BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be made illegal worldwide

Thank you Effy for setting this debate up. Keep in mind that I'll be taking on the role of Devil's Advocate for the duration of this debate. Good luck to the both of us! My opponent stated that I should argue why the death penalty should be necessary in all cases. Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up only to later release them to have them commit the same crime again? Also, upon being tried and sentence a criminal is no longer a member of regular society so they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of mainstream society. It's also safe to say that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. "You rob me, I'll rob you back!" Wouldn't YOU want to get revenge if somebody harmed somebody close to you? More to come after my opponent posts her first argument. :)
Science makes Atheism hard to believe

-Whether you adhere to String Theory or not, the binary pattern still exists. Con: "String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language." Well, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before? Secular scientist and biologist, David Berlinski said that ,"Darwinian evolution is not even worth being called a theory." http://youtu.be... http://www.arn.org... Darwinism is a theory. Why? It's never been observed, it is not testable, measurable, or even provable. To believe in it is not evidence based, thus faith based. I go with the evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * The move of atheism was sparked by Darwinian Evolution. It was to make God unneccessary. If God was unneccessary, we didn't need a god. 82% of atheists believe in Darwinian Evolution where other groups average about 43%. So, Darwinian Evolution has become a key general component of Atheism. It's a core belief. http://bevets.com... The finds used to claim the very rare "intermediaries" are fudged. I don't think that. I know that. It has become a money making machine. Find an intermediary $$$$... (Change of kind? Nope-) http://youtu.be... * Intermediary Finds-Reality 101 "Whales from hyenas, Walking Whales, and such....oh my" http://youtu.be... * "Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -Richard Dawkins It looks like we agree on some of this. I'm yet to see any evidence that gives me faith in atheism. None. I've seen evidence of intelligent design. So which should I put my faith in? The evidence or the lack of evidence? * "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in." -Richard Dawkins So...I love science. I understand a lot of things and on a deep level. Has Mr. Dawkins become satisfied with not understanding the world he lives in? According to my research and the research of others, his version of evolution is dogmatic, faith based, and delusional, a denial of evidence, a denial of reality. * Con: "What is the matter with it from a logical or philosophical perspective?" You believe in magic, get God by Darwinian means by infinity as its highest possible and conceivable being, or you get God by unknown means/self existance. Either way, philosophically, you get a god. * Con: "Well, that's not the philosophy I espouse. There are plenty of things I don't know or claim to know. I wouldn't ever make such an assertion." What philosophy do you espouse? * Richard Dawkins in an interview with Ben Stein- "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer." * Fred Hoyle, the "Father of Nucleosynthesis" Because of the origin and probability of the elements and reality ever coming to be, Hoyle stated his findings had shaken his atheism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Science makes Atheism hard to believe

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions, a finite sense of reality. Well, that's not the philosophy I espouse. There are plenty of things I don't know or claim to know. I wouldn't ever make such an assertion. "Reality is merely an illusion, allbeit a very persistant [sic] one." -Albert Einstein I doubt Einstein would have made such a spelling mistake as that.Yes, it's irrelevant to the argument, but I still have over 7500 characters left. No reason not to. While exploring the mathematics of string theory...String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language - really it should be called string hypothesis, if even. It's debatable in the scientific community whether or not string theory makes any predictions or testable claims, which are two necessities of scientific theories. Using string theory as established science that somehow contradicts atheism in any form is very premature. The double slit experiment shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe.Logical to us, because I seriously doubt you, as a theist, believe that human logic is the ultimate arbiter of what is truly "logical". All that the experiment establishes is that there is something fundamental about our universe that we don't understand, and may never. But I fail to see how this proves that God exists unless we resort to a god-of-the-gaps. If reality is infinite and history is infinite, then everything that can exist does exist and infinitely. Tjere are infinite you's, me's, Earth's, infinite everything. There was not a first you, no first me, no first anything. You are one of an un-numbered, infinite amount of you's. Whether or not this is an integral part of atheism (spoiler: it's not), I fail to see what's wrong with this. I don't particularly believe it, but what is the matter with it from a logical or philosophical perspective?A lot of this post seems to just be preachy gibberish with little to no real relation to the topic at hand. Hopefully someone can confirm that I'm not crazy in the comments?
Original sin

