BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If God ran for World Leader, he would fail.

This debate is about whether God has the political ability to run for World Leader and succeed, with certain parameters:1 - God cannot use omnipotence to force a world coup and put himself into power.2 - The God is the one defined as per the OT, NT, and other books deemed as canon by at least one large religious organisation.definition of large religious organisation - a religious organisation with more than 1,000 members living in a single country at one time.3 - The speculation that God would do the best things all the time as he is omniscient is an invalid argument, as it would remove the purpose of the debate.4 - God's political philosophy will be the same as that which emerges from the OT, NT, and other books deemed canon by at least one large religious organisation. His policies will be the same that emerge from the OT, NT, and other books deemed canon by at least one large religious organisation.5 - All people and countries (in the large majority) have decided that they want a world leader in 2012. (2012 is an arbitrary date and the idea of it being end of the world is followed by <0.1% of the people).6 - God is running for candidacy alongside any competitors.7 - God is running under an alias of Yaho Wei, an Anglo-American 40 year old man with a tan Tunisian father and a Chinese mother (or ethnicity is not a valid argument, and Christian followers do not know of him as God). We assume that he is in the same position as Jesus, but weaker: An incredibly smart politician, with a lot of powers (healing minor wounds to major wounds) but no bringing back from the dead, or removal of cancer from the world.8 - We assume God is real, and the Bible is inerrant. Round one is for acceptance. Round two for case. Round three for cross-examination. Round four for finish. An extra round is for a 6 day break across Christmas. On the Christmas break, both players must forfeit, not post, in order to give maximum time off.If anyone has questions, post them in the comments section below. Any breaking of the rules is a -1 conduct point. Any breaking of the parameters is a dropped argument - argument about interpretation is the only exception. CON must in the acceptance name God's three largest policy areas. Unreasonable use of power is restricted: A policy being, for example, removal of cancer from existence, must have sensible origins: Yaho Wei magically making cancer disappear is not a policy. It must be actions that can be done in power and only in power.In power meaning as World Leader.Finally, World leader is restricted in the sense that minor bills may be passed, but any major bills must go through Parliament. God may be impeached/forced out by a vote of no confidence/forced to resign if a Parliament (which will be for all purposes the UN) allow it.I hope my opponent is ready for this debate, and will bring up some interesting ideas. Good luck to them.
That we should abolish the death penalty

Welcome to my debate, As pro on the topic, 'That we should abolish the death penalty,' I propose the abolition of the death penalty. The format of this debate will be round one for definitions (in first Con I simply expect my opponent to respond to my definitions) and the others for argument. We define this topic to be: 1)Should - have a moral obligation to. (1) 1) Death penalty - death as punishment for a crime, also called capital punishment. (2) Both definitions paraphrased from dictionary.com: (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... I thank my opponent in advance for not using semantics in this debate. Thanks and good luck!
LGBT Civil Rights

Again here is no argument from my opponent" merely opinions!The CASE is for all intended purposes CLOSED! "1. LOSS of majority populations Right of operating Business in CONUS, (Continental United States ) to deny service to customers based on their business and ethical spiritual beliefs in a privately owned and operated business, Opponent respose" - This is unjustified, as it violates natural law/property rights. This is not what I advocate. "3. LOSS of Right to provide merely a toileting service but now are Forced To at their own expense provide SPECIAL toileting for this degenerate group of Societies minority!" Opponents response "- Again, there should be no force. It should be up to a business owner. "4. LOSS of right to call EVIL what IS evil, forceably threatened to be charged as HATE CRIME any attempt to expose this group for what it actually is. Sexual depravity!" Opponent-- First off, being LGBT is not evil. However, I do not believe anyone should be charged with a hate crime for speaking out. You see he's been wrong on everything else! And has stated depravity is not wrong ... obviously if depravity in his view is "NOT" evil, his wood is wet! "Additionally it is a proven Medical FACT. That the ability for a human being to CHANGE SEX is and always WILL BE a FALSE reality." opponent response- And? Appeal to nature? Just because something is natural does not mean it is virtuous or immoral.
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

