BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is omnipotent

God is omnipotent 1st Round: Acceptance 2nd round: Argue existence of "God"(must be Christian God). 3rd round: Argue rationality of omnipotence. 4th round: Dispute opponents logic and type opinionated conclusions. Pro/Con will be able to use any source to define terms throughout the debate. Pro/Con can use any material from the opponent's previous debates. On a personal note, I know that I have been "abrasive", but this time, I would like objective voting, regardless of how you feel about me. This debate is not about me, but what the voter finds to be logical. I hope to cast a light on that Atheism does not have to be "fact", meaning there could be an actual rational way to say that God can exist. I would like to thank my opponent if he accepts this debate. May we both argue with reason and logic. God- 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Omnipotent- 1 (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. 1.1 Having ultimate power and influence. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Unlimited- 1Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Turkish Pianist Fazil Say Shouldn't Have Received Jail Term for Anti-Islamic Tweets

Fazil Say is a Turkish pianist and composer who gives worldwide concerts. Because of disparaging Islam through some Twitter posts, he received a 10-month-suspended-jail term. For example in one tweet, Say joked about a call to prayer that he said lasted only 22 seconds. Say tweeted: "Why such haste? Have you got a mistress waiting or a raki on the table? " Raki is a traditional alcoholic drink made with aniseed. Islam forbids alcohol and many Islamists consider the remarks unacceptable. (1) On the other hand, he just expressed his opinion on Islam and this decision of the court has caused lots of arguments on the topic. There are some sources where you can read more about the subject: (1). http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) . http://www.guardian.co.uk... (3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
not required to take a foreign language

The same could be said about any subject. I would suggest that the proposition is more to do with introversion, Arrogance or just simple laziness, Rather than a serious regard for educational requirements and benefits. Introverted by an insular existence and arrogant and lazy for the same reason. All the billions of other people from around the world should be prepared to learn my language, Because I am superior and cannot be bothered to learn theirs!
Abe Linoln was a not the best president as people say

Voters before I start I want to tell you something. It is that my opponent did not but his sources thus marking him down for that. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument-: Website 1- In the war he kept going a persevered even though he had to carry one generals who weren't ready to fight, assassination threats, biking among Cabinet members, a lot of people life lost, and opposition from groups such as the Copperheads, you would not be able to do that, it must have been so hard for him. If he would have not have gone to war to free the slaves than there would be slaves in this time or another person would have fought back. What is he supposed to do sit back and do nothing. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Websites used: Website 1- http://rogerjnorton.com... ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttals: Since my opponent went first he did not get a chance to Rebuttal me so I will not do that to him. Just want it to be fair.
Abe Linoln was a not the best president as people say

Here are my reasons why I believe "honest" Abe was bad at running in office: Declared War on a nation that wanted freedom from the USA Declared war on a Nation that wanted peace (that's considered today as terrorism) Imprisoned and killed Maryland Legislators and secessionist to stop the state to secede He suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution). Blocked of Confederate ports, without a declaration of war He forced Generals to burn down cites and states. around the end of the war he forced the Union Army to kill prisoners These are why I think Abraham Lincoln was not the best president as people say. You can start to debate with anyone listed.
The earth is over 1 million years old

