BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists have more faith than Theists

(Romans 1:20) For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without any excuse. * -Human life begins in a bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... * (2 Peter 3:5) "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water." -The water that makes Earth a majestic blue marble was here from the time of our planet's birth, according to a new study of ancient meteorites, scientists report. "The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as its beginning." news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science -Larger than Earth but smaller than Uranus, GJ1214b has a lot more water and a lot less solid material than our home planet. According to their research, this waterworld is entirely covered with an ocean. Even its atmosphere is a thick steam layer. Not just hazy, but a "dense atmosphere of water vapor." "The Earth was able to form because of an abundance of hydrogen and oxygen." gizmodo.com/5887003/hubble-discovers-a-new-type-of-world-made-of-water https://briankoberlein.com... (Genesis 1:2) "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." * (Genesis 1:3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." (Genesis 1:4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. (Job 26:7) "He spreads out the skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." * "How the universe Began"- http://youtu.be... * Science confirms that the universe exists by a narrow set of laws. These laws control and determine the existence of the universe. Where did these laws come from, since not even time, space, or matter existed prior to the beginning of the universe? Today, scientists confirm that the universe had a sudden beginning. After an eternity past, instantaneously all matter and energy that exists in the universe, came into being. * Proof of the faith it takes to accept Atheism? Look at all of the atheists on the religion forum. Why? They tell me they are making sure the other side is covered. Yet they outnumber the theists on the religion forum by far. The Theists have more reason to offer THEIR side, as a matter of fact, a divine reason and command. So why are they so highly outnumbered. The Atheists are not convinced of Atheism. They are looking for affirmation of their unbelief.
Atheists have more faith than Theists

"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient, knowing all things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to have personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen." -Norman Geisler "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" * DNA is a code of information, a set of instructions. The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2nd set of DNA instructions- http://youtu.be... * What we know: 1)The equations used to describe the universe are binary error correcting comluter code. 2)DNA is a code, a language, a set of instructions. * Binary codes in the construct of reality- Binary code converts all information into a code, a bit, that either can be a on or off a 1 or a 0. All the complex data that is transferred via the information technology revolution is actually transmitted as a series of ons and offs. The on and off or 1 and 0 represent 2 states, presence and absence, an on and off switch of being and not being. The transmitting computer codes the data into this simplified binary signal, a machine language that is incomprehensible to our conventional sense organs. It transmits this signal as a coded off and on signal. The receiving computer then decodes this data, reconverts it into information comprehensible to our human senses. This binary system reduces all information to an either/or paradigm, and then disseminates this information at speeds that depend on the bandwidth of the communication pathways. www.speakingtree.in/article/the-binary-code-of-creation James Gates on binary code- http://youtu.be... * Even 666 from the Biblical book of Revelation, translates back and forth from Greek to Arabic as 666 in Greek, and "In the name of Allah" in Arabic. http://youtu.be...
Women should be able to serve on the front lines in combat positions

This is part of the Gauntlet Tournament hosted by TylerGraham95 that I somehow managed to become the challenger in I will be arguing that women should be able to serve combat roles in the front lines of an armed conflict if they manage to pass the physical tests/requirements to be eligible to fight on the front lines, Con will be arguing against the resolution. First round acceptance only. 4 rounds, 8,000 characters.
Should flag burning be legal under the 1st amendment

I apologize to my opponent for misunderstanding him. To the best of my current knowledge, he is claiming that this should be a state-by-state issue and not banned by the federal government. However, he claims the Tenth Amendment in his argument. The Tenth Amendment has only two limitations on said powers: powers reserved to the federal government under the Constitution, and powers prohibited by the Constitution to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, specifically prohibits states denying equal protection. Therefore, this links back to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, the states must protect that as well. He has also failed to properly address how flag burning, expressive conduct and thus an act of speech, falls outside the umbrella of protected speech with regard to the Supreme Court precedents I have cited. Therefore, I ask voters to consider that I have made the more complete arguments. Thank you.
Should flag burning be legal under the 1st amendment

