BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Devient.genie is an intolerant bigot

Here we have my opponent bringing up topics and taking accusations to a new level. Because I am spiritual, you have automatically assumed that I am a republican. You have also assumes that I deny gay marriage and evolution. You fail at debates and being uncivil. Let me be clear: I am for gay marriage. I do not deny evolution. As far as children going how to be moral, you act as if the spiritual use "God" in every sentence that is spoken on the subject. Wrong again. You go and claim the religious. are brainwashed and delusional. Only because they don't use their senses to determine what is believed. If it's not according to your own beliefs, it's wrong. Just the kind of secen year old thinking that needs to be extinguished from the earth. I want to reiterate and say again that I am accepting of all beliefs. I will hold it proudly to me till I die. I also see you're a 40 year old man according to your profile. I find it sad that an eighteen year old is telling a grownass man how to behave and act like an adult. Enjoy your failed anti-religious rhetoric filled life.
Devient.genie is an intolerant bigot

I would like to start out by saying that I have extensively looked at your previous debates. You have lost all of them. You have ridiculed people for their personal beliefs and values. Not only that, but they lack creativity. Some of them you copy and paste past arguments and use the same phrases to get across your point. All of which have failed. You say you are intolerant of ignorance. Good, as am I. You are intolerant of racism. Good, as am I. Child abuse, murder, rape, as am I. However when it comes to religion, your view is critically flawed. You are intolerant of impeding on people and how they behave badly, however are extremely hypocritical when it comes to those who have close spiritual values. I would like to point out that had I met you on a city street with no previous knowledge of you personally, my first intention would to be friendly. As I hope yours would be. Let's say we got closer together as friends. I found out more about your personal life. Your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, become present to me and they differ entirely from mine. Who am I to judge you and strike you down? What kind of society and world do we live in when we are to make friends and judge those by their religion, sexuality, race, or political affiliation? You are a part of the plague of hatred that runs through the veins of the earth. Love, peace, and acceptance are what we need to take a hold of and conquer. Do I think you are wrong? Yes I do. Will I hate you for or anyone else? No. Of course not. You will ultimately lose your battle of anti-religious (but what seems to be only anti-Christian) rhetoric. In the end, your hate preaching will come to no avail. "Stories of hell for children who don't follow certain doctrine." What, do you think Christians gather around a fire with their children and tell them they'll burn in hell if they don't do what is right? No. I can't even begin to imagine even doing that to my own. What you do my friend is characterize an entire population of three billion Christians and billions of other religious folk on the actions of a few. They are good people. The non-religious are good people. Even those who are not religious would condone your behavior and words. "Infect government and schools with unproven gibberish about a sky daddy." Now with this I am being more and more convinced that your just an internet troll. Separation of church and state seems to be working well here in the US and western countries. I don't know what world your living in. God cannot be disproved no matter how hard you try. Nor proven. "The earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old." Only if you take holy texts literally. Which you shouldn't. You should actually read them and get a bit more informed. Tell me - do you think telling a child to strike down a human being for their religious beliefs is moral or good for it? This answer will prove my point in the debate.
Devient.genie is an intolerant bigot

Perfect topic for debate. Now we just need to get your definitions of intolerant and bigot. I am most definitely intolerant. I am intolerant of ignorance, intolerant of racism, child abuse, murder, rape, indoctrination of dogma that teaches children that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old, intolerant of religions that impede the advancement of mankind. Intolerant of humans who lie, infect government and schools with unproven gibberish about a sky daddy who came to the middle east to let us know to obey, how to cut our hair, what to eat, had a human sacrifice, and is written about in the bible. Plus the stories of hell for children who don't follow certain doctrine, I am intolerant :) I wonder if my opponent is intolerant? Are you tolerant or intolerant to the things l am intolerant too as well? Which of the things that I listed do you think are good for a child?
'Why are most people not Christian?'