1. Radiometric Dating My opponent begins by stating that radio-carbon dating is accurate to “only 50,000” years, so therefore radio-carbon dating could not be used to prove that the earth is over 1 million years old. I am glad you said this, because in doing so, you conceded that radiometric dating is accurate to (50000/5730) just over eight half lives of the element. Your argument would be true if only carbon-14 was used in radiometric dating. Other methods such as Samarium-Neodynium dating (Half Life of of 1.06×1011 years), Uranium-Lead dating (Uranium-235 half life 704 million years, and Potassium-Argon Dating (Half Life of 1.248×109 ) are used in measuring the ages of rocks from millions or billions of years in the past. Thus the radiometric argument is substantiated as true and affirmed.2. Varves Actually, Varves are only considered Varves if they are laid down annually or bi-annually (5), not just warm or cold days. Thus, your argument is refuted.3. Coral Reefs Some coral reefs actually date back to 480 million years ago, there was no stipulation as to whether or not they had to be living (6,7,8). This argument in itself disproves your argument that the earth is less than one-million years old.4. The universe indicates earth is old The key word in your argument is that the Australian scientists “proposed” that the speed of light might not be constant (10). In fact, they proposed no evidence for this phenomenon, and they simply philosophized that this could be possible, making it no more trustworthy than an opinion statement. As of now, the speed of light stands as constant, and my argument stands un-refuted (9). “When science finally catches up with the bible we will see that the bible had it right the whole time.” I could have a field day with this one, but I will refrain from ad-hom’s and witty sarcastic remarks, and I will leave this one to the commenter’s in the interest of decency. In conclusion, every one of my points stands un-refuted. Con has provided no evidence that the earth is less than 1 million years old (probably because there is none), and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof, and Pro should win the debate. Sources: 1. http://hypertextbook.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.nbcnews.com... 7. http://www.anr.state.vt.us... 8. http://www.ilmpt.org... 9. http://rense.com... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The earth is over 1 million years old

1. "Most experts consider the technical limit of radiocarbon dating to be about 50,000 years, after which there is too little carbon-14 left to measure accurately with present day technology." This is from YOUR source. #4 http://www.sciencedaily.com... Thus radio carbon dating can NOT prove the earth is older than 1 million years. 2. Varves "bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers." - They are not "bi-annual" occurring twice a year but rather they occur whenever it rains a lot. This argument used to be used saying there were "bi-annual" ice layers from winter to summer until it was discovered that the layers were simply from warmer and colder days. 3. You said "There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago)" This is patently false. "The oldest coral reefs in the world that have been discovered so far, have been found in Hawaii. These Hawaiian coral reefs are an estimated 4,265 years old." http://science.yourdictionary.com...; 4. "The universe indicates earth is old" (Reuters) - A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity. The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years. If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe. http://rense.com... When science finally catches up with the bible we will see that the bible had it right the whole time. So far, you have presented NO good evidence that the earth is over 1 million years old.
The earth is over 1 million years old

My opponent is basically relying on radiometric dating to prove the earth is billions of years old. radiometric dating doesn't work and the dates are selective. Heres why. 1. Radiometric dating "Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites." - this only works; IF the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios. Thus my opponent would have to prove that; 1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios." also radiometric dating only works; IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, Thus my opponent would have to prove that; 1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios," Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for. note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted." - They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating) furthermore; - "less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error." note: 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams hit earth each year! http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...... You are going to base your data on 70??? This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis. This data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible. This is equivalent to assuming the age of a car by guessing the age of a single pebble stuck in the tire. This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi shlit'

