BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

/2) it is CONCEIVED as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the university There are four definitions of the word "conceived" according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary. [1] The definition I gave was referring to the third definition. 3 : to apprehend by reason or imagination : understand You mistakenly believed that it referred to the second. 2 a : to take into one's mind b : to form a conception of : imagine With this misunderstanding out of the way, perhaps you would like to restate your argument. /In another word, the very fact that my opponent sees no visible and/or observable evidence of God supports to God's supernatural nature. It doesn't go one way or the other to proving God exists. Does the fact that we can't see invisible unicorns lend credence to the fact that they exist? Just because supernatural is defined as "beyond the visible observable universe" does not mean that anything invisible automatically lends credence to the idea that the object or entity in question actually exists. /Therefore, the existence of God is proved by the very existence of his followers. The existence of Santa Claus is proved by the existence of his followers? God may exist as an idea among his followers, but an idea and actuality are two entirely separate things. /But regardless of his arguments or problems from either free will or divine hiddenness, none of which conflict with God's existence. My entire argument for both o these problems was showing how God is incompatible with His existence. If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good entity exists, evil should not. If he is all-powerful, he has the power to stop evil. If he is all-knowing, he has the knowledge that evil exists. If he is all-good, he would want evil to be exterminated. With all of these attributes in his arsenal, evil cannot exist. It is incompatible with His nature. Same goes for divine hiddenness. An all-powerful God has the power to reveal His existence. An all-knowing God knows that there are certain people who will not believe in Him unless proof is given. An all-good God would want to reveal Himself to these people to prevent them from going to hell. With these attributes, God cannot remain hidden. It is incompatible with His nature. I will save my other arguments against God's existence for the next round. I hope everyone is enjoying the debate and please leave a comment if you have a question.
'R*pe Culture' is a Myth | Change My Mind

I should have clarified, I was simply speaking of rape culture in the United States. I agree, In third world countries, Matrimonial sex is a real thing and girls do get raped through that. I'm saying that rape culture doesn't exist in the United States. Rape culture among college campuses is commonly thrown around, And I just don't believe that we live in a country/area that condones or supports rape. I don't think that's true.
'R*pe Culture' is a Myth | Change My Mind

Disclaimer: Please note that even though I am arguing pro, I do not support pro-rape culture in any way, And I am simply proving its existence. While it may be true that rape is frowned upon in the United States of America, Non-consensual sex, And countries that support or secretly support it, Are not uncommon, Especially in third-world countries, Although not exclusively. When girls get married very young, Especially to older spouses, They will most likely be uncomfortable and unsure about intercourse and may voice this opinion. However, Their culture/religious beliefs may demand what is casually referred to as matrimonial sex. If the girl refuses, She will be hit and raped anyway. Some examples of this are rural India, Pakistan, And South Africa. I apologize for the brevity of this argument, But there are no other points I feel need to be made. Links: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Rape_culture
'R*pe Culture' is a Myth | Change My Mind

My definition of rape culture; "A specific area where people encourage, Condone, Or tolerate rape. " This being the definition of rape culture, I don't believe that we live in a country that believes that rape is okay. We arrest rapists, We put them in jail. None of us think it's okay. Con may argue first, I'm open to having my mind changed. *I have to censor the name of the debate, As I sometimes use my school issued computer for debates, And it blocks on the keyword of r*pe. I apologize if this causes any issues. *
Affirmative Action Should Be Dissolved

