BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does exist

This is my first, actually. Welcome to DDO and good luck. Keep in mind that there are many variations of the Big Bang theory. I assuming you are aiming to address the Ball-of-Light Theory. I would advise specifying on which end you are aiming to debate over (as well as which creator, if you had a specific one in mind), but since the question is not the theory itself, but a creator (assuming the Christian God) we can leave it there. If you do, however, have a specific god in mind (you did not specify in your first argument), then I will need to know in order to refute its existence. Please and thank you. I reject the claim that a god is necessary in order for the universe to come into existence, but rather through naturalism. By this, I am meaning the Big Bang [inflationary theory], which expanded and formed the universe through the means of quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing (the lowest point it can go). Because of quantum fluctuations, there is a constant, and temporary, appearance of sub-nuclear particles and anti-particles that annihilate each other in the same instance. It allows for the fluctuations to exist, and then not exist spontaneously. Through this, an inflation could have started that gave way to the universe we know now. (Note: these fluctuations do not violate the conservation of energy and have been proven to exist in quantum vacuums. ) [1][2][3] In this blackness that you describe, there were quantum fluctuations. As I had stated before, quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing. Meaning, there will never be an empty space, like you imagine, without these fluctuations. And through the law of quantum mechanics, there is a something that would eventually form from instability [the state of quantum fluctuations]. And that something happened to be the formation of our universe. I wouldn't actually say "pop," but rather inflated like a balloon. The Big Bang then allows for the universe to form naturally, without a need for a god. The "creator" in this sense are the fluctuations, not a supernatural being. In other words: naturally, as it requires no assistance of a deity. Therefore, naturalism is a logical answer. [1] . https://www.astrosociety.org... [2] . http://phys.org... [3] . http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
Metal is better than Rap

Okay, more 'realistic' means lots of lyrics about gangsters and crime. Well, yeah you got that point right. But let's compare our favorite song lyrics! And which is seems more cooler. Also, some of the Folk bands sing about Vikings. This is from: Into the Battle by Ensiferum "We left our homes behind, now we're following the wolves' trail Through the deepest forests, beneath the stars we ride I can see the moon glowing red like the blood of warriors There's a prophecy that tonight many men will die." See? This is what I'm meaning with intelligent lyrics. Rather than something random lyrics about love in a club or drugs or boasting how awesome they are, this happens quite often in Rap lyrics and I never saw crime as something 'cool/badass'.
Metal is better than Rap

As my opponent has taken the stance that rap is not as tough. Let it be noted I listen to Metal regurlarly and I love it. But the reason why metal can never be as tough is because it is stereotypically impossible to acheive the things sung in metal. You cannot become a guitar weilding metal god of death. It is awesoke but not realistic. Rap appeals to the fact that it is realistic, and a common way of life for certain people. You also say that metal has bette r lyrics. This is pretty opinionated, and we can say that rap is more likely to have good lyrics. See as it is composed almost entirely of them. We can't make assumptions that one genre's lyrics are better than another's esspecially since most time will be spent on rap lyrics. They may not appeal to everyone in the same way. You also say that metal is much more deep, but this is alao a personal reaction. Someone who is going through what a rap song may convey will arguably side with rap. Plus to say that rap doesn't have deep songs or lyrics is not true either. There are many songs that convey conspiracy theory, tirades against society, and tirades against the government. I believe I have made an effective argument. I await pro's rebuttals next round.
Metal is better than Rap

Hear me out, I do like some Rap stuff: Mostly Japanese stuff due to Anime I watched. I'm talking about the popular type Rap found in America. That out of the way, this debate is also about why people think Rap music is 'Badass' or thought as good rather than Metal. Here's the ting: Metal has more badass lyrics: example Sword Chant by Ensiferum or Into the Battle by the same band, heck even Metallica got some epic level songs in the 'Ride the Lightning'. Reasons why I like Metal is basically this: cool fast-tempo songs, lyrics tell a story and different singing voices from Growling (Listen to Amon Amarth.), to no-growls like Iron Maiden or the female voice with Nightwish. Also, I do like the way the music feels 'heavy'. Okay, I think the Rap artists are trying to act way too tough with their constant use of bad language. Metal bands act tough with their lyrics that tell of Heroics and sometimes very gory stuff and War. Again, I want the opponent to think why this kind of music Undergroun1d and why Rap is 'Cool' and for the 'Tough guys' and to answer well. Oh also, I haven't found a rap song that may be emotionally effective like some Metal songs. And if the answer is something like 'Great bass!' for Rap, I'm listening to Metal songs which have just that with great lyrics.
Metal is better than Rap