This is a fruitless debate, for much of what you said is based entirely upon misunderstanding and nothing else.- First of all, he never said that the Talmud mentions it 14 times. He said that the Torah mentions it 12 times, not 14, and not the Talmud, but the Torah. Two misunderstandings at once.- The Talmud mentions Shabbat MUCH MUCH MUCH more than 4 times, perhaps even hundreds. This is a colossal misunderstanding. I hope that you are confusing the word "Talmud" with "Torah".- In the BIBLE, murder is mentioned plenty of times. But in the TORAH, Sabbath desecration is mentioned more than murder is - 12 times to be exact. The definition of Torah is 5 books of Moses.- Rabbi Mizrachi never mentioned Jesus burning in the pot of feces to the best of my knowledge. And if he did, we already resolved this issue in our previous debate. Talmudic Jesus and Christian Jesus are two different Jesuses, living over 100 years apart from each other.- Rabbi Mizrachi made a mistake when he said that only 1m Jews died in the Holocaust, but he apologized for this error already, and his apology was even accepted by a Holocaust survivor. - I love it when Christians pretend to be masters of halacha and Scripture. First of all, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah & Rachel were all relatives. If I remember correctly, they were all cousins also, so even according to your false premises, you'd be wrong. But if we were to ignore the above, I would remind you that Abraham was not a Jew. Isaac was not a Jew, and Jacob was not a Jew. The first halachic Jew was Reuben, who was the first son of Jacob, who is called Israel. Thus, he could be called "a son of Israel" (e.x a Jew). However, there are even disputes as to whether Reuben was a Jew, or at least if he possessed the halachic status of a Jew. While this is controversal, everyone agrees that after Sinai, everyone was officially Jewish and bound by the laws of the Torah. Before that, there are those who say that they were only bound by the Noahide Laws, and others who say that they were bound by the Noahide Laws + Circumcision and a few other commandments which are essential in Judaism.- I'd also like to point out for the sake of the funs and giggles that you got the word "shlit'a" spelled wrong - omitting the A. Furthermore, by calling Rabbi Mizrachi "shlita", that means that you're wishing him long life. Look up the word shlita, hahaha.To conclude: This debate is completely fruitless, as literally the entire thing is based upon misunderstanding and ignorance. It would be foolish of us to continue for that reason. Also, please stop pretending to be a master of halacha as was Rav Ovadia Yosef zatzal and others. You do not know the first thing about Jewish Law, and needless to say the complicated matters, such as the ones I mentioned above.
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi shlit'

Now I have to challenge you to yet another debate to settle the first one, here is the debate I am refering to: http://www.debate.org... Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi shlit' has screwed up doctrines: Doctrine #1; Violating the Sabbath is worse than murder: Rabbi Mizrachi establishes this nonsense here: So, in this video, he says; "The Talmud mentions the Sabbath 14 times, more than anything else, worse than murder" Well for one there is no "14 times" that the Talmud mentions the Sabbath, there is 4, and there is a very clear difference between the number 4, and the number 14. Moving on, let"s assume, to establish the second way this doctrine is wrong, that there is 14 verses about the Sabbath, and not 4, even so, there is far more than 14 verses about murder, for the simplicity of this, I will only cite 15, which still establishes that there is more than 14 verses about murder, they are as follows: Genesis 4:10-12 (1) Genesis 9:5-6 (2) Exodus 20:13 (3) Exodus 21:12-14 (4) Leviticus 24:17 (5) Numbers 35:16-1 (6) Deuteronomy 4:41-44 (7) Deuteronomy 5:17 (8) Deuteronomy 17:6 (9) Deuteronomy 19:5 (10) Deuteronomy 19:11-12 (11) Proverbs 1:11 (12) Proverbs 1:16 (13) Proverbs 6:17 (14) Proverbs 28:17 (15) Doctrine #2; Jesus is in hell boiling in Feces: This is one of the worst and most ridiculous of his doctrines. For one, there is none of this concept of hell in the Talmud, you won"t find it in the Talmud, but you will find it in the Unholy Qur"an. Not only this, but Jesus did no sin worthy of Hell, in fact he didn"t do any sins whatsoever, let alone ones worthy of hell. Doctrine #3; only 1 million Jews died in the holocaust: I did not know you could be both a Jew and a Nazi, but this guy seams to defy all logic. Let"s examine this, he thinks that because "80% of Jews interbred with Gentiles, then 80% of Jews who died in the holocaust were not really Jews because you have to be 100% Jewish to be a Jew", Let"s examine this, God gave Abraham the covenant, not Sarai, hence Abraham was a Jew, Sarai was not, but they do not deny that Isaac was a Jew, then Isaac married a Gentile, but no one denies that Jacob was a Jew, and he married a Gentile, and so did his descendants up until there was enough descendants of Abraham for them to marry other Jews without inbreeding, how many generations do you think that was? Another one of his arguments here is that Ashkenazi Jews are not real Jews, first off, this is ridiculous, and the Ashkenazi Jews can trace back their lineage to the Israelites, so they are in fact, Jews. Doctrine #4; unless your mother was a Jew, you are not a Jew: This one is also ridiculous, God gave Abraham the covenant, not Sarai, so Isaac inherited his Jew-ness from Abraham, otherwise, he was not a Jew, and hence, no one is a Jew, because Abraham was not a woman, Isaac could not be a Jew because his mother was not a Jew, his father was, so Isaac being the son of Abraham would not make him a Jew.
home schooling is better than regular school

