BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists who read this must pray to stop being atheists

This will be more sombre than my usual happy-go-lucky debates.Qualifictions"1) He believes that the issue of whether or not God exists has some importance."If a god did exist, I believe I would rank it as the most important fact in the universe. Thus, I consider it of utmost importance that one exists or does not exist."2) He does not believe that the probability of God's existence is negligible."This one is debatable for me, and hinges entirely on the definition of "negligible". I don't place a high probability on the idea, but I also do not consider it impossible. I cede that the universe has room for a god, I simply do not see one."3) He does not have a good reason to believe that such prayer might lead to a "false positive.""I presume this question this question is related to mental health. I nor my family have any history of seeing or hearing things that aren't there. That said, ANY sensory input may be a false positive, and evidence of this magnitude would have to be repeatable both my myself and others to prove that it's not merely some problem in my head. This is equally true of all claims of any real importance I could present evidence for.PrayerAlthough this may draw flak from my fellow atheists, I actually do this on a rather regular basis. Prayer being nothing more than directed thought, I can remember at least 3 occasions in the past year alone where I thought, "God, if I'm wrong, show me how ; Prove me wrong.", and many, MANY more occasions during my conversion from theism where I prayed the same thing.In fact, I've actually taken this mentality one step deeper than even directed thought or prayer, and internalized the idea of "If I'm wrong, I want to stop being wrong". I actively enjoy being proven wrong in debates and casual conversation - It means that I've successfully destroyed an incorrect belief that I used to have. It's among the strongest core values I have, if not THE strongest core value.ConversionMy opponent's stated goal in getting me to pray was to convert me from my atheism. I can say without contradiction that I very strongly desire this: Being wrong about a deity would be among the biggest corrections of an incorrect belief I can easily imagine, and would be a wonderful learning experience; A deity usually carries with it a chance at eternal life, and who wants to die? A deity would be a fascinating new avenue to study, and to learn. It might even have a predictive power, allowing me to make educated guesses about the nature of the universe. A personal deity might open up the pathway to the most fulfilling relationship imaginable. Despite my good faith efforts at prayer and sincere desire for it, my conversion has yet to happen.I doubt that my story is unique for the very reasons listed above - Most atheists converted to atheism because they didn't want to be wrong about something so important, and because of that I can't imagine the numbers of trial prayers to be statistically insignificant.ConclusionI prayed, and nothing happened. Whether you believe in a deity or not, this refutes my opponent's point.Vote Con. But vote Con with a touch of sorrow.-Dirk
The God Program

I'm sorry for what your parents did to you. It's never good for a parent to force their own child into believing something they might no want. But I'm sure your parents did that out of love. They probably wanted you to feel the same experience that most Christians have. But I must tell you, we follow religion not because of facts. We follow religion with our hearts. With our feeling and thoughts. And there is indeed a lot of evidence that backs religion up again. I'd like to accept your debate. And before you instantly go on, I must tell you: I'm a Protestant-Christian; Seventh Day Adventist. I believe in God and Jesus but there are a few things in the bible that we take differently. I wish you goodluck.
The God Program

As a child growing up I never really had a genuine belief in any god because I never have had any experiences with a particular diety such as meeting one and establishing genuine relationships only religious sermons and reports in religious texts which were all just rumors that have been spread for ages. For example my parents of course were and still are Christians to this day. They made me go to church and I had to have a discussion with them on what I learned from the church pastors at home after services were over and they made me read the Holy Bible from time to time. I would afterwards have to write an essay to my father and have a discussion with parents on what I learned. They made me do the whole nine yards as a Christian because they just thought it was for my own good because they didn't want me to grow up a "lost soul". In all honesty I couldn't really get into "the spirit" of the religion or it's major god but I wanted to but subconsciously never could get myself to "have the faith" that many people on this world have. I had no problem at all with my good parents the problem I was having was a "lack of faith" in this diety whose known by some religious followers as "The Ruler of Heaven" I wanted this god into my life but I was in denial that this may all be a belief system built on deception. I say this because this god obviously didn't want me or is just another fake on the avenue just like "Santa Claus" or "Tinker Bell" for example. How can most religious people continue to follow religion as a whole that gives praise and servitude to a god who they claim created the Universe or all of Humanity or is all good and loving and merciful or is all this and all that when the world's top scientists could not find any evidence to back up all the claims of these religionists when it's nothing but rumors passed down throughtout the ages? Why continue believing something that may or may not be true? Why continue having faith in a diety or dieties or religious texts and this goes for all religions and the religionists when there is no proof backing up their belief system? I would like to debate a religionist of all sorts of any path and I want genuine evidence supporting their belief system and reasons for why they practice their particular faith.
The God Program

