BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome.

In Round 1, Con defined the following “arguments:”“- Most people believe in a man made religion, - God has never shown himself - No physical evidence - Etc”“Most people believe in a man-made religion.” Again, as I [Pro] stated in Round 1, throughout recorded history, empirically, not one culture was found to be atheistic. “God has never shown himself.” Can one prove this event "never" happen? The answer is no. How does one know that God is a male, relative to the argument's reference of the term, “himself ?”“No physical evidence.” There is physical evidence found in the order and symmetry throughout the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God---the “invisible hand.” Not only did these Laws create life and humanity, their discovery, and moral application of these Laws, is food for the human imagination improving the standard of living on the road to utopia. “Etc.” The existence of God is simple, it is the event before the Big Bang. That event did happen. That is the definition of the God I found to be true via the handwriting of God---the Laws of Nature. That event made those Laws a reality. If I may, I'll describe this as my religion. To elaborate, “a man-made religion” for I am a man and my definition of God as the event before the Big Bang, where my religion is the ritual defined and excepted by the scientific community, that is, the scientific method. In my reality, that is my definition of God; hence, the proof of God. For Con to argue otherwise, will most likely be based on man's written scriptures about God throughout the Dark Ages. It seems Con is trapped in past legends, where I [Pro], was trying to elevate this debate to the concept of God being the event that proceeded the Big Bang resulting in the handwriting of God---the Laws of Nature. This is proper for the debate, because Con did not define the term(s) of God. Therefore, the scope and concept of God transcends the human experience, for it is the event-identity before the Big Bang. An event that actually happened, for we are here; thank God! As Albert Einstein once said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering.” http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome.

First round is to state topic (religion based), what side you are on, and make your first arguments. Formal grammar and spelling does not matter as long as its literate and adds something to the argument. 5000 characters, 24H, must be about religion. For Christians: Bible is not a credible source for reasoning your argument. There is no "because the bible said it that's why". Quoting the bible is acceptable. For Atheists: No arguments aimed specifically at Christianity such as: "your bible isn't moral". I am a wiccan and I probably agree with you. For voters Forfeits can be counted as loss of conduct points, Try to be lenient with spelling and grammar. Example of the first round as people apparently think this is too confusing: (topic) There is no proof for god. (By an atheist opponent) (arguments) - Most people believe in a man made religion, - God has never shown himself -No physical evidence -Etc It would be my job to argue these points.
A capitilist societs is better then a socialist one

Ill give this a shot, even though I am for capitalism and that the voting period lasts only three days.... Socialist economy - A system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. - Dictionary.com I agree that I must argue that Capitalism is flawed, Pro is to defend capitalism State your case :)
A capitilist societs is better then a socialist one

This debate will be about the economic system mostly. You prove my system is broke, and I prove that mine is better, so come socialists. 1st round show the definition of your system. Capitiasm: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth Dictionary.com
I hate you.

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:"You know what I didn't say it therefore I win by default yah me."Win what? A beauty pagent? A race? A board game? Oh, do you mean win the debate? Sorry, you should have specified that further :)"(I can't put together a good arguement because I'm going to NFL Congress.)"Con admits he hasn't put together any good arguments, he is clearly bowing down in light of the facts about me and his mother and is basking in his hate for me as we speak.Conclusion :*My opponent never specified what exactly he would win if he never said that certain phrase*My opponent clearly hates me
I hate you.

1. Nope toufer people can handle tougher things. I live in a dangerous area. 2. Not when your girl friend don't want to, because that's rape. Masterbation is a sin I can't believe you would say that. 3. I haven't paid attention much to the Suns since Stodimire left, because now the Suns suck. 4. Not true I'm a popular guy at school, I roll with swagg that you only dream you had in High School. 5. Pro agrees. 6. I mean put the address down. 7. That's funny because my family doesn't own a cookie jar, you must have the wrong house. 8. Funny I don't own a fruit basket either. Reasons: why I okay with the Pro. 1. His insults targeted the wrong house therefore half of his arguements are invaild 2. I'm tougher than the Pro I live in a more dangerous area. 3. I got more swag 4. My brother lives in Midland he's actualy a user on this site. http://www.debate.org...
I hate you.

