BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God exist

I'm a little short on time because of homework so I will make this rebuttal very quick and to the point.Rebuttal"Con insists the Big Bang created the universe from nothing,Con defines Nothing as "something" that is neither space, time, matter, or energythis is a false definition,Nothing by definition is a universal negationit is nothing at all,It can't exist even because something exists,tell me what color is nothing? Black? That is something, White? That is again somethingsomething that is neither space, time, matter, nor energy, it immaterial (E.G. God)it is not necessarily nothing"Assuming this is true would completely destroy your argument. You are essentially eliminating the need for a first essential first cause. If nothing can exist, then something must exist. This means that god was not needed. If nothing does exist (which were assuming it did) then something was created out of nothing or has always existed. I explained that god isn't needed even if nothing existed since we don't know how nothing behaves."This has not been proven as far as I'm concerned,The Miller Urey experiment only created amino acids,it did not create complete cells ameen,amino acids compared to a cell is like a BMW compared to a hunk of iron ore (John A Keel Our Haunted Planet)also if people created life from nonlife, it would be all over the news ameenpeople have yet to create a single cell,so how can a cell create itself,if it could create itself naturally we should be able to create one, but to this day no one has ameen,The Quran say's if all of men got together they couldn't even create the wing of a fly from scratch,and no one can create life from non life save Allah swat ameenEvolution:A completely irrelevant point,"Nothing can be completely proven. This process would take millions of years also. I provided evidence that this could have happened. God wasn't needed to explain the origin of life. Using god to explain the origin of life is much easier, but proving this would be near impossible. How would we test this? Is there objective evidence of this?This is all I have time for. I am sorry.
epic Song debate

I saw this in another debate so i thought i'd give it a try. Basically, each round my opponent and i will post one song which either of us think is "Epic". Obviously this is a very subjective game, but i think it should be entertaining. At the end the voters will decide who posted the most epic songs. my first song will be The Wicked End by Avenged Sevenfold. I think this song is not only epic, but it really showcases what can happen when artists are so open to other influneces. The addition of strings and other elements really add to the kind of hopeless, apocolyptic feeling, and really adds a whole other dimension to the song. http://www.youtube.com...
Miley Cyrus should go back to her home on Whore Island and not do anything on TV for 30 years

"how many celebrities have done the same thing? "I havent seen anyone wage sexual jihad with a foam finger before. "Music videos have been doing that for awhile, too. What Miley did was no different. "Uh, It kinda was. Theres a difference between being sexy on a music video that no one is going to watch and then whoring yourself out like theres no tomorrow on the VMA's for no reason whatsoever. It also doesnt help that she did it while wearing a haircut that makes her look like a crackhead..."So, if you truly wish to send Miley to Whore Island, you'll have to send every other celebrity there too, every celebrity who acted out for attention. Charlie Sheen. Britney Spears. Madonna"Charlie Sheen, Spears, nor Madonna have done anything even close to as controversial and universally condemned as what Miley Cyrus did.... SPears had a hard fall but she lied low and did nothing for a couple years and now shes not an issue anymore, so if anything going to whore Island and shutting the f*ck up for a while is a good option for Miley here. "Hell, the Beatles too; they're the kings of media milking. "Now you shut your ugly whore mouth before I sh*t in it..... The Beatles have NEVER whored themselves out on TV via twerking in bikinis while using a foam finger to finger themselves good sir, so the Beatles do not belong on whore Island with Miley Cyrus " What if, in another five years, she has a change of heart?............The same thing could happen in another five years when she realizes how silly this stage of her life is."Name a single instance in the history of forever when anyone famous has ever gone from monsterously outrageous whore to little goody-good girl. Go ahead, TRY to find an instance, it has never happened though and theres no evidence to suggest that Miley will somehow pull it off. People fall down the mountain not up the mountain. "She could start pulling a Princess Di and be a major advocate for any number of world issues"She could also start doing cocaine and shave her head, which one sounds like its more in Miley's league?"But no, she's been banished to Whore Island with Charlie Sheen, and cannot use television to bring attention to her causes. Wouldn't that be a shame?"Only if you have proof that she actually will be good..... But anyone who has more then four brain cells can figure out that Miley isnt going to pull a massive 180 that big and will likely just keep falling down the mountain. Miley is a massive whore, that has been conceded. The only argument against making her go to whore Island and staying off TV for 20 years that con has cooked up is "Well, uh, maybe she'll.... I dunno, be good from now on and stuff, right?". But thats not going to happen, especially with someone who has fallen as far and as fast as Miley Cyrus.
Miley Cyrus should go back to her home on Whore Island and not do anything on TV for 30 years