So many people at this time my friend are being hit by a cosmic two by four. More than ever before folks are being made aware of their connection to their Higher Power, bringing about major fears on the human level. People will be drawn in droves to follow other peoples' teachings. Spiritual laws are set in stone; however, the truth can be found only through self, within self, as each person is on a different spiritual path. The true guidance can only be connected through love and peace! Surrender to that power, as it will lead you to the beautiful human being that you are, through a truly mystical experience.
The God Program

Well, you're right on most of that. Like you know, there are two versions of the bible, the New Testament and the Old Testament. The Old Testament indeed describes God as an angry scary spirit, and the new testament describes god as the all loving spirit. Although as the name Old Testament says, most things in there are written for the times B.C, such as a few of the rules in Exodus and Leviticus. ( Most people think that these parts are the worst, so I'll tell more about it ) You must know that in Exodus & Leviticus god freed people who were enslaved for +- 400 years. They had no manners, they had no idea how to take care of their self and more. So god had to make them perfect, because they were the start of a new generation. Although the Hebrews wouldn't just do things if someone asked kindly. To make sure that they would be perfect, god had to scare them so they'd follow his rules and become the folk we are today. Although, a lot of Christians think that the New Testament has some flaws here and there. Myself, as an Adventist actually disagrees with the hell. We think it was written by an anti-christ who wanted to use Religion as a way to earn money, because the concept of hell doesn't seem right for us. "Believe in god or burn eternally in hell.". It's like there is no Free Will in there. Even though there are a lot of branches in Christianity, God loves you for the person who you are. On the end of days, he won't judge you for which Religion you chose but for the connection you had with God. So if you think he's scary in some parts of the bible, God usually did it for a brighter future. :)
The God Program

As far as I'm concerned if of course the Creator of the Universe is out there I don't think we would have freewill on some levels of our lives he is incomprehensible and a spirit of unimaginable power and monstrosity and does as he pleases because he's the Greatest God that decrees and orders others(all) even controls also those that don't like him very much. But as far as I'm concerned this is justifable but only on a spiritual/religious level as I don't really like hearing about him because I believe at least the biblical verson of him is quite scary and contradictory to what my grandmother has taught me about him which is quite peaceful and really like a loving fatherly figure around who loves their children no matter what and who seems all loving and all merciful and without favoritism this God I'd serve willingly and without fear. I have no problem at all doing good things for other people as that is my duty and the only way I do actually feel good. Other then that I feel if of course there is a God I would only support them if they weren't like the biblical Jehovah or the other scary gods of other religions as I couldn't serve a jerk willingly and without fear and who shows hatred for some and favoritism for others I would put up the "flight or fight" response and would wish I never knew them.
The God Program

Well, God doesn't reveal himself for one reason only: Free will. God gave us free will so we are the people to decide to follow him with your whole life or to put god aside and live your own life. If God just showed himself or wrote in fiery letters "God loves you." in the sky, everybody would believe in him because there is evidence. Maybe because they do love him, or maybe because of fear because he can do everything he wants. But the people wouldn't have a choice, because you would be crazy not to believe in him because he's there. God wants an earth where there are people because they love him, not because they're scared or because they want the eternal life. That's why we (2 Corinthians 5:7) live by faith, not by sight. We have free will. And you're completely right. It's hard to have faith. But you must remember: Religion doesn't force you to do things. Just like the ten commandments. If you love god and if you wish to live with him for the rest of your life, follow the ten commandments. Six of them are how to treat your fellow humans right because (Mark 12:31) we love our neighbour as much as our self. We always think about the ones around us. We would give our own life for people we don't know because we love them. And the other four is how to treat god right. But if you wish to lead your own life, you don't have to follow the ten commandments. You aren't forced to follow the commandments. It is your own choice. And if you believe in god and on the end of your life you see that god doesn't exist. You've had a great life, because you made the life of others great. The only thing you couldn't have done is steal or kill someone and a few other things. It's not that bad. Because if you see on the end of your life that god does exist you can live with the one you love the most. The only way to keep faith is to listen to yourself. You're the one who is deciding how your live goes. Don't let any Scientist or Priest or your parents change your minds. Listen to yourself. Don't you have this warm feeling inside you who soothes you when you're sad. Or this exciting warm loving feeling when you think about god? God does these kind of things to keep your faith strong. But beware. There are a lot of branches of Christianity in the world. There are a few that literally try to brainwash you and there are a few good ones in there. Just look at every branch there is. Find one who suits you and seems natural to you, and I can assure you that whatever you choose. You'll be happy. And that is what counts. You won't succeed life if you make the right choice. You will succeed your life when you're truly happy whether to believe in god, or not to believe in him. It's good if people help you. But don't let anyone change your mind, because you're the one who decides how your life goes.
The God Program

