BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is real and created the universe

I have set forth an argument that God exists and created the universe. I will define God as the force or entity that created the universe. He exists outside of space and time. He is omniscient and all powerful. He assigns the universe its laws and truths/moralities. Religion is how we as humans serve God here on Earth, but God does not exist only by being defined through the lens of a religion. I could argue for a specific religion's truths, but that would be a different debate altogether, as I've said multiple times. My opponents argument seems to be mainly that I have not presented any evidence for God. However, in my first argument I presented the logical argument that the only rational explanation for the universe's existence is that it was created by God. This is, as I stated, because it is irrational to state that the universe created itself or that it existed infinitely before today. I also presented the idea that the universe's vast complexity and fine tuning are not compatible with the idea that this all just occurred by chance. My opponent made no counter-arguments to any of these claims. There is no current theory for how consciousness came to be. This was not commented on by my opponent. I also showed that empathy has a genetic basis. This would make sense if God programmed our DNA/genetics. I do not see how random mutations could have just chanced on giving us programming for empathy. What is the probability that a bunch of matter would turn dead matter into life and then program it to feel attachment for each other? Yes, attachment helps us survive by working together, but why would any of this come about by chance? Look around at the universe. Why are we here? The odds of our existence is 0. ZERO. Show me a complex designed system that had no designer. Splash paint on a wall, and get a Mona Lisa? Bash a bunch of matter together and get a highly complex universe with life? Of course not. There is a force behind everything.
God is real and created the universe

However you have no backing on the accomplishments of a possible God. And let us take a look of the definition of God (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. You have no evidence saying that there is a God just a couple of analytics on how the world is weird. Which is odd that you know so much of God seeing as you provided no source, evidence, or a specific God. All interpretations of God are based on religion and if you believe in one then it is based on religion. This is all unspecific information to create a one sided argument which can't really stand. If you can give me an example of God's power and what he can do otherwise this your argument means nothing.
God is real and created the universe

Unfortunately, while my opponent clearly disagrees with my premise, he/she has not truly formed counter-arguments to most of my points. "The Earth is random correct." No, I never said this. It is YOU who needs to prove that it is probably for everything to have formed by chance. My belief is that is highly improbable for the vast complexity of the universe to have formed by chance. "If you say that everything has a beginning in your main point then where is God's beginning?" I clearly stated that God exists outside of time and space because He created time and space. If God exists outside of time because He created time, then He does not need a beginning. He always was. "Morality isn't based on religion either. Not to stomp on what you believe in of course." My debate is not about religion. I put forth no arguments related to religion. "I am here to prove that there is not a God." Are you? God is an unfalsifiable belief. You need to prove that God is not probably to exist. I have not seen you make any arguments yet for this. "To do that though one must tie down which religion this God is from." No, no we do not. Again, my debate has nothing to do with religion. "Think about it you can't really poke holes in science when religion doesn't really explain it either." If God created the universe, then that explains the origin of the universe. Can science make any rational explanation for the universe's origin? I have yet to hear one. I stand by my original arguments.
God is real and created the universe

The Earth is random correct. If you say that everything has a beginning in your main point then where is God's beginning? All of this is really just happening by chance. Morality isn't based on religion either. Not to stomp on what you believe in of course. I am here to prove that there is not a God. To do that though one must tie down which religion this God is from. We must also keep in mind when religion was established and why it was established. Well religion itself began in the early Mediterranean some time in B.C. Now the purpose for it was to explain the flooding and death. Now that we have evolved more as intellectual people we have things like science to explain things. Religion is mainly used for those who are scared of death. Not only for themselves but lost family members as well. Think about it you can't really poke holes in science when religion doesn't really explain it either.
TV rap battle tournament round 2

Your raps, what the f*ck? They're like glue, your rhymes are stuck Your rap is just so goddamn long But it's still a close second to my dong Bitch I can crush a car with my bare hands I move around more than a travelin' band And it's done in a Ferrari in style I'll organize your corpse pieces into a neat pile You can't rap, but you can fap Your rap is crap, it's a mishap What's wrong with you, you cannot win To rap against me is a mortal sin I deal the crack like no mortal man You gotta admit, my raps are like "HOT DAMN!" I know where you live now Imma do like a mower to your raps and plow What's your problem noob Just cause I have free boob? I can get any prostitute Feverish, he's destitute I'll wipe you blank as applied detergent No longer is your sister a virgin Fap fap fap, that's Feverish's hobby He has no right to act so snobby This is MC Brain from back in the ghetto I'll kick your asss from here to space, yo! Behold, for the time is close at hand A blood sacrifice do I demand... and that is you...
TV rap battle tournament round 2

