BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black Holes Exist

We have finally agreed upon a debate topic and time.Full ResolutionBlack holes exist.DefinitionsBlack Holes: "...a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out."[1]Exist: "To have actual being; be real."[2]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.nasa.gov...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
agnostic beats atheist

belief=love belief=theism=belief in god=be lie "What the pro side describes as agnosticism, that is, "that [one] can not know [whether] a supernatural being exists or not", is not theism. Stating that one cannot know whether a supernatural being exists does not imply that they believe in a god or many gods, as the definition of theism states." no one knows unknown you can assert whatever you like atheism is disbelief, belief to the contrary non belief/lack of belief=agnostic the disbelief position is the no position as i said, there is no, maybe no god is not real position
agnostic beats atheist

The Pro side has failed to assert why theist=love and atheist=hate. Also, they asserted that "to say that i can not know wheather a supernatural being exists or not, is a belief, theism." However, this claim from the pro is easily falsifiable from the simple definition of theism: "the belief that God exists or that many gods exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). What the pro side describes as agnosticism, that is, "that [one] can not know [whether] a supernatural being exists or not", is not theism. Stating that one cannot know whether a supernatural being exists does not imply that they believe in a god or many gods, as the definition of theism states. Agnostic is not the opposite of atheism and theism ""opposite means "contrary to one another or to a thing specified" (Merriam Webster Dictionary). The opposite of theism is atheism ""by the definition. Agnosticism is not opposite to either of the two views. The Pro side states that "atheism is false" ""however, this claim is not valid. Atheism is not a belief system, nor does it make a claim. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a supernatural being." A lack of a belief of something cannot be "false or true" by definition. The pro also states that "agnostic is true, certain" ""which does not make very much sense. Agnostic is not certain by definition, in fact, it's the opposite. The four types of splits between atheism and theism is as follows: Gnostic Theism Agnostic Theism Gnostic Atheism Agnostic Atheism Each one has a very different meaning. What you describe as "agnostic" falls under the category of Gnostic theism """certain." However, this definition is not the definition of agnosticism. The default position on any matter, without evidence, is one of a lack of belief. I lack a belief in flying unicorns until evidence for it is presented. I lack a belief that you are wearing a hat right now because no evidence has been presented. In other words, my stance would be one similar to an agnostic atheist " "not holding a belief in the existence of any deity, and they claim that the existence of a deity is unknowable in principle." Thus, it cannot be said that "agnostic beats atheist."
agnostic beats atheist

agnostic=maybe position= agnostic=acceptance that i dont know belief=not acceptance that i dont know non belief=acceptance that i dont know to say that i can not know wheather a supernatural being exists or not, is a belief, theism theist=love=belief=yes position atheist=hate=disbelief=no position agnostic=joy=acceptance that i dont know=maybe position there are only 3 positions on any imaginary claim agnostic is the opposite of atheism and theism, there is no such position as maybe no god is real default=agnostic am i wearing a hat right now? atheism is false, doubt, agnostic is true, certain
agnostic beats atheist

First, I would like to make it clear that as the Con side, I merely have to show that "agnostic" does not "beat" atheist. However, it is of a paramount importance that you provide evidence for your claim that "agnostic beats atheist. " It is also necessary that you show why "theist=love agnostic=joy atheist=hate" Being agnostic in any sense does not "beat" being atheist, because essentially agnostics state that they cannot know whether a supernatural being exists or not. An "agnostic atheist", the default position of an atheist, states that they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. This is what I will refer to when I state "atheist. " A Gnostic atheist is one who claims that they know for sure no god exists. Being an agnostic does not beat being an atheist, anymore so than liking chocolate beats liking vanilla. There is simply no reason or evidence to see why being agnostic beats being an atheist.
Muhammad is Not Mentioned In The Bible

