BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
jesus christ will not return

Jesus isn't coming back and the bible proves it. "Here Jesus says that the people living 2000 years ago would not die until THEY SAW HIM COME IN HIS KINGDOM!" " Matthew 16:28 And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom." "Jesus was talking to his disciples and referring to the people that were standing there 2000 years ago that they were the ones that would see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. You can say I'm taking out of context or misinterpreting all you want but my little 8 year old could read that and say the same thing...lol and since that is the case we know Jesus never came back 2000 years ago... lol
A human life more important than anything.

Thanks for debating with me. Yes good means moral. Most people have at least a little bit of moral accept hitler and Ted bundy and so on. I think all people accept really bad ones deserve a chance at life (why I'm pro life) and a second or third chance if they mess up unless they did something really bad like kill someone. But if i had to choose people who are more important like if there were a bunch of zombies or a sickness and we could only give a life saving vaccine to some people I would choose young people embryo,fetus and baby-early 20s and doctors, experts ego can help all of us. You know what I mean. I wouldn't choose an old person unless they were a doctor or something because they're gonna die soon anyways I'd rather save that medicine for someone who hasn't had a chance. All people have souls and unless those souls are bad or evil they all matter. If we only caired about society but not individuals we wouldn't really be human.
A human life more important than anything.

I will argue against the value of individual's life. I will instead support humanity as a whole, and the individual working for an improved mankind that can be determined by it's overall happiness, knowledge accumulated and awareness of the world around it. (Which will be other cultures, and the environment.)Round 1: Choose whether or not you accept this debate, and explain the basis of your ideas.Round 2: We will both further our statements and rebuttals until round 5 where we provide final rebuttals and explain our conclusions.
God exists.

The Definition of GodThe definition of power that, for example, Nietzsche uses is consistent with my position that power is physical. Power in the sense of power over another person requires the ability to exert physical force. A leader has to physically speak in order to command his army to invade another country, and his will is carried out by the physical actions of his soldiers.2. The Case for God's ExistenceThe main thing to keep in mind when evaluating my opponent's argument here is that he has the burden of proof to present a cogent case establishing the existence of God. I do not have to disprove his assertions; he must establish them with arguments and evidence. My opponent says, "if you end with the universe, you have to explain how the Big Bang instant came into being. " No, I don't. All I have to do is maintain that if the Big Bang theory is true, and if the Big Bang had a cause, that cause was simply a prior state of the universe. As long as no evidence is presented ruling out this possibility, the argument does not establish its conclusion. I have no obligation to engage in speculative cosmological reasoning to reject this argument. He asks, "Do you deny the Big Bang science and that the universe was initially condensed into one singularity? How did it get into this state if the universe is eternal? " As I said previously, I don't have to affirm or deny the Big Bang theory or explain the alleged singularity in order to maintain that this argument does not establish its conclusion. In other words, here are the possibilities:Possibility 1. The universe has existed for an infinite period of time. Possibility 2. The universe has existed for a finite period of time, and had no cause. Possibility 3. The universe has existed for a finite period of time, and was created by God. We can expand this list as follows. Possibilities that involve infinite time:Possibility 1a. The Big Crunch theory is true. Possibility 1b. The Big Bang theory is true, and its cause was a prior state of the universe. Possibility 1c. The universe has existed for an infinite period of time, but neither 1a nor 1b is true - some other cosmological model is correct. Possibilities involving no cause:Possibility 2a. The Big Bang theory is true, and it had no cause. Possibility 2b. The universe has existed for a finite period of time, and it had no cause, but the Big Bang theory is not true - some other cosmological model is correct. Finally:Possibility 3. The universe has existed for a finite period of time, and was created by God. My opponent needs to rule out all of these possibilities except possibility 3 with enough certainty to make it more likely than not that God created the universe. I would argue that he has not done this, which is sufficient to reject his case.
God exists.

