BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"God" did not create the universe.

To My friend, "if God has been around forever, if God had nothing to interfere him he would never changed. He would never have created the universe." This has a Theological answers. (We need to disect this) "God has been around forever" -Time never exist when you are in the outer space. imagine that in an outer space no day or night, no days or weeks nor months or years.We cannot say that morning start at 12:00am nor we have 24hours to complete a day, seven days a week.....so on. That's why we cannot conclude or to questions why He took Him so long to create the universe.(once again, pardon me to insist His purpose.) to summarize this, no Sun that set a time nor moon, stars or planet that would dictate the word "time", so Forever is not a time. "if God had nothing to interfere him he would never changed." -Again, God is a Omnipower to all.(for who believes in Him-like me). He never need anything/anyone to interfere. He has a decision even a purpose that an ordinary brain of man cannot hold. If someone/something that interfere God, then we cannot say that he is God. He might be a servant. and by showing that he is not God, then who is God again? Ring Question..round and round and round. "He would never have created the universe." -by citing the prelude, God is forever because no "time" that has been set; God needs no one to interfere Him because he is God not a servant; ergo(Therefore) HE HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE.by purpose not by chance. God bless.
"God" did not create the universe.

I accept your apology. Have I ever wonder or even asked myself the main core of this topic? Well yes, I would say it's all about God and his action… his action being creating the universe. I don't care if god does exist, I don't care if god created man, I don't care if god gave us free will, all I care about is if god created the universe. I am arguing that he didn't. Why? Because he couldn't have, why… well… Because "God is forever", forever never changes, it repeats itself. For God to decide to create the universe he would have to have a trigger, a trigger that couldn't exist. No trigger means no decision to create the universe You should be arguing that God did create the universe. That being the opposite to "God did not create the universe" and that is the point I am arguing. Here is a hint, tell me how God could reach the point of deciding to create the universe after an eternity of not doing it. Every point you make about "life meaning" etc is to no advancement if you can not get past the point of creation. I am waiting for my opponent to bring forward a way for God to have created the universe. All I have seen so far is questions put forward about life meaning As it stands, I see no reason to be persuade to his side. I would like to propose a scenario. Place something in front of you and don't touch it. Notice how the item does not move. It will stay like this until something else interferes with it. Be it a hand, wind, anything. But if this object was all that was, then there would be nothing to interfere with it's stationary position. This object is God, if God has been around forever, if God had nothing to interfere him he would never changed. He would never have created the universe.
"God" did not create the universe.

Im sorry to tell you that you're not a professional debater. All your answers are so called redherring! Let me realign the topic. "God did not created the universe" Have you ever wonder or even ask your self the main core of this topic? It's all about God and his action. ( X=noun(God) then Y=verb(did or did not create) A=noun(universe)/or we could say that A is a result of X action Y) In order for me to debunked your argument, I have to discredit the Y(did not create)A(universe), HOW WILL I DO THAT? To emphasis the X(God).BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROPER ARGUMENT AND MAIN CORE. IT IS ALL ABOUT GOD'S ACTION NOT THE UNIVERSE PERSE. SORRY YOU MADE ME LAUGH HAHAHAHA.
"God" did not create the universe.

Thanks for the peace. "for my opponent, God did not create the universe." = a very confused me, did you just agree with me or repeat the topic? "I agree that God is forever" Well this is good to know, by that logic he could not have created the universe. Did you just make up an argument for me? Haha, I don't need it, I'm not debating chance. You argue that we are not here by chance, that we are here for a purpose, that's super, I love the idea, hell you could be right… still doesn't change the fact God didn't create the universe. All your questions under "a)By Chance or By Purpose?" aren't relevant if god didn't create the universe… which he couldn't have due to my original point. "Universe are here by PURPOSE not by CHANCE" This is a statement, like… "cheese cake is the best" it doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean God created the universe. "We are here because of that purpose." Still doesn't mean God created the universe. "God created us because He has purpose." Repeat above. "Because of that purpose God Create a universe to exist His purpose." Just reread my original statement, I believe it proves God could not have created the universe, can you rebut it? "LIFE HAS A MEANING." Beautifully put, yet not the debate.
"God" did not create the universe.