Greetings! In this debate, I will argue that the Christian concept of original sin is contradictory. We must understand what original sin means. I will use carm.org's definition Original Sin This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Note that the NT does somewhat talk about "original sin", but it is contradicted in the OT. This round is for acceptance only. Please be logical. No semantics please!
Original sin

In closing out this debate, I would just like to point out, again, that I have refuted the Instigator's claims. RRC1) Death did not happen before the fall. The instigator did not sum this up in his last round, so I can only conclude that he has dropped it as I have satisfactorily refuted his claim here. RRC2)1) Mercy and faithfulness were desired by God more than sacrifices, but sacrifices were still required.2) Jesus' sacrifice was necessary so that we could stop sacrificing animals and approach God directly to forgive our sins (rather than having to go through a priest).3) We die for our own sins, but God was the one who came up with the rules. He held each person accountable for his/her own sin, but sent Jesus to die on the cross to take the sins of the entire world so that any and everyone can be forgiven. They were adequately refuted and I thank you for reading and considering the arguments presented here.
Original sin

I than you for reading this debate and for my opponent for debating with me. I just want to take the last round to sum up a few points: 1) Sacrifices were not needed 2) Jesus' sacrifice was unecessary 3) We cannot die for another persons sin; so to say that G-d required Jesus's sacrifice is to say: a) God does want a sacrifice, b) God does approve of human sacrifices and c) We can die for anither's sin. Instill do not feel these were adequately refuted.
Original sin

RRRC1) So Adam and Eve did know the difference between right and wrong? Huh, this story is making little sense to me.Let me offer a different Jewish perspective. Both trees were "correct." If Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life, they became immortal; but if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would become a being that dies. Before they ate of either tree, they would be in a "twilight zone." Quantum physics actually does have an explanation. Perhaps these verses foreshadow another incredible incodent. See! Today I have set before you [a free choice] between life and good [on one side], and death and evil [on the other]... Now therefore, choose Life! (Deuteronomy 30:14,19). G-d gave Adam and Eve a choice between life and death. It is clear which one they chose.RRRC2) Sorry, that verse is contradicted by another verse in John. No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13 It is clear that the New Testament is in err; not the Old Testament.Actually, the Bible doesn't say that God does not desire sacrifice. After all, we're to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). You are probably referring to Hosea 6:6, wherein God says, "for I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." God was not saying only mercy and no sacrifice. Our very lives are to be a sacrifice to God. But without mercy first, our sacrifice means nothing. It is an empty gesture. *Facepalm* Let me give you the verse I am referring to. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Psalm 40:6 or as my main translation puts it:You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request. Examples of non-blood atonementA good example is in Jonah. The city of Ninevah fell on their face before G-d, repented of their sins; then G-d forgave them. G-d does not desire a sacrifice, burnt offering, or a sin offering. G-d desires a true, repented heart--one that truly seeks forgiveness. G-d has made a promise that he will forgive you."Who is a God like You, Who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not maintain His anger forever, for He desires loving-kindness.He shall return and grand us compassion; He shall hide our iniquities, and You shall cast into the depths of the sea all their sins." Micha 7:18-19ConclusionThe contender does not have a full knowledge of the old testament laws. I have given examples of non-blood atonemnt and have given a strong verse that claims that G-d doesn't even REQUEST a burnt sacrifice! Back to you.
Original sin

