BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief In God is Logical

what about physical proof? i have never seen a PHOTOGRAPH of god. take the bible for example. a man comes back to life, and there was a talking SNAKE! have you ever met someone who has died, and come back to life? the bible is over thirty four hundred years old. it could have easily been destroyed and changed to meet radicals' point of views. we are 99% related to prime-apes, so obviously god didn't create us
Belief In God is Logical

I'll start by simply saying one irrefutable truth: At some point, the universe was either created, or it was always there. Now, having this in mind, couldn't have God come by the same way as this? See- If, at one point, the Universe was CREATED, then that means that it came from nothing. God could have come from nothing- and If the Universe was always there, God could've been always there. No matter what you believe, you're logic points to the fact that God's existence is completely possible. Second, Pascal's Wager proves that it's safer to believe in God than to not to. So if it's safer to believe in a God that is possible, and apparently was active in an era around 6000 years ago, and 24-39 people wrote a book about it, then I'm sure one can say it is logical to believe in God.
Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Thanks for getting back to me. Xbox live's security is without a doubt superior. But like I said in my previous argument. The graphical power the playstation 4 provides out of the box is almost double that of the xbox one. What you seem to be disregarding is the fact that the superior GPU of the playstation 4 makes it capable of a much higher fps. Like you said, FPS is important and Playstation 4 is capable of a much higher fps. And you also said graphics isn't as important as FPS? Not true. The most important thing is balance between the two. The only thing limiting it is the game developers. Assassins creed unity runs at a horrible FPS on both PS4, xbox one and PC. It runs at roughly 30fps which for next gen is appalling that's what games like skyrim used to run at on the Xbox 360 and PS3. Same thing with watchdogs. In my experience the FPS on both these games is horrible. So it is quite clearly a problem on ubisofts end. Ubisoft are well know for their FPS issues across all platforms. Even PC. If you are going to bring up FPS, I wouldn't do it with an ubisoft game. FPS may play a big role, but what you need to bear in mind is the fact that FPS and graphics come from the same place. The GPU determines what FPS you can reach and how stable it is. The xbox one has an inferior GPU. Meaning that the only reason games run at the same FPS on PS4 and xbox one is the developers. In this case it is clearly nothing to do with the actual console. Sony started making playsationplus compulsory for many reasons. But the main reason they stated is because they need to "up their secruity measures" which means yes their secruity may be behind and will always be behind. But it is catching up. But I doubt something like what happened in 2011 will happen again. I can't press enough how the game developers are the blame for FPS issues and the graphics. But in almost every factor in gaming, The Playstation 4 is capable of a much higher fps, much better graphics and a much smoother experience. That isn't me being a fanboy. It's fact. And microsoft can pay developers all they want to gimp their games for PS4, But PS4 is and will always be the superior machine and the security is improving. If developers stopped with limiting their games for ps4 the xbox one would be pretty much obsolete. The playstation exclusives however won't have these limitations. And when more of them start to appear the graphical power difference between ps4 and xbox one will be quite evident. Even microsoft knows it's failed, that's why they pay developers to downgrade their ps4 games and why they are trying to bring this directx stuff to the xbox one.
Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Thank you for your argument, I cannot deny the fact that PlayStation 4 has the slightly better graphics, but graphics is not always the case here, in many ways, frame rate is more important than graphics, though good graphics can be pleasing to the eye, frame rate is much more important. Several games have run slightly better frame rate wise on the Xbox one, such as assassins creed unity, the frame rate is slightly more stable on the Xbox one. Yes, on paper, PlayStation 4 is more powerful, but there really is no difference you can actually see. Network is one of the most important parts in a console. Sony can brag about the superior graphics and sales, but no-one is going to trust a company who can't even keep their own Network up and running. Look at psn hack in 2011, servers were down for about 23 days, it exposed over 77 million peoples names, birthdays, address, and all personal information. Xbox live has the most reliable network, sadly, the same cannot be said for PlayStation network, now they charge you to play online, and they spend the Money on other things besides network security. Let's face it, one of the only things PlayStation fanboys can say that is better is the graphics. Now what would you rather have? A system that has the best graphics (of which is unnoticeable), with the worst network, or a system that can multitask, listen naturally to your voice and gestures, has the most reliable network, and with monthly updates that improve the overall quality of the system, and that is owned by a company with much more money. Windows 10 will also allow pc gamers to play online with Xbox one gamers. DirectX 12 will also give developers access to the seventh cpu core processor, while PlayStation 4 has only 6.
Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Just so we are clear, I own both and also own a gaming PC. The OEM of both the graphical hardware of the Xbox one and Playstation 4 is a company called AMD. When referring to the graphics and hardware in general the playstation 4 is superior. "Graphics" can't just be used to describe one thing. The GPU (graphics processing unit) covers the texture loading, texture quality, resolution, FPS and how the console copes in general with bringing pretty "next gen" gaming on your screen. The playstation 4 has 8gb of RAM just like the xbox one. But the playstation 4 has superior RAM. Just the same amount. This effects latency and how the console copes with numerous things going on. However you won't know all of this because some develops limit the optimisation of their games so you cannot see the power of the playstation compared to the xbox. xbox live and the PlayStation network may be inevitably a big part of the consoles, but let's just look at the console itself as this is console vs console. Not network vs network. the playstation 4 can and does provide a superior gaming experience. FPS may be important but playstation 4's superior graphics mean the FPS is much more consistent and is less prone to FPS drops when a major event happens in game. Most games run at 60fps on console. What you said about directx 12 improving the GPU by 20%? Well yes directx is microsoft software. And even with this 20% graphics boost. The graphics will still be behind Playstation 4's! As currently PS4 has a 1.84 teraflop GPU. The Xbox One graphics chip however, has a pipeline for 1.31 teraflops. Cross compatibility may sound good but considering you can build your own budget gaming PC for less than what an xbox one costs won't that just be pointless? As it is to some extent down to the developers. But as I said, the playstation 4 is the superior gaming system in how it handles and performs with games. And its superior hardware is evidence of this. The xbox one may have superior security, but playstation 4 is more focused on the core gaming element. Which makes it the superior gaming console. What most people disregard is the fact that facts and specs don't mean anything. And the main thing is personal preference. But on paper the playstation 4 is the better console. Despite all these desperate attempts from microsoft to get the xbox one ahead it's still behind. The xbox one may have superior software, but is an inferior console, built to meet the requirements of much more than that gamers. I feel like microsoft has forgotten the whole point of a gaming console, which is where they failed. Microsoft, despite all their tools all the tools they have and how rich they are have failed to create a superior machine. They can brag about security all they like, but you know something's wrong when sony beats them out in creating a more powerful next gen gaming console.
Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Thank you for your argument too. I like to think I have an unbiased stance here. As the main factor is actually personal preference. However, 1080p is a reference to the resolution. Not the graphics or FPS. The higher the resolution, the better you can see the graphics. I could run a 2D pixel game at 1080p, that wouldn't change the fact it's a 2D pixel game. If you understand now, 1080p can still be 1080p with bad graphics. I'm not saying the xbox one's graphics are bad, but they are undoubtedly behind compared to the Playstation 4. And even after directx 12 it will still be behind. I suppose it all depends on what you are looking for in regards to network, security and the overall gaming experience. But all preferences aside, the playstation 4 is a superior console and beats out the xbox one in most aspects. Why else would microsoft be trying to release software for it now? But as you and I have both stated. The main thing is actually personal preference.
Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Thank you for your arguments, now I will say this: you are correct on everything you said, but here's the catch, most games run at 1080p for Xbox one, not all, but most, same can be said for the ps4, most games run at 1080p but not all, quite a few games that were running at a resolution below 1080p were upscaled to 1080p, such as battlefield 4 and call of duty ghosts, let me get this straight, if Xbox one can run mostly all games at 1080p, it is obviously very capable of 1080p, like I said in my previous arguments, developers just don't put in the extra effort to create the resolution equal to ps4, this is stated in a YouTube video by crapgamer labeled: the truth of DirectX 12. But at the end of the day, we are all gamers, and we all have our opinions, there is no right or wrong answer, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
what does feelings means to our lives