Peace be with you. Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that my position as a christian is to deflect the question cited by my opponent. to wit: "God has been around forever. Take note of the circle, it never changes. He would have been caught in a continuous loop of pointless existence." for my opponent, God did not create the universe. I agree that God is forever, Science give and prelude that everything is by "CHANCE". they claimed that all are made of entire non-organic matter, properly arrange by "CHANCE", and life exist. By reading this argument, it seems that it is a pointless existence as my opponent believe in. For them we are here by CHANCE. to summarize God did not create the universe. One Question to rebuts the following belief: a)By Chance or By Purpose? - Why we are here? Who am I? What is my role in my society? Endless Why. - For every effect there is a cause. Who cause everything? proper arrangement of planets, sun and stars. why these things are around to us? - Can I choose my parents? - Could my parents predict who will be me on my 20th birthday? - Can science know that the next president will be born on this day? - Did Science know that the destiny of a child or even the unborn child will be the next priest/pastor? - WHY WE ARE ALL UNIQUE TO EACH OTHER? - Who caused me to move towards to what I feel? - Who caused the Big bang? - 100,2002,212142,454796,47845464781 distance of sun from planet earth(Numbers are my own assumption),12354786546 earth from moon, 4579,1648,461 mars from jupiter? why? Why do we need moon? - Why our brain never stops even if we are sleeping? - WHY WE LOVE. (verb) ERGO: Universe are here by PURPOSE not by CHANCE. We are here because of that purpose. God created us because He has purpose. Because of that purpose God Create a universe to exist His purpose. LIFE HAS A MEANING.
"God" did not create the universe.

God has been around forever. To represent forever we draw a circle, it has no beginning it has no end. Take note of the circle, it never changes. No matter how many laps you do the circle is going to stay the same. As god is the circle, and god is all that was, god would never have changed, god would never have move forward, god would never have made a decision and thus would not have created the universe. He would have been caught in a continuous loop of pointless existence. Any questions?
We should got to War with Iran

Hello Fist off, your argument was 1 run on sentence, and you just say theories. FOr your next argument please use facts instead of theory. "have you ever stopped to think and asked the u.s citizens" Alright- 1)I'm a US citizen, so don't use it as a third person 2)I know plenty of people that agree with me on this issue. Infact, there are a good amount of people on this site that support the war. "more souders could die and families get deppressed" That's life. Everyone will die someday, it's just life. And the families would be sad at first, but after a while they will feel proud that there son or daughter died protecting our great nation. "president bush is not doing anything but showing the world that war is bad for you." 1)War isn't bad, lets look at our wars Revolutionary War- We won our freedom, we would never been here without it War of 1812- Increased industrialism, patriotism, and finished of the "red coats" Civil War- Hmm, brought our nation back together and ended this thing called slavery WWII-ended nazism, and kept the Jewish safe from concentration camps War on Terror- This will end Terrorism, and Iran is the next step. 2)President Bush never started the war, terrorist did, so don't make a case that he caused everything. Please use facts, punctuation, and spell check before you submit your next argument.
We should got to War with Iran

Hello I've become interested in this topic since the most recent boat incident last week. Clearly Iran has been testing us to see what we're capable of. Reasons to go to war- 1)Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran) wants to kill Israelis/Jewish. How do the Israelis feel about this. He said in a speech "Death to Israel" What does the threat he pose to that country. It is one of our biggest ally and we should make sure that they are safe. Also, he called the Holocaust a "myth". We all no that this is untrue. Who says that he won't start another Holocaust to kill the Jewish again. http://www.youtube.com... 2)He has testes the US and UK. Many people aren't taking this most recent "attack" on The US Navy serious. The speed boats surrounded the fleet and said we'll blow up. The group of people on the speed boats were believed to be apart of the Revoultoinary Guard, which is a UN labeled terrorist group. The Iranian government said that they were only identifying the ships. IT was more of a threat rather than just identifying who they were. The ships by UN law are allowed to past threw the territory they were in, so Iran was out of its waters. Also, another incident came out that in December of '07 a Iranian boat was approaching a US warship, and when the ship fired off warning shots, it retreated. Many people have forgotten about the 2007 incident, where the Iranian took 15 hostages of the Royal Navy. The sailors were aboard the HMS Cornwall. Iran's government said that they were in Iranian waters, but they were proved to be in Iraqi waters. Iran knew this too. Then after it was proved that they were in Iraqi waters, they released them without a statement. They got scared. Also, there was another incident in 2004 when IRan seized 8 royal sailors. THey were again in Iraqi waters, but Iran doesn't believe that. 3)The threat of nuclear bombs Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs. They are trying though. In an interview with 60 minutes in 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, couldn't answer the question "do you have nuclear bombs". He was stumbling and going off topic. Also, when there are anti-aircraft artillery guarding your one of your nuclear facility, that's a little strange (http://en.wikipedia.org... click here to see). I live next to a nuclear powerplant, and there are no guns of this kinds. Once in while there will be a lone guy watching cars. If they were to get a hold of a nuclear bomb, it my not be able to reach the US, but what about if they sold it to a terrorist to smuggle it in, or they bomb Bagdahd where our soldiers are. It is dangerous. My last point is, if we invaded Iran, took over the government, and made it a constitutional republic, we would have a leader of that country who is friendly with us, and try to bring the gas prices down.
should the death penalty be abolished

