BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists are fools

Okay, let's do this. 1 round debates FTW!Dictionary.com[1] has two different, applicable definitions for the word 'fool'.Definition number 1: a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.This is false. No court jester's exist any more (there modern counterparts being stand-up comedians). And since there are Christian stand-up comedians, then this point falls.Definition number 2: a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.Lolz @ this picture, perfect definition of what a Christian looks like.Next, he tries to take a quote from the Bible to illustrate how atheists must be fools, but this quote doesn't give him any sort of offense in this round for a few reasons;1. It presupposes the existence of God, making it unacceptable evidence for this debate. 2. It's impossible for us to say something in our hearts, as the heart has no capabilities for speech. We can't even THINK something in our heart, as our heart lacks the capabilities for thought. So this quote is absolute babbeling nonsense.With his sole sentance torn apart, I have clearly shown that Atheists are not fools, but rather the definitions for fools better meet Christians than Atheists. Obvious win for con is obvious.
Science is a witchcraft

Science is a witchcraft I was always impressed with scientists And how their magic makes cars move How their magic makes planes fly How their logic tells me that Molesting children is wrong I never believed in witchcraft I never believed in science Maybe you can make planes fly But you cannot stop me You cannot stop me from molesting children Your magic doesn't work on me I am a soldier of God When you cast your magic upon me It just bounces back I am commanded by my Lord Your magic is useless It will never stop me from molesting children You can make planes fly And you can make cars move But you are yet to invent a way To stop me from molesting children In the school I was taught about your witchcraft I was taught about it's powers I wasn't fooled by it, I didn't give it a way in my heart Your witchcraft may make planes fly But it cannot stop a soldier of God
Nursery Rhymes have Sick Meanings

I will be looking at 5 different nursery rhymes and I'll show you that inside of them are terrible meanings. Exhibit 1: Humpty DumptyHumpty Dumpty sat on a wall,Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,All the King's Horses and all the King's menCouldn't put Humpty together again. Most people look at this rhyme and remember the egg in a story book they’ve read but in looking at the real context of this rhyme we realize that Humpty Dumpty dates back to the Civil War. Humpty Dumpty is a rhyme showing how a cannon named Humpty fell during the war and because there was no time it wasn’t put back together. Exhibit 2: Ring Around The RosieRing around the rosyA pocketful of posies"Ashes, Ashes"We all fall down! This rhyme dates back to the Great Plague. The symptoms included a rosy rash, which inspired the first line. It was believed that the disease was carried by bad smells, so people frequently carried pockets full of fresh petals. The "ashes, ashes" line is believed to refer to the cremation of the bodies. Exhibit 3: Baa Baa Black SheepBaa baa black sheep,Have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir,Three bags full. One for the Master, One for the Dame,And none for the little boy, who cries down the lane. The song is not about sheep, or little boys. King Edward I knew that he could make some decent cash by taxing the sheep farmers. Because of the new taxes, one third of the price of a sack of wool went to the king, one third to the church and the last third to the farmer. Nothing was left for the shepherd boy, crying down the lane. Exhibit 4: Mary, Mary, quite contraryMary, Mary quite contrary,How does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockle shellsAnd pretty maids all in a row This rhyme is a reference to Queen Mary the 1. The garden refers to growing cemeteries, as she filled them with the Protestants she killed. Silver bells and cockle shells were instruments of torture and the maiden was a device used to behead people. Exhibit 5: For want of a nailFor want of a nail the shoe was lostFor want of a shoe the horse was lostFor want of a horse the rider was lostFor want of a rider the battle was lostFor want of a battle the kingdom was lostAnd all for the want of a horseshoe nail This rhyme shows that if you don’t have basic necessities in life it will lead to terrible consequences. Through the past 5 rhymes I have shown that innocent sounding rhymes actually have sick and terrible meanings.
Nursery Rhymes have Sick Meanings

“it is true that Nursery Rhymes have sick meanings” This debate has been on the fact that nursery rhymes have sick meanings. Because con has conceded the fact that nursery rhymes do indeed have sick meanings I deserve the win of this debate. “it doesn't imply that they have the same meaning as they did at the time of their inspiration.” No, it doesn’t, but they still have the meanings.
Cubing Debate

