BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists believe that raping a baby girl is okay - since God doesn't exist - whatever!

Pro claims "Everyone is foolishly becoming converted to being an atheist every single day". This is a assumption. For this statement to be true, Pro must provide proof, which they haven't. Again, the resolution invovles the word "Athesists" which refers to a group of people. My opponent is claiming that *all* Atheist believe in raping babies. Pro has to BOP to prove that *all* Athesist believe this, which they haven't done yet. For now, I have nothing to argue.
Atheists believe that raping a baby girl is okay - since God doesn't exist - whatever!

Pro so far has failed to uphold their Bop. Instead, they have made up their own scenario as proof. Their scenario is something they belive to be true. I will say it again, in order to win this debate, Pro must prove that every living Atheist believes it's okay to rape a child. I will extend this round in hopes for something to argue against.
Atheists believe that raping a baby girl is okay - since God doesn't exist - whatever!

(Thank you for accepting this challenge con, good luck!) Rosalie (Con): "In order for Pro to win this debate, he must prove that every atheist believes that raping a child is okay. He must show factual evidence. Good luck." For example (an refutable example of an actual thing that ma occur): Christian: Do you believe in God? Atheist: Not at all! Christian: What do you believe in then? Atheist: Evolution! Christian: So that would mean we (humans) are only materials out of chance, are we? Atheist: Yes, there is no other explanation. Christian: Okay, since with your perception of that we are materials out of chance, then you should think that it is only in our mind that we are alive? Atheist: Yes, it's only in our mind. Christian: So do you think that it's only in our mind that a rape is wrong? Atheist: Since we are only materials out of chance, thinking that something is right or wrong is only in our brain and, yes - we think rape is wrong. But that is still only in our brain that rape is wrong. Christian: It is not only in our mind that a rape is wrong, it is 'really' wrong! .". Proven!
Atheists believe that raping a baby girl is okay - since God doesn't exist - whatever!

Since no definitions were given, I will provide some. Atheist- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (. https://www.google.com...)Believe- accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of. (. https://www.google.com...)Rape- : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape. (. https://www.google.com...) In order for Pro to win this debate he must prove that every Athesit believes that raping a child is okay. He must show factual evidence. Good luck.
Atheists believe that raping a baby girl is okay - since God doesn't exist - whatever!

I am going to tear these stupid atheism and evolution to pieces! According to atheists, they think to themselves: "Since God doesn't exist, it's only in our mind that we are alive! So a baby girl being raped by a brutal rapist should not be a problem, it's only in our mind! (They also think,) It is okay to watch porn! It is only in the mind that it is wrong! (But how would they feel if their mother, sister or their own daughter were in that porn scene their watching? But it's all good right? it's oookay!) (In addition they think,) We evolved, (But, how can you teach that "THIS IS HOW THIS PUZZLE GOT CONNECTED!" when they can't connect the puzzle themselves? Or is the WIND (chance) better in fitting puzzles than HUMANS?)" Stop suppressing the truth atheists, God exists! :-) Amen! I say it again, how I wish this fairytale of evolution was true - for then I would also be a fairy.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

Last I checked, natural rights consist only in Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-ownsership- nowhere in the costitution does it ensure free housing, and even if it did- the natural state of a human is not to live in a house, but to live in a hovel or cave. This mens that a 'right to housing' cannot be a natural right- because it isn't natural at all.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

The United States means either the Federal Government or the State Governments collectively- the words themselves say this- United (the union of) States (Governments), means the Union of the State Governments composing the United States, which is the Federal Government. Regarding the constitution- the Constitution doesn't give you rights, it merely is a legal protection of them- natural rights exist inherently. My opponent has thus far made the argument that the Federal Government should ensure housing to everyone- to say otherwise doesn't mean you are opposing the right to property. You have the right to own your home provided you got it voluntarily from the person who owned it prior to you. This does not imply a right to have the the Federal Government give you free housing at the expense of the taxpayers, AKA theft victims. Regarding gay people- I don't give a sh*t, for some reason or another progressives try to label anyone who isn't a part of the homosexual tyrannosaurus which is rampaging all across the US as "anti-LGBTQ," or "Bigoted." When all I was doing was promoting economic freedom- there are places that only serve gays, get over it. My opponent even took a quote of mine out of context and said that I agreed with his premise of "anti-discrimination laws," when in reality I said that gay people should only be ensured to Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-Ownership, and that as long as they are being ensured these they aren't "lacking in rights," because that's all anyone's really entitled to. Furthermore, I never said that housing is bad- I said that we shouldn't 'ensure free housing,' because that isn't an actual natural right that the government is obliged to provide, and it will be paid for through coercion and theft, which are wrong. It is every individuals obligation to provide his or her self with housing, food, and health care.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

