BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion has given far more to science than atheism ever will

I am pro because religion,particularly the "most violent"Islam and Roman Catholicism. Islam layed the groundwork for mathematics and muslims gave us some of the best astronomers,as well as the founder of chemistry. scientists such as Galileo,Corpernicus,Descartes, Boyle,Mendel,gay-lussac,the fathers of Bacteriology,geneology.the list goes on,all devout catholics(mendel became agnostic,but raised as a catholic,did not hate his faith,just wasnt sure)as well as the father of the bigbang theory for christians in general,newton,francis lewis atheist convert to christianity and head of human genome project,most importantly,they catholics were all funded by the church.from atheism we get evolution,the ipod and lightbulb. also,did i mention priests,nuns and monks,saint thomas aquinas and albertus magnus.
Everything B.C. didn"t actually happen

Thank you for not answering my argument at all. If you wanted to say that you could have just commented dummy now I do not get to hear anyones ACTUAL opinion.... Good job you ruined this for EVERYONE... If you do not have anything to actually debate with me get out of here brother. I hope these sensible people can give the right vote because you just wasted all of our time and yeah maybe not everyone agrees with me but they can not just vote for you because they do not agree with me. You did not actually debate anything and you did not even disagree with me about the actual topic so how can someone vote you right when you have no evidence. You suck PAPABEAR10. And for the commenters, I am actually atheist so no I do not believe in God. But honestly PLEASE if you have any actual evidence from B.C. show me it!!! Like were you alive during that time? No, I did not think so! So how can any of us know if any of the evidence is even real.. Oh wait, we can not!! Unless any of you actually experienced that time and have any proof then I do not believe you thanks!
this house wold encourage peple to strike

People should strike for several reasons, A. It hurts the economy and can bring the nation to a standstill just look at Greece 6 days ago. http://www.cnn.com... B. It can turn violent which violates the right to peacefully assembly, In the U.S.A. the 1st amendment gives people the right to peacefully assemble since most of the strikes can turn violent, http://times247.com....
God Exists!

Since you didn't really make an argument or respond to mine, I will just reply to you. I will try to make it easy for your short attention span. "You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with. " --Im sorry? "You took all your time, gave me a long drawn out paragraph, and basically argued over definitions. " I can take all the time you have allotted. If you don't feel like staying up for 3 hours, don't start a debate so late. Or go on and forfeit. Only the first half of my argument was argument of definition, and arguments of definition are perfectly valid; in fact, I just studied them in my English 327 course. If you want to exclude particular lines of reasoning, you need to stipulate this at the onset (just don't accept a high acceptance rate). "This "God" which you are referring to from your definitions would align with agnostic beliefs." --How do you figure? PLEASE elaborate. "I am strictly talking about the Judeo-Christian God," -- That was the assumption I expressed and the God I just gave you a history lesson in. You should read more. "mind you I am not willing to stay up all night debating." --feel free to go to bed then. "You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with." --Someone who actually knows how to debate, even when they are playing devils advocate?
God Exists!

You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with. You took all your time, gave me a long drawn out paragraph, and basically argued over definitions. Mind you that definitions of words are created by humans and are subject to disagreement. God, as known through the Bible and Catholic Church is never dismissed as being unknown at all. This "God" which you are referring to from your definitions would align with agnostic beliefs. I am strictly talking about the Judeo-Christian God, although I did not explicitly cite this in my debate Q. Please answer back with a short concise paragraph in less than 10 minutes, mind you I am not willing to stay up all night debating.
God Exists!

