BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Real

I severely thank you for knowing the concept of evolution. Some people say very false things about evolution and have meaningless arguments. I also thank you for knowing how long evolution takes place. It is not just the pope that believes in evolution; many arch-bishops and most preachers also believe in evolution. The reason that your preacher doesn't tell you that he believes in evolution is because if one part of the Bible is false, what is keeping the rest of it wrong. And they have good reason to believe in evolution. I said that I would prove evolution in this round, so I won't disappoint. In the story of Noah's Ark, his ship crashed into a mountain in Europe. Also in the story, on this ship there was two of every animal. Scientists have searched for the skeletons of kangaroos that should have crossed the entire mountainous continent of Europe, crossed almost all of Asia, and went across a land bridge to Australia, which there is no evidence of such land bridge, and guess what? The scientists were surprised that there was no evidence of ANY of that happening. No dead kangaroos. So if the story of Noah's Ark is true, then the kangaroos are supposed to do cross multiple continents without dying. That is not very likely. The story of Noah's Ark also takes place 4000 years ago, when supposedly the entire planet was underwater from a massive flood. However, the world's oldest tree is over 5000 years old. Let me just say that trees don't last that long underwater, so you can make two claims. That a) The trees lasted years underwater and all of them survived or b) that the tree really isn't 5000 years old. The first choice is impossible and the second one denies that science is accurate. If you were to claim the second choice, you are not trusting science. How come you do not trust science when it removes the possibility of a book being wrong but you are happy to trust science when you are driving a car or posting debates on a computer? There are many things supporting evolution. Darwin's finches, DNA relations, and even more. There are scientists that can study the brain and determine how similar they are to animal brains. At the Varik Institute, they performed an experiment simulating the conditions of primordial Earth. Out of the simulation, amino acids were formed, a necessity of life. Also, viruses are always changing and in time EVOLVING. God was known to create all life on Earth, but recently a lab created the first artificial life form. Now there are countless more debunks fore Noah's Ark, but I will drop my case there and go over the facts. Fact: The world is over 4 billion years old. Fact: There was no such thing as Noah's Ark. Fact: This leaves plenty of room for evolution, but none for many of the Bible's stories. Fact: People have to deny evolution to keep from questioning the Bible. In the conclusion, I will go over the fallacies of the Bible. Resources: Undeniable, by Bill Nye The Bible
God is Real

So, yes, I did claim all of those things, but what is your point? In regards to the pope, just because the most well-known person in the universe believes in something, it doesn't mean it exists. The pope can believe all day that the color of the sky is purple; and everyone can say it is purple too just because that's what the pope believes. But we all know that's not true; and it's obvious that the sky is not purple. Same with God and evolution. Just because the pope believes in evolution, doesn't mean it exists. But I'd like to call you out on that. Just because the Pope believes in evolution does NOT mean that everyone else should. Just because Miley Cyrus is believes in being pansexual, it doesn't mean that everyone else should. My point is, the fact that the pope believes in evolution means nothing. If anything, for the pope to believe in evolution is totally contradictory to his position. If you, or anyone, claims to be a follower in Christ, you can't claim to believe in evolution...they just don't go together. If you are a Christ follower, (like the pope) you believe that God created the universe with intelligent design. And by that, you believe that everything has been that same for thousands of years; meaning; no evolution has occurred. You would also believe that man has been the dominant being of the earth since the beginning of time. My point it, to say that the pope believes in evolution is a false witness on his part. Going back to my points previously, I was basically trying to prove God was real through those things I listed. God is real and evolution is not.
God is Real

Thank you for your well thought out argument. However, I am sorry to inform you of the fallacies in your argument. In your first argument, you aren't proving anything; you are simply making a claim. ........................................................................................................ In your second argument you did the common action made by most people by saying the world is too complicated to be created by a "random" explosion. Photosynthesis and the water cycle have been proven by scientific evidence, just like that random explosion was proven by cosmic evidence. ........................................................................................................ And lastly in your third argument, you are saying you can have a relationship with something that you haven't proven real. I do not have to go any further. ........................................................................................................ My Argument: You claimed that evolution cannot be real because it is not parallel with religion. So, if I prove that religion is real, I can claim that God is not. ......................................................................................................... Evolution is a necessity for modern science. All of the world's greatest scientists believe in evolution. If you were to go on Ted Talks, almost all of the people there believe in evolution. I will prove evolution in a later stance. .......................................................................................................... One Last Note: Even the Pope believes in evolution. Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins.
gay marrage

