BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drone attacks on Pakistan

"attacks in a sovereign country without its authorization are supposed to be violating laws of a country." Yes this is true but if Pakistan had not allowed us to go through with these drone strikes, there would be a huge problem internationally. Not only would the U.N. get involved but Pakistan and their allies would likely war with us. You are pro, the BOP for this lies on you, lacking on a source for this is not helping your case. "Just think of it this way, if all of your family is killed in a drone attack being innocent civilians, what will your mindset be? The extreme one, just like a terrorist thinks, resentment and anger. This is how terrorism multiplies. You are replying to swords with swords." You could not be more wrong on this. The reason most of these groups exist is because they have an extreme misinterpretation of the Koran. The only reason they are fighting is because they think that Islam calls them to. They believe they are in the right because Allah told them to kill. Nobody is fighting because their families were killed, these types of people would be thrown out of the group for not sharing the same beliefs. " US has killed hundred times more civilians ever killed in US." This fact is true, more have died fighting the U.S. than were killed in 9/11. However the people fighting us in Afghanistan could have killed thousands more had they not been preoccupied. There were other terror plots that they were planning on carrying out. Yes it is sad we had to kill them but it saved civilian lives in the United States. Arguments con has dropped: The drone strikes are killing high priority terrorists. The strikes are driving many of the terrorists into hiding where they cannot carry out acts of terror. How there is no other way to deal with these terorr groups. http://www.bbc.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.worldmag.com...
A God must have created the universe.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I will start with a more scientific approach to proving the existence of God. The first thing that I would like to say is that there is no reason why the bulk of the weight in this argument should be on me, just because my opponent says so. The bulk should be evenly distributed and everyone should have an open mind while reading the arguments. Thank you. Statement #1: A lot of people see God(especially the Christian God who I am arguing for) as contradictory to science but I do not believe that is the case, in fact I think science without some God would be completely illogical. The perfect mathematical language that has been laid out for us must of course be a fundamental feature of the universe(one which humans could not create), a language with numbers could not just be created by a large bang. And that of course is another thing, I believe that the Big Bang theory leaves room for God. It simply states that the universe started from a dimmensionless point and then expanded rapidly and that this universe that we are in is still expanding from this singularity. This must leave room for God for a couple of reasons:1. Of course you cannot have an acceleration without a force and forces do not create themselves so how did this singularity expand at such a rapid rate. This is very similar to a debate made by Thomas Aquinas, for every event there is a cause to an effect and since an effect could never create itself there must be some sort of God. 2. Where did the singularity come from, did it just create itself too. I believe that the Big Bang theory makes more sense with a God. I also believe that Christianity leaves room for evolution(although it does contradict certain passages of the Old Testament i personally believe that it is very hard to understand the Old Testament because both age and translation and that it may not have been so literal as it may appear). Statement #2: My next argument is not necessarily regarding this debate as much but I do believe that it is valid. This argument was made by the philosopher Pascal. Since, you have nothing to lose by being a Christian it is illogical to not do so. Even(hypothetically) if Christianity did not exist it would still give you a better lifestyle and strong moral inspiration and if death is just a numb blackness then you would have lost nothing unless there is an "atheist hell." The very principle of hell makes it worth being a Christian, if you do not believe in Christianity you are being rather arrogant. You are staking eternal life in paradise or hell on your earthly logic. Look at a man named Socrates with me for a moment, I'm sure you've heard of him. He taught Plato and made the statement "I know nothing"(paraphrasing there). The only thing he knew was that he was certain of nothing, because even a man as brilliant as Socrates did not trust himself and his logic enough to make the simplest decisions with it then it is extremely foolish to "gamble" on eternal life.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

Well, this is the last post of the debate. I can't bring up any new arguments, as my opponent would not be able respond to it.So, for closing remarks:1. I hope this has profited any readers2. Feel free to open up another debate to discuss subjects likes these - they are very productive3. Remember: feel free to particpate in debates that you know you will lose. As long as you're willing to aid discussion, you can swallow your pride and accept a bad Win/Loss ratio.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

