BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

"Informed? Many studies have been conducted where impulse voting, voting based on party alone, and name recognition based on propaganda alone were primary triggers. Aside, 38% of the voters in the last presidential election did not attend high school, when you add in those who didn't graduate as well, the number increases. The voters, or at least the ones that do vote, can statistically be well defined as uninformed. It is a sad truth and outcome of our voting system." Your entire argument is invalid because you failed to cite sources. I have no where do go to fact check. However, I will do my best to argue. Of course people vote on their political party, and it annoys me, which is why I became an independent voter. But it's said person's American right to vote for who they want, so the argument is invalid, and also irrelevant. "Undervalue politics? I undervalue what politics has ultimately become, a monetary game. The corruption and deals in politics have existed for years, think of the 1800 election, but what has changed is the influence of money from what power it had once held." Politics has always been monetary. I can guarantee you there has never been a government that has never at one point been about monetary growth. Also, money has always held power. Are you seriously blaming the money? Money isn't the issue. Corruption existed way before the invention of paper currency. Nothing has changed. You make it sound like the world all the sudden has become bad, when I can assure you the world has been bad essentially since it's creation. "And this debate is not to establish the specifics, yet the concept. But one way this could work is after the pool of funds has been in place for the campaign, half it then. If the campaigner truly feels that his campaign is more valuable than a reputable charity, that would show the true value of that candidate. Again, this is for the concept." Your fall back is specifics. I offer specifics, and when you find them hard to rebut, you drop them. Concepts are a great thing, until you actually try them. Like communism. In theory, a world where are are 100% equal would be amazing. No more inequality in pay, no more racism, but somehow, when put to the test, it crumbles! Concepts don't mean anything unless you are ready to put them up to the test. Also, it seems you have failed to show why the money should be donated. The money is donated by people or corporations to a political leader. They still are able to donate to charity, but they choose in this instance to donate to a political, who will after all be a major influence in the direction the country goes.
Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

Informed? Many studies have been conducted where impulse voting, voting based on party alone, and name recognition based on propaganda alone were primary triggers. Aside, 38% of the voters in the last presidential election did not attend high school, when you add in those who didn't graduate as well, the number increases. The voters, or at least the ones that do vote, can statistically be well defined as uninformed. It is a sad truth and outcome of our voting system. Undervalue politics? I undervalue what politics has ultimately become, a monetary game. The corruption and deals in politics have existed for years, think of the 1800 election, but what has changed is the influence of money from what power it had once held. And this debate is not to establish the specifics, yet the concept. But one way this could work is after the pool of funds has been in place for the campaign, half it then. If the campaigner truly feels that his campaign is more valuable than a reputable charity, that would show the true value of that candidate. Again, this is for the concept.
Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

Alright, i figured that was just an opening statement. As we all know, the max amount of money a person can give to a candidate as of right now is $5,200. While I understand that there are good things that can be done with $5,200, where do you plan on getting the money from? The donator? He's a voter, who is passionate enough to give funds. The campaigner? In that case, why would he even accept a donation? It makes no sense. Also, you seem to undervalue politics, as if it is not the thing that holds this nation up. This nation was established on politics, and it is on politics it will fall. Funding is necessary for politics, because it gets the word out. Would you rather our voters just not be informed? An informed voter is a powerful voter. Thanks https://www.google.com...
There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

First of all, we know dark matter and energy exists because we have seen the effects of dark matter and traced these effects back to a cause we have named dark matter and energy. I am not suggesting matter could come from dark matter or energy, I am suggesting matter could come from nothing, and you first paragraph also proves my point that we do not know what nothing behaves like. Therefore, your previous rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass cannot be used as objective evidence. Secondly, the zero net energy 'and' matter universe's cause is that there is no cause. That is the whole point of that argument, it gives the universe no reason to exist. If you want it to be explained in more detail I suggest you read the link below: 1. http://bigthink.com... Lastly, I would like to emphasize on subjective and objective evidence, or more specifically, the fact that to prove or validate the existence of something, we need objective evidence that cannot be rebutted in anyway. Your arguments have only given statements and suggestions, which I have proven to be rebutted. When talking about solid evidence for God, what we need is objective evidence that we can prove to be valid through observations. Your 'matter cannot be created from nothing' statement is not evidence because it is an incorrect rephrasing. Your arguments for round 3 tackle my suggestions and gives the overall sense of 'God could possibly exist'. While I do agree, that is not evidence. On a final note, it seems that your argument is a variation of the God of the gaps argument, that derives from 'we do not know how it happened, therefore God', which I should mention follows the argument from ignorance and the hasty generalization fallacies, and is again, are just statements and not objective evidence.
There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

