BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

I never stated that love and emotion are things that cannot be scientifically measured. What I DID say is that your comment on the necessity of a purpose in the universe doesn't require a balancing force as science does. If the chemical thought process that provides us with the idea of "purpose" is produced, that idea doesn't need to be balanced in another brain or by the presence of the opposite idea that you state. You couldn't be committing more of a false equivalence fallacy when you tell me that there are so many scientists who were religious and all of these smart people. First of all, lets define the fallacy. You take the traits of two things and say that they are equal while ignoring all of their differences. EX: 1 is a number, 2 is a number, 1=2. What you did is you said that because a handful of scientists believed in a God, that somehow makes science religious or religion scientific. First of all, a lot of people will admit that they accept their religion based on faith which is defined as "A strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Many people don't argue that evidence is not a trait of religion, rather they use their faith. Also, it is 100% wrong to assume that Albert Einstein believed in a personal God. He was a Pantheist whose quote you took immensely out of context. As for the miracle of Buenos Aires(http://www.loamagazine.org...), there was no consensus on the study of the "growing blood and flesh of a human" out of a communion cracker and some water. According to the source I am reading (listed above) says that the study was confirmed to be blood and flesh by Frederic Zugiba, a Christian Apologist, and was not confirmed by ANY OTHER SCIENTISTS which I find quite odd. The only two other people who were witnesses of this test even happening have absolutely no credibility in a forensics field. One of them is a journalist and the other doesn't even have a specified career. There was no consensus among a group of actual scientists
God Cannot Logically Be Defended As Real

Can love be scientifically explained? The logic you have states that if it cannot be measured in some way, shape, or form, it cannot exist. Albert Einstein once said that there is no religion with out science, and vice versa. The man who developed the Big Bang theory(not the show)? Catholic Priest. Gregor Mendel, father of genetics. Catholic monk. Copernicus, the man who developed the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Catholic man. Ever hear of the miracle of Buenos Aries? Happened in the 1990s. After adoration, a priest went to put the Body of Christ in a cup of water then set it in a tabernacle. Usually, the host would dissolve in a couple days. However, when the priest checked the host seven days later, it had turned into a substance of blood and flesh. There were still white blood cells present, meaning that it was alive. It was DNA tested by a man who had no idea of where it came from. The result was that it had come from a middle aged Israeli man. The white blood cells had penetrated the tissue(it was from the heart) indicated it had undergone a severe beating. The tissue was still alive when it is being tested. It was the tissue of Jesus Christ, the Son of God(the God you don't believe in). There is no possible way for it to possibly be alive unless it was Jesus'.
Food should be free

Oh! Nature food. Yeah why not, If you want to pick up something off the street plants and eat it, No one will stop you and tell you to pay. You can eat it whenever you want. It's always been free, No one had put a price on it if you ever want to pick fruits off a tree or eat leaves or bugs roaming around under the dirt. But if you mean fruits that's sold, Do you think people just pick fruit off a tree somewhere in the wild and sells it? People had to grow the tree in a plantation and take good care of those plants to make fruits grow and grow to a good size, They have to pay for pesticides and space. Everything you are buying from a store right now had someone's work in it, Either the people growing them or the people delivering them to where you live. Again, The same thing I presented in the first argument, Did you even understand? There are even more people that rely on you paying for the food and they deserve to be paid. All the food you have ate to live to your age had someone processing it so you can eat it cleanly. Without their work, You can definitely pick something off the street for free and eat it, But it wouldn't be as good or as safe. You are not only paying for the food, You are paying for their work, So they can keep providing you with safe and clean and delicious fruits. dumbo is a weird insult btw.
Food should be free

No, Foods shouldn't be free. Do you think food comes from nowhere, You think they just fall out of the sky? There are people growing the food, Planting the seeds, Harvesting the food, Processing the food, According to statista. Com, "In 2013, There were 3. 65 million fast-food restaurant employees in the U. S. This figure was forecasted to reach almost 3. 8 million by 2018. ". If food were ever made free, Them and all other workers in the food industry wouldn't be able to get paid and will quit their job and thus this entire industry would collapse. Then there wouldn't be people on farms or on ranches growing the food, We would soon have no food unless we grow them in the yard and watch over them all day. I would prefer being able to buy them. Also, Putting a price on food is purely selfish? Not wanting to pay for other people's work is what's selfish. The action of making foods free would simply abolish the system of currency as one part of it gets eliminated. You color your own selfish will in the word of truth, Love, And friendship, But even communism made more sense than this. https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/196630/number-of-employees-in-us-fast-food-restaurants-since-2002/
Food should be free

