BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is improbable that God exists.

I. ==Rebuttals==First: As per the given resolution, the BOP is on the pro debater to provide absolute proof that God either doesn't exist, or is more unlikely than likely to exist. So if the debate is tied or there is muddled views on how the debate breaks down, vote con since the Pro is failing to clearly meet his BOP. The first part is correct. The BOP is indeed on me to show proof that either: (1) God does not exist, or (2) God's existence is more unlikely than likely. During my opening arguments, I believe I have clearly shown that it is IMPOSSILBE for God to exist via contradictory attributes.1) To negate is defined as to deny the truth of. As the con debater, I am negating the given resolution. So as long as I deny the truth of the resolution, that is sufficient to earn the win. False. In DDO (and in formal debates) it is more than just denying the validity of the resolution--but you have to show that the resolution is false. That is the purpose of this debate. Likewise, I can keep affirming the resolution and win the debate--which is not enough.2) Since the burden of proof is on the pro debater, if he fails to give you sufficient proof that affirms the resolution, then he fails to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on him, which is enough to merit the con with the win. This is correct. If I fail to provide proof of the above resolution, then you win the debate.1: Vote con right off the bat, since it is impossible for him to sufficiently affirm the resolution, given the specific percent number. False. The two arguments I have given show that it is impossible (0%) for G-d's existence; especially the contradictory attributes. Really, the resolution should say that it is "impossible" for a judeo-Christian type God to exist. That is a re-phrase of the resolution. Third: Even if the pro debater is winning that it is more likely that god doesn't exist than does that still leaves a possibility that God still does exist. So in order to sufficiently disprove the con position, the pro debater must prove that it is impossible for God to existvia contradictory attributes, it is impossible for a God that I have defined to exist. Remember: For the purpose of this debate, God is doing to be defined broadly as the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. My partner rests on two sole contentions:1) It is impossible to see God. .. Even if this were true (which I can conceed) via the theological views of God, it is impossible for God to exist. For example, we cannot see a "square circle" yet we know they cannot exist because they are mutually contradictory.2) There is no definitive account that God physically exists. This is correct--which is where the Argument from non-believe and divine hiddeness proves the non-existence of God (see opening arguments). To conclude: My partner has proven absolutely nothing and has not refuted any of my arguments. Because God's attributes are contradictory, God cannot exist. I urge an affirmative vote.
Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election)

1. The debate is not about evolution, I'm sorry I brought that up but it was to prove the point that she wants creationism. But evolution vs. creationism is a completely different topic. 2. Drilling oil boost the economy and drains the earth, the earth is our mother, do we want to abuse our mother? NO! 3. Here's the thing, offshore drilling contributes to climate change, whether you believe in that or not is a different subject, but as I stated before, drilling for oil in Alaska isn't exactly stopping climate change. 4. yeah sure, how many people in the oil industry will be put out of jobs? No evidence on that. Also it would be extremely easy to draft them into solar panel building factories or alternative energy factories. That's not hard is it? 5. //I hope you do know she has governed the whole state of Alaska with a population of 698,473//. I said A TOWN! !! NOT A STATE! !! If you had read my argument more closely, you would've notice that I was commenting on the TOWN! !! ======Now to restate my points She's uneducated and not logical. Sarah Palin doesn't believe in evolution and thinks that creationism should be taught in every classroom. She has said she does not believe in global warming and wants to take polar bears off the endangered species list because she assumes that they are fine because the polar ice caps are, in her mind, not melting. She is currently under investigation for abuse of power after trying to get her sisters ex husband fired after a bad divorce. She was once asked if she was angered by the addition of "under god" to the pledge of allegiance and her response was "if its good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me", which might seem like a decent answer until you realize that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist named Bellamy about 100 years after the founding fathers founded anything and it wasn't until the cold war that "under god" was added. she wants to drill for oil in alaska and stands for the aerial slaughter of wolves and bears in the wild. prior to her candidacy she announced that she did not think the idea of her being the vice president is realistic. after her candidacy was announced she announced she didn't know what a vice president does from day to day and also didn't know what john mccains stance on the war was because, as she said, she doesn't pay attention to iraq. (keep in mind her own son is being sent to iraq) 2. She has little experience Besides the fact that she only governed a town with less people than are in my school district, she has NO political experience, she became mayor because there was no one else to run against, pretty much and became Governor because she was Mayor. That's not very much experience.
Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election)

