attacks and claims I ignore his framework. That is a damning mistake, and it will be the reason he loses this debate. 3. Con's response here is a moving target. He doesn't get to change the terms of the argument in his final speech, then demand an answer. The prior answer was an extension of 'dudebro culture is bad, and snapbacks are a cultural signifier of that.' It's like Con is only reading the prior rounds and responding to them independent of their context holistically. 4. Extend. Underview- Con's round one has a framework on Mill's harm principle, an argument impacting liberty, then a conclusion. That is the entirety of his argument. I take down Mill and he drops the argument - he cannot win. If I have ANY advantages, then I win. Don't let him steal time in the next round by making responses there. doing so forfeits on conduct.
You choose the topic

I don't have time. I need to log out soon, so this will be short. (math competition, long story)FrameworkAs I told, rebutting in the third round is bad conduct, vote for Con for conduct, and the framework cannot be contested in the third round. Pro says " we can't know if an action will harm someone before it has occurred, only in foresight." In Pro's logic, that means we can kill each other, because we don't know it will harm us, because it never occured. We do liberty on foresight, also there is no need to say this, because liberty is such self-ownership, you can do whatever you want, and you will know it before.Case1. My framework was based on liberty. So, even one person is very important. Also, it won't be one, because many children couldn't like those classical hats, they like caps much better, that is logic. So, it is not 1 out few billion. Vote for me because not everyone likes bowler hats, so we should not make them where it. 2. If it is a bowler hat, with a design of a snapback, it is not a bowler hat at all. Bowler hats are black, or dark brown, and don't have designs. Then, it will be called bowlersnap, but there is not such thing.My point wasn't that. My point was, bowler hats shouldn't be used everywhere. If my opponent's burden is one person, it is too unfair, so my opponent's burden is to make everyone wear them. My rebuttal here was the baseball players can't in the stadiums. There team isn't even on the hats. Pro concedes, and says that we should not wear bowler hats all the time. Then when? Once your whole lifetime? Let's say everytime, unless you sleep.3. Is music good? Even thought snapbakcs don't have a musical connection does not mean they have any connection. Also, what is a musical connection. Watching the same music? Liking music? How can a hat give a connection? They are all questions my opponent must answer, or it will refute his case.4. Says who what? Of course, if there are only bowler hats then of course some jobs will be ruined.Pro says that my liberty does not impact. It does. I am saying that we can make our own choices, which means we don't need to wear snapbacks, which refutes my opponent's side, deserving me the win, and my opponent fails to refute this.Justice/ LibertyHarm principle wasn't my main argument. My main argument was that we have self-ownership, as liberty, a moral framework says, and we can choose not to wear them. My opponent fails to refute my actual case. He tackles a minor detail, but that does not impact for winning for him. I never said snapbacks are the best thing ever. I said that some people might believe that they are good. My opponent says that it is not my burden. I agree, but my point was that others can believe that other hats are better.ConclusionThere are 3 ways you can vote this. 2 ways are voting for me. One way, (the bad way, and the unfrequent one) is voting for Pro.
You choose the topic

Framework Con completely glosses over the analysis i make on Mill being an incomplete weighing mechanism, so count it as a concession. At the point he concedes my arguments on Mill he has no way to measure the value of liberty as it has been presented it -- we can't know if an action will harm someone before it has occurred, only in foresight. Mill's harm principle relies on the ability to know the future perfectly, otherwise one would arbitrarily violate principles of justice by matter of chance. With no weighing mechanism, justice it becomes a lofty ideologue. Don't vote on it as it means essentially nothing in this debate. Rather, shift to the focus of the debate towards freedom. If we can't know whether something will harm another before doing it, than potentially any action could harm or fail to harm another. Con claims I concede framework, but the arguments are pretty clear. Don't do his work for him. Case 1. Reducing the argument to a matter of opinion doesn't do much. If even one person out of the billions of people on earth think that bowler hats make them or anyone else look fancy then it is a net benefit to the Pro. Vote here on the risk that we raise the standard of class by even a little bit. 2. If we bring bowler hats back, there's nothing stopping us from giving them designs just the same as Snapbacks. Aside from that, snapbacks are douchey and a callback to dudebro culture. The impact for them being bad is their linkage to that culture. As for baseball players, they don't wear snapbacks, they wear baseball caps. Snapbacks are a particular style of hats with a flat brim. Secondly, baseball players should really be wearing something with more protection than a thin cloth hat anyway. I never say people should wear bowler hats all the time, so in something like baseball people should wear helmets almost exclusively. 3. The connection we would share through snapbacks is a connection wrought with poor taste in music, toxic masculinity, impulsive action and lack-of-showering. Anyway, at best Con shows that this argument is not mutually exclusive, but that isn't a reason to vote against it. Showing that any other style of hat connects us better doesn't net him ground against bowler hats but rather for some other kind of hat. That's a lot like collecting monopoly money in chess, good for you that you have more of it, but it doesn't give you any advantage. 4. Says who? You can't just claim that one increase in industry undoes another without a warrant. Again, any benefit to Pro is a reason to vote pro. Con can pull no impact off of his justice framework, so he can hope for a tie at best. Justice Extend the should v. must analysis here. There was a reason I grouped them all together. This debate takes place up-top. Con doesn't respond to the Mill analysis, so he concedes his ground here. Finally, even if Con showed that Snapbacks were the best thing ever, that wasn't his burden. It nets him no ground.