BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Lose This Debate In The Eyes of Most Atheists.

You're right. Round 2 was clearly for arguments, and I didn't fulfil that. I will change the structure of the debate to make it as long as I wanted. Round 3: Arguments (No rebuttals)Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals and ConclusionSeeing the structure of the debate, Con must make an argument as to why one should have a lack of belief in God, without refuting my arguments in Round 3.------------------------------------------------ Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God [1]. This is irrational and foolish. I will give simple arguments for this.Conscience This will most likely not work, as Atheists seem to have surpressed their conscience, but whatever. In your conscience, you know that God exists. Just look for the feeling and you'll find it.The BibleThe Bible said the Earth was circular hundreds of years before it was dicovered - Isaiah 40:22 (There was no Hebrew word for Sphere, thus saying it teaches a flat Earth would be just as accurate as me saying it teaches a Spherical Earth.) The Bible said the Earth hangs upon nothing thousands of years before it was dicovered - Job 26:7 That wind blows in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6 That blood is the source of life - Leviticus 17:11That Oceans have springs - Job 38:16It also prophecied of the founding of the Modern State of Israel in 1948 - Isaiah 66:7-9.Thus making the Bible true: Thus making, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1), and "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) and "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20) correct. Therefore meaning Atheism is irrational and foolish.In Round 4 - For Con to have a valid rebuttal, he would either need to show that their conscience doesn't tell them God exists, and/or that the claims I made about Science in the Bible wrong (And then show scientifically false things in the Bible).
I Will Lose This Debate In The Eyes of Most Atheists.

I don't have to show that "atheism is rational and/or wise", and the OP never says that I have to show it to be so. It merely states that "if you are an atheist and think that atheism is rational and/or wise, accept this"; it does not present a task that I have to fulfill. However, the OP does say that Pro [indicated by 'I'] is to "argue that Atheism is irrational and foolish". Pro has not done this. He has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Solve This Magic Trick

Zach debate727 I have no idea, It seems he placed the single bet before the euros and is confirmed by the bookmaker paddy power, he then handed the bet to ITV production studios who kept it lock shut in a safety box. Until the tournament was over, he then went live on TV to reveal how he predicted the correct outcome of seven matches including some score draws. It accumulated at odds of 10000/1. I have no idea how he did it, I can only assume the ITV production company were in on the stunt, other than to claim it is real magic, it seems the only logical conclusion. Proving it however is another story. Thanks for trying, this has boggled my mind.
Solve This Magic Trick

I will post a Magic act performed by the magician Dynamo. In round one it is up to my opponent to accept the challenge before I present the trick, once accepted, my opponent must explain in round two how Dynamo managed to pull of the stunt, if however my opponent has no explanation of how the act was achieved, it will be conceded that it was indeed magic and no trick. Round 3 is for closing arguments. Note, I believe Dynamo does not lay claim to real magic, but if it can not be found out how the trick was done, then for the sake of the debate, it will be classed as real magic.
On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

1. This debate should be impossible to accept. Finding a way to accept without permission will result in an automatic loss for Con. If you would like to accept, please say so in the comments section, and I will challenge you when I feel like it. 4. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions. .. >> Collectivism- the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount. >> Individualism- the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount. 5. The definition of "preferable" is up for debate, but Con may not make the argument that there is no objective framework for deciding which philosophy is preferable. 6. Burden of Proof is shared. I must show the Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism. Good luck, Con!
Islam is a Toxic and Peace-HatingReligion