That's what I don't understand how most religious followers just willingly choose to follow a religion with "their hearts and thoughts" How do you and most religious followers able to just "have the faith"? I have tried literally my whole life too and my friend it's only led to disappointments for me. I have spent my whole life searching for facts with "No Enlightment" only misleading information in the real and virtual world. I even have gone insane after not only losing complete faith in Christianity but another religion also I tried so hard to follow and as best as I could only to have ended up nowhere but a dead-end. I lost complete and absolute faith on a fully conscious level. I tried conforming and I tried hard but I still failed. Maybe if there is a Creator diety like the Creator of the Universe for instance, why is he not revealing himself to us all? How will we ever know all the answers to life's mysteries if the one's running our religious institutions on the real and virtual world continue to shove lies propaganda and scare tactics down our throats?
We should be vegetarian

I believe ANIMALS ARE NOT TO BE KILLED FOR HUMANS. My first point is that we shouldn't eat animals because obviously they are slaughtered unfairly. Millions of INNOCENT animals get tortured and slaughtered every year just for humans. Some are even skinned alive. Would you eat a dog or cat?? Well whats the difference? And if you think they are killed humanely.. Think again. http://www.youtube.com...
Dragons Are Real

Yes, Dracorex is a real creature. But you cannot call any animal with an irregular bony skull a dragon. My opponent then makes a list of creatures with amazing abilities. This is not evidence for the existence of dragons. Most of these animals (except the eel) eject a liquid from their body. Nothing more. Not to be vulgar, but I too, can eject liquid out of my body. I see your point, BUT there is an enormous difference between ejecting dangerous liquids and making/ejecting flame or smoke. How does my opponent suppose that an animal could produce it in the first place? Then how would its body survive the temperature without being seriously hurt? My opponent brings up the point that previously unknown chambers have been found in the skulls of dinosaurs. There is no evidence of the existence of an organ that could produce smoke/flame in these animals. In fact, my opponent's source says that these chambers "helped dinosaurs breathe, communicate, and hunt.The extra room may even have paved the way for flight in some species." http://news.nationalgeographic.com... My opponent finally brings up multiple quotes that describe a "dragon". I would like to note that we established the definition of a dragon: "any dinosaur that could emit smoke from it's mouth or nostrils. This may or may not include pterosaurs." Keeping that in mind, no where in any of the three quotes does it mention smoke or flame being ejected. It merely describes the looks and sizes of a reptilian. I await my opponent's response.
Dragons Are Real

I will be arguing that it is plausible that dragons once lived on earth with humans.By dragon, I mean any dinosaur that could emit smoke from it's mouth or nostrils. This may or may not include pterosaurs.I will not be scientifically proving the resolution; this is impossible, as science is observable and nobody can go back in time to observe whether or not dragons once roamed the earth. I will, however, be showing it to be plausible.First round is for acceptance only. Use comment section for clarification of terms.
Feminism is morally good

I'm sorry, I expressed myself wrong. I didn't mean you deliberately took my debate out of context by relating morality to abortion. What I wanted to say is that feminism doesn't necessarily defend abortion. While it is true that many feminists support abortion as a form of female right, there are many feminist pro-life organizations. In fact, the first feminists were totally against abortion. I myself was prepared for a debate on the morality of feminism, not abortion. Since you are not debating against equal rights (the basis for feminism), but against abortion, I feel the debate as I proposed it is no longer possible. This is why I am deciding to drop the debate.
Feminism is morally good

I will begin by stating that feminism does not necessarily include abortion among it's principles. Refer, for example, to the Feminists for Life NGO [1]. I was aiming for a debate focused on gender equality and civil rights, not on the particular issue of abortion, so I no longer see a chance for a debate to develop here.Personally, I am in favor of abortion in very particular cases, but I am not ready to debate it under the simple "abortion is morally good" premise. I would gladly debate you on abortion, but a totally different set of considerations has to be adopted forehand.I recommend to drop this debate and I ask voters to declare a tie; the reason being that my debate was taken out of context into something I was not intending to debate.[1] http://www.feministsforlife.org...
Feminism is morally good

