BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God probably doesn't exist.

I must apologise for my slow reply. I felt the need to take a long nap. First, I'm not asking you to prove non-existence, but rather that God probably doesn't exist. There's a difference. The motion requires that you prove God probably doesn't exist, not (as you assume) that I prove God definitely does. Regardless of how illogical defending pixies or fairies may be, you set a motion that required you to defend the probability of God's non-existence. If you think that's not fair, you shouldn't have set up a debate that requires you to do so. Just saying "I can't do it" is not enough to win you the debate (and if it is, then I can do that too, see - I can't do it). How dare you deny the existence of unicorns. Also, burden of proof is not a rule, it's a fact. I gave you strong analysis last round as to why you have the burden of proof. Second, my opponent now abandons his first definition! This is a blatant contradiction which must be penalised! All my opponent has done is rebut his own definition by deleting it. He doesn't even know what God is, so he doesn't know what he's arguing against. However, I will continue to prove God anyway. To work out what God is, let's assume God did exist first. We're not trying to grapple with existence or non-existence here, but simply working out what God means. Would God, if God existed, be the "creator and ruler of the universe"? Yes. Would God be the "source of all moral authority"? Yes. If God doesn't exist, on the other hand, what is God? God is a construct that does all of the above, existing only as a figment of some people's imagination. I'm sure my opponent won't disagree with that. In other words, God is an imaginary source of all moral authority, as the imaginary creator and ruler of universe. So we're left with:God = The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (who may or may not be real)As you can see, the definition is the same as yours, except for a little bit I added at the end. I'm just emphasizing that I'm not trying to prove whether the definition is true, but rather whether the definition refers to something real. That the definition refers to something real is only proven by the rest of the argument - but you can't prove something is real if you don't know what it is, right? Now let's dump that in to my formulation of Descartes' brilliant reasoning:1. God = The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, who may or may not be real2. Exist = To have actual being3. It is impossible to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and source of all moral authority, yet not be real4. Therefore God must existAh ha! Eureka! Same conclusion! What a miracle!
US Goverment thinks that it is okay to treat civillians Like crap

Case: Definitions: - Government: the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed [*]. - Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized [*]. - Crap: excrement [*]. Resolution: 'US Goverment thinks that it is okay to treat civillians Like crap' - Besides the recurring spelling errors in the resolution, it’s rather illogical to suppose that a system, by which a nation of legally recognised subjects is governed, treats these subjects like excrement, for the simple fact that they clearly are not anything like excrement, which I am sure the voters can confirm from their own experience, without the need to illustrate this with imagery. Rebuttals: I believe that the us and politics in general are getting out of hand. What happened to the leaders that were true leaders and cared about everyone in the US? Why are guns constantly being pointed at us civilians? Why does the US not take care of its own first and other countries later before we end up like those other countries? - Aside from the fact that all Pro’s contentions here are questions & not arguments, they don’t even relate to the resolution whatsoever. Conclusion: - Pro has failed his BOP in showing how the US Government thinks that it is okay to treat civilians Like crap! => Vote Con. Sources: [*] Google Dictionary.
heaven is now

My opponent claims that there is nothing to simulate so there's no simulation, but if what he's saying is true then that means that we don't exist and that heaven doesn't either, thus meaning that this isn't currently heaven. There has been studies and tests done that have shown that if something like this were to occur in a simulation and such things came of relivence as they found that this can actually be a simulation. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
heaven is now

