BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god is false

1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (1 Timothy 6:4-5) "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, {5} Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (John 8:43-45) "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. {44} Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. {45} And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
god is false

That is your words! The title of your debate states "god is false". The scriptures say; (Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (John 10:34) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" So according to scripture you are a god (little "g"). Which makes YOU false. And I agree! You will have to answer your own question here. Why do you want to speak falsely?
Katniss should of ended up with Gale/The Hunger Games

I believe that Katniss should of ended up with Gale instead of Peeta. 1. He saved District 12, sort of. He didn't save everyone but he did save a fair amount of people. He rushed Mrs. Everdeen and Primrose Everdeen from there. 2. Gale was there for Katniss when her father died. They have known each other for ages, they had one of the strongest friendships ever. Peeta may have helped her in the Games but Gale helped feed her family whilst she was in there with him. Katniss is the sort of girl to put her family ahead of herself. 3. Despite the whole Prim dying incident which was just complicated, Gale and Katniss's family were so close. Prim helped Gale after the whipping scenario. Also, Gale thought the world of Prim. They knew each other so well, he could read her like a book. He helped save Peeta and in his position, that was very good of him. Gale has always been there for Katniss.
ManBearPig is real.

As I stated, I will be arguing from a philosophical stand point.Now, if you notice, everything my opponent has used as evidence of global warming is dependent upon someone's senses. It required scientists' senses to determine this evidence, or at least we think it was scientists. It's merely our own perception that scientists are responsible for this data that my opponent is presenting. Additionally, the interpretation of the data by my opponent requires their senses. Now, please tell me: what validates your senses? What validates these supposed scientists' senses? If you say our senses do, that would be circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy. I will even bring up that the existence of this planet is even dependent on our senses. Perhaps there is not even a planet for there to be warming of. Everyone usually accepts their senses as reliable, but as optical illusions show, our senses are not always trustworthy. Again, I ask, how does my opponent know for sure that these scientists claim these things without use of their fallible senses? How does my opponent know this evidence exists without use of fallible senses? I contend that we cannot know anything with 100% surety, and this includes global warming, or "manbearpig" as my oppoenent put it.
ManBearPig is real.

Round two argumentWhat is science? Science is the study of the physical universe via empirical evidence. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis that is scientific, and it is assumed true until proven false. A hypothesis can never be proven true, but can have strong supporting evidence to reinforce the hypothesis. Given the number of people on the planet trying to disprove any given hypothesis, it is safe to say that most hypothesis that stand the test of time are true. Even if a hypothesis is proven false, usually only a small fraction of the hypothesis is proven false, and adjusted to fit the new evidence."science (G2;sa=8;əns)n1. the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms" [2]That being said we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming exists, is caused by man, and burning of fossil fuels that release Co2 is the main driver. I will support these claims with evidence. Picture of consensus studies. [3] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [3] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [4] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [5] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [6] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [7] Human fingerprint picture. [8] The evidence for global warming is so vast, that it is equally likely that the moon exists as global warming exists.Sources.2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. https://skepticalscience.com...4. http://www.climatecentral.org...5. https://www.epa.gov...6. https://skepticalscience.com...7. https://skepticalscience.com...8. https://skepticalscience.com...
ManBearPig is real.

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.I will contend that ManBearPig exists. My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally.Previous debate. [0]DefinitionsManBearPig = global warming and visa versa, these can be used interchangeably. Global warming "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."[1]Sources.0. http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
ManBearPig is real.

At the same time, however, it wasn't explicitly said your position would be that "global warming is likely to exist" throughout round 1 you did say "I will contend that ManBearPig exists" and the name of the debate is "ManBearPig is real" as opposed to "Manbearpig is likely real". It would be impossible for me to argue against that manbearpig is likely to exist, as everything you said in this round is logically sound. However, I suppose it would also be impossible for you to argue that manbearpig is sure to exist. Perhaps I should not have accepted the debate. I don't have any other arguments against what my opponent has said in this past round, but as I said, it wasn't entirely clear that pro would be arguing that manbearpig is likely to exist.
THBT HIV status should be made public