Deuteronomy 18:15-18 - It doesn't hold up, because how you're defining "brethren" doesn't fit within the context. One cannot be from the midst of the Israelites like Deuteronomy 18:15 says, but be an Arab like you claim "brethren" means. There's a different language, race, culture, etc. For your interpretation to work, you'd have to throw out a part of the verse, since it clearly states that the prophet is from the midst of Israel, when Muhammad is from Mecca. "Brethren" was usually used to mean fellow Israelites. Deuteronomy 17:14-15 says, "When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.". In here, "among thy brethren", is used to mean a fellow Israelite. Deuteronomy 1:16 doesn't make "brethren" and "stranger" (foreigner) mean the same thing. Although Deuteronomy 2:4 uses the word differently, we can figure out if it means a fellow Israelite, or a non-israelite, with the context. The first part of Deuteronomy 18:15 says, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me", so we know that this prophet is raised up to the Israelites, from the midst of the Israelites, will preform many miracles, and know God face-to-face (Deuteronomy 34:10-12). Muhammad wasn't from the midst of the Israelites like Moses said the prophet would be, so Muhammad isn't the prophet. Deuteronomy 33:2 - It isn't talking about an unlettered prophet, and it isn't a prophecy: It's a blessing. Isaiah 42:10-13 - It says God will go forth as a mighty man. That means exactly what it says, not anything else. John 15:26; John 16:12-13 - None of it is subjective, because Jesus told us the answer. I'll combine John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:12-13 to make it obvious: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." You cannot use Islamic understanding to understand the Bible, you must use the Bible to understand the Bible. Using Islamic understanding to understand the Bible is like using Mario's controls to play Call of Duty.
Muhammad is Not Mentioned In The Bible

Deuteronomy 18:15-18 "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Once again, we see brethren twice. We know the sons the Ishmael, the Arabs, are the distant brethren of Israelites. From this we can infer that the prophet being discussed was Muhammed, an Arab. Dismiss it all you want the argument still stands. Deuteronomy 33:2 It still mentions Mount Paran which has ties to Islam and Muhammed. Isaiah 42:1-4 I am dropping this one as I do not want to be drawn into a debate based on the merits of Islam and Christianity which is not the purpose of this debate. Isaiah 42:10-13 God has used humans as his instruments many times throughout the Bible. That is what is being meant when it says God will go forth as a mighty man. John 15:26; John 16:12-13 Now we come down to the issue of perspective and interpretation again. You say you cannot use Islamic understanding to understand the Bible yet there are so many different understandings used. Which one is the right one? The Lutheran one? The Jewish one? The Catholic one? And the list goes on. Unless we decide which one is the right one there is no point to continuing this debate. For the sake of simplicity which understanding are you using and I will attempt to use that one. Regardless I have already shown Muhammed is in fact in the Bible when interpreted from an Islamic perspective with certain tie ins that do not make the proofs entirely subjective.
Muhammad is Not Mentioned In The Bible

Deuteronomy 18:18 - It doesn't matter what brethren means. It doesn't fit the criteria given in Deuteronomy 18:15, that the prophet will be from the midst of the Israelites. Deuteronomy 33:2 - This is speaking about God, speaking in the past-tence, and it is a blessing to Israel. Isaiah 42:1-4 - Like I said, Muhammad doesn't fit the part about bringing forth justice in truth[1], and this isn't in the Torah. Isaiah 42:10-13 - Again, it says God (Not God through a prophet) will go forth as a mighty man. In terms of the Qur'an and Bible, Revelation 19 is the fulfillment. Even if Muslim conquest WAS the work of God, God did not go forth as a mighty man, but someone claiming to be a prophet of God. This also isn't in the Torah. John 15:26 - You must understand the Bible with the Bible, you cannot use Islamic names given to Muhammad and apply them to the Bible. The Advocate is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), he is equal with God (Acts 5:3-5), equal with Jesus (John 14:18), and he knew the disciples, and was going to indwell them (John 14:17). It cannot be Muhammad. John 16:12-13 - Again, the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 says the Advocate is the Holy Ghost, and John 15:26 says that the Advocate is the Spirit of Truth. You have to use the Bible with the Bible: You cannot use Islamic understanding to understand the Bible.
Muhammad is Not Mentioned In The Bible

