BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why would anyone "want" to believe in god? Count all the people god wants to murder

Hello, friend. I. Your assertion that I"ll disagree with someone I even agree: This is just a baseless assertion - heaven knows why it was thrown in. II. Your assertion that I"m brainwashed: It appears you suggest I"m brainwashed because I disagree with you - what in the world did you expect? Of course I disagree with you - that"s why we"re "debating". III. Killing is not the same as murder. Capital punishment is not murder. Self defense is not murder etc. It can be the same (as murder is killing someone), but if the person was not killed unjustly it is not murder. IV. I"m astonished that almost all your arguments are not arguments - there logical fallacies (your favorite appears to be the ad hominem fallacy). V. You"re very inconsistent: "The debate is over, but let me get the last word. . ." as you assert it"s over, yet try to defend your position. Therefore, it"s not over; I will respond. If you want it to be over don"t say anything or I will respond to keep it fair. VI. Indeed, God determined to eliminate the Canaanites (after 400 years of them worshipping false deities and sacrificing children). And no, no one stands innocent befor God; all have sinned against the infinitely holy Creator. And I ask why is this absolutely wrong in your worldview? If morality is subjective, why not kill another animal (I.e. a human). We would all cease to exist eventually. And that"s my point - most people don"t believe in subjective morality; they claim to, but they know evil absolutely exists, and we desire for it to not exist. VII. As for proof, you completely ignored the evidence I gave in Round One. IX. Where did I twist the words of Scripture? X. God treats no one wrongly. He delivers perfect justice as he is the omniscient Creator - he doesn"t need any eyewitnesses because he sees and knows all. I"ll respond to the rest if you respond - if you want the debate to end, then stop debatating; don"t proclaim the debate is over and then continue to debate.
The Bible is the most important book of all time

I have an old saying for liberals who I argue with When you insult me. you have lost the argument 1) You're a moron. The Chinese ban the crap out of books. 2) You're a bigot Thus, you have lost the argument again, give me another book that is more important- you cant good luck trying and I hope your happy winning the vote even though you have lost as everyone who debates me does take care
The Bible is the most important book of all time

"The Bible is actually a library of 66 books, written by 44 authors over a period of about 1500 years. The 39 books of the Old Testament were composed between 1400 and 400 B.C., the 27 books of the New Testament between A.D. 50 and 100." Many more authors, and the NT was composed later than you suggest. Again, it isn't a book. It's a series of books. It isn't important as a book, it's quite important as a concept. I doubt that a significant number Christians have read the text, nor do they really need to. It's more important as a concept. 1) You're a moron. The Chinese ban the crap out of books. 2) You're a bigot. Keith Ellison swore into office on Jefferson's Koran. The Koran also, directly makes for pretty much the entire situation in the middle east (pretty important if you ask me). 3) The Bible isn't unique in that it was written over 1600 years. Frankly, the constant editing should give people pause. 4) People aren't civilized because of the ten commandments. Our law system is taken from English common law, 7/10 of the commandments are unconstitutional, 1 is rendered moot by the 6th amendment, the other two are universal to all law codes in history. 5) "If you dont beleive in religion, why not? kill? rape? steal? Lie? cheat?" -- Are you serious? 6) "So where was Jesus for those 18 years? please explain your sources on his whereabouts" -- You're right. There's no evidence for Jesus at all, much less for those years. Clearly this means he flew to India and stole all the Buddha's nifty sayings. 7) "BOTH JESUS AND THE BUDDHA say they sat under a tree for some period of time, found enlightenment after 40 days and nights of fasting, the devil/Mara appears and tempts Jesus/Buddha with (1) all the worlds riches and (2) imminent painful death and (3) temptation" -- Your final point is pretty typical to the overarching comparisons between different stories. They are almost always this one included completely wrong. Stretching the story to unacceptable extents. These arguments are pretty weak. People should not use them. Beyond ranting about crazy stuff? Are you going to address my counter arguments? The Bible is very important though the actual text is unneeded, in fact, Christians weren't even able to read it for a long period of time. It was reserved to the priests and later to the literate and even today people don't care to read it at all. You apparently haven't read it either, for the most part you come off completely ignorant of it's content. You argue that it's the most important book in history and yet don't have a coherent idea of what is in it? It's important as a concept, the text seems to be largely ignored. Ignoring the Bible, in full or in part, is required for moral behavior.
Weed should be decriminalized

