BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any topic!

Physics helps us define our understanding of the world through interpretative scientific data, tested through experimentation. Isaac Newton, some to believe the Father of Modern Physics, saw God as "A masterful creator whose existence cannot be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation." [Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The emergence of Rational Dissent."] When you look at the world around you, everything has formed and created with a mark of purpose. According to "The StarChild Team," planet Earth has been placed in the "Green Zone" which they explain: " describe the distance region around a star in which a planet would have a moderate enough temperature range to allow for life to flourish" [http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...] When you look at the perceivable world around you, all life forms show signs of intelligent design. While it is speculated the origins of intelligent design, the name itself implies that something created all things. The creator is God. God exists because something had to create something out of nothing. Modern "Big Bang Theory" states (paraphrased) "that all the universe started from a singular point of mass in an area of space." [http://www.space.com...] What was the catalyst? According to the "Book of Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1" [Holy Bible(NIV)] "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Specifically stating the origin of "The Big Bang." The Prophet Nehemiah states in his book: Nehemiah Chapter 9, verse 6 ""You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You." The Prophet Isaiah whom spoke to God, wrote in Chapter 41 verse 13: "For I am the LORD your God who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you." These are just a few of numerous examples where profound research teams, scientists and scholarly organizations all admit through scientific conjecture, that Intelligent design is present. The Bible, is the direct message of God to all creation. When everything around us shows scientifically, that Intelligent Design is apparent, then that argues proof that a creator must have orchestrated the design. God, is the creator of this intelligent design and the Bible describes the nature of God and his existence relevant to man.
Objective Moral Judgements can be made in Moral Nihilism

*Leave a message if you want to accept this debate*Details:I have been thinking for a while how to word this resolution, which is my own position in terms of moral philosophy. I am a Nihilist, and I think it's a rational starting position for making moral judgements. For example, I will make the claim the holocaust was wrong, and I make that as an intended objective statement. The BoP is on me to demonstrate the resolution as true, and Con can either negate my arguments (so I fail to meet my BoP) or provide stronger arguments for the antithesis.Definitions:Moral Nihilism: "The meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral."[1]Objective: "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of asentient subject". Or 'impartial'.[2]Format:72h, 10,000 wordsRound 1: Acceptance, RulesRound 2: Arguments, RebuttalsRound 3: Arguments, RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals, No new arguments Best of Luck!*Disclaimer*I would like to thank Dragonfang for inadvertantly giving me the idea of how to phrase this resolution. References:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)
being mixed race makes u immune to racial stupidity

I'm sorry my opponent hasn't posted an argument. I will supply a short initial contention to support my case but if my opponent doesn't come back I won't pummel him in future rounds. Immune: "protected or exempt, especially from an obligation or the effects of something."- Google define. One can assume that by immune to racial stupidity, my opponent means bi- or multi-racial persons are not subject to racism. One example of where this is not true is US President Obama, who is often the subject of discussion due to his mixed heritage: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171751/Dont-forget-white-momma-Morgan-Freeman-says-Obama-black-President.html Obama's mother is white, and this has led to arguments about whether or not he is the first black president or the first mixed-race president. This is an example of a mixed-race person not being immune to racial stupidity. Another example, this one from the entertainment industry, is Alisha Dixon, who has had problems associated with open racism in Britain: www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/alesha-dixon-hits-out-at-racial-prejudice-in-the-british-media-8557625.html. She is mixed-race. I feel that these two examples demonstrate that being mixed-race does not, in and of itself, make one immune to 'racial stupidity'.
Superhero Face Off 2

CONCLUSIONI have already explain at length why my team is superior. We have many people in the comments saying this and that, but it's all irrelevant. If we take plot induced stupidity [1] out of the picture and look at the raw data, it's plain to see that my strategy has not been sufficiently rebutted; instead I received a lot of "na-ah, you are, nerr nerr" sort of responses. I hope my opponent learns from this debate and is much clearer in the future when creating debates, as well as presenting arguments.
Superhero Face Off 2

If you look phoenix up the omni words don't even appeare at all just because she is super powerful and very strong does not make her close to being (for the lack of a better term) an omni-being she doesn't have infinite knowledge strength or speed or anything soooo and i think it should be an all out battle because by the time we decide on who is gunna fight who, too many rounds are lost. so yea. idk how we should start this off but ima start it off like this Phoenix gets flash in a force field and starts to crush him while floating him towards her Goku flies at the green lanturn and hulk goes for superman
Superhero Face Off 2

