BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

Your stupidity is astounding. Arrogance is the only infinite thing in the universe well that's according to you. That's why christian prison shell shocks like you are born yesterday. The sun does shine brighter where you can't breathe. In your previous argument you mentioned a lot on Charles Darwin and you do realize that evolution is taking place right here and right now gosh golly gee gosh darn it all so therefore it's an absolute fact. Now you go right ahead and you look up "superbug". 1. A pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. "Has developed" means evolution buddy boy. And you mentioned the "atheist god"oh that's a good one do try harder please in the next infinite Universe and invent better excuses please because all christians like you do because you do not know any better as you twiddle your thumbs between your cabbage batbrain as there's no such thing as an atheist god after all atheists don't even have a book to base anything on so how can atheists have a God to believe in which is the very definition of atheism. Atheists don't believe in a god. Your excuses are like a nun's pep rally. Then you stay everything must be assumed to be false. Eeeeeedhhhtttt bbzzztttttt wrong, not if it's a mathematical equation. 2 2 will always equal 4 no matter which language you speak. Your christian god can always be proven false no matter which language you speak. Now here's something you don't get.. Any good scientist at any good atheist will always say "I don't know". Those are terrorists words to christians because dare their god not be perfect of course not. And the christian Solution to something is "therefore god must have done it." That in no way is scientific.
You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

I only read your first two sentences to realize that I didn't need to read anything else as I am not lost, you are. The only thing that you have to base your god and christianity on is your bible. PERIOD. And your bible has been proven false in every single way possible. Therefore you are wrong and nothing else needs to be stated. But I will... You can't have something leap off the page just because you want it to and thus be true because you want it to. that's ridiculous. It's also quite insane. You can't have an unproven story come true just because you want it to. Also the only thing that you have as far as your bible is concerned is faith. And faith is not scientific. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is a reason people give when they don't have evidence. After all faith is what religion is for every single god. So prove every single god wrong and every single religion wrong. You can't do it. So again your god is not scientific especially when you cannot even prove that he even exists. And it is up to you to prove that he does. So how on Earth are you and your bible being scientific to absolutely know that you are lost? Again I only needed to read your first two sentences.
You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

Every scientific fact that is found throughout the Bible is backed up by modern day science and has lasted through almost two thousand years of scrutiny even though that wasn't its intent. Keep in mind what that implies, the Bible which is for our conversation, a collection of historical events, in effect is a history text book covering from the creation all the way to the redemption of the universe, written by 40 different guys over hundreds of years and in it are today's most controversial scientific questions and no errors can be found. Would you expect your history textbook to teach you chemistry or physics? Despite this by looking into the work of many modern biblical scientists you'll find that where scientific ideas are present, those ideas more often than naught explain the world we live in better than many modern scientific theories.
You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

"Your arrogance is astounding. In fact it may be the only infinite thing that we can observe in our universe." Wow. I don't take statements out of context, you, like your bible and god of print only cannot speak clearly - choirboys spewed ashes. Now how am I supposed to take that seriously? Of course I've been willing because it's so amazing laughable and stupid. Civil debate? When you invent excuses or something in which you clearly know nothing about and have no knowledge upon and claim is your strong suit, namely christianity, and because you have to fumble and tumble your way through it and thus pretend that you do, namely the typical christian that you knowingly are, but in fact nobody is by the very definition of what christ has said in the bible, you stand at a complete loss. This is something that you will learn in college. And if you do that type of crap to your teachers it will immediately be an instant f. And if you do that type of crap to your friends and loved ones you will soon have no friends and loved ones. Try it. The superbug proves evolution. It is in absolutely no possible way proves cristianity because it has evolved beyond your god's original creation of imperfection. And once again you cannot even prove your god even exists. Wow. But I am glad that you mentioned nobody knows because nobody does know. But see christians in their rotting domains, claim that they do know or at least they are supposed to know. That's what the bible is for and it is according to christians that they cannot be proven wrong. After all that is what they're bible is for. And that is what their god is for. Dare the christian god ever be proven wrong and imperfect? Of course not. And yet in the Bible he constantly is what a joke. But here you come along and claiming you are christian which is indeed a load of concocted BS because nobody is a true christian and you decide to go it alone and do your whatever's because you feel like it. And gee how many o-called christians will flat out funk you and disagree with you because you cannot agree with them as you falls down the stairs all the time and you have a log attached to your brain. Now if you wish to find out about what a true atheist is, no problem all you got to do is simply right here on your debate, because I don't feel like making any efforts because there's no need is look at your comments section, and scroll on down to the third comment and wah lah bingo there's a video of what an atheist is and it's irrefutable no matter how many invented excuses you come up with and flat-out lies you come up with. Now you have come up with a lot of things that are scientific. But what on earth does that have to do with christianity? I mean so what especially when you cannot prove your god. And especially when you cannot get a good translation of your B bumblinge and interpret it correctly.
Ronda Rousey Could Beath Floyd Mayweather in a MMA Fight

