BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama vs Vladmir Putin

1. God hates Putin more than anything else. It is obvious why. Putin is an expert in the martial art of Judo. Judo comes from Japan, which is a country. You know what's also a country? India, where buddism originated. One of the sacred texts of Buddism is the Lotus Sutra, named after the Lotus flower, which can regulate its temperature to attract insect pollinators. Hummingbirds are also pollinators, and are birds, just like ducks. A famous duck is Daffy Duck, who was once in an italian disney comic entitled Paperino e la grotta di Aladino. This comic included Alladin, a charactor that originated in a Middle Eastern folktail, in which he is aided by a Jinn. In Arab culture, Jinns are analougous do demons, which are controled by THE DEVIL. THAT"S RIGHT, VLADMIR PUTIN SUPPORTS THE DEVIL! Sources: . http://www.nytimes.com...;http://coa.inducks.org...2. On the contrary, your link explicitly states that "the lava in the channels was going at more like 60 km/hour! ". Additionally, if America can rise from a small colony to a super power, a Bald Eagle can easily dodge flimsy lasers.3. Wrong. See my sources below. I didn't actually read them, but they came up when I searched up "Obama Bear" so hopefully they support my point. Sources: . https://twitter.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...I will now refute Cons arguments.1. My source shows that the Dalai Lama has laser eyes. The Dalai Lama is from India, where buddism originated. One of the sacred texts of Buddism is the Lotus Sutra, named after the Lotus flower, which can regulate its temperature to attract insect pollinators. Hummingbirds are also pollinators, and are birds, just like ducks. A famous duck is Daffy Duck, who was once in an italian disney comic entitled Paperino e la grotta di Aladino. This comic included Alladin, a charactor that originated in a Middle Eastern folktail, in which he is aided by a Jinn. In Arab culture, Jinns are analougous do demons, which are controled by the Devil. The Devil was recently mentioned by John Beohner, who claimed that Obama made a deal with it. John Beohner famously looks weird and orange, kinda like he gets spray tans. When spray tanning, you are advised to close your eyes to protect them from damage. So how can Putin-Bear/Daffy Duck lotus pollinator Demon use his Dalai Lama laser eyes IF HE HAS TO CLOSE HIS EYES WHILE GETTING A JOHN BEOHNER SPRAY TAN? ?? ?? ?Sources: . http://www.hilariousgifs.com...http://www.bloombergview.com...http://www.chicagotribune.com...http://www.selftanning.com... Unfortunatly, I won't be able to refute Cons arguments due to time constraints. I will pick them up next round.
Barack Obama vs Vladmir Putin

Rebuttals to Pro 1. God How can the Christian God love American if in Obama's term, he allowed gays to have rights? Everyone know that God hates the homosexual and won't help Obama. Also when has God supported a African person instead of a White person? If anything, Putin wins. Source http://www.godhatesfags.com... https://www.biblegateway.com... 2. Magma breath To fly birds need light allow bones and while carrying Obama there isn't much room for it to carry molten rock. The speed of lava flow is actually quite slow and any Russian dancing bear can dodge it. Also, if the bear shoots laser eyes at the eagle, it would explode into molten destruction. Source http://volcano.oregonstate.edu... 3. Zingers Obama has some really low approval ratings. He may talk about random sh** but everyone knows he all bark and not bite. The bear knows about his skills of BSing and not doing anything and decide to go against Obama. Source http://www.gallup.com... Arguments 1. Laser eyes Putin has a bear with laser eyes. It'll just stare and kill Obama at the speed of light. 2. KGB Being the ex-spy he is, he will wipe the floor owith Obama. In any one on one fight, Putin will wreck him. 3. Nukes Russia has nukes and Putin can actually use it. Unlike Obama who can't do sh** since no one will let him, he'll get nuked by Putin who most likely has a trigger keystered.
Barack Obama vs Vladmir Putin

1. Yes2. Yes3. Yes 4. No5. Yes6. No7. Maybe8. MaybeI will now make my arguments.1. God is on Obamas sideGod hates commies. This is a clear and undeniable fact. For example, Daniel 7:5 states "And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, 'Arise, devour much meat!" This is in his vision of several evil monsters. This shows that communists are evil and hated by God. As the bear is the symbol of communism, God will smite the Putin of the earth in a blaze of holy fire.Sources: http://www.smithsonianmag.com...;2. Magma breathThe eagle can breath magma and melt Putin. Simple as that.3. Obamas powers of convincingObama revealed that his favorite super power is being able to speak any language. This is obviously a hint that he can speak any language, INCLUDING BEAR. He will easily be able to convince the bear to switch sides. Remember in the presedential debates when Romney said that the navy is smaller then it has been at anytime since 1917 and Obama replied "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed". Obama will use similar zingers to humiliate Putin and get the bear to switch sides.Source:http://www.cbsnews.com...
God does not exist.