I presume we'll be focusing on both individual match-ups here as well as an all-in brawl. I select: Superman (All-Star version): As comparatively powerful to Goku; I could have been a bastard and chosen someone specifically to destroy him, but want this to be a reasonably fair fight. The Flash (Barry Allen, Infinite Crisis): I thought long and hard about who I would pit against the infamous Phoenix, who basically violates your own rule "you get it no omni all powerful type of powers or anything near that powerful." I settled on The Flash. ...and sticking with the Justice League Theme Green Lantern (Hal Jordan, The New 52): Should be able to sufficiently deal with The Hulk. So there we go, 3 very powerful members of the Justice League (considered Earth-32 Bruce Wayne but he doesn't have the experience of Batman, so I reconsidered) ready to take on your overpowered mismash of heroes. Come at me.
Superhero Face Off 2

Chose a team of 3 people and we will have a battle to the death. Debate on how your team will win Rules: you can not choose the people who i have chosen you cant make up your people. nobody with omniscient omnipresent omnipotent ....you get it no omni all powerful type of powers or anything near that powerful. no magic. that way my opponent doesn't just say that they poof my characters away No gods. Basic artillery. no super ultra death ray that will denigrate everything just there basic arsenal (for example the bfg in doom isn't allowed) running away also isnt allowed as well as no prior preparation My Team: The Incredible Hulk, the phoenix (jean grey), and goku
Mass Incarceration of African Americans based on race

So first, your use of statistics is terrible. Instead of illuminating the issue, you are employing statistics to diminishing it. It's like looking through binoculars backwards to prove that there's nothing to see. Example: "Winning $50 million in the lottery doesn't make any difference. If you look at all the money in the world, which is hundreds or thousands of trillions of dollars, $50 million is far less than one percent of that. Therefore $50 million isn't a lot of money." This is your logic in a nutshell. "Mass incarceration" does not mean a majority. It means treating people en mass rather than as individuals. Essentially, the accusation behind that phrase is that we are using prisons as warehouses for social problems rather than punishment or reform. The number of incarcerated people with diagnosed mental disorders who receive medication, which is large, testifies to this. Your statistics provided no basis of comparison -- some idea of what an "appropriate" incarceration rate should be -- so you cannot say what percentage is low or high. Ours is the highest. We have a higher percentage of incarcerated people than any other country in the world. We have 22% of the prisoners in the world, but 5% of the global population. Second, if someone told you that in Germany, Jews are incarcerated in disproportionate numbers, you'd probably think something is going on. Your own statistics show that black people are incarcerated in disproportionate numbers. This is basically the premise of "The New Jim Crow" (I think the author is featured in the 13th). But do black people commit that many more crimes? If you focus law enforcement on certain groups, it will certainly look that way. For instance, if we put 5 times as many meter maids in the north half of a city, you will find many more parking violations there. Any black person can tell you that black people are routinely stopped by cops and questioned -- cops even have names for these policies ("stop and frisk," "broken windows policing"). If they see something off, they have reason to look closer. Then you have lots of black people accused of crimes even if they are behaving the same as whites. It's well-known that blacks receive harsher sentences for the same crimes than whites. This has been proven true with the death penalty, for instance. It's a relatively easy comparison -- look at convictions for crimes and the sentences applied to each conviction. There's not a lot of subjectivity to a study like that. Also white people use drugs in about the same proportions as black people do, but do not face jail time for it as often. In fact during the war on drugs, sentences required for crack use were harsher than those for cocaine. Also look at what's going on with the meth epidemic currently. This largely affects rural white areas. But there's no war on meth that puts "predators" behind bars, like with the war on drugs in the 80s and 90s.
The FCC is harmful and unnecessary

Since I have nothing to rebuttal, let me just repeat my 2 key arguments. 1) The market will dictate media content because broadcasting companies will show things that they think will win over viewers. If they think something is too inappropriate, than they won't risk loosing customers and they will drop it. 2) Technology has eliminated any danger of large corporate monopolies. For example, cable customers don't have to worry about a monopoly because of satellite TV, and vice versa.
The FCC is harmful and unnecessary

