BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Miley Cyrus

I'll put it as simple as I can: Seeing as there is nothing immoral about what she does (Except for drugs, seeing as we are governed by a set of laws. We can not take possession of drugs, yet she still does so) (If twerking, etc. can affect children, seeing as they are very impressionable, that is not Miley's fault. Children are supposed to be supervised. And if parents think that she's a bad influence to their children, THEY should be restricting them from watching her), then she can do it, as it is something she is interested in.
The policy PRO advocates is superior to the status quo.

Regrettably, my opponent forfeited the previous round. Allow me to compare the policy to the status quo on several factors. A. ECONOMICS The policy is economically superior to the status quo, as it increases GDP, alleviates a tax burden we currently bear (not only by cutting some forms of aid, but also by reducing the number of people who need our aid), and pushes forward economic development. Also, poor aspiring parents can apply for the low-paying caretaker job, reducing unemployment and maximizing the use from that particular resource (especially after the training). B. THE HUMAN RACE We all hopefully know about natural selection. However, we've thrown an artificial wrench in its gears by removing the incentive of poor people to avoid having children they can't afford to raise well. We've artificially swelled the amount of poor people having kids, and it's a sad fact that the aid we provide does not adequately provide these children with the tools they need to survive. Under the status quo, we are practically subsidizing poverty, allowing people who can't normally afford it to fulfill their many-child-bearing dreams, and thus give society more people who will likely depend on tax-funded charity. My policy also gives people back their natural incentive to succeed, since they know they'll have to if they want to have and raise children. C. HAPPINESS OF THOSE INVOLVED People who are successful are often much happier. By transforming children from future-poor to future-successful, my policy also increases happiness. D. DANGER My opponent brought up in R1 that moving HQ from a developed area to a less-developed and poorer area could mean putting kids in more danger than they were. That may be true, but since kids will primarily come from poor areas to begin with, kids will be no less safe than they would with the status quo. Thus, as far as danger to kids is concerned, my policy is superior. E. PARENTING ABILITY My opponent claimed that Org would be worse at parenting than the status quo. Keep in mind that the kids we're talking about are being taken from poor households, or from parents who simply don't want their children. These don't tend to be the best parents to begin with. Now consider that my policy calls for experts in the fields of parenting and socialization to decide how best to raise the children. With the goal of creating successful adults in mind, and with expert opinion on how to create successful adults, it seems that my policy would most likely be better than the status quo here. If "loving parents" is necessary for this, then that's something Org would provide. I have shown that the policy I advocate is superior to the status quo. The resolution is affirmed. Note that any new arguments my opponent makes next round are abusive. He should have not forfeited last round and used new arguments at that point (I haven't made any new arguments this round - I've merely recapped). My opponent would be justified in restating or rephrasing arguments he has already made, though.
Resolved: There is sufficient evidence for the belief in evolution

Sufficient evidence ? This is more of reasonable doubt than anything else. You cannot prove to me without a shadow of a doubt, that humans came from monkeys. This is a very strategically organized theory, made by mans fallacious imagination, that's designed to distort and thwart out the belief about The Creation. God exists based on a plane that is foreign to secular minded non believers. If you lack the experience of the Supernatural, then you cannot dispute this argument against those who have. That is irrelevent and winning a debate proves nothing in the actuality of it all. It also does not prove that your theory is accurate or legit. It is more science fiction than it is fiction. Man is still here, and monkeys are, too. Monkeys are mammals who breed and give live birth. Humans do the same, so there would be NO USE for an evolutionary system to begin with as both species of animals carry themselves well in an ecosystem world. That is the primary difference between me and you. I have been exposed, and you have not. It cannot get any more logical than that my friend. You are one supernatural experience or life altering event away fron being exposed to truth. So why do you try to baffle me with this ficticious ideology. It has not caused doubts in most minds even those who have not been saturated by dogma. This is all acceptable speculation and this theory has even gone quite well with believers. It is more humorous than anything else. Our faith does not compromise here. I rest my case.
Resolved: There is sufficient evidence for the belief in evolution