I was correct. Your arguments is based off of an argument from ignorance." No, it is an argument for possibilities. Because as contender, possibilities are in my favor. "1) This god is perfectly aware of suffering 2) Suffering cannot be hidden from this god (hence omnipresence) 3) This god loves everyone and doesn't want everyone to suffer 4) This god has the power to stop suffering 5) But suffering exists" Again, free will. Just because God knows what our choices are going to be, doesn't mean we don't have them. You have complete control over your life; God just already knows how it is going to play out. "You have choices, but your choices are predetermined." - Said by one of the characters in the Gatekeepers series. "But this god is omnibenevolent so he wouldn't want that." He had to choose between free will and suffering or no free will and peace. He chose free will and suffering, because He knew that without free will, we have no real life. Free will was necessary to be human. God had to make a choice, and He chose what was best, because He cared. He knew that free will was better than eternal happiness, and forcing everybody to have no choice would have been more cruel than to allow for pain and suffering. Simple. Would you rather never suffer, or have the freedom of making actual choices in your life, giving your life an actual, personal purpose? Yeah, I though so. So did God. "Well, my arguments stand unrefuted as I have proven that a god can't be a quadriomni one simply because that's logically contradictory given the way our reality is." Your arguments are far from unrefuted. Except for during the brief period between when you finish your posting for the round and when I respond. Thank you for this debate.
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

I was correct. Your arguments is based off of an argument from ignorance. :) Anyway, to rebut your arguments: "Just because God is able to stop evil and suffering, doesn't mean He should." Well, I would agree with you if this god wasn't omnibenevolent. But since this God is omnibenevolent, he would do everything in his power to bring an end to suffering. Now, if this god lacked omnipotence then failure to bring an end to suffering would be perfectly acceptable. But if this god is omnibenevolent AND omnipotent, then the existence of evil would be unacceptable UNLESS he lacked omniscence and didn't know about the evil but... 1) This god is perfectly aware of suffering 2) Suffering cannot be hidden from this god (hence omnipresence) 3) This god loves everyone and doesn't want everyone to suffer 4) This god has the power to stop suffering 5) But suffering exists That is pure logical contradiction. That should be enough to win this debate, but I'll continue "He knows that evil and suffering are necessary for the concept of free will. We are not robots; we have minds and choices of our own." ^o^ Ha! How pathetic. Free will exists eh? So we have choices of our own eh? But this god is omniscent, meaning he knows the past, present, future, and therefore the result of every choice before it is even made. Therefore if this god is omniscent, free choice is an illusion, since the outcome is already known and suffering is therefore unnecesary. In a way, we sort of are robots. :) As far as I know, one simple way to put free will is "the ability to make a bad choice." Why is this "free will" so important? If anything like I said before an omniscent god would see past this "free will" and already know the outcome, and would also know that: "This automatically leads to potential evil and suffering" But this god is omnibenevolent so he wouldn't want that. O.o I could bump heads with this guy, spit logic at him until I'm blue in the face. But I have a feeling if I lose this debate it won't be because he had a better case than mine, it'tl be because he takes the side of this debate that the majority favors. (-.-) Well, my arguments stand unrefuted as I have proven that a god can't be a quadriomni one simply because that's logically contradictory given the way our reality is. "Life's not fair." Well.... then I guess there isn't a quadriomni god then :) Please put aside your biases and vote CON. Thank you
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

"So wait a second, that means you win by default?" I'm just saying, until you do manage to disprove quad-omni god, I can state that he might exist and win. Now, onto your contentions. Just because God is able to stop evil and suffering, doesn't mean He should. He knows that evil and suffering are necessary for the concept of free will. We are not robots; we have minds and choices of our own. This automatically leads to potential evil and suffering, but it is a "necessary evil". http://en.wikipedia.org... Again, I don't have to prove quad-omni god's existence; you have to disprove it. "As far as I'm concerned until then, it's impossible to prove non-existence." Well, why did you start this debate, then, if it was impossible to support. Thank you.
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

Alright then. First of all I do have plenty of experience. I used to be Vorxxox. ;) I didn't quite mean to post my arguments. I was so quick to do it I forgot to write my further arguments. Anyway, on to my arguments. Ok then you got me on that one, I'll accept the burden of proof. Let me go on to explain why a quadrupleomni god doesn't exist. By logic it's all contradictory Something being omnibenevolent means it's all loving and all caring so it cares about everything that goes on. Ok, then something omniscent would know the past, present, and future. An omnipotent god would have infinite power. An omnipresent god would be everywhere. With the combination of these 4, how can evil exist? http://en.wikipedia.org... Or suffering? :) An omnibenevolent god would care about the existence of evil and suffering as well as it's ending. An omniscent god would know how to stop it. An omnipotent god could stop it instantly, or even prevent it. An omnipresent god with the combination of the other 3 wouldn't fail. That's enough for now. But since your pro, explain to me how a quadrupleomni god DOES exist. Like I tried to say earlier I'll say again By default, nothing is true until I prove it. If as the negative I can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn DOESN'T exist, you don't win by default. Actually if there are no arguments than I win by default. You have to prove how it DOES exist. Instead of thinking of it as proving a negative, how about we think of it as proving non-existence. In what way would there be evidence to support proving how something DOESN'T exist UNTIL someone gives an argument for something's existence? As far as I'm concerned until then, it's impossible to prove non-existence. As far as I know, your argument will likely be based off of an argument from ignorance, since as you said before: "The existence of God hasn't been disproved, and will never be disproved." So wait a second, that means you win by default? O.o http://en.wikipedia.org... As far as the examples you gave they weren't based off of negative proof. Unlike of course *cough* your likely arguments. :)
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