Cool, thanks for accepting your old debate topic. I would agree with your first point, that all people aren't Christian because they want to do what they want. But assuming what they 'want' to do is 'cuss, drink, kill' and so on is a big assumption. For example, what a lot of people 'want' is to be of a different religion. Most of the time religion isn't actually a choice, it all depends on where you are born and your upbringing. What makes you sure that Christianity is the correct religion? Do you think that people who follow Islam or Hinduism are following the wrong religion and will burn in hell? If you were born in Indonesia with a Muslim upbringing that you would have the same opinion as you have now? I feel you are also assuming that by not following Christianity a person would not be ethical or moral. If everybody takes their shoes off at the door of a house before entering, a new coming would see all the shoes and also take their shoes off, this action wouldn't be because they know the house rules, it's because humans are inherently good natured and respectful. There are millions of people of different religions and who have no religion at all, who are peaceful and live moral, ethical lives. Christianity also has a lot of blood on it's hands throughout history so I don't think your point is valid.
'Why are most people not Christian?'

I think most people are not Christian because the want to do what they want. Like cussing, getting drunk, killing people and that kind of stuff. They don't care who made them (Gave them the opportunity to have life). God put us on earth for a reason, and it is to get the stuff done that he wants done. Than if you do that, you will have eternity in heaven, instead of eternity in hell.
Hot Cheetos are better than Takis.

However, I suppose I will start my argument as well as respond to her's. 1. *Hot Cheetos have less sodium than Takis. * According to the Nutritional Labels on both chips, Hot Cheetos have about 250 mg of sodium while Takis has about 420 mg of sodium for the same serving size. Based on the information, Takis has almost twice the amount of sodium than Hot Cheetos. 2. *Hot Cheetos are more popular than Takis. * Based on a Buzzfeed Poll taken by 27.8k people, about 63% of them favored Hot Cheetos more. Takis only got 37% of the votes. This shows how people recognize and enjoy Hot Cheetos more than they do with Takis. 3. *Hot Cheetos are more easily accessible than Takis. * How often have you seen Hot Cheetos on the snack shelf, but not Takis? Takis are mainly found in gas stations yet Hot Cheetos are found in almost ALL grocery stores. In response to my opponent's arguments: She states, "Takis are way better tsting than hot cheetos and have better flavor. " First of all, she took little notice to her spelling and grammar mistakes. Next, she did not back up her argument that Takis have a better flavor. People have different opinions, especially on their taste of food. She states, "The corn chips are healthier than the weird substance of cheetos. " For your information, Hot Cheetos are also made of corn, no just Takis. So she is literally saying that "the weird substance of cheetos" is the same in Takis. Also, she states that Takis are healthier, yet she has no evidence to back that up. Citation: . http://www.buzzfeed.com... Thank you and I hope to continue debating with you!
a noticeable limitation on the use of weapons in war, and its just a thought

when alone in a law less land, i can be outnumbererd, so for me to invent a gun and pick it up means everyone becomes less safe and i become more safe, where as if everyone has guns and i have my gun, i can be outnumbered so for the evolving human to get anywhere unless killing humans is usefull, limiting the use of weapons to for eksample, words, the only casualties would be bad ideas, ignorance, where as the outcome of a war is we are progressing our intelligence rather then killing human beings, ourselves, by not limiting the use of weapons basically I guess for this to work we would have to dispose of all military forces in the world, and everyone would have to agree, that when things get messy between countries we debate and the winner gets the freakin country or something, do your homework bitch =) so I guess this is about if its possible, It would be cool if war is debates or something and the winner just get the other country or something
a noticeable limitation on the use of weapons in war, and its just a thought

"my idea is good, if you had a good idea it would be simple" That statement is opinionated. My opinion is that your idea of debating to win a country is horrible and would never work. Good ideas as big as this would have to be at least somewhat complicated. "A: you are inventing a story and B: telling to yourself you need a gun, C: deliver that book back" a) If two countries were to debate about something small, and one country wins and takes over the other, there is a very good possibility that my story, or something similar to my story could take place. b) I'm not telling myself that I need a gun, but I am saying that my country is safer with a military. c) What book? I'm not going to go far into the fact that this whole system is built purely on trust because Pro hasn't successfully countered any my arguments, but I will say this: there is a huge possibility that any country could have a successful plan to take over the world by having a secret military. That could mean someone as evil as Hitler could take over the world with ease. That wouldn't be good. Thanks for this quick debate, Pro. It was nice.
a noticeable limitation on the use of weapons in war, and its just a thought

