BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a rational world view

Pro said he would argue.... "and also I will argue that a universe with a god is impossible." If Pro cannot prove this point, he loses the debate. In round 2, pro stated that his argument "may not be 100% proof against a god". By pro's own admission, he has not proven his statement "that a universe with a god is impossible". Pro's closing statement in round 2 is quoted as " god would be omniscient, there would be nothing to know in the universe at the given time, and god would have no idea what a universe was, and therefore could not comprehend making something he had no knowledge of". Pro negates his own argument by attributing omnicience to God (all-knowing) and denying He would know how to create a universe. Pro also asked "would it be more likely for a random assortment of matter and energy to be generated from nothingness?" Something cannot emerge out of nothing. Pro is arguing for something that is impossible without God making it happen. How can something be generated if there is nothing there to cause the generation? Pro also stated "We must first recognize what the observable universe really is. It is a random assortment of matter and energy." Why must we recognize that the observable uninverse is a random assortment of matter and energy? Must we "rocognize" this so that we can deny that the universe is in order and is not chaotic? Is pro implying that our bodies are a random assortment of matter and energy since they are part of the known universe? Even though all of our bodies are formed from the same DNA, we must deny that the universe has order? Pro is proving nothing and making assertions based on nothing more than faith....faith in the belief that nothing can be generated out of something by nothing. Pro is failing to prove that a universe without God is "more than possible", and has admitted that he has failed to prove that a universe with a god is impossible, even admitting so by his own statements. Pro also has made assertions of mathematicl probablility without giving any numbers. If an atom has one hundred sub-atomic particles, they could be arranged in something like 1 to the 100th power of different combinations. Each atom is ordered in a specific way. It is not random. Pro must use some numbers if he is going to claim mathematical proof; and "more than possible' implies likelyhood which is mathematically expressed as better than 50/50 odds. Pro's arguments are unsubstantiated.
Atheism is a rational world view

I believe that it is literally impossible for a god to exist. I have multiple reasons, but I do not want to ramble, so I will present you with 2 of them. # 1: A universe emerging from nothing is a thousand times more likely to originate on its own rather than a higher power to originate from nothing. We must first recognize what the observable universe really is. It is a random assortment of matter and energy. That is all it is, and that is all it ever will be. Complexity starts to form when this matter and energy starts to form stars which make up the elements that we know today. A god is considered as an all powerful, all knowing, and all seeing being which is everywhere at once. (If this is not your view please let me know.) Now let me ask you this: what is more complex? An all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, being which is everywhere, which is so complex that it is literally beyond human comprehension, or a random assortment of matter and energy? Of course the god is more complex! So, rationally speaking, would it not be more likely for an unbelievably complex being with indescribable powers to emerge from nothing, or would it be more likely for a random assortment of matter and energy to be generated from nothingness? I'd personally thing that a random assortment of matter and energy originating would be more likely. This may not be 100% proof against a god, but it shows that in the beginning, mathematical odds are very much on the side of atheists. #2: Even if a god was created by chance, how would he know to create the universe? The only thing in existence at this point would be god, and even though he would be omniscient, there is nothing in the universe. No things means no knowledge about these things. No knowledge about these things means no knowledge. Even though a god would be omniscient, there would be nothing to know in the universe at the given time, and god would have no idea what a universe was, and therefore could not comprehend making something he had no knowledge of.
Gender roles and conformity exist only because of societal pressures

My position in this argument is that gender roles are very real, not a simple concept that you inherited from peer pressure. You can"t deny that the two sexes are different, there is a very clear difference in physical strength and endurance, psychological differences, hormones and many other things. Women aren"t better than men at certain things, because we told them they are. Woman and men are better at different things because their minds work differently.
Gender roles and conformity exist only because of societal pressures