But again where in the Quran does it say that? Now I'm not Muslim so I can't tell you facts about the Quran other than things I have looked and researched prior and during this debate but looking online I see instances where it shows places of the Quran where it does talk about love, peace, marriage, friendship, etc... So are also those messages of the Bible unjust because even if there are a few questionable ones? Here are a couple: 1. "We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed." (Surat al-Ma"ida, 48) -Which is basically telling everyone to do and try being the best person there is 2. "O You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to you." (Holy Quran: 2, 208) -Telling people to be good and peaceful not to be devious and evil like Satan which is the same Satan (Devil) to us. 3. "And he is with you wherever you are." (Quran 57:4) -This, like our God, shows that we are never alone and that God (Allah) is always with them Also I will admit that I am a Christian and can tell you, if you read the bible, there are examples of God's disciples doing unjust things and God doing questionable things to. 1. Look at Peter one of Jesus' disciples he "betrayed" Jesus in the sense of when he was being sentenced to death first Peter attacked a man and cut of his ear then later told everyone he didn't know Jesus not once, nor twice, but three times. 2. Then there is Judas another of Jesus' disciples who sold Jesus out to Temple officials 3. Then there is Paul/Saul who killed and did so much stuff but was forgiven and "easily" redeemed And the main part of all this was yes no matter what you do, God will forgive and love you, but some can also see it as, "okay, so I can lie, steal, cheat, betray people, kill, maim, etc... and I could still go to heaven" Now tell me from an outsider perspective it makes Christianity look kind of bad. Also in the Old Testament God has down some questionable things killing off the Earth with a flood, asking others to sacrifice people to prove your faith, and if you want giving us life where you can die and where sin is highly prevalent. And just asking, have you ever read the Quran completely? (I will admit I have not). But for the fact that you are so sure that The Quran is a terrorist book and Muhammad is a terrorist then what resource have you read or seen that actually implicates this and if so can you show me it. Lastly if the Quran is like the Bible it was a book written by man but coming from God. Meaning that yes men wrote the book but it wasn't just "hmm I feel this should go here" and "That should go there" it was inspired by God and used man as a way to write it
Islam is a Toxic and Peace-HatingReligion

It would be idiotic to believe that the only radical race is Islam., that's absurd. The Kurds are a prime example of a radical Christian group. And my argument is the religion, not the people. To understand the religion and the viciousness of Islam, you must refer to the Quran's picture of Muhammad. It clearly states that Muhammad was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, a sexist, a slave owner, and an overall piece of sh*t. Now as the Quran teaches us about Muhammad, we get a better understanding of why the terrorists are who they are. They're not taking the Quran and radicalizing it, they're following the prophets teaching's. Now as for the "Other" or "Moderate" Muslims, the only reason they are moderate, is because they don't actually follow the Quran. If they followed the Quran, they would be killing gays, beheading women who aren't subservient to men, and killing non innocents, or anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you take the Quran Literally and follow it, you see the religion for what it is, a deadly, hate spreading religion hell bent on killing infidels. Muhammad was a terrorist, and so following the Quran as it is, is terrorism.
Islam is a Toxic and Peace-HatingReligion

I do not believe that Islam is a peace-hating religion. My reasoning behind believing this is because like you said "radical' Islam and terrorist groups. Now remember throughout history every group has had terrorist and extremist groups does that make them peace-hating ? Christianity had their own radicals and extremist who killed people and spread terror everywhere, the Crusades where 1 to 9 million of people died, the Holocaust (where Jewish peoples, blacks, gays, and much more people were targeted) were millions upon millions of people were killed, and even the KKK were a Christian terrorist group killing mainly blacks, protestants, immigrants, etc.. does these groups that were Christian make Christianity a peace-hating religion because of a couple groups that let hate consume them? https://www.reference.com... Even races have terror groups. 1. White people had the KKK who again killed countless people 2. Black people had the Black Panther and the Modern day Black Panther who believe in killing white people and cops. Also there is Black Lives Matter who at many times show they are okay with killing cops or doing things that are morally inappropriate to spread their points of view. Plus there's also the Black Liberation Army who also believe in helping African American through violence. Does these extremist and terrorist groups mean all white and black people are peace-hating? Even groups and ideologies have hate groups. 1. Look at all the news with the cop killings and how people are reacting to them. With Traven Martin. Alton Sterling, Zack Hammond, and so much more. 2. Feminist who believe equality among gender have people who believe that "all men should die" and "women would be better if men would no longer be around". Do a few corrupt individuals make both these groups and organization unjust? With every group, race, religion there will be people who go over the top and see they are the Supreme and will act in ways no rational person would. But because a few people act this way is now the whole group considered bad?
Islam is a Toxic and Peace-HatingReligion

As the rise of radical Islam and terrorist groups as Al-Qaeda or ISIS grows, the religion they follow itself must be questioned. As I learn more and more about these deadly occurrences like the 49 killed in Orlando, I have to believe that something is seriously off with the religion they believe in. To start this off, we can directly look at the actions of their founder or prophet, Muhammad. The video "NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PROPHET" by the channel, Talk Islam, (link here: ), perfectly represents the ignorance, or if not ignorance the keen lack of detail Muslims use while adressing their prophet. One of my favorite examples of this is when the spokesperson says, "And when he was asked for advice, he would reply, don't get angry, don't get angry, don't get angry, repeating it thrice." This line shows the blatant disregard from the fact that their holy book, the Quran, preaches. In the Quran, it clearly states that Muhammad beat his wife, who mind you was only 11 at the time of the beating, He did not practice what he preached. Everything about this religion, the pain and suffering it has caused, can be traced back to the ring leader, Muhammad.
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