Opening RemarksI have no opening remarks to make. RebuttalsContention 1. The point is that there is no biggest number. Reply to Contention 1. As I noted in the comments, I erred in saying that Premise 3 of this new argument was equivalent to Premise 2 of the original one; they are actually marginally different. Regardless, 'biggest numbers', 'infinity', and pretty much the entirety of this new argument Pro has conceived are completely irrelevant. As I pointed out before, the definition of 'God' is 'A maximally great being who created the universe'. Pro supplied this definition. He should have no problem with it, yet for some reason he has switched his argument to be against infinity rather than maximal greatness, or even maximal quantities. To take my opponent's analogy with sweets, I would have the maximal quantity of sweets if I had every single sweet in existence. I could not possibly have more sweets, because there are no more sweets to have, and there would be no way for me to gain more sweets. That would not entail having infinite sweets. You can have a maximal quantity without the quantity being infinite, and seeing as there is no need to involve infinity in this debate, this contention is non-topical. ConclusionExtend my constructive argument, and note that Pro's second contention was dropped entirely.
God does not exist.

Con's Claim: Infinity is irrelevant. God is defined in the first round as a 'maximally great' being, not an infinite one. Unless my opponent wishes to argue that being maximally great entails being infinite, then this argument fails.Other than that, my opponent appears to be reusing the premise 'You can always add to a number', which I have already debunked long ago. He has not responded to my argument as to why that premise is false, which ought to equate to a concession that his syllogism is unsound. The point is that there is no biggest number. The failed logic Con is using here is the same logic used in the omnipotence paradox. Here are the rules, this thing doesn't fit, therefore the rules are wrong. How it should actually work is here are the rules, this thing doesn't fit, therefore that thing is wrong. Infinity is not a number, it is a concept of the biggest number. You can't count to infinity. No matter how many sweets I have, it's always possible to add one more. I may not have one more, but it's always possible to have one more. The definition of a number is 'a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or in noting a total.' [1], and as you cannot count to infnity (1), infinity is not a number. Take that.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...Notes (1) The word 'counting' is used in the regular sense, meaning starting at the number '1' and the counting up (2) in positive integers.(2) In the sense that 'going up' means going through the sequence of positive integers with each next number being greater than the last.
God does not exist.

Constructive ArgumentRather than make any arguments against my consctructive case, my opponent appears to have decided to take his first contention all the way to the end of the debate. Seeing as that is the case, I cannot help but wonder why he decided burden of proof ought to be shared.Extend my entire constructive argument.RebuttalsContention 1. Comparable to the concept of infinity, maximal greatness would be a quantity if it could exist in reality.Reply to Contention 1. Infinity is irrelevant. God is defined in the first round as a 'maximally great' being, not an infinite one. Unless my opponent wishes to argue that being maximally great entails being infinite, then this argument fails.Other than that, my opponent appears to be reusing the premise 'You can always add to a number', which I have already debunked long ago. He has not responded to my argument as to why that premise is false, which ought to equate to a concession that his syllogism is unsound.Contention 2. As for the other argument, fair enough, but you still have to prove that maximal greatness can exist in reality.Reply to Contention 2. This argument has been dropped.ConclusionThe resolution is negated.
God does not exist.

I'm sorry for not being clearer on my argument before. Comparable to the concept of infinity, maximal greatness would be a quantity if it could exist in reality.(P1) If an actual infinite could exist in reality, then infinity would be a number.(P2) Infinity is the concept of the biggest number.(P3) You can always add to a number;(C) Therefore, an actual infinite cannot exist in reality and infinity is not a number, as we can always imagine something greater.Since a maximal greatness cannot exist, the ontological argument is refuted.As for the other argument, fair enough, but you still have to prove that maximal greatness can exist in reality.
God does not exist.

RebuttalsThe Anti-Maximal Greatness argumentPremise 2 is true. What number would we assign to maximal greatness? No matter what number you say, there is always a number that is greater, and therefore we can always imagine something greater. Infinity isn't a number.The Anti-Creation argument Say it in your own words.Conclusion - Con needs to give his own arguments. Also, burden of proof is shared.
God does not exist.

Opening RemarksI understand Pro's last remark as an acceptance of the burden of proof. If I am in error, I ask to be corrected.I apologize for the brevity of my arguments, as I procrastinated to excess.RebuttalsContention 1. The Anti-Maximal Greatness argumentReply to Contention 1. Premise 2 of this argument is false. You cannot add to a maximal quantity, because by very definition, a maximal quantity is the greatest quantity possible. If you can add to it, it is not a maximal quantity. Therefore, you cannot add to a maximal quantity and this premise is false.Contention 2. The Anti-Creation argumentReply to Contention 2. The Angelic doctor long ago debunked this exact objection in Summa Theologica, when he wrote:'Ancient philosophers, as is said above (Question 44, Article 2), considered only the emanation of particular effects from particular causes, which necessarily presuppose something in their action; whence came their common opinion that "nothing is made from nothing." But this has no place in the first emanation from the universal principle of things.' [1]ConclusionI apologize to my opponent for such a poor showing.Sources:1. http://www.newadvent.org...
God does not exist.