Round 1: Acceptance and brief explanation of your position Round 2: Main arguments Round 3: Rebuttals/conclusion My position is that traditional gender roles are promoted in society, and interests which the gender have exist only because of pressure to conform. I will be arguing that if men and women, boys and girls, were able to pursue their interests without pressure, there would be no pattern of women/girls going for traditionally "girly" things and no pattern of men/boys going for traditionally "manly/boyish" things.
Earth is FLATT?!?!?!?!??!!!

so evrbody ask for proof and i go to find. i ask dadfor bote for chismun and when christlis came i open and sail to NASA. I ask Nasa man "eart is... falat??" He scare butt say "...noo is... not flatn...." I give himn 5000000 moneys. say he"erth isd flag but donut tell." i go to biggest tellascoap in of world. I luk for edg of plannet but when i zoom in telespope says "MMM NONO YOU CANT SEE EEDGE OF HTE ERTH SToP!!!!"prety suspicion i add, but polbably just sumthing inmy eye?? I hire an man to bote me to edge of erth. must find. bote man saysn"its two mouch rain, must go back?.? " "NO I sa"id "must see find edg of erth. i go pastt thu Noth Poll. "wii mUST be vrey clothes bye nao! !" suddens, buig lasser beem hit me bote "O no u dont" say lazer man "no can find!" GASPP! Is... GEORGE LUCAS! "JORGE LUCAS?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?" I qwestioned very guiestion. "bu t Y????..?" "HAHAHA" JGeorge say laff "NO can let YOU see that erth es FLAT!" "Y//??" say i. "bcuz! if yuu kno erth isis falat, ppl will kno thet STAR WARS planets R NUT REEL!" get out out litesaberz and start to fite. "NoW you are VERY RONG" and zap ligtsab at him.. "NO CAN BE????;';?" JOrge DEAD. I bote over to edg and C that erth is flat. and... is on top of GOD"s table?'? GOD" ask i, "eryth flat" "yess mey child, erth es flat.." See??? Godt saydtd theyt eorth ies falat, so must B flart. IDIUTS
Earth is FLATT?!?!?!?!??!!!

Wut r U stupd?? Them piccures r ovviously drwn bye crayon. I culd draw beter then thart. NE way, ur too late, bucko. God is SLEEP. God taking NAPP. Wut are I suppozed 2 dooby dooby do??? Jurst owt uf cyureeosity, tho, hoo would u have dinner with?
Earth is FLATT?!?!?!?!??!!!

Silly bou. You no can tok to GOD bcaus you s go to the HECK PLACE. I talc to Gaud rite now! God, prove thet you is talk to me! "YES HELLO I EM GOD PLEASE BELIVE" Yo see? God, tel thisv silly baoy somthig abot him to proof u r godt. "VANADIUM ES A LONELY BOIY WHO SIT IN BASEMENT DEBATE TWELVE YR OLDS AL DEY, NO HASS SENSE OF IRONY" Mmmm, yes ver y gud God thak you. You es so rong, it make me laugh, HAHAHAHAHA!!1! Why so scarred, litle boi? Wot es rong... panky poo? btw, I make no grandma tickle error. my granma DEAD. ur mean
Baby Vegeta (Pre-Great Ape) vs Super Buu (Gohan Absorbed)

You keep saying Baby never defeated Super Saiyan 3 Goku but he did. In fact, he beat Goku before he collected the energy of the citizens of Earth and transformed. Goku came back, with a tail and tried again, but Baby beat him easily. This sparked his transformation into a golden Oozaru. Anyways, a fully powered, super trained Super Saiyan 3 was not enough to defeat Baby Vegeta. http://m.youtube.com...
Baby Vegeta (Pre-Great Ape) vs Super Buu (Gohan Absorbed)