1. Not true. During my whole life living in Topeka, Kansas, there has never been a tornado in this town. Matter of fact the last twister that ripped though Topeka was in 1965.2. I'm 15 I can't get married, I'm a Suns fan not a Raptors fan, your pose is cool but I got my own thing.3. eye, but does the Joker respect Batman.4. Proove it do you know where I live.
I hate you.

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:You don't know me "You currently live in Ontario, Canada and I live in Topeka, Kansas. That's thousands of miles away so I couldn't even possibly hate you."It is very possible and likely that my opponent is hiding something, and I smell the scent of deceit when reading his argument here. Kansas (a smaller region of land) has roughly 96 tornadoes a year [1][2], while Ontario (larger region of land) only averages about 11 tornado touch downs a year [3]. My rebuttal, is that Con is jealous and hates me because my province in Canada is far more safe from all the miserable and horrible natural disasters that his state in the US is forced to endure on a yearly basis."Since I don't even know your name, there can be know way I can dislike you."This is not true. I have a display picture, and because humans are very judgmental you could easily dislike me because:1. I'm with a girl (envy)2. My clothes3. My poseAlso, after this round Con will get a taste of my personality and may develop some natural human hatred for me. You entertain me"I've seen your debates. You can rap you stand-up for what you believe in and that's something I respect, a Guy that stands up for his beliefs and that's a great guy." Batman entertains The Joker even The Joker hates Batman. Since you are Christian, and I'm Atheist, it's possible that my opponent may hate me even though I entertain him.Argument in favor of you hating me:My rebuttalsI rebutted all your assertions made in the first round, that must have sparked from instinctual hate for me. The fact that I just brought that up now probably did the same thing..I had sex with your motherLast night I had sex with your mother, I had a revelation from God that this debate was going to happen a little a while ago. Since I had to have a good reason for you to hate me, I travelled to Kansas and easily seduced your mother into engaging in sexual intercourse with me, and she told be about how much she regretted having you after we did it. I'm not going to lie, I would do it again just for laughs but I must say, she is really flabby.Anyway, no self respecting individual would like someone who would talk that way about their mother especially after they violated her vaginal region like it wasn't anything. You clearly must hate me.I urinated in your milk After I had sex with your mother, I urinated in your milk. There is no way you couldn't hate me after that..Conclusion: 1. I rebutted all of my opponent's arguments2. The fact that I so easily demolished his arguments, must have contributed to some hate towards me3. I had sex with mother and bragged to him about it, if he claims he doesn't hate me, he is lying to himself.4. I urinated in his milk, there is no way he doesn't hate me.Sources:[1] http://wiki.answers.com...[2] http://www2.ljworld.com...[3] http://www.canwarnhamilton.ca...
I hate you.

1. You don't know meYou currently live in Ontario, Canada and I live in Topeka, Kansas. That's thousands of miles away so I couldn't even possibly hate you. Since I don't even know your name, there can be know way I can dislike you.2. You entertain meI've seen your debates. You can rap you stand-up for what you believe in and that's something I respect, a Guy that stands up for his beliefs and that's a great guy.
African American are born out of the anal cavity and Caucasian humans are born out of the vagina.

” As before, I am not going to address the large volume of irrelevant material PRO has provided; I will focus on that which is relevant to the debate. 404 Error I am sorry to hear that PRO was not able to access my source. Not only was I able to access it when I typed up my previous arguments, I was able to access it several times right now, on two different web browsers. If there is a problem, it is not with my link. Even so, without the link and the point it supported, I have already demonstrated that African Americans are birthed either vaginally or via C-Section, not through the “anal cavity. ” I only added that last point in the interest of a simpler path to the same point. Counterpoints Other than the complaint about my source, the only counterpoints PRO has made is to make bald face assertions that my sourced arguments are false. I will be happy to revisit those arguments if PRO would like to provide sourced arguments that necessitate me to do so. Closing Thoughts I have both demonstrated my resolution and shown that PRO’s resolution is false.
African American are born out of the anal cavity and Caucasian humans are born out of the vagina.

