BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is real

WOW!Your arguments are amazing.I kind of had to look hard at them and strain my brain because it was hardcore, flat-out science stuff, and I'm not used to that. Wish you'd "dumbed that down" (so to speak) so I (and other spectators) could understand, but nonetheless, when you break it down, it's solid stuff!!You still haven't disproved God or Christianity though. After all, if one sets aside a few of your points, the contentions in my links remain unscathed. After all, everyone has a rock-solid belief in a god as the default and doesn't become an atheist until external sources make one believe that way. Although it hasn't been explicitly proven, all signs point that way.And how does one explain the Colton Burpo and Tamara LaRoux cases? I await your arguments.
God is real

1) Please tell my why you believe there is no god so I can rebut it.2) Here are some proofs of god:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.patheos.com...;http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.andrewcorbett.net...;These are all rational, logical, scientific, objective reasons why there can be a god. Please explain why none of these are true?3) God exists. My mind will not change until I see evidence. This solid rock of foundation--the etched-in stone concept in out brain, that we don't disbelieve until atheism is introduced through external sources--could plausibly be another bit of evidence.4) Either matter and energy are eternal, or God is eternal. The first one scientifically doesn't make any sense, so clearly there is an eternal sentient Creator behind the matter and energy.5) The Smithsonian says that the Bible's history is "very trustworthy." ‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. ‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.’ http://creation.com...;That is sufficient proof on my side. Now let me read and rebutyour arguments.
Atheism and/or agnosticism is a natural stance

"Take for example a newborn baby. Technically they don't know of the world, or of any deities so you may call them agnostic. They are not born with the belief of a deity, so you may call them atheists. " A newborn baby is not a fully developed human being, with a fully developed human mind. If we are taking about atheism or agnosticism as a natural or default stance for a human being, then we should only consider what the case is for a fully developed human being. A newborn, unlike the fully developed human being, does not even have the capacity to form a belief or a question. However, this does not mean the default stance for human beings as questioning animals, by nature, is atheism or agnosticism. The situation I proposed in round one is more relevant to this discussion: a Crusoe without human contact in the wild. At adulthood, this person will have developed a way of questioning the world, and inevitably come to question the world itself. Unable to find a natural explanation for his existence or the world, he will inevitably resort to supernatural explanations. This is demonstrated by the independent development of religions throughout history in a variety of locations. Using a newborn baby to prove your point ignores the real focus of this discussion: are human beings, when equipped with a real human mind, naturally inclined to hold beliefs in the supernatural, or are they naturally naturalists? "Yes it is true. .. that [humans] would eventually come up with the concept of some sort of god when questioning their existence. However this is only true when the idea is presented before them. " This reasoning cannot explain how concepts of god have arisen in populations isolated from one another throughout history. In fact, it is absurd because it says that a concept of god cannot exist unless a person is presented with the idea. However, if this were true, how would the first concept of god arise? We would have to go infinitely back into history with religions being presented through generations.
Atheism and/or agnosticism is a natural stance

What I am arguing here is that atheism and/or agnosticism is a natural, default stance. Take for example a newborn baby. Technically they don't know of the world, or of any deities so you may call them agnostic. They are not born with the belief of a deity, so you may call them atheists. Also, what about plants, animals, and bacteria. Both babies and animals (I pressume) lack the ability to question their existence or to come up with the concept of a deity. When asked about their religious beliefs they would probably ask 'what's a god? .' You talk about humans. Yes it is true that humans are by nature curious, and that they would eventually come up with the concept of some sort of god when questioning their existence. However this is only true when the idea is presented before them. By default without knowledge of a god they would be agnostic, and with lack of a god they would be atheists. I apologize for my very short response as I have had limited time on my hands. To summarize my argument, though humans may naturally obtain religious beliefs, that is only because we are highly sensitive and intelligent. Things that do not match our intellect are natural agnostics or atheists. I will advance my arguments next round.
Atheism and/or agnosticism is a natural stance

Once again, thanks to my opponent for posing this interesting question. I think if the resolution had been developed a little more, then the discussion might have been really great. I accepted so that I could make reference to my friend Michael Shermer and my favorite magazine Scientific American. Lastly, I apologize for writing "Conduct (-1)", but there should be rules regarding participants unable to keep the discussion going. In conclusion, I don't understand how the resolution could be interpreted as applying to all life. The question is only applicable to the human mind, for only the human mind is known to think about these matters. Since the resolution cannot apply to anything else but human life, I urge the voter to vote CON.
Atheism and/or agnosticism is a natural stance