Since my opponent forfeited the round, I am just going to list a few points on this pretty obvious issue. Mayweather is 46-0 in his professional boxing career, with 26 knockouts. Rousey has fought in just 10 professional MMA fights. Maywheather is a male. Rousey is a female. Men world records in every track and field and weight lifting events are considerably better than women's. Maywheather would have 6 inches of reach and 20 pounds on Rousey. Maywheather is also undefeated in his WWE career. Maywheather is the greatest fighter in the world today, and you want to debate that an unexperienced female could beat him. I find that to be just a complete joke. Thanks for the easy win in this debate.
Targeted Killings

Ok, what you think is completely irrelevant, I need facts!!! which sources did you get this from? It is not illegal it is in self defense that we use this method of elimination. And Israel uses it in self defense too, if the Israelis did not use targeted killings they would almost definitely be overrun by the enemies that surround them on all sides, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It is not immoral if you are going back on your faith, the real Ten Commandments say, "thou shalt not MURDER." not kill but unjustly kill. we can Kill in self defense of our country and our Allies! and if it was immoral to kill all our armed forces would be sinning. They're defending their country!!!!
Targeted Killings

Targeted Killings are an effective method of eliminating dangerous individuals. The United States adopted targeted killings as a method of retaliation on those responsible for the events of 9/11. Other countries, like Israel, have been using targeted killings as means to defend itself from other countries such as Egypt, Jordan, And Pakistan. Israel's forces have succeded in eliminating many dangerous individuals that were a threat to there national safety.... what do you think
Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks any of this deserves rules when all you did was copy and paste sources like a sheep who cannot think for themselves can. That's all you people do. You're stupid - you don't think. You take this ignorance of yours, drum up something absurd, then look for other people's ideas similar to yours and call it an argument. It's pitiful - it really, really, is. You clearly did not understand my response if you think I do not know that peptides are built on amino acids. Looking back at what I said, I have no idea how you got that impression - then again, I do not have a rotten brain built on hearsay either. They are not the scientific community. Especially when one of them allegedly became theist after giving up on what is allegedly not their own lack of understanding of how amino acids are produced. They must be children to think they can recreate amino acids like the Universe - no wait, they definitely are by blaming their tools and not themselves. I am a genius. I have a right to go beyond modern stupidity and laziness in studies. Today's science is not the same science as it was when it was philosophically driven and verily wise. The amino acids behave on a larger scale - I see nothing in their studies which suggest they used this idea to better understand the amino acids, no - they put the Universe's apparatuses together like a child puts sticks and glue together and wonder why it breaks apart while the entire planet stays together, floating in space while it is at it. You addressed nothing. Your entire "argument" is built on your own stupidity. You know nothing of any of this. You're just another kid that never grew up, read one thing and guarded it like a sick dog. Repeatedly failed means nothing - has no relevance to your positing and your lack of understanding is more than enough to prove that you know nothing of this - you do not think - you regurgitate anything that remotely foreshadows your "ideas". If you want the peptide to not break, try actually understanding the Universe first. There's a relationship between acid, water and bacteria. I can figure this out without being in a lab - you're all just laughable.
Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