Affirmative action was not created as a sort of "Robin Hood" policy, taking from the rich and giving to the poor but instead as a recompensation for past wrongs. It is the set of public policies and initiatives to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Yes, it is true that minorities make up most of our low income and poverty stricken households, however if affirmative action, as you propose, was implemented to assist the poor and that, as you inject, it's easier to "divvy" according to race, then the policy would be extremely flawed and injust to those whites who live in the same conditions. Merit can be fluid but when it comes to hiring and admitting students, Universities and Employers have set a standard in place as to who will be accepted. Those who apply are often aware as to what is required and work hard to either meet this standard or present themselves to fitting that mold. However, Affirmative Action demands that standards be changed for a select few and that a certain number of people be admitted or hired based primarily on their race. Affirmative Action was set up to help dissolve prejudice but in fact it can increase prejudice as other groups resent the new privileges of the affirmative action beneficiaries with the suspicion that these newly selected people did not make it on merit but through government patronage. This is made worse when selection procedures are transparent, as in university exams where test scores may reveal that people better qualified are rejected to make place for someone based primarily on race. Many argue that minorities do not test as well as other students so the standards for them should be different. But does this actually help them? Most of these students come from poor schools and are often not prepared for rigorous college curricula. Author Stephen Thernstrom of "America in Black and White" wrote "Alarmingly, large numbers of the students admitted as a result of racial preferences fail to graduate. Of those who were freshman in 1991-92 for example, 35 percent of all African-Americans and 48 percent of black male students had not received their diplomas six years later, drop-out rates nearly triple that of the whites and Asians who had entered at the same time." We need to address the real problem instead of merely covering it up with a bandaid. We need to free minority students from underperforming schools and allow them choices. (School Voucher systems would be a good start but that is an entirely different debate.) With a better early childhood education these minorities will benefit more in the long run. Affirmative action actually hurts minorities as a whole for it assumes in a way that they can't make it without someone changing the standards for them. People often perform to the expectations given them. Dissolving Affirmative Action tells the minority that we believe they are just as competent.
Young-Earth Creationism

The reproduction was divinely supported to be as effective as possible.Ok. Human repopulation COULD, with intervention, repopulate in ideal conditions. However, the lack of food (no meat or plants), combined with the million megatons of water make this impossible.Consider: The Earth has a diameter of about 4000 miles, bringing the area to of a (admittedly flat, but none-the-less accurate) about 12,560,000 sq miles. The tallest mountain is 4 miles.Therefore, the area including mountain height would be about 12,585,130 sq miles.12,585,130 sq mi (the hight of the water at its highest point)--12,560,000 sq mi (the Earth's area)=25,000 sq mi of water.25,000 sq miles is way too much to be stored on/in Earth. That would weigh 55,000,000 metric tons, or about 50,000,000 short tons. Where did the water go?___________________________________________________The answer is yes. Animals repopulate fast since some can have up to 100 babies.100 babies while having NO food? Not possible.Consider that some animals are native to Austrailia, which is across the ocean. How kangaroos get there? Did they swim 1000 miles?How did penguins get to the Pole? Did they waddle through the desert?_________________________________________________________The God who cannot lie.Off topic, I know, but if God cannot lie, then he is not omnipotent.
Young-Earth Creationism

1 The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not""or that they did not""build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah"s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own. They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required.I say they COULD build them, but my problems are:1. Where did all the water come from?2. How did the animals fit into a boat 1/3 the Titanic's size?3. How did humanity repopulate with a only few incestuous humans in 4000 years?4. How did animals repopulate?5. How did all the animals spread from one area to areas across oceans?_____________________________________________________________There is no word for it in the Hebrew language. If you think about it, why would God talk about an extinct group of species in his creation.See next section._______________Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. For information on this particular evolution lie, check this out to disprove those mythsYou are partially correct. Carbon 14 does dissipate too quickly to accurately date objects over 50,000 years.However, due to this, scientist use several methods, such as uranium dating, to see that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old, a far cry from a measly 6000 years.How would the dinosaurs be 6000 years old if uranium, much more slowly dissipating, says 65 million years old?
Young-Earth Creationism

1 The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not""or that they did not""build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah"s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own.2 They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required. If the New Testament also mentions him in this passage:Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.(1)Was it just a fairy tale? No because even the people talk about him. I don't think the story was passed through oral tradition.2 There is no word for it in the Hebrew language. If you think about it, why would God talk about an extinct group of species in his creation.(2) 3 Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. For information on this particular evolution lie, check this out to disprove those myths: (3) (1)http://christianity.about.com... (2)http://www.godandscience.org... (3)http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Young-Earth Creationism

I am using this debate as preparation of another debate.I will be debating a Young-Earth Creationist, so I hope to be able to debate a Christian creationist.We will be debating whether a literal interpretation of Genesis is scientificly possibe.My opponent will attempt to prove Biblical Creationism, that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000-years-old, and disprove Evolution.I will defend evolution and disprove Young Earth Creationism.
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying"

