BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God of the Bible Exist

Your proof of God relies solely on the bible. Rebuttal: The debate is based on the Bible as the source for our arguments. The Bible is not the only proof for the God of the Bible. Ancient documents exist like the writings of the Church Fathers; Hebrew families relating their tradition that recounts how their ancestors have seen God on feasts days (witness testimony), inscriptions, archaeology and so on. How do you know that the bible is based on fact and not myth? Rebuttal: To answer that question is not part o the debate. But I will give one reason for the authenticity of the NT. The writers claimed Jesus was God at risk of being killed by the Romans and Jews. They did not get money, fame or a 7 week vacation to Hawaii for their testimony. They were beaten, tortured and killed. It is very very very unlikely that someone, and in this case thousands of people, will die for a lie. Based on that testimony, I am convinced it is not a myth but a true witness account. Are you willing to die for the flying spaghetti monster? Especially as the bible of today would bear no resemblance to a text written thousands of years ago. Rebuttal: It actually does. Let me give you one example. Polycarp was a disciple of John. He was around before 100AD. This is a quote from the KJV today and from one of his epistles where he refers to the same verse. KJV 1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: Polycarp "But the love of money is the root of all evils. " - The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus Take note that the 2 verses are almost 2000 years apart and still the same. Rebuttal: Today's bible is a corruption of a corruption of a corruption etc. etc. Just one huge "Chinese Whisper". There are 20000+ quotations from the early Church Fathers that still reads like the Bible we read today. It is only fair now that you prove your "Chinese whisper". To prove God exists, you must first prove the authenticity of your bible. Rebuttal: What will be evidence for you as to the authenticity of the Bible? An impossible task? Rebuttal: No
The God of the Bible Exist

The Bible states in Genesis 1: God created" Therefore the claim is made that God exist. Definitions for God (to be argued for or against) to be based on the Bible. Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. Since there is only 3 rounds, Con can start posting from the 1st round. Please use only 2 arguments maximum per round. Should there be more than two then I will pick the ones I want to respond to without any obligation to answer the rest. Con also agrees that forfeiting a round is the same as forfeiting the debate.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic=absolute=matter

How can mirrors be real, if our eyes are not real? You are suggesting our eyes are not real? What an unusual topic of discussion, is this due to some philosophical view? or troll? We can both accept, respect, acknowledge and perhaps appreciate that we can 'see', touch, taste, and if needed... do something in order to produce a vibration and in turn... hear the piece of material in question. this, "Mirror"
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic=absolute=matter

I can safely say I have won this debate :) You have not bothered addressing any of my claims nor made any your self, you are still required to address ALL of them and make your own before I am required to continue. By definition, I could end with a full stop (period) . On this round and still have a better argument than your first statement. which, might I add, is the same thing you said for your title. Have a good day bro :)
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic=absolute=matter

Our eyes are not real because I simply choose to think so? This is no argument, I appreciate your sense of humour though, I would ask however. at what point will you accept something? At what point will something, whether as a comedic response or simply lack of understanding be accepted? I mean, you changed your view, or at least decided to be comedic and write a debate topic on what a 14 year old kid said. So whether you actually agreed to it or not, you decided to write about it. Clearly as a joke... but none the less, at what point do you feel as though you would change your mind? Noun Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Either way, there is no evidence suggesting eyes do not exist and if you ask the question, you have the burden of proof. Christopher Hitchens once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If you suggest something, you're required to show me evidence. If I said, you're not human... I am required to show you how you're not. If you say, something like 'how can mirrors be real, if our eyes arnt real?' You are required to show me how in any possible way, whether joking or asking something philosophically, how eyes are actually not real. You can't then say 'did I actually say it?' Because it doesn't matter what you said, you proposed something. It's YOUR responsibility to show me. Anyway, it was fun talking to you.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic=absolute=matter

"how can mirrors be real, if our eyes arnt real" Umm... right there. Do not claim to not have suggested something after literally creating a debate topic about it and attempting to defend it lmao. Lets talk about the philosophy of a mirror though... It's a reflective glass that allows us to look at it. People could make it poetic or ask what colour a mirror is, perhaps what a mirror would look like in a box. Or another issue is. If you had an enclosed box that had walls of mirror.... OR, a sphere, but on the inside of a hollowed out spherical mirror. If a light particle was to materialise inside and project itself onto the mirror, how long would the light last for?
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic=absolute=matter

