BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe that a God exists continuation

I'll now take this seriously. I will be arguing in the favor for the resolution that a God in fact exists. "Who or what can say who or what did begin the universe?" Contemporary science. It makes no logical sense for anyone to assert that "absolutely nothing" could have produced that initiating bang or anything else: "something existed" and "caused that" -- producing those things that we know of as having a beginning. There was a "beginning of things", There was an outline of "from-simple-to-complex-development" in the creation of earth and life in a Genesis account of creation. Explains our universe far "in advance of humanity having theories/developed or technology" to try to form such concepts and verify scientific assertions. For instance, the Bible says: "He stretches out the north [a direction] over 'empty' space, and 'hangs the earth on nothing'." (Job 26:7) How would the writer four thousand years in the past (2000BC)[1] have known that the Earth is "suspended on nothing" -- not attached to anything, but mountains were called pillars of heaven in the poetry of Job 26:11, "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His threatening.", ie: mountains "tremble and are astonished" (a poetic phrase).
Islam is the true religion

1. No contradiction in that verses. You can read it carefully. After the end of this world, there will be At that time all peoples will be divided into three classes: 1. The foremost in rank and position (v 10) : a large company of the former peoples and a few of later peoples (v 13 and 14) 2. The common righteous people (v 9) : a large company of the former peoples and a large company of later peoples (v 39 and 40) 3. Those who denied the Hereafter and persisted in disbelief and polytheism and major sins till the last (v 10) : 2. Word of Allah Allah means God. As arabic people, ancient and modern, still use the same name for God. 3. Al Quran is the true book from God. If any verse in the bible contradict with Qur'an, it means that in the bibles is not true
Islam is the true religion

"You can say so but can you prove it" - Quote from the Pro's previous argument.I assume you are asking me to prove that the "Quran has faulty lines and verses in it". Here is one example: The Quran states that only a few of the later believers will enter into paradise S. 56:11-14 [1] Later on, it states that numerous later believers will enter into paradise (S. 56:39-40 [2]). "Few" and "Numerous" are very different words. They cannot both be true. "Allah is arabic word for God in English." - Quote from the Pro's previous argument.Well, history strongly suggests that "Allah" is actually a word that was used before Islam was established. "Allah is found... in Arabic insciptions prior to Islam"[3] "The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia. The common theory is that it is formed from 'ilah', the common word for a god, and the article 'al-'; thus 'al-ilah', 'the god,' becomes 'Allah', 'God'. This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic.[4] "In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. ... the Moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah"[5] "Bible have many contradictions. It mean there is true verses in the bible that Qur'an can confirm"Muslims believe the Torah, parts of the Gospels, and the Psalms to be the Word of God. Some of the attributes accredited to the God of the Bible are inconsistent with the attributes given to Allah in the Qur'an.In any case, you still have yet to prove that Islam is the one true religion. [1]http://quran.com...[2]http://quran.com...[3] Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643[4] Islam: Muhammad and HIs Religion; Arthur Jefferey, pg. 85[5] (op.cit., Islam, p. 7)
Islam is the true religion

For this debate, a few definitions need to be established. As you are the Pro (Affirmative), you have the right to change these Con (Negative) definitions (granted they are within logic and reason).Definitions:1. true: agreeing with the facts; not false; real or genuine (a.) 2. religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (b.)3. hell: the place where the devil lives and where evil people go after they die according to some religions (c.)4. Muslim: a person whose religion is Islam : a follower of Islam (d.)5. Quran: The Quran is the holy book which Muslims recite and turn to for guidance in all aspects of their lives (e.)6. Islam: the religion which teaches that there is only one God and that Muhammad is God's prophet; the religion of Muslims (f.)Islam, though widely prevalent, can not be proven as the "one true religion". Let's examine the reasons why.(1)The Quran is the main written authority that Muslims follow. It turns out that this book has quite a few faulty lines and verses in it. How can Islam be the one true religion if the book the religion is most firmly rooted in is faulty?(2)Allah was being worshipped long before Muhammad was born, and before Islam was established.(3)In Islam, certain parts of the Bible are considered to be the Word of God, even though these Words present a direct contradiction to many of the beliefs established in Islam.(a.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(b.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(c.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(d.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(e.) http://www.whyislam.org...(f.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abolish all holidays