"Evolutionists today are still searching for the answer which Kenyon gave up looking for long ago when he became a theist." And this is the sentence that automatically and simply allows me to say "you're too ignorant to understand the Universe". Did it ever occur to you that trying to create what the Universe creates was futile without full knowledge of the Universe's system of processes? The acid breaks because it's missing something - the Universe is not missing anything, hence it created them. What could possibly be allowing such amino acids to replicate normally without breaking part in the Universe, but then break apart in human hands? It couldn't be because humans are naive and ignorant compared to the Universe. Well let's look at the failing conditions: Amino acids remove water upon formation, yet the Earth came from water. What could possibly cause this to occur? Well for starters, the human's proneness to error. What other possibilities? Well, amino acids contain a core which is carbon - there is a relationship between oxygen and carbon; there's also a relationship between water and acid. The reason why the amino acid causes water to be removed for humans would perhaps be the cause of lacking bacteria to build a wall between the acid and the water. The acid is stronger than water, so water will die if the acid takes over, which causes the entire reaction to defeat itself. Yes, bacteria is designed to build walls between water and acid. If their experiment did not include bacteria, then that's why it failed. Finally, Saying "highly unlikely to form in the ocean" is really just ignoring the fact "I don't know what I'm talking about in the first place" - the entire planet we live on was all water at one time. Amino acids had to have existed in water - the experiments simply lead people to believe that the water was at fault, not the people doing the experiment. The acid took over the water because it did not have bacteria sustaining it. The way amino acids behave can be scaled up to how the animal body and human body behaves. The amino acids are easily broken down when exposed to simple things like sunlight, oxygen and time. This here demonstrates their stupidity truly. How does one miss this? First they say "the amino acids could not have possibly thrived in water", when Earth was all water at some point - then they say "they are easily broken down when exposed to sunlight, oxygen and time", when the Universe's version of amino acids do not face the same problem, therefore it's not the amino acids; it's the arrogance of these people believing everything else besides their own error and failure as a tester. Non-intelligent people should never speak of intelligence every again - period. Everything else is basically everything I know without saying "there's a god" - no, there's a Universe that's "becoming". It's not "being", hence it's an unfinished design - bacteria are as naive and young as we are along with this planet we thrive off of.
Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

The plants, the insects, the bacteria, the amoebas are far more advanced and intelligent than human beings at times because of how stupid people are now. If you don't think matter is intelligent, when it got to this point from just being this swirling cloud called dark matter; and is the reason why we are intelligent ourselves, then you simply do not know what true intelligence is. You just want your ego to make up some "god" with intelligence because you're too naive to understand that this Universe is not a "being"; it's "becoming".
Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. Pro must show that the most likely origin for the first life on earth to be an intelligent source. Con must show that the most likely origin for the first life on earth to be a non-intelligent source. Round 1 will be acceptance. Round 2 will be opening arguments. Round 3 will be rebuttals to opening arguments. Round 4 will be rebuttals to round 3 rebuttals. Round 5 will be for any closing statements.
Pixar is better than Dreamworks.

Pixar is better than Dreamworks. WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE ANIMATION PART OF DREAMWORKS. A. It's movies can make you cry at the right moments. B. All of Pixar's movs have been hits! Dreamworks has only made a few really good ones. C. Dreamworks has stolen ideas upoming Pixar movies so that they can come out with similar movies when Pixar does. (this is from the book about Steve Jobs. It said that Dreamworks was working on rince of Egypt and they called Pixar and said that if they released 'A Bug's Life' at a different time so as not to be around the release of Prinof Egypt, they would not make the movie 'ANTZ' Pixar turned them down and ever since then Dreamworks has stolen their ideas.
Pixar is better than Dreamworks.

Thank you for appreciating my work! I understand your point! But I don`t know as for me it is obvious that all cartoons of DreamWorks are memorable and exciting. Again I can repeat It, but not! There is a problem for me that If you want to evaluate movies how they are themselves. I think this is impossible. They are absolutely in two different genres. As I mentioned above, Pixar loves touching with the deep meaning cartooons and DreamWorks always create funny and comedy cartoons, which I mostly like. How many people are, so many opinions. If you are about cartoons). Maybe you mean quality of the cartoons????
Pixar is better than Dreamworks.

