BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seals are Better Than Cars

Why Seals Are Amazing! (1) Seal are adorable I want you to look at this seal, and tell it that it isn’t better than a car. Would you really be so heartless as to make this poor wittle seal cry by saying cars are better? Just look at the last seal who heard someone thought a stupid car was better than him! We cannot let this happen! Cars are heartless little chunks of metal that like making seals cry, and I know we don’t want to condone bullying! So stop the cars from making seals cry! (2) Seal Can Do Awesome Tricks! Seals can do back flips, front flips, side flips, triple flips, backwards front flips, all kinds of flips! Seals can balance beach balls on their noses and everything! They are amazing! Just look at that form! Fabulous! Can cars do handstands?! I think not! I think I just won the debate. Play that sexy jazz you adorable seal! (3) Humans Love Seals I mean, c’mon it’s hard to imagine humans couldn’t love seals. Seal all around the world entertain us and make the children laugh. Think of the children. Plus, seals are surprisingly good at telling jokes. Thank you seals, for giving me a good laugh. Reasons Cars Are Not Cool! (1) Style Sure there are some cool cars out there. But only some. Let’s face it, a lot of cars are just ugly. I mean seriously: However! Like 95% of all seals are absolutely adorable! Let’s face it, seals win in the looks category. Sure there are some sexy cars. But every seal is sexy. I rest my case. (2) Cars Hurt Humans; Seals Would Never Hurt A Human Unless They Deserved It Let’s face it, cars are big old bullies. Humans just want a nice ride to the local zoo to see some seals but those dang cars are so mean and jealous that they purposely wreck themselves just to hurt humans! Seals would never do it. Conclusion Let’s face it, seals are better than cars in every aspect. They are cute and humans love them. Seals are better than cars! This resolution is affirmed. He's so sealy.
God does exist.

You assert that something cannot be created without a creator, but this is simply question begging when applied to the universe, since we don't know that the universe had a creator. It is true that everything that begins to exist has a cause, but the cause need not be a conscious creator. Also, you have not addressed my objections to the Big Bang theory in my previous post, so the whole issue may be moot. If the Big Bang theory is not established, its theological implications are irrelevant. Overall, I would say that Pro has not met their burden of proof for God's existence, so by the burden of proof principle we should reject the claim that God exists.
God does exist.

Well, this would bring my back to my introduction. The universe had to still be created at some point. It is very close to impossible for something to be created without a creator. On other issues, many individuals say if there is a God, why is there poverty, wars, hate, and etc. I believe things like this happen because we owe a debt to God. For example, when someone loans you money, they expect you to pay them back at some point. This is why there's absence of good, love, and happiness. Einstein's Professor, once said that God created evil and he doesn't exist. Einstein quickly replied and said "Cold doesn't exist because it's an energy that lacks heat." "Darkness doesn't exist because it's just an absence of light." Source: http://www.snopes.com... Since this is the last round, as my very first debate, I'd like to give thanks to segregory for accepting my debate and for a great debate. I will forfeit Round 5 because it's an extra round that I accidentally put down. Good Luck in future debates segregory!
God does exist.

This is assuming that the Big Bang theory is true, which we don't actually know. It's a tenable theory accepted by a large number of scientists, but some cosmologists support other theories of how the universe began. For example, this link quotes a letter from 33 scientists arguing against the Big Bang theory. For example, it argues that the Big Bang theory is unsupported by any quantitative predictions: "What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles." Source: http://rense.com... But let's assume that the Big Bang theory is true. How is that evidence for the existence of God? Just because we don't know why there was a rapid expansion of matter 13.8 billion years ago doesn't logically imply that God exists - that would be the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. "Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, the most plausible conclusion is that we just don't know what caused the Big Bang, not that God exists.
God does exist.