Addressed to your first paragraph, we has observed nothing, as in a space with all matter removed, but we haven't discovered the un-removable stuff, such as dark matter/ energy. We do not know what that behaves like, but you are suggesting that matter could come from dark matter/energy, but we have not discovered anything of that yet so we cannot say who is correct or incorrect here, until we find out more about what is in "nothing" Your second paragraph just demonstrated quite a few interesting prospects of how the world started, but I'm afraid that you have too little evidence to prove any of it, as string theory is quite a new prospect and once again, has little proof but is a very interesting concept. However, once again, I believe something must have created the strings and branes in string theory, and even if the collision of branes did create our universe, something must have created those. Your multiple theories are quite interesting to research, but by using them, you are taking the subject further than the topic, and almost creating a paradox of creation. If you would like to discuss alternative theories of the creation of the universe perhaps you would like to make a separate debate to discuss those? I would imagine that I would find that greatly interesting. The Zero-energy universe explains the energy in the universe, but you failed to explain how it would it be created, even though it has no matter and energy, there still has got to be a way for it to be there. I like the concept of it though, but there isn't much proof of it and it is merely still a hypothesis The concept of god follows occam's razor just as well as your theories, unless we find some massive discovery about the dark stuff. The idea of god is just as possible as everything you have said. It is actually almost impossible to completely disprove god.
There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

The law you refer to when you say 'You cannot make matter out of nothing', is an incorrect rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass, in which it is stated that matter cannot either be created or destroyed, and this was derived from observations we have made. The reason I see your statement as being incorrect is simply due to the fact that there has not been an observable 'nothing' in physics so far, thus meaning that we do not know what a 'nothing' behaves like, while your statement suggests we do know what a nothing behaves like. Therefore, while not ruling out the possibility of a god, your statement is invalidated as evidence for a god. For the question of what created the Big Bang, 'string theory' tackles that question by introducing a multiverse of universes, which is a part of string theory, meaning that there is a possibility that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes. This is the big splat theory (side note: which I should mention seems to further prove physicists are using onomatopoeia as a basis for the naming of theories). There is also the possibility that our universe sprouted from a parent universe which could follow the big crunch theory, or simply our universe popped into existence. To emphasize more on our universe coming from nothing, apart from conveniently following occam's razor, it can be explained from the fact that matter has positive energy and gravity has negative energy. This, in conclusion leads to a universe with zero/close to zero net matter and energy when we realize that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy. These are other possibilities apart from god which follow occam's razor better than the god, my rebuttal to your whole previous argument is simply contained in the first paragraph on this argument.
There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

I was born into a catholic family, but I was raised very interested in science, and so I became agnostic I believe that we have plenty of scientific evidence to prove that there could be a god. It's just that we will probably never know who or what and where he is. You say "we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?" Yes we do not, but there has got to be an answer to the question. In my argument I will be considering the big bang as the start of the universe, as it is by far the most likely. In the Big Bang, there was a massive ball of matter and antimatter, in something that we call a singularity. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes. Anyway, when the big bang expanded, time started, physics started, everything that exists today all started. As it expanded, the majority of the matter and anti-matter destroyed each other, but at the end a little bit of the matter survived, which became the universe as it is today, So, what created the matter and anti-matter in the big bang? A definite law in physics is that "You cannot make matter out of nothing" Of course quantum fluctuations could be an exception to this rule, but they are created in pairs of particle/antiparticle, which cancel each other out, and since there was matter that was left after the big bang (the matter we have today) quantum fluctuations could not have been the full picture. Therefore, something must have created perhaps the entire big bang or added on to the possibility of a massive quantum fluctuation. That 'something' could be considered a 'god', a creator. To add on, what created physics? What created time? What made the four fundamental interactions that exist today? They too were created in the Big Bang, and these could not have been made by quantum fluctuations, because they aren't made out of matter. Of course we may discovers more truths about this, perhaps with a deeper understanding about dark energy or dark matter. In conclusion, I am proposing that the fact of 'you cannot create matter out of nothing' is evidence that there could be a god. Even so if the 'god' that I speak of is not the kind of god we expect today, along as it created the universe, shouldn't it still be considered the 'god'?
There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