Rights refers to something which you are automatically entitled to- and as, fundamentally and logically speaking, there is nothing about government which gives it the authority to grant rights, 'rights,' canot be granted by government. Instead, everyone is entitled to their life, liberty, property, and self- and nothing else. The 'pursuit of happiness,' is't a natural right, Thomas Jefferson decided to replace 'property,' with 'the pursuit of happiness,' for some odd reason that I don't know. Either way 'the ursuit of happiness,' is preserved under liberty. Regardless of this, my opponent assumes that, because you need a house to fully pursue happiness, that housing is a right- when in reality, having a house is your responsibility to ensure. Just as eating food is necesary to live, but it would be absurd to pass a law saying that the government had to ensure thatyou were eating 3 times a day and had food in your house, because this is your resonsibility to do.Furthermore, natural rights are things which someone else is not allowed to commit aggression against, not something that you should automatically have ensured to you by government. Regarding LGBTQ people being discriminated against- it is not the governments job to prevent discrimination. If I decide not to serve gay people, for example, I should be able to do that. Unless you are innitiating direct aggression against gay people, you aren't infringing any of their rights. For so as long as this is ensured to any group of people, they are not being oppressed and have equal right just like everybody else.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

I must admit, Lyndon, your skills are fierce But I'm the one who knew Franklin Pierce. I also knew James Buchanan, and you burned our economy just like a civil war cannon. I even knew Ulysses S. Grant, But in your time, the people had to cheer "no we can't!" Don't forget Rutherford Hayes, and without you we would've seen better days. I even knew Millard Fillmore, But all you said was, "let's lose-more." I've said the best I can, let's see how you do, But please vote me, a president, over this un-economic poo.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

I'm sorry you may not know what those are; I forgot they hadn't even invented the car. You say my rhyme is cheesy, but use the same because it is easy. And I'm not joking; you had your fair share of smoking. I vetoed bills because they gave me the chills. You vetoed them because it gave you a gem. Are you hating my ears, have you had too many beers. Has this battle become lame enough to insult my name? Get off the subject of me my pee. Or are you running out of rhymes to go one more time. Let's get back to the fact that you were such a bad president that I would never be your resident.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

Ha!, Lyndon! You've said I can't work with Republican shelf, When heck, I worked as vice to one myself. Ah, Doritos? A bit to cheesy, for me And I still can't get my mind off the thing about your pee. You say it's good to talk with your peers-but dang, look at the size of your ears. I mean, can't you hear a pin drop in Iraq? Or do you just go home to your dirty old Texas hillbilly shack? And come on about vetoes? You had more than me. Please tell me you know 29 is less than thirty. I was intoxicated? You must be joking. I was actually being president while you were drinking and smoking. And your rhyme is making me sick. Who rhymes vetoes with Doritos? The best thing you could come up was a type of seasoned chips While I sit here and make up some epic quips.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

Look, you turn Democracy into Hypocrisy with your amendment opposition and vetoes, just go eat some Doritos. You say I"m weird for talking with my peers. But time is hard to lose when awesome is what you choose. I may have lost the war, but Lincoln was your only core, and you did no more. You were intoxicated when inaugurated, pardoned even the hardened, and publicity was like toxicity. Your reconstruction was charted, but almost destroyed what Lincoln started. I powered the Space Race that sent man into deep space, started educational bills that sent our state into thrills. I achieved more through my door than you did in your four.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

Hello, Lyndon There's no need for you to argue at any cost Especially when you worsened the war--the only one we've LOST. I ended the Civil War, you see And I started southern reconstruction, so you should be happy But all you do is talk to others when you go pee Yes, I was impeached, and that my be my blame But you certainly weren't one to gain much fame. You're from Texas, but what kind of a name is Lyndon Baines? You assaulted our government with dreadful economic pains. Your best actions were already attempted by Mr. Eisenhower But you, sir, certainly aren't the man-of-the-hour. No we aren't related, and I'm most certainly elated And I have greatly debated I shouldn't need the same blood as you.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

My name is Lyndon Johnson, I was born a Texan. Maybe we"re related, but don"t be elated, cause it doesn"t matter, I am higher on the ladder. You are a disgrace to the name; you were impeached and to blame. I created Medicare and Medicaid. You thought you had it made and almost finished the decade. But your one term proved that you didn"t have the people moved. Your democrat self didn"t work with the republican shelf. Against the confederate state you soon found hate, in the people you served who became nerved. My part is now completed, I hope you don"t feel cheated, even though I don"t care, next time you will not compare.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

Greetings sir, you must be Lyndon. My name is Andrew, I am prepared to battle you. I will not be using my vicious rhyme in this description but I will against you. Whoever you are, I must ask you--please change your profile image to that of Lyndon Johnson's. No vulgarity is allowed, no curses, cusses or swears. Nothing that would pull me by my hairs. You can use your best to be mean, but you obviously can't be the best I've ever seen.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.