First off, I must say that you did well, but now wish to correct myself about what exactly we are debating. I would not want to debate how well the companies are doing. That is unfair in many aspects. I want to debate how good the movies are that the companies produce. Now, I said that DreamWorks copied only because copying others' ideas seems like cheating. To debate what you have said: The Toy Story franchise is smaller, yet brought in more money than Shrek. Also, I doubt anyone would say I was wrong in the thought that Shrek went downhill after the second movie. I am debating this, not because I doubt Pixar's superiority, but because there are those that believe otherwise.
Pixar is better than Dreamworks.

Ok! Let`s start! First of all, I want to bring clarity in our debate that we should take into account when these two companies were created: Pixar was found in 1986 and DreamWorks was found in 1994. The data of creating these companies is the factor of not little importance in the way or history of their success. Pixar, having a lot of time to create more awesome amazing cartoons, are perceived on the same level of fame and success as Dreamworks, which can be considered as young company. (This argument is proved by my opponent, because if and only if DreamWorks wasn`t good as Pixar, right now we wouldn`t need this debate to prove that Pixar is better, but now it is obvious that Pixar reputation shattered.) Secondly, now it is modern generation, who needs modern culture, art, fashion, entertainment, generally, they are shiny and need somethinhg new. And DreamWorks gives it to them. Almost all of their cartoons were succesfully accepted by the audience. You can`t deny that DreamWorks always surprises, their cartoons differ from each other greatly. Let I remind you movies like "How to train your dragon?", Monster vs. Aliens, "Bee movie", Kung fu Panda, Megamind, e.t.c. and these series of two great cartoons "Madagascar" and "Shrek ". Their Shrek series is one of the biggest box franchises ever. Shrek 2 is the highest grossing animated movie ever when looking at adjusted for inflation box office numbers. What about your argument, well, as i mentioned above, Dreamworks` scenarios always rely on positive emotions, I mean they always bring smile and laughter, their intended goal is like making us happy. ANd Pixar is another one, which scenario is already predestined, i think evrybody will agree that they have definite rule in the middle of cartoon is moving the audience to tears! As for me it is already not interesting! BUt it is only my opinion in this case, because I don`t know maybe other people love such kind of touching moments. That`s why I think it is not argument to prove that Pixar is better. About copying moment that DreamWorks are copying, my dear opponent, it is a business, where survive the strongest and craftiest. And, all in all, it is subjective opinion, even if it is true we don`t know exactly! To sum up, I want to add that to survive through such bankruptcy is not in the power of every organization! Only the strongest and extraordinary company with the full of new ideas can do it! And It is DreamWorks!
Universal Basic Income

Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;
Resolved: Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism Exists

I know thats confusing so let me spell out the definitions to clarify. Racism: Discrimination against a person or racial group in a society by an individual, a group, or by a law because of the color of one's skin or ethnicityReverse Racism: Discrimination against a person of the majority race caused by a law meant to protect a person of a minority race from discrimination/racismReverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination against a person who is a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of the majority from being discriminated against by another law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racismReverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination against a person of a racial majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racismReverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination of a person who is a minority caused by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racismReverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism: Discrimination of a person who is a part of a racial majority caused by a law meant to protect a person of a minority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated against by a law meant to protect a minority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a person of a majority from being discriminated by a law meant to protect a minority from discrimination/racismGlad that clears it up.
Resolved: Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism Exists

Con has never done this before; perfection and experience is gained through time and practice. It is not an inner trait. "No matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who are left out or discriminated against by those anti-discrimination laws. And if you correct it by passing another law to counter the first law, then people will still be left out and discriminated against." I am well aware of anti-discrimination laws; at no point did I dispute the existence of such laws. However, my point is to ask for proof of such a law. A backing for the stated opinion. I have no need to fully back my argument because the pro has yet to back their argument. "Well thats just your opinion then isnt it?" It is a debate. Opinion is integral to debate, as are facts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) major discrimination against ethnicity, religion, and gender. Noted, MAJOR discrimination. Which could lead in to the pro's argument. However, after this act cases were settled individually using precedent cases all of which must follow the same guidelines. Is the pro going to back their argument and give me something to oppose, or just continue with meaningless chatter concerning half-lives and the levels of racism and its applications in nondiscriminatory laws?