mOrOnIc vErSiOn: bOp-bErDon oF pRoOf rEbUtAlLs mY oPoNeNtS aRgUmEnTs MaKE nO seNsE anD hAvE nO SoUrCeS! vOtE cOn! :D Real version: BOP- Burden of Proof. So Pro has actually argued this round. Rebuttals "feelings are the only one to give us an moral support and create deep impact of that. " They are not the ONLY ones. Friends can too. Besides how does that make them FAITHFUL? "felling also carve out our social behavior. " I don't know what you mean. Sources?
Capitalism

We use Capitalism because it functions. That, however, does not mean that it is adequate. We constantly see the rich taking advantage of the poor and every time the market isn't controlled our economy spirals up and down. These spirals result in occurrences such as the Great Depression and the 2008 Economic Crisis. Poverty in Capitalist countries is always high, and classes form. These classes have limited mobility as it is often very difficult for a lower class citizen to work their way up the career ladder. Freedom can also exist without Capitalism. Freedoms of press, speech, religion, you name it can exist without Capitalism. A society without these freedoms is called a Fascism. A society without Capitalism is not necessarily a Fascism, and democracy can exist without Capitalism., so save your stances on democracy for another debate. Although one of the most prominent solutions, Communism does not necessarily have to be THE solution. A successful Communism would far surpass a successful Capitalism, but at the moment the idea's implementation is unrealistic.
Abiogenesis Is Improbable

Abiogenesis:"The supposed *spontaneous* development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. "-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language(Emphasis on spontaneous added so as to avoid a debate on semantics. This keeps in line with the original definition since "abiogenesis" can also be called "spontaneous generation" as given by the dictionary)Rules: This debate will be about what science has already discovered. Neither side can appeal to a negative. For example:Pro can not use the argument "Science does not know how X could exist, therefore X did not exist"Likewise, Con can not use the argument "Science has discovered many things. Therefore, in the future scientists will discover how X could exist, therefore X existed"The resolution will be whether or not abiogenesis is probable based on current discoveries and scientific knowledge. I look forward to whoever accepts! _____________________________________Clarifications:34 comments after issuing this challenge, I realized that some aspects of the debate were rather ambiguous. Let me clarify some points: 1. Intelligent design is not being taken into account. This is not to say that we are assuming intelligent design is or is not the cause of life on this planet. It just means we are ignoring it all together. We are focusing, specifically, on the spontaneous generation definition of abiogenesis.2. We are debating about the probability of abiogenesis taking place anywhere, at any time past or present. Whether it be on other planets, or on our planet. That is to say, we are examining the legitimacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis. Arguing that abiogenesis is probable because life exists on the planet, ignores that there are other hypothesis about the origins of life. This debate is not about what specifically caused life on our planet, or if there is life on other planets, but whether or not abiogenesis itself is probable or not.
politic

I think that interest groups have too much power for several different reasons: 1. They function as an extraconstitutional "Fourth Branch" of government, without the scutiny that the other branches receive. Many of our laws are written, in whole or in part, by the non-elective leaders of these groups, yet they remain relatively unknown to the public (who are expected to fund and obey these laws). 2. They sometimes corrupt our elected leaders with bribes, whether legal or not, to get the legislation they want passed. This erodes the standards that Congressmen and Congresswomen are sworn to uphold, and creates a "climate of corruption" which spills over into other forms of official conduct as well. 3. As their right to "petition the government" is protected by the First Amendment, limiting their power is difficult, and so far, they have grown in strength and numbers at the expense of everyone who they don't represent. 4. The government worked better before the interest groups became so powerful. Lobbies in their present form were not envisioned by the founders, and as a result, there are insufficient checks and balances built into our current system. While every interest group has a right to be heard in Washington, none of them have a right to subvert the processes of government, and that is what is happening today
If you look in the mirror and see a color, you are a racist.

This is absurd. I look forward to showing you the error of your ways. I'll use this round for acceptance and clarification, and allow you to begin with your arguments. Definition for racist: A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. [1][1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The burden is on Pro to show how looking in a mirror and seeing color is racist. I do not believe it is racist, and after my opponent presents his opening arguments I will then present mine and additional rebuttals. I now return the floor to Pro.
If you look in the mirror and see a color, you are a racist.

This is not personal, I will show you the error of the human way. You are one right? An individual? Look n the mirror and around yourself, call yourself a color? Why, because you are not one of all of the race? What is a race? Natural selection is the race of science. wrong? right? What race are you? Man, Woman, Black, White, somewhere in between? If so, without expectation of others, then you are of the human race. Here come the blood shedder of truth next.
Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

Ave.Magic and I have debated the KCA before, so we both understand each other's thoughts on the argument. While thinking one day, I asked myself what would happen if we switched roles and did it all over again. I send Magic a PM with this suggestion, and after accepted, I set up this debate.First and foremost, this debate is just for fun. The debate should result in a tie, with neither side winning. The audience can still give a RFD on the comments or in a vote, but please do not assign any points to either side.I should also note that this is a more of a written discussion than a debate, so point-by-point responses should be replaced with simple paragraphs.I will be taking the position that the KCA is unsound. Magic will be taking the position that it is sound.God is defined as the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.Magic will post his opening statement in his first round. Afer that, we will have constant back and forth debate/discussion.I'm looking forward to an exciting and interesting discourse.Vale.
Censorship of the Media during Conflict is necessary.