You are naming these names like it makes a difference. When all they did was shield your ignorance. Oh, so you knew James Buchanan. You mean the president that sat by and waited for the union to die. Your Acquaintance destroyed my patience. If we are playing the game you fight with name, then John F. Kennedy was who I knew, others who can say that, are in the few. I may have made bad decisions in the economy, but who are you to judge, honestly. You came in peace time. I came in grease time. We had a war to solve, all you had was resolve. You messed it up so bad, people got sad and asked "What if, John Wilkes Booth wasn't so mad?"
Logic Game

Funny, Charlie think he can influence the voters by offering to bribe them with slips of paper he knows are worthless. What does this say about his opinion of the voter's intelligence? Voters, if you wish to keep any self-respect, I must sadly urge you to vote Pro. :P Seriously though, we ought to try this again later when school won't interfere. My thanks for an enjoyable, if rather unorthodox and inconclusive, "debate!"
Logic Game

~~~~~~~~ Argument one: All quadrupeds are have paws or hooves Animals with paws or hooves have hair All mammals have hair Therefore all quadrupeds are mammals. ~~~~~~~~ Argument two: . http://ustherobots.com... The two center panels. ~~~~~~~~ Argument three: All things that exist can be measured Space cannot be measured Therefore, Space does not exist ~~~~~~~~ Argument four: Chrysippus was a famous Stoic philosopher and logician around 200 BC, 2209 years ago . http://en.wikipedia.org... The user calling himself Chrysippus claims to be 22 years old Either the user calling himself Chrysippus is a liar, or he is not Chrysippus. If he is not Chrysippus, then he is lying when he calls himself Chrysippus. If he is a liar, then he may be Chrysippus. Therefore, if Chrysippus is telling the truth, Chrysippus is a liar. :D Your turn!
Logic Game

Well this sounds like fun. I thank my opponent for the debate. I have a couple of questions that he could clarify in the comment section: Do we agree upon the topics beforehand? If so, does that mean that we stick with them through the whole debate? Or do we have a grand total of 8 contending arguments per round, with each of us fighting 4 of them in the comment section? If so, do we only get one comment? Anyway, thanks a lot for the debate. Good luck.
Logic Game

Random logic game Overview: Each player posts four arguments, on any (clean) topic he chooses, and on as many (clean) topics as he chooses; they can be syllogisms, paragraphs, sentences, or symbols; they can be written, in a video linked (with the intended argument pointed out in the post), in a picture or graph linked, or in a news article linked, as long as it does not require a subscription to read the article. At least one of the arguments each round needs to be subtly fallacious. This is from a purely logical standpoint; neither reliability of the source, verity of the premises, nor real-world application of the conclusion of these arguments are to be taken into account. In the comments section, both Pro and Con post a comment at the end of each round indicating the fallacy in their opponent's argument(s). After each opponent has done so at the end of the game, Pro and Con each post comments indicating the arguments that contained the fallacies, and how many their opponent indicated correctly. The winner is the one who got the most correct. Sources score goes to the winner, as reliability is not an issue here. This is just supposed to be fun; format is not an issue here. Posting Arguments begins in round Two for fairness sake. :D
Jesus Christ was in fact a real man.

I accept. For reference, I may copy from my previous debates to answer any specific issues. My argument will be as follows:1) A historical event or person's validity rests solely on the primary sources which justifies them. Primary sources is meant in the broader sense of any contemporary or near-contemporary evidence (near being within a few decades).2) Jesus Christ is a more-than-extraordinary individual. Not only is he - at the very least - one of the single best speakers of all time, but also...you know... was God. As such, proof of his existence revolves around the proof of Jesus of Nazareth, creator of Christianity, prophet, Messiah, and born-again Son of God.3) Any evidence presented must be extremely compelling to make us believe that such a character existed. A few ambiguous words, for example, are not enough to justify he who should be a very famous person. However, no such evidence exists.4) Finally, the Bible itself is incredibly unreliable and untrustworthy as a source. If it is unreliable, then the character of Jesus being factual certainly comes into doubt. With that in mind, I shall await my opponent's first arguments. To define Jesus: "The central figure of the Christian religion.Jesus conducted a mission of preaching and healing (with reported miracles) in Palestine in about ad 28–30, which is described in the Gospels. His followers considered him to be the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God, and belief in his resurrection from the dead is the central tenet of Christianity"[1] I use the Oxford definition as such a dictionary is usually quite reliable.1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Evolution is Flawed