Toored, You say that the FCC regulates monopoly activity. This is not totally true. In the 50s, they banned Americans from buying any non-Bell telephone. Sounds like a monopoly to me. And the your reference to Bell is also askew. It is true that it did break up, and the FCC did cause it. However, since they passed that legislation to do it, they made themselves obsolete. See, after that law was passed, anyone could enter the telecommunications game. This leveled the playing field, but as the turn of the millennium came around, technology quickly replaced the need for federal regulations. See, with new technology, a monopoly would be nearly impossible to achieve, because there are so many choices in the telecommunications business. For example, cable customers don't have to worry about a monopoly because of satellite TV, and vice versa. The market, along with the amount of choices available to us, maintain the economic checks and balances. An organization like the FCC is useless in modern times because of the exponentially growing technologies that have and are becoming available to us. Also, you have to take into account that the first amendment is being violated. I think that people have a right to write, film, or play music about anything they want, with out interference from "big brother." I'm just against the idea of a government agency controlling the media. Is it really necessary to bleep out things like the "Dick in a Box" sketch from SNL or censor images of Muhammad on South Park (which I understand may or may not have been real)? If you don't want to watch something don't; no one is forcing you or your children to watch/listen to "explicit" material. Plus, it isn't even necessary to have a federal organization like the FCC. In todays economy, the market will do as much censoring as needed. If it is in a networks best interest to censor something, then they will do that. Networks would never do anything to loose viewers, so they will allow and not allow what ever they think will bring in the best ratings. Therefore, the FCC has no use in today's world; the market will enforce the checks and balances itself.
The FCC is harmful and unnecessary

The FCC is not just about content control. The FCC is important because it oversees various corporations. This is no longer the age of laissez faire. The FCC isn't just around to regulate content. The Federal Regulators of the FCC enforce anti monopoly laws to make sure that we don't end up with media barons like William Randolph Hearst who owned over 40 percent of the media in the nation. They see if it is in the public interest to allow men like Sam Zell and Rupert Murdoch to own multiple news outlets in a single city. The FCC is responsible for rules and policies concerning telephone companies that provide interstate, and under certain circumstances intrastate, telecommunications services to the public through the use of wire-based transmission facilities. In the 1970's the FCC was responsible for allowing competition in the telephone market which contributed to the eventual break up of the AT&T Pacific Bell monopoly. The Wireless Telecommunications office of the FCC regulates the use of radio spectrum to fulfill the communications needs of businesses, aircraft and ship operators, and individuals. Much like the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) the FCC is around mainly to keep corporate giants in check.
RESOLVED: Religious belief can be rational

My opponent has forfeited this debate so it should be an instant win for me. He presented fallacies and misrepresentations of the historicity of Jesus as rational. He failed at his burden when he took the time to debate a topic he started and then claimed he didn't have the time for. The guy wasted my time with poor arguments. I will say, something is still fallacious if you use it in an argument or believe it yourself. Historical Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of Faith. Historical Jesus: Born in Nazareth through natural means, failed to perform miracles in front of the Pharasees of Nazareth, Law abiding Jew who preached this, preach love your fellow Jew, died on the cross Jesus of Faith: Born in Bethlehem of a virgin, performed lots of miracles, abolished the old law and preached love everyone, died on the cross and then resurrected Not the same. Finally Buddhism has tenants that must be taken on faith. This is not rational. To be rational is to use good sound reasoning and that is not to be fallacious. Since to believe things without cause is both the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and the fallacy of special pleading(in that most things without proof you don't accept, except the ones in my religion).
RESOLVED: Religious belief can be rational

The first example opponent for some odd, completely ignorant reason, thinks that just because you use a fallacy to convince yourself it is no longer fallacious, it only becomes fallacious if you use it in a debate. His first argument holds as much weight as saying that as long as I only believe it this is rational thinking: all dobermans are dogs rover is a dog conclusion: rover is a doberman. My opponent is completely lost on logic, fallacious thinking is fallacious whether you use it for just yourself or as an argument. That argument quite simply put goes in my top 20 stupidest things ever said on DDO. Really its only argument from majority fallacy if you try to convince someone else of it, if that convinces you it is not. So since it is established that it is fallacious his first example is not rational. Example 2: My opponent fails to notice that the historical evidence points to a very human Jesus, not a godlike Jesus. That Jesus was created through mythology. IT is not rational to jump to that conclusion. His example also says that the beliefs of this person don't contradict scientific fact, yet strangely this person would believe a man walked on water and rose from the dead. Sorry neither exactly coincide with the scientific evidence of physics or biology. Again these beliefs go against all common evidence and also are against the logical structure known as burden of proof. Until proven we should reject a claim. This is only rational because accepting positive claims just because they do not contradict science completely would lead to contradictory beliefs. Again not rational, he has just arbitrarily chosen the christian god. Example 3: My opponent seems completely of ignorant of Buddhism, while I am not the strongest on the subject myself, to say that buddhism lacks beliefs is asinine. The buddhist, may find it fulfilling but it is not rational to believe things because it makes you feel good. That is fallacious thinking. My opponent has failed to show any type of way that this is rational. To be rational is to believe things with evidence. It is being in accordance with logic, and logic dictates that we should only believe things that have evidence for them and not jump to conclusions because they cannot be disproven. That is why the burden of proof is on the religious claims, and if they cannot meet their burden of proof they are not be logical or rational. http://www.fallacies.info...
RESOLVED: Religious belief can be rational