Before reading this, please read my comment. It includes my definitions and welcome. Sorry I had to post it in the comments, however your 500 character limit just will not suffice for the sincerity of this debate.Case #1: Children cared for within a homosexual relationship will be deprived from certain qualitiesMy source: http://www.citizenlink.com...My point: A dad teaches things to a child that a mum cannot, likewise for a mum teaching what dad cannot.
Obama ought to be impeached;

Actually, America is an ally of Iran. It may be so that it has been said by Iran that America is one of their greatest enemies, but if you look at the date of your article, a lot has changed between then and now. Since September last year, terrorism and its flow have changed greatly, and its predictability has changed greatly. Now, into this year, America and Iran are both fighting together against terrorism and still upholding the informal nondiplomatic ties that they still have. http://www.slate.com...
Obama ought to be impeached;

I ask you Mr. Instigator, are you basing that off of assumption or is that a definite fact? Again, I see no proof whatsoever in your argument, and I and those who vote will be forced to believe that your argument is entirely based on assumption and personal opinions. The burden of proof lies on you, Mr. Instigator and I as a person who seeks a future profession in something that requires arguing and factual evidence to prove a case, and as I have done it before, I am being quite generous in asking to use evidence to prove your argument. I would first off, before continuing with my argument and factual evidence, ask to please present me with any proof that Iran is a terrorist country.... From my personal knowledge, and according to online Iran is not a terrorist country. Iran is one of America's allies and has always been... You may be confused with Iraq of which is a terrorist country... http://www.contributoria.com... But this argument does not lie in the fact that either may be a terrorist country, rather that Mr. Obama is committing treason based on the personal opinions of you. You have failed other than proving your arguments above, that he has done so. Your argument is based on the assumption of what Iran's government purposes are in use for the money that America is loaning to Iran for education. As I have said before, H.R. 1191 says it all and proves it all. If you read the article above, you will find that Iran is not a terrorist country, rather that it is contributing to fighting terrorism.
Obama ought to be impeached;

https://www.google.com... That above is the link to the search on the War on Terror search. According to that search, that war has been going on since the Bush administration, as a cold war. Furthermore, the list of Combatants does not enlist Iran and there is no mention of such. Mr. Instigator, I would ask that you read H.R. 1191, and please base your argument off of that source as that is the best source to use in this debate. In addition, if you read H.R. 1191, the interior motive is to be used as a channel for intelligence gathering and control over the government. In a way, it is like what the U.S. is doing to Cuba, trying to rid their government of their dictatorship totalitarian government. On your point about how it could be used for weaponry, you do make a good point. However, we cannot assume that Iran will be using the money provided for weaponry, other than it purpose to be used for education. If this entire argument was based on assumptions, then this argument is basically pointless. I would ask you Mr. Instigator to please use some evidential sources to support your argument so that I have ground to counterargue what you are proposing. I want to point out again, that this is Congress that has control over this and not Mr. President.
Obama ought to be impeached;

If we look at the agreement made with Iran, Mr. Instigator, we can see that it is under Congresses umbrella. It is a treaty offered by us to Iran, one of America's allies, to limit the amount of nuclear weapons that can be traded and used in such case of war. This treaty is more as a way for America to watch the amount of nuclear weapons a country is trying to make. If you read the summary of the bill posed, H.R. 1191, you will see that that is the idea posed. Here are some of what this bill is trying to pose: "these negotiations are a critically important matter of national security and foreign policy for the United States and its closest allies" "even though the agreement may commence, because the sanctions regime was imposed by Congress and only Congress can permanently modify or eliminate that regime" Mr. Instigator, under the Constitution of the United State, under Article 3 Section 3, it states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." and according to this bill and Congress, Mr. Obama does is not doing anything in his presidency, and has not done anything in his presidency yet, that would make him fit this description. Furthermore, according to Laws.com, "This part of Article 3 says that treason is when someone tries to attack or wage war against the United States or if he or she tries to help enemies do so in some way." and currently Iran and America are not at war nor, has Mr. President in anyway leveraged one. In fact no one has declared war on Iran, and the chances of that is not very likely at the moment.
Obama ought to be impeached;