"This is what i challenge my opponent to do. Accept the burden of proof or otherwise prove how my logic is faulty." I think the latter option is better. Now, you are the instigator. Your job is to support your claim that the resolution is false. My goal, as the contender, is to contend the arguments that you instigate. Therefore, you must put forward proof, and I must disprove your proof. It is possible to prove a negative. Scientists have proved negatives. Scientists have proven that energy canNOT be created or detroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org... Scientists have proven that one canNOT travel at the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your goal now is to prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god canNOT exist. I also have the support of wjmelements, who is a very experienced debater in the 99th percentile, and myself, in the 97th percentile, while you have never completed a debate. What wjmelements says goes when it comes to debates, unless someone even more experienced disagrees with him. This debate has mostly been about burden of proof, and not the resolution at hand. Support your argument, or else you will lose this debate. I will now offer more proof for myself: the chance of life randomly existing with the ability to reproduce and evolve is right next to zero. God exists. Why wouldn't he be omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? Thank you.
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

You can't prove a negative. It's not my responsibility to prove that something DOESN'T exist. For example, lets say I say among us there is an invisible pink unicorn. Are you saying that it's YOUR responsibility to PROVE to me how it DOESN'T exist? It's the same with a god. Hey, I believe in Thor, the god of thunder! Under your mentality, it's not my responsibility to prove he exists, but your responsibility to prove that he doesn't! Oh wait, you can't prove he doesn't? Aha! I win by default and Thor exists. O. o If the burden of proof is NOT on the person that claims something exists, then everything I say exists exists. Therefore I will accept the burden of proof if you can disprove the following things in which i say exists The Invisible Leprechauns The Silver Surfer The Invisible Gene The Invisible Pink Unicorn Otherwise if you cannot then that means they all exist! !! ! :) This is what i challenge my opponent to do. Accept the burden of proof or otherwise prove how my logic is faulty. :) I will first
An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

Thank you for starting this debate. As wjmelements said, you carry the burden of proof for this debate as the instigator, and must prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god cannot exist. Note that whenever in this debate that such a god DOES exist, rather than CAN exist, it is out of religion, as I know I can't prove God to non-believers. Now, for my first, and seemingly only contention: About 1/3 of the world believes in the existence of an omni-omni-omni-omni God, especially developed countries in the West. http://en.wikipedia.org... The existence of God hasn't been disproved, and will never be disproved. I await your counter to my contention, in addition to your own.
Willy Wonka is evil, corrupt, probably a child molestor, and has several parallels to Hitler.

The reason I argued so much about Hitler because your WHOLE SPEECH was about Hitler. So I assumed that was what you were trying to prove. Furthermore, if i disprove enough of your arguments, than Willy Wonka does not have several parallels to Hitler. And since you called this a joke round, I took the position that Willy Wonka wasn't Hitler but Michael Jackson. I believe that is still the debate. So you say kids do not love to go their. Then why were all the kids so excited to win a golden ticket? Besides, no one was ever excited to go to a concentration camp you say OL's could not escape. How come? They have to get food and water from somewhere. Willy Wonka is sure as hell not malnourished and living on chocolate alone. They can escape when they go to the store to buy him stuff. Like clothes and water. "Willy Wonka promised the chief guy wonderful things…but only gave them life living in a factory as Wonka's slaves." Sounds nothing like Hitler. He did not trick the Jews. Michael Jackson tricked the little boys. You say they must be either adults or malnoursihed. I will prove they are neither. You picture has them looking strong, not weak and MALNOURISHED. So thanks, you just proved they weren't. They are kids. They just look different. Are you racist? Saying that kids of another race can not look different? GASP! So the last part is all jumbled together. 1. They are not poisons, he is testing candy to make kids feel better 2. i said IF he was building guns and training, so obviously he is not 3. if they are toys, then they are for michael jackson not hitler So who should win the debate Harlan attempts to prove that Willy Wonka is close to Hitler. Do not let him confuse you by looking at the topic, he ignored that in his first speech. I attempt to prove he is not close to Hitler. I do so by proving he is Michael Jackson I disproved ALL YOUR parallels Willy Wonka has to Hitler
Willy Wonka is evil, corrupt, probably a child molestor, and has several parallels to Hitler.