Prices on food makes life a prison for nearly everyone on the planet. If food was made free, Financial support would hardly be necessary Putting a price on food is purely selfish, And a crime against nature, It replaces truth love and friendship with money, Where coworkers are naturally friends, And human life is but a race for money, It is hypnotizing us, Cuz we need to be fixated on the word of our all seeing emperor. Imperio!
The Qur'an does not give an accurate picture of the Historical Jesus

Although the discussion was not what I expected, I had a lot of fun and I feel like I learned something. I would happily debate PRO again. My BurdenAs stated in the initial round, I shared the burden of proof with PRO. I have successfully met that burden. I painted a picture of the historical Jesus using historical documentary evidence, and demonstrated that it is not in conflict with Jesus as described in the Qur’an. These points were not disputed by PRO. PRO’s BurdenPRO carried a burden to demonstrate that the Qur’anic picture of Jesus was in conflict with the historical character, but he failed to even address the historical Jesus, choosing instead to focus on the Biblical character of Jesus. I demonstrated that the Bible is not an acceptable source for a description of the historical Jesus, making all of PRO’s arguments moot. Therefore, PRO failed to meet his burden.
space exploration isn't a waste of money

Thank you for posting your next argument. Although you did not directly say "is" you were against "isn't." Therefore you said is. Being Con means that you are against, so you say "space exploration isn't a waste of money" and you are con, you are saying "space exploration is a waste of money" No I am not sure that we will find a "friend" but you are not sure that we won't. For this reason we can not say that it is a waste of money because we can not know if it is a waste. 25 billion dollars? That's it? Hmm, I will not argue that until you show me your source. Also, where do you think the money that is spent in space will go? Not to Africa. Most likely it will increase the war budget. Whenever the USA gets some extra cash they do not go around and donate it to charity. I can not argue your statement until you give me your source. I look forward to your response. As a side note, no need to get worked up. No I am not a starving kid in Africa. But I am debating you. Thank you
space exploration isn't a waste of money

Okay, back to what you said. "You made an absolute statement when you said "Is"' I would like to point out that I never did say "Is", but merely was disagreeing with the fact that space exploration isn't a waste of money. "You, being a human can not know the future." yes, I know I can't know the future. but neither can you. are you saying for certain that you do? "You do not know that we will never find another life form in space that will bring peace to our planet." but are you certain that we are going to find a "friend " out in space that can "advance" our civilization and "bring peace to our planet"? 25,000,000,000 dollars were spent on space during the 1958-1969. $50 can feed a child in Africa for a year. Think how much money we are wasting! "Also, knowledge is more important than money." How can you say that?! You are obviously not one of the children in Africa who are starving and dying because of lack of food. A few dollars may just save them A message to all viewers. Please vote fairly and based on our arguments, and choose a winner from them Thinking that this is a five round debate, I await my opponent's answer
space exploration isn't a waste of money

Even though it will probably seem like I have watched to much Avatar, it is actually true. DEFINITIONS =========================== Space exploration: The use of astronomy and space technology to explore outer space. Waste: To consume, spend, or employ uselessly. Money: Any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits. ARGUEMNT ============================ You, being a human can not know the future. You do not know that we will never find another life form in space that will bring peace to our planet. We may find a special mineral on another planet that will spur wealth. You made an absolute statement when you said "Is". Claiming that is saying we will never find anything useful in space. Also, knowledge is more important than money. If we never explored space we would lose all the text books about space. Another thing to consider is this. If we were to stop exploring space we would have to get rid of telescopes. You did not say that being in space is a waste, rather exploring space is a waste. I will keep my argument to a minimum, seeing that there are five rounds. Sources: (1). . http://www.nasa.gov... (2). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Bullying will never end!!!

Hello everyone, It is I, Chicken!Before we begin, I see it fit to define a few terms:Bully- one habitually cruel to others who are weaker [1]Bullying- the act of being cruel to others [1]Never- not ever [2]End- the point where something ceases to exist [3]Observation 1- Pro clearly is referring to human beings, this is shown through the example of cave MEN.Now onto the Con Case-1) Bullying WILL end, when humanity goes extinct.Sub Point A- The Sun's CollapseThe exact rate point at which we may go extinct is unknown. But it has been confirmed humanity WILL go extinct, through a number of different ways. Most notably, the sun dying in about 7.6 Billion Years [4].Sub Point B- The Age of Nuclear ConflictEven a regional nuclear war can lead to the extinction of humanity, and thus an end to bullying. [5]Sub Point C- The Asteroid AG5 will hit earth in 2040 and has a chance to cause extinctionAsteroids the size of AG5 easily have the potential to destroy all human life, just as a similar asteroid in theory hit earth to cause the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Should AG5 make a full on collision with the earth, it could easily cause the end of the world, leaving only dust and smoke clouds in its wake, where only some bacteria survived, just as we saw through the dinosaurs. [6][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://www.thetechherald.com...;[5] http://www.nucleardarkness.org...[6] http://science.howstuffworks.com...;I await Pros Case.
Prayer is a beneficial activity to the individual(s) who seriously explore it.

