BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism vs. Christianity

You are still basing your argument on the assumption that the bible is correct. There are no reasons to assume that the bible is correct. The only reason that Christians have to believe that the bible is correct is that it says so itself. Which would be the same as J.K. Rowling stating that the Harry Potter series is fact, or Christopher Paolini saying the same thing about the inheritance cycle, or J.R.R. Tolkien about the Lord of the Rings. You speak of the 40 authors who write testimony in the form of the bible. This would be the same as if I took 40 fiction/fantasy writers, combined them together, and claimed that it was one hundred percent factual. You go on to state that God reveals himself through the complexity of our universe. It is true that our universe is complex, however that is no reason to assume that it had to have a creator. Conway"s "Game of Life" shows how complex systems evolve over time from the simplest of rules. It is the same with the universe, the rules are just different. Instead of defining which squares would live or die, they are in the form of Quantum mechanics. You then state that there is geologic proof of the flood in the fossil records. This is not true, scientists have searched for years and haven"t found any proof of the flood. If you could, please add a link to where you found this information. The universe is not a logical or orderly place at all. In space there is literally places where the laws of physics as we know them break down,places where the temperatures reach into the millions of degrees, places where stars and entire galaxies are destroyed by one another, and places where giant gas clouds dominate for light years in all directions. Love, reason, knowledge, logic, and morality are just names we give to thoughts and emotions within the human brain. They are ruled by chemicals released by the brain, the chemicals that we call hormones. If they can"t be explained within the materialistic universe than why can scientists control emotions with chemicals. We are simply biological machines that react to our environment and have evolved into being self aware of the fact that we are alive. Finally can you add evidence to what you state in the last paragraph. What statements are proved as true? I already stated that the bible does not agree with science. The bible states that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Science has proved that it is, in fact, about 4 billion years old.
This debate will get 10,000 views before the voting period starts

I was the first to define "view," regardless of what round it was in. If Pro had given a better definition (such as the web page being accessed by a computer) and/or a reason why my definition should be rejected, that would have been his right, and I probably would have had to concede. But he did not. My definition therefore must stand. Pro has not shown that this debate has been (or, by the time I post this, will have been) viewed ten thousand times. He has therefore lost this debate. Vote Con. Thank you.
This debate will get 10,000 views before the voting period starts

If a term isn't defined, it goes by the most reasonable meaning. According to this debate, it was viewed 10,542 times as of the writing of this round. Semantics is generally frowned upon in debate, regardless. Pleas read the below: Viewed: 10,542 times CONCLUSION I have won this debate as of the beginning of the fifth round, and therefore should be declared the winner and gifted with lavish resort packages and arguments points. P. S. I love everyone who contributed through networking, viewing, and moral support throughout these tumultuous past hours. I feel like we've created an intense indomitable bond through our collective toil. I love you in the true meaning of that phrase. <3
This debate will get 10,000 views before the voting period starts

DEFINITION: A "view" of this debate is an observation by a human being for a sufficiently long period that a human can, in theory, absorb the information contained on the debate page. To win this debate, Pro must show that ten thousand people have "viewed" this debate once, or one person ten thousand times, or two people five thousand times, or any permutation of that formula. If he doesn't, he loses.
This debate will get 10,000 views before the voting period starts

For kicks, I'll present comments from some of the more "sensitive" members of this site. It's astounding how bonkers people can get over trivial issues LOLOLOCOPTERdarkkermit - "so tempting to report you for spamming."unstupendousman - "He created, what, five other threads to do the exact same thing. Report those."stephenhawking - "These debates really do lower the site quality..." [RESPONSE: OberHerr - "Hey, just like revealing personal PMs!"FREEDO - "You know, as much as I love spam, I have to agree. A funny debate is good but the debating part of this site should really be held up to some higher standards. typos typos retyping sentence retyping sentence I'm definitely drunkGOD! So many typos!!!!"airmax1227 - "yeah I thought the first one was cleaver, but now its just annoying how many of these there are. And the spamming certainly isn't helping that perception." Clearly these members are more highly evolved than us riff-raff who engage in sites that pollute the pristine waters of DDO.
This debate will get 10,000 views before the voting period starts

I am wagering the benefits that come from winning this debate on the conjecture that this debate will receive 10,000 views before it enters the voting stage.The time to argue is 24 hours, so it should take too long to get through the debate.Good luck to you and me. May the gods battle and show favor toward whomever slaughters the most goats.Kittens!
It is Less Ethical to be a Soldier than a Prostitute.