Deuteronomy 18:18 "From the midst of thee, of they brethren" - the Arabic peoples are considered the distant brethren of the Israelites. especially at that time. Sons of Ishmael and all that. Deuteronomy 33:2 I see you have not attempted to disprove me here, whether on purpose or through oversight. Deuteronomy 34:10-12 Muhammed, it is said, saw God twice just as Moses spoke to God twice. ( Jami` at-Tirmidhi Chapters on Tafsir, English reference: Vol. 1, Book 44, Hadith 3278, Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3589) Muhammed also compared himself and Ali to Moses and Aaron. Isaiah 42:1-4 We are not here to debate Christianity vs Islam. There are many instances where Christianity could be shown in a poor light as well, not to mention we would have to argue on morality as well. My point here was that the term "Servant" fits Muhammed much more aptly than Jesus and the argument still stands. Isaiah 42:10-13 This is just a difference in perspective and my previous allusions to Mount Sela and Kedar bind Muhammed and Islam closer to the text than Christianity and the Acts of the Apostles. And God works through people, who is to say the tremendous success of the Muslim conquests in such a short time was not the work of God? John 15:26 Some of the names given to Muhammed were the "intercessor" or "advocate". Once again this is just a matter of perspective. In Islam Jesus is equated with Muhammed as one of the great prophets. John 16:12-13 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." Here the Advocate is described how the Prophet, Muhammed, was in Deuteronomy 18:18. The Qur'an 53:3-6 "Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense in strength - one of soundness" seems to fulfill these prophecies in John and Deuteronomy.
Muhammad is Not Mentioned In The Bible

Requirements For Opponent: -To accept that the modern Bible counts. There are no records of the Bible changing, proof of that being the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the thousands of New Testament manuscripts (The earliest being from only the 2nd century, a few generations after Jesus died) that agree with eachother. You might be able to point out errors in the modern Bible's, but all of those could be fixed by looking back at the originals. -To use the King James Version. The Greek New Testament (The Textus Receptus) in which the KJV is translated off of is more accurate than the ones like the NIV, ESV, etc. are translated off of, because it is based off of more manuscripts. Translations like the NIV and ESV have obvious contradictions, and heretical (In terms of Christian doctrine) parts which the KJV doesn't have. Note: If you do not agree with any of the above statements, don't go to this debate, but make a new debate with me as the opponent. Round 1 - Show where Muhammad is in the Bible Round 2 - Rebuttal Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Rebuttal Round 5 - Conclusion Surah 7:157 says, "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel.". The Torah is: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Gospel is: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (This is what they considered it to be) So, first you have to show me an example of Muhammad being mentioned in : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and/or Deuteronomy, then show another one in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John.
Dogs make good friends.

Just saying but I don't know what happens when you forfeit a round. In my opinion I believe that whilst some dogs make good friends most of them would not as they might not understand you or you may not understand it. There are several dogs that can misinterpret your actions and perceive them as threats. Going on about your statement your dog was likely trained and has had experience with people. Most dogs will likely feel uncomfortable with anyone but their family unless they have no fear.
Dogs make good friends.

Well that is your perspective. Although dogs will act supportive and help you they can sometimes unintentionally cause harm. Several times of me walking the street many dogs have barked at me a few growled at me yes I know it was directed at me [I had no food on me]. You'll also have to be a bit more specific on the type of dogs you think are friendly and I am surprised a dog can react to you like that as my dogs never did. Whilst dogs can have good intentions sometimes they will mistake yours
Dogs make good friends.

First of all, I did not say that all dogs make good friends. I am saying that a lot of dogs make good friends. I did not say all. I say that dogs make good friends because: They wiggle their tails when they are happy to see you, snuggle, and act supportive when you need a friend. One time I had severe back pain, and my dog cried because he cared so much. He likes to snuggle, and when I am in a bad mood, he comes in my room and puts his paw up.
Dogs make good friends.