Yeah, yeah, Miley made a spectacle of herself at the VMA's. Nobody contends that. It was overtly sexual to the point of ridiculousness- again, I don't think many would disagree. But c'mon... how many celebrities have done the same thing? Whore'd themselves out for ratings/sending a message/this/that/the other? Music videos have been doing that for awhile, too. What Miley did was no different. So, if you truly wish to send Miley to Whore Island, you'll have to send every other celebrity there too, every celebrity who acted out for attention. Charlie Sheen. Britney Spears. Madonna. Hell, the Beatles too; they're the kings of media milking. And as for not returning to television? What if, in another five years, she has a change of heart? I mean, look at her five years ago- she was Hannah Montana. She was the star of a cheesy, wholesome kids show. She sang, acted, kept herself and her image rather spotless. The jokes were clean; there wasn't even that knowing wink to the parents: "Yeah, this is kind of a sex joke, but the kids won't get it" like Spongebob does. The same thing could happen in another five years when she realizes how silly this stage of her life is. She could start pulling a Princess Di and be a major advocate for any number of world issues. But no, she's been banished to Whore Island with Charlie Sheen, and cannot use television to bring attention to her causes. Wouldn't that be a shame?
All drugs should be legal.

The opium trade in China, almost destroyed that country. The British, forced the drug onto the Chinese population (the poppy plant is actually native to Britain, it was imported to China). When the Chinese tried to outlaw opium, the British navy attacked them and forced them to continue the opium trade. This scurge of addiction brought the Chinese people to thier knees. It was deplorable, thier was no quality of life for these people, it was a broken society. It wasn't until the communists gained power before thier horrific tsunami of addiction ended. Mao's soldiers marched into the opium dens, dragged the occupents into the streets, and beat them to death, then went to thier homes and beat thier families to death. I would never condone that type of violence to curb an addiction, but like it or not, it was very effective. There are no longer opium dens in China due to the acts of the communists. The point I am tryng to make here is that, a mass addiction can strangle a society. I'm just as much a libertarian as the next guy, but I would not argue for a policy that could destroy our society. True, it is your business what you do with your body, but when your a parent who can no longer properly care for your children because of an addiction, then that's abuse, not freedom. When the parents of an addicted child are made to worry about the fact that their child is a junky, that's heart wrenching, not civil liberty. When the paramedic can't inject the narcan into the victim in time to save them, that's just another junky statistic, not inaliable rights. There are those who would argue that legalizing all drugs would cause less overdoses, but I would have to point out that policy only caused horror for the people of China.
All drugs should be legal.

Some drugs are too detrimental to society to be legalized. Highly addictive drugs can and do cause mass addictions, which in turn becomes a burden on taxpayers who have to invest more in rehabilitation programs and policing, not to mention the pain these drugs inflict on the families of addicts. The idea that, mass drug addiction can't be fixed, so just legalizing the offending drugs so it won't be a burden on taxpayers, is a myth. Drugs can be controlled, addicts can be rehabilitaded, and drug addiction can become less of a problem for society. Our current drug policy (assuming my apponent is in the United States) is ineffective. Instead of the catch and release policy we currently have for drug offenders, or just legalizing all drugs, I counter propose that repeat drug offenders be drafted into the military, not to be forcibaly made to go to war because that would be highly immoral, but a year long military training sentence would be highly effective in rehabilitating drug addicts. Not in a manner to punish the addicted, but to heal them of thier debilitating disease, because that is what it is, a disease. From a libertarian standpoint, one might try to argue that it is our right to privacy to do what we want to our bodies, but this argument doesn't hold much water when you consider how debilitating these drugs can be to all of society, and fankly, drug addictions rarely stay private.
All drugs should be legal.

We will be debating whether all drugs should be legal, and yes, I mean ALL drugs counting heroin, methamphetamine, you name it. I will take the PRO stance while my contender will be CON meaning you are against the legalization of all drugs. These are the requirements you must agree to before accepting the debate. First Round: Accepting the debate and a brief summary of what you think should be legal regarding drug use. Second Round: Why you believe your stance. NO REBUTTLE. Do NOT attack my argument on round two. Third Round: Rebuttal, I will attack your argument and you will attack my argument. Fourth Round (Conclusion): Explain why you believe you won the argument (If you think you did) and anything else that you would like to add. You CAN attack my rebuttal if you choose too. RULES: 1.) Stick to the topic do not start ranting about why you think I'm stupid. 2.) Make sure to show your sources through the use of links when presenting data. That's about it and yes, these rules also apply to me. By accepting to debate me you are agreeing to these terms. Good luck! My stance regarding legality: Although I believe all drugs should be legal I do think there should be regulations. For example, I'd tax heroin heavily (probably a 50% state tax) and cannabis along with other lighter drugs would always need to be cheaper than harder drugs such as methamphetamine and heroin by about 1/2. There would also be an age restriction of 18 in the US. (or when you're legally an adult) Corporations would also need to present the REAL risks regarding every substance and they may not falsely advertise any of the harder substances, only their company.
McCain is not a conservative

