BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yahweh, the Volcano GOD of War

1stly Con is setting up an ad hominem and not addressing the content. Worstly, is that claim that it's not a credible source stating that the bible itself is not a credible source to itself? Is this an argument to ignore and dismiss the direct content of the bible, the definitions of the names of this diety, or the know traditions of mountain god worship? .. 2ndly, his argument of mountain vs volcano is irrelevant as outlined in my article. You can't apply 21st century understanding of mountains and volcanoes to the biblical era. Hence, the term volcano didn't exist in that era as already discussed. They only had a term for "mountain" and describing a volcano and referring to it as a Mountain of GOD is all that needs to be sufficiently addressed. And even the current example I gave described their volcano as the "Mountain of GOD".. This you can find in the bible just as much as you can find it in current volcano/mountain god worship. 3rdly, the argument that all the verses being taken out of context is false. And the context in most of the verses are self-explanatory, and self-evident. You can take Micah 4:1 - In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it. - And this is not the only place you find this... You can find it in --- 2Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. 3And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. --- It' no different fundamentally than the modern example I gave you.. And you need to know the primary name to which "lord" is pasted over or replaces. Even the Hawaiians worship Pelee in this manner. And there is a reason why El Shaddia means "God Most High" and "God of the Mountains".. And this primary name is chiefly used in the Torah. And I outlined the root word and where the name Shaddai comes from... This is a mountain GOD whether you want to admit it or not. You can even find it in modern Christianity: http://www.carmelitesistersocd.com... The funny part is that most people or Christians do not even realize it because they have no formal eduction on the history and traditions of mountain GOD worship. The problem here is, is that Con is not debating with someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of Mountain GOD worship, or what's actually in the bible in regards to this.
Yahweh, the Volcano GOD of War

I will keep my first argument short. My opponent has listed reference to an article that, if I understand correctly, he himself wrote. This is not exactly a credible source. Also, in the article cited it is mentioned that God is the Volcanic God, but also mentions Mountain God. It specifically references Mount Sinai which is not a volcano. I would also like to point out that most, if not all, of the verses used in the arguments are taken sorely out of context. I yield to my opponent to do a better job of defending and supporting his claims as the burden of proof would fall on him.
A woodchuck could chuck 27 woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Other than the 'picture of you' what evidence do you have to support you're claim, to us 'none' woodchucks, as far as we know, you are really some cracked up old man sitting at the bottom of him bomb bunker waiting for the next world war to brake out. Intel I get hard evidence that 27 is their favorite number I will not be satisfied. As for the picture you said was yours ; http://cdn4.sportngin.com... is a picture that is owned by the people of the website; http://www.adamspestcontrol.com... .
A woodchuck could chuck 27 woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

I know a lot about woodchucks, because I am a woodchuck. My species managed to steal a computer from a dead human we... found. I wanted to see what you petty humans know about the amount of wood we chuck, because it is funny to see you humans get it all wrong. My real name is not Drewbater... it is actually "yjerutyna." This is a very common woodchuck name in my colony. You may think that we do not chuck wood, when in fact that is our favorite hobby. It has became a serious sport in the woodchuck nation and is the one and only sport in the woodlympics. The world record for chucking wood is 107 chucks of wood, but among us normal chuckers the average is 27. I have a detailed census, but seeing as it is written on a piece of grass it would be to hard to send to you. Surprisingly, as well as the mean being 27, the median is too. In fact every woodchuck except for the one that got 107 can only chuck 27 chucks of wood. If you look up woodchuck on google images I am the second picture on the right. It is a selfie I took for what you call... #selfiesunday I hope this is enough data for you.
A woodchuck could chuck 27 woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Yes I understand that you never said that it could I just wanted to clarify that it cannot for any of whom may be reading this. I would also like to bring up that you say; 'if the woodchuck were capable of chucking wood he woodchuck precisely 27 woods. This is do to the woodchucks endurance and the fact that they love the number 27.' Now we do not know what woodchucks like, so to say that they like the number 27 above all other numbers I'd like to see evidence of this being true. How would woodchucks even know numbers are real, and if so what would they be, and what would their equivalent of the number 27 be? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation) Please note that a 'Woodchuck' is another word for Groundhog.
A woodchuck could chuck 27 woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