Actually, there no country implement this program yet. So, that's way, to see the practical applications of that we should try to do this. Because this is the best way to decrease the number of infected. This way, can help the medical injection or the medical service. Cause the blood also can transmitted the HIV. So in some situation also, if we want to help someone incident too it's danger if we don't know weather they are infected or not. So how U can decrease the HIV?
THBT HIV status should be made public

Unless you can outline the exact way you would implement and enforce this in a country then I see no practical application of it.Also, I do not see why you should do this if you don't make people put 'I currently have to flu' on their ID card since that can be spread sexually too.You're going to be wasting taxpayer's money on something that hurts the feelings of the infected and really is hypocritical since almost every 'normal' disease is sexually transmitted too.
THBT HIV status should be made public

HIV or Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a virus who attack the immune system in human body and it can bringing on AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Status is a title that the people have about something. Made public means that inform all the people or socialization about something. HIV is the first killer in the world and it's very dangerous, so that's why to decrease the number of sufferer of HIV the government should make distance between a people who are healthy and who are suffer HIV.
Smoking bans should be repealed.

I agree about the customers, but my concern is for the employees who may not be able to find another job and I would be willing to compramise and say that there can be an outdoor smoking shelter attached to the property. They had something similar at an airport I was at once, or, dun, dun, dun, you could have a special room designated for smokers. That way the door prevents the smoke from traveling. My concern is worker's rights, the customers can go somewhere else.
Smoking bans should be repealed.

That is quite simply the opposite of what I said. If I own a restaurant and wish to open a smoking section to cater to smokers I should be allowed to do so. I am saying the government has no place in this decision. If non-smokers do not like my smoking section, they can patronize a different business. If a business chooses to be smoke-free, smokers have the same freedom to accept it, or go elsewhere. This is a property rights issue, not a health issue.
Smoking bans should be repealed.

I am not suggesting, not would I, that non-smokers somehow be forced to expose themselves to second-hand smoke. Non-smokers always have an option of using non-smoking areas, or refusing to patronize businesses that allow smoking. It is smokers only affected by all out bans in states like my home state of Maryland. Smoking bans hurt business. Although the CDC has publicized studies claiming there would be little to no effect on business (http://www.cdcfoundation.org...), empirical evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.davehitt.com...).
Laura Mallory Should Be More Offended by Twilight than Harry Potter

The religion of the author should have no bearing on whether the book should be viewed as offensive by devout Christian Laura Mallory (though it probably does). Regarding the video in which my opponent sent me, it is actually mocking the fact that the religion of the actor who played Harry Potter had any actual importance, so it does very little to help support their position. Now, Laura Mallory should be offended by the book series "Twilight" because it promotes to children that it is acceptable to be lustful, which is the first deadly sin. Within the first book of the series Bella (the main character) continuously and excessively makes note of the sexual attractiveness of Edward Cullen (love interest), this would constitute lust, to which Laura should be strongly opposed to.
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

As for this debate I am going to conclude that as the writer of my boo it wasn't fair that I should debate my own facts that I have discovered thru other sources and many conversation with those sources, So i will conclude that there needs to be domestic violence shelters for men and their children in the time of need. In which I will be proceeding in the venture in trying to make a difference in society as I intended to do by researching the subject. society needs it. thank you PS as far as the points I wasn't doing his for the points I was doing it for the positive responses that I received.
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

The website credits nobody name John Hayes for this work. The study wasn't conducted by anybody named John Hayes and I hope to God you didn't actually publish a book because copy and pasting a bunch of articles and studies together is illegal, especially when no citations are used. A published author taking his wife's last name is A. A bad ideal B. Not very manly I was interested in debating you on this but not anymore. What you did was wrong. It's wrong to steal other people's work and take credit. The article that was copy and pasted, isn't even relevant to the resolution. I need zero research skills or debate skill to show that no argument was made, which was relevant to the resolution. I hope you do debate again and, I hope you take the time to fully digest what you're arguing so you don't have to resort to plagiarism. Good luck in any future debates.
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