Let me make something clear, what a 14 year old says doesn't make anything true. I truly hope you are actually curious as to wonder what something would be like if it wasn't real but the interaction felt real. how about this. If someone claimed to have been abducted by aliens, but can't show they have been. if they truly believe they have, they would experience the same trauma as if they actually did. Why would our eyes not be real? if I gave you the definition for an eye, Noun 1. each of a pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals. And I gave you the definition for organ... Noun 1. a part of an organism which is typically self-contained and has a specific vital function. I would first argue that eyes do exist and show literally any human diagram ever in support of my argument, I would also suggest that by you understanding what I am writing means you have eyes. And something with a highly accurate reflection doesn't need to be false just because you may not be able to see, or presume that eyes are not real. The more I talk about this topic the more I feel stubborn for taking it on board, and the more I feel insulted that you would question something like that to me. If you have any other actual questions though. then by all means. I can answer them. Just keep in mind that I will pick up any logical fallacy you put forward and show the ignorance if you happen to express it.
"I think" tells us nothing about the self other than it exists.

I will gladly accept this challenge and jump into discussion as the Pro. Thinker: a person who theorizes deeply and seriously; Thought: an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind; " the thinker is the thought. We would like it to be different so that the thinker may explain the things to himself by means of the thought. " J. Krishnamurti This statement overrules Pro's argument regarding no thought of the thinker. If the thinker does not exist or his presence (passive in nature) is not present in the pattern of thought then thought ceases to exist. "We can only know something if it is an object of thought." That is not always the case. In events that require quick reactions (ie. touch a hot surface) your body reacts without thought (reflex). We did not know that the surface is hot since if we were to rationalize and think of it we will get burned before we are able to react. "Therefore, we can know nothing about the self." Since this statement is based on the one above and the one above i have disprove it, i will give you another example. In the event of absence of thought in which you characterize it by no awareness of one's self, an individual in a coma (a state of deep unconsciousness) will still have a thought pattern (brain still active) proof being some people waking up are able to recall their dream/s [1] "All we can know is that it exists." If thought exists without a sentient being to create that thought then none of this would exist. I will not go into detail into this but look at things such as Big Bang, Double slit experiment etc. [1] http://www.reddit.com...
Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

NOTE: I am playing devils advocate for this. Just saying since many people will know that I am actually a filthy socialist.Rules:-1st Round: Acceptance-2nd Round: 2 Opening Arguments-3rd/4th Rounds: 2 New Arguments and Rebuttals-5th Round: Rebuttal and Conclusion.No Vulgarity, Insults, Trolling or Semantics.Definitions:Socialism: A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companiesCapitalism: A way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the governmentAll Definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Website.*Forgive me if it takes me some time to respond, as school is currently trying to suck my time away, so it may take me 1-2 days to respond.-DarthKirones.
Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

Thank you Darth for your arguments. I too am extremely busy with school, so this round and round 3 might be a bit short. But if it is I will make it (hopefully) up in round 4 and 5. And boy oh boy, I wish I could start the rebuttal round. Regardless, let"s get started! Argument 1: Inequality By far the biggest flaw in capitalism is inequality. In this system the more you work, the more you earn makes an incredible wealth gap. According to BBC (1), "The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population." That is a ridiculous, but true fact, and is one because of the capitalistic society we live in today. But that"s not all. 80% of THE WHOLE POPULATION lives on 10$ or less A DAY (2). Because of the "money first" mentality (see argument 2) in capitalism, it encourages private businesses to try to make the most money possible, not what is what is suitable for a 10$ a day income. But, with socialism, with a set income for everyone and suitable prices from the government, you will have enough money to live on comfortably. If we had a socialist society, everyone would earn roughly the same amount. Even if this number is low (I think it was $7500 according to my opponent), that doesn"t matter. Why? Because maybe in capitalism anything under 10 000 is impossible to live on, but in a socialist society would BE ENOUGH. If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on. Argument 2: The "Money First" Mentality (Part 1: Inhumain) In a capitalist society, as we see today, money is the biggest motivation. The problem with that is that it takes away from what should really be the motivation- helping. This is clearly shown in the example of Martin Shkreli (3). He is the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, a company that makes HIV medicine. It used to be more affordable to everyone who needs them, especially in developing countries, at around 13.50$ Overnight, he raised this price to 750$ to make money. He took a product that was helping the world and ruined it, making sure absolutely no one who needed it could afford it, just for personal greed. But that"s not all. It was brought to light that the same man also tried to raise money for kidney pills from 1.50$ to 30.00$ a pill, again wanting making sure that some people who were in dire these medications couldn't"t afford them. There is a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system were the more money you make the better for you. People will want to make as much money for them, and be greedy, instead of thinking past their checkbooks and to the world. With a socialist society, no one would want as much money as they can get. No one would be sacrificing saving lives for money. I thank my opponent and I hand it over to him :). -DDD References: http://www.bbc.com... http://www.globalissues.org... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bronies.