Hello everyone, and welcome to DDO's first cubing debate! In this debate, we will post a video each round solving a cube. The goal is not to be the fastest, but most impressive. Judges, vote bomb whoever's videos were more impressive to you overall. This means regular solves of complex puzzles, fast solves, one handed solves, or even blind folded should be a contributing factor to how you vote. The only rule is, each cuber may only use a puzzle once. For example, we can both use a megaminx, but I can't use a megaminx twice. I'll start it off with a simple Pyraminx solve. http://www.youtube.com...
Post Nuclear War Survival

This is an unusual and excellent debate, and thanks a lot for making it. 1. James Stanley - Pros - He's on good health, he knows a lot about modern agriculture which is very important, he can reproduce, He's of superior intelligence. As a bonus he has some college education. Furthermore he also has a child, so he would be best suited to raise that child. Furthermore sending the child to his death would cause problems with the father, sending the father to his death would cause problems with the son. Best to keep them together. 2. Janie Stanley - Janie has a good father, is of "very superior" intelligence, is in excellent condition, and will be able to produce for years to come. While she doesn't have the knowledge that some do, basic 8th grade knowledge is sometimes a lost art on many who haven't been in school for a number of years 3. Martha Gray - prime and ready for mating, has a genius IQ so children will be born with bearing higher intelligence. Has experience teaching which will come important as she can teach new children. Also has a cultural background in music that could be lost/forgotten. Also has a son that she can mother and take care of. 4. William Gray - he may only be 8 years old but he has good health, and is of a genius IQ, plus he knows how to read and write. Also he's only 8 years old but he has the education of a 11-12 year old. With this apparent appetite for knowledge he can easily excel in the new world and learn things faster than others. He is also young and will be able to reproduce for a much longer time than the others. Plus he has a smart mother. 5. Michelle Patterson, she's of average intelligence, in decent shape, and is able to reproduce for a very long time. Reproductive capabilities are extremely important starting out. She's also a female, and you can have one man for many females. 6. Wanda Brice, she's a genius, in good shape, has a track record of helping people with problems and always knows how to clear up any fight. A real key asset to any team. Also she can still reproduce for a year if she's average possibly more. Yeah we might only get one kid out of her, but he should be very intelligent and mirror some of the traits of his mother. The average age for menopause is age 51 7. Me - I'm a male, I'm of very superior intelligence, I obviously have the charisma skills to lead this group. I inspire hope in the group, and can reproduce for a long time. MVP - If I had to choose one I would choose myself. There's obviously something about me that causes people to unite around me. I'm young and can lead for a very long time. I have great physical strength which will be very important as some tasks will require a lot of muscle. The one who is least able: John Davis the last person I would want surviving a nuclear holocaust is someone who has knowledge of building a nuclear bomb. Perhaps he lost some family members in the fight and wants to build one to attack his enemies. Knowledge of how to build this weapon is something I cannot afford to have in the new world.
Post Nuclear War Survival

1. James Stanley - M - 43 - 112 2. Janie Stanley - F - 13 - 120 3. Martha Gray - F - 25 - 142 4. William Gray - M - 8 - 150 5. Michelle Patterson - F - 105 6. Wanda Brice - F - 140 7. Me - M - 21 - 138 - 2 years of college education
Obama is bad

Obamacare actually had helped many Americans. He helped decrease the number of un-insured Americans. http://obamacarefacts.com...My rebutalls in the order of Con's arguments.Pro should explain how it's terribleWhy isn't he doing enough?Why is that bad?Again, Pro doesn't say why thats bad. The BOP was on Pro to prove Obama was bad, they simply listed reasons, without proof.Pro, please do not make your debates 5 minutes. It's too short.
The Fact that there are Atheists is Contradictory to the concept of God.