"Terrorist=fear. The war on fear is endless." What? You have to elaborate when you make a claim such as terrorist=fear. Otherwise, it makes no sense. If we have no weapons, and terrorists do, then we are put in a state of danger. You literally did a paragraph on that kind of stuff. "when alone in a law less land, i can be outnumbererd, so for me to invent a gun and pick it up means everyone becomes less safe and i become more safe, where as if everyone has guns and i have my gun, i can be outnumbered" You said if one person has a gun it means everybody else is less safe, and you are more safe. It's the same thing if only one group of people have weapons and everybody else doesn't. PLEASE READ MY WHOLE ARGUMENT AND THEN JUDGE ALL OF MY STATEMENTS. I would appreciate it if you were to first, read my whole argument; second, process it; and third, write a full response that includes all aspects of what I said. All of my arguments STAND.
There are contradictions in the Holy Bible.

The first part, I was actually going to touch on in this argument. I shall honour my opponents request my listing no more than 8. However, I might list a few more as time goes on. Good luck to my opponent.Contradiction number 1: How old was Jehoachin when he began to reign?Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 2 Kings 24:8 KJV Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. 2 Chronicles 36:9Okay, so we have already established the definition of a contradiction. Here, there are 2 propositions that just do not agree. Based on how we (and be we I mean the con) defined contradiction, these two passages contradict each other.Contradiction 2: Has God ever tempted anyone?Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14-15And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Genesis 22:2In order to understand these passages, let us look at what the word "tempt" actually means to try, test, or to prove. Using the passage from James, we can rephrase that passage as this, "...God cannot be tested with evil, neither testeth he any man (with evil)."I have heard people such as the people from Looking Unto Jesus that it means that God cannot tempt or test people to sin or do evil. However, sacrificing your son is clearly evil? Isn't it? There is, clearly, a contradiction. My opponent requested me to keep my argument lower with contradictions. I will honour this request and won't post any more this round.To my opponent, if you need more space, you may use a blog or whatever you need to do in order to make your argument. I have actually been thinking about recording my arguments and posting them to sound cloud. Back to you, con.
There are contradictions in the Holy Bible.

A few clarifying statements. For the sake of this debate, the Bible shall be defined as the 39 book of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament. Out of bounds are the Apocrypha, Psuedopigrapha, and any "Christian" works outside the aforementioned (JW or Mormon Litterature). Also, it is important to understand the nature of a contradiction. A contradiction is a situation where both parts of a proposition cannot be true. For the sake of this debate, Pro will have the burden of proof to show examples of contradictions that cannot be resolved through standard interpretive and exegetical methods. Con's burden is to show through standard interpretive or exegetical methods that the examples given are not contradictions. In the name of fairness, Pro should recognize that it takes more space to refute a contradiction than it does to list them. As such, I request that Pro limit his assertions to 8 or fewer. If he wishes to add a new "contradiction" beyond 8 he will have to abandon a prior "contradiction" as not contradictory. If Pro wishes to assert more than 8, then he will need to allow me to link to outside document to craft my argument.
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

You still have not disproven my argument. I am not questioning the existence of scientific laws, I am asking how they came to be. Unless its A. omnipotent and B. sentient, something cannot always exist, have no beginning, and have no end. The big bang happened because of the laws of science, and physics. The laws of science and physics exist because we have 3D space, and time. We have 3D space and time because... well... Other than god, we can't have those things. The only possible explanation for the universe ultimately comes down to the fact that god DOES exist. Science has no explanation for this. I'm glad we had this debate, its let me know which areas I'm bad in debating, so I can learn to debate them better. May the best debater win!
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

You raise a good point, but you're wrong. I can't disprove your assumption that Gods were created by man, but religion DOES offer a better argument for the origins of the universe than atheism. As I said in my first argument atheism can't explain time, 3D space, The laws of physics, etc. The only possible explanation was that it was created by an all powerful god. If this is the answer for the origin of physics, it would mean that God overall created the universe.
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