For any of those out there who dont think 'Bronies' are 'Normal', I think I may be able to change how you view this fandom. For those who dont know what a 'Brony' is, i will explain. A 'Brony' is a person in theyre late teens to adults that enjoys the show "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". Bronies are an evergrowing fandom that are mostly the inclusion of Males over Females, though there are also an abundance of female bronies too, as to be expected of course. My argument is simple, some people dont get why bronies are, well, bronies. They find it to be abnormal that a Male, especially in theyre late teens to adults could ever enjoy a show meant for 5 year old girls. Well, for those people skeptical of the fandom, i can prove that this fandom is nothing more than just another regular fandom such as 'Trekies" or "Whovians".Anybody out there willing to debate against this topic?
Gun rights

I disagree with my opponent's claim that I have "made a great deal of assertions". I have merely asked for extensive clarification of the frame of this debate and for support towards its foundational presuppositions. This is not empty rhetoric or clever sophistry, but a quest for legitimate truth. When my opponent asserts that a right only exists to citizens of one nation and not another, it is he- not I- who has made an assertion. When my opponent attempts to compare 18th Century weaponry with assault rifles today, it is he- not I- who has grounded his arguments in empty rhetoric. I additionally point out that it is my opponent- not I- who appears to have dodged any question. My opponent has failed to prove anything, and has refused to offer response to my calls for clarification simply because he does not feel to do so is reasonable. However, it is not my duty to have an agreeable foundation to his prior to acceptance of debate. The premise here is labeled- no more or less- "Gun rights". My opponent has offered no support for gun rights in the slightest, unless one who judges this argument comes with a plethora of presupposition, not tabula rasa- as a just judge must. It is for these reasons that you must vote Con and that you cannot objectively vote Pro. Thank you.
Gun rights

My opponent has made a great deal of assertions, and generally has delayed this debate by an intense use of rhetoric, an in depth description with his problems regarding the word, "right", and by dodging the question. When this debate was accepted by my opponent, it was fairly clear that my goal was to properly advocate for the support of gun rights, and my opponent's job was to prove why he is against gun rights. This isn't a question of whether or not 'rights' is the proper term, this is simply a debate about whether or not gun rights (as they are even called on this site) are beneficial to humanity. My opponent has failed to prove that gun rights are counterproductive in the amount of space and time given. I extend my previous points in support of gun rights.
Gun rights

My opponent seems to have misunderstood my concern. To have legitimate clash at this point will be difficult, which makes the unfortunately brief nature of this debate regrettable. -My opponent asserts that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Right does not imply legal allowance, right implies fundamental condition for just existence. For instance, a human has the right to freedom, regardless of whether or not the government under which he falls enslaves him. So, we face a conflict: does my opponent claim that only US citizens have the right to bear arms? This seems jingoistic and discriminatory. I believe my opponent wishes to assert that gun ownership is a fundamental right of the species (or that Americans are somehow apart from the rest of the globe). -This point is virtually null and void when we shift our gaze to a proper understanding of what a "right" actually is. I further contend that to say "The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day" is a baseless and improvable assertion. Should we evaluate current policy regarding electricity expenditure in lighting by comparing it to the candle? Also, the assertion that "threats to ourselves...increase". What threats? What do these threats justify? How far does this argument extend? My opponent's ambiguity fails to address any real matter upon which we may partake in concrete debate. -I address my contention with social preservation in my initial questions, which remain overlooked. (The nuclear warhead was an extreme example [intentional slippery slope] that demands clarification for the extend and necessary cut off point of proposed defense legality). Remaining questions: Why is firearm ownership a right? Why is social preservation ideal? Is social preservation objectively upheld by firearms, and to what extent? How can firearm restrictions be lifted when a direct consequence of this action will necessarily mean the loss of some innocent life? Thank you.
Gun rights

