BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The days in Genesis are literal days

Hes begging for votes guys by crying wolf. He has no argument of course. I made a statement of fact. I don't think people who think the Universe is 6000-8000 years old are intelligent. I don't tell him he has to believe that way. If a guy believed a rock was really an Animal I would also assume that belief to be unintelligent. He has no argument. He has griped about this and that but in truth, I am a Chess Master and hes plying Checkers on this argument. And I truly am a Chess Master of sorts. Don't be so offended by general statements sir. I was going to debate you on other things, but you are crying so much I don't know now. Going to get my umbrella.
The days in Genesis are literal days

That settles it, you are showing bad conduct by using a ad hominem attack, saying that one who believes the earth to be 6000-8000 years old is unintelligent. Voters, take note. I do have an argument, did you read my last post? If we choose to believe the days in Genesis are figurative, we also choose to ignore the multiple problems highlighted in my last argument. In addition, you have not "destroyed my argument", because you offered no rebuttals, and no strong arguments of your own. Also, you cited no sources. Voters, what do you think?
God of The Christian Bible Made the Planet Earth

My opponent's arguments are, "God made all Genesis 1:1 in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth." Let's break this up, "God made all" this is his resolution. "Genesis 1:1 in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth" This is clearly his sources Now as anyone can clearly read my opponent has made no supporting arguments for their resolution and simply used a very biased source. To make this debate more interesting I will supply some arguments. The Earth's Formation: The Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. [1] [1] www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed
God of The Christian Bible Made the Planet Earth

This debate has been inspired by a opinion poll posted just recently. Resolved: God of the Christian Bible Created the Universe and the Planet Earth. This first round is simply for acceptance only. BoP is on Pro to prove their position of "Yes he did I believe that God made the world who made the Big Bang? There has to be a creator of this pretty world God has made.Evolution is fake because who made apes?😆 God made everything but one day he will destroy this sinful world and make everything better with no more pain,sickness,sorrow or death or fear it will be amazing and wonderful praise God he will make a new earth and Heaven. Amen." [http://www.debate.org...]
The Bible is not the word of God

1. We did not want to have sins, Adam and Eve made us have it and then Jeus helped us get ride of it every Christmas. 2.God's rule is fair. 3.God does not kill.The devil does. 4.God does not lie. God kills people for a good reason. 5. God=good,Devil=bad , you=worst. 6. Since I answered my opponents question, the Bible is the words of god.
The Bible is not the word of God

This debate is not about the existence of a higher being or what religion is true. It is only a debate on whether or not the Bible is the word of God. I contend that it is not so I am pro for it "not being the word of God." I would like to say that the Bible has so many problems in it and the God that is represented in it is so evil, you would really not want him as your next door neighbor, much less the object of your eternal affection but will focus on one issue. 1. The Old Testament (OT) God gave laws to mankind that were a code of morality but he himself broke them as in murdering scores of innocent people and punishing children for the sins of their fathers while saying he would not do that and commanding man not to do that. After showing proof of this and debating with other Christians who admitted it was true, the consensus of Christians that I have spoken with was that God did not have to keep them because he is God. He can do what he wants and nothing he could possibly do is wrong. The God of the Bible calls himself a perfect, righteous and holy God and claims to be without sin. This was the whole key to him supposedly becoming a man in Jesus in order to die for mankind's sins. However, the Christians argument that God can do "whatever he wants" like lying or killing as in several cases like: Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. or more seriously; God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21) For starters, the Bible states very specifically what a sin is: "sin is transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). Now, keep that in mind while law is defined. The law of God is simply the rights and wrongs that God gave to the people. It is not just the 10 commandments but all the laws of right and wrong in the Bible, over 600 of them. Since it has been established that sin is the breaking of any of these laws, then lying and killing innocent people is definitely breaking a couple of those laws. All one has to do is read the OT and see that God killed numerous innocent people, children, babies and babies inside of mother's not yet born in addition to the lies and other sins. This makes God a sinner by his own definition of sin (if he inspired the Bible). How can a sinning God become a man to die for you when he was not without sin himself? I will not even touch on the sins Jesus committed for the sake of space. To sum up: 1. Sin is breaking the law 2. God's law are the rules of right and wrong 3. Lying and killing innocent people are forbidden rules in God's law 4. God lied and killed innocent people beyond doubt 5. This makes God a sinner and unable to die for your sins and takes precedence over the idea that God can do what he wants because he is God. 6. Since 1-5 are true, the simplest conclusion is that the Bible is not the word of God.
God exits