Hello! I will be up front about the fact I am a creationist and a progressive Christian, but not a literalist or "fundamentalist". That said, I will be arguing to win this debate. Don't worry about me "throwing" it. Your opening statement is short, so I will begin in the same manner. "God exists. Prove otherwise." First, I am an English minor, so I am going to have a little fun with your choice of grammar. The word "God" was not used until around the 7'th century in Germanic translations of scripture; therefore it did not exist before the point at which it was MADE UP. If you are referring to the 21'st century concept of "God"-- descended from judaic traditions regarding "Yahweh", the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --then he can not by definition exist. In order for God to create our universe and laws of physics, God must be something that is completely outside the realm of what we know as existence. From a metaphysical standpoint, the force which caused our universe to originate had to be conscious, but consciousness and existence two different things entirely. We live in a world where all things with consciousness are tangible, but not all tangible things are conscious. The creator might be conscious, but is most certainly not tangible. Whether you look at it scientifically or philosophically, God does not "exist" by very definition of the word. Notice all definitions use the term "being" or reality". http://www.merriam-webster.com... Ok, word games are over. I will now state my main arguments against creationism altogether, which I will expand upon as the debate evolves. 1. When you pray, God never answers. In the bible, there were talking bushes and fiery pillars and angelic messengers-- they are very clearly didactic poetry (very useful and valuable literature). Ask God to pay your mortgage for you right now. Jesus said "anything you ask in my name shall be given you". See if it works. And don't say "it is a selfish request". Jesus clearly placed no restrictions on his statement, and home ownership isn't exactly an unreasonable desire. 2. The God whose name you invoke can't exist, because evil exists. You can't be omniscient and omnipotent considering all of the evil and unfairness which exists in this world. If you or I were God, we would wipe all that stuff out. Are you saying we love us more than this loving God? 3. You only believe in God because you were born in America. If you were born in India you might believe in Shivah or Durga; in the middle east, you'll be talking to Allah. Heck, why not just pray to Zeus? You would say none of these God's exist, correct? 4. If I told you I were Jesus Christ's reincarnation, would you just believe me? You would want proof (hopefuly)-- a miracle or something. So when you tell me this magic guy in the sky is passing down rules for us to live by to some old guy thousands of years ago, I have to wonder why God hasn't continuously maintained this level of involvement in humanity. Why not have a blog even?
God Exists!

Now we're getting somewhere. "Like I said definitions are completely objective, and can differ. It does not mean that God cannot be present in this Universe, of course he can." --You are correlating God's presence "in" the universe with existence itself. This is debatable, but I will concede this point because it is rather moot and for the sake of time. "Please reference what part of the bible you took this excerpt from. God answers prayers, just not in blatant ways such as the burning bush. He slips signs into our lives every day." --John 14:13 "and whatever ye may ask in my name, I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;" (Youngs Literal Translation) Simply saying god subtly answers prayers and sends signs isn't really evidence of anything. Do you accept Joseph Smith's vision of the Golden Plates? 2. If evil does't exist, explain the concept of original sin, or the need for redemption via brutal sacrifice. If God made us all, why did he give some people no good and all evil? Why did he make some people who kill and eat other people? Why did he make us so self-destructive, greedy, narcissistic, and oppressive of one-another? Why do we talk about "satan, the enemy"? 3. You questioned your faith from the perspective of your faith. I did this also, which is how I became a "progressive Christian", whereas I was a fundamentalist until I was 18. This is a bit off topic, but you missed the point entirely; because you have specified which God you speak of, I will now add to my argument that it is scientifically feasible to argue creationism, but impossible to argue the exact character and nature of "God". Your ideas of God are no more valid than Habib's there over in Iran. 4. God sent us all these messages in those stories, but not one word today. If salvation is predicated upon a belief in Jesus, why doesn't Jesus return every century? Matthew 16:28 -- "Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign." Those people are dead. Either Jesus was lying, delusional, speaking metaphorically, or he didn't say it at all.
God Exists!

You say that by definition the Christian God cannot exist. As you stated "In order for God to create our universe and laws of physics, God must be something that is completely outside the realm of what we know as existence." Like I said definitions are completely objective, and can differ. It does not mean that God cannot be present in this Universe, of course he can. Now I will respond to your arguments. 1. Please reference what part of the bible you took this excerpt from. God answers prayers, just not in blatant ways such as the burning bush. He slips signs into our lives every day. 2. Evil does not exist. Good and Evil can be represented as dark and light. Darkness is the absence of light, where as Evil is the absence of Good. Temperature is the absence of heat. 3. Of course I defend my faith because I have been raised in it, but I have also questioned my faith and have come to the realization that it is true. Christianity is truth from what I have perceived in life, not just from what I have been raised on. The evidence supporting the bible and my faith is there, as opposed to other religions that lack logical "evidence" to make me believe that their religion is truth. 4. God has maintained a level of involvement in human history. Thousands of years ago he sent his message to Abraham, and faith grew throughout the years. Eventually he reestablished his covenant through Jesus Christ, O Messiah, The Anointed One, The Redeemer. Jesus showed many miracles, and to deny Jesus is foolish. There is enough evidence to say that Jesus was real and performed miracles. Not to mention that his apostles all died for their faith, they were martyrs! THey must have truly believed if they would die for it. Through the years millions have died for their faith and have become martyrs. Thousands of saints have performed miracles, their bodies have not corrupted after death. PROOF. Explain our Lady of Guadalupe. The painting does not contain any materials that come from Earth. Truly amazing. Throughout the past 1960 years or however many years after Christ, God has maintained connection with us through many miracles and saints.
The British monarchy should be abolished.