RebuttalI would like to begin with some rebuttal. However, I would like to first point out that in the first round I specified rebuttal was for the third round, but Con chose to ignore this. Ok, let's start.Most of my opponent's Rebuttal and arguments were based on the US constitution. However, I never specified which Country's Freedom of Speech Act to use. It was a hypothetical statement, and, honestly, there are loopholes in many world constitutions which people could bypass to get information. Therefore, Con's rebuttal and his statement that 'It's Unconstitutional' are rendered completely void. The fact that it's 'Unconstitutional' to the US constitution is irrelevant, as I never stated which country is in question here. Unless Con decides to go through every constitution of every country in the World, his rebuttal will be irrelevant. Also, Con talks of a 'Truly Democratic Society.' I hate to break the Utopian bubble, but there is no such thing as a 'Truly Democratic Society.' Even the US, which Con seems to be basing his arguments on, has term limits, which would not be imposed in a 'Truly Democratic Society.' Therefore, this point is also defeated. Thirdly, I would like to point out that the video Con uses is taken from South Park, a satirical comedy show, highly driven by personal opinion and hardly a reasonable source of information. Now, onto my main arguments.The Boosting of MoraleCon does not seem to have touched upon the point I made about morale in the Second Round. I will take this opportunity to strengthen my argument.The London Riots of 2011 were caused by the accidental killing of Mark Duggan by Police in Tottenham. What started as a series of peaceful protests elevated into Riots in which many were killed. The Police was in the process of investigating this incident when the Riots began. These escalated, and, eventually, had nothing to do with the trigger. This is potentially what could happen if some details were not censored during conflict, and what was averted during the Second World War by Winston Churchill. s://www.debate.org...; alt="" /> s://www.debate.org...; alt="" />ConclusionI believe I have debunked most of Con's rebuttal and produced stronger points. I urge the floor to vote Pro. Thank you, and I thank my opponent for a good debate.Sources: As abovehttp://www.bbc.co.uk...
Censorship of the Media during Conflict is necessary.

Reason One: To protect future Military plans being discoveredIf, for example, a country with a Freedom of Information act was at war with a rogue state or an enemy in general, or under attack by Terrorists. The media could, perhaps, get plans for future pushes or Counter-Terrorist Operations and relay them on air to the public. This could be detrimental to any plans the Military or Government has. This is exactly what happened in Mumbai in 2008, when Terrorists attacked the Taj Mahal Palace. The details of the Counter-Terrorist Operation were relayed in exquisite detail live on air before it happened. This could have dangerously affected the Operation. Also, if, for example, information about a new weapon or vehicle was displayed, and all of the features and specifications noted, the enemy of the country would be in a very good position to produce ways to combat this new advancement. This would be detrimental to the Citizens of the country.Reason Two: To prevent hysteria.During the Second World War, censorship was heavily used by Winston Churchill and the British Government. Any losses were covered up, and any victories embellished and well-documented and publicised. This was because the Second World War was as much of a War on morale as anything. With heavy rationing and constant bombing, it would have been easy for riots to ensue and crime to become prevalant. This was stopped by the clever consorship of the Govenment. Without it, panic would have ensued and some Military units would have to be drafted out to control this, which in turn could have caused more rioting. Overall, this would have been detrimental to the war effort. All in all, Censorship is nescessary to prevent important details being leaked to enemies and to keep the Public feeling safe and confident in their protection.Sources:http://www.buzzle.com...http://www.buzzle.com...http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...;
Censorship of the Media during Conflict is necessary.

I will be in the Pro position for Censorship of the media. By this I mean that, during wartime or periods of Conflict, it is Necassary for the Government to censor some aspects of the media for the pubic.1st Round: Acceptance2nd Round: Main Argument3rd Round: Rebuttal and Conclusion.No profanity or personal attacks.Good Luck to my opponent.