But it will be in vain for it is irrelevent to infinity. What does this have to do with your soul ? Absolutely nothing. Do you think Hell is real ? Probably not. Anyway. Your disbelief in God has already made you a candidate for anything that man can create. You are a sell out and idol worshipper. If I refuted your arguments it would not matter. Most of those who vote here are not believers anyway. So your facts are irrelevent. Your logic is irrelevent. Your concepts and theories are all irrelevent and mean nothing to me. My view is philosophical. Now if you wish to debate me on that plane, then you have absolutely no chance at all. Again, this is useless. I gave you my link. I told you what to do. Read the facts there for yourself. I am not going to waste time on some flawed logic and false theories of man. Why did I present it this way ? Because the truth stands. Evolution is false. It is a pity to fall prey to such useless ideology. But then again, what was one to expect. Your whole existence is futile. Typical human. Mahwwaahaaaaaaaaagaahaaaa. My conclusion: Evolution is false. Anyone can say they found something and put their own theory together and turn it into anything. These so called facts are only organized ideas which are flawed by the way, and is put forth to thwart out the belief in God and The Creation. And that is a fact. Simple and plain. Have a nice day.
Resolved: There is sufficient evidence for the belief in evolution

Unfortunately, my opponent has provided 0 eviidence for his claims. All what he did was present a link. I went to that link and it is too long to refute point by point. Please, do have some arguments of your own. My conclusion. If evolution is true, then why did we stop evolving. We are evolving [1] Why are we still in the presence of monkeys. Because humans and monkeys evolved from a common ansestor. How about this, if God created us from dust, why is there still dust? Are we the ancestors of another race of people that has yet to come. It seems illogical. What is the purpose ofthis all ? What is the point ? This is nothing more than secular nonsense. Science does not have the answers toall things, and they are always asking more questions about things they themselves do not fully believe orunderstand. Why ? Because it is just theory and not fact. You have a poor understanding of the word theory. The word theory is defined as the following: It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. [2]Truth is the final word here. If there is doubt, thenthere is no reason for your presentation. What is the purpose I ask again. I would love to know. Thank you. | Conclusion |My opponent is yet to refute a single thing I presented. i narowly defined "evolution" which my opponent was trying to argue against. In addition, my opponent supported nothing of what he stated. I refuted all his so-called arguments. My opponent also has a poor understanding of what the word theory means. If evolution is just a theory, then creation is just an opinion! I urge a strong vote for pro. Sources1. . http://www.lurj.org...;2. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
Resolved: There is sufficient evidence for the belief in evolution

Yes that is true. Evolution is false. We did not come from monkeys are another type of common ancestors. We are all human beings who were born the same through live birth as we are all mammals. The information that you have presented my friend is just a collection of secular and highly flawed scientific data that cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is indeed true. This is just a theory that has been questioned by the most reputable of all scientist since day one. One guy says this today, another guy says that tomorrow. When will it ever end. Truth has to be consistent. Your information is just hypothetical at best. It proves nothing. We are not still evolving as people, we were always the same. The dust is here because when we die, we do go back to dust. I refute that argument as well. If you kill a dog and then come back about 1 year from now to the exact same spot. What is he then ? Dust. So that argument was very illogical and had no factual substance whatsoever. See this website below if you want some more proof. Or you can go to the Google space bar and type in this. EVOLUTION IS FALSE, as is. You will see the numerous sites that have a whole arsenal of information that debunks every single thing you just said. http://www.newgeology.us... My conclusion. If evolution is true, then why did we stop evolving. Why are we still in the presence of monkeys. Are we the ancestors of another race of people that has yet to come. It seems illogical. What is the purpose of this all ? What is the point ? This is nothing more than secular nonsense. Science does not have the answers to all things, and they are always asking more questions about things they themselves do not fully believe or understand. Why ? Because it is just theory and not fact. Truth is the final word here. If there is doubt, then there is no reason for your presentation. What is the purpose I ask again. I would love to know. Thank you.
Is religion Fake