Hello again. And welcome to Debate.org. To be honest. I agree with just about everything you presented in round 2. What you have presented though, is at least six different contentious issues, all of which deserve to be debated in their own right. I'm thinking that you and I are similar minded individuals and probably wouldn't disagree about much. Nonetheless, the one thing I do disagree with is your opening proposition. "Abolish all holidays" Even public holidays have their merits. On these occasions we all have free time together, allowing us to meet up with family and friends and to hopefully have an enjoyable time. As to the events we are supposedly celebrating. Well, you can give these as much regard as you care to. In your case I would suggest you give them no regard at all. And just enjoy a day of work. Whether or not we are any happier after holidays. I would say, depends on what we choose to do with that time. Over complicated and costly arrangements can often lead to frustration anxiety and discontentment. Whereas a simple get together with family and friends. At the end of the day, will probably end up being far more enjoyable and rewarding. For goodness sake, don't abolish holidays.
Abolish all holidays

I am new to this so I posted my argument in the comment section.... Ok. For one I do believe everyone who works for a living should have the means to have plenty of time off work. Here in the U.S. we have many set holidays where everybody does there thing on the same weekend or day which causes mass congestion and takes from the quality of enjoying time off . My second thought is that are largest holidays are based on falsehoods and make-believe and the truth and facts of history will never be accepted because of it. There is know known birthdate for Jesus and the winter holiday was based on paganism and earthy things. There was no cozy get together between native A americans and Pilgrims, the west was one through brutal massacres and genocide and so on and so forth. My third thought amount many is that I believe it is healthier to spread it evenly and make everyday important fun and meaningful and there are studies that show that people are not any happier after holidays and are more likely to be less happy .
Pay raise/cut after sex reassignment surgery

"I wasn't impyling that I agree with a pay gap between men and women." I saw it that you were agreeing with it. Anyway, if you are against it, then you shouldn't be encouraging it. "I'm already assuming this is a fact, based on all the studies and articles that handle this subject." Well, you can't just assume something as fact. You have to back it up. "So unless this problem isn't solved, I'm of the opinion that if you want to become another gender, you have to accept all the pros and cons that are gender specific." So you think a "wage gap" is a problem. You want to "fix" it by making sure that as many people are affected as possible. This will not help! If you truly are against a "wage gap," you wouldn't want people to have to suffer. I await your argument.
Pay raise/cut after sex reassignment surgery

You seemed to have already stated your argument, so I will start mine. "I believe it is common sense that a man who decides to become a woman must receive the salary of a woman. A woman who decides to become a man should receive the salary of a man. It's as simple as that." Sorry if I sound whiny, but I find that sexist. You are saying that people should be paid based on their gender. I think that they should be paid based on their work and what they do and how well they do it. I await your argument. Good luck!
Abortion

I for the most part agree with your idea for when it is morally acceptable to infringe a human being's right to life except for one detail. I would like to add that it is morally acceptable whether or not the human being in question is acting under their own volition in their threat to another human's life if you have reason to believe that infringing upon the human being in question's right to live is the only way to save the human they threaten. I say this because if there is reason to believe a fetus is a threat to the mother's life, then the abortion of the fetus to save the mother is moral, even though the fetus is not acting by its own volition. It would not be moral to allow the mother and possibly the fetus to both die by refusing to abort when you can save at least the mother by aborting the fetus. This of course, is assuming the fetus is a human being, and even has human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." A fetus has not yet been born, and therefore does not have human rights. This is supported by the fact that there has not yet been a consensus, legally or scientifically, over whether a fetus is a human being or not because of the fetus's dependance upon the mother. The fetus is therefore not yet considered a human being, and therefore has no right to life, or any other rights at that, meaning that the abortion of the fetus is moral and leaving it completely up to the mother whether or not to abort the fetus. One final thing that I would like to ask you is whether you believe morality is subjective or not.
Abortion