In this debate I will be arguing that we are actually Sims and God is just some computer nerd playing this game. Why is Jesus always online. It's because he's playing Sims and spying on the terrorists for the NSA. He is keeping up safe. Do you ever wounder why Jesus doesn't answer your prayers directly? It's because God has to go through his emalis and decide what to do with them. Sometimes he deletes them all and then he some accepts. Up next, .... wait...what was I doing here again? Have you ever walked into a room and forgot what you were doing? It's God deleting your actions and making you forget everything to where you question many things. This is also to sadisfy his sense of hummor which it is hard to satisfy a God so this is why he does this a lot. Do you wounder why you can't remember things from age 1 or even birth? It's because some people have a certain memory limit and God has to delete the older memories in order for you to gain new ones. Oh I wish he didn't make me forget I had homework due tonight. You see God has a cruel sense of hummor so many people suffer in this harsh world for it. Like how he had World War 2 happen just so he could tell Jew jokes. You see the Sims: Earth game creators created the Game and the Big Bang was initiated by God when he began to download the game to his PC. This game (Sims: Earth) is much to that of Empire.goodgamestudios.com where the game system in in real time. It's also much like Civilization Revoloution where buildings can be built, wars are rage, and your nation increases culture. These games encompass Sims: Earth as they are subparts to help describe what it is like here by Playing Sims: Earth. Scientists argue that the universe will end in the case of the Big Crunch which is where the universe will shrink back into one point to prime perhaps for another Big Bang. (http://www.universetoday.com...) This is similar to someone resetting the game which means that God will one day press the reset button and we will eventually return to the current state. We do not know how many times God has played this game, but we do know one thing for sure. God is a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth. We think that our actions and feelings are real, but that's because we don't know that we're being controlled. Just like the government's MK-ULTRA program, but that Disney conspiracy is for another time. You see we are being controlled so we have these "Feelings" but they're not real. For example, in the Matrix they expierence things and taste things in the Matrix, but it's all fake and nothing is real reguardless how much they believe it to be true. The Sims also have emotions too as I will direct you to the photo of their emotions bellow.
heaven is now

My opponent basically ends with concession as nearly all of my points have been dropped by him or he has agreed to a large majority of them. His only argument that he makes last round is that of an extent of the Liar's paradox. Yes they both coexist at the same time while both not exsiting at the same time. This can be seen in the theory of Schrottiner's Cat where you cannot officially know where it is until you look for it as it does exist, but only in a contained field of possibilites. This shows that both the truth and fallacy exist and do not coexist at the same time. With no other points remaining and nothing left to argue I do strongly encourage a vote for Con. Thank you.
heaven is now

Simulations have to exist for us to exist. The reasoning behind this is simply without this simulation we wouldn't be here. God is just some computer nerd playing Sims. We all know how the game Sims works and we also know how cruel you can be in it. It would seem that God would make people intellegent enough in order to understand things and even doubt him. Information can be both mental and informationial. 2+2=4, that's mental math. George Washington was the first President of the United States, that's information that is mental.
The majority of Trump protesters depend on mainstream media for "facts".

Watch any video of Owen Shroyer on The Alex Jones Youtube channel. Example: . Alex Shroyer not only proves my point, but also shows how media treats you when you don't agree with what they represent. It's not only Trump protesters that he interviews but other marches as well. Also when Kanye West went to the White House to meet Donald Trump and show his support for him, mainstream media grabbed him by the balls and turned him into some evil villain. This is an example of mainstream media and fake news brainwashing people.
Abortion should be allowed with rape victims and the poor.

As i apologize to my opponent for forfeiting many rounds. I have a very busy schedule. Next time i will make sure i am honest about debating about a specific time. I want to abortion to be allowed with rape victims because, I am certain they would not want to raise a child who's father has forced them to have sexual intercourse. I also think abortion should be allowed with the poor. Since they do not have enough funds to raise their child properly. While there are many things that can influence the mental health of an individual, either through genetics, events or social life, the environment in which people live in can have one of the greatest, lasting effects on a person for the rest of their life. Adults and children alike are affected by the living conditions in which they are living, though possibly in different ways. Adults are often affected by the stress of their financial situation and not being able to provide for their families, why the children are sometimes affected by their poor living conditions in how they develop mentally. Poor living conditions affect everyone living in them, old and young. Children, however, are going to be affected in a different way than the parents are, though the way the parents handle the situation can have a large affect on how the children will react and learn from it. Children are impressionable until they reach a certain age and become the adults in society who have their values and ideals sorted out for themselves. Of course, what children learn comes from where they grew up. They learn how to act and behave from their parents, from the older kids in the area in which they grow up and from how other adults behave and view their neighborhood. When children grow up in a house that is falling apart in a relatively poor part of town, they will often develop different mentally than the children who grow up in a decent house in a good part of town. Crime in the poorer neighborhoods and the harsh life that the children grow up in, as well as with the possible constant conflicts in the house from the stress of the adults' situation, will directly impact on how the child develops mentally. Children who grow up on poor living conditions will often have difficulty with depression later on in life. They will sometimes have difficulty in developing a decent social life and can have a distorted view of how they should live their lives. Depression, however, is the typical result of growing up in a house where the parents fought, where the neighborhood was affected by high crime rates and where the schools may have had an overall atmosphere that was more negative than positive. The child would not even have an education growing up!
Abortion should be allowed with rape victims and the poor.