Hello idiots and even stupider(cerebral), My opponent has given three examples. He has given 3 examples which were utterly bad. Firstly we defined Rational as 2) having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. My opponents three examples go like this: 1) is the fallacy of appeal to majority. He presents a Muslim who believes based on the appeal to majority fallacy. The Muslim would be reasonable to pretend to Muslim in that area, being to not pretend to be may endanger his life. It would not be rational to actually believe. This Muslim is believing things with solid evidence based on a fallacy. That is not exercising reason, sound judgment or good sense. http://www.wwnorton.com... http://philosophy.lander.edu... 2)His second example starts with a agnostic falling for the argument from ignorance fallacy. My opponent then says something completely ignorant, he talks about this person looking at the case for a historical Jesus and says he finds that satifying. Wow really, the majority of scholars think a historical Jesus was born in Nazareth, preached the Jewish law, failed to perform miracles in front of the Pharasees of Nazareth, and died on the cross end of historical story. Sources for this: The Evolution of God: Robert Wright http://www.amazon.com... Lost Christianities, Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted- all by Bart Ehrman. http://www.bartdehrman.com... A History of God- by Karen Armstrong http://www.amazon.com... Once again this does not show any of the 3 traits attributed to being rational. I mean seriously this guy bought that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, based on the books of 4 non eyewitnesses. My opponent claims to be an atheist, and he somehow thinks this is rational, come on now. 3) Is the appeal to consequences fallacy, the man finds Buddhism works for him so he believes it. This is not using good sound judgement or any of the 3 attributes attributed to rational. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... In order for religious belief to be rational it must be logical. Rational is a way of saying a person is using logic. All three of his examples showed a person not using sound judgment but instead jumping to conclusions about truth value on faulty reasoning and logic. Sorry my opponent has completely and utterly failed.
RESOLVED: Religious belief can be rational

Hello DDO! I’d first like to apologise to my opponent for my round two forfeit. To be frank, I had better things to do than argue devil’s advocate with someone who, in principle, I completely agree with. However, I don’t particularly like my opponent’s forum personality, so I want to perhaps give him a lesson in respecting beliefs, even if you believe them to be false.ARGUMENTSTo demonstrate that Religious belief can be rational, I have come up with three hypothetical situations. In each situation, a different type of person has a different kind of religious belief. All three situations are highly realistic.1) Imagine a boy born in a small, heavily isolated village in the Middle East. 100% of the population is Muslim. Your parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles and friends are all Muslim. You ancestors are Muslim going back 1200 years.I maintain that this boy is exercising his best reason, sound judgement AND good sense is practising Islam along with his family. No other thought would even occur to him.2) Imagine a man is agnostic, living the United States. He studies science and philosophy equally. He believes in the Big Bang and Abiogenesis to an extent. However, the unanswered questions frustrate him and he feels there is more to it. He studies the various philosophical arguments and finds them sound. He studies the Bible and takes original language, the historical context and relevance of certain metaphors and finds personal philosophical meaning. He studies the case for a Historical Jesus and finds it satisfying.I maintain that he has used his best reason, sound judgement AND good sense in believing in some form of God or divine entity, though its existence cannot be proven or disproven at that particular point.3) Imagine a man is Buddhist. He doesn’t believe in any kind of God, but lives a life based on the tenets laid out by the founder of his religion and finds it highly fulfilling.I maintain that he has used his best reason, sound judgement and good sense in practising his religion.CONCLUSIONAs you can see, I have demonstrated three ways that religious belief can be rational. As far as I’m concerned the resolution is proven by one of these alone.If my opponent is able to sufficiently rebutt all these arguments, I will provide new arguments in round four.I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
RESOLVED: Religious belief can be rational

If izbo10 foolishly decides to debate me on this topic, I will begin my arguments in round two. Let it be known that I am an Atheist myself. I would go so far as to say my beliefs are quite anti-religious. By this, I mean I oppose big business religion and non-secular government. So, definitions:Religious: . http://dictionary.reference.com...1) of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion. Belief: . http://dictionary.reference.com...1) something believed; an opinion or conviction. Can be: This is probably the most important definition; when I originally challenged izbo10 I said the resolution should be "Religious belief IS rational". I don't want to fall into the semantics of trying to argue "All religious belief is rational", so I've changed it slighty to something I think is fair. By "can be", I mean that religious belief is capable of being rational. This doesn't imply it's inherently rational. It merely implies that it is not inherently irrational. Rational: . http://dictionary.reference.com...2) having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.