My opponent brought up the point of how many ultra-nationalistic and totalitarian government forbid the burning of the flag, this I agree with. We can not simply kill people because they burned our flag. However, my case is not debating that flag burning should be made illegal, but the power to choose their flag laws should be given to the state instead of protected under the first amendment. The 10th Amendment is as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.". One of these such powers are ownership of property and as my opponent brought up the point that people have the right to do with it as they please. However, the right to decide property laws is given to the state and seeing this, it should be the states decision or more so the people of each state voting on their laws for flag burning seeing as though the flag is property. For the reason that property laws are the right of the state, the burning of the flag should legally be given to the state and not dictated by the first amendment. Again, I am not arguing that flag burning should be banned, instead, if it were to be protected, it should be protected by the state property laws. For that reason, I urge a vote in the favor of Con, thank you.
Should flag burning be legal under the 1st amendment

The states are all subject to the federal Constitution, and my opponent did not properly address the Equal Protection Clause, extending the enforcement of freedom of speech to state legislatures. There are limitations on freedom of speech. I do so concede. But my opponent has taken the ideas of "fighting words" and "obscenity" far out of their context. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, fighting words were defined as speech that could incite lawless action. The court prescribed that such a threat must be a) likely and b) imminent. Speech that could indirectly create problems is still protected. Let me return to Texas v. Johnson. In the majority opinion, the court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements." (written by Justice William Brennan) Texas conceded in the aforementioned Johnson case that "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag," To say that flag burning tends to incite such disturbances is not enough as per Brandenburg v. Ohio. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence (Texas v. Johnson), stated as such: "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt," I tend to agree with him, as my opponent and I both agree that the flag stands for freedom. To restrict freedom of expression for a patriotic purpose (and I concede that this is not necessarily what would happen) could be the first step on the path to ultra-nationalism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Note that I am not accusing my opponent of having such political ideologies, I think he is quite reasonable. I am just saying that could lead to problems down the proverbial road. For example, imagine what would happen if a North Korean citizen burned their flag. This is an extreme case and would never happen in the United States, I am aware. I am just warning that these restrictions are associated with ultra-nationalistic and totalitarian governments. As someone who believes in personal freedom and a democratic society for all of us in this great country, I find it troubling that many Americans are in favor of such restrictions.
Should flag burning be legal under the 1st amendment

*Note:I should have done my homework before accepting for I did not realize that it was already protected... Hmm, this will be interesting. I will also be assuming that we are not going to be talking about retirement as that is part of flag etiquette.* My first point in this case is going to be conflicting rules allow for the burning or the flag to be made illegal. The First Amendment only protects speech which is Constitutionally protected, unprotected speech as defined by definitions.uslegal.com, It means speech that is completely subject to governmental regulations. Unprotected speech can be classified into obscenity, fighting words, fraudulent misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent lawless behavior, and defamation. I will be focusing on the obscenity and fighting words parts. The United States flag stands for many things, one of those things is the courage and readiness to sacrifice. This is stands for the American patriotism that allows us to fight so hard for our nation. Many take the red stripe to mean the blood of the fallen who have protected our nations interests both over seas and at home. The desecration of the flag by burning may be seen of as fighting words and an obscenity to those who are fighting and have fought to secure our nation. Since the burning of the flag is seen as fighting words, the burning of the flag falls outside of the protection of the First amendment allowing it to be regulated by the government. This means that each state has the right to place their own laws on flag burning, and since each state may have different laws, this falls out of the jurisdiction of the federal government and the constitution. My opponent brings up the valid point of property rights, however, that would depend on what laws the States put in place seeing that this is now a State issue. If there are enough people who want to burn flags \ in a state then they can vote to add that to their states bill. This is a democratic nation, let the people of each state vote on what they want. For the reason that the burning of the flag falls into state jurisdiction and not federal, I ask that you vote that flag burning should not be protected under the First Amendment. *Took a while to think of that*
Gap year