Vive le Juif errant wow this is really stupid. pro is trying to look all smart and intellect when his argument is really just a bunch of BS. modality ontological argument the ontolgoical argument is pretty stupid, almost all philoshers agree on this point. no one even takes it sersiously anymore. for isntance here is a quote from dawkins: the ontolgical argument is "dialectical prestidigitation" meaning its compete horse-crap. but i will refute it anyway. "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world" no this is just another example of chrsitians trying to be scientists. no this is not even how this works. many worlds happen because of the multiverse but the multiverse isnt even in philosphy. just because a multiverse exists doesnt mean god exists in one of them that is pretty stupid. i mean here is a quot. "Gods are no more likely to exist in any Universe than a planet of dancing dogs quoting Shakespeare." http://answers.yahoo.com... so the problem is that god probably doest even exist in any multiverse....... my philosophical argument you say that i cant even say tht something can create while not existing well i say it can. for example we know that a vacum can create a quantum particle. we know this because of science. if science didnt say that then maybe you would have a point but phsyics have come far far far past what you are saying. for instance here is a quote. "For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval." http://en.wikipedia.org... so you can create while not existing. its stupid to say otherwise, you are just being ignorant of science. for example creationists often ignore science like evolution just to ay that god creatied eveyrhting. well he didnt and they should just shut up. what is more likely is that god didnt exist and create everything. more likely. i hope pro will not be as retarded in the next round with a crap ontolgoical arugment.
God exits

i found a new argument that porves god doesnt exist although i think we all know that by now we should be beyond worshipping some invisible sky fairy but some religious people insits on doing so anyway so this new philosophicle proof shows beyond a doubt god is not real 1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 2/ The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. 4. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing. 5. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist. 6. (Hence) God does not exist. http://plato.stanford.edu... any rational person can se e that this is true...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

The $1.6B is an isolated datum [7] cherrypicked [8] from a budget of $25B and a population of 10M [9], blaming immigrants for economic problems [10][15], assuming immigrants cost more than they contribute because they're immigrants [11], and ignoring their economic participation [12][17], all to disprove social research that shows their stereotypes are myths [3] that manipulate emotion to influence politics [13][14]. Inmates are 0.7% of the populace [15] that we struggle to use [16] - compare with Latino workers [17] who spend their cash [2]. A walking immigrant can't carry $40,000 in drugs, and though you can't see how it works [18], drugs don't shoot people! 7. https://t.co... 8. https://t.co... 9. http://t.co... 10. https://t.co... 11. https://t.co... 12. http://t.co... 13. https://t.co... 14. http://t.co... 15. http://t.co... 16. http://t.co... 17. http://t.co... 18. https://t.co...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

Con has not provided even the most remote source to show that the entire illegal immigrant population works or that if they didn't have the welfare money, would stop working. Con has also provided no source as to show how the LA county officials cherry-picked their numbers. Illegal inmates are not the only ones that can preform tedious, back-breaking agricultural jobs. You could get prison inmates to do the same labor and the same efficiency, only difference is, you hired an American citizen. Not an immigrant. As I showed in my [3] not all illegal aliens are here to work. They do break the law. Frequently, in the example of Wake county. Also, the immigrants crossing the border can be used as pawns by cartels to smuggle their drugs across the border [5]. I don't see how your definition of harmless really works here. 5.http://www.usatoday.com...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

If you were to take away 7% of expenditures invested in 35% of a population by getting rid of that entire sample of the population, you lose 35% of the workforce. The LA officials cherrypicked their numbers to falsely demonstrate that the hispanic workforce was dragging the city down - is that not evidence of bias against immigrants?There are far less drug runners than immigrants, and immigrants provide a workforce with economic benefts that Pro has neglected to address. We import more than we export, which basically means our wealth is leaking into other nations, and that will not end until we produce more at lower costs. By paying immigrants to perform this labor, we stand to reabsorb our purchasing power parity, especially if immigrants spend the money they make on American businesses.Instead of doing that, Pro would have us invest $40,000 per immigrant to keep out the ones that don't trade guns or fire grenade launchers - which is what I meant by the "harmless ones" from [4].
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

Well if you look at it like that, it might not seem so bad. But, let's just assume for the sake of this debate that the 9 closest counties to LA county spend an average of $1 billion in welfare to illegal aliens. If you were to take that money and save it, you'd have enough money to complete the border fence as outlined in my opponents {4} in about 5 years. And that's just from 10 counties in California. And my opponent has shown no evidence to prove that all the LA county officials are bias against immigrants. Again, if you were to take the money being given to people who aren't supposed to be here(1.5% of 11.7 billion[4]=110,700,000 as of 2013) you could keep out an additional 3000 illegal aliens (I rounded up from 2,925) Well, drug smugglers do have access to have access to other means of transportation that your average poverty stricken immigrant doesn't have, simply because the have the money. Even then, there are WAY less drug runners than there are "immigrants". 4.http://m.gpo.gov...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