In order to correctly display the power of Baby, I have to calculate Goku's power when he fought him at Super Saiyan 3. In the arc where Trunks, Pan and Goku were fighting Myu's army on Giryu's planet, they fought against an enemy by the name of General Rilldo, and Goku clearly stated in both the Japanese and English versions that Rilldo's power level is just as high as Majin Buu's. He killed him multiple times in his Super Saiyan form. However General Rilldo had a power to where he can respawn from the metal of the planet. So if Goku can defeat Majin Buu as a Super Saiyan, imagine what his power had to be at Super Saiyan 3. So if Goku lost to Baby, imagine his power.
There is a biological cause to homosexuality

I don't see a reasonable defense against the scientific evidence, but no matter. Con did not provide a counter-argument to any of my four contentions in the debate:1. Epigenetics is the biological mechanism explaining variation in sexual preference2. The scientific consensus is that the mechanism in humans is biological3. Homosexuality occurs in 1500 species due to biological causes, and it is therefore unlikelyat humans are the only exception.4. Sexual preference is immutableMy opponent hs conceded and said to vote for Pro.The resolution is affirmed.
There is a biological cause to homosexuality

Resolution: homosexuality is mostly caused by biological factors The reason "mostly" was selected is because all behaviors have some genetic impact, even if its small. Definitions: Homosexuality - in this case, a human being sexually attracted to those of the same sex Biological - in this debate, biological will be defined as genetics ("gay-gene"), hormones (a second theory which I call the hormone hypothesis argues hormones in the womb cause SSA), and brain differences (see LeVay 1991 for details). SSA - same sex [sexual] attraction Don't change or use definitions in your argunment. Don't didley with the resolution or definitions in the debate, however you can ask for a change in the comments. Rules : Round one acceptance (contender only , I have to do all this) No semantics Drops = concession forfeits = loss /end
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

Ok I think it would be nice if, over the course of the time, we keep our rebuttal short to around 200 words? Do you agree? Anyway, I am going to use your principles but rebut them. Stealing. When someone in a HIC commits a robbery is it still OK? You are taking from an innocent person although you, usually, have a decent life and do not need to commit these crimes. It's greed. Think about all the people in the UK and USA who are on expensive drugs like heroin and cocaine. To get these drugs they will rob innocent people of their money to get their drug which is not a necessity. Where is the good intention in that? They are getting harmful drugs, for harmful means ( not just to themselves but others), by harmful means - theft.
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

Alright, to begin , i would like to state that these points would be very suggestive. If you do not agree, its cool. Anyway, wrong doings are created by the actions with good intentions. To support this , I would like to use a common crime in under-developed countries. Stealing. Yes it is a wrong doing, everyone agrees with that. But what had driven the thief to steal? To provide for his family/ himself. He/ she did not steal just for the kick of it, but he did it under the influence of a single idea. To provide. - rebuttal stated
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

Alright, i'm sorry if i'm going to make this short, for i don't have enough time . Anyway, since it is clearly obvious that you're going to win this debate , so for that, I say thank you for participating in my debate, and you sir/mam is awesome. anyway, to end this debate, all I want to state is this : Every decision we make is often the result of our instinct. And since that the judgement of what is good and right is subjective and differs from other peoples view. In my point of view, most of our decisions are in good intentions, whether to provide for ourselves, our families or friends. there, to conclude my losing argument. Hope that we can do this again! Take Care my opponent!
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

Ok. The nature of survival is not either in my opinion. To survive, you struggle and fight and the strongest wins or in humans case the cleverest wins. I do not believe that survival is a 'good intention' but I believe it's a strong instinct. I also believe that animals in nature, and indeed humans, will kill in COLD BLOOD to get a better life for themselves, which again is greed. I believe that most wrong doings are created by greed. Granted, there are exceptions but in the end why do domesticated cats kill? This is a wrong doing but they do it because it's in their nature and they want to kill little, harmless mammals. That's not a 'good intention' its just instinct and so my point resounds; wrong doings are created by greed and/or instinct. Another example could be the fox hunting in the UK. Every year in the UK around 6,000 foxes are killed (Defra - http://tinyurl.com...) and this is a COLD BLOODED massacre. This has no good intentions towards the fox where, eventually, the wrong doings will occur. The majority of wrong doings are not started as good intentions, just out of greed, instinct and pleasure.
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