You are right she does not believe in Evolution, but Evolution has yet to be proved. Evolution is still a theological matter. If Evolution had been proved the the followers of Christ would almost be depleted, because in the Bible ; Genesis 2;26 it says (direct quote) "So God created man in His own image;" The whole theory behind evolution states that we started out as some sort of simian (In layman's terms) and slowly evolved into what we are now. God isn't ever depicted as an apelike creature. So your point on trying to make it seem like disbelief in evolution is a bad thing..... while on the other hand it hasn't been completely proved. Now why you would blindly trust and unresolved theory well that's beyond me and off topic. Whats wrong with creationism? It's a valid topic while you may not believe in this theory 90% of the population believes in some form of a higher power. Even if you don't think creationism is a real pressing issue why would you not want to learn about it? If 90% of society believes in a higher power and they learn and are educated in creationism, you are now ignorant of a well known topic. You have a problem with drilling oil, well that boosts the economy greatly. Why would you want to stop off shore drilling when people rely so much on it the end results product? Not to mention the recession the United States is in right now boosting the economy might not be a bad idea. If you were to make drilling oil obsolete or abolish this practice you would just be putting many people out of jobs. Your comment " She has little experience Besides the fact that she only governed a town with less people than are in my school district, she has NO political experience, she became mayor because there was no one else to run against, pretty much and became Governor because she was Mayor. That's not very much experience. " When I read that the first thought that came to my mind was you have just contradicted yourself. The very beginning of your 2nd point you go onto saying she has little experience then you say "she has NO political experience". I'm baffled when you earlier you talked about her having been governor. A rebuttal to your text above "Besides the fact that she only governed a town with less people than are in my school district". I hope you do know she has governed the whole state of Alaska with a population of 698,473 (since July 2009) and as we all know populations are increasing. A school district with a population over six hundred thousand is a little hard to believe. Before this continues anymore I would like you to know that I am in total agreement with your siding of this topic, I took this debate as a challenge to better my skills, and try to defend a point of view that I don't agree with.
Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election)

To refute my opponent's points: 1) Yes Palin would break barriers by being the first female president etc. but that dosn't mean that she would be a good president! We could be saying a few years after her presency "The first woman president, who lead the country into years of hardship" That point is down. 2) Sarah palin does not have these leadership skills as I will show in my points. -------- 1. She's uneducated and not logical. Sarah Palin doesn't believe in evolution and thinks that creationism should be taught in every classroom. She has said she does not believe in global warming and wants to take polar bears off the endangered species list because she assumes that they are fine because the polar ice caps are, in her mind, not melting. She is currently under investigation for abuse of power after trying to get her sisters ex husband fired after a bad divorce. She was once asked if she was angered by the addition of "under god" to the pledge of allegiance and her response was "if its good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me", which might seem like a decent answer until you realize that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist named Bellamy about 100 years after the founding fathers founded anything and it wasn't until the cold war that "under god" was added. she wants to drill for oil in alaska and stands for the aerial slaughter of wolves and bears in the wild. prior to her candidacy she announced that she did not think the idea of her being the vice president is realistic. after her candidacy was announced she announced she didn't know what a vice president does from day to day and also didn't know what john mccains stance on the war was because, as she said, she doesn't pay attention to iraq. (keep in mind her own son is being sent to iraq) 2. She has little experience Besides the fact that she only governed a town with less people than are in my school district, she has NO political experience, she became mayor because there was no one else to run against, pretty much and became Governor because she was Mayor. That's not very much experience.
Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election)

Sarah Palin would make a great President. She would be breaking barriers such as first female President, one of the youngest to serve the country. Palin has already broken barriers, she was the youngest and the first female to govern the state of Alaska. Before that she was on the Wasilla, Alaska's city council and ran for mayor for 4 years. As it is Alaska's economy is going great compared to a lot of the other states, proof Palin does know what she is doing and can run a state, even the whole country. There are always qualities presidents should have. Some of these qualities are leadership skills, generous, logical, intelligent, they should also be mentally strong. Palin is a great contender for President, she is Republican though the last Republican President wasn't a very good one getting the lowest ratings in history. Palin would then break more barriers and possibly be able to clear the Republicans name a little and make them seem a lot less demonized.
Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election)