Indeed, let us do this.Argument #1: The Anti-Maximal Greatness argument (P1) Maximal greatness is a quantity.(P2) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, because we can always imagine something greater.P1 'Quantity is a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement' [1] Maximal greatness is a quantity, as we can compare it in terms of more, less and equal and we can assign a numerical value to it in terms of a unit of measurement.P2 This is true. Let's say we have a thing a value of one. I can add to that, and get something with a value of two. I can keep doing this as long as I like.P3 This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premises. The problem with maximal greatness existing in reality is that no matter what number we assign to maximal greatness we can always imagine something greater, somce we cannot assign infinity to maximal greatness because infinity is not a number, it's just a concept.Argument #2: The Anti-Creation argumentIs it possible to make something that doesn't exist do anything, let alone begin to exist? No, of course it's not. For God to create something, he would have to either be affecting X thing or nothing. It's impossible for God to be affecting something that does not exist, because that would imply that it existed before it began to exist. But God could not be affecting nothing, because when you affect nothing, the results are inevitably nothing. I conclude that it is not possible for an existing being to cause something to exist.For Con to win this debate, he'll have to prove that it's possible for a being to be maximally great, and that it's possible for an existing being to cause something to exist.
Theism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!

Normally I would refuse to include myself in debates with someone I do not know on religion, especially over the internet where many believe that 'anonymity is invulnerability'. However since my opponent does not seem to be aggressive towards the concept of religion(s) I would be pleased to have a rational discussion with you, CosmoJarvis. I look forward to this greatly! I know that while you did not request/require it, I figure it would be kind of me to at least give minor insight into my personal belief, so you will not be going into this blind, per se. I consider myself as a Follower of Christ. The more common, well-known name being Church of Christ. I believe in the God-Head-Three. This meaning, (God) the Father, (Christ) the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost as some translators may have) being separate, but unified. I believe the Bible is God's inspired word and that it is all we have, or need, to do what He asks of us. These are the most important topics that come to mind currently. Good luck and let's begin!
Theism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!

What a lonely state to find oneself! Attend me brothers and sisters, hear the plight of those to whom all pity is to be given. This is a people, without hope? Without truth, Without science? Without common sense? With no visible nor foreseeable lifeline whatsoever! More is the pity, let our hearts be humbled for so too were we all, once upon a time. Let us turn our eyes to logic in utter thanks to Albert Einstein who saves. Let us stand encircled around the damned and cast our lines into the tank of hopelessness which is the Life of Faith, and Bill Nye willing let us snatch up and set the hook of reason, in a final attempt to shake them loose from their long slumber. To you who accept this debate, you shall defend that which cannot "be" defended, the lunacy which is theism. I of course shall demonstrate and define your madness. If all goes as usual I shall lose this debate because the doomed will as history has shown, fail again to ascend to the elusive state of reason, choosing instead to "remain in their comatose state" still, if I can awaken even 1, the loss is well worth it. This is a joke about FollowerofChrist's debates on "Atheism- a lost cause! " However, I do intend to make this debate that will argue how theists are so certain of a God or Gods. Con will argue for the validity of a specific religion and provide evidence towards their claims, while I will try to disprove those religious beliefs. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Stop does not always work

To start, this debate is impossible. So I will try to prove (very over the top) why saying stop does always work When you say "Stop!" Your mouth opens, the sounds come out form the audio waves that register as stop. So when you say stop, stop is said. Simple? The bully eventually stops. Bully fights me. I say stop. He like totally annihilates me. HE goes away. Stop worked. Thus, stop always works eventually. Simpler?
Stop does not always work

ok this is about bullies, ok u get into a fight, he hits u, u ask him to stop and he does not, would u stop. No i would only stop if i got socked in the stomach so if ur being bullied kick is @$$. He'll either ull finish that fight and he will stop or he will fun a way like a coward and u will be respect and dont respect him. ignore him but become the bully. so stop doesnt not always work
9/11 was a US government plot