(Fair warning I am not the best debater. I may not always get facts right, so if I mess up please tell me. If you are not willing to learn then no one can help you.) Decriminalize- to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation Legalize- to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to Legalizing focuses more on the usage, taxation, and other laws surrounding it and puts the right into the hand of the federal government. Decriminalizing focuses more on making the act of selling and owning pot legal, letting state and local government deal with regulation while letting the federal government have some say, but not full control. I believe the second choice is best, because the regulating aspect of it should be left to the state and not the federal government. Whey has pot been illegal for so long? Because the federal government wouldn"t allow it even with all the arguments in favor of its decriminalization and legalization. Why would we put control of regulating something that they have been against for so long? It seems to take away from their trustworthiness. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Weed should be decriminalized

"Decriminalize- to remove or reduce the criminal classification status of; to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation." Essentially, my opponent is correct, so with decriminalization it could not be sold at stores legally, or taxed, and would remain a black market product, the only difference being that using weed would not be a criminal offense, but the product, again, could not be sold at general stores and be taxed like cigarettes or alcohol. "Legalizing focuses more on the usage, taxation, and other laws surrounding it and puts the right into the hand of the federal government."-Yes, essentially with legalization marijuana could be legally sold and taxed at stores, and the black market for weed would be possibly completely annihilated. "Decriminalizing focuses more on making the act of selling and owning pot legal, letting state and local government deal with regulation while letting the federal government have some say, but not full control." Woah, no there are states rights for weed as it is. That is why 5 states have already legalized weed, this just does not make sense. Legalization is making it federally legal, decriminalization would make smoking weed not illegal, so you would not be jailed from it. "...because the regulating aspect of it should be left to the state and not the federal government." Ummmm, why? Then you would have deeply conservative states where this would never get passed, when it is something that brings in millions of dollars in tax revenue. "Why would we put control of regulating something that they have been against for so long?" Who has been against? What does this mean? Anyway, people are coming around to legalization. http://www.gallup.com... This gallup poll has 58% of Americans supporting legal marijuana use... nationally. Sample size-1,015 adults, age 18 and older. A CBS news poll has 53% in favor of legalization, 1,012 adults surveyed. http://www.pollingreport.com... So, people are definitely coming around to the point where majority of Americans support legalization. On a side note, I think it's kind of funny that most conservatives say they just want the government out of their lives, then say they want illegal gay marriage, illegal abortion, illegal marijuana, (not saying you are a conservative, definitely not.) Now the positives of legalization. Some U.S states have legalized marijuana by now, Colorado being a good example. It is a clear example of the benefits. Marijuana legalization: -Actually lowers crime rates, in the first 11 months of 2014, crime fell 2.2%, much more than the same time frame in 2013, when marijuana was... illegal. -Brings in so much revenue. In June 2015, almost a year ago, sales of cannabis reached over $50,000,000. Yes, it is extremely beneficial to commerce. It opens up a whole new industry. -$60,000,000 in tax revenue. They made so much at a point, I remember, the government Colorado actually had to give money back to its people. http://countercurrentnews.com... http://www.mintpressnews.com...
In a theist vs atheist debate, the former has the burden of proof.

My opponent misses something obvious here. He implies that because we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God that this makes each of those two choices equally as likely. This is false. If one were to say “There’s a teapot floating in between Mars which one cannot see”, this would not imply that each possibility is equally as likely. If I were to say that there isn’t a teapot floating in between mars, it is obviously the more reasonable choice and thus it is more useful than for one to believe than one to think “We cannot prove either side is correct so each one has the burden of proof.” Because God is something which cannot be observed, the burden of proof falls on anyone claiming it exists. Without any evidence, not believing in said something is the de-facto view of a reasonable person. Just because Atheism has just as much proof for no God as theists do for God- in this case zero—does not mean they are equal. Agnostics don’t believe in God, which is the same as an Atheist believing no God or Gods exists. Atheists don’t believe they know for sure any more than an agnostic; they simply vocalize their beliefs more rather than saying “I don’t know.” Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, what is your evidence? Because neither side has evidence against one another, by my opponent’s logic, neither side really is right. While this is true in objective reality, it is not useful for humans to use this philosophy to decide what is correct when “what is right” is never provable anyway.
In a theist vs atheist debate, the former has the burden of proof.