Pro's second source estimates $1.6 billion in immigrant costs. This appears staggering until one considers LA County's operating budget of $23 billion [5]; placed in proper perspective, immigrants cost under 7% of the operating budget, despite consisting of 36% of the population [6]. The complaining LA officials are evidence of aforementioned [3] political bias against immigrants. Social Security and SSI expenditures (2012) consisted of 22% and 1.5% of the national budget, respectively; SSI recipients are blind, disabled, or over 65, and not a waste of money - as opposed to the border fence plan. My fourth source states that smugglers will use boats to bus through the Gulf of Mexico, reminds us that some of the 9/11 terrorists used the Canadian border to get in, and suggests that druglords can afford to do the same. 5. http://t.co... 6. http://t.co...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

While they may not be able to collect SS benefits, they can collect SSI benefits (Supplemental Social income)[1]. I can't speak much on the topic of M1 currency circulation, the accusations of the aliens draining government budgets and boosting crime are not based in myth. In 2013 alone, an estimated $650,000,000 will be given to illegal aliens in LA county[2]. Duplin County Sheriff Blake Wallace finds that there has been an increase in gang activity in his district for the past few years, and the majority of the perpetrators are illegal aliens[3]. You claim a fence will only filter harmless aliens. How do you know it will only stop "harmless" ones, as the phrase is never used in your {4} ? 1http://www.foxnews.com... 2.http://losangeles.cbslocal.com... 3.http://www.nccivitas.org...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

Undocumented immigrants can contribute to social security, but cannot legally drain anything back from it [1]; they bring much-needed laborers to a nation whose exports consistently struggle to keep up with imports; and their spending circulates M1 currency [2]; but media and politicians accuse them of draining at government budgets, job markets, and even of boosting crime [3] because Americans cannot own up to the mistakes of their own entitlement and debt culture.The Border Fence will cost up to $40,000 per immigrant apprehended, and will only filter the harmless ones [4]. Needless to say, American irresponsibility and denial are getting increasingly expensive as politicians defend their seats with talk of tough anti-immigration measures that are destructive, expensive and inneffective. 1. http://t.co...2. http://t.co...3. http://t.co...4. http://t.co...
This debate is just for fun! Sugar Cookies are better then Chocolate Chip cookies.

I will now address my opponents arguments. "First of all I don't appreciate you contridicting my opinions." If you don't like getting contradicted, this is not the site for you. "By fun I mean that you really don't have to do research or anything like that" Had you explained that in the first round I would not have taken this debate. " I don't care about the rest of this debate because my opponent has completely taken the fun out of everything. So don't even try to rebute okay, you win." MY OPPONENT CONCEDES. She them says I don't have to rebute. This is impossible. Even if I forfeit, debate.org will post a forfeiture rebuttal for me. Now, there are four reasons to vote con. 1. I disproved my opponents one and only argument as to why sugar cookies are better. 2. I have shown clear benefits of chocolate chip cookies. 3. I provided a clear counterexample in which chocolate chip cookies are clearly better. 4. MY OPPONENT CONCEDES.
This debate is just for fun! Sugar Cookies are better then Chocolate Chip cookies.