The proposition is that God exists. Pro will be defending the proposition that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists. By accepting this debate, Pro accepts that they have the burden to do two things:1. Provide a coherent and reasonable definition of God2. Provide cogent arguments or evidence for the existence of GodI will explain what each of these mean. Requirement 1As I said, the definition must be "coherent" and "reasonable. " These are distinct requirements which I will explain. CoherenceA definition is coherent if it is clear and does not contain a contradiction. An example of an incoherent definition would be "the slithy toves that gire and gimble in the wabe" or "a square circle. "ReasonablenessA definition of God is reasonable if it is actually a definition of God, and not of something else. An example of a reasonable definition of God is "an omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly good being. " An example of an unreasonable definition of God would be "love" or "the universe. " The point of this requirement is to allow Pro some freedom to define what they believe in or want to defend, while preventing people from cheating by using a definition that no one would normally think of as God. I can't provide definitive, mechanical criteria for a reasonable definition of God ahead of time. If you're not sure whether your definition of God counts as reasonable, you can post it in the comments section and I will comment on it. However, I will try to be fairly charitable about this requirement. Requirement 2The second requirement just means that Pro has to present a case that is successful by the usual logical standards we apply to arguments and evidence. JudgingThis debate should be judged according to whether Pro meets both requirement 1 and requirement 2. If Pro meets both requirement 1 and requirement 2, they win. If I show either that they have not met requirement 1, or that they have not met requirement 2, or both, then I win. (The basis for using this standard for judging is that it is impossible to establish that God exists without both defining God coherently and giving cogent arguments or evidence for the existence of God.
Macroevolution Is Valid

Hm, not exactly the path I was looking for, but fine with me. "Evolution need not be split into "Macroevolution" and "Microevolution" because the terms have no rational seperate use. There is only "Evolution"." -->While there isn't a fundamental difference between Macroevolution and Microevolution, there is still a difference between the two. Macroevolution is the scale of evolution above species, while Microevolution within a species or population. This distinction deals with time. However, there are other ways of Macroevolution. Polyploidy leads to speciation, and speciation only occurs in the scale above species, thus being Macroevolution and not Microevolution. The only downfall of labeling evolution into two groups such as Macroevolution and Microevolution is that it leads to creationists attacking Macroevolution for being fundamentally different from Microevolution.
Macroevolution Is Valid

My contention is that the concept of Macroevolution is invalid on the basis that it is part of a false dichotomy. Evolution need not be split into "Macroevolution" and "Microevolution" because the terms have no rational seperate use. There is only "Evolution". Having made this contention, I look to my opponent for his rebuttal and will clarify further later on in the debate. Thank you.
Golf is not a sport

Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.
Golf is not a sport

Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that "the free market will prevail". Mind if i quote your closing statement? "I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport." Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, "knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.
Golf is not a sport

First I will start with some definitions of "Sports" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.
Golf is not a sport

Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to "getcha head in the game". Come on, people.
Golf is not a sport

Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of "sport" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.
Golf is not a sport

Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, "...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing..." you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of "Croquet", rather than your spelling of "Krokae". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these "sports" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These "sports", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this "sport" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the "sports" you referenced being referred to as "sports" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these "sports" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the "gentleman's sport" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.
It will either, rain or not rain.

You used the word "chance" so you obviously made some claim about probability 1 spot of rain = 100%. Just as a downpour = 100%. NO. the chance of raining does not refer to the amount of rain. meteorologists collect snapshots of the weather. each snapshot contains info such as temp, pressure, humidity... 20% chance meaning 20 out of 100 times the atmosphere demonstrate these parameters, it rains.
Science and technology Have made mans life happier