My opponent does not see the difference between agnosticism and atheism.I shall repeat his definition of atheism.Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.Now I shall define agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.[1]Also I shall define science, and use this deifnition to explain how atheism is nothing to do with it.Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material worldgained through observation and experimentation.[2]The final definitions required to make my point clear is that of theory and belief.Belief: something believed; an opinion or conviction.[3]Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural andsubject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters ofactual fact.[4]Atheism has a burden of proof in that it merely hypothesises, or requires faith in the idea that, there is no God. it is not simply doubt of a God based on knowledge or facts about the natural world, this is agnosticism. It is the theory that there is no God simply because we haven't seen one. It is the bleief that there is no God often because the idea that you will be eternally punished for wrongdoing is quite unsettling, thus rendering atheism the more comforting belief. It has teh burden fo proof in that it claims there to be no God with a degree of certainty, thus requirign it to back that certainty up (how can one be certain fo something without actual deifnitive proof?).Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
In a theist vs atheist debate, the former has the burden of proof.

Religion and science have very similar goals; to satisfy our insatiable curiosity and answer questions about the world around us. Despite having similar goals, these two use very different means of achieving this. Religion uses faith, while science uses empirical evidence as well as logic to acquire knowledge and satisfy curiosity. Theists’ beliefs reference some other plane of reality or deity while atheists’ beliefs reference the natural world (i.e. the existence in which the questions are asked and answered.) If one were away all of the evidence from both sides, the natural world would remain. Because science and the natural world are the basis for Atheistic belief, Atheism is the reasonable de facto belief given no evidence. I make the case that theists must prove their arguments and beliefs because it goes against everything observed in the natural world. Atheists do not carry the burden of proof for their beliefs because their lack of a belief in God derives from everything they observe. To make Atheists disprove a God in an alternate, non-natural world is impossible because Atheists cannot use science, nor reason; they also do not belief that faith is a rational reason to believe in something, so they cannot use faith for the fact that God doesn’t exist. It is impossible to disprove God using science if God doesn’t exist in the natural world. Because of this, theists must provide their own proof for such a deity or else it remains just an opinion. In conclusion, without the proof of God, there is no rational reason to believe in one. Given no evidence, atheism is the rational choice.
In a theist vs atheist debate, the former has the burden of proof.

I will be supporting the notion that in any theist vs atheist debate (religious vs non-religion) debate, people supporting theism have the burden of proof. Definitions:Theism : Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creaturesAtheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist. Debate: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. Burden of proof: the duty of proving a disputed charge. The burden of proof will be shared in this debateRules:1) Users must address every obviously plausible argument, dropping ONLY pettifog or obviously flawed arguments. 2) In the first round, users must not make any arguments; doing so will result in loss of conduct point. 3) Debate format is as follows:Round one - acceptance (this)Round two- Pro (me) will post opening argument. Con (them) will post opening argument and rebuttal Round three - Pro (me) will rebuttal and make closing statement. Con (them) will make closing statement ONLY. Not following this rule is an automatic loss of conduct point. This is the case so we each make:1 opening statement1 rebuttal1 closing argumentIf a situation arises in which the resolution is obviously flawed is some way and makes one side of the argument impossible, it may be slightly altered if we both agree.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy)