Wow, I goofed up for some reason. I thought it was the last round and put my closing arguments in last round and have nothing new to contribute to the debate. Also, normally you don’t add new information in the last round as it reserved for closing arguments but since no structure was set, nothing says you can’t I guess. “The way I see it, it is absolutely wrong to join an institution that you know will propagate war, death, and conflict as armies do.” It is the nature of the world. If you do not protect yourself and your country. Both will cease to exist. War mongering =/= standing army. “Nativist "know-nothing" party whose goal was to exclude immigrants from jobs and politics. Anti-Chinese sentiment during railroad boom in U.S. Pretty much every dictatorship or corrupt government starts to gain ground when it appeals to the nationalism of its people. North Koreans are routinely told to hate "imperialist America" along with Middle Eastern regimes, Cuba, etc. The Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers Party) gained much of its power calling for a stronger, unified Germany. Kamikaze pilots during WW2 USSR- United soviet socialist republic.” We’re debating a single soldier not nationalism. That’s a whole new debate, my friend (one I’d love to debate as well). “Also, since legalization is always tied up with prostitution, what would an illegal army equate to? Gang members. Gangsters form loyalties with their gangs, and accept money to kill people. They say they are just protecting their turf, but more often go and kill others instead. Gangsters operate outside of the law, armies are sanctioned by it.” Gangsters have a different motivation than soldiers, gangsters are in it for money and respect. Soldiers are in it for duty and protection to country. Different motivations, same effect in the most lenient scope of the term. Anyways had a fun time debating with you, sorry for the mix up last round. It must’ve been slightly confusing why I was wrapping it up last round.
It is Less Ethical to be a Soldier than a Prostitute.

Well I had a fun time debating this as it is an odd but interesting topic. Con is saying because no one is getting harmed (other than the two parties involved) and it provides a service between two consenting adults that being a prostitute is more ethical than a soldier who kills people for money. The way I look at it most prostitutes go into prostitution for personal gain, like money and superfluous needs (drugs). I wish I introduced some stats and I cannot in this stage but they’re out there, go search for yourself. My rationale for why a soldier is more ethical is they go into service for the purpose of protecting a nation and its people all the results of that action are just consequential. Even my opponent agrees with that logic. The means to protecting a country is justified. “As for the drowning lake example, doesn't the fact still remain that the drowning man is saved? What if someone found the cure for cancer, and said they did it not for the millions of people who die each year, but for the sake of science? Either way, I don't see prostitution as having an unethical motivation. ” C is for Con C is for Cool You wanna be cool right?
It is Less Ethical to be a Soldier than a Prostitute.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Shocking title, disgraceful even. This came out of a debate I was having about whether prostitution should be considered morally wrong, but I figured I would up the ante by comparing it to a career in the military. I am not judging the morality of particular members of either career, as I am aware there are a multitude of reasons why someone would enter into either. Pro will argue that a career as a prostitute is more ethical than being a soldier in active conflict (non-combat occupations/ paper-pushing doesn't count), and Con will argue the opposite position. "More ethical" defined as: Providing less harm and more benefit to the self and others. I will let Con have opening arguments during round 1. Begin!
awZctfvgybhunjkml

zaesxrdctfgvbhjnkml,lomjnihubytfrcexsctfvybguhnijmokionubyvt7cr6x5es4xdcrtbgyuhijomijuhgy76d54s3de5rftgyhujikol.;t567yhuijmk,lrefdstxcgyhbnj mrdfvcxhyujnm dfc 8uijknmfgvc uijknmrdfciujkm,rgfcu8ijkfv8uikjewrsfdaqzwxsecdrfvtgbyhnujimkolZwxcvfgbhnjmk,l.;/'sdgrfhyjkk234567890-123456789023456784567845678otyuiuyttghyjuhygfdfgfcdxhjkmfg,khlbmvjidchubfn mg,bhijbvfkm ,g.hjl;knb vnc dfm,bkhjnvh cjm,vbkm jvnjcxmc,vl koijuvhcnxc,vbkmjnmcxjxjn gfvchynjedhjbnr4eduihkjeruj
Everyone should donate their organs

Pro has not clarified his resolution.Nevertheless, I still followed Pro's resolution when Pro clarified it in Round 3, so I am confused as to why Pro claims I am unreasonable. I will attempt to try again to appeal to Pro's preferences.Rebuttal: So in this round, this is what Pro says: "Donating your organs means signing a form, giving doctors permission to use your organs after you die". Pro is arguing that everyone should do this when in Round one he said: "I will argue that everyone should donate their organs after they die".-Therefore, my argument still applies to this. Should someone still donate their organs even if they don't want to? Everyone has the freedom of choice and bodily integrity and autonomy, so everyone can choose what they want to do with their own bodies."My opponent ignored the process of organ donation, acting like it doesn't exist and replaced "should" with "must", "-I did not replace the word "should" with "must", I defined the word should in Round 3 and based my arguments off of that. I even gave you two options to choose from as to what definition you wanted to use: one of them was "must", but the other one was "ought to". And I refuted that effectively in the previous round. -Furthermore, my arguments still apply nevertheless: "Why should someone donate their organs if they don't want to?"
Everyone should donate their organs