How interesting, an Atheist takes up this debate. I'm sure this will be an exciting one :) "F: God chooses to allow mankind to govern his own mind without forced influence. (Free Will) G: Benevolence is only obtained through pure freedom, as provided by God. H: Freedom of thought and belief, always leads to conflict and debate, regardless of reality. I: Mankind is also influenced by another anti God force called Lucifer, who creates debate about the very existence of God. Therefore, questioning God's existence should be expected." The additional key components that my opponent lists are important, but it digresses from the point I am trying to make. I'll make it clear. As I have stated, to follow propositions A-D, one needs to believe in proposition E. That is exactly the problem. The mere fact that we QUESTION God's existence, is contradictory to his own concept. If God does exist, then why are we debating about his existence? Now, it would be easily accountable if one didn't believe in God, but for one who does, how can he explain why God hides? Millions upon millions (if not billions) of people will roast in hell for not getting the right religion correct. Many Christians would state that it is a matter of faith, but if one were to introduce this handy little component, then it makes Christianity no more distinctive from all the other religions that require faith. Why doesn't God just appear to everyone, or make it very clear he exists? Because he doesn't, it is contrary. Now of course, a common argument is from Christians, is that we have free will, as my opponent has listed in proposition F. However, obtaining knowledge will never negate free will. For example, fall angels. these beings fully well knew God's existence, and were well aware of his consequences and such. So why would they rebel to the opposite side? Obviously free will has nothing to do with this, since they chose the other side anyway. Atheists don't hate God, they just don't believe he exists. Similarly, I would expect if a Christian were to die, and instead of seeing Jesus, he saw Allah, he would say that he simply did not know Allah existed. Not that he hated him, or knew he existed but rebelled; but simply did not know Allah existed. This is why the mere fact we are debating about God, disproves he exists altogether. If he were to be all-loving and all-caring, and made it possible for us to be saved, we would expect him to make it clear to us he exists. However, he has not, as is evident with a debate. Faith is not a handy tool at all, since it doesn't distinguish Christianity amongst all other religions. Free will does not factor in, as knowledge does not negate free will such as the example of fallen angels. Either God is evil, or he does not exist.
The Fact that there are Atheists is Contradictory to the concept of God.

I believe I can accurately represent the position of a reasoned believer accurately and will do my best to succeed. My contention begins with the fact that my opponent is missing some key components in his listing of Christian doctrines and belief. Primarily, he forgets to list: F: God chooses to allow mankind to govern his own mind without forced influence. (Free Will) G: Benevolence is only obtained through pure freedom, as provided by God. H: Freedom of thought and belief, always leads to conflict and debate, regardless of reality. I: Mankind is also influenced by another anti God force called Lucifer, who creates debate about the very existence of God. Therefore, questioning God's existence should be expected. Given the addition of these theist Christian beliefs, one should not only understand, but actually expect debate on the existence of God. The debate has no bearing on the reality of his existence and only supports the notion that he wishes for mankind to seek him diligently.
The Fact that there are Atheists is Contradictory to the concept of God.

Now at first, this argument may seem very ridiculous, but let me clarify it, as I feel this is one of the strongest argument against Christianity. Let's call it the argument from atheism, though I am sure people before me have thought/talked of this argument before. Note, when I state "God", I am referring to the Christian god. So with that nice little intro done, onto the meat of it. Make it clear that I am NOT saying that Atheist's have the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist, and that everyone else is just disillusioned or biased. What I am saying is the mere fact that there even is a debate (in this case between Christians and Atheists) is contradictory to the concept of Jesus Christ/God. I will give a brief list of propositions that most if not all Christians believe in, and that is central to their doctrine: A) God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent. B) God has created the universe and everything in it. C) God sent his son Jesus Christ down to Earth so everyone could have the opportunity to have everlasting salvation. D) God desires for everyone to be saved and to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) E) God exists. However the problem, and this is the core of the issue, is the debate of whether or not "E" is correct. If one does not believe that "E" is correct, then the whole system of propositions is meaningless. So for Con, he/she has to show that the mere fact that there is even a debate about God is NOT contradictory to the concept of God. I will expand more as the debate progresses.
God

Respectfully, I am going to restate my last argument. I am not entirely sure if you understood what i was saying. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully, i do not even have to argue with you to win this debate. You have already committed a logical fallacy, the fallacy is called "Ad Hominem." These words translate to "personal attack." --This type of an ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. [cited from http://www.logicalfallacies.info......] Before i even rebuttal, i am considered "nuts." I am deductively reasoning that it does not matter what i say, regardless how cogent my arguments may be, because i am already discredited within your mind; and it is due to opinion and not supported factual information. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ In short: You discredited yourself, and your arguments. Thus, if i merely point out your fallacy, i would win the debate. Consequently, I did point out your fallacy, and the winner is now in the hands of the voter.
God

