BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism VS Theism

It's true that some Theists have postulated God when no natural answer was there. This was later named, by a Theist, no less, the God of the Gaps fallacy. However, this doesn't disprove Christianity it just shows that Theists should not be so quick to just say "God did it" without looking for a natural explanation. After all, God created the universe and He created science. In fact, the scientific method was developed by Theists. This is because before the 1860's, with few exceptions, scientists were Christians. [1]Now, notice that Con did not source any of his claims. There were some deaths caused by God, but He didn't just kill people willy-nilly. The people came under righteous judgment by God. It was always deserved.Also, he has not shown that killing has become the answer when religious beliefs differ. I certainly don't kill anyone who believes differently than I do, and Con is still alive despite having conversations with Christians.Con's arguments simply are not strong. The Bible doesn't mention every single animal created by God. He doesn't just leave out the kangaroo, but a whole host of animals. Con is simply being unreasonable for expecting every creature to be named. Con here commits the opposite of the God of the Gaps fallacy, which he claims of Christians. He commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. Because God does not mention kangaroos, He must not have been aware of them. This is an obviously fallacious statement.We must also remember that the Bible is not a science book, it's predominantly a book of history, prophecy, and poetry. We can't expect scientific details to be present in the Scriptures.However, the Bible does say that the Earth is round. This is what Isaiah 40:22 says: "[God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Some skeptics claim that the "circle" means a flat disc with the heavens forming a dome above it. Even if this is the imagery Isaiah had in mind, we must remember that they lived in a time where they believed the Earth was flat. In the same way that certain prophets had a difficult time describing Heaven in earthly terms (e.g. when John described Heaven in the book of Revelation), so Isaiah had a difficult time describing the actual state of the Earth which was contrary to what he had believed about the Earth before receiving that revelation.Con has failed to explain how the dating of the earth contradicts the Bible. In fact, while some Christians are Young Earth Creationists, there are those who are Old Earth Creationists and believe that the universe is the 13.7 billion years old that scientists say it is.Con has so far failed to make his case, and he has certainly not proven me mental or an idiot for being a Theist. I look forward to our next round.[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p.168
Atheism VS Theism

Throughout time, mainly the time in which christianity has been the choice for the majority, there have been gaps in science that theist have felt that they must be filled with god. It has come to the point where 93% of scientist are theist. I beleive this to be because they can view things with an open mind and have seen what there is to know. I am guessing that you are a christian. In the bible not only are there countless deaths caused by this god but killing has become the answer when religous beliefs differ from each other. How can you stand along with this. One instence where the bible contradicts itself is a large majority of animals are named but there is no mention of the kangaroo. At the time when the bible was written Austrailia was not a country, but the bible was written as the word of god through the hand of man. So if god created the kangaroo why would he forget about it. Also why wouldnt he say the Earth was round. Wouldnt he know he created it. Techniques for dating the Earth are a prime example of how the bible contradicts science, dating using science and radiation found in sea floor spreading and drilling samples show the Earth is much older than the bible says. I debate with others in my school and when the bible gets proven wrong it ends with them cursing and walking away, i hope this debate doesnt end this way.
Atheism VS Theism

Con has made some serious allegations. As instigator, he holds the burden of proof. His contention is that I am both an idiot and mental to believe in God. In order for Con to win this debate, he must prove that I a) Have below average intelligence, and b) that I am mentally challenged. If he fails to prove those two things, or proves one but doesn't prove the other, he has not met his burden of proof and therefore loses the debate. Additionally, one does not have to have absolute proof to believe in a God, as long as it is reasonable to believe in a God. Con apparently belongs to the New Atheism camp, which is not a camp of reason but of Christian-bashing (note how he only bashes those who believe in one God, when Theism is not limited to monotheists). I await Con's alleged scientific proofs that prove Theism wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt, and I await his alleged evidence that I am both an idiot and mental for believing in one. Over to you, Con.
Abortion is morally permissible

Second round is for opening statements. Third round for first rebuttals. Fourth round for second rebuttals and concluding remarks. This debate will be centered on the moral issue concerning abortion, so do not bring Roe v. Wade or the law into this discussion. It's about the moral issue only. Pro will argue that abortion is morally permissible. While Con will argue that abortion is morally wrong. Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof.
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