But a wood chuck cannot chuck wood so how could or would a wood chuck chuck wood, but if it could chuck wood it would chuck eight pieces of wood. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org... : The etymology of the name woodchuck is unrelated to wood or chucking. It stems from an Algonquian (possibly Narragansett) name for the animal, wuchak. The similarity between the words has led to the common tongue-twister: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could if a woodchuck could chuck wood![12]
A woodchuck could chuck 27 woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

There is no proof to support your claim, unless of course you are saying humans are animals, which they are. You say to 'kill us' who is us? Many animals, insects, and various other species are affect by 'pesticides'. You also claim to say you can speak in your native language, when woodchucks do not have an alphabet let alone one that would translate into that of English characters or speech.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

Its true that its their job to fix their economy but wasn't there a point in time where the United States wasn't looking so good so another country lended a helping hand and now look where we are. If the plan ends we wouldnt be the main place that it effects but we would be effected because the Colombian cartels would just grow bigger and there already is Colombian cartels that are making their way into the United States. So imagine what would happen if there wasn't anything to stop them, that's most likely what would happen if you got rid of the plan. Also it is benefiting the United States because if the plan stopped there would be more drugs, kidnapping, and murders. Your evidence that says there hasnt been reduction in the supple of cocaine could be outdated because theres evidence that says that murders decreased 45% since the plan started.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

I agree that we should put a end to Plan Colombia because the first thing a Government needs to make sure of, is that the people of the country are safe. That's THEIR job not the ours, but for the past 10 years we have been spending over ten billion dollars trying to help Colombia with their drug cartels but there is no evidence that its really making a difference. Nor does it benefit the people of the United States. The United states is already trillions of dollars in debt, so why spend money on benefiting other countries when we should be helping ourselves. What does making Colombia, cartel free do for us? According to Human Rights Activists Mike LaSousa the United States has steady defended Plan Colombia despite its failure in reducing the supply of cocaine.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

The United States and Colombia are nothing alike so there's a reason that the plan is working as good as we want it to and another reason is that a big problem like stopping huge cartels doesn't just happen in a couple years maybe even 50. These cartels have been in the works for decades. Our security is becoming more high tech and advanced so less people are able to cross the border safely and without getting caught. If they had drugs on them they would probably go to prison for a very long time so if that isn't a sign i dont know what is.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

The United States have been working very hard and doing a great job at keeping drugs out of the United States and if the plan ended the United States would be extra alert for drugs coming into the US. The people coming into the US who would cause "more drugs, kidnapping, and murders" would have to have a passport and be legal in the US. They could cross the border but I highly doubt they would illegally cross the border with drugs on them. My evidence saying that the plan failed at reducing the supply of cocaine is from 2016.
Living on the island of Manhattan is one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States

In short: nuclear terrorism. Per President Barrack Obama, "Nuclear terrorism is "the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term. This is something that could change the security landscape of this country and around the world for years to come." ... "If there ever was a detonation in New York City or London or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating.'" (1) George W. Bush called it his "ultimate nightmare." Sen. John Kerry, running for president in 2004, said that it was "the greatest threat that we face." (2)Should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in the United States, the location that would do the most damage would be New York City. With its population, influence, and 'capitol of the world' status, New York makes for a prime target. Not incidentally, New York is one of the likely cities for a nuclear terrorist attack to occur. Living in Manhattan is essentially a death sentence if a nuclear bomb with high-yield goes off anywhere in the borough. Even a small nuclear bomb like a suitcase nuke could devastate Manhattan. First off, let it be understood that the technology to build a nuclear bomb is not complex. The actual building of the bomb is an engineering challenge, but not an impossible one. Two students managed to build one with everything but the nuclear material (3). "Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent." (4)Even if the experts are wrong by a factor of ten, any city on the list of probable targets are still EXTREMELY dangerous to live in. New York and Washington are the most likely targets, or even easier to argue, New York is ONE of the most likely targets. I pass the debate to con.Sources: 1) http://www.stopnuclearterrorism.org...2) http://www.engineeringchallenges.org...3) http://www.guardian.co.uk... 4) Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent.
Windows is better than Mac