I accept. However, the FOR's position seems to be of a subjective basis that can't be argued against. Who am I to say that a praying person does not have these feelings? It is my position that prayer can have positive psychological effects on those who believe that prayer will have a positive psychological effect on an individual. I do not understand what the FOR is meaning by "who seriously explore it". It seems to me that he means "who believe in its positive effects". Prayer only benefits those who believe in it, not those who explore it seriously.
Prayer is a beneficial activity to the individual(s) who seriously explore it.

Prayer - an attempt at conscious contact with a God of one's understanding. Types of prayer: Petition, Gratitude, Contrition, Meditative, Adoration/Love. Caveat: those who "seriously explore it" understand that prayer is not a 'Christmas list' in either practice or intent. Benefit being a net result of the activity as a matter of practice. Principle benefits to the individual are in: behavior, thought, and attitude. It is my contention that those of faith who engage in regular prayer are better from this practice than they would be otherwise. Such benefits would include a greater sense of peace and contentment with the world, and less egocentrism in general. Further benefits would include, charity, humility, self reflection, greater sense of hope, and sense of inclusion. This is not a debate about the existence of God. There are countless debates on that subject, and its tangential to the primary focus of this debate. Upon acceptance of this debate, and in round 2 i will further develop my assertions above.
batman vs superman?(i believe batman is better/can beat superman in a fight)

Unfortunately it pains me to say that Batman is better than superman in my opinion, however he would not beat superman. no to say that he can't but its not likely. superman gave the cryptonite to batman not because he WILL beat him, because he CAN beat him. batman has the best chance of beating superman, however small those chances are. yes batman has beaten superman before but in that situation, superman had not gone rouge, superman didn't want to kill batman and gave him ever chance to back out of what he was doing (not to discredit what batman did, i F'ing love bat man and the older, cartoon batman vs superman movie, The Dark Knight Returns was amazing and i loved it. however superman could have killed batman anytime he wanted to before the green arrow used the cryptonite. yes batman has his own cryptonite ring that he carries with him everywhere he goes however that only does him any good if he can get close to superman and superman has lazier vision so...yeah yes batman did have a plan that could take down the entire justice league if he thought they were to dangerous or if he couldn't trust him, however that plan would not have worked if the justice league had been aware it was activated. the only reason it worked the way it did was the surprise factor behind it. superman over powers batman and batman has resources, the only problem with that is that batman has a limited number of resources and superman's power is limitless.
Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes.

So we come back to the original quote for the close of the debate, is it "Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes." This reads to me - that you should somehow punish the rich for using loopholes to avoid taxation vs focus on the cause of the issue which is the loophole itself. It is a question of semantics, I am sure, but then that is all loopholes are, is the tweaking of words in a given law or phrase. Do you believe as both of my opponent and I do, that the govt responsibility resides in closing loopholes, so they do not exist, and just avoid the whole upperclass vs middle class vs poor argument. If this is your belief then I have proven my point and the flaw in the initial premise of the debate. If this debate began with "Governments should do more to close the tax loopholes that allow the mega-rich to avoid their fair share of taxation." I think out opponent and I would have no cause to debate. However that was not the question..
Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes.