War on Terrorism - UNWINNABLE! - You have said that we have stopped terrorist attacks from occuring. First off, I would really appreciate a source. Secondly, this to me seems to make people guilty before the crime is even committed. This kind of reminds of George Orwell's thought crimes in 1984. Still though, very few terrorist attacks have been committed on U.S. Soil. You have still failed to point out what the the actual goal on a war on terror is. To elimate terroists completely? Hardly possible. Wars Undermine Civil Liberties - This may sound really wrong, but 2,000 lives is not enough to wage a war on terror. Yes, it is enough to find the murderers and bring them to justice. Which is why we should have used spies and special trained soldier in Afghanistan, not an entire military force. Still, talking about the lives lost has nothing to do with civil liberties. The patriot act violates countless civil liberties, and the excuse is for the war on terror. Therefore, this war is undermining civil liberties. BOTTOM LINE: You can't win a war on terror, you can't find where to fight it, and you certainly can't fight it with military operations in the middle east alone.
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

1. War on Terror is unwinnable.- still wrong - Look this is a new era in terriosism. The past is the past and they were not as radical and bonheaded like these people. If you look at it, we have captured and stopped from many future attacks. For example, we spoiled an attempt to take down the Sears Tower in Chicago, Blowing up Planes in midair from USA to Britain and Britain to USA. So in my case we have saves lifes and we are winning against them. 2. Wars undermine Civil Liberites.- No - You have stated their hasn't been much deaths but look, 2,000 people is enough. They couldve killed more like i said in my previous paragraph. It is true that more people die in car accidents and etc. but 1 life matters, and they got 2,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The "War on Terror" is used as propoganda to fight in the middle east. - Hitler is Hitler. He was radical bonehead. He had a different idea then the bush administration. Bush have war on Radical Islam is because they are killing incicent lives in the world and they attacked us. That is a perfect reason for it.
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

Well, i'm glad to see you agreed with mostly everything i've said. I'll know refute the things you didn't agree with, and then bring some more arguments to the table. 1. War on Terror is unwinnable. - You have stated that because of the war on terror, we remain unattacked. However, I have to disagree with you. Looking back overtime and looking at the attacks committed on U.S. soil since the beginning of the 1900's there have only been 5 terrorist attacks. And 3 of which had nothing to do with Islamic Terrorists. So really, it has only been 7 years since the last attack, but when you look at history American's really have not been attacked by terroists on our soil. So can we really say whatever we are doing is working? http://www.infoplease.com... 2. Wars undermine Civil Liberites. - Again I have to say, although the casualties suffered are immesly terrible, there have been very few terrorist related deaths to U.S. citizens. People are killed plenty more by car accidents. So to give up essential civil liberties, given to us by our creator, for safety from terrorism is ridiculous. The Patriot Act is completely unconstitutional and should be revoked immediatly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The "War on Terror" is used as propoganda to fight in the middle east. - I believe, that just like how Hitler used the Reichstag fire to propogate a war against Communists, that President Bush and the current adminstration have used the 9/11 attacks to their favor to propogate a war against Islam in the middle easy.
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

Ok...here are my counters. 1. You can't win a War on Terror- Partially true -The war on terror is basically a key part on why we have not been attacked by terriost in recent years. We are keeping them on their soil. They have their backs against the wall. We have been capturing leaders, killing leaders, stopped future attacks and they have their hands full with our troops over there. Winning is hard, terriost will be there probably forever since they boneheads, but at least we are partially winning it and stopping them from future attacks. 2. Wars undermine Civil Liberties- Wrong - The war is basically help keeping your civil liberties. If we aren't fighting them and the terriost get stronger, then we would have more casualty's and we won't have the right to do what we are doing now. It would be stricter. And the patriot act I believe should only be a temporary thing. I believe that we should do whatever it takes to find these radical pinheads. I am a firm supporter of the patriot act. Security is what the patriot acts have to offer. We are being secured by letting the FBI and/or CIA track down these people, and arrest them. We have captured a good amount of terriost in our homeland, and patriot act helps. 3. Border Security- True I completely agree with you on this one man. This is absolutely true. I think we should secure our homeland first but we should balance it. We should protect our borders and at the same time we are in at war vs. the terriost. 4. We're in a recession-True Our country is heading towards recession. Our dollar is like crap and our government relies on other country to much. I am in business and i think so. They export more then they import. I think that stopping income tax and bringing in flat and fair tax would be a great idea. Corporate would more likely come back and etc. but that is an other part.
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