My opponent states that the Mac stays the same. I'd like to differ in that the Retina Screens are getting better and better and if the operating system stood the same, we wouldn't have updates and the OSX Mavericks is better than the OSX Lion, etc. which wouldn't happen if Mac stayed the same and didn't upgrade at all as OSX Mavericks is a "Upgrade". It also has a force touch touchpad, better display and faster flash storage now [1] [1] : http://www.apple.com...
Religious debates are boring

My opponent has presented the interesting counterexample of global warming (a real world problem that should be taken more seriously than it currently is in the common spheres of thought). He shows that because of the gravity and tangibility of this issue contrasted against the seeming impracticality of religious thought it may appear to be a topic worthy of exclusive academic recognition. So, I will address both of these issues. I. Why Religious Thought (if...then...) Is Still Vital The impact of religious thought will be addressed in my second point, but I reserve this first one to counter my opponent's statement that because both of the religious viewpoints I presented in argument one are in the "if...then..." format, their impact loses import because of the speculative nature of the claims. This argument is fair, but fails to address that both of these statements (when combined) create both sides of the situation. There is no third party or neutral position left to defend in this model of thought. It only claims "If God...then important to defend, If Not God...then important to show". The question is supernatural and will always be somewhat speculative, but with the tangible advances in science that are ever presenting themselves and our advances in human logic and thought, we still have very real ways to attack the question of religious reality. These ideas are intrinsically worth consideration, but I will show in the following point that they offer practical application as well. II. How Religious Ideals Impact The Real World (i.e., Global Warming) Global warming is a real and serious threat often viewed as arbitrary by the politicians who could do something to address the problem. This way of thing is very much impacted by religious thought. If the biblical model is true, then global warming is not a threat. God controls everything, and no matter how hard we try we will not be able to eradicate our species or destroy this planet. God comes back in Revelation and we even know to what specific geographic region in the Middle East. So, in a nation dominated by Christian thought, global warming is a laughable threat. In order to demonstrate the gravity of the situation at hand, we must first remove the safety net of a benevolent god controlling the forces of nature and demonstrate that we, in fact, are the ones in control- and the ones directly responsible for preserving or destroying this planet. I have shown that religious thought supersedes the issue of global warming or any specific crisis like it because it is not a temporal thing that can be addressed apart from every other real issue we face- it is a fundamental poisoning of the individual's worldview, that must first be attacked before any other issue can be addressed.
Religious debates are boring

Thanks for the interesting topic, Pro. I accept. This topic is one that is often bemoaned. I will begin by stating my assumption that although the resolution provided is that "Religious debates are boring" a more accurate title might be "Religious debates are pointless/wastes of time/not useful". If this is not the case, then I will address that in the remainder of my rounds, but due to the subjectivity of the term boring and the general tone of my opponent's first round I believe that my understanding of the key difference of thought here is correct. Additionally, I hope not to be a Hitchens/Dawkins spewing debate bot, but also expect my opponent and all voters to understand that the topic can only be defended from so many reasonable and original avenues of approach. I. If There Is A God/Spiritual World, It Would Be Of The Gravest Importance To Seek Understanding Of It II. If There Is Not A God/Spiritual World, It Would Be Of The Gravest Importance To Inform Others Of Their Misplaced Belief Conclusion: These points convey the two opposing sides and philosophies present in a religious debate. They are fairly straight forward and at this juncture seem to me to require little elaboration. Given that these are accurate representations, religious debate is of the utmost importance in society today, as religion is causal to so much of the phenomena we observe and participate in in society today. Were we to debunk certain traditions of faith or even create more nonbelievers, we could greatly enhance the legal system of this nation and the mental state of its citizens. I say all this because my opponent also professes to be an atheist, and so to argue neutrally seems unnecessary. I look forward to the coming rounds.
Religious debates are boring

I will argue that religious debates are incredibly boring and provide little insight into anything but persist nonetheless. I am consider myself an apathetic atheist but have zero interest in taking part in the constant Christian v Atheist debate because it is pointless and exists, at least seemingly as a form of self-satisfaction and ego boasting, especially among atheists. My opponent should be an atheist If my opponent cannot use ideas found in the works and video clips of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Daniel Dennett. If they are used in this debate, you lose. Also, please conversion stories of believers whose life was changed forever after learning about debates against religion. So, no personal narrative, those stories are as boring as they are pathetic. Please provide an original defense of atheism, why it is worth continually debating, and why its worth endless rehashing over and over. Again, no arguments or citations from Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett. I"ve read those books and watched those youtube clips before. Please contribute something original that requires thought, and does rely on these standard atheist texts.
Religious debates are boring