It's somewhat embarassing to commence the dismantling And trampling of this weak clown getting beat down I'll damage this amateur and any other challenger That wanna step up, it's a set up, now you're wet up Not with blood, but sweat and tears that leak from every orifice Your name is mud, I'll tell your peers you're weak and they'll acknowledge this Your rap, you need to polish it, I'll demolish and abolish it I can't guess what possessed you to come up with such a crock of sh1t Why you braggin that you pay for sex? You're obviously a virgin Though it makes sense; that's the only way your knob would get a slurpin' Yes I'm white and pasty but my style is tasty, people rate me You shoot yourself in the foot, like you left your gun off safety Got green fingers like I do botany, Cee-Lo Green might have forgotten me But he did to you what he talked about on the album version properly I'm sly like Sylvester, but no, I don't rock no polyester I'm rockin' strictly cotton, while your rotten @ss rhymes hit rock bottom I bring the pain faster, to injure Brainmaster Raps impact like natural disasters, breaking backs and causing fractures It seems your head got twisted, like dreadlocks on a rasta Or maybe like spaghetti (that's my favourite type of pasta) You speak nothing but inane chatter, I make your guts and brains splatter What type of name is that for you, when you ain't got no grey matter I switch it up and call you Mainbasterd, little b1tch, you're lame and @sshurt Feverish just demonstrated how to make your fvcking raps work
TV rap battle tournament round 2

Well it's nice to hear you bust a rhymeGo ahead and challenge me, take your timeIt's not even funny you challenge meI will win this so you should fleeBitch my rhyme's slick as an axolotlHoes suck my dick at every brothelI'll burn you and yo homies in fireYou should be careful not to gain my ireWhen it comes to rappin' I'm GodSee my drive around in my hotrodYou suck so bad Cee Lo Green would forget yaI control your mind and make you do the chachaYou can't rap you're too white and pastyYou dare challenge me? I wouldn't be so hastyIt's a mafia game and you're the jesterYour cheap clothes are made of worn polyesterYou shouldn't diss off me it might piss off meYour rap doesn't even sting like a beeMaybe your brain should go in for a checkYour rap is a total wreckWhy'd you even join? You were dead alreadyYour rap is like an RNG- completely unsteadyMy rap is like a wolf- quick and deadlyYou're never ready for this one Freddie
TV rap battle tournament round 2

How very droll, it seems I'm battlin' a troll I'll distill sick disses, get you p1ssed like alcohol You're an unfunny bastard, ain't sh1t that you've mastered If you even had a brain then you know it would be plastered All across this page, from the left to right border It's gonna be a slaughter, don't say I didn't warn ya Your 2nd rate, 2nd place rhymes get the fade out While mine are on top like the way this page is laid out Face it, your nothin' but a ignorant racist Plus the way you spit don't even qualify as basic Fake like a face lift, unable to create sh1t Disconnect the cable, unplug from the matrix Why you here anyway? You ain't a debater Everybody hates ya and nobody rates ya Your posts couldn't be crappier, you simply stink at mafia If you left the site then everyone would be much happier Let me take the time to educate you a little bit You're racist but your rappin', so that makes you a hypocrite I doubt you'll understand, cos you're practically illiterate I'm just lettin' you know, because I'm so considerate No physical threats cos I'm not a child abuser But your spirit gets wrecked by the rhymes from my computer My lyrics got depth like SCUBA, sick like a tumor Now let's see if you still got a sense of humour
Henry Ford Supported the Nazi Party

Salutations to Con for acceptance, now. Henry Ford directly supported the Nazi Party(Of Germany during and before WW2), allow me to show you the money. Article 1. Henry was an established and highly active Anti-Semite. Henry Ford was the author and proprietor of a series of pamphets/booklets titled "The International Jew".(1)If you decide to read into it you will find him flinging accusational and blatantly racist material. May I note I became a best seller in Germany, and Germany would in time distribute and translate it into 12 other languages, even today it remains in re-print, and is admired zealously by Neo-Nazis and White supremacists alike. Not only that, but he made public statements denouncing the Jewish race, Throughout this Book and Copies of his newspaper, "Dearborn Independant". (https://www.google.ca... Provided below is a link to all contents within "The International Jew". I would suggest you skim read and develop a sense of its meaning. (https://www.google.ca...) Article 2. He was awarded, and graciously accepted "The Cross of the German Eagle Order" from Nazi Germany. In 1937, Adolf Hitler instituted a entirely new medal for foreign confidentials, and Supporters. That year, Henry Ford would be the first recipient of this dubious honour. Wouldn't you expect an Opposer/denier of the Nazi party to deny this without thought? (https://www.google.ca...) (https://www.google.ca...) Article 3. He gave permission to Hitler himself, for the Construction of Ford Truck and Automotive factories in Nazi Germany, and quite possibly used P.O.W. Slave labour within these establishments. (https://www.google.ca...) (https://www.google.ca...) Article 4. Henry Ford sent Hitler/NSDAP monetary assets. Henry Ford is recorded to have sent 40,000 Deutchsmarks to the NSDAP, for continued printing of "The International Jew", while, interestingly and most confounding, he would deliver through couriers, 50,000 Deutchsmarks on Hitler birthday. Definitively between the year of 1937-1939, and unknown but quite possibly Until Hitlers demise. (https://www.google.ca...)
The notion that free will does not exist.

