BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All littering is beneficial for the environment.

Man, you are twisting the debate. I take debating very serious, even though I might do a good job at it. I'm trying to win the debate. I would like to see you be Pro, it's not easy, ok? I have had other great debates like this one, where i had almost won. I concede, because proving that litter is good, is not possible when an animal can choke and die trying to eat plastic. I had to make good mean bad for this debate, that would be the only way out. I would have been lucky to get a draw. I have almost won other debate were it was not in my favor, but I challenge myself. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... All great reads. You have 2 days to read them, and if I were you, and knew what I knew, I would start reading. My chances of winner were narrow, and you knew it.
All littering is beneficial for the environment.

My bastard opponent says that his examples were not beneficial, but all of these examples were pictures of animals either being choked by plastic or were tangled in plastic. "This duck has completely lost the ability to eat because its mouth has been shut by a bottle holder." This is false, if you look at the picture again you can see that the animal's beak is clear. The animal look like it is wearing a hat, and this is good. The second example is not necessarily bad, because humans do this. The turtle looks fine... https://cheeju.files.wordpress.com... The next two examples are photoshoped. Littering is not bad. I litter a lot, and nothing has happened. When has a message in a bottle ever hurt anything? If animals did not interact with litter than nothing can be bad about it. But animals in a lot of cases do, you would say. To that I would say that if animals littered then it would not be bad for us. If animals drink 6 packs and left the plastic can rings on the side of the street, left by a bird, i would not get my head stuck in it. humans do not have to worry about animals littering because animals do not litter. Humans litter and the environment is impacted in a good way. Oh, and i forgot to define, "good" for this debate. Good- Negative and unhelpful. Also non beneficent and corrupt.
All littering is beneficial for the environment.

TO be straight forward, my opponents arguments don't make sense...The first thing we need to get out of the way, is what it means to benifit the environment. It seems that my opponent is taking this litterally by saying that it litterally benifits the ground we stand upon for it to retrieve its tinfoil/other recources. This is a clever way to affirm the resolution however from a strictly reasonable stand point we shouldn't accept the idea that we can benifit something which inanimate. There is no way to benifit a handful of dirt. Any proposition which says we can benifit something which cannot experience life is personifying mother earth and fundementally doesn't make sense.I have a separate interpritation of the resolution which is to say that the environemnt is synonymous with the ecosystems of the earth, in which case this resolution becomes easy to disaffirm. Clearly littering is bad for animals, insects and most life residing within ecosystems. The primary fact is that these are foreign objects which these animals have never evolved or adapted to live with. They are toxins to the ecosystem which can only result in the destruction of it. If I can show that even One instane of littering is bad then I win the round becuase the resolution is that ALL littering is good, showing one instance is bad would prove that not all litering is good.Example A:https://paceapes.wikispaces.com...Clearly this instanceof littering is not good for the animals in the ecosystem. This duck has completely lost the ability to eat because its mouth has been shut by a bottle holder.Example B:http://www.google.com...Clearly this instance of litering is bad, the turtle's organs have been completely reshaped by this polution.Example D: Example E: Clearly littering is not good...
All littering is beneficial for the environment.

If i were to divert a main sewage system to drain into a popular lake, the chances of catching a disease from that lake would be high. If someone owned that lake and sold it, i would buy it and rename it Typhoid lake and continue to redirect other sewage system to that lake using taxpayer money. Throwing a tin soda can on to the ground is giving that tin back to the earth from where i came. Littering is just something we came up with. Littering is only littering because of the time it takes for whatever you are littering, a long time to decompose. If the environment has its tin back, that is good because it benefits the restocking of tin. If you shot things from the planet into space, then that is taking away from the planet. Paper gets wet and decomposes. If its paper on asphalt not soil, then the asphalt will have to decay for the paper to decay. The environment does not become less if i throw a piece of paper out my window. Beneficial can mean anything really because. God made that earth, and he is not worried about litter.
who would win in a fight Zeus or Poseidon

Poseidon I think would win cos 1: gods aren't allowed in other god realm unless invited but Zeus's realm is Olympus and any god is allowed in there so Poseidon can attack but Poseidon has the sea and Zeus isn't invited so Zeus can't attack so hence piton would win 2: water is a conductor so Zeus would strike with lightening and Poseidon would fire water and then Poseidon would have electrical empowered water to hit Zeus with. :) so Poseidon would win hands down I might change m mind feel free to challenge me but I will comment with a comeback unless I start supporting Zeus's side
who would win in a fight Zeus or Poseidon

