BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

"It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence. " That was your debate, which I believe I have proven that science is needed to prove gods existence. Than you change in your opening argument to include the super natural. A totally different debate, but this is interesting. Super natural things are broad and full of made up stories, to prove something is super natural you would need science, therefore science is still useful in proving evidence for super natural things. I get what you are trying to pose, but you are wrong in your opening and also stretching it in your first round. Should we try to prove every super natural thing with science? No, b/c brilliant minds should not be wasted on nonsense, but to prove something is true (or existing); one does need science to back it. But your words are incorrect. You really should not be asking if it makes sense, you should be arguing whether or not we should be doing it. B/c to prove something to be true, one needs science, so obviously it makes sense to have scientific evidence. Thank you, voters, and I know you will use logic to support a con verdict!
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

Wow! That was simple. Actually I do not like defining ‘God' as a singular entity, but would rather use the word "God" to refer to the collection of supernatural entities, much like we use the word "mankind" to refer to the human race and I would define science as the knowledge that has been found as truth by rigorous proof according to scientific method. This scientific knowledge normally consists of the mechanical properties inherent in our universe. Expanded our debate reaches up to the supernatural realm and down to the natural realm. The premise of my argument is that the natural realm may not directly initiate an action in the supernatural realm, therefore no scientific experiments are possible, thus it makes no sense to seek scientific evidence for God's existence. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. As much as our experiences may be subjected to rigorous inspection by more than one observer, science does use logic to make sense out of our experiences. The problem with supernatural experiences is that they do not subject themselves to such inspections. I do hope that my exposition here has made sense. That people have a better sense of the capabilities of science. That the debates including notions involving the supernatural will make more sense. Eros for your correction.
It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

I will make it more simple and change the approach. We are not getting anywhere with the last format and getting a little off topic.. Here is the most simple i can make it... You are defining God as supernatural and science as natural. You are arguing off that foundation. The resolution is that "It doesn't make sense". Whether or not something makes sense is based on logic and reason, and since science is the outcome of logic and reason, it HAS to make sense.
Hunting

Being that I believe we were intelligently designed, and didn't come from a retarded-fish-monkey (retarded, because intelligence would have "evolved" into the mind, and fish-monkey, well you know). I do agree that life is a precious thing. From your bring up of killing animals, and taking their lives being a bad thing, I'd assume you are a vegan. And since you brought up humans evolving into higher beings, I will assume you are an atheist. So, atheists don't believe in souls. They believe that we are organic machines, and our conscious is an illusion. That should mean that all living organisms would therefore have the same "feelings". If killing an animal were to be saddening to itself, and other animals around it, wouldn't killing a plant have the same effect, or therefore all cells that are killed when different things are proccessed like wood, or wool, or leather? Wouldn't that plant be sad that it is dieing? Would the cells and the cells that had produced them be sad when they die? I don't think that animals have souls, because in the Bible, (yes, a Bible reference, but you don't have to take points away because I mention the Bible) it says "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (Genesis 1:26) For the next round, I would appreciate if you rebutted my argument, as I did here and posted your next argument.Hunting is good, because these days, meat prices are high. Hunting is an expensive hobby to start depending on the animal you're after, but you can hunt squirrel and rabbits, without having to pay a lot of money. All you need is a 22. rifle, which costs $100-$200 for a good one, camoflauge clothes, a place to hunt, and a small game license $20 at most. It may sound expensive, but after getting a few kills, you see the money starts to come back, if you compare it to the amount of money you would pay for meat that way. Also you can treat the hides and sell them at gun shows to get money back.
Hunting

Okay. I accept your challenge, May the best debater win. Good luck to you my friend. Life is a precious thing. You should never ever kill some other living thing just so you can live. I understand that you need food to live, but you seriously need to look at it this way. If you were an animal, and there was this.... other living thing with this scary weapon that you saw slay your family/friends, would you give your life just to get somebody else to live? Soon, there is going to be a more dominant animal, stronger than humans, humans in an evolved form hunting the humans for food. Because the human population is growing, it will lead to more and more deaths of animals.
Hunting