My assertions regarding this topic are as follows: - US citizens have the right to bear arms - This right should be defended and even extended - The right to bear arms is a beneficial policy Both pro and con have equal burden of proof, each having to prove the others standpoint wrong. First, the citizens have the right to posses and utilize firearms in protection of themselves and other citizens. This is not so much an argument as it is a preliminary statement. Our constitution grants us this as a right to defend ourselves. Until such a time as this amendment is revised or revoked, the right to a firearm for personal use is granted. Thus I do not understand my opponent's contention about 'What is a right?'. Second, this right should be defended and even extended within governmental and legislative policies. Current policies of government restrict the above rights beyond what is constitutional and beyond what is logical. Many will argue, "At the time that they wrote that amendment, they didn't have automatic weapons." At the time of the formation of our nation, most gun owning Americans had either the Brown Bess, or the Kentucky Long Rifle. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day. The founding fathers knew what they were saying when they gave freedom to bear arms to their citizens. As threats to ourselves and our nation increase, the tools we have to defend ourselves also should increase. Lastly, the right to bear arms has proven to be a beneficial policy. I point to my evidence provided in the first round, cited by sources provided in the first round. (Located in the comments. My bad.) I am not sure what my opponent was trying to point out with his reference to a nuclear warhead, and I think it would be beneficial for him to elaborate on that point. I now invite my opponent to attempt to prove any of my points wrong.
Gun rights

Thanks for the topic, Pro. My main contention here is with my opponent's assertion of gun "rights". To establish "gun rights" (which it is his duty to defend (it is the entire proposition!), we ask what constitutes a right? Surely my opponent does not claim that anything an individual wants warrants a right- equally, not what protects only the individual exclusively. This line of thought would allow for the individual to possess nuclear warheads (they do make good self defense tools). So why should we have gun rights? My opponent seems to conclude it is that which preserves the most human life that necessitates this right. This is supported by his entire evidence coming from statistical data about murder rates in geographic areas with various firearm policies. However, this utilitarian claim cannot be said to warrant a right. To acknowledge the sacrifice of some by the implementation of policy is to propagate this Abrahamic concept of sacrificial morality (not only unethical/undesirable but unnecessary!). But beyond this, my opponent's duty is rigorous: he must establish why firearm ownership is a right, but prior to this- why society is ideal? why the preservation of human life is ideal? These two issues seem the most problematic and so I will rest here as our positions may become more clearly defined in the subsequent round. Looking forward to rebuttals, Pro!
Gun rights

I commissioned this challenge after reading my opponent's stance on gun rights. His opinion is simply based on facts that are just not true. I ask any following this debate to just check it out on their own. Gun crime is higher with more gun control. In major cities of America that have more gun control, there is more crime. [1] Chicago has some extreme gun control, against both open carry and concealed carry, and yet it ranks at the top in gun crime. Countries that have more gun control demonstrate worse stats. Countries like Honduras, which has approximately 5 guns per 100 people has a homicide rate off the charts compared to that of gun-loving countries. [2] Gun crime is lower without gun control. In Switzerland, every household is REQUIRED to posses one Sig 550 assault rifle, and are encouraged to have one Sig P226 sidearm.[3] They have some of the lowest gun crime and mass murder in the world. Israel, the US, and several others demonstrate similar trends. I now place the shared burden of proof on my opponent to prove to me that gun rights are harmful to society. (P.S. My opponent can rely on his anti-gun posters to protect him. But when my family is in danger, my Mossberg Maverick will do the job.)