Alright, In order of something to be created, you will need a creator. What scientists says as they're theory, is that the universe was created because of "The Big Bang Theory". The Big Bang: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. Now what Scientists don't know is what triggered the "Big Bang". This can lead to prove in God's existence.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

I will be arguing for the resolution as stated, namely that "The SN 1006 supernova caused when World War Two occurred".I will use the following definition:Cause - to mandate the existence or occurrence ofFurther definitions will be supplied as necessary. I believe that SN 1006 supernova and World War Two are well understood enough to not require definitions but if my opponent desires one that is fine.Good luck to opponent.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

Thank you for finally explaining your argument well. Next time you argue, try to explain your arguments CLEARLY. If you don't your opponents may think badly of you. "When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events. This means it is linear, i.e. it doesn't branch out." This is where you are wrong. Event: Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. http://dictionary.reference.com... What you say is 1 event is actually multiple events, each affecting others. It is only linear if you say that an instant in time is an event, which is not. What you did was confuse the two terms. In your round 2 argument, you presume that the SN-1006 supernova and World War II are events. However, this round, you say, "When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events," presuming that an event is an instant in time. IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! Why is there irony? Look at what you said: "You stated that A is the first domino. Now you're saying it isn't. Stop shifting the goalpost. " The irony is, you are the one who is shifting the goalpost! (BTW, I never said that A was the first domino. I said it was the first domino that was knocked down.) You see, events do branch out, but when we model time, we don't use a sequence of these events. We use a sequence of instants. Ergo, events do branch out like I have said. Voters, decide whether we should extend this debate, as Pro has finally made his argument clear.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

"1. Please define "mandate".2. A doesn't cause B to fall. A and B both fall at the same time. But they are both caused to fall by the first domino. "1. X mandates Y if X necessitates Y being so, X and Y being truth statements. i. e. X mandates Y means that X⊃Y.2. In your original example, you said:"The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova. "You stated that A is the first domino. Now you're saying it isn't. Stop shifting the goalpost. "Here's a better explanation:x->y: x causes yWe know that the following are true:START->ASTART->BA->(other events)B->CC->(other events)Can we say A->C? No! "You've set up a scenario in which instead of a timeline, we have a tree of events. Obviously A doesn't cause C, because when C is on a different branch of the tree, it isn't subsequent to A. Ergo your example is not relevant to this discussion. When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events. This means it is linear, i. e. it doesn't branch out. My opponent's examples are unrelated to the discussion.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

"As A falling down mandates the falling down of B mandates the falling down of C, it is clear to see that the falling down of A mandates the falling down of C, ergo causing the falling down of C." 1. Please define "mandate". 2. A doesn't cause B to fall. A and B both fall at the same time. But they are both caused to fall by the first domino. "this property of causing subsequent events does not terminate after one iteration" Still, A could cause a chain of other events, but not interact with C. Just because they don't stop causing events, doesn't mean that they cause ALL subsequent events. They only cause SOME subsequent events. Here's a better explanation: x->y: x causes y We know that the following are true: START->A START->B A->(other events) B->C C->(other events) Can we say A->C? No! BTW, that sidenote was saying that your two arguments were similar enough to be considered the same argument.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

My opponent has only responded to one part of my argument. I will address their rebuttal now."The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova. The second, "B", knocks down domino "C". "C" represents World War Two. However, "A" falling didn't cause "C" to fall."This is simply not true. Examine our definition of cause (which was uncontested by my opponent), which simply states something causes something else if it mandates the existence or occurrence of it. As A falling down mandates the falling down of B mandates the falling down of C, it is clear to see that the falling down of A mandates the falling down of C, ergo causing the falling down of C. As I stated in the argument from physics, this property of causing subsequent events does not terminate after one iteration.In addition, the argument from physics was really a physcal formalization, in case you wanted to object with "Your argument doesn't work because it's abstract and does not apply to physical reality".With that I once again hand it over to Con.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred

Arguments One and Two: Conclusion One. "Any event causes any subsequent event." Think of this as a small domino chain. We have the first domino knocking down two dominoes. The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova. The second, "B", knocks down domino "C". "C" represents World War Two. However, "A" falling didn't cause "C" to fall. Sidenote: Your "Argument from Physics" is just your General Argument with short intervals of time. It doesn't change anything.
The US should go to war with Syria