Round 1: My opponent is welcome to either make opening statements or present your arguments in a detailed fashion. For round 1 I shall be making my opening statement and my opponent is welcome to rebut. From the time that I was a Christian, I always had doubts about the reality of the situation concerning the existence of a god, and I have looked into the subject thoroughly with my current standing as an atheist, and from my research, I have yet to come across enough evidence, or arguments which could not be rebutted for the existence of a god, any god. Due to the technological advancements and the insertion of logical and rational thinking humanity has done, my conclusion is that there is no god, and we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?'. My opponent can either make their opening statement or argue against mine.
Evolution

How can you say I did not argue your points? Frankly, science is NOTHING if a supreme being made it all up or we screwed up at the beginning of time. DNA may be made up. I am sorry if i was not clear on that point. My point by the myths was simple: Evolution may be a myth in the future. Later on, the future generations will know we are all being controlled by unicorns or some other crazy idea. Evolution is actually a theory, not a LAW. That shows that even some scientists have doubts about evolution. And I wish to let you know that my argument was hampered by the fact I had the flu and was vomiting every 30 minutes. Thank you for this wonderful debate!
Evolution

Thanks for posting your argument my opponent. Wrap up: You don't argue any of my points except the fact hat we are being controlled by zombies. I am 100% sure we are Not being controlled by zombies. Beachside the definition of zombie is: Noun: A fictional monster that is dead but alive. It survives on eating the brains of humans. It can not do most humanly functions like walking up step things. For example stairs, hill or ladders. The only way to kill a zombie is by destroying its brain or heart much lik a human. Usage: the group of young teens were running away from the living dead called zombies. By that or any other definition zombies are not capable of controlling use if the can't even walk up hill. Therefore it goes without saying we are not controlled by zombies. The other, and only valid point you made is God planted them there. Why would God plant evidence against his own existence? Would you do that? What about DNA evidence? How do you explain that or any other point I made. For your information Greeks made up gods and goddesses as a religion. So that is like saying Christians made up god and we will call them crazy in one thousand years. Secondly if you are referring to the myths they made up, it was because the needed an explanation towards why things were the way they were. In some way they were the first prow to make theories. Which is a big deal. In conclusion my opponent didn't argue any if my points and didn't raise many of their own without going it to much detail. This is much a case of faith versus science. So it doesn't matter who had the Better argument anyways. It is just what you believe. I hope I made a few people in this religion dominated world to rethink their belief system. As always please vote and comment. I wish to thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. Bye for now.
Evolution

Who said evolution is real? What if the whole concept is made up by a whimisical Creator who has fun making us seem like we are evolving? What if science is all wrong? Maybe, the TRUE path is different. Maybe we took the wrong steps in science with Newton. Evolution is 1 theory of how we, as humans were made. You know how we laugh at the greeks for creating a fanasty world of gods and goddesses to explain how the human race started? well, another 1,000 years from now, humans will LAUGH at the idea of evolution and wonder what the F--- we were thinking when we dreamed up evolution. I will keep this short, even though i could go on, for the sake of readers. :) MAYBE THE ZOMBIES ARE CONTROLLING US! Thank You! Your turn!
Evolution