"1: gods aren't allowed in other god realm unless invited but Zeus's realm is Olympus and any god is allowed in there so Poseidon can attack but Poseidon has the sea and Zeus isn't invited so Zeus can't attack so hence piton would win" Uh, yeah, but since Zeus's realm is everywhere, can he not therefore go ANYWHERE? "2: water is a conductor so Zeus would strike with lightening and Poseidon would fire water and then Poseidon would have electrical empowered water to hit Zeus with. :)" Since Zeus is KINDA like a lightning god, two things. a) but wouldn't the lightning water be essentially useless then (electric vs. electric = weak) b) the lightning would be SUPER EFFECTIVE against posidon (electric vs. water = strong) So yeah. Also. Zeus is the father of all gods, you'd think he'd know poseidons weaknesses. "Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father, and all the gods rise in his presence." Walter Burkert, Greek Religion http://en.wikipedia.org...
God is real

Well first of all, I would like to point out that there are scientific evidence against God. The creation story and Ptolemy's version of the universe were all endorsed by the church and it's followers. They were undisputed for hundreds of years until great minds like Darwin and Copernicus came along. In the end, it was found that the church has been delivering the false "truth" for hundreds of years! What if God's existence was also a false "truth". It's not the first time your church has been proved wrong. Second of all, you say that religion exists only because of faith. Well personally, I find it hard to put my faith blindly into something that has no basis on realism. You just write out a holy scripture and expect everyone to believe it. Your debate is called "God is real". The word "real" is defined as "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed". If you want me to believe in God I demand proof. Another thing I want to point out is your explanation for the problem of evil. You are basically saying that God would let over 6 million people die just to keep up his game of charades? Now at this point you might argue that they went up to heaven or something as compensation but according to your bible only believers go up to heaven. Are you willing to say that every single one of these 6 million people were religious especially those who died in 9/11? For your first contention I'm not saying that science has ruled out God already, I'm saying that amount of scientific evidence that supports God seems to be outweighed by the amount that doesn't support God. And didn't you say in your first paragraph that religion should not be treated as a scientific fact, so why are you saying that we could use science to understand God? I fully understand your second point but the fact is the universe is not orderly. The only reason we exist today is because of our ability to adapt to changes such as the changing of habitat. The universe is a chaotic place and we are extremely lucky not to be in the right center of the chaos. For your third and last contention, I say that the only reason why there is a correlation between the moral views of society is because each society faces the same problems, cycles and events. In every society we have people that kill, steal, lie, cheat or give, love, help and care. It is these events that shape society gradually into what we have today. And furthermore I'd like to point out hat not every society had the same moral views. Ever heard of human sacrifices? Voters, I personally think that my opponent's scientific backup is faulty and unreliable.
God is real

I am sorry for forgetting the layout and guidelines of the debate so please forgive me.So first of all my case:Lack of Scientific Proof Is there any fully reliable historical and/or scientific proof that God has ever existed? At this point, most people direct me to the Bible a two thousand year old book based on letters sent by people you don't know. Is this dependable? No. In order for me to believe in the existence of God, I require solid scientific proof that can be relied on. If there are any that I do not know about, please feel free to bring them forward and educate me. The Bible is Pretty Violent Sure enough the Bible teaches loving and caring for each other most of the time. But have you considered the verses that would today be considered cruel? In the book of Deuteronomy there is a verse which orders a man to cut of his wife's hands if she stop him from arguing with another man. The Bible also supports slavery with verses telling slaves to obey their masters. The Problem of Evil If God exist, then surely he would be willing to prevent evil things such as the Holocaust 9/11. I mean, according to your scriptures, God is caring and all powerful. So if he exists, why is there evil in the world? Anyway these are my main points. Now I shall give some reasons to invalidate your rebukes. The human race is at its greatest moment yet. Never before have we risen so high. But where shall we go if not up? Where shall we walk but forwards? The human race has always been advancing, with each generation believing that they are the greatest that will ever walk the earth. This is what you are doing, you believe that there is no space for improvement in human intelligence. Stephen Hawking is very smart and his theories are incredibly complex but that doesn't mean that he is the smartest. Do not think that this generation is the one that will discover the scientific truths of the universe. For your second argument, I believe the universe is not perfect. It took billions of years to form our solar system after millions of failed attempts. Our planet is the result of millions of asteroids that have smashed together, forming our world. The earth we live in today can be scientifically explained. And for your last argument on morality I am going to take your example of death. As you said people believe death is bad. But instead of forming a radical conclusion to people's view towards death, you should take on a logical side. Why do people believe death is bad? Because death means you can't see your loved ones anymore. It is an important and significant change and is a path we will all take. The only reason why people view death as bad is because they don't know what's beyond if there is anything that is.
God is real