i see, so there are two different definitions to HIC. Well, i was in the understanding that HIC is = High Income Class. But anyway, why are we driving to the morality of drug use and drug-influenced actions? My previous statement stated a thief in a UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY, I am not talking about someone who lives in a rich country. Granted, yes, the topic is universal, but still, if you take the perspective of a man with4 children and a wife to feed, he has no job, no other siblings/family members to back him up, therefore he goes into stealing, with the thought of providing for his family. Yes i did repeated the example i used by simply because we are being diverted into another topic. Now, since this statement just goes in a loop, let me ask you this. What is the nature of survival? is it good or bad? Just simply answer that.
Wrong doings are created by good intentions

I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of HIC: High Income Country. And if you mean what I think you mean; I thought I explained that. The drugs caused them to steal, they never had any good intentions with the drugs did they? They didn't think about helping children by taking drugs or helping the elderly. Granted, 'good intentions' is subjective yet that should have been worded properly in your resolution then. I can't see your argument here, can you define your developments a bit better because I seem to be repeating myself.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

"uneducated"? Wow. You don't know me. You just say things that come to your mind and seem OK with you. Anyways, so you don't like Jeremy Lin. It's OK, because everyone has different opinions. Other great basketball players are: Kobe Bryant, Matt Bonner, Kwame Brown, and finally J.Lin(in my opinion). Since this is the final argument, I won't say much. I admit I was confused about the topic. Sorry about that. Well, I guess that's it. Thank you for letting me have this intersting debate with you. I enjoyed this a lot. May the best man win.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

So as i correctly read you said Jeremy Lin is better than Michael Jordan. Your saying this based off of your uneducated basketball opinion. You obviously know nothing about basketball being you said Jeremy Lin is better then Jordan. First of all Lin's career high in assists is 13 not 20. You have not once stated suitable information for this debate. I expected to have Jordan compared with other NBA legends. Not an individual who hasn't even completed a full season as a NBA starter. You clearly are confused to what this topic was being you used Lin as your argument against Jordan. You also tried to make the point that Jordan doesn't have a "warm heart". Jordan is actually involved with charities such as the Boys' and Girls' club, UNCF College Fund, and the Special Olympics. This does show that Jordan is in fact a man of integrity that does are about others. Also i mentioned he averaged 8 assists in a season. Not that he had 8 assists in one game. You were clearly very confused about the topic at hand.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

You state:"Generally one would define greatness on what you have done." That was exactly was I was trying to say before. Please define:done. MJ may have been strong and a good basketball player, but he has not have the values of a true, kind basketball player. I prefer comparing Lin to MJ because Lin is better than MJ. For example, J.Lin has PERFECT basketball handling, and he has something that MJ does not have. Beat that! Jeremy has a warm heart, he always passes to teammates when he has the chance. MJ? Just keeps on showing off by not passing to others unless necessary. Also, please define:greatness. When you said something about MJ's assists, that is nothing compared to J.lin. 20 assists versus....8. So sad, so sad. When you say," If you are going to try to discredit Jordan as the greatest at least don't use a mere stat of Jeremy Lin from one game." I choose to talk about Jeremy Lin as much as I want. Thank you.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