NO! I see that Mr. Instigator has a very closed mind to a new system of presidents. If we look at the American government, who has the most power over this country? Congress. We always look to the president to change this country, but it isn't entirely in his power. The power lies in Congress. If Congress says no, then it doesn't happen. Yes, you can say executive orders, but Congress can still veto it, and a number of executive orders a president can make in their term, are limited. And if you choose to question the other branch of government-The Supreme Court- Congress has power over that too. Plus, the president has limited powers over the Supreme Court and in fact has to answer to them too. We can't challenge that a president is a bad president because his promises don't happen. The president is basically a police officer. He has to enforce the law, thus the term "executive". He has to execute the law. He can offer as much of his promises to Congress as he pleases, but if they say no, that his other changes of making something effective are very limited. If you find that a president should be impeached for other reasons than his presidency, then you are flat out immoral and this discussion is over.
It is reasonable to argue that the JC Penney Hilter tea pot scandal was intentional.

Thanks to Average Atheist for accepting. In the end many arguments arrive at a Hitler comparison so this argument is certainly and reasonably of interest to the debate.org community. Definitely reasonable: It is reasonable to argue virtually any point provided that the argument is sensible. The debate title could be rephrased, “is it possible for a reasonable person to argue that the Hitler teapot story was created deliberately?” Stirring Controversy to push products is a common business strategy According to Forbes although it may not be a good strategy, “Some brands make a point of stirring controversy — it’s a tired old strategy in the fashion apparel business.” [1] The attention JC Penney received created additional web traffic and sales. The ‘Hitler teapot’ sold out Tuesday while 30 other teapots in the JC Penney line did not [2]. The increased web traffic and attention the brand has received is certainly helpful. This is especially true at a time when the struggling company has reversed its strategy back to a large emphasis on sales and discounts. Nazi pot designer, Michael Graves, stands to benefit as well: This guy has to wake up every morning and design teapots for JC Penney pining for a career change. He could even have acted independently. The teapot is featured on the cover of his website and is still in the incriminating ‘Hitler-esque’ pose while JC Penney has changed the angle on there website. Why a Billboard? JC Penney is a giant retail store with thousands of products. Why on earth would they chose to feature their Godwin’s Law tea pot as the sole product on their billboard at a time when the company desperately needs some attention? It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the billboard was designed to give the company a little press at a time when they need it. My opponent defends Hitler teapots, do you really want to side with a potential Nazi? In a debate like this it is almost bad form NOT to compare your opponent to Hitler so con should not take offence. Even on the off chance that my opponent is, in fact, in love with Hitler do you want to join him in his cause? In his opening statements con indicated that it is characteristic of Jews to burn down buildings. Nazi sympathize much? Rebuttal: While it is true that a reaction from the Jewish community could pose a problem for the company any response would only provide more publicity. Active violence or even legal action is very unlikely. An overtly anti-Semitic bill board from Wodka Vodka generated a fair amount of press, public denouncements and controversy but not even a threat of violence. [3] [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.uproxx.com... [3] http://news.yahoo.com...
It is reasonable to argue that the JC Penney Hilter tea pot scandal was intentional.

http://www.businessinsider.com...Rules:1. No semantic or loophole arguments; I'm new and it's not interesting to me to argue over the likely mistakes in my setup. 2. First round is for acceptance, no new arguments in the last round3. I hope you will laugh at the meme but this is not a troll debate?Definitions:rea·son·a·ble /G2;rēz(ə)nəbəl/ Adjective (of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible. Based on good sense: "a reasonable request". Synonyms rational - sensible - moderate - fair - sane in·ten·tion·al /inG2;tenCHənl/ Adjective Done on purpose; deliberate. Synonyms deliberate - wilful - willful - purposeful - intended
Why US should convert to the metric system