RRC1) Actually, it was God. Again, Romans 5:12 tell us that through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin. They were immortal before they sinned. God created them as perfect beings and they were sinless, and they would have never died but for their sin. The Tree of Life would have restored their immortality, so God couldn't allow that because of their sin. They can be held morally responsible because God told them not to eat the forbidden fruit. They did it anyway. They still disobeyed a command from God. They had the freedom to obey or disobey, and they chose the latter. RRC2) Yes, Elijah and Enoch ascended into Heaven without having to die. The honest answer is we don't know why. The Scriptures are not specific on why. We know that they both had very, very strong faith (probably the most faith of any humans who have ever lived), so God may have wanted to spare them from having to experience death due to their great faith. Some speculate they were taken to Heaven in preparation of the end times as the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12. We just don't know, and any answers given by anyone would be mere speculation. Actually, the Bible doesn't say that God does not desire sacrifice. After all, we're to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). You are probably referring to Hosea 6:6, wherein God says, "for I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. " God was not saying only mercy and no sacrifice. Our very lives are to be a sacrifice to God. But without mercy first, our sacrifice means nothing. It is an empty gesture. You must know that sacrifices were going on for a long time. In fact, the book of Leviticus is full of rules and regulations about sacrificing. Animals were sacrificed for the atonement of sins, but it was still faith that justified true believers (Hebrews 11). Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. Because of His sacrifice on the cross, we no longer have to sacrifice animals. We can now approach Him directly and seek forgiveness for our sins. ConclusionThe Instigator has not shown that God forgives sins without atonement. In fact, the Scrriptures are full of blood sacrifices. Either for sins in the Old Testament, or in the way we live our lives and use our bodies in the New Testament.
Original sin

Finally! Someone that knows what they are talking about and arguing about! Anyway, on to my case.RRC1) My opponent and I are at a point of agreement. The reason G-d expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was because of the Tree of Life. Think logically! Did G-d give them their immortality? NO! It was the Tree of Life. My opponent asserts that they were sinless before and immortal before the sin. Let me ask this question. How can Adam & Eve be morally responsible for something if they did not know the difference between good and evil?RRC2) My opponent asserts that we do die for our sins--a physical death. However, Elijah and Enoch went to heaven ALIVE and did not die for their sins.My opponent asserts that Jesus was the attonment for our sins in a spiritual sense. However, the Bible says that G-d does not desire our sacrifices. There are many incidents in the Torah where G-d forgave sins long before Jesus came and without any sacrifice.A classic example is king David. David sinned with Basheba by comitting adultry and killing Basheba's husband. G-d forgave David without any sacrifice. All what he did was come to humiliation and repent of our sins. That's it! That is all what we need to do is repent of our sins to find favour with G-d. G-d will forgive us, because he said he would. 18. Who is a God like You, Who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not maintain His anger forever, for He desires loving-kindness. 19. He shall return and grant us compassion; He shall hide our iniquities, and You shall cast into the depths of the sea all their sins. Micha 7:18, 19 http://www.chabad.org...ConclusionI have shown that G-d forgives sins without attonment and have made a good resolution that G-d forgives without blood and original sin is a false doctrine. Back to you
R; Public schools should offer martial arts P.E. classes

A preface: As a student of martial arts I have been higly satisfied with the results of my experience over the past four years. However, the expense and time dedication of various martial arts tends to reserve the practice only for socioeconomic elites & middle-class who have a surplus of both. In foreign counties that take pride in their history of martial arts (e.g. Japan & Judo, Thailand & Muay Thai) classes and competitive teams are offered in public schoos, making the practice accessible to all persons. Why not the United States? I find myself wondering what arguments there are against such a proposition and welcome any and all disagreement.Hence the proposition: Public schools should offer P.E. classes that teach martial art(s).Rules:1. Arguments will follow the acceptance, constructive, first rebuttle & final rebuttle (no new arguments) form.2. Both debaters are held to a burden of proof.3. Semantic and abusive arguments will be ignored.4. Any questions or clarification should be held in the comments section.Definitions:Public Schools - Any educational institution in the U.S.A. pulically funded.Martial Arts - Any physical practice that is either based in or derives from armed/unarmed combat.P.E. Classes - Physical education classes that are requisites for graduation
THW allow transgender marriage

Thank you for this topic. I'm happy to accept the challenge. From dictionary.com: transgender noun 1. a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser. It follows, then, that a transgender marriage is one where one or both parties are appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex. If a couple decides to marry knowing that there will be no children from the union then that is their own concern. The world is overpopulated. Nobody has a duty to produce children. Typical wedding vows mention having and holding in a range of conditions (better and worse, richer and poorer) until death, and promising to be faithful. There is no reason why transgender couples cannot adhere to these vows. At my own wedding, according to the customs of that country, we agreed to be responsible for any children of the union. Note, ANY children. Had we been unable to reproduce we could have still kept our vows. Transgender may be a normal thing after all. It exists all around the world. I've seen it in western society, in India, Bangladesh, Thailand and even in very traditional societies in South America. A transgender marriage does no harm to society. I don't believe it harms the individuals involved, but even if does, in a free society adults should be allowed to shape their own lives for better or worse.
How to Solve Every "Big Issue" in One Year.