Regarding Solomon's property, whether there were forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, or whether there were four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, I believe the simplicity of the solution here is beautiful.1 Kings 4:26 states that there were forty thousand stalls of horses, for his chariots, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 states that there were four thousand stalls for horses and chariots. Are you able to see the difference in these verses?1 Kings 4:26 does describe that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses, that are to be taken into use for his chariots, but does not provide information on how many chariots were in his possession. However, Chronicles does:"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." This verse quite clearly states that there were 4,000 stalls that could accompany horses and chariots, which is entirely different from stalls that are for horses specifically.Interesting point: If it indeed be true that 40,000 are for horses, while 4,000 for horses and chariots, then there would be about 10 horses per chariot, which is a perfectly reasonable number for a wealthy kingdom such as his.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

I already knew about that contradiction, and was saving it for last. Seeing as this is the last post you will get to respond to, let's hit the Solomon contradiction!1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.Did Solomon have 40,000 or 4,000 stalls of his horses? It is unrealistic to think he could build 10x his amount stalls - seeing as the accounts seem to be talking about the same point in his reign. Is that the case?
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

I was expecting whoever accepts this debate to come with specific contradictions like did Solomon have 40,000 or 4,000 stalls. You seem to take the other way, and that is fine too, it's only that my answers can be as specific as the contradiction that is put forth.You can love a teddy bear, a person, and the blue sky - the meaning of the word love changes as the context changes. In the same way, the meaning of the word hate changes as the context changes, and from the context, we understand Jesus' message to be this: a person can not follow him and be a good disciple, unless that person is willing to abandon his entire family, and his entire life, and not do as they say, or require. When we switch the context to the different verse, the meaning of hate is a malicious and toxic hate, which is what God forbids people to have. In addition, Jesus gave a real life example of his teaching, when he was told that his family is present, and he declared that he didn't consider them family, but that all who believe in him are his family. It does not say that he maliciously hated them, it's only a word that has a wide spectrum of meanings.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?CONTRADICTION: Jesus in fact recommends being a murderer. This is contradictory to God commanding the Israelites NOT to murder in the 10 commandments. He also commands us to be a liar.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

Acts 13:39 states that whoever believes is justified from all things, so how then can we have an act that can not be justified? Well, this act that can not be justified, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And we know that the Holy Spirit enters our bodies when we receive salvation. Therefore, one could view Mark as saying that whoever works against the Holy Spirit, he does not have justification, for he has rejected salvation. It's the two fundamental sides, either you are saved, or you are not. It's not like there is a sin that a saved person can do and risk eternal damnation. Only the unsaved blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and that in itself causes a rejection of salvation.I have to admit that this one is a bit ambiguous, and not very clear and matter of factly, so it's difficult to pin it, but I don't believe that it has to be a contradiction.
Contradictions in the Bible are non-existent

A Genesis 1:3 / Genesis 1:14-19 contradiction does not exist, as Revelation 22:5 states that light is able to exist without the sun and the stars: "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. " In other words, God could have been the source of light at the beginning, as he is going to be the source of light at the end.
Death Battle: Zombie Hunter edition

Let's get into my argument.Strength:Chris is strong in hand to hand combat. He even punched a boulder once. In Resident Evil 5, he trained enough to send smaller enemies a fair distance. He can even match Albert Wesker, who was enhanced by a prototype virus, in a fist fight.Durability: Chris can survive a fight against Wesker, who is strong enough to destroy steel doors by kicking people through them. He also was attacked by a Napad, only to walk away with amnesia, in RE 6.Agility:During a raid on Umbrella, Chris was stuck in a room filled with lasers. He managed to escape without being hurt, apparently by doing backflips (says the wiki). And Chris is able to react to Wesker's attacks, managing to fend him off. Keep in mind Wesker moves pretty fast, able to dodge bullets. Chris is also able to react to bullets, though nowhere near Wesker's abilities.Equipment: Chris wields many weapons, from shotguns to magnums to flamethrowers. He also has many different types of grenades, like incinerary, flashbangs, and electric. He's also got a stun rod and a knife.
Death Battle: Zombie Hunter edition