I happened to see another debate on hunting when looking through the challenge page, so I decided, I'd make one. To clarify, when I say hunting, I don't mean poaching. I mean legally going out and harvesting an animal.Round 1 will be an argument round, so accept and post. Thank you to whoever accepts and good luck.My first argument is that hunting is a way to keep the animal population at balance. The DNR (Department of Natural Resources) controls hunting seasons. They observe the amount of harvests each season, and monitor the population of animal species that are hunted each year. If the population drops low enough to pose a threat, the DNR will lower the hunting limit, or close the season for a couple of years for restoration. Hunting is a controlled, monitored, and environmentally healthy activity.
Students Should Be Able to Have Their Cell Phones At School

This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. Cell Phones Are Great For the Ease of Students This is obviously going to be the biggest argument and it is quite simple. It is common knowledge that people are busy. Allowing students to have cell phones with them allows them to schedule things and make important contact with extreme ease. For example if your parents thought they needed to pick you up at 3:00 P.M, but didn’t know you had to stay after school to finish a test; that could have been a problem easily solved if the student had had the ability to contact his parents in order to tell them he would have to stay after school a while. Its also not limited to the student, if the parent is running late or cannot pick their child up from school for any reason, or even if there is a family emergency they should be able to contact their child. Cell phones allow a huge burden to be taken off parents and students, by allowing them to schedule things and contact others quickly and efficiently; something that could not be done without cell phones. In the case of an emergency, such as medical problems, a school shooting, ect. students will be able to quickly and efficiently be able to contact authorities which allows some order to the chaos around them and can save lives while increasing the chance that the perpetrator is caught. Gives Students Choice and Responsibility By allowing students to possess phones during school, this gives them the opportunity to mature and learn responsibility. With the ability to possess cell phones, punishment for using cell phones during inappropriate times will be active. This gives students the choice to either use or not use their phones during inappropriate times. If they are caught and reprimanded then it gives them a chance to grow in maturity. Allowing cell phones forces students to be responsible with their phones, and learn from mistakes they make. This allows students to mature and grow in responsibility. All The Benefits Without the Consequences If it is found that students cannot be trusted to use their cell phones appropriately then school rules can be placed in order to deter cell phone use during class. For example, students may be forced to turn off their phones and place it on their desk during class. This takes away the problem of students playing on their phones or being distracted by their phones during class, while still providing the benefits of students being able to use their phones after school or in the case of an emergency.
Listening to Scream-o and Heavy Metal music makes life a better place

Studies that show that heavy metal music increases testosterone and aggression... http://faculty.knox.edu... http://www.braingell.com... http://www.brainleadersandlearners.com... http://www.developmentchannel.org...- http://www.adhdhelp.org... Sorry this is all i can do under a 500 character limit
Listening to Scream-o and Heavy Metal music makes life a better place

500 character limit? Heavy death metal music uses lyrics and song styles to build off of personal emotions such as anger, hatred, rage, evil, etc. that if you listen to long enough will cause people to feel more angry in life, and your actions that are built off of these emotions would be detrimental to the situation you are in in real life. The idea that after your listening to the music you are at peace may be your opinion, but to others it may cause them to act with more anger and hatred...
Listening to Scream-o and Heavy Metal music makes life a better place

Listening to Screamo and Heavy Metal music makes life a better place because it takes you away from the world for a few minutes and puts you in your head and into a your own world filled with an eternity of thoughts.It takes you to your imaginary field of mystical flowers and creates a scenery according to what you are feeling whether it be happy, sad, or anger. When the song is over , you're back in the real world and you suddenly feel at peace with the world now.
THBT: Divorce should be legalized in the Philippines

