BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate

Kalam cosmological ArgumentI don't disagree with the KCA, however it doesn't prove the existence of the god of the bible, it proves the existence of a cause of the universe.Pool table argumentSalam Morcos should be ashamed at his argument, all it is if you simplify it and take out all of the variables waffle is 'there is a finite number of causes thus there must be a 1st cause', but you never proved that there is a finite number of causes so the pool table argument is useless.Irreducible complexityI am short on time so I will only address the eye example. You are assuming that each of the components of the eye evolved one by one into their current state, you never addressed the possibility of its components evolving simultaneously, different components evolving when they didn't require others, and the evolution of some will allowing for the advancement of others. It seems to me as if you didn't actually consider evolution when you made this argument.Jesus of NazarethIn this argument you presented no evidence for anything that you claimed, so it is useless at proving the existence of the god of the bible.ConclusionUnless you can rebut anything that I said, you have not provided any evidence of the god of the bible.Old earth theoryWhen I say 6000 years I mean the age of the earth according to the bible.P1: The earth is older than 6000 years [1].P2: God's existence requires the earth to be 6000 years old.C1: God doesn't exist.The god of the bible supposedly created the earth 6000 years ago, however, the earth is 4.5 billion years old [1], therefore the god of the bible cannot exist.Sources1: http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov...
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate

When I say "The Bible" I mean the literal interpretation of Christianity's holy book. I don't believe in any deities, I believe in the big bang and evolution. Belief in the god of the Bible is irrational because rational belief requires substantial evidence, and as such a thing doesn't exist belief in god is not rational. ======================================================================================== *Nothing said in the comments should affect the votes.* Rules: If quotes from the bible are required they must be from either the NIV or the KJV bible. Round 1: State your relevant beliefs and opening argument. Round 2-3: A mixture of posing arguments and rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals only. Round 5: Final rebuttals and/or appeal to voters.
Mt Everest is the tallest mountain in the world

... we do not know how deep into the Earth it goes..." That is the point! If we do not know how deep in Earth it goes, we can not determine whether the Mauna Kea is in fact the tallest mountain. Evidently, I can not prove that the Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, since the instigator has not made clear in which content "world" refers. World refers for example to the whole universe (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In this case, Mauna Kea is not the tallest mountain, its Mons Huygens. So the instigator's arguments are false.
Mt Everest is the tallest mountain in the world

I would like to point out that my opponent hasn't actually provided any valid arguments as to why Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain and I will explain why... My opponent states that you could follow Mt. Everst deep down into the Earch and determine that as its base. You could do the exact same thing with any other mountain. If Everest happened to be extremely deep under the sea so that only the very top of it was actually visable surly this doesn't mean that Mt Everest is tiny. Nothing has happened to the mountain it is just the sea that is covering it. Your argument relating to the mountain going under the ground is useless due to the fact that we do not know how deep into the Earth it goes and that could mean that the smallest of mountains could be the tallest in reality. I have been given very little to refute since my opponent hasn't provided an argument. Sourceshttp://www.latinopost.com...
Mt Everest is the tallest mountain in the world

You are cheeky! Firstly, I'd like to point out that most of his "arguments" do not have anything to do with the debate. He just mentions a few nice background facts. Intentionally, he wants to make his argument seem way more. In fact, he only has one argument. Secondly, how is the "base" defined? You could follow the Mount Everest deep down into earth and determine that as its "base". The measures are unclear, so you can not calculate the genuine height.
Mt Everest is the tallest mountain in the world

Mauna Kea is over 10,000 meters tall compared to 8,848 meters for Mount Everest - making it the "world's tallest mountain".The base of Mauna Kea is about 6000 meters below sea level and the summit is about 4000 meters above sea level. The distance between the foot of the mountain and the summit is about 10,000 meters. This makes Mauna Kea the "tallest" mountain in the world.The summit of Mauna Kea holds other distinctions. In addition to being the summit of the world's "tallest" mountain, it is also the home of the world's largest astronomical observatory. At an elevation of nearly 14,000 feet above sea level, the observatory is above 40% of Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry and almost cloud free. This makes it an ideal location for an observatory. And, yes, that is snow on the ground in Hawaii - the altitude is high enough and cold enough to accumulate snow. Mount Everest is the tallest mountain above sea level but this debate is not specific to above the sea level it is about the tallest mountain. That puts the total height of Mauna Kea at about 33,500 feet — nearly a mile taller than Everest. Mauna Kea is actually an inactive volcano on the big island of Hawaii. It is about a million years old, created when the Pacific tectonic plate moved over the Hawaiin hotspot — a plume of liquid magma from deep inside Earth. It last erupted about 4,600 years ago. You can tell just how giant Mauna Kea really is in the graphic below: The summit is an astronomer's paradise: It has low humidity, clear skies, and lots of distance from any light pollution. It offers what's arguably the best view of the observable universe, and right now the summit is host to 13 telescopes. Construction of a 14th telescope recently inspired mass protests on the mountainside by native Hawaiians who consider Mauna Kea sacred ground. The controversy has split the aconomy community in two and brought the construction of the telescope to a grinding halt. It's unclear when the building will resume. If you climb Mauna Kea, then you'll have technically scaled the tallest mountain on Earth. You just majorly cheated by starting more than half way up the mountain. Sourceshttp://knowledgenuts.com...;
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