"Conduct (-1)" I know I deserve it. -_- Now, to rebut your arguments. "A newborn baby is not a fully developed human being, with a fully developed human mind. If we are taking about atheism or agnosticism as a natural or default stance for a human being, then we should only consider what the case is for a fully developed human being. A newborn, unlike the fully developed human being, does not even have the capacity to form a belief or a question. However, this does not mean the default stance for human beings as questioning animals, by nature, is atheism or agnosticism." Your arguments are valid, but the only consider human beings. Concepts of deities only come from beings with extremely sensitive nature (human beings of course). Intelligence isn't a default stance; ignorance is a default stance. Plants, animals, bacteria, rocks, and air can all be considered by default agnostic/atheist. Perhaps I should have done my homework before this debate. Sorry for letting you down man. You can have this win. Vote for my opponent. Thank you.
Legalization of street racing

"It is true that a car could pull out from a side street but, all of the streets we race on are over a mile long that way we can see other cars coming and it gives us time to slow down after the race. " If this is true, how come accidents in street racing have occurred in the past? Why have people been killed crossing the road or pulling out from side streets? "Isn't it everyone responsibility to be watching out for other drivers on the road no matter what the speed? Excessive speeding does reduce accidents. " No, it's not someone's responsibility to look at for people travelling 150mph on a 50mph road, they rightfully assume that the person coming is doing the reasonable speed limit. Also higher speed does not lower accident levels, better driver training does. The lower accident rate on some of germany's high speed roads stems from their excellent driver training rather anything else. "I talk to most of them and guess what there doing now instead of working like they used to do. they are selling drugs and making them" Then your friends are idiots and shows how much regard these people have for society, that still doesn't answer the question of why should the general population be subject to increase dangers and inconvenience of street racing to satisfy your thrill seeking. "The legalization of street racing will reduce the number of accidents and the crime rate" Incorrect and you offer no evidence to support this. "Because they aren't intended for regular driving. " Some cars are angled towards sports, and this is simply smart marketing to try and get people like you to buy them. It's a way for manufacturers to make more money, not an excuse to drive like a maniac. "Would it be better if all street racers got their professional racing license before they started street racing? " I'm for any driver training, but it would be better if they simply did not do it at all. My opponent has tried to link together legalising street racing in an effort to lower crime rates and fatalities on the road. He believes by simply letting people go faster it will somehow make things safer drawing false links to places like Germany where other aspects such as driver training are responsible for their safety then speed itself. My opponent has also constantly failed to adequately answer the question of why people should be at risk for drivers travelling at higher speed, and inconvenience of roads closed off simply to satisfy their thrill seeking.
Legalization of street racing

It is true that a car could pull out from a side street but, all of the streets we race on are over a mile long that way we can see other cars coming and it gives us time to slow down after the race. Isn't it everyone responsibility to be watching out for other drivers on the road no matter what the speed? Excessive speeding does reduce accidents. Take the autobahn for example in Germany, there are no speed limits and yet it remains one of the safest roads in the world. A few of my friends lost their jobs a few months ago along with about 30 other people they worked with. I talk to most of them and guess what there doing now instead of working like they used to do. they are selling drugs and making them. The same thing will happen if they don't legalize street racing. That was just 30 people now imagine hundreds of thousands of people. The legalization of street racing will reduce the number of accidents and the crime rate but, people are to afraid to trust someone else on the road that isn't afraid to speed and drive the vehicle the way it was intended to be driven. People think that cars were intended to be driven for transportation. then why aren't their any governors on the cars so we cant speed? Why do they come with more horse power and upgraded suspension from the factory? Why are they coming with racing seats? Because they aren't intended for regular driving. They know people are going to race them that's why they build their cars like that. Every champion chip race car driver had to start somewhere and that somewhere was the street races. That's how NASCAR was started. They built their cars to out run the cops when they were selling drugs and moon shine. Would it be better if all street racers got their professional racing license before they started street racing?
Legalization of street racing