I will tackle each of your steps in what seems an obvious troll debate, simply because it'll be fun. 0; After the NSA leak, you think anyone will let you use a virus to control their device separately? Why would anyone agree to such a notion? How can you control the accuracy of an EMP? If you think that a town has hidden technology, you can't filter out your own. You'll cost those towns hundreds if not thousands of euros of damage from the destroyed computers, phones, and electrical systems. 1; Control every mine on earth? There aren't many mines left, except in minefields. This won't do Jack Schitt unless you intentionally plant mines everywhere on Earth, which violates several laws, and threatening to blow everyone who opposes you up at the flick of a switch doesn't make them feel safe. 2; Mag-lev trains are expensive to build, and in hilly areas or near islands, they'll be downright impossible to maintain. 3; Where is the money for this coming from? Geo thermal plants are very hard to build already because of distance from the core, but building on a volcano will violate several safety regulations and no one will volunteer to work there. All of this renewable tech will be impossible to build in one year, and will bankrupt the country that tries. 4; See point 3. And how do you plan to measure 100,000 years in energy consumption without establishing a single state Earth, which will also be impossible. 5; De-salinizing sea water, for the whole sea as you described, will wipe out sea life that cannot live in fresh water. 6; I assume you mean de-desertify the deserts, they're already desertified. You'll have to solve the locals from cutting down trees as well, which once again will require a single state Earth. 7; You will leave thousands if not millions of farmers out of a job with that system unless you plane to ship every farmer to the specific farm. 8; SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!! 9; Is memory concrete even real? Keep in mind that you have EMP'd the houses, so they don't have power. 10; Costs again. The problem of where will the money and labor come from. 11; What about already present vehicles? 12; No one will agree to that. We've already had problems with Microsoft for always online regulations. You had thirteen points, but I'll assume you're a troll debater. I did this for a laugh. Bye!
How to Solve Every "Big Issue" in One Year.

0. Use Stuxnet to control all wireless technology. Use EMP's for tech that cannot be reached VIA stuxnet. 1. Automate every mine on Earth. 2. Build high-capacity mag-lev trains to transport resources anywhere on Earth. 3. Build geo-thermal plants on volcanoes. Use artificial dams. Use dome-shape designed solar cells on kite's in orbit. Harness wave and tidal power by targeting hurricanes, tsunamis, and typhoons. 4. Store the energy from these farms. Acquire 100,000 years of clean energy. 5. Use the graphene to de-salinize sea-water on every continent. 6. Pasturize animals to desertify every desert on Earth. 7. Use .5% of the world's surface area for vertical hydroponic and nutriculture farms. 8. Mass produce Soylent. 9. Print out 5 billion homes and 3 billion community buildings using memory concrete and memory metal. 10. Place every re-infoced building on shock panels, making them earthquake-proof (in addition to being indestructable by fire, hurricane, tornado, tsunami, flood, infestation, structural eroding) 11. Place sensors in every transport vehicle to be autonomous. 12. Connect every electronic device to wifi. Within 1 year, my 12 step program will spare the world from global warming, deforestation, unemployment, starvation, homelessness, dehydration, abortion, political war, financial war, religious war, disease, malnutrition, censorship, environmental destruction, illiteracy, peak oil, and crime. My program costs no money or manual labor and overlooks no major issue plaguing humanity.
Drivers shouldn't get in trouble for not having on a seat belt.

The conclusion that it might not hurt somebody is utterly irresponsible. Would you speed too? Because it might not hurt somebody. That's the thought that we as people get when we are rushing to and fro. It's the habit that we make of things. Wearing that little piece of polyester can be life saving during an accident. People usually turn their lives around after an accident and one of the things they do is wear their seatbelt.