I suppose that I will just keep the same method of organization, and go through, point-by-point. 1. As my opponent has conceded this part of his argument, just flow it through to the Con today as my opponent agreeing that saying the Gods are related does not prove that they actually exist. a. If an omniexcellent creator did exist, then my opponent's argument will fall anyway, due to the fact that the beliefs in all these different Gods obviously conflict, and thus, the existence of the proposed plethora of deities obviously cannot be proven. 2. A fictional story, by nature, is false; not all stories have to have a basis of truth, and it's unreasonable to believe otherwise; just because a book of fairy tales tells you that unicorns and dragons are real is hardly any reason to accept it as fact; merely because a book tells you than mankind wiped out dragons and unicorns long ago does not give it any credibility; it's merely an appeal to authority if you believe something just because 'a book said so'. a. Asking "Why can't this be true" doesn't make your argument true; I'm not here to prove a negative; as you have made the claim that these Gods exist, it is up to you to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the fallacious logic that "because I can't be proven wrong, I'm probably right" is simply not going to cut it in this discussion, I'm afraid. b. Just as a side-note, I don't think that comparing the existence of Gods to that of fairy tale creatures lends your argument too much weight, for future reference. 3. My opponent admits that it's very true that it's not difficult to convince a large group of people to do something or to adopt a certain mindset; in fact, this is a very common issue, prevalent in places like cults, secret societies, and even a few nations (such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperialist Japan); it's what we call groupthink [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. So, as we see, convincing a large group of people to believe in a God (or Gods) is not particularly difficult. a. As far as a reason to believe, I agree that these prophets would have to offer a reason to believe; however, having a reason for a belief does not make the belief true: one reason that many people turn to religion is out of fear of death; the prospect of a pleasant afterlife for following a particular religion is obviously preferable to an eternity of nothingness; so, under the hope that they will have some fantastic afterlife to look forward to, many people are more than willing to accept religion. b. Alternatively, some people join not so much out of a desire to go to Paradise, but rather to avoid eternal punishment; in the same way that the fear of punishment deters crime, fear of eternal suffering is more than sufficient to bring multitudes under the banner of an organized religion. With that, I'll stand down for now, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses.
Is religion Fake

Ok I'm going to tackle this by going through your points and tackling them one at a time. 1. You are right I didn't directly go into whether or if God/s that was my bad I didn't think it though properly. 2. I can say that you make a good point about the stories but isn't it possible that all stories have a basis of truth. Take Fairy tales they talk about Dragons and unicorns and stuff like that but you look some similar books and they say they were all wiped out by man so my point for this is that cant all story's have some sort of a basis of truth to them. So why cant all the story's of the God/s have some sort of truth about them? And lastly 3. You say that its not particularly hard to convince a large group of people of something that's very true BUT they have to give the people something to "believe" them they cant just go up to people I'm better then this guy so vote for me no one would take them seriously so the gods "prophets" would have had to off given the people something to make them believe. I'm going to leave it there for now your turn con.
Is religion Fake

Okay, so my opponent claims that he accidentally picked the wrong side; I'll trust his word, and in the interests of fairness, I'll accept his suggestion to debate on the range of Gods. Most of his paragraph is merely discussing the Gods of different religions. 1. My opponent's belief that all the Gods are connected doesn't support his claim that a God exists. 2. As far as his question as to how these stories of Gods came about, I can answer this by asking a different question: How do all stories come about? Where did fairy tales, and science fiction, and fantasy, and horror come from? The answer is, people came up with the stories of these Gods, and, like every other story over the history of humanity, they were put into writing and mass-distributed. 3. It's not particularly hard to convince a large group of people to believe something; just look at political campaigns during the history of the United States. And, while they may be able to convince people with 'good reasons', that doesn't necessarily mean that they are preaching the truth; in fact, these 'good reasons' may merely be for personal gain and profit.
Is religion Fake

Thanks for the good luck looks like I'm going to need it seeing as how I accidentally went pro instead of con but that just makes it more interesting for me. Ok im not going to be just doing it on one god but rather on the range of gods Egyption, Norse, Greek and the Christion god/s are the ones im choosing for this topic First of im going to point out that I believe that all the gods are in some way connected. Take the fact that even though the Egyptions,Greek and Norse have alot off gods and the Christions have only one but the four have something in common....They both have a 'King' god the Christions is just god, the Eyptions have Ra, the Greeks have Zeus, and the Norse have Odin and not only that they all have an 'evil' or bad gods. Christians have satan, Egyptions have Seth, the Greeks have Hades and the Norse have Loki starting to see a pattern. Also how could all these gods be told of and all these storys known of it. I meen it would be pretty hard to convince entire nations and that amount people about the religions without good reasons....like some kind of miracle Those are my first points Good luck con
Is religion Fake

I'm assuming that PRO is arguing that there is a God, and that I am going to have to clash with that position. Thus, the PRO's burden is to prove, using logic and factual evidence, that there is indeed a God (and my opponent may argue for the God of his choosing, though I am assuming that he is discussing the Christian God). And of course, my burden is thus, not to prove so much that there isn't a God, but rather to discredit the idea of absolute existence of the God which my opponent presents. Now, in the interests of fairness, I will allow my opponent to first present his case for the existence of a God, so that we both have an equal number of posts in which to argue; thus, after my opponent presents his position, I will negate.
Is religion Fake