But still, something is wrong with reggee. What about Archimedes? Or Aristotle? Or Einstein? Or Hemingway, Hawthorne, or Shakespeare? Those people were all white/Europeans. Therefore, they should be considered better than Indians. While I indeed have to admit that some Indians are intelligent and talented, they stink really bad. Thus, their fair punishment is that they are NOT allowed to use the Internet. https://www.reddit.com... Archimedes discovered torque, which laid the foundation for mechanics. Aristotle was a great philosopher, writing books on logic, science, politics, and religions. Hemingway, Hawthorne, and Shakespeare, are, in my opinion, the 3 best writers of all time. Many other intelligent people are white, not black or Indian.
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

Speak for yourself. I've seen your previous debates and they're all against south asians. Your the racist one. Many south asians do great things, such as Aryabhatt, who was a genius in astrology. Acharyah Kanad was the founder of the atomic theory. Nargajuna was a prodigy in chemistry. Acharyah Charak was dubbed the founder of medicine. Acharyah Bhardwa was a pioneer of aviation tech. Mathew Henson was a co-dicovere of the north pole. Frederick Douglass made slavery illegal. Benjamin Bannaker made the first clock. Without these extraordinary black people, we would'nt have clocks, blimps, dryers, dust pan, electric lamp, folding chair, gas mask, ice-cream scooper, ironing board, lawnmower, the atomic theory, mailbox, modern toilet (the big one), modern lock, mop, portable pencil sharpener, POTATO CHIPS, and the traffic light. These black people do great things, so deal with it. You have a problem? Then don't use the things that these amazing people have invented.
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

I think Indians should not be allowed to use the Internet. Look at this guy: http://www.debate.org... He's an Indian (East Indian), but wants to make Indians illegal. http://www.debate.org... Also, his religion is Jewish, but his political party is the American Nazi party. He thinks that white people shouldn't be allowed to travel in space because they don't blend in with the black space. http://www.debate.org... And finally, (http://www.debate.org...), he mixses up the terms "gay" and "lesbian". I think it's pretty obvious that only females can be lesbians; to refer to a homosexual male, you need to use "gay". Thus, because of reggee, Indians, and South Asians in general, should NOT be allowed to use the Internet. IP address should somehow indicate a person's ethnicity/race, or at least whether or not that person is Indian/South Asian. If he/she is South Asian, then he cannot use the Internet.
Resolved: The most logical position for belief is Agnostism

My opponent has forfeited. Since this was interesting, I would like, if he is willing, to attempt this debate again, and repost the first two rounds as they are, then repost rounds three and four. Please message me if you would like to do that. Other than that I have nothing new to say. Vote for me please, as I was present all four rounds, and I believe I have presented the stronger argument. I hope my opponent's sister is doing well.
Resolved: The most logical position for belief is Agnostism

I am sorry about your sister, and I hope that she is okay. I had a similar problem in a debate a while ago where my Grandfather died, and I did not have time to post either. It is fine, and if you want, we can start a new debate, repost the previous rounds, and you can have the chance to re-post this round. Or you can post your round two to the comment section if you do not have enough room in round three. "And please capitalize God because we are discussing God and not some polytheistic god." If you are unable to prove that not only must a deity exist, but your deity, then discussing polytheism is very relevant. Since there is nothing for me to refute in this round, I will only post one new argument. 5. Causality. There are two types of causality, infinite and finite. Infinite causality would mean that everything must have a cause, meaning that there is no original cause, which does not fit in with traditional Catholic beliefs. Then there could be finite causality. Finite causality would mean that there can be some original cause. Many times I have heard theists argue that the earth is too complex to not have a designer. This assertion is wrong. If the earth is too complex to be caused by itself or by nothing, then how can God, a complex being escape the same logic you just employed? The argument of complex things having a creator, simply bolsters the claim of a single energetic event, something from nothing creating everything. And the claim of "something can't come from nothing", a claim I hear many times, simply argues against God, who is somehow above the logic just employed. The assertion by Ray Comfort, a debater against evolution and pro Christian theism, often claims something along the lines of "a painting has a painter, so the earth has a creator, because it is obviously perfect". Not only are we not in a perfect world (storms, earthquakes, disease, starvation, biological systems in humans and animals that any engineering or biology student would be able to design much better, vestigial structures, etc.) we have experience with paintings. We have never seen paintings pop up on their own, or created simply by randomness. However, in the field of universe creation we have no experience to go by. We have never observed anything being created, so the extrapolation is completely uncalled for.
Resolved: The most logical position for belief is Agnostism