Every game out there can be figured out. Unless there is a technical glitch. If you can't figure out a game without cheating than you are a cheater and sore loser. Easter eggs are just bonuses in the game, They aren't required to be found to finish a game. Every game can be completed without cheating, With practice, Persistence and some intelligence. Only people with ADHD, And quitters and cheaters need to look up clues on-line. I once got stuck for 6 months on a game and didn't look up the answer. I'm currently stuck on "The Witness" for the last 3 months, I'm not looking up any clues because I'm not a cheater, I know I will figure it out. Only dumb assess with no patience or perseverance look up clues on-line. Or cheaters with no brain power.
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

that may be slightly true but there are many things that make your statement horribly wrong. We have all had that part on a game that we can just not figure out, And sometimes its so hard (like easter eggs and secrets) that only a couple people have ever figured it out. Also, Sometimes being able to do something not everyone knows make the game more fun than just figuring out all that stuff by yourself, And in the end isn't that what games are about? Prove me wrong Mic drop.
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

Only sucky quitters, Sore losers and degenerates have to resort to clue books or the internet for information on how to finish a video game. Real men figure out the puzzle, The riddle, The challenge to finish the game without having to be a sissy and have to go on-line to look up the game wiki because they are too degenerate to figure it out on their own. If you can't finish a game without cheating, YOU ARE A LOSER Prove me wrong cheater Mic drop
Communism ideally could work.

Ok, let me get this strait, If human nature was not a problem, communist would coexist happily with a nations capitalists, whilst also robbing them of money they earned by gunpoint. That is essentially what communism is. As to a bureaucrat based economy, has this ever worked in a single country? If a bureaucrat sets the price just a little high, a surplus occurs, if they set it just a little to low, they create a shortage. This is what happened in the USSR. There was always a shortage of something because they was really no way for the bureaucrats to replace the way the market allocates resources. This led to economic downturns and thus life being far worse for the poor. As to Cuba, I assume you are unfamiliar with it's long history of human rights violations? Don't believe me? Here's a link.http://www.amnesty.org...
Communism ideally could work.

To say communism or communist leaders cannot form a stable economy is false. Yes the government may be eventually run by bureaucrats, regardless the fundamental idea behind communism is that people are given exactly what they need. In some countries like that of Cuba there are many items needed to sustain life that are given in rations to those citizens living there. Money needed to trade would come out of taxes imposed by the government. While it is true communism and democracy will most likely be unable to coexist; the example of what happened in Russia is just one example of what could go wrong. The Bolsheviks may not have gotten support in Russia, however in Cuba communism is supported by many of the inhabitants Also with the Bolsheviks stamping out all who opposed them, this is once again a "side effect" if you will of human nature. It is human nature to take down anyone or anything in your path who is a threat to your power. That is why ideally communism could indeed work, but could not work presently under human conditions.
Communism ideally could work.