I am also not sure about your request for a lyric. I am confused as to wether you want a rap or metal. I will provide both. Metal: Go forth and Die (DethKlok) "You'll be eaten by the the blackness of your rotten mind that's dying. You're consumed with sharpened wings that penetrate your frightened dying. " Rap: I Cry (Ja Rule) You and I then made a killin and stuck together. In this land of forbidden treasure, love is the only evil seed that could sever such a tied between us. Not the love between us, but your love for the dough I personally don't like a lot of rap. But this is too opionated to go one way or the other. Also your last statement about crime isn't tough. That is opion as well, because others may see it as boldness.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

If a person plans to become a politician, or involved with the U.S Gov't. in any manner, then they should be able to further their personal knowledge of the U.S Government at their own discretion. Making it a graduation requirement would simply promote an indifferent attitude within teenagers about their state's government. It will simply be another "assignment" in their eyes. According to the Washington Post, (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) many skills that teens should know prior to graduation revolve around practicality and making themselves a more self-sufficient adult. The average adult rarely does much in their life that calls for an extensive knowledge of the U.S Government.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

They should be required to take the citizenship test. Sure, they are already citizens, but recent results have shown that people know nothing of the government (http://www.businessinsider.com...) (if link doesn't work copy and paste) Also, taking U.S. history is required in most high schools already, but not U.S. Government. It may not help them with their career, but if you plan to be a politician I think you would want to know how the government works. U.S. History just teaches what it says, history. Like the wars we've been in and famous leaders, hardly anything about the system of government. It would also help them be more informed voters. I'm pretty sure you nor I want idiot people out there who know nothing voting for our leaders. This test should be taken for required curriculum.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

Hello, and thanks for taking time to look at the debate. In this debate this is how things will work. Round 1- Acceptance of debating this topic and that all references are valid (no arguments here!) Round 2- Opening statements and facts/references (you are allowed to use links from these sources: news websites/articles (USA ONLY), government websites (USA ONLY), or Wikipedia.) Round 3 and 4- any arguments and counter arguments in the topic. So let me start, I hereby accept that we will be debating the issue "Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school." and also agree that any references/links are valid as long as they meet the guidelines in round 2.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

Adding the subject of U.S Government to public, private, and suburban school's curriculum would be a better rectification as opposed to a last minute test that only seniors must take. I we plan on extending the knowledge of the government onto our people, we must teach it throughout grade school. Not a test that will most likely result in very little retention of the content and will leave seniors scrambling just to pass the test with a least the bare minimum. We need something that will leave results with longevity. Not something that shows you studied the night before. With that said, while there may in fact be many Americans that lack knowledge of the govt, It's because it is a non essential topic that will not affect one's quality of life. As I stated before, if a person plans to become a politician, or involved with the U.S Gov't. in any manner, then they should be able to further their personal knowledge of the U.S Government at their own discretion. Otherwise, we should leave a person to their own liberties.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

We see evidence of the need for civic literacy every day. Some people argue "majority rules," as justification to trample on the constitutional rights of others. The typical questions in no way measure depth of understanding of the way America works. Take, for example, "name one branch or part of the government," or, "what did Susan B. Anthony do?" If high school history and government teachers were asked to administer the test, they would find it to be almost insulting to their student's intelligence. Let's let teachers do their job better and fund innovative civics teaching. Administering the test would be no more simple than asking high school baseball players to name the 4 bases on the field.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

While voter turnout being at an all time low is plausible, making a citizenship test a graduation requirement would pose as another obstacle a student must overcome in order to achieve the high school diploma they have worked so hard for in past years to get. It's as though after all those years of countless essays, book reports, presentations, tests, etc. all funnel down into the final challenge of a citizenship test. Moreover, you stated in a past argument that U.S Government is not a required class, so how would these seniors prepare for this test that ultimately, by which I assume, dictates whether or not they receive their diploma. On top of that, one can infer that there is no direct correlation between the # of people who take U.S Government, and Voter Turnout.
Seniors should be required to take citizenship test before graduating high school.

