BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is Un-American and stupid

Right, so what you are saying is that America have never actually threatened to Nuke the Soviet Union? My darling, they dropped the one and only atom bomb in a conflict situation and set up Nuclear bases in Britain, Turkey, Iran, Japan and South Korea. "Un-American"... Darling you are country founded on immigration and slavery. It's hardly something to be proud of is it? American barely had it's feet in the world pre-WW2.
God does not exist.

QuantityCon's Claim: And this isn't a property that God has I'd disagree, considering the fact that the definition of God that we agreed upon was 'a maximally great being who created the universe'. Unless anti-atheist wants to argue that a maximally great being doesn't have maximal greatness.MoralityCon's Claim: I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant."let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world" 1. This isn't proof for objective morality. In life, humans look for happiness and try to avoid sadness. Comitting crimes to another person inevitably ends in a punishment, which is sadness. It's up to the person to decide whether the crime is worth the punishment. This doesn't make morality objective, as you cannot prove or disprove a statement such as 'Murder is bad'.2. Baseless assertion.3. Yes, morality worldwide is fairly similar, but it still isn't objective as you cannot prove or disprove a statement like 'Rape is morally wrong'.4. That doesn't make morality objective.5. That doesn't make morality objective.Ontological I'd just like to talk about the Ontological argument. One of the problems I have with it is that the logic is flawed. You just replace 'maximally great being' with 'invisible omnipresent mouse whose fur can be felt by any living thing' and you get an error. Con states 'I won', which I find highly unconvincing.Causation Con claims that nothing is impossible. He obviously doesn't agree with the law of non-contradiction.Christological It's actually been calculated by Richard Swinburne that there's a 0.97% chance that Jesus resurrected [1]. It is not reasonable to believe something when there's a 99.03% chance that it didn't happen. Case closed.Sources [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
God does not exist.

Argument from quanity And this isn't a property that God has I win on the The argument from Causation and ontological. The Moral argument I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant. "let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence 1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit. 2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists. 3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. 4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts. 5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world" From www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm The Christological argument Por sad "Cant refute DO NOT WANT BACK AWAY BACK AWAY" He forfeited like a barrel! It proves God, because only god can perform a miracle like it. Nothing else has been able to do so.
God does not exist.

The argument from QuantityCon's Claim: youre wrong. It's a property.Maximal greatness is a quantity, and a quantity is a property [1]. Would you care to back up your assertion, Con?The Moral argument Con's Claim: We feel morality is objective. We know there's a universeal senseIf you do not have an objective standard of morality* by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?* how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?* then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?* then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?* then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-moralityCon has yet to prove that morality is objective. My point is that morality is subjective. It is not correct or incorrect, it is simply opinion. When someone says that murder is wrong, you can't prove them right or wrong. As even when held by a supernatural being, opinion cannot be objective.The Christological argumentCon spent so much time focusing on this argument, but I still fail to see how this proves the existence of God, and I expect people watching this debate feel the same way.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...Conclusion- None of the three arguments that Con has put forward prove the existence of God.- Con has ignored a good chunk of what I've said.
God does not exist.

The argument from Quantityyoure wrong. It's a property.The argument from Causation It's not logically impossible. God would made the nothing from something. Nothing impossibleOntollogical succedesThe Moral argumentWe feel morality is objective. We know there's a universeal senseIf you do not have an objective standard of morality * by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals? * how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions? * then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible? * then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong? * then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow? carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-moralityThe Christological argumentJ After 40 days the body can still have identifiable parts [1]. Someone could've produced a shroud that clothed him. E Con doesn't address the full argument . The enemies wouldn"t coincide to an empty tomb sinceb it would hurt their case against christ. T The point is, they wouldn't of included the women"s testimony even in a naritive. It would've been useless to do it. Con"s two objections to the resurrection don"t fly. 1. The absence of evidence of Paul mentioning a tomb is not evidence of absense. 2. A tomb burial was a common thing for upper class jews. The Romans wouldn't of resisted as he claimed to be a prophet and had a following 3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith Con uses hand waving to escape from this. The disciples really believed jesus rose. Con has yet to prove that wrong. Con rejects the evidence of the deaths of the disciples because it's too late. Why do we need contemporary proof? As new evidence is appearing all the time from this era. Con hasnt fully refuted the arguments. Nor has con proven atheism is true or correct. Con tries to do his best to defend the madness of atheism but no one can reasonably. [1] Field, Brad "Facts about dead bodies" 2005.
God does not exist.