John McCain is not a conservative and should barely be considered a republican. I'm so sick of him crying out for my support just because he has an R after his name. McCain is continually and extremely liberal on all of the major issues that conservatives care about with the exception of life. On amnesty, McCain-Kennedy took one of the most liberal positions possible on the issue, allowing over 20 million illegal immigrants safe passage to easy citizenship. On tax cuts, McCain is the only Republican running not for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has also voted to raise taxes numerous times and is in favor of keeping the death tax. These are just a few examples. Whether or not you agree with conservatives is not the question. I just want to know how McCain can justify appealing to conservatives on anything more than the 'lesser of two evils' plea.
The chicken came before the egg

I appreciate that my opponent has finally supplied sources. It is a shame that these sources weren't posted earlier in the debate. As of now, I am forced to introduce new arguments in the last round- arguments that will go unresolved.My opponent contends that there is a protein which is used for the creation of eggs that can only be found in chickens. This protein is called ovocleidin-17, and although it may seem convincing at first, this is simply not true. Professor Mark Rodger and Dr. David Quigley, from the University of Warwick, who helped develop a recent study with colleagues from Sheffield University, pointed out that in fact, ovocleidin-17, which helps in the formation of the egg's hard shell, actually comes both before and after the egg shell[1]. The evidence does not end there. Scientist, Roy A. Sorensen, argued that although it is indeterminate which animal was the first chicken, the question of whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first has a determinate answer. Since an animal does not evolve into another species during its lifetime, and since organisms can fail to breed true, it is biologically necessary that the egg came first[2]. Furthermore, Biologists such as PZ Myers have pointed out a further flaw in the 'protein-argument', in that other birds make use of different kinds of proteins for producing eggs, and that the evolution of ovocleidin-17 was not coincident with the evolution of eggs; ovocleidin developed from prior proteins, which were used to form eggs since before birds branched away evolutionarily from reptiles[3],[4]. I have nothing further to add. I thank my opponent for their time, and for kindly addressing their concerns. Although this debate has gone unresolved- as Con, I hereby negate the resolution. The chicken did not come before the egg.Thank you.[1] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...[2] Roy A. Sorensen. 1992. The Egg came before the chicken. Oxford University Press.[3] http://scienceblogs.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The chicken came before the egg

Unfortunately, the true definition of "opinion" could be considered "a believe, judgment, or way of thinking about something[1]. " Regardless of whether or not my opponent claims his 'evidence' is scientifically-based, he has given absolutely no sources whatsoever to support his contentions. Based on the definition of "opinion," and his lack of sources, I have no reason but to conclude that his arguments are opinions. "Also there has been many theories on how the egg came first. A theory can be disproven. The chicken comes first. "My opponent has yet to pick apart my arguments which negate this contention; furthermore, he has not stated credible evidence as to why "the chicken comes first. " On to Pro. [1] The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
The chicken came before the egg

This is what I would like to point out that you have misunderstood my argument Sorry for the forfeit I was away from my computer Most of my points were not opinions. A opinion is something that you think what I have placed is the actual evidence on how the chicken could come before the egg. And also another way you misunderstood is that you thought I was only talking about religion when I also stated the big bang theory. Also there has been many theories on how the egg came first. A theory can be disproven. The chicken comes first.
The chicken came before the egg

I appreciate my opponent's use of logic, but unfortunately there is no real way to prove which came first, for two reasons: 1. We would have to travel back into time2. By nature it is circular logicAlso, I am unable "disprove" my opponent's arguments, merely because they are all opinions. For one, we would have to assume that God exists and that he created animals. Since I am against this proposition, allow me to contribute logic that is scientifically accredited[1].There is, however, counterlogic to explain how the egg could have come before the chicken. Robert Krulwich explains: Basically, many, many years ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken, but wasn't a chicken. Krulwich calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from the mother and father almost fused into another proto-chicken, they combined in a way, creating a mutation that accidently made the offspring different from its parents. Although it would take millenia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species- known as the chicken. Two birds that weren't really chickens ceated a chicken egg, and hence, we have our answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched into a chicken[2]. On to Pro.[1] www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/02/11/171706769/the-egg-makes-its-move-in-a-new-version-of-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-e?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&ut [2] www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg
The chicken came before the egg