The first point my opponent gave was that if the big bang originated from a single spinning point, than all the galaxies should be spinning in the same direction. However, this is untrue, because when the big bang went off, the only thing that existed was pure energy which eventually cooled into matter, and formed galaxies. The formation of galaxies is likely isotropic, which means that they will spin in a random direction from the start of their independent formation [1] [2] [3]. If your still confused, review my sources and try looking into the big bang theory more.Now, for my second rebuttal. Con states that if we humanize gods, than why don't those gods behave with our standards? However, it is apparent that gods in human history have behaved as humans do, representing anthropomorphism [5][6]. Gods from ancient Greece, Rome, Japan, etc, have all killed and destroyed enemies, showed wrath towards humans, and even committed adultery (especially with the Greek gods)[4]. Even in the bible, god kills the entire human race over a few sinners with a flood, bombs a city with meteors, and plagues the Egyptians. All of these actions are signs of vengeance and wrath, which are identified as human qualities [5][6]. Now can you tell me that these gods are not behaving like us humans do? No, because we created them as figments of our own minds, in order to fulfill needs for a leader figure. Also, it is believed that religion had been created and used to manipulate people throughout time for political and power benefits (see source seven) [7].Religion still offers no good explanation for the existence/creation of our universe. No religion can be backed up by fact, religion is a figment of mankind, and science has basis on true facts and logical conclusions. It doesn't matter how faithful you are, you simply can't deny the facts.Sources: http://physics.stackexchange.com... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.universetoday.com... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]https://pisoproject.wordpress.com... [7]
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

About the first thing... I'm new here and didn't understand what that meant.. Sry [1] As you said, that argument doesn't really disprove God, but on the subject of galaxies, I'd like to point out that some galaxies are spinning backward. In the big bag, all the matter in the universe was in a dot smaller than the head of a pin, and it was spinning very fast, until one day all that matter flew out and became what we know as the universe. The way physics works, however, is that if something is gripping onto something spinning, and lets go, it will fly outward and spin in the direction the initial object was spinning in. For galaxies to spin different directions, the tiny universe dot would have to spin different directions, which by your understanding of physics, is impossible. [2] You're assuming that the only reason we believe in God is because we want that feeling of security/someone is looking out for us. If we created God, wouldn't we make him to best fit our desires? Its natural human nature to want to covet, lust, and many other things. However the God condemns these. Its natural to want a sense of order, thus him saying things like "Don't murder" but something like Lust, which can do harm, but none physical just wouldn't make sense. [3] I don't believe in buddhism, rip on it all you want. When I was saying it doesn't need to be created, I was referring to God. God created logic and scientific laws, he doesn't need to abide by them. Hes an all powerful God. Non sentient matter is far from an all powerful God. It DOES need a creator. I look forward to your counter argument! :)
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

I would first like to say, that the big bang is no more realistic than my religion, Christianity. For starters, an all powerful god creating everything makes more sense than that matter created itself. Beyond that, science can't explain how we have time, 3D space, laws of physics, and basically all the other things that define our basis of reality. Some say the idea of a God existing is ridiculous, saying things like "if god created us, who created god?" Well, he didn't NEED to be created. The laws of science didn't exist. Therefore it would be perfectly logical for something to always exist, and need no beginning or creator. Now doesn't that make you feel silly saying, non sentient matter just appeared out of nowhere?
There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

I would like to debate that religion provides no logical or provable stance to the origins of mankind or the universe. I believe that the best explanation comes from science, because it is based on proven facts and sound, logical reasoning. Con will take the side that religion does offer a reasonable explanation to the origins of mankind. Con may choose from any well known religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. As long as the ideas stem form a genuine religion.
God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical.

God: Specifically the Christian God. Jesus: Christ's Prophet. Bible: Christ's Holy book. Nonsense: Wrong, not true, making no sense. Pro will argue that a majority of God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical. Con will argue that a majority of God, Jesus and the Bible are true. No restrictions on what to write on any round except round 4, in which there are only rebuttals and no new points are made. Burden of proof is shared. Basic opening point: Here we go again. Relying on a book that was written by people thousands of years ago to fuel your knowledge. Nice move.
God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical.

There are certain arguments proposed to make evolution happen. Transposition Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution. Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome. In a short time, corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations, transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons. These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists used to believe them to be random sequences and useful for evolutionary processes to mess with and change into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be very useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it would actually most likely kill the host. www.icr.org/article/evolutions-best-argument-has-become http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.medicinenet.com...