The problem with the death penalty is that it is an outright discrimination against criminals. In our society it is not fair to discriminate. Argument 1: Although no one is forcing them to do their job, Someone has to do it. Without an executioner the death penalty cannot be accomplished. Argument 2: I would agree but getting killed innocently through the death penalty is a much more sad, Gruesome death. Argument 3: If we are still killing innocent people with the death penalty now, Even though it takes 20 years, Then wouldn't we be killing a lot more innocent people if we sped it up? Argument 4: Even if this doesn't prove much, It does provide evidence that the assumption that the death penalty deters crime is wrong. Argument 5: I think we both agree on this one. It can go either way. Argument 6: It is still taking the life of someone. Thus, It is still hypocritical. Sorry this is short. I am just barely getting in an argument on time before it makes me forfeit.
should the death penalty be abolished

As the negative I do not disagree with my opponents points. There is a problem of cost, There is a problem of innocent convictions, And there is a problem of deterrence. But I do disagree that these are problems inherent in the death penalty. In other words, I do not believe that the death penalty is the root cause of all of these problems. In spite of this, The problems my opponent has mentioned can either be solved, Or will still be occurring even if we abolish the death penalty. This is the problem with the affirmatives arguments because although these are real life problems, They ignore the other side of the equation. Argument 1: Although executioners are suffering from PTSD, No one is forcing them to do this work. If they don't want to be an executioner they can quit their job. It really is as simple as that. Argument 2: This is one of those problems that will still be occurring even if we abolish the death penalty. Prisoners are constantly escaping from life imprisonment and murdering again. Here is a list of a few: http://www. Wesleylowe. Com/repoff. Html When you total all of the innocent lives taken away from escaped prisoners, You find it to be more than the number of innocent convictions. So actually, This argument goes my way. Argument 3: This problem is not inherent in the death penalty. The death penalty itself is relatively cheap. It is countless trials that cost millions of dollars. If we were to change this to one trial and one conviction, The death penalty would be cheaper than life imprisonment. Argument 4: This argument is entirely speculative as it only compares a few states. However, He cannot promise you this benefit because the death penalty has not been abolished nation wide. Argument 5: This argument can go either way. There have been stories that victims family members have received closure, And others that say they don't. Argument 6: There is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing is justified, While murder is not. The death penalty is justified as it is punishment for an unjustified murder. We are killing murderers, Not killing killers. Thus, It is not hypocritical.
How to Stop FBMT

I've found a way to stop the troll FBMT! Just act like him, When your arguing with him! For example: FBMT: Smoking is Good for You You: No it's not FBMT: You little n*gger, You wear spidey pants You: I love my spidey pants, But I remember when we wore them together FBMT: No we didn't You: Yes we did, I remember you were shooting your fake webs at everyone FBMT: THAT'S NOT TRUE The key is to create such a bad personality for your oppo, That you know isn't true! So he will stop and hopefully get a life! One More Example FBMT: Fortnite Sucks and It's for Nerds You: Not True FBMT: You smoke crack, Your stupid and unsuccessful, Go wear your spidey pants You: I thought you did FBMT: No you Mic Drop You: Remember you told me to, And I said no. Remember that in the bar, You were made fun of because you wore spidey pants and you were kicked out? FBMT: Stop You: Do you have amnesia or the withdrawal effects FBMT: Go wear your spidey pants You: No, You took them away, And I started to become a grown man unlike you FBMT: Try explaining that to the KKK You: No you
Fractional Reserve Banking should be illegal.