I believe Johnny Deep as Willy Wonka is Michael Jackson, not Hitler Before I begin: 1. Neverland Ranch = Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory kids love to go there the owners love kids the owners must hide from the public adults don't like owners 2. Oompa Loompas (OLs) = Kid not Jews OLs are all short like kids OLs like to play like kids OLs make fun of other kids, like kids OLs are not hated by a lot of people, thus not Jews OLs are not descended from the land of Canaan, from skin-color, so not Jews I will negate by attacking all your individual points. 1. Willy Wonka saves the OLs from a "dangerous outside world". it never says he uses them as a coercive labor source 2. Does he say that he does not pay them? No. Furthermore, if he doesn't pay them, why don't they form labor unions and revolt? 3. They are not malnourished because they are fat 4. He tests candy on OL's so he DOES NOT HARM KIDS. Hitler tested on Jews so he could USE BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 5. IF he is training them to use guns, why would he be Hitler training JEws to fight? 6. All the inventions you list are simply toys Michael Jackson has at his Ranch to attract kids. He captures them yes, but in his bed, not in an incinerator 7. "Little, innocent, Charlie, however, probably got it the worse. Willy Wonka was like "I've got candy little boy. Come live in isolation inside of my factory with me…Iv got candy". Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? HE tempts him with candy to come into his factory and live with him forever. He didn't want his parents to come, either. Just saying: seems a bit odd. Luckily, Char;ie knew not to go into strange men's houses..." ALL SOUNDS LIKE MICHAEL JACKSON NOT HITLER!!!!!!!!! 8. Hitler built stuff, like the autobaun, he wouldn't destroy the roof of his house
Willy Wonka is evil, corrupt, probably a child molestor, and has several parallels to Hitler.

To start off…this is a joke. Also…I am discussing the Johnny Depp Willy wonka…and not the Willy wonka from the first movie or from the book. Also…since this debate is not serious…feel free to accept the challenge, even if you are, also, arguing "pro". Here are my arguments… 1.Willy Wonka keeps a WHOLE RACE of beings imprisoned inside of his factory. He keeps them as his slaves…using them for labor. Every single oompa loompa in the entire world is at Wonka's mercy. That makes him worse than Hitler. 2.He does not pay his Oompa Loompas for the grueling labor and difficultly choreographed shows (to which he randomly orders for his own entertainment). 3.His factory workers have horrible malnutrition…all he feeds them is chocolate. Some people will say that he "pays" them with chocolate…but it is quite obvious, that he only gives them chocolate so they won't die…because then he wouldn't have any factory workers. 4.He tests his, more often than not, poisonous candies on the oompa loompas. One Oompa Loompa was covered in hair…because Wonka tests poisons on them as if they were guinea pigs. What kind of sick people would do that to their factory workers? Adolf Hitler and Willy Wonka. 5.He is training an army of Oompa Loompas. He was training them to use guns in the movie. Also…his factory looks suspiciously...alot like a military base. Plus…what is the real reason that he is constructing a matter transporter? His factory is a training facility, and a place to develop his evil technologies…without sharing them with the outside world. 6.He took five children into his death trap of a factory. Look how they truned out, too. His army of squirrels put her into an INCINERATOR. Once more…a lot like Hitler. Wonka has an oven for little girls. Sick. He got a chance to test many of his weapons of war on children there, also. His poisonous gum (which would be useful to do to enemy troops)…The matter transporter. 7.Little, innocent, Charlie, however, probably got it the worse. Willy Wonka was like "I've got candy little boy. Come live in isolation inside of my factory with me…Iv got candy". Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? HE tempts him with candy to come into his factory and live with him forever. He didn't want his parents to come, either. Just saying: seems a bit odd. Luckily, Char;ie knew not to go into strange men's houses, just because theytold him that they would give him candy. 8.Willy Wonka broke the roof to their house…that jerk.
USA vs Russia War Scenario

The United States of America would defeat the Russian Federation in total war. Conditions: 1. USA is attacking 2. 1vs1, however allies can help economically (sanctions, trade deals, etc.) 3. No nukes 4. Current military technologies only, however this war would last for many years so industrial production of these current technologies, and not just current numbers, must be taken into account 5. If you want to change any of these conditions you may 6. I hope you accept :) After reading your other Russia vs USA debates I hope I'll finally be a worthy opponent P.S. I put 5 rounds just in case, depending on where our arguments logically stop we can agree to both forfeit or something if it is too long