You claim that randomness is verifiable you said: "There are tests to determine whether or not a series of numbers is random. Random number generators can be programmed (though these are only truly random when an additional program is added to delete the programs memory of the preceding given values)." As to there being tests I don't think there are; however, I know that there are no programs that are truly random. There are programs that have such long chains of patterns that they are for effect random, but truly random they are not. "In quantum physics, there are many experiments that are done that have actually verified randomness. The phenomenon that shows this best is that of superposition...Now in superposition, the particle can be in two states (such as spin up and spin down) or even travel two different paths (such as go through both slot A and slot B in a double slit experiment). Now what happens with superposition is that after the particle in such a state is observed, it suddenly "chooses" one state over the other. This "choice" is completely and totally random. There is no way to predict which state the particle will choose (even hypothetically). In fact, the laws of quantum physics state that this act of decoherence (decoherence is the act of leaving a state of superposition) can never be predicted. There are many other experiments done such as creating two particles where one will be spin up and one spin down that both start in a state of superposition and then decohere." Firstly I would like to state that our work on quantum physics is far from complete and is probably one of the least explored areas of science. I would really be surprised if after we find out more about quantum physics the best we can come up with is "randomness". There are alternate theories that supply a reason as to why this "superposition" occurs. One is that the universe constantly splits. "Man is comprised of various cells which are in turn made up of molecules which are made up of atoms, et cetera. At the most reductionistic breakdown, we are comprised of a large number of quantum particles. Since these quantum particles have been shown time and again to exert truly random behavior, humans do in fact have that random factor that allows for free will. So when you claimed that there must be a random factor for us to have free will, my answer to you is 'There is!'" Fine, let's suppose that on that level this is "random". Then why is it that on our level, everything the eye can see, is obviously a direct participant of cause and effect? There is nothing that defies this on our level. Therefore, why would you think that humans would be able to defy this inevitability. We cannot, whether quantum particles can be "random" does not defy the fact that we as humans cannot.
Non-Liberal Democracies Are A Superior Mechanism For Socialism Then Liberal Democracies.

Alright guys I am going to make this argument in a very simple format.I will present a single historical example of Socialism in NLD's (Non-Liberal Democracies.)Thus if Con is not able to refute these achievements and is not able to demonstrate equal achievements of Socialism within NLD's then NLD's will be shown as superior to Liberal Democracies. I may in later rounds introduce more examples if required.1. Chinese Socialism. The system of which Mao Tse Dong and the first generation of Chinese Communists was born into was that of the later Qing Dynasty.Due to Imperials, agricultural mismanagement, and widespread Opium addiction 113.5-118 Million died untimely deaths.[?] At a time when 1/4th of all of Humanity lived in the Middle Kingdom(Imperial China)[ the inequality and suffering was on a massive scale.However after a costly civil war with the Nationalists the Chinese Communists won the civil war and established a Soviet Style Planned Economy. A Planned Economy is a form of State Socialism in which the government owns all the property, runs all the industries, has total control over trade,and pays all the wages. In the Words of Albert Einstein "In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized ina planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all thoseable to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." This level of Socialism within a Liberal Democracy has never been achieved!Beyond that it achieved wonders at a rate much faster then even the United States for a far larger population:U.S. Agricultural Production 1940-1944, Increased at a rate of 40%. China 1957-1958 increased from 185 Million tons of Food Stock to 300-350 Million tons of Food Stock an Increase of 60% to 90% in half the time with a far larger population[III]!Not to mention The United States was the only Major Power with undamaged industry after WWII while China had been in a state ofcivil war, foreign invasion, revolt, and revolution between 1911-1949. This is without a doubt a resounding victory for Socialism that is yet to be matched in an Liberal Democracy. During this rapid level of expansion and collectivization bad weather and local officialsthat exaggerated the yield caused the final great famine in Chinese History. However due to massively improved production during thisperiod there would be no further great famines in Chinese History even as the population broke 1 billion! Summary: The achievement of a Soviet Style Command Economy Lead by Mao Tse Dong caused massive agricultural progress that ended the periodic great famines of the preceding century. This Socialist accomplishment has not been parralled by a Liberal Democracy in all of history and is thus evidence of the Superiority of NLD's in being a better mechanism for achieving Socialism. I.http://en.wikipedia.org...II.http://www.populstat.info...III.Socialism 1959, Page 40
Non-Liberal Democracies Are A Superior Mechanism For Socialism Then Liberal Democracies.