No you need to review what I said more closely. I know you were talking about a "TOWN!!!" But you also said "Besides the fact that she only governed a town with less people than are in my school district". Which isn't true because she hasn't "only governed a town". I see you put a lot of effort into the third round by copying and pasting what you said in the second round which accounts for most of what you said, that's not very creative. But you have given me a great opportunity to suggest more valid points, that you won't be able to rebuttal. To back up what I said earlier about how she fits the profile to be a great leader thus the future President. 1. Sarah Palin's Generosity- In the 2008 fall campaign for Presidency she was noted for designer clothing critics were saying she was spending money frivolously on this. Well after the campaign was over she donated all of that clothing to organizations like Goodwill. 2. Where is Sarah Palin's logic you may ask?- She may not have been realized for being sharp or astute, but I'm here to disprove that with ease. First off someone that can break barriers and obtain a powerful political career, has to have some brains, there's no screwing anyone to get that job. To be able to obtain this power you need to have followers. There are only a handful of Political careers in the United States, so having a population of over three-hundred million people really does limit your chances on obtaining this power. Barring that Palin has beat out some of these people and has support from some of them should be recognized as remarkable. 3. Sarah's Leadership- I don't think I need to go over her leadership very much, but if you're still a little rocky on this she has been a member of city council; run art of Alaska as mayor; run Alaska as governor; and was a Vice President candidate in the election of 2008. 4. Intelligence- well I'm a little confident that I don't need to worry about this aspect. Considering my "formidable" opponent thought it would be smart to echo his points only by copying and pasting for the final round. A VOTE FOR PRO IS ONE LESS VOTE FOR CON (SOMEONE WHO THINKS COPYING AND PASTING FOR THE FINAL ROUND IS APPROPRIATE) BTW EVEN IF YOU DON'T COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MY STANDING POINT PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES DEFENDING PALIN OR MAKING HER SEEM GREAT IS HARD WORK, UNDERSTAND I'M NOT A PALIN SUPPORTER. VOTE ON WHO MADE MORE VALID POINTS DON'T VOTE LET " WELL I WAS RAISED AS A DEMOCRAT" CLOUD YOUR JUDGMENT.
Corporal Punishment Is Wrong

Here are a few of my arguments for corporal punishment. 1. Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. If children are clearly given the fact that if they misbehave, they will be given corporal punishment, then this will make them more aware of what will happen to them and will make them think twice about their actions. A lot of the time corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child and they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore misbehave. 2. Another argument for corporal punishment is that it is quick. Other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because the student can miss school, and waste hours on top of hours sitting in detention, while corporal punishment is quick and takes a second. So non corporal punishment can ultimately be a waste of time. 3. A study showed that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. In other words it deters misbehavior. If we have corporal punishment kids will not misbehave as much because of misbehavior. 4. Young children are not able to discern right and wrong to the decree that older age kids are. For example, if a young kid were to stick his finger in an electrical socket, then if you give them a smaller dose of pain, then it will teach them not to do life threatening things. Little kids don't understand being grounded. They don't understand their being punished. Rather with corporal punishment toddlers know that their experiencing pain and it teaches them not to do the wrong thing. 5. As corporal has decreased in public schools and home, you would expect to seem a decrease in misbehavior, but that hasn't been the case. This is why corporal punishment is better. It shows kids that they will be given physical pain if they misbehave. In conclusion, corporal punishment should be allowed. Sources used 1. procon.org 2. soapboxie
Corporal Punishment Is Wrong

In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in schools, homes, or other places is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson. Definition, according to dictionary. comnoun 1. Law. physical punishment, as flogging, inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime: formerly included the death penalty, sentencing a term of years, etc. 2. physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority. I will be mostly targeting home and school corporal punishment.
Origin of the earth: God vs Evolution

Pro lose this debate straight out the gate. Debate topic, "Origins of the Earth: God vs. Evolution." Pro's proposition is faulty. Evolution is a theory the explains the variety of life found on this planet. [1] It is a scientific fact that is supported by vast amounts of evidence. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the collapse of a cloud of dust and gas that formed our solar system. I suspect Pro disagrees with the Theory of Evolution. It seems to me, Pro should first begin by knowing what the theory covers before rejecting it. Although I suspect Pro was raised to reject it, and was never taught what the theory actually addresses. Pro, "A law of nature is that you can't get something from nothing." Can you tell us where this law is written? How do you know this is a law of nature? Virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing all the time. "Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing" for extremely short periods of time and disappear again." [2] So much for that law of nature. "Even the smallest particle in the universe could not have come into being unless it was all powerful (God) or made by a god." This seems to be Pro's opinion and isn't supported by evidence, facts, or an argument. Can you support this claim Pro? It is in direct opposition with what science has observed from vacuum energy and the virtual particles that are created in a vacuum. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://science.jrank.org...
Origin of the earth: God vs Evolution