In this debate pro must show that communism could ideally work. In his first round, pro has literal shown no evidence for this. Instead he has summed up what communism is a a short paragraph and said that if human nature hadn't gotten in the way, communism could have worked. It is often said that the problem with communist dictators is that they use their power for their own gain rather then for the benefit of the people. Well, this is partially right. Dictators tend to persecute their enemies and use whatever means to keep themselves in power. Why is this so prevalent in communism? The reason is the communism is an absolutist ideology. It is such a radical departure from human nature that if the communist fell out of power for just a single year, most of their work would be undone. To people who say that communism and democracy can coexist, one must look no further then the Constituent Assembly elections of 1917. These elections took place after the Bolsheviks seized power and the Assembly was intended to become the country's new legislature. The Bolsheviks got only 25% of the vote and were disturbed by the the moderate Socialist Revolutionary party's 42%. What shocked them even more was that the liberal, capitalist, Constitutional Democrat Party received 5% of the vote. Realizing they would not be able to stay in power, they simply dissolved the assembly and arrested it's members. This is an example of why communist organization worked so hard to stamp out opposition, a communist society is only sustainable under communist leadership. Beyond that communism certainly doesn't help the poor. Why? Doesn't communism take money from the rich and give it to the poor? Well yes, but after the rich have been looted the government must form an effective economy. The obvious problem is that the communist wants to do this without a market system. The market system has proved itself extremely effective at pricing goods and distributing resources were they are most needed. The communist has an answer to this of course. The whole economy will be run by bureaucrats. The problem here is that these bureacrats would have to have perfect knowledge to do a decent job. These central planers must set all prices a little history will tell you that this system did not work.
Communism ideally could work.

To begin I would like to make it crystal clear what communism is. Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. This means that there is no social class and business is controlled by the government. The idea of communism was started by Karl Marx and publicized through his book "The Communist Manifesto". What he saw was a world that had classes where essentially the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. He believed that if the government didn't merge the classes and own all business and capitalism, then the lower class(es) would rebel and form this communist government. He was actually partly right. People did rebel and start this form of government. The most notable ones were Russia (USSR), China, North Korea, and Cuba. However there is one major factor he did not consider. Human nature. As humans we are corrupt. It is just apart of our nature. So when people see a chance to get power they go for it. They take it and do everything in their power to keep it. This is how humans work. While human nature prevents us from communism working presently; ideally his ideas could be used. Even in totalitarian government (though I do not believe it was not apart of his original idea for communism) could truthfully work as well. This is all ideally though because once again thanks to human nature people abuse power once they get it.
Communism ideally could work.

Before making an opening statement I would like to clear a few things up first. First off I am not apart of a communist promotion group nor intend to be. I will not support communism at this current moment (This may sound like a contradiction now, however I will tell you why it's not later) I also do not wish to show any rudeness to my fellow competitor, but wish to explain my point of view. Communism is often looked down upon by many people, and I can understand why. It seems that all communism leads to totalitarian governments and violence in a nation. However communism can actually be a lot better than society believes it to be. I hope that in reading this debate you will at the very least walk away with a better understanding of the true concept of communism, or Marxism as it is also known. I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate. I hope it's a good one
E-books are better than paper books

Why Paper books are better than E-Books 1. Cheap second hand The other day, I went into a second hand store in my home town and bought 5 Clive Cussler novels, 2 used and 3 unused, for $2.50. That cannot be done with e-books. E-books are expensive and you cannot get cheap second hand copies like that. [1] 2. Cannot hack Once a book is printed, it is final. The ink is on the paper. It cannot be rewritten. That is why in history we have seen famous book burnings. The Nazis realized the danger that paper books posed them and thus organized mass book burning of anti-fascist writings. The Papacy during the Protestant reformation acted in a similar manner (they also burned people). With the advent of the information age, it is much easier to control the masses through misinformation and control information. The propagation of the E-book, the information can be hacked, to be more sympathetic to an entities ideals. [2] 3. Do not run out of batteries On a long trip, you do not need to worry about the battery life of your paper book, it will never run out. Just as you reach the climax of a great narrative, you will be able to turn the next page and not have to run to the nearest charger and find an uncomfortable position to finish the story. A paper book is always ready. [3] 4. Recyclable Paper books are environmentally friendly as they can be recycled and are biodegradable. Once an e-book reading platform is finished it is put in landfill and stays there for thousands of years. They also use way more environmentally hazardous materials in their making and burn more fossil fuels to make than simpler paper and ink books. [4] 5. Lendable without legislation Physical books do not have any legal restrictions when it comes to using them. According to Amazon’s website, there are certain rules regarding lending out e-books. The publisher chooses which titles to make eligible for lending and the books may only be loaned once for a period of 14 days. On the other hand, I can lend anyone a paper book and you can lend me one and, ‘woopty-doo’, no strings attached and no laws broken. [5] [1] . http://readwrite.com... [2] . http://www.youtube.com... [3] . http://www.youtube.com... [4] . http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com... [5] . http://www.statehornet.com...You wrote very well for a 12 year old. I would have prefered the debate to be longer, but nice short one is good for a change. :) Good luck in future debates.
E-books are better than paper books