While looking through AnimationRewind's videos (not really watching. Too much memes), I've decided to make another battle. I'm setting specific paremeters, in tribute to AnimationRewind. You can choose any zombie hunter from any series, TV or video game. You must abide by the rules, however.1) Your character can't be invincible. They must be able to be defeated.2) The character can't have any help, even if it's a disembodied head. Your character will be 100% on their own.3) First round is acceptance only.4) The character can bring any weapon from their world., assuming they wield it.My character is Chris Redfield from Resident Evil. I'll prohibit his usage of the sattelite laser, though.
The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy

youre going to have to learn what Marxism is on your own - and unfortunately for you, it will probably be the hard way, given who you would elect You simply dont like Bush, and this is so much of just another foolish liberal Bush Derangement Sydrome Rant how about the Reagan tax cuts - he cut the top marginal rate from the Carter era from 70% to 28% - and receipts to the treasury went up 1 trillon $ (and the democrats kept spending more by the way) how about Kennedy, a demomcat hero ? He cut taxes as well This is a plain and simple demarcation line between socialist marxist democraps and conservative people and business minded conservatives You want the government to take my money from me and redistribute it I want to keep my own money and spend it on my family Who's philosophy will make for a great nation? Who's philosophy will create misery hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy

you are a KID and NOT knowledgeable when taxes go up, revenues go DOWN when taxes go down, revenues go UP this is FACT, not debatable TAX CUTS Kennedy did it Reagan did it Bush II did it REVENUES WENT UP TAX HIKES ALL DEMOCRAPS DO IT REVENUES GO DOWN AND THE ECONOMY SUFFERS more details to follow when you put up your next infantile tripe DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOLARMAN
The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy

President Bush enacted his final round of tax cuts in 2003, with the most notable effect of lowering the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 36%. While Conservatives defend Bush's actions as a no-brainer solution of rewarding the American people by giving them back more of their hard earned money, the overall impact of the tax cuts on the American economy has been negative. The Bush Tax cuts have played a role in: 1) Inflation 2) Depreciation 3) Increased interest rates 4) Failing to give middle and lower class America an economic boost 5) Overall negative net revenues 6) National debt I am not arguing against the presence of any positive ramifications or benefits from passing the Bush tax cuts. IN ORDER TO WIN THE DEBATE: MY OPPONENT MUST PRESENT A CON CASE DEFENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND ANALYZING WHY THE POSITIVE OUTWEIGHS THE NEGATIVE. The Pro must analyze and prove that the Negative outweighs the Positive. Thank you, and I await my opponent.
Religion is, at best, useless

Oh well excuse me, maybe I should change the word "useful", as in you are right, it can be used as a tool for dividing people, if in that way you want to make it useful, then you do win. But if anyone without more than an IQ can gather from my entire initial explanation, I am speaking about some *good* use that can come from it. Let me make it clear again: something that you would ABSOLUTELY need religion, otherwise it couldn't happen. 1, you just show how people can be controlled by it. 2. You do not *need* the religion for that, it can be spread otherwise. 3. "Many religions offer some hope that there's something more after this life. Whether this is true or not..." Can anyone say such a thing without at least some sort of feeling of humiliation? Oh it doesn't matter if her grandfather was a convicted murderer, her thinking he was a hero offers hope. Pathetic. Drooling in intellectual dishonesty. A false use isn't at all a good use. 4.I address this point in my initial statement. It is false consolation. "By answering these questions, even if the answers aren't necessarily right, it stops many people from wasting time contemplating the question themselves." How convenient! Doesn't matter if it's right, let's take the first answer offered. Let me give you a better quote about death : once you realize it's likely you're only life, you enjoy it and appreciate it more. About your question in the comment section, which you seem to make the claim that I was ignoring, ignorantly at that, you can find hundreds of examples any day in the newspaper. Look back at December of last year where a father killed her daughter for not wearing the Hijab to school. Look at the very doctrine of the hadith: whoever becomes an apostate must die. Look at what Pat Robertson says about gays and lesbians, or does who blasphemy against the holy spirit: hellfire. The very fact that you ->challenged<- me to name an evil action that only a religious person could do, shows something very eyebrow-raising about you. As I hope the voters will notice too. Now, getting to the point, none of the five things my opponent mentioned are things that we couldn't do had humans let go of religion century's ago. I thought I would have to list things that secular societies could do, that religious ones could not, but since my opponent already concedes it serves no origin in morality. Then the usefulness of a secular society must be pressed. No witch-hunts, or heresy hunts. Or murdering university teachers were statements about history. This, as demonstrated, a theocratic society cannot do. To conclude, for now, a religious society can do X number of things, but a secular society will be able to do X-Y+Z. As in, ALL the things the religious one can, but without the bad, and with more good. My opponent has not been able to name such a thing, or answer the challenge, voila.
Religion is, at best, useless