Creationists say that evolution doesn't make sense because you get something from nothing and evolutionists say we have the same problem; however we do not. Evolution is all about nature God is not nature therefore he is not bound by natures law. A law of nature is that you can't get something from nothing (the universe). In order for anything to exist whatever existed had to be so powerful that it could defy the laws of nature therefore whatever came first would not be natural but supernatural. Evolution does not have the luxury of a supernatural deity that that can simply exist. Even the smallest particle in the universe could not have come into being unless it was all powerful (God) or made by a god
ELO means nothing when it's replaced by YOLO

Too many trolls and kids on this site that vote for reasons like this "aerogant misunderstood, pi =/= pie", therefore ELO means nothing in a society that is so pointless and fruitless, that people have to troll and deconstruct everything to amuse themselves. I did not misunderstand pie and pi, which can be demonstrated by my witty word play on pie and pi while arguing against someone that was simply resorting to devil's advocate for the fun of it. Therefore I conclude that ELO means nothing on this site - those who have high ELO are equivalent to the politicians that are in high position - they did not earn it. Hence why nothing gets done - but don't worry, there are people in a high position because... they just are! Especially when your ELO is determined by kids that vote like this: "Well, Con was not converted by Pro, so arguments to Con. Conduct to Con because of Pro's rudeness." Keep in mind that I could not have possibly been rude here, so it's proof everyone is voting out of bias and angst. Then you have other votes that say nothing except: "did nothing". More childish remarks that my ELO depends on. Then finally, you have people that would rather vote for someone who said they were wrong, knew they were wrong, but wanted to debate for fun, over someone they are biased towards because they are little kids with no sense of self-discipline.
ELO means nothing when it's replaced by YOLO

Well, while you're arguing for the internet shaped by primates wearing monocles, I'll be further breaking down the ontological complex that is the Universe aspect by aspect! While you resort to further red herrings; I'll be demonstrating the sole nature of human psyche and its mirror-like properties towards the Universe's behavioral patterns. While you can just repeat primate school 101, I'll be demonstrating to people what consciousness is (yes, I am the only one on this planet that knows what consciousness is). I have experienced the Universe's enlightenments in the same way Einstein and Tesla experienced their own enlightenments - our brains are designed to shape this world with ideas beyond mankind. We did not settle with primate potential - we ascended beyond the red sound wave and broke through yellow, orange, green, light blue, dark blue to reach purple. Our brain waves are on gamma, rather than theta (the waves you're on). I have the whole entire existence analyzed and assessed inside of this brain of mine - I know the internet far more than you do by its psychological design and I can use it to induce shame within you and everyone that treats it like some sort of toy, as it truly is the reflection of our collective information and experiences all in one place - the fact that it's consisted of children repeating tautological cess pools in gifs, in psychopathic stasis and refusal to accept such regressing traits to be just that, just goes to show that the internet's potential was destroyed along with human potential because people like you don't know how to grow up and stop resorting to the lowest form of wit: "sarcasm". What is sarcasm, really? Sarcasm is that moment in someone's life where people do not care, but do care at the same time - however, they only care so much to reluctantly care, by not caring, to hide the fact they can can, but do not have the mental integrity to do anything remotely responsible, as being sarcastic is the sign of being lazy - that's why the obese are very, very sarcastic. It's nice to know that your entire lifestyle is built on psychopathy and the lowest form of humanity as explained above, though! Keep on kicking the dead horse, mate. See what it does for you.
ELO means nothing when it's replaced by YOLO

"Euphoria lasts temporarily and is an internet meme." http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="985" height="657" /> http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net...; /> http://www.lucasbloggt.de...; />Do I really have to explain? *sigh*Euphoria only lasts temporarily in humans, but it's substance survives eternally. It may be something called an "meme" http://i.imgur.com...; />But thats irrelevent because many things are memes that doesnt mean its true. For example, that guy who says "F*ck her r*ght in the *ussy" may be a meme but its true and is how reporduction works http://www.youtube.com... "What I do lasts a life time and cannot be turned into an internet meme because it's beyond a word that people do not even know the history of."Youre full of shtoko. It cannot last forever becuase that entaisl an actual infinite which has absurdities as shown by hilbert's hotel.I have the Universe and the human psyche all broken down.Bullshtak. If you have it all broken down, youve broken yourself down, if youve broken yourself down you have created an infinite self- causated loop in which you break it down further. Saying euphoria and swag a thousand times doesn't mean anything. Straw man. I demonstrated ELO=swag and swag=euphoria and then euphoria matters. Just shows that you're desperate and deprived of actual life.Says the person who is b1ching about elo and about pie equaling pi.