It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because an orderly system doesn't become more complex without an intelligent life helping it out. Take my room for instance, it doesn't become more orderly and add more fitting pieces, it decays without my intervention. It may not be exactly the what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, but the principle still stands. As said before, there are beneficial mutations that sometimes help but its rare and not enough for the Earth to keep on going for millions and billions of species and years like what most textbooks say. Sun light can't help organisms account for the losses of decay because that is still part of the system. No new information needs to be cited. As for the dinosaur fossils being found with modern day organisms, he doesn't site anything that refutes it so I am going to say that's an Argument by Dismissal. There are fossils of Dinosaur bones that have fresh blood, soft and flexible tissue, on them. I will cite two sources on this. One creationist and one that's not. [1][2][3] Dandelion and Blind Eye fish don't support macro evolution. Dandelions can use both sexual and asexual reproduction to increase the number of dandelions produced. According to Creation Studies, "several species of algae, many protists and fungi, flora, and aphids along with some species of amphibians and reptiles, the hammerhead shark (Eilperin 2007) and the blacktip shark (Chapman et al. 2008)" also have both abilities of reproduction.[4] Blind Eye fish losing the ability to see is a loss of function that is part of a fallen creation and that things get more disorderly and decay.[5] If we didn't come here by beneficial mutations then how did we become complex organisms from simple organisms today? The idea I am attacking is the macro evolution of molecules to man evolution. Micro evolution isn't disputed. [6] Let's define micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro Evolution is small changes without a species that don't result in new species and Macro Evolution is molecules to modern day man. [7] I've already sited the missing links that we haven't seen any archeological evidence for.[8] That's a little off topic but it needs to be addressed. What do you mean by evolution? I am talking about macro evolution being false. I'd like to hear what your origins of life is or what you were talk in school. What I was taught only at secular schools was that the Big Bang happened and life sprang up and evolved over millions and billions of years into the complex life forms that we have today. [1]http://creation.com... [2]creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_54-59.pdf [3]http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [4]http://www.creationstudies.org... [5]http://creation.com... [6]http://www.evolutionfairytale.com... [7]http://atheism.about.com... [8]http://www.calvarychapel.com...
Evolution is Flawed

Thank you for this debate. I will not respond in full because this is the final round. I'd simply be repeating myself anyway. I would like to summarize the arguments and argue why the voters should vote for me.Conduct - Tie. My opponent has shown decent conduct and has had a legitiment issue that caused him to fail to respond in round 4.Spelling/Grammar - Con. My opponent has had several instances of mispelling and grammar. For instance, in round 2:As for the dinosaur fossils being found with modern day organisms, he doesn't site anything that refutes it so I am going to say that's an Argument by Dismissal. There are fossils of Dinosaur bones that have fresh blood, soft and flexible tissue, on them. I will cite two sources on this. One creationist and one that's not. Site should be "cite."I've already sited the missing links that we haven't seen any archeological evidence for.Once more, the correct spelling is "cited" and not "sited."Moreover, his arguments and structure was very difficult to read and to define his arguments throughout several times of this debate. I often had to re-read the argument several times to figure out what my opponent was trying to prove. Arguments - I feel that I repeated myself way too many times throughout this debate. I sufficiently shown that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and gave picture representation to show why. My opponent failed numerous times to respond to the argument and insisted that shouting "X" proves "X" when I disproved "X." My opponent never responded to my evidence for evoloution.My opponent insists that all mutations are harmful and therefore disproves evolution. I responded to that by showing examples of beneficial mutations that help species and show that the most common form of mutations are neutral - i.e., they neither harm nor help the organism.Finally, on numerous occasions, my opponent has misrepresented the Theory of Evolution (i.e., evolution implies the Big Bang and atheism and abiogenesis disproves evolution). Sources - Con. Citing evolutionfairytale.com, bible.ca, and answersingenesis.com is enough to give me the source point. The sources my opponent shown has used has been disproved time and time again and, if you take a good look through the arguments, straw man and misrepresent the Theory of Evolution. I believe that the resolution that "evolution is flawed" is strongly negated.