The US needed to completely destroy the buildings to have an excuse to go into Iraq (along with other Middle Eastern nations). The US profited enormously from oil trade because of US occupation because this allowed to get oil much cheaper. But, let's look at some more hard evidence. The US kept the black-box data secret, why? http://newsone.com... Read this article as well: http://tvnewslies.org... "There is heavy amounts of evidence that points to Al Qaeda." I would appreciate some examples. If you are going to say "Bin Laden tapes" and such, here is proof that the tapes are fake: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Also take a look at these pictures, the man on the left is Bin Laden, the man on the right is in the video that the CIA released, claiming it was a "confession" from Bin Laden. It is obvious that they are not the same person. We have been lied to. http://www.911myths.com... Also, I would like to point out that up to this point my opponent has provided no hard evidence to support his case. Thank you for the debate.
9/11 was a US government plot

There are things that I personally cannot explain. I however can explain the other side. There is heavy amounts of evidence that points to Al Qaeda. Not just what points to them, but also their response to the attacks. According to your theory, could it also have been possible for terrorist to plant the bombs at the base of the towers themselves? Why would you immediately point to our own government? What is your evidence that it could only have been the government?
9/11 was a US government plot

Indeed, it would make logical sense, but only to those who do not know the specific characteristics of this building (as well as skyscrapers in general). This building was designed to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the aircraft. http://www.tms.org... There are those who believe jet fuel was the reason for the collapse. That, too, is false. Jet fuel burns at a temperature of about 600 C. The melting point of steel (which is what the structure of the building was made of) is about 1500 C. The MOST the jet fuel could have done is slightly stressed the enormous steel columns. http://education.jlab.org... http://911research.wtc7.net... Using the above evidence, there is virtually no chance that the impact of a large plane alone could cause this building to collapse.
9/11 was a US government plot

I disagree. If a plane hit a building, it makes logical sense that the entire building would fall. First, once the plane hits, was there not a "shockwave"? The power of the plane could have easily passed on its energy all the way down the building, breaking the support of the building. You make say, "well, its a very large and strong building isn't it?". Which it is, but have you seen the size of a B-52? Very very large. The metal at the base of the tower most could not absorb the impact, even if it happened at the top of the tower.
9/11 was a US government plot

Well, first, let's look at NORAD. Very advanced system, yes? In 2000, NORAD intercepted 67 planes, but suddenly fails twice in one day? http://www.911myths.com... Also, there are videos of the explosion and if you record the amount of time it took for the building to fall, it is almost at the speed of free-fall. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. Extra explosives planted in the building by US government.
Time is a measurement of spin.

My opponent clearly doesn't understand time. He mentions the 4th dimension? What the hell is that? I personally have never seen the forth dimension. Thus, my opponent is clearly just making stuff up which he read is some science fiction book or movie. My opponent also doesn't understand that hours, minutes and seconds are just sub-divisions of the 24 hour rotation of the Earth. Seconds, minutes and hours are not just arbitrary measurements. They are accurate divisions of time which are based on the Earth's rotation. Reference - The second was thus defined as: the fraction 1R60;31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time https://en.wikipedia.org... To win this debate, my opponent must prove that time would still exist if there was no spinning reference frame. Good luck!
Time is a measurement of spin.

Okay, so let's establish a crucial idea for this debate. The burden of proof exists on both sides We should first take a look at my opponent's arguments so that we can establish a fact. "Without spin, time would not exist. Note - The spin of the Earth is the main reference frame for time. The seconds, minutes, hours, days and years - all relate to the rotation of the Earth." My opponent accidentally commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. He is right that a one point in the 4th dimension, a year was equal to the time that the Earth takes to travel around the Sun, and that a day was at one point the time it takes for the Earth to rotate itself. However, my opponent accidentally includes seconds, minutes and hours in his analysis. These are not based in the Earth's movement. Finally, we need to understand that currently, a year is an accumulation of days, and that it is a dependent variable of days. I will explain this concept in my first argument. Argument (or Contention) 1: Time exists as a mental construct in order for us to understand the world better. Humans naturally need some specific way in which to arrange their lives; we need time in order to to schedule events and complete tasks with a universally understood measurement, however the Ira that the earth regulates such a measurement is only based in a little bit of fact. Rather, we could say that seconds are equal to the time it takes for a whale to complete digesting a meal, or the time a piece of matter (factoring out air resistance) takes to fall 20 meters or yards. We even can say how long a second is based on long light takes to travel a distance. See, seconds are very flexible, simply because they are not based on the Earth's spin. Same with minutes and hours. When I was analyzing my opponent's argument, I mentioned that at one point in time, a day or year was equal to a certain measurement. Argument (or Contention) 2: The length of a day is changing. The Earth's rotation is slowing because of tidal effects caused by the moon. "Atomic clocks show that a modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago" (Wikipedia, unknown author). This means that the measurements are slightly off, and that time for days and years is no longer based on the Earth's rotation. Conclusion: Time is not or no longer based on the Earth's rotation. Seconds, minutes, and hours are mental, imaginary constructs, and days and years have not remained the same throughout the 4th dimension. This shows that that humans do not use the Earth's rotation for time, and the Con is clearly the correct side. Thank you.