EBooks. A form of electronic books, used for reading, work and leisure. The were invented by Michael Hart in 1971 and are now used extensively around the world. E-books are environmentally friendly. Each time you decide to buy an e-book instead of buying a brand new book, you"re stopping 3 kg of carbon emission. It takes energy to produce and distribute paper books. Shipping cases of books around the country (and even internationally) uses up a lot of fuel. Storing the books in climate controlled warehouses also burns up energy. Even just printing them requires equipment that sucks down electricity, and the main component of books, paper, is also rough on the environment. Compare this to the tiny bits of electricity need to send an e-book across a network to your electronic device , and it"s easy to believe that e-books are better for the environment than printed books." As the world advances, so should we. For example, when computers were introduced into our society, people were reluctant to use this unfamiliar piece of technology, as they weren"t sure how computers would affect the future. Now, computers are a great asset in our communities and help with our everyday life. Without computers, researching and creating this speech would be a whole lot harder. This is the same with e-books. We are reluctant to leave the old ways behind, yet if we do, our lives will be enriched and new opportunities will open up. We need to keep up with the times, and change our society for the better Furthermore, as our technology advances, so does the quality of e-books. E-books will become more reliable, convenient, and smarter, making our reading experience better. For example, an issue was brought up about the strain of eBooks light on eyes. As people voiced their opinions, eBook companies stressed to try and address this problem. As an result, eBooks were created that do not create strain on the eyes. eBooks are also up to date. An old encyclopaedia, newspaper or atlas can also be out of date and can hold misleading information. In some cases, books can be out of date just days after they are printed, as our world rapidly changes. eBooks are easily updated and contain recent information that is easily passed on through the internet. My final and last point is that eBooks encourage children to read. Children belong in an age of technology. It is easy to get them to read a book on a new kindle than an old printed book. Using an eBook instead of a book to read does not hinder their learning in any way, and encourages them to spend more time reading. Thankyou for debating with me... I would like to mention that I am 12 years old and that I made this without any help from my parents!
All Agnostics Are Atheists

I appreciate his responses and rebuttals…“Agnostics to not have such a faith such willingness to answer in the affirmative or the negative they simply concede that their is no way of knowing whether a god exists. ”The common misperception is that if one does not know, then belief is irrelevant. However, it is not. You either know or not. You either believe or not. If you don’t know if any gods exists, you don’t believe in any god. “I am in agreement with my opponent…but he then goes on to say "there seems to be no logical contradiction between 'belief' and 'knowledge'" of course this we know is false”Of course it’s not false. You can believe and know X. But you cannot not know X, yet believe in X. That would be incoherent. This is my point. “…my little brother believes that their is a Santa Claus I do not I have knowledge that in the north pole their is a high probability that people living their will most likely die from freezing to death I also know that rein deer will definitely die from freezing to death I also know that it would be insanely difficult to find food, it just makes it that much more unlikely to believe that santa claus exists when we say he defies physics…”…is slightly incoherent. But from what I can gather, my opponent is still in agreement with me. I thank my opponent for his rebuttal, and urge him not to apologize for his supposed tardiness. He did not forfeit and therefore was timely. Thank you. Sources:[1] Atheism: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: Atheism[3] Kai Nielsen: Atheism[4] Paul Edwards: Atheism[5] Williams L. Rowe: Atheism[6] Austin Cline: Buddha and Atheism: . http://atheism.about.com... [7] Agnosticism: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: Agnosticism
All Agnostics Are Atheists

Thank you for starting this debate An agnostic is person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god , and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or one who is skeptical about the existence of God. In these definitions their is a common element a lack of knowledge an concession to to their being a possibility of the existence of god. An atheist would tell you if you were to ask him that he does not believe in god. If you were to ask a christian or most religious persons if their was a god they would say yes. They both lack knowledge of whether their is or is not a god but they have a sort of faith that their answers are correct. Agnostics to not have such a faith such willingness to answer in the affirmative or the negative they simply concede that their is no way of knowing whether a god exists. R1 - Knowledge v belief - I am in agreement with my opponent that their is a difference between knowledge and belief but he then goes on to say "there seems to be no logical contradiction between 'belief' and 'knowledge'" of course this we know is false my little brother believes that their is a Santa Claus I do not I have knowledge that in the north pole their is a high probability that people living their will most likely die from freezing to death I also know that rein deer will definitely die from freezing to death I also know that it would be insanely difficult to find food, it just makes it that much more unlikely to believe that santa claus exists when we say he defies physics. knowledge =/= belief sorry for posting so late