With voter turnout at historic lows, and polls showing young Americans don't understand the basics of American government, the citizenship test would give them the essential building blocks for participating in the democratic process. If they seek to have jobs that take part of being in the government, they will have a better understanding of it. They may pass a law that they don't agree with, and would have no understanding of how or why is was passed. Watching national news hardly helps, since most of them are biased with democratic or republican views. A basic understanding of the government will give them the capability of forming their own political views and voting for leaders and laws they agree with.
The perfection of God

In order to argue the perfection of God we would then have to argue the reality of God. Then, we would have to argue the Bible, God's word, which is the only thing to measure Him by since He is God. We cannot argue with humanity's idea of God, because to bring God down to are level would make Him less God. If God was any less God, then He would then be human. Lastly, then we would have to argue the fallacy of His word, which we know was physically put on paper by men. Are you game? I think this will be fun. You seem very smart.
The perfection of God

Ok. Once again, I do not want to describe God's infinite abilities or qualities, like you said that would be a different debate. I will only continue to argue His perfection. 1. If something is perfect it would have to be wholly good, like you said. I agree with you, however your statement that in order to be wholly good you would not be able to cause something to human kind that would be detrimental, I disagree with. I believe that this statement is flawed, because God is all knowing and all seeing, He sees all the affairs of man. He does not just see one group or one person. So, therefore in order to work a more intricate plan for the good of all, He has to allow certain things to happen. What plan am I talking about? The plan of salvation. God knows ultimately what is needed in order to turn each individual to Him. Now, why would something bad turn people to Him? Well, for example 9/11, Do I think that God made that happen,no. Do I think that God allowed it to happen,obviously. Why? How many people started praying and going to church after that. Why do people turn to God when they're in trouble, whether they believe or not. How does this argue the perfection of God? Well, it does because God is wholly good, because He allows things to happen to man for the good of all and not just himself. We as humans can not apart from God do anything wholly good. Why?, because most of the time we help in order to gain some kind of benefit for ourselves, Either to look good to man, to gain some kind of political status or to appease our guilty consciences. God has none of those qualities. He does the things He does because He can do no wrong. I think to argue the idea of Him not being perfect you would have to eliminate the wrong is incorrect. I am saying that because God is perfect He is bigger than the idea of wrong. I think when you say He is not perfect because wrong things happen(our human ability to understand wrong is what I mean), makes God less perfect. That would be a mistake. 2. God could just wipe evil away. He will one day do that according to the Bible. Then we will have the perfect world again and there will be no more evil, right now, because He is merciful, there is still free will. And once again if He eradicated evil and there was just Him, then there would not be a choice, we would be puppets not humans. Now, for those that believe Him and His word we will one day live in a perfect world where there is only Him. 3. The issue about the Bible, I can not argue with you on the basis of facts, because as you said it was written by man. Although, you won't admit that it was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I can only argue the basis of the Bible being perfect in my own limited experience, study of history, and others experiences. So, I do not think I can debate with you about the validity of it based on the fact that man did write it. I think once again in order to believe it was perfect you would just have to have faith. But, like I said previously, I have seen and heard of it doing more than you will ever know.
The perfection of God

"God's ability, and characteristics are in the Bible and whatever we have perceived here on earth through situations and circumstances are only are own opinions and perceptions of God. The only way to really know what He is like is to read the Bible and talk to Him." This doesn't actually tell our audience what characteristics God has. I draw my measurements of God from my interpretation of him as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good (the traditional definition of God). If there are other characteristics in the Bible, or if you would like to debate which characteristics God does have, we have a whole new debate to attend to :). Your argument here doesn't really attend to what I said-I argue we can measure God's actions on earth because we ascribe to him certain characteristics. Any being that is wholly good, all-powerful and knowledgeable we expect to act in certain ways in order to be good (good being not detrimental or undesirable to humans or human society). For you to disprove this, you would either have to say that God doesn't have these characteristics, or that a being with these characteristics won't necessarily act in the manner I have described. As to your argument about Evil, I draw from this that we must choose to form a relationship with God, and the choice is between sinning (evil) and a relationship. But I don't get where the benefit is in choosing. You don't ever explain why a perfect God can't just simply eradicate us of the desire to do evil, and instead just allow us all to form relationships with him instead. Wouldn't a more perfect world be one in which we all had relationships with God and no evil occurred? "The argument that it could have been manipulated is silly, because if God was perfect don't you think He probably picked people that were going to listen to Him and write what He said." This is a circular argument-A. the people who wrote the Bible didn't manipulate the information in it because God's perfection inhibited them from doing so, and B. God is perfect because the Bible tells us so. In order to prove that people didn't manipulate the Bible because of God's perfection, you need an alternate reason as to why God is perfect. Otherwise, all of my points as to why the Bible is invalid still stand. I hope this allows you enough to go on. I'm rather tired right now and can't really type more.
Gravity Falls Shouldn't End!