I didn't know it was two rounds. I'll fill my argument up I guess "Home schooling is isolated and has lack of competition. Public and private schools provide this competition through constant testing and exams. Students are able to know and understand the pressures of obtaining good marks amongst their peers as it leads to their future goals and prospective future jobs. " So it's about competition? Using competition in school aside from sports will lead to students pushing themselves too hard from forcing themselves to test, test and more tests! Being in a crowd of people could lead to bullying. Schools brainwash students, subtly though. They teach students false facts and use selective learning. Students that are homeschooled could learn the same if not more.
home schooling is better than regular school

(sorry about the word limit it's my first debate) Home schooling is isolated and has lack of competition. Public and private schools provide this competition through constant testing and exams. Students are able to know and understand the pressures of obtaining good marks amongst their peers as it leads to their future goals and prospective future jobs. Home schooled individuals do not understand this pressure as they do not need to compete with others in their home, they are isolated from others which does not provide suitable development in their mental and social state.
home schooling is better than regular school

Home schooling does not provide suitable education and development for children and teenagers. Home schooling hinders a child's development socially, being home schooled does not provide social stimulation that one would normally receive at a public or private school, this usually being attained by talking to both teachers and fellow students who come from diverse cultural backgrounds as well as opposite gender. Children that are home schooled generally have issues fitting into social groups when venturing into society, this is due to lack of social ethics and can lead into depression for teens and young adults.
Basketball is the most exciting sport to watch

Alright now to the debate. Most Watched: As far as the United States is concerned, I would say that basketball is much more of a major sport than soccer would be. However, in European countries and other places of the world I do know that it is quite popular, and I feel culture plays a part in this. As strange as it may sound, I don"t think that most watched overall necessarily makes it the most exciting. Vibe: A sport like soccer may be able to hold more people in their stadiums, however more does not always equal better. A basketball stadium is an enclosed space with many people packed within though granted quite a bit less than a soccer stadium. You can get an amazing feeling of connectivity with the game because it is possible to sit courtside and could literally touch a player by reaching out. Fans are able to truly take in every detail of the game up close and personal and feel like they are in the action. The electricity in the air during a back and forth basketball game can truly create excitement and bring an entire stadium together to cheer for their team. Fans seated behind each rim get to feel as though they are part of the game by trying to go wild and make a free throw shooter miss his shot. Anytime a free throw shooter misses, you better believe those guys think they played a part in it and they love it. PENALTIES, FOULS: Concerning many fouls in the endgame of a basketball game, yes they can make the final 2 minutes or more take about the same length of a regular quarter. There are two things that I think make this acceptable though. Firstly, it is generally used strategically when one team fails to force a turnover via the five second rule (failing to inbound the ball within 5 seconds) or managing to steal the ball quickly when they are down quite a bit with little time remaining. Due to this happening at the end of a game, it can actually build the excitement as it prolongs the crucial final minutes that will decide the victor of the game, and opens the possibility for making a wild last second shot to win. So really in this case I think that it builds excitement rather than boredom.
Basketball is the most exciting sport to watch

As part of my argument,I will only give reference to soccer while trying to "show" that [basketball is not the most exciting sport in the world] Firstly,soccer is the most watched sport in the world,its even watched more than basketball in America.This just seems to imply that most Americans(and the rest of the world) find more excitement in watching soccer than in watching basketball VIBE:Soccer has more vibe than basketball because there are way more people in a soccer stadium than in a basketball arena.Most teams,club level or national level have their own songs,which they sing with passion during the game. PENALTIES,FOULS:as a basketball fan,I am surprised you criticize other sports for having many fouls.THE ENDGAME is one of the most boring part of basketball because the losing teams is always committing fouls,some fouls in the endgame may be more than fouls committed by soccer teams during the second half.