I accept your challenge. I will argue that Agnostism is not the most logical by proving, using science and logic, that there is a God. The God that I will be arguing is the Catholic/Christian idea of God. The burden for the con is to prove that there is a God, thus Agnostism is not the most logical The burden of the pro is to prove that there is a possibility that a God does not exist. Definitions: God: a singular being that is omniscient, all knowing, and all powerful as in He can create something out of nothing; Catholic God
Resolved: The most logical position for belief is Agnostism

So the argument is over whether the most logical place to have in the context of belief is Agnosticism. Con must argue that the most logical position to have is either a specific religion, deism, or atheism. I would ask that my opponent has a first paragraph where he specifies which belief he believes is the most logical to hold. Some definitions that my opponent must either agree to, or change in his first paragraph of round one. Atheism- The belief that god does not exist. Agnosticism- The belief that god may or may not exist, usually combined with the sentiment of a theistic god being especially unlikely. Deism- The belief that god(s) have undefined properties, and do not necessarily actively engage in our world Theism- The belief in a god(s) that has a strict set of controlled and organized beliefs. Round one is for acceptance. Con may not make any new arguments in round four, but may summarize or restate past arguments, and refute any new arguments presented by me in round four. If Con has any issues with these guidelines, he must address them in the first paragraph of round one. Good luck to my opponent.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

Interesting that you should break out the old, tired argument of using apparent contractictions between the requirements of the law in the Old Testament and practices of modern society- usually used by atheists ta attempt to debunk God's Word. Without laboring the point, I would just say that those alleged "contradictions" have been addressed by Christians over the years, including a recent analysis of those same, specific points by Reverend Dave Gifford. See this link: http://www.giffmex.org... I will continue my argument on the next round so I have more room. Thank you.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

But there are a lot of things the Bible says that aren't valid/recognized in today's society. For example, Leviticus 19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. " (1) The Bible says in that passage that spiritual mediums and fortune tellers are bad and you should not use them. But today, many many people use fortune tellers. Just a few others that the Bible says: Round Haircuts, Tattoos, Polyester, Divorce, Wearing Gold, Shellfish, etc. (1) . http://www.11points.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

Okay, my first arguement is that America is based on the Bible, and was founded by Christians. God made people so that a man is supposed to marry a woman. If we went against that truth, we would be making a decision for our country that is something against what God's purpose was, then our basis for that law would be the same. "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on many items in our country. Our coins, license plates, and many other things. We would basically be contradicting ourselves, and going against the Bible If we made the decision to make gay marriage legal. I thank you for listening to my side.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

This is my first debate on here, let's see how it goes. Judge Walker in his decision for Perry v Schwarzenegger (1) found there to be no rational basis for a state to deny marriage to same-sex couples under the law. In the due process and equal protection clause of the US Constitution, it guarantees the same protection under laws for every single one of it's citizens (2). For a state to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, it would be a violation of this clause, and therefore is unconstitutional. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

As a conclusion of this debate, I would like to point out that people in America have been doing fine for years having marriage between a man and a woman. If we choose to go down the road of making gay marriage legal we will be ripping down the wall of marriage, and making it some sort of non-serious matter. We will be mocking marriage and the point of it. Choosing to make it legal would cause us to have to legalize other dumb acts such as polygamy. Why not make this legal if we're are making gay marriage legal? By making marriage some kind of joke, we are ruining our economy, people, and our future generations. Our country was built with the help of God, going against what He set out for us is not what we need to be doing now. Thank you.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the US

Number 8 on that page didn't even attempt to argue against wearing gold. The passage about how you should invest time and money into making your inner self better rather than your outer self has no effect on today. Women do that all the time, even at church, which the argument on that webpage specifically addresses. I don't have the room to argue against all the other points so I'll make one big one. Marriages in states are defined by a Marriage License, given to the couple by the state. It is up to them to have a religious ceremony attached to that or not. Since the license is given to them by the state, it would be unequal and unfair treatment under the law for them to refuse a license on the basis of sexual orientation.