Firstly, the ongoing mystery, while interesting, could be the show's downfall. If the Disney corporation attempts to drag it out too long, it could create disastrous results. Take, for example Spongebob and Fairly OddParents. Both had large amounts of viewers when they aired their first seasons and were considered some of the best cartoons of their time, as Gravity Falls is today. However, when the corporation to which they belonged (Nickelodeon), attempted to drag out the success of these shows, they became watered down, with terrible episodes such as The Great Fairy Share Scare (Fairly OddParents) and Pet Sitter Pat (Spongebob). You could make the case that this would never happen with Disney, but remember that they're responsible for such animated atrocities as Pickle and Peanut and Fish Hooks. Furthermore, the season finale is going to be an hour long, so the unsolved mysteries are no reason to keep the show going. We can safely assume they'll be answered.
Torturing wild pigs is OKAY in a unfortunate predicament that they attack you

Boar- an uncastrated domestic male pig.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Since Pro did not post any arguments in round 2, I will post mine.Here are my arguments.1. Torturing boars is not justifiable for attacking you. Attacking you is not a good reason for torture. Killing the pig is more humane than torturing.2. Torturing boars increases the chances that we will harm humans. Since animals in general have no moral value in themselves, the torturer can’t explain why it is wrong to harm them in themselves and so the best he can do is to point to a potential harm to those with moral value. 3. Torturing is immoral. Human or not, it is still a living being.4. You gain nothing from torturing a boar, unless you are a sexual sadist and sexual sadists are immoral people. Now to pro.
Christianity does more harm than good

I accept the challenge and look forward to a good debate with Pro. I would like to inform Pro that I am fairly new to this site and so I apologize for any mistakes in form on my part. Pro has said that he will address how Christianity is constantly causing issues in society. I would like to point out that there is a potential that certain "issues" he may bring up are only viewed as issues from one side of the spectrum. If a statement were made that Christianity has oppressed homosexuality, the Pro will see it as harmful to society. However, on the other side of the fence, preventing the spread of homosexuality is viewed as a good thing. Therefore, I ask the Pro to only refer to issues that will be viewed as negative to society from both sides of the debate, or issues that are so irrefutably harmful, such as murder or rape, that no reasonable person could argue for its being beneficial. Example: 'Christianity has harmed the spread of homosexuality' should be inadmissible as evidence because the right disagrees with it. 'Christianity has led to the beatings of gay men' would be admissible, as it is an undeniably harmful thing. Second, I would like to differentiate between Christianity and Catholicism. Catholicism is a branch of Christianity but it does not share all the same tenants of it. I would ask that the actions of Catholics be accepted as evidence, while their tenants that disagree with Christianity not be admitted. Example: 'The Christian ban on birth control is harmful' should be viewed as an invalid statement, as that is not a belief of mainstream Christianity. 'Christians caused many deaths in the Crusades' should be admitted as evidence, as it is referring to the action of Christians. Third, I would ask that Pro recognizes the difference between people acting according to true Christianity and people acting according to a bastardized, deranged form of it. Cults may call themselves Christian but they are not. People may try to excuse their foul actions under the guise of acting according to Christianity, but if those things do not reflect true Christianity, I ask that they be mostly ignored. Example: 'The Westboro Baptist Church shows that Christians are hateful and intend to cause damage to society' would not be a valid statement because Christians denounce the WBC's actions and beliefs. 'Christianity has enabled groups like the Westboro Baptist Church to have a platform for their hateful actions' would be valid, because it is not an argument about Christianity supporting their actions. Lastly, I would like to address the last line of Pro's opening statement. In it, he says that "the vote will determine if Christianity is a good thing, or whether it causes issues and causes harm to us as a society." I am not arguing that Christianity does not cause any harm. Any belief system will cause some form of damage. I am arguing that Christianity causes a minimal amount of harm when compared to the good it does. Good luck, and let's have fun with this.
Christianity does more harm than good

I taking the pro argument will argue that Christianity causes more harm than good. I will go into details as to how it has impacted us through out history, and how it constantly is causing issues within our society. The con will take up the argument and provide evidence as to how Christianity is a positive influence on our society. What good does it do, and how is it helpful, and how has it positively impacted history. At the ends the vote will determine if Christianity is a good thing, or whether it causes issues and causes harm to us as a society.