I believe that the archaic UK's monarchy should be abolished and that the state should change its name and become a republic. The idea of having a monarch has always been ludicrous and is even more so in the modern time. The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch. Giving extra rights and privileges to a person based on the family in to which they were born is a stupid, archaic idea. According to Article 1 of the United Nation's Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Monarchy runs contrary to this concept of being "equal in dignity and rights", because the Royal Family has more from birth. Recently, Prince George has caused me great annoyance. I find the idea that a one year old baby who has not had any great achievements or made a large positive difference to lives should be more important than me. From birth, unless the republican movement becomes more popular, he has been guaranteed one day to hold the office of Head of State. I call to your attention this BBC News article: http://www.bbc.co.uk... If you look closely at it, you shall notice that the BBC has reported that a baby is learning to walk. It is ridiculous that just because he has accomplished Being Born, his walking should be deemed 'Newsworthy'. How many babies can walk? This is an introduction as to why the idea of Monarchy is ludicrous. My follow up arguments shall come after my challenger makes a response.
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

No, These quasi-matriarchies today are not just those who have a large number of people holding feminist views. Have you checked family court statistics? Fatherless kids statistics? Single mother home statistics? False allegations of Domestic Abuse statistics? Have you seen the way politicians micromanage hearts and minds warfare? Have you seen the way they vote to allow their countries to be ruled via despotic central bureaucracies? (EU) Mass immigration, Mass wealth redistribution? Etc. Comparing us to animals is a little out there, But oh well, I'll bite. Bonobos have a lack of predators therefore females began selecting mates instead of how Chimps do, The males select and fight for mates because their environment is hostile. I am simply saying our dwindling patriarchy will be the death of western civilization if history is any sign, Or simply modern examples are any sign.
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

So these "quasi-matriarchal societies" are just those with a large number of people holding feminist views. You mention Native American tribes and the Druids and Celts. However, The quasi-matriarchal Native American did not die out because of their different society. Almost all of the Native American tribes are either gone or diminished to living off government pay on reservations. I believe that the best cases of matriarchal societies would be observed in nature, In species such as elephants and bonobos, Which are both very intelligent creatures and have successful societies. In the case of lions, The females do the hunting AND child-raising, Performing at least as vital a role as the patrolling of the pride's male. In many insects and arthropods, The female is actually more aggressive, Larger, And the dominant in any relationships. These same insects have changed little over hundreds of millions of years, Because they are so well developed.
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

Historical examples of quasi-matriarchal cultures would be the north american natives above Mexico, And the westward expansion of the patriarchal Europeans. Historical example of the quasi-matriarchal Druids and ancient Celts and their cultural assimilation after being conquered by Rome. The Ottomon Empire and earlier Muslim Arabs conquering nations with quasi-matriarchal signs, Goddess worship. Ganges Kahn basically coming from a matrilineal society and destroying, And conquering it, He is a large scale of what happens when quasi-matriarchal cultures would exile men who cheated on their mate or whom their mate abandoned for another mate, Therefore, Many times they were exiled and became "rogue warriors" sometimes getting revenge. I learned these stories from Native Americans. I agree that there has only been a few small tribes that check all the boxes of a true Matriarchy, Mosuo People of China for example are a very small community, Relative to china, At about 45, 000 total. Their beginning is unclear, But some suspect they were a whore town of sorts for soldiers therefore received some protection by the greater chinese tribe local to their area. Modern examples of quasi-matriarchies could be just about any western European country, Canada, Australia, Japan, And the US, And even many South American Countries. The one that seems likely to be settled and out bred by their Muslim immigrants, Is Sweden, Parts of Germany, Parts of France, And London. Their host countries are extremely "cucked" and feminist, They are ripe for the picking.
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

You don't really have proof of the second. And no matriarchal society has even attempted to rise within well-documented history (If I understood you correctly, A matriarchal society is not only led by a woman, But the culture, Government, Social life, And entertainment are also led by and primarily created with women in mind). The closest thing we have is the U. K. , With a female ceremonial head of state. However, Great Britain was a mighty empire in the time of Queen Victoria. While this doesn't prove anything, Seeing as it wasn't a true matriarchy, And was built off of the male led Great Britain of earlier times, It does give some evidence that women are not unfit to rule. I don't know which ancient matriarchal society you are referring to in number one, But I do know of the Amazons, A mythical society of female warriors. Why would a strongly patriarchal society like the Greeks create the story of a fierce tribe of women? It certainly makes you wonder what this suggests about the thought of ancient times. As for number three, If you could be more clear, I would appreciate it. I don't even know which countries you are referring to.
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