Since you didn't make your own case, I'll just go on to attack your arguments against my case. You attacked my first contention by saying that humans have it figured out the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be. That's true, but it doesn't mean they haven't tried. You built up this case like we've been turning to religion forever to get the answers, when in fact scientists like Stephen Hawking have determined that you really need to have a God in order to have a beginning of the universe. Humans have not developed the skills to find the answer yet? Are you kidding? Hawking's theory was based on quantum fluctuations, one of the most complicated concepts in science. And where did his answer take him? Nowhere. He basically has conceded his theory and stated that there is a creator. You attacked my second contention by saying that the speed of light changes in a black hole. I think you missed the whole point of the contention. The point is that there are values in our universe that never change in certain places, and are fine tuned to stay that way for billions of years. And as we all know, nature is not fine tuned, so without a God, how can we have values that are the same across the universe? For my third contention, you stated that humans make their own morality. Ok, but if that were true wouldn't there be a drastically different moral standard across the world. Again, all cultures try not to die because we believe death is bad. The point is that there is a reason that our moral standards are pretty similar. It's because there is a great being commanding it. If you want to make your own case, that'd be great so that the voters can get a better idea of the reasons you don't believe in God. Good luck.
God is real

I agree that science has failed to explain the creation of the universe. But this does not mean that there is no scientific explanation. Perhaps the human race has not mastered the technology or math needed to calculate and discover the answer behind this question. Take the examples of comets. The first humans relied on the sky to tell them the time and seasons and thus they thought that the world was the work of a master clock maker. If something strange is happening in the sky eg. a comet, it must be a sign from the God(s) signalling an important event. They had no other explanations and not enough knowledge to understand it. We now understand that comets are huge chunks of ice that have been drawn by the Sun's gravitaonal pull. This is what you are doing. You are making assumptions based on a limited amount of knowledge. Just because we don't know does not mean there is no answer.I have to correct your second statement in which you say light travels at the same speed everywhere. A black hole has enough gravitational power to pull light from its path. Rapid changes in the enviroment around us could be scientifically explained eg. global warming, mountain formation. For your third argument, I have to point out that we set our own moral standards. We human decide for ourselves which rules we live by. You might have 10 commandments but they don't cover everything do they?
God is real

I'm going to clarify something before I begin. I believe God is a reality, not a certainty or a fact. That's why it's called faith. I believe in God. I wouldn't say I believe in science, because I know it's true. So if you want to try to use the assumption that believers must prove God is a fact, I would say that's a complete fallacy. Contention 1: Creation indicates a God. For a long time in history, there was an assumption that the universe always existed, and that would seem to support atheism, but today, most religions and science agree that the universe in fact had a beginning. Science calls it the Big Bang. One of the scientists that frequently studies the Big Bang is Stephen Hawking. Hawking has said before that the laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, something else would've had to exist in order to get a universe. Stephen Hawking tried to solve this without turning to God by creating a theory based on quantum fluctuations and in order for his theory to be true, something called imaginary time would have to exist. There's no such thing as imaginary time. So even someone as smart as Stephen Hawking can't come up with a way that to explain the Big Bang without God. Contention 2: The universe is fine tuned. The fine tuning argument or the intelligent design argument has put modern atheism completely on the defensive side, all thanks to science. As we all know, there are things in our universe that are universal. Such as the speed of light, which is the same everywhere in the universe. That's just one example by the way. Some scienfists have suggested that if that speed of light or other universal settings were different by much less than a percent, the universe would not exist. As we all know, nature is not constant. Look at the rapid changes of mountain formations, or the rapid climate change that has been going on for millions of years. The point here is that in order for the universe to exist, there has to be something holding things like the speed of light to a constant. And my question to you is, if it's not God, what is it? Contention 3: The moral argument. As human beings, we have a certain set of moral values. They vary of course, but they're not too far off. In some places the death penalty offense varies, but we all seem to agree that death itself is bad, therefore killing people is bad. Because we have a pretty close moral standard, it is likely that all of that has one authority commanding it. Can a universal moral standard come naturally? Probably not. So it's likely that there is a supreme being commanding our morals. I'm excited to see what kind of direction this debate goes to and good luck. . https://m.youtube.com...
God is real