As trade and the influence of technology increases by each day, the importance of converting to the metric system is also increasing. I have mentioned before, not only is the metric system the common language for science, it also prevent economical losses, for example NASA. The internet is a common place that American youngsters normally spend their time on, and I do believe that they communicate with people from all across the world. The rest of the world (excluding America) all use the metric system, so through the web, the American youngsters would be able to know (maybe more familiar) with the metric system. Yes, America is a unique country with unique systems and customs. But, it would be nice and easier for the rest of the world if America agrees to change just one unique trait of them. Well, don't the Americans have other unique traits that distinguish them from the rest of the world? (P.S. Not meant to be insulting in any way, America is a wonderful place, just that I feel that everything would be so much easier if they converted to the metric system.)
Why US should convert to the metric system

The US should not convert to the metric system because we aren"t the rest of the world. We are America. The Lang of Opportunity The Land of Freedom The Land of Change The Land where someone can come over and start a new life as a new man a new person this country is a leader not a follower this country isn"t the same as others we are special we are"nt about to switch over to the metric system just because everyone else has it or just because there are some miscommunications. No that"s why we have conversion systems, ways to convert between the two systems to avoid confusion. We are"nt followers we aren"t about to be like everyone elsez Nah we are special we are royalty royal material We are our own country with our own customs besides everyone who went to school here is more familiar with the standard system sure we could start over and have the young generations start to use the metric system but it will be years and generations before it actually makes an impact so let"s stick to our own system and be ourselves and show our country is different our country gonna do its own thing
Why US should convert to the metric system

Let's start with the basics: What is the metric system? According to Oxford, the metric system is an internationally agreed decimal system of measurement. The examples of the metric system would be our ever familiar metres, centimetres, kilogrammes and litres. Scientists and students all over the world use this language of mathematics to communicate with each other. There had been cases of miscommunication an example would be: In 1999, The root cause of the loss of NASA's US$125 million Mars Climate Orbiter was a mismatch of units " the spacecraft engineers calculated the thrust forces required for velocity changes using US customary units of pounds whereas the team who built the thrusters were expecting a value in metric units of newton as per the agreed specification. On that day, the mismatch of units caused the orbiter to go off course and ignite before crashing. A common language is what the scientists and engineers need in order to prevent further accidents, so the US should changed to the metric system ad stop trying to be unique.
Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools

I disagree with your argument and I say that religion should be taught in schools. You say that state-run schools should be free from the delusions and prejudices of the religious community, but what if your 'religious community' was all one religion that the vast majority of students belonged to? In this case, the religion would be Christian. Indeed, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that, of all the world's population, 31.5% were Christian-more than any other religion in the world. In the US, however, that number rises to a staggering 77%. In short, it wouldn't matter if children were taught religion in state-run schools if they already identified with the said religion in everyday life. You also say that religion is only taught in state-run schools because 'it conditions students to be compliant to the will of the State'. However, even without religion present in school curriculums, most students grow up law-abiding and state law-following people. The remaining few students that cause problems usually have different reasons-they come from a bad home, their parents are abusive, etc.
Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools

I argue the case that Religious studies or activities should not be taught/performed in State run schools. I argue that the education of children attending State run schools should be free from the delusions and prejudices of the religious community. I argue that the only reason that religion is permitted in State run schools is to condition children to be compliant to the will of the State. I argue that law, morality and ethics be taught in schools from a non-religious perspective. I accept the right of religious people to have their children taught in church run schools, but their children should have the right to opt-out if they choose.
Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools

A study posted by the NCSS (National Council for Social Studies) says that 'religion has inspired some of the world's most beautiful art, architecture, literature, and music'. Furthermore, the study goes on to say that, in the 1963 case of Abington v. Schemp, the United States Supreme Court said that religious education in public schools was both 'legal and desirable'. Think about that for a second-some of the world's most beautiful art, architecture, literature, and music was inspired by religion, hundreds of years ago without most of the highly advanced technologies we have today. Think what children could do today, exposed to religion and with our advancements and inventions that support and make creating artwork much easier.