Well heres my argument We all know some people who are religious like me think God made everything and the animals even if your not religious you may think the big bang theory created the world. As stated the Earth was created and animals were in the Earth like also other living things. If the Earth was born with eggs who would take care of the eggs? If no one takes care of the egg how will there be chicken? Of course and if eggs did come first there would be no chicken. The Earth was created with living things and all living things came on Earths creation - People - ANIMALS -plant life and more You cannot prove that the egg came first because there wasn't eggs all over the floor when Earth was made You cannot not also think just because chickens lay from eggs the egg came first. Of course a egg needs warmth from the mother egg and the eggs need to be reproduced. How will eggs reproduce? Of course the Earth must be created with a living being and that being must give reproduction to give birth. Chickens must reproduce to make a egg the Earth cannot make eggs it can only make living beings. And a egg is not a living being until it has hatched. And the only way to hatch it is by giving it warmth and if the older versions of chickens did not come out how will there be chickens how will the chickens reproduce? Of course chickens made the eggs. So heres an example to back my stuff up. What if the Earth was created by God or the Big bang theory and as stated in the bible God created living animals and humans and also other living species. This shows that eggs are not living until they grow to become a chick and basically as I said in the example God made living things and a egg is not living so proof egg did not come first. The creation of the Earth was born with living things not unliving things like eggs
You deserve to burn in hell; the same as me.

You're still doing the same thing I told you not to do.I think your comment here suffices for your general attitude:You have to believe it......or reject it.This is a debate website. That is, you provide arguments. You don't just say "Take it or leave it, but I know I'm right". That may be fit for a televangelist program or Fox News, but not here. Obviously I have to believe it or reject it, you telling me to believe it does absolutely nothing for your case. I am quite solid in my views, thank you.
You deserve to burn in hell; the same as me.

God loves me and Mr Hematite so much that He took on a body to pay for our sins with His own blood. He had no sin of His own, He took our death. He paid the price that we deserve to pay because we have sinned against Him. Death could not hold Him because He had no sin of His own. He was never under God's death penalty as we are. He is God who took death willingly in our place. He Created us, we rebelled against Him, He paid for our death so that if we receive Him by faith as the payment for our sins, we do not have to pay, we are forgiven. If we reject Him as the full satisfactory payment from God (a gift from God, He gave His only begotten Son to pay for our sins......yes, Son......if a human has a child, the child is a human, Jesus came down taking on a body through a woman to be born as the Son of God. God's Son is God the same as a human's son is a human), then the only way we can pay for our sin is by death, and we can never die enough to make things right. You cannot go back and change the things you did wrong or failed to do which were right. If we reject God's payment for our sins, then we deserve whatever punishment he sees fitting, even eternal fire of hell. We all deserve to burn in hell. God loves us so much He paid for our sins so if we believe on Him and receive Him as our Saviour, we will be saved through faith in His blood which paid for our sins. And as death could not hold him, it will not hold us who have believed on His resurrection and said "I know I'm a sinner and God's punishment is deserved for my sins, I'm asking God to save me in the name of Jesus Christ, and I have received Him as my Saviour." This is the sinner's prayer for salvation, believing God's promise to pardon us from what we deseve if we only believe.......we all deserve to burn in hell. I cannot prove that God loves you so much He took your death and rose from the grave to justify all whe believe on Him and receive him by faith. You have to believe it......or reject it.
You deserve to burn in hell; the same as me.

You and I have both sinned against our Creator. We are violators of His law. In His eyes, we both deserve to be cast away into fire of hell forever since we have rebelled against the One who created us. We both deserve to die, and we both deserve to burn in hell. Your punishment is not up to you or me. God decides. If our punishment was up to us, we would take time out or a fine and not have to suffer through the death penalty. Can you blame God if He made you to be like Himself in perfect harmony with Him and by your own choice you are more like a devil, arguing against your Creator's right to cast you away like garbage to be burned in fire of hell? He could annihilate you and make it as if you had never existed, but that would imply that what He created was a mistake. The mistake is ours, not His. We have done the wrongs against Him, He has not done wrong against us. He has the right to cast us away from Himself forever into the fire of hell, and we deserve it. Mr Hematite asked: "You're honestly telling me that an omniscient and omnipotent entity has to fear "rebellion"? No sir, I did not say this at all. Perhaps you honestly misuderstood what I said, but I never said God has to fear rebellion. If He feared rebellion, He would not have given you freedom of choice. He could have made you as only an animal which could live only by instinct, but He made you to be like Himself for His own pleasure, for His own enjoyment. He deserves honor from us who He created. We dishonor Him by our rebellion, and we deserve to burn in hell. He loves you so much, He took on a body Himself and died in your place. Only His own death is enough to satisfy your debt to Him for dishonoring Him. He had no sin of His own to die for, He died for your sins and rose from the grave to justify all who receive Him by faith as their Saviour, and He will be the Judge of all who disregard the price He paid to save them from the fire of Hell.