Hello. I saw your other religion debate and I challenge you to this debate. I have never debated on this particular topic so this should be interesting. We'll equally share the BOP. We can provide scientific arguments for or against God, but I am not required to find scientific evidence for God because none exists, nor are you required to find scientific evidence against God because again, none exists. Rules: Round 1- Acceptance. Round 2- Opening arguments. Round 3- Rebuttals. Round 4- Rebuttals, voters and conclusion. Forfeiture results in immediate loss of conduct points unless clarified beforehand. Try to use proper spelling and grammar, but occasional errors are okay. Use a source or two, but you don't have to for each round. It's a religion debate. I look forward to the debate.
Christianity against Atheism

Second of all, I suppose I should've explained the true definition to Christianity to those of you who don't know. It's basically a belief based on the teachings and miracles of Jesus. The evidence of Christianity comes from the Bible as most of you know. Jesus is the Christ. "Christ" means anointed one and it's not his last name cause we all know people didn't really have last names back in those days. When God sent his son Jesus to Earth to die for us, He rose 3 days later and the Old Testament Laws and Prophecies were fulfilled. This is why we don't follow some of the things from the OT such as no working on the Sabbath. If you want a better definition, Just tell me. Well let me start by answering your questions and such. So, You know how there are many Christians in the world? When Jesus died and rose again and all that stuff, People saw and believed. And when you see something AMAZING happen, Do you just stay there and keep quiet? NO! If you had the cure for cancer, You would tell everyone about it unless you were selfish. So, Those Christians told other people and they believed and told other people and it went on and on and a lot of Asia became Christians when the 11 disciples of Jesus went out and spread the word. You also talked about translations. Apostles and different men of God were spoken to by God of what to write. In 2 Timothy 3:16 it says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, And is profitable for doctrine, For reproof, For correction, For instruction in righteousness. " As you see, The Word of God was of God. He helped interpret the Bible into other languages and another thing. When there was the fall of the Tower of Babel, Everyone had their own languages and stuff. So, When you mix those different people together, They also have their own languages. Therefore, The different types of people helped translate the Bible into the other languages. And yes, They did consult God. But also, The different translations other than the King James Bible is wrong. In Deuteronomy 4:2 it says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, Neither shall ye diminish ought from it, That ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. " Meaning, Mankind was never allowed to change the word of God and that's how we have all those wrong translations these days. As God has created everything in the world and humans themselves, He didn't push diseases nor heart attacks on people. When Eve and Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, They were banned from the garden and sin entered the world. (Genesis) And God doesn't always keep the bad from the world because He gave mankind their own choices. He didn't force salvation upon anyone either. And no, I would not like 100 evolution videos about such falseness. And how dare you blame God for murdering babies? ! ? MANKIND ARE THE ONES WHO SET UP ABORTION CLINICS! NO! GOD HAD NO PART WHATSOEVER IN IT! What do you believe will happen in your afterlife? Tell me that please. For some of the yes and no questions, I actually agree yes. These answers having nothing to do with you, But rather your beliefs.
Christianity against Atheism

God created the Heavens and Earth. Don't believe that? I got biblical evidence. (Genesis 1) If you can't believe the Bible, How much more any other books? You say scientists have everything and know everything, But they weren't around for 'A Million Years' when everything supposedly happened with the big bang and all. No, That stuff never happened nor do scientists have evidence. It's a theory. A theory is much like a guess, You don't have actual proof it has happened. I have proof and so do many others on how God is real. He has given me many blessings and I thank Him for it. You have suffered many bad things in your lifetime and you blame God? Well I got one thing to say about that. God is not the cause of your problems. It's the devil. You say you want to go to Hell? No, You're not going to have some huge party there. You're going to burn for eternity. That's wasn't God's intent for the world. You say you're an atheist? Well then why do people blame God when bad things happen? And they say that God doesn't exist, But they blame him? Don't you think that's rude? And what do you think came first, The egg or the chicken?
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

Definitions: My opponent defined only "awesome". Therefore, I can further define any other words which arise in this debate. Our definitions do not conflict. "Awesome" means "inspiring awe". As my opponent fails to define awe, I define it as "awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration; awe: fear". I am not providing an "alternate definition". P1: Yes, the initial definition stands. However, mine do as well, as they do not conflict with the original definition. P2: a. The definition of awe does indeed include the word "overwhelming": "awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration". Thus, the magnitude is specified. b. The magnitude of awe is not subjective. It is inherently overwhelming, as per my non-conflicting definition. My definitions do not provide an alternative to my opponent's. They merely clarify them. As awesome means "inspiring awe", I was well within my rights to define "awe". As my opponent does not account for any of my legitimate definitions with his arguments, they all are irrelevant. The picture in question does not inspire awe, and is therefore, not awesome.