I accept! But I refuse to argue immediately.Please tell me WHY you think abortion should be allowed with rape victims and the poor, since you are the instigator.Define:"the poor" (to what degree and conditioning?)"rape victims" (is there a distinction from victims and targets?)"abortion" (under what conditionings and application of terms?)"allowed" (under what terms/authority?)I am bad at debating, so I need you to be very aggressive throughout this.If you neglect the above, I don't know what I'm going to do but I will do something.
Abortion should be allowed with rape victims and the poor.

Oh, now you want to argue? I guess after all those forfeits, I'm supposed to just argue you and say. "yer arguments is blah blah blah!!!"You left me, like a DUST PUPPY IN THE WIND!And you expect me to debate you? >:(What kind of mad savagery is this?Babe, I'm over you. And you know what, for once I'm actually HAPPY in a debationship with someone who truly cares.Talk to the hand if yah don't understand.
PETA IS NOT an ethical group

I would like to note that the BoP lies entirely on Pro throughout the debate. DefinitionsPETA - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, and led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international president." [1]Ethical - "relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these." [2] ArgumentsPETA directly or indirectly promotes at least some form of morality. It is, at the very least, related to morality, and, thus, moral principles. [3] Therefore, as "ethical" means *related* to morality, PETA is related to morality, and, thus, is an ethical group.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. Google ("define ethical")3. Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. p. 161.
PETA IS NOT an ethical group

Hey, whomever my worthy opponent shalt be (Sorry, had to say that). Basically, this is a debate of PeTA. First round acceptance. Rules: No swearing (unless quoting). No personal attacks. Due to the topic of this debate, ora Information can be from any source (but there must be a link provided, or a book name, or whatnot). Pro means that you believe PETA is not an ethical organization, Con means you believe PETA is an ethical organization. Good luck!
Thett/ bossy Tournament R1 (ASOIAF) R + L = J is most likely the correct theory.

This is Round One for Thett and bossy (shabshoral)'s tournament. . http://www.debate.org...ASOIAF= A Song Of Ice And FireR + L = J Theory = The popular theory that Jon Snow's Parent's are Rhaegar Targaryen, and Lyanna Stark. GOT= Game Of ThronesThis debate is a fan theory debate about a fictional world known to msot as the "Game Of Thrones". The book series is known as ASOIAF. Both debaters should be encouraged to follow logic from the book series, as opposed to the show. Even though most important details in the story and the book are closely related, there are also vast differences in the story lines in several spots throughout the show. While these differences may not effect the debate, It is easier and more clerical for both debater's to stick to the original source for any information. While I as pro have the burden to prove my theory correct to the best of my ability, I think it should be encouraged that Con counters this theory with another more logical theory, or shows substantial holes in Pro's theory. This is because this is a nothing more than a theory, and certain evidences lead up to person's gaining these theories, but these evidences aren't inherent proofs, thus why they are called a theory to begin with. Neither Thett3, nor bossy, set up clear definitive rules in their thread, so I am posing this debate as a 4 round debate, with the first round for acceptance. Character limit is 10,000, though hopefully all of that won't need to be used in each round for the sake of our readers. Voting period will last two weeks, which should give us ample time to advertise the debate and open it up to voting. 72 Hour argue time, should give both debaters plenty of time to respond. My opponent is encouraged to let me know of any issues with the things stated in round one prior to accepting this debate. I will begin the debate in Round One after my opponent accepts.
Islam is not a religion of peace