Seven states are not party to the convention, and Syria is one of those seven states. [1] Waging war against Syria over the use of chemical weapons is a violation of Syrian Sovereignty. The Obama Administration has respectively stated that the Casus belli is the enforcement of the chemical weapons ban, but Syria is not bound by the ban. 98% of the world has no right to force their policies on the other 2%; if the purpose of the war is to enforce the CWC, it would be a violation of Syrian Sovereignty. If you take away the Chemical weapons ban, the only reason to go to war would be to institute a regime change. It is not the place of the US to institute a regime change, nor is it the place of the US to serve as the world’s police. If the US went to war every time a dictator started a purge we would be in a constant state of war. It is not our place, and it is not our responsibility. Alliances Syria has powerful friends, and an attack on Syria would threaten the security of the United States. Syria has the support of China, Russia, and Iran. [2] If we attack Syria it could be disastrous to the US economy, and it might start WWIII. Economics War is economically disastrous; war destroys capital and kills potential labor. War also leads to the misallocation of resources, resulting in a loss of economic welfare. In regards to oil and gas prices, the US imports roughly 3,000 barrels of oil from Syria per day. [3] If we wage war on Syria, it could cause a spike in oil and gas prices. Syria’s allies could also pressure the US economically. The US conducts frequent trade with Russia and China. Out of the $5 trillion of US debt owed to foreign countries, we owe $1.159 trillion to China and $142.5 billion to Russia. [4] War of Aggression Syria has not broken international law, and if we attacked Syria the US would be breaking international law. Wars of Aggression are outlawed by international treaty, and if we launched a war against Syria we would be violating international law. [5] 1. ) . http://www.opcw.org... 2. ) . http://www.npr.org... 3. ) . http://www.eia.gov... 4. ) . http://rsc.scalise.house.gov... 5. ) . http://untreaty.un.org...
The US should go to war with Syria

**This is the first time I've used this, sorry if I mess anything up** I believe the US should go to war with Syria because we set the standards for human rights. America is the only country founded on human rights and we should defend that right, not only to our citizens but to everyone not lucky enough to have been born in the US. If we let a government massacre their own people without consequence, it may make other countries think that they too can get away with murder. We can go to war with Syria without facing any doubt of winning. We have unarguably the best military in the world and could beat Syria no matter what the scenario. Since this war poses no threat to US civilians, I see no reason we would not hold the Syrian government responsible for their actions.
Atheism is a non-stance.

My opponent is puzzled as to why I would require him to refute most if not all arguments for an against the existence of God. I would like to remind him of what he said in round two:"because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other"This claim needs justification and accordingly I asked him to refute the problem of evil. That would have been justification by way of example to me....Materialism is indeed an antiquated term, nowhere in contemporary literature are you going to find someone describing or defending materialism. Physicalism includes a broad spectrum of differing views. As I understand it, physicalism is the view that in principle everything about the world can be described by an ideal physics. If magic could be described by certain laws, then a physicalist could even believe in magic.So no, a physicalist does not, contrary to a materialist, hold that everything is matter.Pro argues atheistic materialists reject the idea of God, since it does not conform with science. This however is an a posteriori insight and has nothing to do with his prior talk about materialism.Proofs of God1) I agree with me regarding the falsity of such proofs. He hints at the law of parsimony, which does not refute this kind of argument by any means, it just places the onus on the side making the less simple claim. It is a general principle of metaontology not only atheistic physicalists.3) A physicalist by no means thinks this argument is successful. Physicalists, materialists, idealists and dualists of all sorts can accept or reject the argument for various reasons, completely disconnected form these particular stances. For example the philosophy of time or eternalism to be more precise gives good reason to reject the argument. Eternalism is compatible with all the above listed stances.4) The argument from evil is most certainly not an argument against a nominal first cause. The argument can be constructed generis paribus for a great variety of deities, as long as they are defined as allpowerfull, allknowing and allgood.Traditional atheism has been around longer than anything we would recognize as the scientific method. 'Atheism' originates from the ancient Greek word 'atheos', meaning "godless" or "without a god"(1)Whatever it is new atheists claim exactly and whether or not it is consistent has no bearing on this debate. This paragraph does not affirm "Atheism is a non-stance." by any means. (1) https://en.wiktionary.org...
Atheism is a non-stance.