A street is not a controlled environment. Someone could easily pull out of a side street onto the main road, and it's not up to them to judge if the headlights that are coming at them are travelling at the posted 50mph speed or the ridiculous 150mph. This is what causes accidents and deaths. My opponent, apart from his love of the sport has failed to show any just cause as to why it should be legalised. His points summarised are "Because I want to do it", "Because we don't have a chance to do it anywhere else" and drawing strange comparisons to the legalisation of street racing and the decline of crimes such as rape. My opponent as also failed to show any evidence backing up any of his claims for the benefits of street racing. Essentially, my opponent has no addressed why these benefits of his outweigh the increased risk of death and inconvenience to the majority of the population who simply wish to use the roads as intended, for transport. As a result, I think street racing should remain illegal.
Legalization of street racing

My opponent is right that I did not give any reasons why it should be legal. The roads are public roads paid for by every one's tax's. We should be able to race on them as long as no one is on the road and everyone knows what is going on around then. And isn't "know your surrounding's and check your mirrors and pay attention to other drivers" taught even before u take your written test? I grantee you that if there wasn't street racing then there would be more drunk drivers, way more, because then they wouldn't have anything else to do but drink and get drunk. Everyone speeds you can say that you don't but everyone does. Would u rather have a person driving that doesn't know what there doing, how fast there going, or knows what the vehicle is doing? Or, would you rather have someone who knows what there doing where there going and who is on the road? I know there are race tracks to race on but, most of the year they are closed to the public. Most of the people that I know love to go out to the races and have a good time. I've talked to a lot of racers and they all agree that if they make it legal on Saturday nights then they would stop racing on the streets during the day. Everyone that goes out there and races, even the people that watch know what can happen. And, if they make it legal then the state and county's will save money because they don't have to go out and set up all of these road blocks that they just go around. Me personally, I'm tired of being harassed by the cops. I got pulled over for not having my front license plate. Then he said pop your hood so I did, and he started taking pictures of my car saying that I was profiled as a street racer and yet they never caught me or seen me at the races before. If it was legal then there wouldn't be any hostility toward the police by the racers and it would also make their jobs more safe. A few weeks ago there was a story on the news that a 14yr old girl got shot by a cop at the street races. He said that he was aiming at the driver. How do u aim at the driver ant hit the passenger when the car is only going 5 to 10 mph? If they did make it legal then there would me less deaths from street racing because the only time that there is a real threat is when the cop's get there. Then its like throwing a rock at a bee hive everyone scatters, but if the cop's don't get there then they just race until it gets too late and everyone goes home calm and safely. I go out there every Saturday night and in the last 6yrs I've only seen 2 accidents and that was when the cop's got there. (They were just a few scratches on the paint and a few dents) If it was legal then that wouldn't have happened.
Legalization of street racing

My opponent has not presented reasons as to why street racing should be legal. He has said why he believes that the punishment for street racing is too harsh, based solely on death count, but not why it should be legal. I'll put my case simply. Street racing should be illegal simply because it is dangerous. Similar to speeding it may not lead to death on many occasions, however it's not required on our roads and offers no practical benefit for transport which is what our roads are designed for. I doubt my opponent can show that street racing is safer than normal driving, so while he can argue the current severity of the punishment all he wants, it doesn't change the fact it should be illegal.
Legalization of street racing

Every year drunk driving kills more people in the u.s than street racing and yet, the fines and penalties are harder on street racers. Drunk driving kills an estamated 144,000 people a year. Street racing kills an estamated 50 people for every 1,000 that attend street racing. Say a guy gets pulled over for drunk driving right, all he will get is 1 night in jail maby 3 and his licens suspended for a few months plus a little fine. ok, now say a guy gets pulled over for street racing or sucpected of street racing. he gets his car automaticaly impounded, his licens suspended, up to 6 months in jail plus court costs, the fines, penalties, court cots, impound fees and, towing fees will exceed $9,000. Ive heard reports on the news of people getting hit by street racers crossing the street at 1 or 3 in the morning. im not trying to be messed up but, what the heck are they doing on the street at 1 or 3 in the morning? And common sence tells u that when u hear a car halling as eather with a loud exaust or open headders to get the heck out of the road not stand there in the middle of the freaken street and go "aww look at the pretty lights and the loud noise". You would have to be deff and blind not to see or hear then. Ive been going to the street races for about 6 years now every saturday night and not one accedent happend where someone has got killed or injured. Im not saying that it cant happen because it can. Everyone that goes to the street races is aware of what will or could happen. Cops are just mad because we can build our cars to go faster than theirs. not to mention that there giving us tickets left and right for modified parts, but what about the cop cars? They dont have cats, they are tuned, and they dont have the factort intake system on them so why should we have to have them? Isnt that considered for OFF ROAD USE ONLY!!!
Feminism