Religion is not useless. It has many uses. I will number some of them I can think of, that way you can count them and verify that there are >0 of them. 1. Control device Throughout the ages, people have used religion as a tool to gain political control over people. This is indeed a use, therefore negating the topic. 2. Tool to propagate ideas Ideas, or stances on issues, can be spread over populations by the spread of a religion. With the religion's spread, the ideas are spread too. This is indeed a use of religion. 3. Tool for easing paranoia about death Many religions offer some hope that there's something more after this life. Whether this is true or not, the simple fact that religion gives people this hope is indeed something useful that religion gives. 4. Tool for focusing people People have often and still often do pose very philosophical and unanswerable questions such as "why does all this even exist?" and other such questions. By answering these questions, even if the answers aren't necessarily right, it stops many people from wasting time contemplating the question themselves. These types of questions do not have a definite answer, so contemplating the answer is truly a waste of time. Taking away these types of questions from people's minds allows people to think about more important and real-world-relevant things. 5. Charity organization The simple fact that religions often do charity work is a use of said religion. True, it's not something ONLY religions can do, but what does that change? That's like me saying that non-religious charity groups are useless because other things [religious charity groups] can do the same thing. Non sequitur for the loss. Religions carry out charity work, and this yet another use of them. I believe five should be sufficient, though I probably could have thought of one or two more fairly easily. Religion is not useless; it has many uses, five of which I have listed. My opponent also challenged me to name an ethical action a person of faith could do that an atheist cannot do. I will not do this, because I am not arguing that religion's use is as the origin of some kind of higher ethics. However, this does not mean it is useless altogehter. Sure, it fails at doing what many claim it does [being the source of morals], but that does not mean it does not have other uses. In fact, I have listed 5 of them above. Now, let us hope my opponent can argue against all five uses I've listed.
Religion is, at best, useless

At best, I argue, religion is useless. I challenge the responder to name me an ethical action that only a person of faith could do, and not an atheist. I also wish for everyone to consider an evil action performed, that only a person of faith would do, and not an atheist. I argue the second takes much less time than the first. Morality stems not from religion but from human nature, and religion borrows these moral rules, and is, at best, useless. That is on the moral issue, on to the intellectual issue... ... Nothing. Science has superseded all claims made by any religion about the cosmos, the earth, or reality. The one thing I can think of on the con side, is to say that it gives consolation regarding life after death. All I will say is that those who give you false consolation are false friends, I do not regard a placebo effect as useful, nor should anyone who is has the intellect to realize the feebleness in wish-thinking.
Evolution occurs

There are two distinct theories of Evolution; (1) Micro Evolution: that species adapt according to surroundings/climate change etc. (2) Macro Evolution: that species may change from one species to another species. Micro evolution (although the 'evolution' is somewhat misleading but we'll allow it for the purposes of this debate) is a verifiable, substantiated scientific fact. Animals, plants and even humans change to adapt to their environments. Macro evolution is completely unsubstantiated by ANY fossil records whatSOever. The 'evidence' such as it is, largely consists of micro evolutionary fossils OR 'projected' skeletons etc from one bone or even a partial fragment of bone. MANY such 'finds' have been proved false or even fraudulent. To the question of mutations, they of course do occur BUT are ALWAYS detrimental to the organism or species. ALSO in order for Macro evolution to occur genetic complexity would have to increase.. this has never been observed. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove Evolution occurs.. I would advise him to begin!
Evolution occurs

Neither of us are biology experts, so this will be a fairly simple debate, using layman's terms mostly. All that is necessary for evolution to occur is: -reproduction -mutations If these things are present, than evolution will inevitably occur. There is no way, in fact, that these things can be present, without evolution consequently occurring. So in order for my opponent's opinion to hold any steady ground whatsoever is if he can provide evidence that mutations don't actually occur. This notion is, of course, preposterous, but my opponent still seems to hold the belief that evolution is nonexistent and never occurs, so he must have some sort of reason for why mutations don't occur. The truth of the matter is, of course, that mutations are constantly occurring. The idea that for entire millenia, there has never been any accidental variation in the genetic code of any animal everywhere, can be discounted simply on probability, without even the need to cite the overwhelming evidence against it. Evolution is constantly happening, even now. The actual visible change as a consequence is gradual, but little instances of evolution are constantly occurring.