Materialism is an antiquated term. I think what Pro means is either physicalism or naturalism, however, I completely fail to see the connection to the correspondence theory. A naturalist is not committed to it.I never made a connection between Russell and existence as a predicate. In fact, I never talked about predicating existence.Atheists do deny that God exists. I have written a fairly lengthy paragraph explaining why atheism is a stance and accordingly denies God's existence.My opponent proceeds by confusing probability and modality. That aside, if no current date whatsoever suggests a divine mind to be a likely explanation for any phenomena in this world, then the God hypothesis remains scientifically inadequate, which suffices for the new atheist's claim.Afterwards Pro claims "if there is no God there is nothing for people to have beliefs about", but that is not true. I don't believe that unicorns exist. Do unicorns have to exist or me to have this belief? No, I only need to have some concept of what an unicorn or God is to hold a doxastic attitude towards any statement about them.Unfortunately the rest of his rebuttal has nothing to do with whether or not atheism is a stance and he is incorrect when he claims the nature of beliefs to be handled by modal logic. I'd like to see a citation for this.My arguments from last round have at best been implicitly touched upon and the claims I wanted my opponent to substantiate remain baseless.
Atheism is a non-stance.

To clarify, I maintain that atheism as a position in philosophy is a non-stance a distinction without a difference. This because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other. In terms of commitment, it is not clear that the two views are even incommensurate. Christianity can be seen as the product of an ancient move toward atheism, the denial of causal powers to whimsically motivated pantheons of gods. Both Judaism and Christianity faced censure for atheism; Israel traces itself to a rejection of the Egyptian religion. New atheism as Con has pointed out appears committed to some form of metaphysical naturalism. I thank him for identifying just what it is I so hatSe about atheism in its new form. New atheism needs metaphysical naturalism this to establish a view in which science holds sway over religion or non-religion and can import religion at a theological level into the domain of science. For the new atheism henceforth Metaphysical Naturalist Atheism MNA, it is not enough that the proposition "There is a God", be regarded as unscientific and false it must be false scientifically. I leave it to Con to decide whether to proceed in this direction or to develop the dispute in another way.
Magic: The Gathering Card Face-off: Political Figures

SynopsisThis is contest to see which contestant exhibits the greatest talent at creating Magic: The Gathering playing cards under predetermined constraints. [http://www.wizards.com...]Each player will use the Magic Set Editor open source software to create images of their card. Only 1 card will be submitted per round. [http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net...]ConstraintsMSE Style: ModernThis refers to the style of card in Magic Set Editor. In other words, no flip, split, planeswalkers, tokens, etc.Card Type: CreatureNo sorceries, instants, or lands.Subject: Political FiguresAll creature cards will based on non-fictional U.S. political figures.Rules All cards must be completely original. It's okay to borrow rules text from existing cards, so long as the card isn't an exact copy of existing cards. All cards must adhere to the aforementioned constraints. All cards must be game playable. That is, a creature should not be given an ability that cannot be executed in game, such as "When George Washington chops down a cherry tree, he cannot tell a lie." No card may repeat a subject already used in this game. If Pro uses George Washington, then neither player may use George Washington for the remainder of the game. The image must be embedded in the debate rather than linked to the debate. Inquire in the comments if you are unsure how to accomplish this in DDO. No offensive content. See DDO's terms of service for details. No text should be entered per round unless that player is supplying evidence of a rules a violation. Otherwise, the cards speak for themselves. VotingConduct: This point is awarded to a player's opponent if that player violates any of the rules.Spelling & Grammar: This point is awarded to the player with fewer graphical or textual mistakes.Convincing Argument: This point is awarded to the player you enjoyed the most, no matter the reason. It could be they were darker, funnier, sarcastic, etc.Most Reliable Source: This point is awarded to the player that exhibits the most flavor, i.e., the cards that felt like they could be real Magic: The Gathering cards. This entails such things as adherence to the color pie, appropriate flavor text, proper casting-cost-to-power ratio, etc. For example, making a 10/10 George Washington card for two colorless mana is grossly overpowered. In other words, if Wizards of the Coast wouldn't obviously print the card, then it has failed the flavor test. If you are not familiar with the game, it is recommended you leave this vote a tie.Round 1