Okay.Argument #1: The argument from Quantity(P1) Maximal greatness is a quantity.(P2) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as you can always imagine something greater.P1 What is a quantity? As wikipedia explains, a quantity is something that can be compared in terms of 'more', 'less' and 'equal' or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement [1]. I think it's obvious that maximal greatness is a quantity.P2 If we assign a hypothetical being a the number 1, we can imagine a greater being that we will assign the number 2. We can keep on imagining something greater forever, as numbers go on forever. CThe logical conclusion of premise 1 and premise 2. What number would we assign a being that is maximally great? You can't say infinity, as infinity is not a number. You cannot count to infinity. Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.Argument #2: The argument from Causation(P1) For a being that exists to create something, it would either have to be affecting the thing it's creating or nothing.(P2) You cannot make anything that does not exist do anything, let alone begin to exist;(C1) Therefore, God is not affecting the thing he's creating.(P3) If God were affecting nothing, nothing would be affected.(P4) Affecting nothing inevitably causes nothing;(C2) Therefore, God is not affecting nothing;(C3) Therefore, no being that exists can cause something to exist.P1 Straight-forward stuff really.P2 'C1Logical conclusion of premise 1 and premise 2.P3Obvious.P4'C2 Logical conclusion of Premise 3 and premise 4.C3Logical conclusion of Premise 1,2,3 and 4 and C1 and 2.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God does not exist.

Argument from quanity Maximal greatness isn't a quanity because you cant add to maximal greatness. The Moral argument I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant. "let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence 1. Yes and we objectively do that! How? I can prove murder is bad! We all know it's wrong. Is pro sayibg we can murder anyone? So Adam Lanza cant be judged because it was just a rearrangement of atoms. 2. Its obvious you dope 3. Why is it so objective? it proves it. 4. yes it does 5. yes it does. Im always winning like Charles sheen. Ontological Can't be maximally great! A mouse cant be invisible and have fur. A mouse can't be a mouse and be omnipotent! A mouse is finite! Causation. Nothing is impossible to thee!!!! Absolutely nothing! God wins The Christological argument But the evidence shows it happened. So it has to be a miracle meaning from God. Vote me.
The Electoral College System is ridiculous and should be changed

The Electoral College is not what needs changing, but the way the States decide how to represent their population. Your example of the simple majority of voters can earn all the States Electoral points are a State decision, not one the Electoral College makes. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of "proportional representation."(https://www.archives.gov...). So your argument that the Electoral College itself needs changing based on how the voters in each state are represented is flawed because of the fact that this decision is not part of the Electoral College, but of the States. You claim that the EC (Electoral College) is a bad way to represent to population, but this is the best way to do so because of how our political system is set up. For example, say we ditch the EC and go with a simple majority vote in the population, do you think that each state would see an equal amount of campaigning? Based on population percentages, one could campaign in only 9 states and win the election. Would this be fair if over 80% of the states never even saw the President campaign in their state? The Reason the EC is set up the way it is is so each State has campaign value and weight despite its size, making it so each state is likely to see some effort from the candidates to win their votes. So because the State chooses how to represent its population, you lose your argument of unequal representation, and the main purpose of the EC has not been touched, so you have no standing argument for changing the EC and I have defended all your attacks, thus making this round mine.
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

"Essentially you said that the Veyron is a poor quality car." Indeed I did because that is crux of this entire to debate the 'BUGATTI VEYRON' And as to your incoherent rant in Round 4 about road cars that didn't race....which has no real relevance to the topic I shall simply close my argument on this debate by saying Thankyou for the win.
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