While the thrust of your argument may be "that governments may be aware that loopholes in the law that allow extremely wealthy people to avoid paying tax exist, but they choose not to close" Your premise for this debate was stated as "Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes." That being said, I need to merely prove that the government job does not rest in "preventing the Mega-rich from exploiting Tax Loopholes,' but in re-writing the tax laws so as to reduce the loop-holes the mega-rich use to not pay their fair share. There is a difference, however subtle. You are not punishing the rich for using loopholes, you are closing the loopholes. Politics aside from your statement, the second fault in your statement is that the President does not set tax law: Wikipedia: "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment" In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[5]), which states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This amendment puts Taxation into the hands of Congress and the legislative branch; While GWB might want changes to the tax laws for whatever reason, he has not authority to make those changes, he is at the mercy of Congress to pass his tax policies, changes to the tax law are made in congress, and approved by the president (signed into law or allowed to become law), and the problem rests solely with Congress. The only real power of the presidency rests in his VETO powers. So while I will agree the tax laws need to be changed, as your premise is stated, the government does not need to prevent the ‘mega-rich from exploiting loopholes', they need to correcting the laws to remove the loopholes.. Semantics I know, but that is exactly what loopholes are.. We need to be clear in our statements. Political statement now: If the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED Congress was so opposed to the tax policies of the Bush Administration and by extension the Republican party, they would need to merely show some backbone, propose and pass a bill (with no other riders/earmarks etc) with the tax reforms the Democrats say they want, thus putring it on the president's desk, forcing him to use his veto powers. This would make the statement they (as a group) say they want, but no such bill has ever been passed. They can't even agree themselves, on an action plan. So the question is.. do they REALLY want it, or just want to complain to the American people about it? End of Political Statement. I am enjoying this debate!
Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes.

Many thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate. In his rebuttal he stated that my analogy is flawed. This is simply not the case. I was just trying to illustrate that some rich people evade tax illegally and some avoid paying tax by exploiting loopholes, which is not illegal. The thrust of my argument rests with the fact that governments may be aware that loopholes in the law that allow extremely wealthy people to avoid paying tax exist, but they choose not to close them because it would be financially disadvantageous for ether them or their mega-rich friends and political donors. This, ladies and gentlemen, is called corruption. As George Dubya himself said: "You know what else I think when they say, tax the rich? Most rich people are able to avoid taxes, and if you can't raise enough money from taxing the rich, guess who pays the taxes? Yes, you do." http://www.joecasaletto.com... But has Bush done anything to close the loopholes? No, of course not. Why would he? It would make him, his family and his political donors all worse off. Why should he care if ordinary, hardworking Americans pay more tax as a result – they probably voted for the Democrats anyway. After all, he knows that more Americans voted for Al Gore than him at the last election and he had get his brother Jeb to rig the ballot in Florida to get himself re-"elected". And he talks about spreading "democracy" around the world – ha ha ha ha! What people sometimes forget is that governments in democratic countries are there to serve the interests of the entire population – the interests of the average Joe are just as important as the interests of an oil magnate or a property tycoon.
Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes.

You analogy is flawed. The difference in your ‘restaurant agreement' is that that your rich bloke AGREED to pay his EQUAL share BEFORE the meal was ordered and the bill presented, then ran from the restaurant without fulfilling his obligation. Obviously this chap is in the wrong. In the tax scenario, the mega-rich bloke presumably agrees to pay all taxes he is obligated to pay by law, which he presumably did, but it is less then your equalized share because he uses holes in the law to reduce his tax burden. While not fair from your point of view, it is legal; Therefore he is in the right. A ‘loophole' in any law, means that the person who uses a loophole is still well within the law as it was written therefore not a law breaker. More simply put, it is what is written into tax law; not what is meant to be written into tax law that matters. It is the government's job to close any loophole or unintended consequence of a give law, but not to prosecute those who see the hole in the law and take advantage. This would be akin to charging a crime for a law not broken, but ‘almost broken.'
Rap music of the "gangsta" variety is degrading our society

I am not in favor of rap music and the gang culture that has emerged hand in hand with it. The true purpose of rap does not seem to be to create anything of beauty but instead to challenge, indeed, to pick a fight with the status quo of American society. In other words, it declares "we [i.e. the rappers] are going to say the most provoking things towards the status quo that we can imagine. What are YOU going to do about it?" While challenging the status quo is true of many forms of music, rap music is unique in the threat of violence that stands behind its message. Rap culture has TWO essential ingredients: provocation and violence. As rap music has black origins, one might accuse me of racism for holding such views but this I flatly deny. I would disagree EMPHATICALLY with any idea that "gangsta" rap music and black culture are the same thing. This very idea lies at the core of the problem. If rap music threatens non-conforming society and to take a stance against it is considered racist, this is quite simply a case of using violence to hold non-conforming society hostage. It's a case of "might-makes-right". To further drive my point home, why is it that rap music is so often blasted in confrontational manner from car stereos? How often do people unwind alone with headphones to rap music to lull themselves to sleep? I'd imagine not as often. Maybe some people do and I suppose since I cannot prove this, I cannot use this in the core of my argument. I find it amazing that no counter-rap movement exists yet. It probably does exist but it certainly isn't prominent. Given time I predict it will be forthcoming.