I won't continue debating this, You obviously just want to win it and you don't want to be reasonable about the topic. Should doesn't mean must, maybe this will help you understand the differences better : http://english.stackexchange.com... Donating your organs means signing a form, giving doctors permission to use your organs after you die, it doesn't mean that after you die your organs will be used even if they are not healthy. This is not even an argument, as it is not possible to donate an unhealthy organ. My opponent ignored the process of organ donation, acting like it doesn't exist and replaced "should" with "must", making this debate meaningless, as he is not willing to debate this topic in a reasonable way.
Everyone should donate their organs

Rebuttal:"I never said organ donation should be mandatory...I argued that donation your organs is the right thing to do and everyone should do it, "-If you say "everyone should do it", then you are obviously saying it should be mandatory. Allow me to define the term "should".-Should: must; oughthttp://dictionary.reference.com...-Therefore by saying "everyone should do it", you are either saying "everyone must do it", or you are saying "everyone ought to do it", in which case my arguments still work for both statements.-->If you are arguing that "everyone must do it", my arguments still stand. Why must they do it if they choose not to? Why must they do it if it means violating 4 human rights? Furthermore, why must they do it if their organs are not healthy?-->If you are arguing that "everyone ought to do it", my arguments still stand. Why ought they do it if they choose not to? Why ought they do it if it means violating 4 human rights? Furthermore, why ought they do it if their organs are not healthy? "Of course not all organs are health, but most of the time you will have at least one healthy organ when you die. And even if you don't have any health organs, they will simply not use them." -Voters note the grammatical error(s) in this statement.-Pro has conceded to my argument that not all organs are healthy and that people with unhealthy organs should not donate their organs because "they will simply not use them"."If you choose to donate your organs in means after you die medics will check to see if you have any healthy organs and if you do they will use them to help other."-Pro has conceded again that not all organs should be donated. "CON missed my point completely and took the whole process out of context." -I certainly did not.
Everyone should donate their organs

I never said organ donation should be mandatory. "All you have to do is sign a form."- I argued that donation your organs is the right thing to do and everyone should do it, I never said everyone should be forced to donate their organs. Of course not all organs are health, but most of the time you will have at least one healthy organ when you die. And even if you don't have any health organs, they will simply not use them. If you choose to donate your organs in means after you die medics will check to see if you have any healthy organs and if you do they will use them to help other. CON missed my point completely and took the whole process out of context.
Everyone should donate their organs

*Pro's arguments are specifically aimed towards donating organs to people in need of organs, therefore I will be arguing that not everyone should donate their organs after they die.______________________________________________Arguments Against:______________________________________________ Violation of Human Rights:-Pro's suggested policy would mean violating a number human rights[1] because it is suggesting and implying that individuals must have their organs donated after they die even if it goes against their wishes. This violates the 17th basic human right: the right to your own things. By violating the 17th human right, Pro's policy would also be violating the 30th human right: the right to keep your rights and not have others take them away. -There are two other rights that are not on the list of 30 human rights that have been violated by Pro's suggested policy. The first is bodily autonomy and integrity. It states that one has the right not to have one's body or personhood interfered with, and that one also has the right to make one’s own choices about one’s body for oneself. The second right that has been violated by Pro's suggested policy is freedom of choice. -In total, this violates 4 human rights.1. http://www.samaritanmag.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.foregen.org...4. http://prezi.com...5. http://www.lawcookies.com...Condition of Organs:-Pro's suggested policy implies that all dying people should donate their organs to people in need of healthy organs. I would like to remind Pro that not all organs are healthy and well enough to be donated to other people, especially if the doners are dead or dying. If a person dies because his organs are infected, it is best not to donate his organs to people in need of organs because the organs would likely kill the recipient of the organs. _______________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion:Not everyone should donate their organs because some people don't want to and by forcing them to donate their organs after they die, you are violating 4 human rights. Though corpses do not have the capability of choice, their choice was already made before they died, when they had the capability to choose. Therefore if someone chooses not to donate their organs, but his organs are donated anyway after they die, you would still be violating human rights. Also, some organs are too dangerous or unhealthy to be donated, therefore not everyone should donate their organs.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to Pro
Everyone should donate their organs

If you are dead, you no longer exist as a person[1], so you can't own anything, including your body. The body is no longer yours, it's just a body with healthy organs and there are people who need those organs. So why shouldn't your organs be used to save others? Once you are dead, your body will never be of any use for you, just like your house, car or money. Even if you believe in the afterlife, your physical belongings will still have no value in the spirit world. All people leave their fortune to other when they die and there is nothing wrong in doing that, so why should donating your organs be different? For you they are not more important than your house or car. It is absolutely normal to leave your car or house to other people after you die and all people do it, so what is the problem with donating your organs? You have no right to your other possessions after you die and organs shouldn't be different. Also it's the easiest possible way to help people in need. All you have to do is sign a form. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Internet access is a privilege.