The United States was a patriarchy during and before the Industrial Revolution and right up until World War 2 approximately ceasing to be "patriarchal" gradually over the next few decades. Other patriarchies include; Medieval England, Germany until WW 2, Vikings, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Ancient Egypt, China ancient to modern, Japan, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Aztecs, The Vedic Culture in India, Ancient Sumerians. These are and were all patriarchies, Strong, Dominant, Inventive, Trail blazing, Inventing civilization, The wheel, Farming, Architecture, Math, War/peace Strategy, Alphabets, Writing, And on and on up to this laptop. From historical and current examples, Societies that do not respect its warriors and its hierarchal power structures and whom lose their patriarchal customs have three likely outcomes: Scenario 1: Your society will devolve into a third world quasi-anarchy where the loosely coalesced tribes will be over-run periodically. They will be used, Moved, And/or enslaved by rogue warriors from within and/or by stronger cultures. *(This is a ubiquitous historical example as well as reaffirmed by anthropology, Archaeology, And paleolithics. ) Scenario 2: The falling birthrates and cognitively more malleable population due to indoctrination, Cultural erasure, And the lack of fathers having authority over children they sire will enable certain billionaires and their political puppets to initiate a dystopian future where people must have licenses to reproduce issued by the state, Genocide will be implemented, Ectogenesis will be preferred, Androgyniety will be prevalent and life as we know it will be gone, No liberty for the serfs through their ignorance they lost it. *(This is mostly theoretical, However it is based on current economic trends and political beliefs such as extreme forms of wealth redistribution held by the majority of bastard children and women, This example was factored in part due to our ever evolving technology contrasted with the ever widening disparity between income earners/leaches. The results are relatively benign to value judgement as this society could evolve into something akin to cyborgs. Take it or leave it, That is"nearly any semblance of humanity as we know it. ) Scenario 3: Allah hu Akbar. A stronger culture, I. E a patriarchy will move in on and usurp or out right conquer the falling bumbling matriarchal culture. *(currently observed in Europe " verbatim, Historical example: westward expansion and the colonization of the new world)
Patriarchies are more successful than matriarchies. Prove me wrong.

I feel that it's unfair to say that patriarchies are a more stable form of civilisation. Almost every major country, Including those that are strongly patriarchal, Has had a radical change in government in the last hundred or so years. Germany has done it three times in that period. China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt, Japan, And Israel are just a few examples of countries that have undergone major changes in the last century. Some are more matriarchal than others, But the point I'm trying to make is still valid. Societies can and will fail despite being matriarchal or patriarchal. Rome: patriarchal. It fell. China: Strongly patriarchal, The government was overthrown by a Communist faction. Greece: especially Sparta, Was patriarchal. I don't see them around either. There is no definitive way to prove that matriarchy makes for an inherently unstable society. And at the same time, There is plenty of evidence that a society can be unstable without matriarchy.
Incestuous marriages should be legal

I'd like to remind my opponent that this round should be used for conclusions and stating why you believe you won. No new arguments should be presented here. You can restate the arguments you've made previously though, In conclusion, as I showed before, the increased amount of birth defects from incest is very small. The studies that show it is increased by over 40% had too many variables in them that also affected the rate of birth defects. In reality, the percent increase in birth defects from first-degree incest is between 6.8% and 11.2%. [1]I don't see why we should make it illegal for people who partake in incest to have babies when the chances aren't all that higher for birth defects. In addition, I'd like to again point out that I was originally arguing for incestuous marriages, and incest in itself is a different matter. My opponent hasn't presented a real reason why two people related shouldn't be allowed to marry, they've only argued why they shouldn't have sex, which is an entirely different matter. Therefore I believe that I have won since my opponent hasn't presented anything about why incestuous marriages should be illegal, and only has argued why incest itself is wrong. Even though this wasn't part of the original argument, I did show that first-degree incest doesn't have a high chance of birth defects. My opponent has only presented the bible as reason why incest is wrong, but the bible is not a scientific source, and has often been proven wrong. The bible is only a legitimate argument if we live in a society that considers the Bible to be the law, but most people don't live in such a society. Source: [1] http://www.larasig.com...
Incestuous marriages should be legal

The Bible says that he shouldn't practice incest.As stated in Levictus, incest is wrong. The reason incest was allowed at first is because the early humans had good genetics.The first human,Adam had perfect genes since God created him.Adam then sinned,sin was passed down through his descendants causing the worsening genes that we have today. Science has proven that incest causes birth defects,and since incest threatens the lives of babies, it should be banned.