Confusing the Point CON has made all sorts of interesting claims this round; however, I will only be addressing the one claim that is the actual resolution being discussed this debate: whether or not African Americans are born from the anus. I will both show CON’s resolution to be incorrect, and demonstrate my own resolution presently. The Real Point African Americans and Caucasian Americans can copulate and produce fertile offspring [1]. This means they are of the same species [2]. Therefore, since CON has already demonstrated the Caucasians give birth vaginally [3] (and I will add a possible Cesarean Section [4]), it follows that African Americans give birth the same way. In case there is any question, no, African Americans do not birth their children via the “anal cavity” [5] Closing Thoughts I have shown that African American women give birth vaginally or via Cesarean Section, and not through the anus. I look forward to what CON will bring in the next round. Sources: [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://www.chacha.com...
African American are born out of the anal cavity and Caucasian humans are born out of the vagina.

My opponent must first accept. You can take this serious or not, it's up to the person. I am for me saying that what the topic of this debate is true. My opponent must prove my statement false. I will prove it to be truth. Accept, and then round 2 will commence, and the debate will get rolling. I hope to get a worthy opponent that know his science and like icecream. :P
is Harry potter the most important character

I don't see how listing Harry's relations, especially his children, makes him more important. And as I've said in my first argument, Harry only lived because of the other people around him who have protected him throughout his life. He is "The Boy Who Lived" not because of his own might, but because of the spell his mother cast on him when he was a baby. I think a more important, and credible to some degree, character is Voldemort. Voldemort is the sole reason for Harry having any significance in his own life, and Voldemort, although evil, achieved his greatness without help from his mother. Voldemort has to be important for him to be conflicting Harry all the time, and again, Harry is only significant because of Voldemort. Without Voldemort, Harry would be any normal child, but without Harry, Voldemort would still be known as "The Dark Lord". Voldemort would still be very significant without Harry, but Harry would have no significance without Voldemort, therefore Voldemort is more important than Harry and Harry is not the most important character in the Harry Potter series.
is Harry potter the most important character

He is to just because he's the"THE BOY WHO LIVED"who else defeated Lord Voldermort. Obviously Harry Potter Main character of the series. Son of James Potter and Lily Evans, husband of Ginny Weasley, father of Albus Severus, James Sirius, and Lily Luna Potter, godfather of Teddy Remus Lupin, godson of Sirius Black, Gryffindor Quidditch Seeker and captain, Auror, founder of Dumbledore's Army, winner of the Triwizard Tournament, Only Known Master of Death, defeats Voldemort.
is Harry potter the most important character

Harry Potter is not the most important character in the series (both movie and book) because he did not face any of the challenges alone. He always had his friends, Hermione and Ron, with him and they always had to do a lot of the work, seemingly more so than Harry himself. Also, the only reason why Harry is significant in the first place was that he was "the Boy Who Lived". He lived because his mother used the last of her energy to put protecting spells on Harry, saving his life. This further proves my point of that he never did anything alone. And, he has Snape watching over him when he joined Hogwarts, so again he was never alone in his ventures against Voldemort. Harry Potter's friends, again, always made the most significant contributions to his adventures against the Dark Lord, and some have even lost their lives and families because of it. The only reason why Harry would ever be considered the most important character is because he was always the last one left to face Voldemort, which, again, wouldn't have happened without other people helping him. Harry was as good as dead facing the basilisk until Fawkes appeared and helped him. Harry Potter was not the most important character, he was merely the recipient of extremely lucky circumstances throughout his life.
Resolved: Hate Crime Enhancements are just

They teach them, what they did is wrong, it will only create more hate. All crimes that are violent are hate based. Whether it is beating up your boss, girlfriend, etc. Race is a part, but how does someones race get special treatment. Take capital punishment for instance, if someone does a crime, they know the consequences of that crime, they will be put to death. Hate crimes are the same way, it most likely will increase crime, because since hate crimes get stifer sentences, gang members will be hot shots in the prison system. Also enhancing someone's crime because of hate is wrong, because as I said before it won't deter anything and it is unjust. You should be tried for the crime, not add onto it because of the circumstances. So I now stand the floor to my opponent
Evolutionist (Pro) vs Creationist (Con)

I understand, sometimes that happens to me, debate management is not my strong point. In any event, I hope you left this debate with the view that the term "creationism" is something to think about. One should not get trapped in popular dogma of one belief system over another, since no one knows, if the event before the Big-Bang was an evolutional or creational event. And in closing, I wish Pro a happy and prosperous New Year!
Evolutionist (Pro) vs Creationist (Con)