I will not argue the same points over again, as I feel we have had enough of that. I am going to keep the round brief, and to-the-point. My opponent offers several risks of the site. I believe my opponent did not actually go to my source since he is conjuring up false risks. I actually completed the offer to test it, and would encourage my opponent to do the same. His first false risk is the virus risk. This argument is what you would call a non-unique argument. This "risk" (although drastically reduced on trusted sites) is not only available through this site, but throughout the internet. What you must realize here though is that my site is very trustworthy, and has constant inspections going on to ensure this is maintained. Although I personally cannot prove that there are no risks, it is an extremely low chance that there would even be a risk. Given this, there would be no harm for the vast majority, if not all of the people that use the site. Even so, the argument is non-unique. His second argument is basically the same as his first. Viruses steal information and give the computer instructions. Giving out information is almost the same thing. It CAN cause trouble but certainly not on this site. It is sponsored by Google, and is constantly scanned for complete protection. The only reason information is needed is to ship prizes. Once again, I have tested this myself. I have received one conformation e-mail, but no spam whatsoever. The site is tested and secure. My opponent's last assertion is completely false. He claims "there's always a risk in everything we do, and risk, of course, is always HARMFUL." This is an oxymoron. The word risk implies that something COULD be lost, or something COULD be gained. My opponent falsely links risk with harm, which is not in the resolution. We are debating about harm, not risk. On Deal or No Deal, people RISK some money to GAIN more money. They are not harmed by earning less money than they could have, but they are RISKING some money. Basically, risk does not equal harm, as my opponent would have you believe. "Dont you get it? I was telling you to think about what you've lost." I have lost nothing. I have not lost security, identity, or compromised my computer. Contrary to my opponent's assertions, I remain unharmed. As so, I have proven there to be no harm for my efforts. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you.
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying"

My opponent asked for some arguments, and here they are: Believe it or not, we are always a risk in everything we take part in. I'll be using some of my opponents arguments as an example. "This is for an NFL contest where you enter your dad to win NFL gear. http://www.nflshop.com...; Risks: -Firstly, your computer. You click on the Internet Explorer icon and BOOM! What have you got? A number of enticing ads and pop up banners saying, "You've won !! Click here to claim!!" Now this might be what you call, PURE LUCK. But as we know, these things arent as harmless as we think. Behind some of these ads are the latest hackers and trojan viruses which most anti-viruses dont recognize. Even if you had an Anti-virus/Firewall/Malware protection, you can never be 100% sure that your PC is protected. So how is this related to your example? Easy. You've just made yourself available to unknown hackers by logging on to the internet for this website. Sources: Hacking for Dummies "Browsing to an innocent (and trusted) website can completely compromise your computer, allowing a hacker to read your sensitive files or worse delete them." - Hacking for dummies "Firewalls, encryption, and virtual private networks (VPNs) can create a false feeling of safety. These security systems often focus on high-level vulnerabilities, such as viruses and traffic through a firewall, without affecting how hackers work."-Hacking for dummies -Lastly, yourself. You had to give out some personal information in order to log in. Should you think of giving false info, then that'll be the last of it, it will be impossible for you to win. Freely giving out your personal info could lead you into serious damage--it could be the worse than we could imagine. Like I said, there's always a risk in everything we do, and risk, of course, is always HARMFUL. Thus, there IS harm in trying. Thank you very much. "If I need to "think again" then tell me what about!" Dont you get it? I was telling you to think about what you've lost. Hey, Is this proof enough? ^_^
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying"

This is turning out to be more of an argument than a debate. Anyways, I will try to continue. As you are the instigator, traditionally, the burden of proof falls on you. After contesting my arguments, provide some of your own. My opponent makes a few rather weak attacks on my example. They are as follows: 1- The example is unrealistic 2- " Oops, thinks again. You wasted your time on that piece of junk.haha." First of all, this was after all just an example. Examples are not supposed to be 100% realistic. If my opponent still wants a real-world situation, here is one. This is for an NFL contest where you enter your dad to win NFL gear. http://www.nflshop.com... http://www.nflshop.com... Once again, you have everything to win, with nothing to lose. On to the second point of contention. "'I have nothing to lose, and quite a bit to gain.' Oops, thinks again." You have not said anything by this statement. If I need to "think again" then tell me what about! You cannot debate by making vague assertions. As of now, my opponent has yet to make any arguments, and can only try to attack mine. I still stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying"