Abortion is a perfectly moral action to partake in because of the following points. And yes, I would like to disagree with your statement that killing a human being is morally wrong, assuming you mean in all cases. 1. It should be up to the mother whether or not to have her own child. 2. Abortion of another woman's fetus will not affect you. 3. Population management. C. Therefore, abortion is moral. 1. When it comes down to it, it should be the mother's choice whether or not to have her own child. Who are you or me to tell her that she has to have a baby? Say a teenage girl gets pregnant because of a mistake she made. Should she be forced to have her child, possibly ruining her life? I say that the answer is no, it should be their choice whether or not to have their own child. 2. When a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, and chooses to abort, how does that choice impact you? Because I can tell you that it's going to impact the woman infinitely more if she is forced to have her child. A woman should not be forced to have a child by someone who will not be affected by this decision either way. It would be different if you were the woman's husband, and in this case a consensual decision would be best, but in the end, it should still be up to the one actually giving birth whether or not to abort the child. 3. If you do not agree with my previous points, then I will put one out based solely on the practicality of abortion. With the population rising exponentially, we'll eventually need to control the amount of children people have. Abortion is a practical method to limit population growth. This earth can't supply an unlimited number of people, and abortion is a practical way of ensuring against overpopulation. It may sound immoral to you, but it may be necessary in the future. C. Abortion is perfectly moral, what is immoral is forcing a woman to have children that she does not want.
Abortion

Thank you for accepting.Over the course of this debate, I will be attempting to defend one argument which concludes that abortion is morally wrong.P1: Abortion kills a fetus P2: A fetus is a human beingP3: It is morally wrong to kill a human being C: Therefore, abortion is morally wrongP1: Abortion kills a fetusThis is self evident as per the definition of an abortion as supplied by me in round 1 of this debate.P2: A fetus is a human being"Human being" is defined by Dictionary.com as: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."Life" is defined by Oxford Dictionary as: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."Alive" is defined by Merriam-Webster as: having life.It is my contention that a fetus is both a human being and alive, because at the moment of conception, an organism with a strand of DNA belonging to the species Homo Sapiens is formed, making it a member of that species (Homo Sapiens - Human). It is also alive, since it has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.P3: It is morally wrong to kill a human beingI hope this also goes without saying. If Pro disagrees, I would ask that he let me know at the beginning of his opening statement, and perhaps we can include that in the debate using conditionals for the argument concerning abortion.C: Abortion is Morally WrongThis argument is perfectly valid, meaning the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If Pro wishes to disagree with my conclusion, Pro must prove that one of my premises is false.
Abortion

I will be arguing that abortion is immoral in this debate.Abortion, as per the definition that will be used in this argument is defined as: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy"The debate will have the format modeling that of a public forum debate:Round 1: acceptanceRound 2: speech from both sides (no rebuttals, only new points)Round 3: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed)Round 4: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed)Round 5: conclusive statements, summary of argument (rebuttals, no new points)
Abortion

My reasoning behind the fact that a fetus is not a human being because of its dependence on the mother is that, to be technically alive, an organism must be able to survive independently. This is the same reasoning that was used when determining that a virus is not a living being, because it needs a host, a cell, to survive, much like a fetus needs a host, a mother, to survive. If you were to take the fetus out of the mother, it would not be able to survive. At the moment of conception, the fetus does have DNA belonging to the species Homo Sapiens. This does not make it a human being, however, because even a single strand of my hair has human DNA in it, yet you would not consider it a human being, even with the possibility that it could be cloned and become a human being. A fetus is like this, it has the possibility to become a human being, but that does not make it one. Thank you for taking part in this debate, a very insightful one at that.
Abortion

Con P2-A fetus is a human being. I have provided, from a legal and scientific perspective, evidence that a fetus is not a human being. But because of con's belief in an objective moral code based on their belief in god, they believe abortion is immoral whether or not it is legal. However, I have yet to find evidence that the bible or god considers a fetus a human being, or whether abortion is immoral. genesis 2:7- Then the lord god formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. This is evidence that from a biblical perspective, one does not become a living being until their first breath. Therefore, a fetus is not a human being because it has not taken its first breath. I would also like to point out, that throughout the New Testament, Jesus says nothing of abortion and whether it is a sin, or morally wrong. Because a fetus is not a human being, according to law, science, and the bible, con's argument for why abortion is immoral is invalid.
Abortion