In order to find the truth, you must get rid of all your own beliefs and open your mind to what is real. God is just a word that some human came up with years ago, to try to explain who we are. What we are is more important. We are all made of atoms, (not to be confused with Adam) these are so small that you can only see them with an electron microscope. God the creator of the Universe (whatever that is) is at the time it was created. The universe is so fast that most people can't comprehend how big it really is. 93 billion light years, yes light years old. It takes 8.4 seconds for the suns rays to reach the earth. Thats forever. You'll never know that time. I've heard them say what about free will, well if we had free will, we would be able to convert are atoms into anything we wanted to, therefore no free will. To think that someone that made us in his own image, and is up above the earth watching us and telling us how to behave is crazy, and not realistic. However, science which can prove how we die, what's in our bodies, and the medical field that helps us stay healthy and live longer, because they have mixed atoms together to make medication for us. The law that uses DNA, to convict outlaws, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then we have to believe in science about how we got here. We also have to believe in history, which tells us that people used to think the world was flat, so it's reasonable to think that they didn't have the science of today, and didn't know about atoms, and the solar system, let alone the universe. To think that God put man on this earth, and had a plan for him is so far out there. If I were to say God spoke to me today, you would have me put away for being crazy, but in the time of Jesus they thought that God is how it was. No one know what caused the universe so people want to believe in God as an overseer of the planets. The truth of the matter is, it's all in everyone own head to how they believe, otherwise we would all think the same thing and worship God and the image of God Jesus or Mohammad, depending on who you ask, all this leads me to believe there is no God, and no heaven as most people see it. Heaven is here on earth, and what we do as a human to make it better for all. Don't think so small of what is good for you and your family, but what, with everything we know today, and knowing that not all believe, we are all different. Believe in something until it proves you wrong, and it's all different for everyone. If you can prove me wrong please do. I don't think you can.
God

Respectfully, i do not even have to argue with you to win this debate. You have already committed a logical fallacy, the fallacy is called "Ad Hominem." These words translate to "personal attack." --This type of an ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. [cited from http://www.logicalfallacies.info...] Before i even rebuttal, i am considered "nuts." I am deductively reasoning that it does not matter what i say, regardless how cogent my arguments may be, because i am already discredited within your mind; and it is due to opinion and not supported factual information.
God

With all we know in Science, History, The Law, and The Medical Field, how can you still say there is a God? You can't see us from the moon, so what makes you think that you can be seen from anywhere in the universe? If you say that God knows all, and created all, then you're nuts. I was also told that Santa was real, and the easter bunny, when I was young, I've grown up now and have done my research, and believe in truth, and think that all religion is false and can only cause harm to humans and mankind. Prove me wrong if you can.
Cats are better than dogs as pets

haha thanks for taking this argument :) Im saying that cats are better as pets because they are much easier to maintain. They know that they should only do their business in the litter box and they even clean themselves for us. Dogs take a dump anywhere they please, need to be given baths constantly to be fit to live indoors, and just make more a mess in everything they do. Cats can definitely be active too. They are nocturnal so they are slepy and lazy during the day, but in the evening are just as fun to play with as any dog. My cat always greets me at the door everytime I come home, despite it being daytime and his time for some sleep.
Cats are better than dogs as pets

cats remind me of that guy in half baked who just lies on the couch mindlessly, just sort of coming and going as he pleases with no other concern in the world. i have a golden retriever that lives back home with the fam and my roomates have a couple of cats living in my current house. to me a cat comes no where close to living up to my standards of what a pet entails... but lets hear it.
Resolved: It is moral to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Extend my analysis that this is a Habermasian ethical discussion, comparing utilitarianism to the categorical imperative, designed to sway our audience by the emotional responses that our examples elicit. My opponent drops his murdering doctor example. Extend the "he would die anyway" example of the two innocent villagers in a conflict zone. If the rebel commander will kill both villagers unless you kill one of them, it makes little sense to refuse to get your hands dirty, since the outcome in that case is worse. Extend the Joseph Nye analysis that this becomes even more problematic when the scale increases - for example, if the rebel commander would kill an entire village unless you shot one of the villagers. Extend the "she asked me to do it" example of the mother who begs you to kill her to save her 4 children. Permission from the innocent person makes the act morally permissible. If my opponent is correct, that people have a "right to life," then that right would entail the right to choose when that life ends. Extend the "kill one person to save the world" example. Another example: an innocent person has an incurable and deadly disease. The only method available to prevent that person from spreading the disease is to kill him. Would you kill one person to save the world? Obviously there needs to be exceptions to the categorical imperative's rigid "thou shalt not kill" decree. A utilitarian morality is the only way to ensure that there are reasonable exceptions.