"To win the trip, I have to guess a number between one and one hundred. If I guess the correct number, I win the trip. I go online to the sweepstakes website. The option shows up to guess a number. Do i guess? Will it cause me harm if I do?" Now everyone knows that this is very unlikely in the real world. Chances are, nobody would be able to guess the number right unless the sweepstakes staff gets some benefit from you. If they dont, there must be a catch. Besides, the probability of winning is only 1 out of a hundred. If everybody knew of this website, anybody could have joined. There will a number of repetitive answers with a number of contestants. I doubt that the sweepstakes office would be generous enough(or rich enough) to reward all those who answered correctly. Clearly, there's no reason for this intent. "I have nothing to lose, and quite a bit to gain." Oops, thinks again. You wasted your time on that piece of junk.haha.
As the old cliche goes ,"There's no harm in trying"

Hypothetically unreal? Well, yes, that is the definition... When one looks deeper into the resolution, one sees that another will or will not "try." We are debating if trying will produce harm. For the sake of the debate, lets assume that I am trying to win a trip to the next Superbowl. To win the trip, I have to guess a number between one and one hundred. If I guess the correct number, I win the trip. I go online to the sweepstakes website. The option shows up to guess a number. Do i guess? Will it cause me harm if I do? The choice seems rather obvious. I have nothing to lose, and quite a bit to gain. Since there is no harm, the resolution is affirmed.
Favorite Musicians

This we will 1 round, we will post our 5 favorite musicians, please vote 7 either way.1 is favorite, 5 is least favorite. Post there name and a link about them. 1. Steve Perry http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Ozzy Osbourne https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Nate Ruess http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Jimi Hendrix http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. John Lennon http://en.wikipedia.org...
Favorite Musicians

Alright. 1. Luciano Pavarotti[1][2] 2.Alison Krauss [3] 3.Bill Monroe[4] 4.Joni Mitchell[5] 5.My mother [1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_PavarottiR06;Cached [2]http://www.lucianopavarotti.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Swear words should not be considered inappropriate

To start my argument, I would like to say that although I do not think swear words are bad in general, I still don't agree that little kids should be going around sounding like sailors. Perhaps that sounds a bit hypocritical in my case, but my main focus will be targeting teenagers-adults, which do many things that children do not. First off, I think that the biggest reason that swear words are considered so "bad" is because they're often offensive- ( b.itch, a.ss, d.ouche, etc) - but what makes non-curse words with the SAME MEANING okay? Bitch vs brat, dumba.ss vs dumb or idiot, and so on. This same question also applies to non-offensive words such as fu.ck vs flip or frick, da.mn vs dang, sh.it vs shoot, h.ell vs heck- you get the idea. If one word with the exact same meaning is "acceptable", then why isn't the next word? Not to mention, they ARE normally very similar in spelling and only a few letters different. I can understand the offense taken by words which are demeaning (when they're racist, homophobic, sexist, etc), but I don't agree that words which are simply said when someone trips or gets an F on a test, should be frowned apon. ALSO: when I tried to post this originally, the website wouldn't let me because of the "profanities". I had to put periods in my curse words to get this to send, but I didn't have to do anything to the words with the SAME MEANING that aren't considered "as bad"... Only proving my point even further.
Instagram is a useless tool of narcissism and self-promotion

Anything can be used for good and anything can be used for evil. The trend with Instagram in this day and age does not lean towards charitable purposes, it leans towards the superficial fulfillment of ego and it encourages young people to have a blurry concept of affirmation and how it should work. Like I said, Instagram started out as a promising and creative app - but it's most recent use has turned it into a breeding ground for self-involved and misguided individuals who likely have no idea that they are falling into a trap of needing the compliments and adoration of strangers to have a sense of self-worth. A sense of self-worth that probably falls into shambles with one negative online comment. It's a dangerous world we live in these days, and not just because of privacy issues -- but because of the impact that tools like Instagram have on the mental capacities and emotional intelligence of young people who don't know a world outside of the internet/technology world.
Instagram is a useless tool of narcissism and self-promotion

Instagram is a useless tool which promotes a low sense of emotional intelligence, an unhealthy amount of narcissism, and societal vulnerability. It is the poison that will leak into our children's minds and leave them exposed on the Internet by disguising itself as a discrete and consequence-free app. Instagram started as a well-intentioned app, where posts of food, art, travel, and other interesting things in the world were displayed. It has turned into selfie-central, where millions of insecure young tweens turn themselves into insta-celebs and they wait hungrily for the likes and the 'tbh' comments.