Title: Domestic Violence from Both Sides of the Fence Edition #2: Completely Reformated Context is Still the Same ID: 10483844 Category: Reference Description: This is a book edited by john hayes. He has researched this subject over a year. Publisher: john hayes Copyright Year: " 2008 Language: English Keywords: domestic, vioelence, drama, supence, research, crime, investigation, male, female, assault License: Standard Copyright License
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

Your points aren't even relevant to the resolution. I've read both documents this was plagiarized from and am convinced that those people would be smart enough to make a case relevant to the resolution that would be extremely challenging to me. Plagiarism is frowned upon here and I urge voters to give me all 7 points. This is not my opponent's work and even if it were, as a person who writes up studies he'd be well aware that self plagiarism or not citing your own works is still bad.
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

Domestic violence is a widespread problem in the United States, endangering the safety of victims and weakening families. This is the profile of domestic violence: Men and women are equally likely to initiate and engage in partner aggression. In about half of all cases, the aggression is mutual, meaning that there is no clear-cut initiator of the altercation. Although women are more likely to be harmed, males represent 38% of those who suffer an injury from partner aggression. For many years, advocates have pushed for the strengthening of arrest laws and policies as a deterrent to domestic violence. But these persons have had to over-come a number of legal objections. In both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the government is commanded to not deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Arresting a person for allegedly committing domestic violence has a profound impact on personal liberty men who are arrested for domes-tic violence are detained an average of nine days. Arrest has serious legal and social effects as well. For that reason, police officers traditionally were not allowed to make an arrest for a misdemeanor most instances of domestic violence are legally classified as misdemeanors unless the officer actually witnessed the event or had an arrest warrant from a judge. That policy, the hallmark of a civil and just society, served to protect law-abiding citizens from arbitrary and unfair arrest. But over the past two decades, states have enacted domestic violence laws that increasingly departed from these time-honored protections. This Special Report documents how arrest policies driven by the Violence against Women Act violate fundamental notions of due process and equal protection under the law.
Domestic violence shelters needed for men and their children.

Domestic violence is a human problem, not a gender problem. Randomized sociological survey data consistently shows men account for at least half of domestic violence victims (in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships), as well as one-third of victims who are physically injured, one-fourth of victims who call police and one-tenth of victims who seek shelter services (even with virtually no outreach or referrals). Male victims report it less than women, making oft-cited crime data misleading and unreliable. Children are emotionally damaged by witnessing the violence regardless of injuries or gender. The violence becomes a model and creates an inter-generational cycle that cannot be broken by covering up half (or any amount) of it for ideological reasons. By ignoring female violence, society is fostering rather than preventing domestic violence. This is why men and children need a place to go in the time of need.
Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge. I believe this is debate.org working at it best: Someone (in this case myself) makes a statement of belief (on one of the forums) and then someone else (in this case Kleptin) strongly disagrees and decides to make a debate challenge of it. I stated: "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence." I 100% whole-heartedly stand by this statement. But first we must define Evolution. As we shall soon see, defining what Evolution IS and is NOT is where the real battleground lies. Kleptin (whether consciously or not) understands this and has tried to control the definition from the outset: "Evolution shall refer to the standard scientific definition of change in species over time of which human evolution is one type. Evidence shall refer to scientific data, theory, and evidence of either a tangible or theoretical nature. Fabrication is, as my opponent has used it, in reference to the Theory of evolution being a complete artificial lie." Within the first line we find the crux of the matter: "change in species over time". The so-called 'Theory of Evolution' is simply the mixing of an observable truth: THAT animals (as humans) inherit certain characteristics from each parent and so change occurs over succeeding generations (often misleadingly referred to as 'micro-evolution') with THE LIE: that one Family of animals can, given enough time and through the above process, become another Family of animals. There is simply ZERO evidence for one Family of animals becoming another. The word 'species' is a misleading categorization: wolfs and coyotes (for example) are classified as different species but are obviously from the same 'Family' (The Dog Family) As every dog or pigeon breeder well understands, there are LIMITS to selective breeding. That wolfs, coyotes, foxes and jackals etc all had a common ancestor is highly probable: That they evolved from another Family is simply unobservable and unverifiable conjecture; NOT science. So we may not define Evolution as simply 'change in species' and then hope to imply all life 'evolved' from a single cell amoeba: This is commonly referred to as Macro Evolution which we may now call simply 'Evolution'. In order for Evolution to occur there would have to be an increase in genetic information. This has never been observed. Natural or un-natural selection (dog breeding etc) utilizes the existing gene pool. By selecting certain characteristics there is a lost of information NOT gain. Or, there would have to be a beneficial mutation. Again, this has never been observed. Mutations only scramble existing genetic codes, there is no new information added. I would like to add that many of the so-called 'proofs' used in the text books over the years have found to be, not only wildly inaccurate, but willfully fraudulent. As I do not yet know which (if any) 'proofs' my opponents intends to produce as evidence for this debate, I will not comment further on these for the moment.
Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