"it is really hard togive arguments for 15 mins only"Welcome to my hell -__________-"This is definitely not my fault that i dont know what i really wanna do and dont have any hobbies. "Whose fault is it then? Your parents? Society?If YOU cant decide what YOU wanna do with YOUR life, then its YOUR problem and therefore YOUR fault. "We dont know what to do in our future, we dont have any talents and 18 years is not enough."18 years was more then enough for me and everyone else who went to college and declared their major. Youre just lying to yourself in claiming that most people need more then 18 years before deciding to know what they want to do in life....."It considers of exploring yourself and develop your skills on something"When at any point in life has a teenager taken free time to explore yourself or develop skills on something???? Kids dont use free time to learn a new skill or explore themselves, they use it to sleep in two more hours and play video games the whole day. "We can do whatever we want, for example going abroad and travel."You most certainly CANNOT do whatever you want, your parents arent made of money who will cash out to do whatever it is you feel that you need to do to get a grip..... "Taking photos, walking, going on sports, meeting new people, learning a new language. "All things that talentless and indecisive high schoolers dont do in their spare time..... When was the last time a teenager decided to learn a language just because they felt like it? that has NEVER happened and giving people a year off to get their life in order wont cause people to rise to the occasion and go out and 'find their calling' or whatever. "Gap year can teach us how to be a real adult"Sitting on your a** and being indecisive about what to do in life is literally the exact opposite of being a real adult. Real adults make decisions and work hard to become the people they want to be. If you want to be taught to be a real adult, then having a year of doing nothing in between high school and college is not the thing to have. "because this year should be spent only exploring yourself and doing everything for yourself"Yeah it SHOULD be in theory, but in reality you and 99.9% of all the other indecisive teenagers will just spend the year doing the same thing they did in the last 18 years of their life. Not doing a thing, screwing around playing games and stuff, and putting off making the decision until the very last minute.....We do not need a gap year so that a few talentless students can have the chance to decide what they want to do in life only to blow off making the decision and screwing around for another year. If you cant make up your mind then youre either a failure or you need to grow a sack and make a choice already.
Gap year

Oh God y r u so agressive? I actually have to submit this to my tutor so be polite pls And 15 minutes because I need to print it as soon as possible, but it is really hard togive arguments for 15 mins only This is definitely not my fault that i dont know what i really wanna do and dont have any hobbies. And i know that a lot of students have same problem as i do. We dont know what to do in our future, we dont have any talents and 18 years is not enough. Taking a gap year does not mean doing nothing. It considers of exploring yourself and develop your skills on something. We can do whatever we want, for example going abroad and travel. Taking photos, walking, going on sports, meeting new people, learning a new language. This is really beneficial for us and for our future faculty. We can also work or volunteer. Gap year can teach us how to be a real adult, because this year should be spent only exploring yourself and doing everything for yourself
Gap year

"Nowadays a lot of students don't know what their future life will be like"NOBODY knows what their future life will be like, but a large majority of students know what they want to study in before they go to college since most students declare their major when they are admitted.... "A lot of children, including me, are not interested in any activity or sport and don't have any talents or hobbies, so it is really difficult for us to choose what to do next"Well thats just your fault isnt it? We shouldnt force all the kids in the nation to be forced to wait an extra year to go off and experience the greatest years of their lives just because a handful of talentless kids cant decide what they want to do in life yet..... Youve had well over a decade to take an interest in something and if youre still undecided when high school ends, it doesnt mean you need more time to decide. It means its time to get your sh*t together and act like an adult already. " It is common now, that students after graduating go for hotel business or more general business faculties, just because they do not know who they really wanna be."That is complete horse sh*t.... Most students after they graduate immediately get employed in the field their degree is in, (62.1% to be exact: http://www.washingtonpost.com...;) and a vast msjority of students who JUST GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE usually have an idea of what they want to be....."students should definitely take gap years to know themselves better and after spending the whole year doing nothing they will know what they want from this life in the future for sure!"Ok 1) Most students know everything about themselves and know exactly what they want to do in life/study in college2) Spending a whole year doing nothing will certainly not enlighten them on what they want to do in life.... If spending 16 years of your life in school being exposed to all the different fields of study you can go into doesnt inspire you, then sitting on your a** and doing nothing but playing video games for a year isnt going to change that. Its just wishful thinking that it would. ====================================================================Pro's arguments are based entirely on gross misconceptions of what students actually think and do in regards to preparing for college and on wishful thinking of what a gap year would do to cure such problems, even though there isnt a shred of evidence or logic to back up his claims.Why are debate rounds only 15 minutes long?
Gap year