Understand feminism as a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women and morality as the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Under this context, I will be arguing pro, which means I defend the case of feminism being morally good, as opposed to any ideology that enters in direct conflict with feminism.
should people be aloud to have guns

I believe people should be allowed to legally own guns, because they are protected under the 2nd amendment. But NOT ALL people should have guns, some people are unable to own guns or handle one properly because they may have some mental illness that causes them not to act nor think straight. I mean, what about criminals? Is it okay for them to have easy access to guns, and buy when or whatever they want? That isn't using common sense. More than likely, if a felon gets a gun, he will commit crimes. He will have more easy access to buy guns, because everybody will be able to purchase one. What if you had a mentally ill person go off into a shooting spree and killed many innocent people? That's not right. Not everybody should own guns.
Random events occur in reality.

Pro’s (Sargon) argument is that random events occur in reality Con’s (Me) argument is that random events do not occur in reality. I would like to set some rules however to prevent an abuse of this debate.1. No trolling 2. No profanity3. If someone forfeits a round, the opponent must say, “Arguments extended” 4. Any unnecessary videos or comments not pertaining to the debate at the end of this debate will be counted as a loss of conduct points 5. Arguments are not allowed in another language6. If any part of an argument is copied word for word or very close to it from another debate or Forum, that round will be counted as a forfeit7. Semantics are allowed8. An excessive use of sources, such as 20 sources per round, is not allowed. This will result in a loss of conduct points9. Grammar errors in this debate are up to the voter’s decision and may not be commented upon by the opponent; however, the opponent may take an advantage based off the opponent’s grammar mistakes if such mistakes exist. Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4 - Ending (Just say vote for con or vote for pro) I hope that we have a fair and fun debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Random events occur in reality.

AveThe resolution of this debate states that "Random events occur in reality". A random event will be defined as a thing that happens at a time, T, which cannot be fully explained by causal conditions, C, at some other time T'. The phrase "occur in reality" simply means that random events actually happen ontologically.The first round is for acceptance. The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case with a preponderance of the evidence (in other words, a majority of the evidence is on your side).Vale
trinity['s concept] exists in the bible

Hello everybody. I am going to start a new debate, about trinity.. triune god [of christians].The doctrine or concept of the Trinity is central to most Christian denominations and faith groups, although not all.DEFINITION:trinity: 1. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also calledTrine. http://bit.ly...2. according to this definition of wikipedia, trinity is composed of the father, the son and the holy spirit. [if this picture is too small to be seen, you may visit this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org...]and according to the same definition, the father is god, the son is also god and the spirit is also god. [seen from picture]url adress:http://bit.ly...considering the definition given by wikipedia, I can say that: 3 of that 3 are god.for debate, I will ask my opponent to show us that the trinity or its concept exists in the bible. I ask him/her to show us verse[s] or references from the bible. PRO needs to show us verses/reference from the bible that: talks about the godness of the father. talks about the godness of the son. talks about the godness of the hole spirit. RULES:1. anybody can accept this debate but it would be better if my opponent is a christian who believes in triune god exists in the bible.2. forfeits are allowed, if one side forfeits he may answer on next round.3. when my opponent, PRO sets his arguements, number of arguements presented in one round must NOT be more than 5 so that I will have no character insufficiency. [if opponent violates this rule, I ask voters to keep it in mind.]4. no defamation, insulting or personal attack. [if any of us violates this, I ask voters to penalise him/her]5. since PRO will talk after me, he does not have to present new arguement[s] in th elast round.5 rounds, 8000 character. we have 72 hours to argue.no need to waste round for acceptance, PRO may start from first round. btw, I hope I didnot forget any rule or smth to write.bonus: there are so many rumours that "the quran permits/commands muslims to kill innocent people of nonmuslims". as a person who read the quran and not muslim, I can say that quran doesnot. if anybody wants to debate this, he may challenge, I will accept it.
Debate.org is Useless in the Idea That it Changes People's Opinions

It is a commonly held opinion by many non-debaters that they 'lack an opinion' on matters. DDO is a beautifully well constructed mechanism of enabling people to change their opinion of how strongly they held their opinion in the first place. IT often changes the neutral average Joe into a Neo-Nazi (Anti-Atheist for example) in the blink of an eye.While it might not change one's opinion (It didn't change my passionate sexual infatuation with socialism and all socialists of history oh Marxy babe xoxo) it inevitably will make one change their opinion of how STRONGLY they held that view.