Thanks for accepting I will be arguing that evolution is legit ament. My points are not to offend any religious persons. I acknowledge that this debate is a touchy topic but that doesn't mean it has to be avoided. My arguments are state below. 1: There is evidence of evolution, physical bones, tools ,and believe it or not remains of waste of our ancestors like homo habilus , homo erectus, and so many more. As you most likely know there is no physical evidence of God. You might say the Bible or other books of prayer, but I u have done any religious studies you would know that those are all words people claimed God told them. 2: Evolution explains the way we work today. Where as in the bible Adam and Eve were exactly like the modern humans. Don't you agree we should have evolved in the past 2000 plus years. Evolution says we have;there is only one advancement of evolution since the invention of writing which separates prehistory from history.That advancement is homo sapien sapiens. Which is a more advance human the Homo sapiens. Some of he changes are brain size, some people being born with out tonsils,wisdom teeth and appendixes. Because we don't need them anymore our bodies are slowly but surely getting rid of them. 3: DNA. We were monkeys. It is a simple as that. Our DNA says so. How can you deny something that is built in to you since before you were born compared to something you learned through childhood. Faith, that is what they call it. The name suits it you need faith to believe it. As where evolution has evidence ! These are not all my points but , I don't want to bore the voters. So my friend I will pass it onto you now.
Windows is better than Mac

This is just turning in to a battle of the anecdotes, Mac books come stock with pci-e based nvme drives which are some of the fastest storage systems on the market, that is what I meant when said that they are faster. Because of that speed thy are good for video editing and basic web design, professionals that work on websites like college humor say that they prefer Mac for its simplistic design. Like I said before, each system has its own uses, because of this it is very difficult to argue one side or the other. For the most part it is a good idea to get a windows computer unless you know that you need a Mac for what ever you are doing.
Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence Definitions: Quran: the Islamic sacred book, believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel and written down in Arabic. Misinterpreted: interpret (something or someone) wrongly. Modern: relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past. Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

My opponents defense of Qur'an 9:29 comes from an Islaimic website which has a clear bias and is attempting to rewrite history. Muhammad started every war he fought- those Jews did not betray him, he propagated the lie that they did so he could attack them when they didn't expect it. My oppnent also provides no defense for Qur'an 9:123.
Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

My referance to Qur'an 9:5 came from the Sakir translation, and this one is Sahih International, Qur'an 9:29:"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."The context of this verse is that Muhammad ordered that all non-Muslim areas, kingdoms, or cities should pay him dues for not being a part of his insane cult, and a number of them rebelled, so he ordered that they all be killed. Muhammad is a lot like Negan if you think about it, except Negan never advocated for FGM. This verse promotes modern violence as a tenet of Islam is world domination, and no one is likely to pay money to a bunch of savages because their false book says so, and thus they are commanded to be violent against non-muslims. Qur'an 9:123 has no context behind it whatsoever, you can read the surrounding verses, there is no context, Sahih International:"O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."
Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

That the Qur'an promotes violence would be subject to interpretation as one Muslim can point to an irrelevant verse that says "Allah" hates evil, leaving out the fact that Islam does not consider violence to be "evil," whilst another could point out 109 verses which clearly state that Muslims are to slaughter non-muslims, and the prior would say that it is "out of context" which is of course nonsense as the Qur'an is a collection of random, irrelevant passages that have nothing to do with eachother. So how do we know if the Qur'an promotes volence or not? Well, first we have to understand that the Qur'an, like the holy books of every other religion, ws written by humans, or human. Thus the Qur'an is the word of Muhmmad, and thus the Qur'an being subject to interpretation is irrelevant, because only 1 interpretation matters- and that's Muhammad's. Muhammad committed murders and genocides all over the Middle East, and thus, this is the correct interpretation f his Qur'an. Now let's move on to the Unhoy Qur'an, Qur'an 9:5 says:"So when the sacred months have passed away, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.""Lie in wait for them," pretty much demolishesthe common (absurd) claim that these violent verses in the Qur'an are refering to self defense.
Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

Looking for something to do on debte.org, I checked the "challenge period," and lo, I found an educated buffoon starting a debate with the resolution tht the Qur'an doesn't promote violence. What an absurd resolution! Tjis is ike sayiing that the Talmud doesn't promote pedophilia- who could believe such an absurd assertion. Thus, I accepted this debate, as to add another to my won debates. If someone starts a debate claiming that the sky is red, how could he win?
The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

I have entertained myself by reading some of Bettabreeder's debates on homosexuality. His arguments were in my opinion lurid but his oppponent's weren't exactly strong and detailed. So I decided to challenge him to this debate.Rules:1. For once, Bettabreeder should use proper spelling and grammar.2. All arguments are acceptable, no matter how weak; use what you think is strong.3. Round one for acceptance only.4. List your sources either next to the point/evidence in your argument or at the bottom of your round.