Well folks, you've heard it yourselves: my opponent started out this debate trying to prove that God exists; he himself admits that it was probably not a wise decision to do so, and instead, he's trying to prove something completely different, and he has radically shifted his position; he's essentially debating an entirely different topic at this point, so you obviously have to give this to the Con. But, in the interests of fairness, though I've already won, I'll take the time to refute my opponent's arguments anyway. 1. It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God. a. Refer back to my previous statement: My opponent began the round trying to prove the existence of an entire range of Gods; then, he shifted his position to only proving the existence of a single God; now, he has shifted his position a second time, and is now trying to prove that the IDEA of a God is real; obviously, he's trying to slip out of his burden, and, if left unchecked, my opponent will eventually shift his position farther up the slippery slope until his arguments reach the point of absurdity. 2. If people believe in a God, he is real. a. This is a case of ad populum; merely because people believe God exists doesn't mean that he automatically does; sure, the belief itself might be a real thought, but the object of that belief is not proven to be real. b. My opponent admits, despite his last post, that these stories are probably made up. Refer back to the fact that he's shifting his position, and is repeatedly contradicting himself. 3. God has given people comfort. a. The idea of an omniexcellent God and a pleasant afterlife is what gives people comfort; this still fails to prove that a God (or in the case you present, a multitude of Gods) exist. 4. God didn't create everything, but people believe he is real. a. If people believe God to exist, that belief consists of god being omniexcellent, and having created the universe; your admission that he "might not be the creater" [sic] seems to defeat the argument that 'people believe in him, therefore he is real'.
Is religion Fake

Maybe the way that im going about this is all wrong maybe I shouldnt be proving that god exists but rather that if there is just one person in the world who believes in a god i mean really believes then to them god will exist. It dosnt matter if there really is or isnt a god or if any one believes any differnt because for them god IS real and no one will ever change that for them. When the pray there imagining like there talking to a friend who will always listen wont replie but will always listen. All the stories may have been made up but look what its done its given so much comforte to so many differnt people who Do believe in him and believe hes real So im saying that god might not be the creater of everything might not have created everything BUT he IS real to the people who believes he is...
God Loves You All

"God's love is real. He is not the one who needs justification, you are the one who needs justification." Saying that god is real, and providing no real justification for he's love, besides the fact that he all send you to hell or heaven based on your belief, is not enough. "you are being His enemy, no matter how nice you appear to be, no matter how nice and good you act." Definition of enemy: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am not trying to be he's enemy. An enemy is someone who tries attacks or harms another. Based on your argument, that is exactly what god is trying to do to ME, by sending me to hell. I am simply trying to disprove god's live. I am not trying to be he's enemy. "I am assuming nothing about you. I am only observing and commenting on your own words. By your own words, you hate God. You show your hatred for Him in the way you talk about Him" Can you please quote me in any of my arguments, when I showed hatred towards god? I am disproving he's love, and I'm not trying to hate him. You most certainly are making assumptions on MY thoughts, of which you no nothing about. Definition of hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am not showing any intense hostility or aversion from fear, anger or sense of injury. I am simply disproving god's love. I hope I have made it clear, without any misunderstandings. "Love is love. If you say God does not love you, that is all you will know." Honestly, I would highly appreciate you assuming about me, and my thoughts. Based on the definition of love that I got from the online Merriam dictionary, of which I have provided my source.I fail to see how god loves me if he choses to send me to hell, simply because I disbelieve in him. "Your ignorance will not change God. He is love. He loves you." Hey! Don't call me ignorant! I am just trying to oppose a topic on a debate. "God did not create you as an atheist any more than He created you as a thief or a drunk or a fornicator or a liar or a murderer like your Tom and Clara story" Actually he "created" me in a secular family. My surroundings that he has "created" me in have changed my thoughts. Such as theories in science, made me lose any faith in god. This is my personal story, which is completely irrelevant in this debate, so I won't go on. Apologies if my Tom and Clara story didn't make sense. I was using that as an analogy where Tom was god, and Clara was mankind. I was just trying to symbolize god's "love". "your definition of love is inadequate." It's not my definition. It's the definition from a dictionary, which I have provided my source. It is the meaning of the English word. We debate using the definition of the word, rather than human emotions affecting the word.