I quote from R3 "I say it was the beginning and trend setter for many poor quality supercars such as cars like the Bentley Continental, Rolls Royce Phantom and the Lexus LFA." Essentially you said that the Veyron is a poor quality car. Also, to the argument of Racing vehicles. The fact that the Ferrari F40, 1963 Iso Grifo, 2011 Ariel Atom 500 , Noble M600, Alfa Romeo 8C. The companies these cars come from have racing programs, and yet most of these cars are either "Bulky, obscure and or are ridiculously wide"
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

"Where not talking about racing cars. We are talking about road legal vehicles. Have you been paying attention?" I referenced racing cars because most car company's during that time did have a racing platform and therefore their road going cars were greatly affected by this and made to low and have sleek lines for their high speed production models. "And you say the Veyron is poor quality, if it is so poor quality how come it uses the finest materials known to man?" I did not say the Veyron is made of poor quality. the point of this argument is to debate the Bugatti Veyron is actually a good car and worthy of the sharing title of supercar among the many greats that have graced the worlds roads and race tracks.
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

"You say Supercars from the mid-late 20th century were 'Big Bulky vehicles' whereas in reality racing cars from those times were very low slung and most had open wheels in order to keep weight down because of non-existing technology or too sophisticated procedures in order to use light materials such as carbon fibre and titanium." Where not talking about racing cars. We are talking about road legal vehicles. Have you been paying attention? And you say the Veyron is poor quality, if it is so poor quality how come it uses the finest materials known to man?
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

"In fact, the Buggati Veyron is following the example set by predecessors. If you look back at Supercars from the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's you will see big bulky vehicles with obscure lines.' You say Supercars from the mid-late 20th century were 'Big Bulky vehicles' whereas in reality racing cars from those times were very low slung and most had open wheels in order to keep weight down because of non-existing technology or too sophisticated procedures in order to use light materials such as carbon fibre and titanium. "So, I see the Bugatti Veyron as the last hurrah of true Supercars" You also say that the Bugatti is the last hoorah of the existing breed of supercar design whereas I say it was the beginning and trend setter for many poor quality supercars such as cars like the Bentley Continental, Rolls Royce Phantom and the Lexus LFA.
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

I beg to Differ. In fact, the Buggati Veyron is following the example set by predecessors. If you look back at Supercars from the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's you will see big bulky vehicles with obscure lines. So, I see the Buggati Veyron as the last hurrah of true Supercars
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

The Greatest super car in history is the Ferrari F40 which was the first car to be made of carbon fiber, and was a pioneer to the new breed of lightened super cars such as the 'GT3 RS' version of the Porsche 911 and the 'Scuderia' versions of many Ferrari vehicles. And as to 'obscured lines'....fast cars are supposed to be sleek, and have clean, low fast lines. NOT BE AS BULKY AS A NORMAL SEDAN.
The Worst Supercar ever made was a Bugatti Veyron

The Bugatti Veyron is the worst Supercar ever made because it changed the essence of what a good supercar should be. It is way to heavy and its monstrous power is not only pointless it is preposterous. The Veyron is the love child of brilliant German engineering but the fact this 1000 horsepower monster has all the luxury and safety equipment of a Rolls Royce turns it into something that is completely different than any other supercar.
Pedosexuality is never wrong

To be honest, pedosexuality is the best sexuality. I don't think non-pedosexuals are bad people, but I do think they are horrible people. I don't hate non-pedosexuals, but I honestly think that they should all just die. They are only a problem for us. It would be easier for us if all of them just died. Look at those 18 year-old creatures that call themselves "women". So old. How could anyone think to touch that with a penis? I would rather give my penis into soft hands of a little 4 year-old girl. Yeah, that's much better. Sex with children is the greatest thing ever. And it's never wrong. There are some scientists who claim that sex with children is wrong because it hurts children. But that's just not correct. Sex with children is never wrong. Like, even if child dies from it, it's still not wrong. Because it's great. Also it's not against my will.
Pedosexuality is never wrong