I am glad that our mutual starting points for this debate allows for increased civility and agreement on certain necessary fundamental issues. Before I begin with my final statements addressing this topic, I make one to potential voters: I ask that, of course, all source votes go to Pro on this debate. That is a given. However, I ask that you also do not arbitrarily just check that obvious box and then fail to analyze the other fields of scoring. That would cheapen the content of this debate (at least, as far as I am concerned). Not fishing for votes, just offering a stipulation to ensure that this debate is accredited in the most complete possible way. Now, on to my conclusion. My opponent offers the very interesting and seemingly apparent summation that if the religious are content with blind faith, then it is a futile endeavor for the rational atheist/agnostic to cast pearls before swine (to ironically borrow a Biblical cliche). This is fair only to the extent that we accept that because humans are generally content with irrationality, that their irrationality should be overlooked in the free market of ideas. Although personal anecdotes are seldom useful, I can declare wholeheartedly that after a long upbringing in Christian circles, the final breakthrough to atheistic thought was a refreshing (albeit unsettling) one. It is quite hard to win an unwilling audience from point a to b, especially when the two are so fundamentally opposed (further, that the one they currently believe may feel much better as it plays to emotion and quiets fear through "eternity insurance"). Nevertheless, the individuals most heard in the academic realm are increasingly atheistic- and this transformation has not occurred through any arbitrary means. This choice is given to today's youth with the increasing spread of technological availability and the growing rate of global communication coupled with the increasing availability of "pop" atheistic literature (your "God Is Not Great" Dawkins/Hitchens literature). As we begin to see the opportunity to expose the youth in their most mentally formative years to ideas alternative to those they have been brought up in, we are also burdened with the duty to present compelling, personal, and reasonable evidence to further our cause. Though the catalyst of social media may be a slow one, it is increasingly present, effective, and discredits the excuse of human irrationality as a reason to disregard religious debate.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

I fully agree that what he and many other abortionists are doing is wrong, but I take a very strong stance against capital punishment even though I'm pro-life. Here's why he shouldn't be "shot", you're doing him a favor because that's what he wants. No criminal would want to stay in prison for life, and would rather face execution. Plus, his innocent friends and family wouldn't be too happy about it.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

so you agree it's the same as two year olds being killed. and you would be against saving the two year olds if it meant shooting their murderers? you have not been very clear. i dont know what you mean the hypo "just needs to be beat by someone". what do you mean? why would we have to change topic? the hypo is on topic of what happens when people are being murdererd. it's still on subject, and if you are against all that type of killing we could at least argue about the philoso;hy behind that. almost everything youve said, i dont know what you mean or are getting at etc
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

Again, I'm pro-life so I DO disagree with this type of "murder" as we may call it. But still, there is a lot of ignorance behind comparing the death of a two year old and a baby. There is no difference. And I'm not running against you in this debate to disagree about abortion, because I'm pro-life. To be honest, I ran against you because your "hypothetical" scenario just needs to be beat by someone. I can't do that without changing the topic, so I'm not sure where we're getting at here.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

you like everyone just ignored the beginning big letter point... address the two year old hypothetical. what if they were being killed instead of babies? even if you are against capital punishment, almost not one thinks it's wrong to kill in order to save innocent people, self defense war defesnse of others etc. you might be an extreme example but you are not common. plus i just inherently disagree with the idea that no one should never die ever. but yeah, please explain if your anti capital punishment stops with self defesnse etc, and explain the two year old hypo response of yours
Obama used IRS to target conservatives

No, I'm 75% sure Obama DID use IRS to target conservatives. As for closing arguments, I think Obama IS guilty and is hiding the evidence. Sound paranoid? It might also be paranoid to say he's guilty of the Benghazi cover-up AND taking phone records without probable cause, but BOTH are true. I'm betting most people will vote for Con, which is fine. I didn't really prove his guilt. HOWEVER, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Obama may have destroyed the records linking him to the IRS scandal.