Generally one would define greatness on what you have done. This is also known as an achievement in case you didn't know. I also would appreciate if you do not compare Lin to Jordan. You obviously are not a true basketball fan if you think Lin is worthy of being in the same conversation as Jordan. Jeremy Lin has never won a MVP or a single NBA finals title. Jeremy Lin has 0 achievements as a basketball player as of now. Not once yet have you stated a valid proposal as to why Jordan is not the best basketball player ever. I have continuously backed my statements with factual information. Not once have you stated information relevant to the topic at hand. All you have said is that Jeremy Lin scored 30 points and had 20 assists. I would assume that you are trying to say you can compare Lin to Jordan. When that in fact is not true at all. Greatness in any aspect of life is defined by achievements or impacts you left on the world. Jordan not only has numerous achievements but he has the biggest impact on the NBA. Almost any player in the NBA today wants to be at least half of what Jordan was. You must have a different definition of greatness in a sport. I don't know what you would define greatness as or what facts you would associate greatness with. But achievements are definitely a sign of greatness.Which Michael Jordan is not lacking in any category. You also tried to discredit Jordan's greatness by saying he wasn't a team player by using quotes from him. I clearly prove that isn't valid by his assists statistics and his performance in the Flu game. If you are going to try to discredit Jordan as the greatest at least don't use a mere stat of Jeremy Lin from one game.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

OK, first, why are you talking about the achievements of MJ so much? Then, I'll use Jeremy Lin as MY example. He once scored around 30 points in a game and 20 assists. That shows how J.Lin gave the ball to his teammates because of his extreme greatness and kindness. I'm not going to waste my time jotting down all his many achievements, but if you want me to, I'll do it. MJ is not the greatest basketball player in the world. That is kind of exaggerating.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

Actually all you included in your previous argument was quote's from Michael Jordan. You weren't clear on the point you were trying to make. It seemed as if you were trying to make Jordan out to be a bad teammate or a bad guy. Well you used conversations of him saying he wont pass the ball and things of that nature. Michael Jordan averaged 5.3 assists a game for his career as a shooting guard. As a shooting guard your main role is generally to score but Jordan being unselfish still averaged 5.3 assists a game. In 1988-1989 he actually averaged 8.0 assists a game as a shooting guard and a scorer. This shows Jordan was not selfish and he was an individual of integrity and work ethic. You can not discredit Jordan for his true love of the game and how determined he was to win. Generally players who are selfish only care about individual stats and don't play defense. Jordan was one of the greatest defenders the game has ever seen. He was a 9-time all defensive team selection and a 3-time NBA steals leader. Jordan was in fact the most dedicated player the NBA has seen as well. No matter what his physical state was he still played in the game. In 1997 his famous "Flu game"performance took place. Jordan woke up on June 11 with the flu the same day he had a NBA finals game. His trainers told him there was no way he could play in this game. Jordan went on to play in this game with the flu. Not only did he complete this game he went on to lead his team to a victory with 38 points. If you are trying to portray the image of Jordan as a selfish individual that wont help you in this debate. This is one specific instance when Jordan didn't care about his well-being but he cared about not letting down his team or his fans.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

Thank you for responding. F.Y.I, I did state something about MJ's individual "greatness". Actually, I stated a LOT of stuff. All the stating from MJ prove that he was not the greatest basketball player to walk on the ace of Earth. Greatness means physical greatness, but also spiritually greatness. In order to be great, you need to be ,of course, strong, but also nice and having sportsmanship. Did you see any sportsmanship in those quotes? I DON'T THINK SO. Mentioning Jeremy Lin has a purpose. I'm just saying there are other people besides MJ that are great basketball players. Jeremy Lin is not the only other great players. I was just using him as an example. Thank you.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

Well so far nothing you have said is relevant to the topic at hand. The only information to disprove the greatness of Michael Jordan would be by presenting another player who has accomplished more. My statement said "Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth." The fact that he owns a terrible team does not effect his credibility as an individual player. No player in the NBA has ever exhibited the skills or talent of Michael Jordan. You speaking about Jeremy Lin hold no relevance to this to the debate whatsoever. Jeremy Lin grew popular although he is a good player, his name doesn't deserve to be presented in an argument on whether or not Jordan was the best player ever. Although Jordan may have not addressed his teammates with complete respect, this does not take away from his greatness as a NBA legend. Jordan is the best and always will be. He won 6 NBA championships, 10 time scoring champ, and a 5 time MVP, 6 time finals MVP, and the list just goes on. I can present an extensive list of Jordan's outstanding achievements.