There are many types of technology like information technology, biotechnology and medical technology. One of the most influential technologies is medical technology. Medical technology is the application of science and technology to improve the management of health conditions.It has contributed greatly to the society as it can save lives and increase chances for patients to survive their ordeal. Technology in the medical field has allowed individuals with chronic illness to have productive and healthier lives. These individuals can now lead independent lives without any need for physical, emotional and financial support. Advanced medical aids also enables patients to continue recovery at home reducing their hospital stay and at the same time saving money on hospital bills. An example of medical technology that has benefited lives is the treatment for of cardiovascular disease, the use of coronary stents - artificial tubes used in cases of coronary heart disease to keep the arteries open " have halved the number of those dying from heart attacks or suffering from heart failure. Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) " a small device implanted for those at risk of sudden cardiac death " now have a 98% chance of surviving a cardiac arrest, compared to only 5% without the implantable device. In addition, the minimally-invasive surgical techniques which are now used to treat aneurysms can mean a recovery time of around four weeks, compared to over a year for older procedures. Hence, all in all, medical technology plays a vital role in allowing people to remain valuable and contributing members of the society. Thus i shall end off by reiterating my stand that technology is more of a boon than a bane to society.That is It has made in somewhat way mans life easier
God Must Exist

MoralityMy opponent is assuming that morality is absolute. This is only one path of philosophy that covers morality and ethics. There have been numerous philosophers and great thinkers who have considered morality to be subjective and based upon circumstances. For instance, I would much rather have a morality that is based upon careful thought and consideration on my part. Murder is not always wrong; if you are acting in complete self-defense, then you do not deserve to be prosecuted.Argument For Previous Knowledge of EvolutionThe argument that my opponent made regarding "evolution," as he claims, is actually in reference to the Big Bang Theory. However, he uses passages from the Quran to support his argument. Not only is the Quran no more reliable than the Bible (which has no particular reliability), the passages in the Quran do not agree with what the Bible says. Such an inconsistancy between religions would imply that the religions are unequal and, in fact, unrelated. However, Muslims originally believed that the Christians were also correct in their beliefs (not to mention the Jews). How could they also be correct when they completely differ on a fundamental principle?Conclusion and AdditionsFinally, my opponent has offered no reason that God "must" exist. That is the point of this debate, so he has not upheld his burden of proof so far. I nevertheless have refuted his claims in order. Both of his arguments for God have been addressed and countered.I await the next argument.
God Must Exist

Thank you, -"Say, Allah is Unique, one. Allah Is independent. He does not beget nor is he begotten, Nor is there to Him any equivalent."-The Holy Quran Chapter 112 I would like to start out by defining the word God according to the verse above so that in all your replies, you answer based on this definition *God is the creator NOT the created. The infinite and not the finite.* 1-Here in the United States,we have judicial system to help us figure out what is wrong and what is right based on the laws we have. We find our selves asking, what are the laws based on,how do we know if a law is Just or not. These laws are based on morals and principles that without God would be impossible to acquire. No Science in the world can measure morality. One would say that over time,Generation after generation we people compiled together something that we call morals and it was never something God created. I say, If a person created something,He can definitely uncreate it (destroy it). Can any man in the world escape morality? EXAMPLE: In college, A man said to me he can escape it. "Morality claims that lying is bad" he said."When my wife asks me if she looks good in a dress, I say of course honey. In reality she's fat and ugly. My lie was a good lie because i dident hurt her feelings" I said to him that doesn't prove anything. The man lied to claim that his lie is a truth so that his wife believes him. A liar would never say he is a liar because that defeats the purpose of lying making truth above a lie. With his lie, he trys to create a truth because even he knows that truth is moral and a lie is not. "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth with truth. And when He says, Be, it is. His word is the truth." — 6:73 2- Referring to your older debate with someone else "Evolution vs creation" Not one time did you debate that A creator couldn't exist ,all you attacked was what happened after the beginning. "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe"21-31 Quran The above verse talks about evolution in the right way,way before any scientist did. To a real muslim,evolution is nothing new.The reason were here debating is not weather or not evolution exists,its who created evolution. The "singularity." u talk about,where did it come from and how did it appear? The very tools of science were not even created when it existed,So why try to use them on a time they can not be used on. I would like to state that it doesn't make sense to say its either science or god. Einstein says "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." *what is the purpose of life? Why do some people insist that God Is so wrong anyways? hopefully we can start now after you also give you opening statement.