I'm all for feminism if you're talking about the fundamentals. Which is the belief that both genders should be equal. Which sounds great and all but modern day feminism, in my opinion, is just something used to give women an advantage and antagonize men. When I ask most modern feminist, "name one thing a male can do but you can't" they can't say anything because there really isn't. (At least in the U.S.) If anything men have a disadvantage nowadays. I will list a few -Men pay 97% of Alimony -Men lose custody in 84% of divorces. -77% of homicide victims are men. -89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime. -Men are over twice as victimised by strangers as women. -Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women. -Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime. -Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias. -Males are discriminated against in school and University. -Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls. -60-80% of the homeless are men. -At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud. -One-third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children, most are expected to pay for this. -40-70% of domestic violence is against men, however, less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men. -Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women All these statements come from a website called http://www.realsexism.com... . This website compiles all sources from various places which support each of my examples. I have looked through all of them myself. For example in my first example about alimony, the U.S. census bureau found that only 3% of men received alimony in 2010. Now if you ask me that sounds like an awful amount of disturbing disadvantages. Which you don't hear feminists talk about or protest about. But what you do hear is them talking about the wage gap. Which has actually been debunked, I could explain later if you want. So my point is that modern-day feminism is just a load of bull. As all they focus on is benefiting women. I feel that if they really cared about equality they would fly to the middle east and do something about sexism there. All I see is a bunch of women complaining about how their life is so hard and they need handouts from the government.
Christianity is the truth

As the Con said, one of the beliefs was that God exists, so why wouldn't those points be irrevalant to the topic? And I will procede with my argument. God, sent his one and only son, Jesus, to come and die for our sins. The Bible says that the punishment of sin is death. And that was exactly what Jesus Christ did. Die. And there was records of Jesus Christ being tortured, and killed; how he was killed, and when he came back from the dead. Death and sin had lost it's sting. Why do we still die then? It's because we still have sin in are hearts. But we don't have to sacrifice anything. The ultimate sacrifice was there. I rest my case.
Christianity is the truth

Before presenting my arguments, I will briefly outline the framework for this debate, alongside the burden of proof. Due to the philosophic nature of this topic (and the stance that I have taken), it is impossible to argue against the resolution that Christianity is the truth. Rather, to successfully negate this topic, I am only required to defend the status quo. Thus, the burden of proof is on the Pro, while my job as the Con is to simply negate the arguments made by the Pro.In order to win the debate, the Pro must prove that every tenant or major aspect of belief in the Christian faith is true. This includes the following:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.2) This God created the universe and everything in it3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againAlthough there are more beliefs to the Christian faith, I will limit the debate to the following four, unless my opponent has a problem with this. The Pro must prove that every single one of these four things is true. If the Pro fails to prove even one, the Con must win the round.In order to prove that any of the four propositions that I listed are true, the Pro may use logic (popular arguments or syllogisms) or evidence. Personal testimonies and opinions DO NOT count as evidence.With that being said, I will now address the contentions that my opponent has given me.The first argument the Pro gives me can be summed up as such: "The Titanic was a tough ship that sank. Thus, God exists"With this argument, the Pro fails to fit his own debate topic: "Christianity is the truth". This debate isn't about proving that a god exists, it's about proving that the Christian God exists. Thus, I don't even need to respond to this as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.The second argument that the Pro gives me can be summed up as such: "A car full of people got into a terrible car crash, but the eggs in the trunk were not cracked. Thus, God exists".Not only does this argument (again) fail to address the topic of the debate which the Pro set, but it isn't even an argument. This is simply a story that the Pro gives which cannot even be verified to be true. And even if it were true, it still doesn't prove anything. Thus, I am not required to address it.Given my arguments against the Pro's points, the status quo still stands. For this reason, I negate.Your move, Pro.