I think gap year is a best idea for anyone, especially students. Nowadays a lot of students don't know what their future life will be like. That is why they should spend one year before the college exploring themselves. A lot of children, including me, are not interested in any activity or sport and don't have any talents or hobbies, so it is really difficult for us to choose what to do next. It is common now, that students after graduating go for hotel business or more general business faculties, just because they do not know who they really wanna be. In that cases, students should definitely take gap years to know themselves better and after spending the whole year doing nothing they will know what they want from this life in the future for sure!
Christianity should play a part in how we run our government

Rebuttals"If you make Christianity take a role of how our government runs, you are thus denying the same from other religions. Thus, Christianity would have a role in the running of our government, but Hindus would not, or Jews, etc. Thus, the resolution would go against the our precious freedom of religion and freedom from religion (if one so chooses). "Allowing Christianity to take a role in the government would not be prohibiting people from believing what they want, nor would it be forcing them to believe it. It would only insure that Christian morals be set in place, such as praying in Schools and the teaching of God (as well as the theory of evolution), illegalizing gay marriage, making abortion illegal, etc. "1) Government cannot implement religious aspects into laws because it deprives people of their liberty (to freedom of religion and/or freedom from religion)2) Government cannot perform the above premise because some who are not Christian would not enjoy equal protection of the law which guarantees them freedom of religion"Making Christianity a part in government would not be infringing on individuals right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In fact, I think it would only make America a more safe place to live. "This is a much understated argument. If the government respected and implemented Christianity into the way of running the government, it would basically put Christianity as the national religion. This has had disastrous results in other parts of humanity:"Christianity in our government would not hurt the nation but help it. Christianity has never been our national religion so you can't compare statistics but there did used to be prayer in schools. Prior to 1962 crime, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol consumption and other things were stable or declining. In 1963 Supreme Court ruled that we could no longer pray in public schools. Violent crimes went up over 500%, sexually transmitted diseases 200%, and alcohol consumption went up 35%. We all want to see our country succeed right? Think to yourself by making Christianity our national religion help us at all? If it would, why not do it? I proved earlier it was not unconstitutional so, what are you so afraid of? My opponent has failed to prove that allowing Christianity have a role in our government would hurt it. His only argument was the assumption that making us a Christian nation would infringe on an individuals rights to freedom of religion which I have already demonstrated not to be true.
Christianity should play a part in how we run our government

I am looking forward to debate the Separation of Church and State...But First Off, for the onlookers, here is a vital piece of information: "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle."- President Thomas Jefferson, founding father "Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office."- President James K. Polk "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."- President Theodore Roosevelt "We must protect our citizens' privacy -- the bulwark of personal liberty, the safeguard of individual creativity."- President Bill Clinton Good Luck.-Contra
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

"Adolfo Hitler" was nearby during the entire war. Doesn't make the fight for the Reichstag important. The Germans would have lost either way. However the Battle of Stalingrad decided the outcome of the war.Reasons that Stalingrad was important:-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties-This was the largest defeat for Germany-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis