BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

In the words of Pro: The earth does in fact orbit the moon and the sun... orbits... the moon Where's your proof? You cannot simply say "in fact" and get away with it. What evidence do you have to support that premise? This is debate.org; we aren't hippies at a love-in. Mr. Pro, if you don't provide any supporting evidence for such a heavily disputable hypothesis, then by definition, nobody is obliged to believe your statements. Now, it's obvious that my opponent believes that the sun orbits the earth, and not only that, the earth orbits the moon! Maybe he's a time-travelling Catholic stalwart (although this would mean he SUPPORTS the idea of a monotheistic God) from the 16th century or earlier: http://www.princeton.edu... Or he could be just trolling me because he has no valid arguments left to present. Quite frankly, this is more disgraceful than round 3. Pro should definitely lose points for conduct. Even so, I shall not stoop to my opponent's level. I'll refute even this argument of his. http://www.vibrationdata.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... The laws of gravitation, and other well-established phenomena such as stellar parallax and doppler effect clearly explain that the moon orbits the earth, and the earth orbits the sun. This fact completely contradicts my opponent's statement, which is doubtless based on nothing more than crude observation from his naked eyes. I wonder if Pro is older than 14... Oh, wait. He IS 14 years old. Well, at that age, ignorance is bliss, and no wonder he sees "HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES". However, the fact that Pro continues to make such outrageously wrong statements even after I posted sources explaining gravitation shows poor consideration and complete ignorance of my arguments on his part. What I find surprising is that someone who relies on nothing more than his eyes to believe that the sun & earth orbit the moon should say that God doesn't exist. My opponent is full of self-contradictions. I would also like to point out that Pro's latest argument was, in no obvious way, relevant to the debate. I advise voters to take this into consideration when awarding points for arguments. Anyways, now that even THIS argument has been disproved, I await Pro's closing statements and arguments(if any) for the fifth and final round. I also hope that Pro gives SOME respect to this debate and bows out gracefully.
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

"And THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH? WHO TOLD YOU THAT? I really hope that is a BIG typing error, otherwise i would advise you to pick up your fifth-grade science textbook and look at the SOLAR SYSTEM. The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. This is not exactly nature. It has a name. Once again, it's GRAVITY. Mr. Pro has some SERIOUS flaws in his scientific statements, and quite frankly, its disgraceful. As goes for nature, that is what makes the sun, moon and earth rotate about their own axes. It is the conservation of angular momentum:" Yeah, it's only a big typing error. The earth does in fact orbit the moon and the sun... orbits... the moon LOLOLO HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES NIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

Well, this is disappointing conduct from my opponent. The debate is currently at an impasse, since I have conclusively disproved Pro's time & definition arguments, and he has not put forth any new arguments. Since it is my opponent who is Pro as well as instigator of the debate, "by definition", I am not obliged to put forth new arguments. As such, an entire round has been wasted due to my opponent's actions. I would advise voters to keep this in mind when awarding points for conduct. I hope that Pro does not repeat this in the next round, and puts forth some new arguments for debate. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Should we contact uncontacted tribes

I think that there has been a miscommunication. You seem to think that I am arguing for forcing these people to accept Western culture. But I am not. I meant to make that clear when I said that western culture is not necessarily the best thing, so we shouldn't compel them to live like us. All I am arguing for is spreading the gospel. But you seem to think that they have already heard. As proof you say that their ancestors had to have been told at some time in history. This may be true, I do not know. But what I do know is that that doesn't mean that this generation has heard. They need a chance too. But would they even consider exchanging their religion for Christianity? Would I accept a belief that Aliens told me about? (I do not accept the "not scientific"proof" part.) No, I would not. But in the past, tribes have changed. Look at the Huaroni, for example. So it may be that they will change, and it would be wrong to refuse them the chance. But should we get involved in other nations issues? Let me put it this way. You have a dog in your house which you force to stay inside. It has no idea that there is a world outside. If I come and give it walks, would that be wrong? You would probably say yes because it is your dog, not mine. You'd say that you should be able to do what you want with it. But these are people, not dogs, and that makes a very big difference. If you were to keep your daughter inside like that, she would most likely be taken away from you. Yes, I have read "To Kill a Mockingbird." In it it spoke of harming and cruely treating innocent men. I am proposing doing the opposite. I say we should treat these people like we would want to be treated, not forcing them to stay in their cage of ignorance, not keeping them in the dark. How is that "potentially harming them""? The only example you found was westernizing them. But what I have been proposing is giving them Jesus, medicine, food, shelter, and anything else they need. You are proposing forcing them to stay uncontacted, I am proposing giving them a choice. Thanks for your arguments. They made me really think a lot more than I would have on my own. Good luck!
Should we contact uncontacted tribes

Thank you for your answer. There are a few parts that I fail to understand though. First of all, you speak of religion majorly, and how they need Jesus more than anything else. I can disagree with that. It may seem petty and myth-like for their religion to be what it is, but think of it this way. They have had their religion longer than the entire Western World has had Christianity. They would not abandon these beliefs, no matter what. If you do believe that they would consider them, I would have to ask you a question. Would you abandon your beliefs because aliens told you that Christianity was the wrong religion, but the aliens didn't have any scientific proof that their religion existed? Most likely not. You would stick to what you have known your entire life. Involving contact, many tribes have contacted at one point and time outsiders. Some people travel the Amazon (Very few, but it happens), and the humans who had been in the outsider world contact the tribes. I would not wish do disrespect anybody, but for fact, every 'tribe' that you say was uncontacted was contacted at a certain point and time in human history, and every one has refused to leave their beliefs. I don't think 6000 years can go by and nobody get in contact with these tribes at SOME point in that human history. Another question that can spark up is whether it is actually worth it. You say that it is, but with all of these risks, is it actually. If you have ever read the book "To Kill a Mockingbird", think of it this way. The tribes are the Mockingbirds. They have never harmed us, if you really think about it. They have helped conserve places like the Amazon by being there, and have helped save tigers and other animals from extinction, because they in a way defend them. By potentially harming them, that would be a sin. It is wrong to attack those who never attacked you. A question that can be also debated. The local nation is where it is, so therefore, the nation is responsible for contacting the tribe. Its like if I had a living artifact in my house, and because it is an artifact, you deem I have no right to keep it, and you barge into my house because your belief system says otherwise. That is exactly what you would be saying by denying the countries that the tribes are in the right to speak about it. Not to mention the fact that nations have never really been sympathetic to Natives (Native American Genocide, Inquisition in Latin America, Darfur, African Colonization, etc.). What you propose is something similar to Colonization, in what became imperialism. Some of my language did sound harsh, but I did not mean to bring upon disrespect to you.
Should we contact uncontacted tribes

Yes, the fact that we can cure diseases that we carry, that is very true. But Ebola came from a tribe! Until the 1970's, Ebola wasn't known to any Western Countries, until it was discovered by scientists. We don't have a known cure for Ebola, and if that is a disease with even modern technology we cannot cure, what says that other things tribes carry in terms of diseases can be cured? Also, you would bring up the argument whether Nations or the People should be involved in the contact. Outsider humans have been in contact with tribes for a long time (Western people). If we are discussing nations though, very few nations that are Christian have tribes in them. If you mean the Church, most churches do not have the funding (Except organizations of Churches) that can fund a mission there. Not even considering the governments might not want to tamper with local culture, in fear that the people of that nation will get angry at the government. In regards to disease, you are saying that we can cure diseases that we hold that they can get. That is true, but for example lets look at people we already know exist. In Africa for example, healthcare is to a minimum. We don't have the infrastructure to support these people. The United States even tries to send help but many of the governments outright refuse the assistance. Not only saying that many nations need more money to keep their known people alive than contact people who they don't know. Not only that, but if they have been uncontacted for so long, is it even plausible to think that they want to be contacted? Some do, I do understand that, but the majority of them are not willing to be contacted, some will respond with aggressive force to be independent. And who would determine what is good for their culture? The nation, the people, the world? Introducing foreign religious beliefs alone will get you killed in some of these tribes. Others will laugh at you. And not to be mean to the Western World, but our track record of how we deal with "contacting" isn't really peaceful. 99% of the time, it started as peaceful, and then we found a resource that we wanted, and we occupied them, killing anyone who standed in our way. Not only considering this, but look at all the poor, uneducated, unhealthy people we have around us. We have enough of a problem already that we should be dealing with before we even consider going to people who have no idea of who we are and telling them about how "good" is Western Culture. Also considering that the Pope has been trying for a long time to try and assist people in his own nation. Contacting uncontacted tribes doesn't sound logical if they are going to be thrown to the dirt like we have to the rest of society already.
Should we contact uncontacted tribes

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. " Matthew 28:19-20. When God tells us to go to all nations, he means all nations, and he is displeased if we refuse. (Read Jonah). However, in the past when Christians decided to go to a people, they messed it all up. They intermingled western culture with religion, and taught it as one thing. But western culture is not necessarily the best thing, and forcing them to live like us is wrong. However, although we shouldn't change the good parts of their culture, their lives need to change. It seems unkind, even cruel to leave them live the way they are without ever telling the about Christ. Now I understand the risks. They are not immune to many diseases that we carry. They can easily get sick. But by making contact we would be able to have better medical care then they have now. We would be helping them. Also, we say" let's not contact them". But what it they want to contact us? For example, one tribe, a Mashco Piro tribe, tried to make contact with us for three days. We didn't let them. By this point we're not just "letting them live the way they want to live" we're forcing them to stay uncontacted. Have fun!
Should we contact uncontacted tribes

The problem of what you say is a few things. First of all, saying that we are not harming them would be void for a couple of reasons. First of all, we couldn't provide them food, water, shelter, and things like language learning, classes for them to understand how to be independent, and many other things. We can barely do that for the people we already know! That could be a reason. Saying that Missionaries have not gone to Africa to assist people in corrupt governments can be shown all over. Not only that but you are saying that we should give that generation a chance. How would that be possible. That would mean we should bug every generation that is in their area every 10 years to give each generation a chance? That would be very questionable. We would not keep them in a cage of ignorance. First of all, every religion is somewhat of ignorance. I do not propose that Christianity or any religion is above another. That would directly interfere with Christianity by saying that God does not love all, but loves those who defend his religion only. Not only that, but you cannot compare my house to a country. A country has heavy weapons, artillery, and usually have a good army. That would be proposing that we would go to war with a country possibly to stop them from not contacting their tribes in their area. Not only that, but you mention the Huaroni people. As a result of Christian Missionary, they have though gotten an education and now have permanent forest settlements, but they have also lost 2/3 of their land and the last 1/3 had to be fought in a court room. Their land is still being logged by corporations that have no interest in helping them. In this sense, we are forcing them out into the open, where they will be susceptible to many diseases such as Polio and many others. Considering that Africa is still quite undeveloped, we should actually focus on helping the known people there instead of the unknown people there. Helping the unknown people there would provide nothing to assist the world. Not only that, but also consider that when you said the Huaroni people, 5 tribes apart of that ethnicity still don't want to be apart of the western world. I thank you for a great debate! I have never had a debate with a religious person without it getting really heated! I thank you so much for having a structured and good argument.
The Sabbath is a commandment for all of God's people

I'm open-minded to all you have to say and hope you will be the same with me. This is my first debate, so bear with me. I consider myself a Christian (though you may refer to my beliefs as Messianic Judaism). I believe that the ENTIRE bible is true and applicable to our lives. But the subject here is the Sabbath, and let's stay focused on that. Today you have three kinds of Christians. You have Christians like you, who believe that the Sabbath commandment is abolished. You have Christians like me, who believe that the Sabbath commandment is intact. Lastly you have Christians who believe that: a) Sunday has always been the Seventh Day and is the Sabbath we are to observe. b) The Sabbath was switched to the first day of the week and we are now to observe Sunday as our day of worship. Let me tell you that the idea of 'the Sabbath being obsolete' is a very new age idea. Fort centuries, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have observed Sunday as the Sabbath. I would appreciate it greatly if you did some research on this, if in doubt. Just have an open mind. It's all I ask. Now, you quote Paul in Colossians regarding the Sabbath. Let me make it clear that I believe Paul was a man of God and what he taught was true. I believe that Paul observed God's Law, taught it and in no way undermined it. That being said, if YOU believe that Paul taught the Sabbath was no longer necessary, and if his teachings are your only source of coming to the conclusion that the Sabbath is no longer necessary, tell me, what gives him authority to subvert the commandments of God? If you believe that Paul taught to rebel against God's commandments, then why would you obey him over God? If I truly believed that Paul taught anything against even the least of God's commandments, I would regard him as nothing more than a deceiver and a liar. As Peter said in Acts 5:29 NKJV "We ought to obey God rather than men. " A few things to be made clear: 1) Paul was a Pharisee until the day he died (Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5) 2. Paul was a Benjamite and observant of the law (Philippians 3:5-6) 3. Paul kept the Feast Days (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:16) Does it make sense for a Pharisaic Benjamite to teach contrary to God's commandments? Why did he keep holy days if he deemed them not important? And as I said before, if you are convinced that Paul truly does teach against the Sabbath, does it make any sense to put his authority over God's? Who is your god Daley, YHWH or Paul? If they don't agree, it should be clear who to obey.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA)

Discrimination towards anyone in a public place is a violation of civil rights. A business that isn't involved with a religion is open to the public because the business is not a religiously oriented organization therefore you cannot justify discrimination on the basis of religion. I however do believe that churches should not have to do gay marriage because the churches are religious places and the government forcing them to clash with their religiously would be a violation of the first amendment (freedom of religion).
Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA)

The pleasure has been mine and I respect your position. On the other hand if a bakery is asked to to make a wedding cake for a LGBT wedding the bakery is a public business which is doing services for anyone as long as they are compensated for their services. You must make a fine line between business and personal opinions. There is a certain decorum you must present as a professional and that means you just do your job and suppress your own feeling so that they do not interfere with your work.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA)

Perhaps in public businesses (restaurants, theaters, etc.) that applies. However if bussinesses are asked to make something supporting the gay cause (bakery making LGBT marriage cake, business making signs supporting gays, copier making LGBT fliers, etc.) Those should be able to refuse those kind of services to them because of their beliefs. If a business that makes products is asked to make something they don't support, or that go against their beliefs, they should be able to refuse. It was a pleasure debating with you by the way.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA)

I agree that people should not have their first amendment right of freedom of religion stripped away from them. This is why I mentioned that churches should not have to do gay marriages if they do not support it however, businesses are open to the public (which does include gays) besides someone's personal beliefs. It is considered extremely unprofessional to voice personal opinions that can offend others in a public area. This is why you cannot simply refuses service gay customers.
Capitolism

It appears, Phil, that you have drastically misinterpreted my argument. I never suggested forcing socialism upon people. In fact if you will look at my opening argument, it specifically says: "I do not believe in making this a way of government, but instead a way of society." I thoroughly agree that forcing this policy on people will make a messed up society. I very strongly believe in free market. I don't know where you got the idea that I was making a suggestion of something the government should do. I was making a hypothetical suggestion of a better way of thinking and living. I agree that some people's personalities are compatible with the un-selfish lifestyle of capitalism. I agree that the PEOPLE CONTROL THE SOCIETY, and not government. A VOLUNTARY socialist society can work very well, even better than capitalism. And while it may be hard for the capitalist to conceive the socialist's motive in working, I can assure you that the work gets done efficiently. The capitalist cannot perceive why anyone would ever do anything that would not directly benefit themselves. I would like to stress that I am not a communist, but a Democratic Socialist. I believe in the power of the people. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT GOVERNMENT.
Capitolism

There is a monumental difference between what you experienced in Israel, and what appears to be your advocacy that we all live in socialism. The people you lived with CHOSE that type of communal lifestyle. It only works because each person chooses that way of life every day. However, forcing people into a socialistic lifestyle even on a minor scale fails every time it's tried. It's also very easy to understand why it fails. You need but watch one episode of survivor to learn that only a fraction of the population actually carries their weight. This naturally causes the workers to be angry with the lazy people. What we're talking about here is an approach to the economy and form of government that works "the best" and for "the most" people; an approach that can be easily implemented, where people have liberty and freedom. What a great system we have in the USA. If you want to work hard, you can greatly improve your lifestyle. If you don't want to work hard, then you will most likely only have a moderate lifestyle. Let's allow people choose where and how they want to live. Let's not force them into a role in society. How would you like it if when you were born, the some bureaucrat decided that you are going to make shoes for the rest of your life because the government needs more shoe makers? That's the saddest thing I can think of, to be born with no freewill, no choices, and no means to change your lot in life. The scary thing is what a socialistic form of government undoubtedly leads to…dictatorships. It's very easy to overpower a socialistic society, and it has been done many times throughout history. More often than not, it occurs because a large percentage of the population seeks freedom and liberty, which quickly disrupts the flow of things. In order to keep the powerful bureaucrats in power, they quickly take steps to control these outbreaks. The people quickly lose anything the government deems as threatening to their control, anything that might encourage freedom and liberty. Bans on religion, music, television, the arts, movies, free speech, and even free thought are put in place. More often than not these dictators will slaughter people by the masses in order to protect their rule. Look at the history of China, Russia, East Germany, North Korea, and even Iraq. Why would you want to put people at risk of such tyranny? If you have issues with capitalism, then try and fix them. But to strip us of our freedom just so you don't have to look at an advertisement is crazy. I'd much rather look at privately owned billboards on the freeway, than the barrel of a gun just because I might disagree with my government. Wouldn't you?