First of all not all dogs can be good friends it can take from weeks to years of training and some dogs just cannot be trained. Whilst dogs do make good friends it would depend on the dog breed and their characteristics you would be talking about. I would prefer cats as they are not very strong or lethal unless you get bit[my opinion] Dogs attacking people has been far more common than the cats attacking people. Whilst dogs make good friends it depends on the breed and characteristics my opinion
Dogs make good friends.

In my opinion the reasons that dogs aren't good friends or at the very least not all dogs is due to the cause of earlier said communication, misunderstanding and etc. You will likely be reading something near a copy to my earlier statements. Dogs have a tendencies to bark loudly against other dogs and can easily be hostile to people regardless of training as they cannot understand us. You earlier said that your dog acts supportive to you while this is common even you will have faced bad times.
should kids under age 12 play violent video games

Con forfeited, and I extend my argument. There is no reason why kids should not play violent video games, as there is no evidence to show that violent video games engenders violent behavior in kids (pro did not even make this claim - in fact, there was no mention of how "violent" video games contrasts with video games in general from the pro side). Therefore, pro failed to uphold the BOP and con wins by default.
should kids under age 12 play violent video games

I would like to state that currently, Con's argument makes no distinction between violent video games and video games in general, in effect, rendering the "violent" aspect of the question useless. If the pro wanted to ask "Should kids under age 12 play video games," then he should have. Thus, I will not be talking about whether or not playing video games or not is better or worse - rather, I will be contrasting the idea of playing video games (violent included), and video games (non-violent only). Therefore, I do not need to give an argument until the Con distinguishes the pros and cons of violent video games vs. non-violent video games. Otherwise, the "violent" aspect is used as a double-standard, and the pro will win.
Debate.org is for fools. You should be outside, enjoying the sunshine.

Debate.org is for fools:this statement is false you need inteligence to win debattes.you can be a fool but you would lose every debatte.Debate.org is not made for fouls it's made for debatters,so your first argument is wrong because Debate.org wasn't made with fools in mind making your statemet wrong.As for the sunshine i my self are outside on a regullary basis. You should be outside, enjoying the sunshine:yes we shoud if we are in front of the computer all day what not all the debatters do.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

I will address my opponent's arguments as Obs. 1, Obs. 2, I will group both Sections 1 and 2. His first observation sounds reasonable, since I believe it is just claiming the flaws in empirical evidence. I agree to this and since the only evidence I use in my case is purely analytical, this doesn't apply to me. The second observation is less clear, I believe it claims that the affirmative has the burden to prove that citizens inherently have the right to vote in this democratic society before they loose it. If this is true, then I accept it. If it falls under the idea of sections one and two, you cross apply the arguments against them to this observation as well. My opponent accepts my standards and definitions by not constructing his own. Both sections one and two of my opponent's case state how it is impossible to measure value and criterion on this topic. Here are the reasons you reject this argument: 1) THIS IS LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE. Value/Criterion debate! To make the argument that you can't possibly measure value and criterion in the debate that is centered around value and criterion is hypocritical at best. My opponent makes a PERFORMANCE CONTRADICTION by debating this topic with this argument. He is basically saying: "I debate that you can't debate" 2) This ISN'T POLICY DEBATE. Okay, this might not be a whole another reason to affirm, but nonetheless, I am reenforcing the biggest point against the NC which is that they are directly breaking the rules of LD debate by making this argument. Try it again in CXD, buddy! 3) My opponent argues that evidence is flawed in his observation, whereas most of his actual contentions are evidence. Hmmmm... 4) None of my opponent's arguments legitimately fall within the acceptable perimeters of LD debate 5) My opponent's attempts to shove burdens on the affirmative only prove further that he cannot legitimately prove reasons to negate. If I were to accept the burdens that the negative throws, it is impossible to affirm the resolution! This is obviously unfair, 6) Fairness is essential toward debate since there is no way to measure the better opponent and thus no way to evaluate the resolutional proposition, also There has to be some equal standard to decide which interpretation is best for the resolution, this is impossible to achieve with my opponent's arguments I encourage an affirmative ballot for these reasons and await my opponent's rebuttal.