1) "Rape is always wrong man. Or at least it is wrong when it is against innocent people, such as children." I can agree that rape is sometimes wrong. For example, it would be wrong to rape me. Because I am not a child. But it wouldn't be wrong to rape a child. Rape of children is never wrong, never immoral, never obsolete, never against our goals. Pedosexuality should be the goal of every society. 2) "Well then replace law with morality." "If you think that children not being able to make these choices renders them uninvolved in morality, then it is also okay to murder them." Oh, I have a very special version of morality. Children are involved in it. My morality consists that existence, perseverance and maximal spread of pedosexuality is our goal. Because of that, we can't just murder children. We would diminish pedosexuality as a result. Same way, if we imprison a child molester, we would save all of his future victims, and greatly diminish pedosexuality. Since this is the last round, I guess I will say good debate. You write short, but sound and you are on point. Which is good.
Pedosexuality is never wrong

"Children can't consent to sex, so it is rape, and it is wrong." So being rape makes something wrong? That's not true. Sex with children is rape and yet it's not wrong. Sex with children being rape is not a valid reason to make it wrong. "If you think that children not being able to make these choices renders them uninvolved in law, then it is also okay to murder them." - Law doesn't decide what is okay and what is not. And I never said I think that, so I have no idea where are you getting this from.
Christian's Cannot Believe in Creationism and Evolution Simultaneously

Though the two subjects are very different they are not entirely conflicting. Evolution is defined as two key factors development and diversity. While the religion you specified (Christianisty) does not believe in the development of all creatures it does believe that we can naturally diversify. As stated in collosians 1:16-17 everything was created by god and for him therefore whatever continues to happen to that object or creature is natural cause. The statement you're making is irrational in its own, Saying that you cannot believe in both is wrong and small minded. If that statement were true than we would have no religous or Christian for this matter scientists or anyone educated at all, Because a person who believes in a higher being can also know that animals can adapt and evolve to meet the enviorment around thems requirements.
Bible or Quran which one is the word of God

The age of the Torah or the Dead Sea is not relevant to it's validity(also what science is it supported by? ). He then offers numerous texts but does not write about how this specifically proves that the Bible is the word of god. He then goes on to make a few hollow baseless claims about the sermon on the mount and the chrurch of the rock. He didn not show in any way why specifically these accounts were factual so we may completely disregard that. He then claims that Paul's journey was fact but again did not explain how he reasoned this or why we should believe him. At this point I think my opponent ran out of room trying to claim that the books of Luke and Acts were factual but again provided no real evidence. This debate seems like a waste as my opponent simply swayed off topic and then brought numerous baseless claims to support his beliefs.
Bible or Quran which one is the word of God

I will start with the earliest. The Torah and Dead Sea are at least 3133 years old. This can be relied upon with historical evidence from (science). Also I will name a few of the Injiil or New Testament copies; The John Rylands Fragment Circa 96 AD. Chester Beatty Papyrus 200 AD. Bodmer Papyrus 70 AD. John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D. We also have Josephus's documents as well as the Caesar's accounts and Pliny the Younger. Historical evidence of non Judeo Christian resources. We can follow Christ's footsteps with historical evidence of not only Christian sources as well as the New Testament. Archaeological evidence of biblical places as The Church of the Rock in Jerusalem is factual. The sermon on the mount factual. Patmos where Saint John was captive factual. Paul's journeys again proved as fact. College manuscripts such as Harvard Roman History book states these facts. Sources are their but are you willing to look. Luke's books of accounts the book St. Luke and Acts the places and people fact
Bible or Quran which one is the word of God

My opponent for the majority of his argument is merely trying to debunk atheism. Even as this is not the point of the debate he does not do a very good job at it and as I have little space for a reponse I will try to be quick. My opponent first tries to say that atheism is unprovable. While this is not the point of the debate, my opponent does not understand the distinction between strong and weak atheism. My opponent then claims that science and logic cannot be relied on because humans are imperfect but ignores the precautions taken by scientists to reduce the risk of human error. He then claims that the universe could not have come from nothing which is again not part of this debate. He then claims that there are 5000 documents to show that the bible is "from a literary perspective perfect". This of course has not been backed up with sources so we may discard it. He then claims that because no one has debunked these alleged documents, they must be true. He however brings no sources.