Thank-you VinhVuong for the debate. First off, I would just like to say that I completely agree with you that those who are responsible for the attacks on Americans, and on United States soil should be brought to justice. I am completely, without a doubt, 100 percent for that. My beef with the "War on Terror" is as follows... 1. You can't win a War on Terror. - Just like a War on Drugs, a War on Drunk Driving. It's unwinnable, and expensive. We must first make the agreement that terrorism is not a religion, (no Islamic Radicals are not the only terrorists), it is most definently not a country, and it is not in one part of the world. Therefore, where does one go to fight a war on terror? Across the entire globe? That is hardly a realistic idea. 2. Wars undermine Civil Liberties. - This War is just another way for the government to gain more power. The Bush administration implements the Patriot Act and justifies it as a protection of the people from terrorism. A wise quote was once said by Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Just like the War on Drugs, and pre-trial forfietry of property. The government uses the word "War" to get people to give up their rights. I'm not buying it. 3. Border Security. - Why are we concerned with terrorists when our own border is left wide open? Shouldn't we focus first on securing our borders to prevent another attack? It doesn't really make sense to fight a War on Terror abroad, when terrorists can so easily illegally come to the states. 4. We're in a recession. - The dollar is falling, our debt is rising. We depend more and more on foreign nations for loans. How will we even think about defending our nation if we go bankrupt? The number one thing we should be considered with is the economy. I believe this is enough to get us started, I look forward to your response! -R.J.- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War on terror should be fought. I do not understand that people disagree with the war.

Mr 12jperry, I see that people disagree with War on Terror. I want to know why. This is a war that should be fought and fought hard. These boneheaded terriost should be brought to justice. They came to our soil and attacked us and killed our inicent people. This isn't a war of choice, this is a war we must fight. So, why do you disagree with this war?
Quickfire debate on welfare

"The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing." Who are they killing again? There are institutions in place where that is not a set outcome? By such rhetoric the government is also responsible for every act of suicide, every alcohol overdose etc. "Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another." No. It advocates the theft from one person to support the less willing. Helping others does not require state intervention in the least. Also how can it be advocating help of others when it actively forces one to participate? "Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it." Again. It is not the state's role to hand out happiness cheques at the cost of another's productivity. Think that makes those who pay taxes less happy? Why do those less willing get a higher "happiness" free ride from the state? Not paying taxes would make me happy - so the state, under your argument, should let me right? :D At any rate, if welfare induces ridicule as you say, then not being on welfare and being self sufficient would make them happier. :D "My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding." Straw man - you are arguing against me, not "many people". Your profile also says you are 14 - not sure what taxes you are paying at that age. The fact that one must, and the government enforces it with threat of violence does not make it right either - that's a rather bad assumption to make. :D The government socialises far too much, too much is in state control - that is why they take taxes - not because it is right. "But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause." Wrong. People need to be productive to survive. The government restricts an individual's chances by their choices in economic and structural governance. Those who truly lack the capacity - the very few, to be self sufficient, can easily be taken care of in non state enforced manners. "I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough." Plenty non profit organisations and religious organisations do that. Sleeping takes up a third of the day at any rate. Plenty time to work for the rest. :D "It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources." Not sure anything you said required one.
Quickfire debate on welfare

As I have time constraints I will start right away "False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others." The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing. "Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity" Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another. "Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals." Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it. "The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare." My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding. "Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause." But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause. "What are you doing to survive if you are not working?" I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough. It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources.
Quickfire debate on welfare

"I disagree but comply nonetheless." Consider it a lesson - challenge someone, have an argument to challenge with. "I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status." False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others. "It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status." Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity. "Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income." Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals. "The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget." The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare. "People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money." Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause. "And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving." What are you doing to survive if you are not working?
Quickfire debate on welfare

I disagree but comply nonetheless.' RESOLVED:Welfare should not be eliminate R1: I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status. It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status. Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income. R2: The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget. R3: People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money. And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving. I will stop now as I am running short on time. Note: I will add sources later