Conclusion: - I have established throughout this debate that Islam teaches equality among mankind, essential human dignity, brotherhood among Muslims, tolerance with non-Muslims, fairness & kindness to those peaceful amongst them, justice & patience with those hostile. It teaches Peace as an objective, an objective sometimes achieved through means of self-defence against oppression. It teaches mercy to all creatures, Man & Nature alike. I have brought verses from the Qur’an & sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) as basis for these teachings, & supported them with referencing authentic interpretations, from authoritative sources. => Therefore, Islam does indeed promote Peace, as it seeks, in all instances, a state of freedom from injustice or oppression, for all creatures, human or otherwise, Muslim or otherwise. Thus, Pro’s resolution is refuted. - I have equally demonstrated that Pro’s objections are invalid, for they are based on completely unauthentic interpretations, mischaracterisation or exclusion of all contexts, bare assertions… & brought proof from scripture & authentic interpretation contradicting Pro’s own claims. While Pro has not provided any sources whatsoever for all the claims he made! Nor did he refute any of the arguments I advanced! => Therefore, Pro’s case does not fulfil his burden of proof, which he solely bear. For this reason alone, I win the resolution. => Vote Con. Sources: - Rectifying a misplaced linked: [8] http://goo.gl...
Islam is not a religion of peace

if Islam says there is a freedom of choice then why doe's it say in the qur'an 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. then what you just said is a contradiction because if I have a freedom of choice why should I be fighting people who says I should believe in allah If everyone is equal like the tooth of a comb as you claim then why are women worth less than men Qur'an 4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them." You say the brotherhood show kindness to one and other but if islam is a religion of peace why isn't it saying treat everyone this way. instead it says Qur'an 5:51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. And you carry on saying about protecting yourself in times of invasion but you're allowed to invade other people for not having the same beliefs Qur'an 9:29 by the way freedom is for everyone not just Muslims. I'm running out of time so this is all for me for round 3 P'S What do you think freedom means if I'm wrong
Islam is not a religion of peace

Firstly lets start of by saying what is peace (peace means no disturbance from war and argument and have the freedom of choice) and if the qur'an is a religion it would not promote murder to innocent people so far I hope we are on the same track and Islam means submission to Allah example Qur'an 33:36 It's not It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. But in Islam nobody gets a freedom of choice they have to obey all of Allah's teachings or else they die even if they don't believe I him for example Qur'an 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. another reference Qur'an 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. be harsh to people who don't believe in Islam. It gives permission to fight anyone they want even if they are innocent. Qur'an 2:216 Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. And more punishment towards unbelievers in islam . Qur'an 8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." which mean chop the heads of non-believers. And there are many more so I await your response
This is Debate 6666.

First off, I must point out that making this debate 6666 would still make this debate 6666, even if nefarious ways were used. Secondly, my opponent should know that this never was debate 6664. . http://www.debate.org... Debate 6664 was is a challenge to my opponent. That's right there's a debate 6664 and my opponent is the Challenge-ee! My opponent is spreading vile lies that he knows to be categorically false. How dare he? !? He knows that this is debate 6666 and the fact that this is debate 6666 is totally awesome but he tries to distract you with lies and half truth. Do not be distracted. Keep the coolness of this event in mind. To do so I have added some cool videos to allow you to focus on the cool. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
This is Debate 6666.

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has pulled a reprehensible action. My opponent has HACKED into this website. How do you think he knew he'd get the 6666th debate? There is no way he could have know thatt. It is completely beyond reason. Fortunately, I knew this would occur and screenshotted the page before his hacking was successful. As you can see here:. http://www.debate.org... This is actually the 6664th debate on this website. Don't be fooled by his tricks.
This is Debate 6666.

Click this link: http://www.debate.org... You'll note that that's debate.org, debate, 6666... It takes you right back here because this is debate 6666. It's four sixes in a row! I posted this without the ability to know if the debate number was taken or if something would cause it to miss it's mark or do something odd. That's awesome it's like the number of the beast with an additional six. It's the number of the superbeast or something. Look at the address bar. 6666! I made a debate called "This is Debate 6666" with debate 6666. That's awesome. It's like watching your cars odometer flip over to 100,000 or going through New Year's day 2000! It's cool. You know it's awesome but because you're Con you're just going to poopoo the notion. The voters won't be fooled!