Pro made no reference to the definition of creationism relative to this debate. And in saying that, I (Con) would like to share, and debate, with Pro what creationism means to a Deist. Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. ”. http://dictionary.reference.com...Both Atheist and Deist understands the importance of the scientific method to study repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. Through science, both Atheist and Deist recognize the current scientific view about the Big-Bang is the beginning of the universe. Deist believes, like all Theist, God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. From the Deist's vantage point, the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting. On the other hand, for Atheist and those of faith (Theist), including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc. ). And in saying that, Con hopes Pro will not take this debate in the weeds of man's written scriptures about God. After creation (the Big-Bang), God's Laws of Nature is the program of the universe for defining the evolutionary dynamics for inanimate and animate operating within God's matrix. The difference between Atheist and Deist is belief in the event entity before the Big-Bang. Today, the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have those who believe in God (Deist, Theist, etc. ) ---Creationist, or hypothetical assumptions (Atheist)---Evolutionist. It is not clear how the Big-Bang is an evolutionary step. Therefore, we Deist, like Theist, like Atheist, has some opinion on the event entity before the Big-Bang, and this opinion is simply based on faith. In other words, the nature of this debate points to the beginning; and the argument follows, is the event entity before the Big-Bang one of evolution or creation? I would like to learn from Pro's arguments how the Big-Bang is an evolutionary step, a step relative to what? One of the definitions of evolution follows: “a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements” (. http://dictionary.reference.com...).A more detail overview of evolution is in the following: . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Since evolution is a function of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Pro needs to demonstrate Thermodynamics existed before the Big-Bang; otherwise, the debate goes on.
Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

Sorry if there was any confusion about wording and definitions of "materialism", I am coming at the perspective of the ownership of "thing" or "wealth", whatever definition Con wants to use is fine with me, it won't affect my argument. Most of today's religions emerged from around the same time period of a few thousand years. People eventual adopted these new ideas of "god" and "faith". The development of widely practice religion did two important things. Firstly, it had an appeal to lower class citizens who had little and turned to faith for salvation. Second, it created a social class of "holy people" or priest. If you look at the origins of these faiths, you will find some similarities. Ancient Chines philosophies such as Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism, came from a time of chaos and political and social instability. In ancient India, the development of a caste system helped to maintain social order. Eventual things change, times of prosperity and "golden ages" come, and people gain wealth. Because Hinduism in India had a strict social hierarchy, there is a demand for a new religion, or religious reform. Buddhism became widely popular in India, opposed to Hinduism, because it did not address strict social classes and hierarchy, thus, it appealed more to the people of lower caste. Original Buddhism, along with many other reformed religions, was much different than it is today. Original Buddhism called for an individual to give up all worldly goods and anything that caused desire, and to become one with nature. As more and more classes of people increased their wealth, they did not want to give it up. Before, religious moral, such as not being tempted by worldly possessions, was not hard because most people did not have much, so they had little to lose. Now, because of newly gained wealth, people DID have something to lose, and they did not want to give up their wealth. Religion only reformed when necessary, to keeps its appeal to the people. If reaching true salvation called for you to give up everything you owned, most people did not want anything to do with it, thus, raising question of why you would need to give up all worldly things to achieve true salvation, and, if true salvation was in absents of worldly goods, then why you one want to achieve it? Because people's morals changed, religion changed. If religion lost its appeal, or did not support certain morals, people disregarded it, and sometimes even denied it as even being true. Conclusion; Society changed, morals changed, religion either was changed or disregarded, thus starting atheist beliefs (disbelieving the existence of a god)
Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

An unusual topic... I have a couple proposed amendments to Pro's definitions, burdens, etc...First, Con's real burden here is to show that materialism does not cause atheism, not necessarily that atheism would exist independently of materialism. It's a minor distinction, but might have some impact on how I address Pro's argument.I have no problem with Pro's definition of materialism. That said, a definition of the material world is needed, because what Pro has given is ONLY a definition of materialism - i.e. the "material world" cannot possibly be "preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects" - the former is a noun, while the latter is a verb describing what one does with that noun.So I propose the definition of "material world" to be simply the collection of concrete objects around us - those objects or sensations that can be described by sight, smell, touch, taste, or sound.With that, I look forward to Pro's argument.
Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

Pro must prove that materialism contributed largely to the development of atheism. Con must prove that atheism would develop regardless of the material world. Terms: Materialism/material world: preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.