I don't think that you are understand what I am trying to say. Why can the couple not talk it out? I've pointed out numerous examples of how a couple can resolve an arguement. Absolutely nothing can break a marriage vow. A divorce can not break a marriage vow, it is that simple. As I said before, when you get married you are making an agreement before God, and all of those attending, that you will stay with this person TIL DEATH DO YOU PART. To legalize divorce would allow for the decay of the family. It has happened in America, it WILL happen if you legalize divorce. By creating "no-fault" divorce, you are essentially getting rid of the sacred vows of marriage. When you and your wife engage in the act of love, both of your souls fuse together. A divorce would try to remove this fusion, which can not be broken. The only way that this can be broken is the death of one or another. You can not divide children. How can that be? Because people can not be divided. Children are extremely fragile and they can feel as if they are at fault. When the mother and father get divorce, the children are FORCED to pick which parent they want to be with, which as we all know, one of the parents is going to be hurt painfully. You can not do this. Divorce is painful for everybody and to allow it for non-life threatening reasons is disgusting. Part of a marriage is to work whatever problems you have out with your spouse. Your spouse is your best friend, well, hopefully they are. I don't know about you, but when I get into a fight with my best friends, I want to work it out, because their friendship is important to me. To just disregard everything we've done over a fight is ridiculous, or at least it should be. However, we live in a world where people are becoming selfish, and they only care about themselves and not about others. I would hope that you would want to work everything out with your friend, otherwise, what kind of friend are you? The same applies with marriage, if something is wrong, you work it out. You said you would be with this person for better or for worse, and right now its for worse, so you would be a liar if you were to seek a divorce. The only valid divorce is if your life is in danger. To divide money up, that is ridiculous. If both spouses are working, then they should not "split up" the money, they can support themselves, and lawyers do not care about both parties, they just want as much money as they can get their hands on.
THBT: Divorce should be legalized in the Philippines

To start off with first, I noticed that you threw a hit at the Catholic Church and then immediately stated that "ONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THIS DEBATE IS WE WILL NOT INCLUDE RELIGIOUS CONOTATION". How can you throw a punch and then say "no violence" because this is pretty much what you are saying. You say that divorce is needed when couples have a conflict and need "freedom". This is not at all what marriage is for. With marriage, mind you, it is a RELIGIOUS CELEBRATION, you vow before everyone there that you will take them "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, and til death do you part". It says until death do you part, not til your first fight gets you angry. I would say to you that there are certain parameters that would allow for a divorce to be okay. 1. Physical Abuse from one spouse to another. This is definitely a horrible thing. 2. Adultery, i.e. one spouse cheating on the other. These are the only two valid reasons for getting a divorce. Most conflicts that result in divorce here in the United States are ridiculous. Instead of working it out like two mature adults, they act like babies and just want out. This is unacceptable as divorce is often scarring for the children. The family is falling apart and as children, their world is crashing apart. "Incompatibility" is not a valid reason in getting a divorce. That is why you have a dating period and an engagement period before you get married. Dating can range from several months to several years, and an engagement is usually about 9 months. This is plenty of time to figure out if the two of you are compatible or not. Granted you will not know every aspect about this person in this time, but, you will NEVER know everything about your spouse. You say it yourself "children become pawns in divorce". Then why do you want to make it legal? Divorce is harmful to the children as you say yourself. You realize this but you believe it should be made legal. How can you justify this? Throughout your entire opening debate, you don't even give good reason for divorce, just "if it doesn't work out". That is not a good enough reason to divorce somebody, if anything that is a cop out. Divorce is not the best solution for separation, even separation is not the best solution. If a marriage is having difficulty there are plenty of ways you can have it be resolved. First off, you can try to resolve the problem yourselves. Try to find out what you are doing is bothersome to your spouse, and tell your spouse what they do is bothersome to you. If that doesn't work, there are plenty of books out there that talk about the subject. There is also counseling available. There are plenty of ways to resolve a dispute, its just a matter of finding it in your heart to make an effort to go out and fix what was at one time a beautiful relationship.
Global Nuclear War is Good

The Con continues to not understand this argument at all by arguing that people wont accept it. But 1. It doesn"t matter if they do or do not accept it, it really doesn"t it needs to happen anyway. And 2. People accepting it has nothing to do whether or not it is net good. Then the Con tries to say it is immoral to nuke but the exact opposite is true. It is morally wrong NOT to Nuke Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014)//EM Why is no one nation or group or individual willing to kill to save the environment? That they would probably be defeated is not the answer, because terrorist groups operate every day in support of other causes It"s not because no one believes that the environment is being damaged by human activity " many people do. But few people are willing to do so for other reasons, even if they believe that their actions might save the lives of billions in the future. Ultimately, the choice between saving the tigers and not saving the tigers is the same choice whether a three-year-old Bangladeshi child lives or dies.
Global Nuclear War is Good