This debate is a challenge to the member DATCMOTO who asserted in this thread: . http://www.debate.org... That "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence". I would assume that DATCMOTO is a man of his word and means what he says. If this is the case, then I would like to challenge this assertion. I personally believe that this assertion is unjustified and the result of a lack of scientific understanding, and that DATCMOTO does not understand evolution enough in order to make such a bold statement. However, I assume that DATCMOTO has his own reasons for making such a huge leap of faith, so I shall let him explain to me why it is that evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence. The parameters of this debate are simple: Evolution shall refer to the standard scientific definition of change in species over time of which human evolution is one type. Evidence shall refer to scientific data, theory, and evidence of either a tangible or theoretical nature. Fabrication is, as my opponent has used it, in reference to the Theory of evolution being a complete artificial lie. I hope to learn much from my opponent as his assertion is indeed a bold one. Thank you, I await his response.
Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

My opponent begins by "citing sources". " >As my opponents whole 'argument' rests on the non-argument that Evolution does NOT purport to be an 'origins of life' theory my links merely show that the belief that all creatures evolved (progressed) from a single cell amoeba is INDEED widespread. "Progression does not always mean improvement." >WHAT? This is what we are up against folks: 'Progression, in EVERY other instance, means improvement, but NOT in Evolution theory!' Of course, if my opponent wishes to concede that Evolution is nothing more than observable changes through breeding and not an origins of life theory then this is just another mute point anyway. "Also, my opponent assumes that it went directly from wolf to Chihuahua." >I certainly do not assume any such thing. Even with determined breeding (un-natural selection) it would take many many generations to turn a wolf into a chihuahua. "My opponent understand then that the designation of a thing as a "theory" indicates that something has evidence, and that the designation of something as a "hypothesis" indicates something has no evidence. " >I understand there is a scientific term 'theory' which differs from the generic term. But just because someone states it's a theory means little to me with out hard evidence. "And assure him that it is the endosymbiotic *theory*, and not the hypothesis. In addition, I will also provide another link: " >My opponent will forgive me if I take no heed of his 'assurances' as he has consistently proved himself to be singularly unreliable . As already stated, links on their own will not do. You must provide a specific piece of evidence. If, however, we cannot agree on WHAT evolution is or is not then again it is a mute point. (just chatting, remember?) "The fact that he does not believe in the term "species" is not an indicator that it does not exist." >Nor is it an indicator that they do. They do not. "USUALLY though, even if two different species interbreed and produce offspring, THEIR offspring cannot produce offspring. An example is the mating of a horse and a donkey. The outcome is a mule and mules are sterile. The only way to get more mules is to mate horses and donkeys again." >USUALLY. Doesn't sound very 'specific' to me. Can we use the word 'usually' when describing attributes of Genus'? >I am still waiting for my opponent to DARE bring one SHRED of evidence into the debate itself (NOT links, I can find a link to 'believing in fairies' if I look hard enough) >As predicted the whole of the Evolution debate rests on these crucial points of definition. My opponents mono-maniacal obsession with winning the debate has clouded his judgment of this and so he wastes his own, mine and everyone elses time by scurrying off into ever obscurer trivia in the hope of proving that which we have not defines terms upon. >I challenge him to present ONE piece of evidence that one Genus has evolved (progressed) into another.