-Pro will be arguing that Non-Liberal Democracies like Gaddafhi's Libya, Stalin's Soviet Union, Kim Il Sungs DPRK, etc are superior to any Liberal Democracy of Con's choosing at achieving Socialism.-Burden of Proof is shared.-Con Only has to refute PRO's Claims and prove that Liberal and Non-Liberal Regimes are equally as able to achieve Socialism.-First Round is for acceptance.socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.http://www.britannica.com...Liberal Democracy,A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy with free and fair form of elections procedure and competitive political process.http://definitions.uslegal.com...^^^^^^These Are The Only Required Definitions. Good luck!P.S. This Lightning out here in Seattle is scary!
God or No God

"If Con can prove the bible isn't a credible source then I am wrong." Well let's get to it! Based on the Bible's chronology, the Earth is, at most, 10,000 years old. https://answersingenesis.org... The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. http://www.talkorigins.org... This point fulfills the challenge issued by PRO, and I have won the debate. Thanks for reading!
God or No God

The bible is a creditable source of information, always has been and always will be. In the very first verse it says GOD created the Earth. If Con can prove the bible isn't a credible source then I am wrong. By bible I mean Christian old and new testament bible like this one in the link. http://www.christianbook.com.... * I didn't mean to forfeit the 2nd round. My apologizes good luck. Would like to debate this topic again with you. Could you set up the debate instead. As I said I don't know what to do on this site yet. Thanks! *
God or No God

Since this debate was made without context, and gives little direction as to PRO's reason behind creating it, allow me to fill in the assumptions with what I believe are the claims. PRO claims that a single god is real, and evidence of this god lies in "creation". If I, CON, can present information that casts doubt upon PRO's points as to the validity of "creation" and it's supposed link to proving a single god exists, than I will have called this god's existence into question, winning the debate. Points outside of creation should not be considered, as these topics were not mentioned in the initial challenge, and step outside the agreed upon confines of the debate. Thanks for reading, back to PRO!
Names should be used

>All statements by my opponent above "Round 3" are not to be counted. My opponent has dropped all of them (see Round 3). Nothing he says about any of them is valid given that they have already been dropped by him. <<<***MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS/REBUTTALS ABOVE THE "ROUND 3" MARKER ARE NOT TO BE COUNTED DUE TO MY OPPONENT'S ALREADY DROPPING THEM***>>> >My opponent's "Round 3" response is a play on semantics. He claims that his ability to type is proof that he can, in fact, rebut and create/formulate new arguments, but in a debate setting, he actually cannot make this action. When my opponent drops all arguments made by both parties, he forfeits them all to me (he concedes them). My opponent then claims that a winner cannot be determined by time constraints and cites one example. This is, however, completely false. For example, in soccer/football (depending on region), if a team is unable to score more than the other team within 90 minutes and instead scores less than them, they lose. Does it matter if the losing team could have scored another 4 goals if given one minute more time? No. Next, my opponent admits that he HAS forfeited his rounds, contracting himself. He refers to the arguments as "[his] forfeit. " These should quite obviously matter to the voters as debate etiquette is based upon responses. If responses are not given within the allotted time, they ARE NOT COUNTED. Oddly, my opponent next moves on to accuse me of having little or no confidence in my argument. I completely disagree, and claim that my argument has far superior to my opponent's. >Voter, there is no reason to vote PRO. PRO has dropped all of his own arguments and, in addition, all CON arguments. There is no conceivable manner in which PRO would win this debate. No matter what preconceived notions you possess or what you believe about the arguments of either side the facts remain: <<<***MY OPPONENT, KARTHTHEGELD, HAS DROPPED THE RESOLUTION OF THIS DEBATE***>>> <<<***MY OPPONENT, KARTHTHEGELD, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS IN THIS DEBATE. ***>>> :: To My Opponent :: >I found your efforts of refutation in the last round both disrespectful and rude. You showed great distaste for the rules and conventions of debate. Playing semantics does not and will not win you debates. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Thank you.
Names should be used

>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. Sadly, given that he has not responded to any of my arguments, I must conclude that he drops not only all of my arguments, but all of his own. My opponent was online 23 hours ago (as I write this) and had a 48 hour time period to respond. I thus conclude that my opponent may not claim to any insufficient means to respond. <<<***MY OPPONENT, KARTHTHEGELD, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS THUS FAR IN THIS DEBATE. ***>>> Additionally, during my last round I stated: "Names SHOULD NOT be used. "