Thank you Con; those are excellent definitions, and I should well have clarified full BoP on myself. Also, good note on use of other countries; I was prepared to limit myself to the U.S., and am grateful for the lifting of an unnecessary limitation. On to the debate! I shall outline my case against Fractional Reserve Banking on two points: It is inherently fraudulent in its current form, and it"s inherently inflationary nature leads to the big boom-bust cycle rather than more micro-level corrections that occur during times of boom and bust. Further, based on these two points, the supposed extra loan-able funds fractional reserve banks provide is both immoral and unjustified. On the first point, Fractional Reserve Banking is inherently fraudulent. The idea behind Fractional Reserve banking is that what you deposit, you can withdraw at any time. However, because of the reserve ratio and the incentive to loan out as much funds for interest as possible, any person who withdraws a greater percentage than the reserve ratio must necessarily withdraw from someone else"s account. Bank runs occur when people begin to feel that they won"t get their money, creating a prisoner"s dilemma where the only way to get out ahead, realistically, is to rush to the bank and get your money before someone else does. Methods the governments have taken to curb this problem, including taxpayer funded deposit insurance and central banks that send fiat dollars to the banks to shore reserves, either just add a middleman to the loss of money (tax money comes from tax payers) or leads to my second point. A promise to allow a person to withdraw their money on demand when they can only do this with other depositors money is fraudulent, and should be illegal for that reason alone. However, fractional reserve banking has been justified for reasons of utility, leading to my second point; the inflation created by fractional reserve banking is more destructive than useful. The effect of this practice is that banks hold the depositor's deposited balance as all existing and loans it out at the same time. The "money multiplier" effect is a major part of macro neo-classical economic theory, and is not considered controversial. The controversial part is what the effect of this inflation is; what the expansion of the money supply does is lead to "mal-investments" or investments that would not have been made with an un-inflated currency. Eventually, a bank-run occurs (or the central bank requires higher reserves) and the mal-investments prove to be the social wastes they were and bust. This market correction is necessary after a boom of inflationary funds; the damage is done in the boom period with investments that should not have been made. Fractional reserve banking is directly responsible for this problem. So, it is fraudulent, and the supposed benefits fractional reserve banking create are actually part of the macro-economic problem. I turn this debate over to Con.
Fractional Reserve Banking should be illegal.

However, i feel the need to define our terms and to outline the burdens before diving into this debate. Pro may feel free to contest any of these definitions or any of my analysis in his following round. ==Definitions==Fractional reserve banking - "A banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties. Most countries operate under this type of system" (1). Illegal - "contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. " (2). Should - "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency" (3). ==Framework and Burden Analysis==Per typical policy-debate protocol, Pro will have the sole burden of proof; he is affirming the resolution and advocating for a substantial shift from the status quo. The crux of his burden lies with the "should" term. Normally we conceive of this as indicating a normative resolution, in which case the burden of proof would be shared such that Pro argues "should" and Con argues "should not. " However, it bears a larger implication in the course of this discussion. Our resolution is not predominantly normative, though surely there may be a normative component to it, which I'm sure Pro will raise if he so chooses. "Should," per the definition I have provided, expresses an ethical and legal obligation to implement such a law or policy such that it becomes standard practice. Fractional reserve banking has been the norm for quite some time and is utilized by numerous countries around the world. Pro must be able to demonstrate that the practice ought to be totally illegal, in the process setting forth the criteria by which we would make something illegal. Note that he does not specify whether our resolution is tailored predominantly to the United States. Given that fractional reserve banking is used around the world, there is no reason to expect that he had limited the scope of the debate in such a way. Therefore, examples from other countries should be acceptable. I would like to wish Pro luck, and I hope for a stimulating debate. ==Sources==(1) . http://tinyurl.com... (2) . http://tinyurl.com... (3) . http://tinyurl.com...
Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape'

Ave.Topic: Sam Harris's 'The Moral Landscape''Position: Con/AgainstCategory: PhilosophyRounds: 4Voting Period: 2 WeeksTime to Argue: 48 HoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Con position. It is my burden to show that Sam Harris has not offered a sound moral ontology. It is the burden of Pro to show that Sam Harris has offered a sound moral ontology. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. Pro will also give his opening statement in that round. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals. Pro should leave the last round blank, as he was allowed an extra round.The voting period will be two weeks.Each side will have forty-eight hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is eight thousand.Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed.A sound moral ontology must demonstrate an objective moral right and wrong, using true premises and logically valid formulations.Objective moral values are propositions about right and wrong that are true in every possible world regardless of opinion.Vale.
Are Liberals Ruining America

After watching this I can tell you those people are actors. Everyone in the back was black or asian but it's been proven more white fathers walk out then black fathers. It's actually just a stereotype that was proven false. Now I want you to watch this See my family and I recently moved to America from Japan and my father worked so hard and nearly killed himself to earn the right to be here. I have to act certain ways so my father is happy so I know when someone is acting or faking something. But that guy. He isn't faking