I will start by adressing my opponents arguments. "This debate is just plain fun." If this debate is just for fun than you would not mind advocating to fellow voters that you do not care about the result and that they should vote for me. You did not define what fun is. I find it fun to have a highly analysis based debate so that is what I will make it. That will be fun just as you wanted it to be. "I believe that between only sugar and chocolate chip cookies, that sugar cookies are better." This is an opinion and doesn't support your stance. LADIES AND GENTLEMAN THE POINT I AM GOING TO MAKE NOW IS RATHER IMPORTANT. MY OPPONENT MUST SHOW THAT IN ALL, I REPEAT, ALL CIRCUSTANCES, SUGAR COOKIES ARE BETTER THAN CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES. SHE IS COMPARING THE TWO TYPES OF COOKIES AND THE ONLY WAY FOR HER TO WIN THE ROUND IS TO PROVE HER ASSUMPTION TRUE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCE. I provide a counterexample. A two year old takes some batter and decides to make sugar cookies. They turn out deformed and bent. On the other hand, a world famous chef creates a award winning batch of chocolate chip cookies. In this case, the chocolate chip cookies would without a doubt be better. Because of this example, I win the round. "This is because sugar cookies can be dipped in milk, and you can put a lot of stuff with them like pretzel crumbs and lots more. With chocolate chip cookies if you did this then it would take away either the taste of the chocolate or the taste of the add-ons." First of all if you dip chocolate chip cookies in milk, they will turn out nice and soft. On the other hand, if you dip sugar cookies in milk, you will get sugary milk. My opponent says that if you put multiple topping in a chocolate chip, it would take away the taste. She then says that you could put multiple toppings on a sugar cookie. This is a clear contradiction and should lead me to have won her one and only argument. Finally, I would like to point out chocolate chip cookies can be made with dark chocolate which has proven healt benefits. On the other hand, sugar cookies made of pur sugar lead to health issues and contribut to obesity. "I'm anxious to see what my contender has to say. Just remember if you accept this debate then just remember you are ONLY stating why chocolate chip cookies are better than sugar cookies. Good luck:)" I have stated why chocolate chip cookies are good and since the resolution is comperative showed why sugar cookies are bad. IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT MY OPPONENT MAKE A COMPERATIVE RESOLUTION AND NOT HAVE ME DEBATE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RESOLUTION. In this round you vote con for three reasons: 1. I disproved my opponents one and only argument as to why sugar cookies are better. 2. I have shown clear benefits of chocolate chip cookies. 3. I provided a clear counterexample in which chocolate chip cookies are clearly better.
This debate is just for fun! Sugar Cookies are better then Chocolate Chip cookies.

This debate is just plain fun. I believe that between only sugar and chocolate chip cookies, that sugar cookies are better. This is because sugar cookies can be dipped in milk, and you can put a lot of stuff with them like pretzel crumbs and lots more. With chocolate chip cookies if you did this then it would take away either the taste of the chocolate or the taste of the add-ons. I'm anxious to see what my contender has to say. Just remember if you accept this debate then just remember you are ONLY stating why chocolate chip cookies are better than sugar cookies. Good luck:)
return home economics to middle and high schools

I lived through a home ec class and the last thing i saw it as was "a great learning experience", it was an outdated class that anyone else would take just to get an easy A. When Home ec originated it was meant to teach people how to sew, how to cook, and how to design the interior of the house, things that are arguably useless. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu... On another note, Home ec's usefulness can be debated but another reason why home ec classes shouldnt be brought back is because school budgets are under enough strain as it is. Adding another elective to classes whose usefulness is under scrutiny would be unwise and a bad move. I would add additional arguments but the Pro only provided a 1000 character cap limit and gave only a single argument to begin with.
The EPA should be abolished

Pro claims that the EPA banned DDT for selfish reasons. Pro also claims that the US ban of DDT has caused the deaths of many people throughout the world. As can be found on the EPA's on website "It is up to individual countries to decide whether or not to use DDT". (http://www2.epa.gov...). Therefore Pro's assertion that the EPA is directly responsible for killing those people is ludicrous. Anyone will basic knowledge of evolution can tell you that using pesticides creates super-bugs. As there was not a 100% decrease in the mosquito population during the time of DDT, we can determine that a number of mosquitoes were unaffected. As a result of this, they breed and pass on their pesticide resistant genes. This was beginning to happen around the world, and the EPA was worried about overuse of DDT to compensate for its ineffectively. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) A link has also been found between Alzheimers and DDT. It takes decades for the human body to rid itself of DDT and it was found that the DDT levels in the group of Alzheimers patients were four times higher than that of the control group. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) DDT has also been labeled by many nations as a "probable human carcinogen", which just in case Pro is not aware, that means it likely causes cancer. Finally, another reason that DDT was banned by the EPA was its impact on the bird population. Earthworms were consuming the pesticide, and in return birds were consuming the worms. This caused a very fast decline in the population of birds because they were all dying from the pesticide. This also became a problem for the food chain. Anything that ate these worm consuming birds became contaminated by it. This lead to complications in the food chain. (https://web.stanford.edu...) I refuse to leave LEDs out of the picture. LEDs are the next generation of light bulb technology, and it would be foolish to deny it a chance at the table. Pro must not want them in the debate because "LEDs will truly take lighting into the 21st Century with lifetimes that are fifty times longer than incandescent bulbs and anticipated energy savings of 95 %" (http://www.eceee.org...). The article also states that "the potential energy savings are 10 billion Euros per year in Europe alone, along with 25 million tonnes of CO2. Globally, these savings are roughly four to five times." Obviously the ban on incandescent bulbs is justified if we have this technology at our fingertips.