I will now begin my arguments as to why it is a human right. Definitions and ClarificationsThere have been many ages throughout the past. The Stone Age, The Bronze Age, The Iron Age, The Machine Age, The Atomic Age, etc. However, we are now in what is called 'The Information Age'. We are at the time in human development that digital information is driving our lives. Privilege: I accept my opponent's definition of the word from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I will thoroughly explain the definition. In WilliamsP's explanation, he says that the internet is a privilege, which is something you have to work for. I will cover my problem with this later. ArgumentsAs I recently stated, we have entered the Information Age, which means our world is slowly being run by technology and the internet. You can make payments over the internet, some shops only work online, and computers like the Google Chromebook relies on the internet to do what it does. The world is slowly becoming connected by a global field that is important to living in society. Companies that don't use computers and the internet will not be successful. People that refuse to use computers and the internet will not be as successful as the people who do. I plan for my career to have to do with computers, the internet, and technology. If I did not have access to it, how could I be successful? How could I do what I like to do in life? The Internet as a PrivilegeA privilege is something you have to work for. I never had to work for the ability to use the internet. When I was born, I automatically had the right to use the internet. I did not have to earn anything. Either my opponent has worded his argument wrong, or he had to earn the ability to access the world's information. I do not know. Taking Away Access as a Punishment for a Crime This is a different matter. Being sent to prison already takes away basic human rights, such as speech, movement, etc. The internet is included in that. Though this is not the round for rebuttals, my opponent asked me a question at the end of his arguments. I am going to answer it now:Does an individual with a history of crime and wrongdoing have the right to internet access, and if so, why? My answer is complicated. It depends on the situation. If s/he were in prison, my answer would be an automatic 'no'. However, if they were not in prison, living in society, my answer would be 'yes'. As I already mentioned, we are in the Information Age. The amount of internet usage in society is only going to increase drastically. Putting someone out in today's society and not giving them access to the world is a horrible thing to do, in my opinion. What can one do in society without that access? Not much. How can one turn their life around and become successful without that access? They cannot. ConclusionI believe I have shown why access to the internet is a right instead of a privilege. I look patiently await my opponent's rebuttals. Works Cited1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Internet access is a privilege.

I have reason to believe that internet access is a privilege. My friend and fellow debate.org user jamccartney believes it is a right. I would like to challenge his stance in this debate and prove that he is wrong. I will be arguing the Pro side of this debate. There are four total rounds and each debater has 72 hours to post an argument. Each argument may only be 10,000 characters long at maximum. The voting period will be 2 weeks, with an open voting style, Elo restriction, and a 7 point system. The rules are evident. There will be no forfeiture, proper spelling and grammar will be used, all sources will be cited - all formats are acceptable - and there will be no biased arguments unless supported by facts. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept the debate. In the second, we will present our main arguments. In the third round, we will offer rebuttals and final arguments. In the fourth round, we will present final rebuttals and a conclusion. I look forward to an enlightening debate.
Constitutional Monarchy is better Presidential Democracy!

I would like to say that Constitutional monarchy is better than presidency because if the head of the government fail to submit it’s promise of certainty than the head of state has the right to call for another parliament. First of all, I barely understood the point made here. Secondly, there is a branch of government that is designed specifically to keep the government in check (the judicial branch, not sure what it is called in the US but I know every republic has one). Thirdly, the monarch has yet to prorogue government, and to my knowledge that has only been done once in 2008 in Canada when Michael-Jean (the governor-general) prorogued government (if you live in Canada you will know all about this). Fourthly, the monarch cannot just create a new government without a vote of no confidence in which the monarch doesn’t actually do anything, thus this point is flawed. Another one is his, if the head of state is a bullying tyrant then the people, the parliament ad the nation as a whole (with the help of UN) have the right to deposed the monarch I didn’t understand this point fully either. However, the monarch has no real power except appointing a governor-general, and this point is completely off topic as the head of state is the queen, and the queen can’t be a bullying tyrant as she has no real role.