? Sorry bud but... I don"t want this whole planet destroyed and in ruins. I don"t want us to be back at square one, with no medicine, technology, diplomacy, etc. History repeats itself and if this happens, it would happen like the Roman Empire. When it was sacked and captured, the whole empire fell. This pit the whole continent in disarray. There was constant fighting, and they forgot previous known knowledge. Like how to make pottery and glass, how to make medicine and cure diseases, and how to have diplomacy with your enemies. I don"t want humans to be EXCTINCT. The majority of people on Earth don"t have a nuclear bomb shelter. And they"ll DIE. Also what you didn"t think about is that the few that survive the actual bombs, will get ARS within the next 24hrs.
The press could be compromising the government's ability to protect the US

"I would disagree with the government having the ability to silence the media" Unlike some Ron Paul supporters will have you believe (no offense), the government DOES NOT have the ability to silence the media. That's why we have the media, so that we can all know what's going on. If the government can't keep something to themselves then they've got a problem, the media's just putting out to sell and inform.
The press could be compromising the government's ability to protect the US

Sorry man, I meant no disrespect to you. I appreciate that you accepted this challenge, and I think you grasped the concept of the topic quite well (unlike some of those commenting). As one of the comments pointed out before I had a chance to, I felt that you conceded in the first round, and it kind of stole my thunder. After reading comments from SolaGratia, Korezaan, and MoonDragon613, I don't feel there's a chance of winning whether I make the best arguments or not. Out of respect to you, however, I will address the points made in your reply. I provided the title and source of the article in my first argument in the event that the link provided was inactive. If you enter the title into a search engine, the report will be one of the first links available. Where as the article being "real media" is debatable, it is still reporting to millions information about known methods of our government to thwart terrorist activity. The source cites a credible data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence which it dug up in order to make a newsworthy headline. I believe such actions are potentially damaging to our national security. Basically, the only thing left to address is your claim that "the media is right in putting out information on whatever they know." I would disagree with the government having the ability to silence the media, and I totally support the media's ability to report information to the people they are supposed to be serving, but I maintain that they are committing a disservice to those people by potentially putting them in danger when reporting on certain issues. The media needs to incorporate some ethics in their reporting if they truly want to serve those who they are supposed to be providing a service to.
The press could be compromising the government's ability to protect the US

First of all, your link leads to a "cannot be found" page. Second of all, I can see it's a blog. Who considers a blog as real media? Most importantly, the media should have no restrictions. There is certainly damage that the media can cause to the country but the media rights are there because there's other stories that contain information that the government might not want us to know, but we deserve to know. But still, if there are spies sent out by the government, the government can't just expose them or give their information to the media. So not only you have no evidence, but the media is right in putting out information on whatever they know.
The press could be compromising the government's ability to protect the US

I frequently read articles like the recent Blog Network article: "U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft" By Ryan Singel [February 22, 2008, 2:15:43PM]; <http://blog.wired.com...; which report to the world, terrorists and all, known or suspected methods of our government to thwart terrorist activity. Unless it is somehow beneficial to our security agencies for the press to inform the public of such activities, the press could be compromising the government's ability to protect the US by informing terrorists of the means in which the government is using to apprehend them.
Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

I see. Although, I think that this debate may be unwinnable. I do not think that all countries that are anti-Christian are not wealthy or in depression. Take North Korea for example, they are one of the most (if not, the most) anti christian countries in the world yet what do they have? Nukes. I do agree that my previous argument was semi biased and I thank you for pointing that out.
Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

I would like to remind my opponent that Christian individuals live in all those countries, and atheists live in America. To suggest that we don't reach out to the poor, because of a single party of a nation indicates it is anti-Christianity... sort of biased. It is also important to remember that you do not have to identify or recognize yourself as a Christian to be one. and so to suggest a nation is anti-Christianity when agnostics and atheists represent the better portions of the examples and references people commonly make to the church (in our own country, never mind foreign countries) it is hard to ignore their plights. Also. If a country is anti-Christianity, you can imagine the oppression in said country.