Pro talks about whether or not it would be morally right to take the life of a fetus if the mother's life is at stake. I would ask that we continue to argue about the overarching majority of abortion cases, and then at the end if time permits, we may discuss the (possible) exceptions.Concerning Pro's argument:Pro states: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." A fetus has not yet been born, and therefore does not have human rights. This is supported by the fact that there has not yet been a consensus, legally or scientifically, over whether a fetus is a human being or not because of the fetus's dependance upon the mother. The fetus is therefore not yet considered a human being, and therefore has no right to life, or any other rights at that, meaning that the abortion of the fetus is moral and leaving it completely up to the mother whether or not to abort the fetus." It is false to claim that something is morally right simply because the law says so. If this was the case, the Mao's genocide of 50,000,000 people was morally acceptable, since he made the laws of China. My argument for why fetuses have human rights still stands. This argument, as stated: "Over the course of this debate, I will be attempting to defend one argument which concludes that abortion is morally wrong[,]" concerns whether or not abortion is morally wrong, not whether or not people think it's morally wrong/right.Your argument:P1: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."P2: A fetus has not been born, by defitionC: Therefore, a fetus does not have human rightsThis argument is not in the scope of our discussion - whether or not it is morally right to kill a fetus. It simply states that accorind to the law, fetuses don't have human rights.I remind Pro that since I am the instigator, it is my duty to logically defend my contention. Pro need not make his own points; he need only refute mine: P1: Abortion kills a fetus P2: A fetus is a human beingP3: It is morally wrong to kill a human being C: Therefore, abortion is morally wrongFinally, in response to Pro's question, I answer that I do believe in an objective moral code because I believe in the existence of God. You can view this line of reason on my other debate: http://www.debate.org...I also ask why Pro would accept this debate without first assuming that an objective moral code's existence would be assumed for the purposes of debate. Otherwise, the debate would entail one of us saying "so and so is wrong" and the other saying "so and so is right". The debate would not get anywhere because at the end of the day, Mao's genocide would, in fact, be morally justified insofar as he thought it was. By extention, abortion would not be wrong or right - it would depend on the person in question. The fact that I made an absolute resolution in round 1 shows that I don't believe what others think matters when it comes to morals.
Existence of Hell

Hell is real. I can state this with certainty. As a Christian*, I obviously believe in Hell. But it's not just Christians that believe in hell. Almost every world and local religion in history has had a place that "bad people" go to, while "good people" go to a good place. If you choose to debate this, bring it. I have an ace up my sleeve. Sources: The Holy Bible *Please let it be noted that though I do believe in Christianity, this WILL NOT shape my arguments.
There is no god

I posted more details in the comments section but the website is not allowing me to post the whole thing because of some bugs. Thus, I will summarise my final round: >My opponent mixed up the FIRST LAW of thermodynamics and the SECOND LAW. Still the second law of thermodynamics does not conflict with the big bang theory http://blog. Case. Edu. . . >You used the example of the Roman Catholic marriages as evidence of your God being real. Firstly, That does not prove your God exists. Marriage is a social contract, It has nothing to do with whether a God exists or not. Secondly, Marriage predates the Roman Catholic Church. Marriage exists cross culturally independent of religions. You don't even know what you are talking about. >You essentially said that the Bible is true because many people believe in it while no one believes Harry Potter is true. This is called an Appeal to Popularity (2). The truth value of a claim is independent of how many people believe in it. It can be that most people are wrong. You still need to prove that your God is real. This argument is not good evidence. >You mention the God particle and say that "Scientists have proven the God particle therefore God is real". The God particle is a nickname. Its actual name is the Higgs Boson particle. It has nothing to do with an actual deity. Sean Carroll even said: "We're not allowed to call the Higgs Boson the God particle anymore because now there's evidence it exists". Here's an article of scientists explaining why they hate this nickname "We don"t call it the "God particle, " it"s just the media that do that, " https://nationalpost. Com. . . >Just because there are temples, Churches, Mosques, Etc it does not mean that therefore there is a god. This is called a non sequitur fallacy. Your premises (there are all these places of worships) does not lead to your conclusion (Therefore there is a God) >To conclude, My opponent is clearly scientifically illiterate as is demonstrated in their misunderstanding of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and their misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. Next, My opponent believes that the existence of the Higgs Boson particle proves God while the nickname God Particle was given by the media. It was named this way as a joke, Not seriously. It has nothing to do with a God My opponent has been acting in a very smug manner all while being absolutely wrong on the science. https://science. Nasa. Gov. . .