I will be as brief and to the point as I possibly can. Cost My source said it was "POTENTIALLY in the range of $5 million…costs could greater. " And if you look further down the page there is an "Unknown potential GF trial court savings". You cannot accurately estimate the start up cost. The total cost cannot be fully estimated as this includes the cost the prosecution would incur. Advantage 1. 1. My opponent did not answer this question. 2. There is VIDEO and SOUND documentation of "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture) techniques as I have said before. These videos, are errr quite brutal, that is the reason I did not provide the documentation. If you really want to see the video. Google CIA+torture+video or DOD+torture+video. Not for the faint of heart… 3. My opponent implied in round 4 trickery was abusive. "the defense/prosecutors can easily review and see if the suspect was tricked or not. " Advantage 2. 1. The key word in my opponent's statement contains "could". There could be or there could not be. My points still stand. We can only deal with what we know not what we do not know. 2. It still is a major part of your plan. Advantage 3 and 6 Logically, somebody will have to review these tapes. That would be the D. A. office. The hours spent watching and reviewing these hours of tapes means more money will be spent reviewing the tapes. More time will be spent reviewing the tapes in order to construct an argument then constructing a "dispute" case. Time is money. Advantage 4. Federal budgets are normally higher than state police budgets. Thus, better equipment. Exactly. The prosecutors have to watch the entire interrogation from start to finish meaning spending time. Time is money. I did not literally mean a one week interrogation. I meant a series of interrogations over the course of a week. (9 hours one day, 5 the next, etc. ) No there is not only one interrogation per case. When a suspect is awaiting trial the FBI can interrogate this suspect as many times as they want. They are effectively in control of the police force holding them. An interrogator writing detailed notes will write down the color of the car simply because it is a detail. Someone who is lying about a crime will not remember the small details. Thus, the notes. Advantage 5. It is self-evident that the main goal of any interrogation is to get the suspect to confess to the crime as quickly as possible (I mean why else have the interrogation? ). In order to do that during an interrogation, the interrogator needs to find inconsistencies in the person's statement and pry upon these inconsistencies. Thus, the notes. These notes allow the interrogator to know what happened hours before. Without them they have no clue. Since the interrogator is allowed to take notes, and these notes are beneficial to the interrogation process, how are interrogations enhanced? They are not.
Women have it a lot harder than men

holla back yo yes it's insanely difficult to say to a girl "hey, wanna go to prom?" *sense the sarcasm* but do you know how difficult it is to get ASKED to prom? women want to be liked for who they are, but sadly, most men go after whats on the outside. So as women, it's either be sexy or be rejected these days. Men naturally have a higher sex drive than women. though girls do care about what a guy looks like, most of us would rather have a guy with a sweet and nice personality than a good looking guy. but guys tend to give more attention and pursue a girl who is physically attractive.
Women have it a lot harder than men

In my first argument, I'd like to point out the specific duties that men have to carry. In today's society (2009, of course), it is customary for man to support his significant other, which can carry a burden on us. Not to sound chauvinistic, but the man is usually the one in a household to pay the bills and support the family. Also, a guy, in the the teen years especially, usually has to be the one to ask their female counterpart to homecoming or prom, or simply on a date. Like I stated above, it is customary for a guy to do these things. I don't see women doing any of this ;)
Women have it a lot harder than men

People, the pro in this debate has a history of making up fake people (myspaces, aim's, etc.) to screw with people. We clash a lot, as you can tell through this. Who's to say she wasn't trying to do it again? Pfft, "all we have to do is build things" You know those skyscrapers in new york city? You know all these magnificent architectures all around the world. Yeah, men built those. I rest my case.
Women have it a lot harder than men

my friend and also Con, davey, thought she was cute cause i showed him a pic. so she's planning on moving where he lives so i was like DUDE YOU GUYS SHOULD HOOK UP and she liked the idea so i decided to play cupid. this little child here was so dead set on the idea that i was trying to skreww him over and make up a fake girl that he literally just blew up because we kept trying to call him and my phone had been dropping calls all day (come to find out today my mom shut it off cause i went over my minutes and thats partly why it was screwing up, go figure) cause he just had to have that proof RIGHT THEN AND THERE that this girl was real even though if he really just didnt believe me he could have waited a month to meet her in person. but no, he threw his chance out the window and my matchmaking skills because he is so incredibly suspicious that im really that bored. yeah i dont get people either okay and to finish the debate okay do you know how hard it is to get off our cute booties and do our hair? !? !? !? DO YOU KNOE? !? !! ! do you know how hard it is to put on SOME FREAKIN LIPSTICK? !? ! no! YOU DONT! all men have to do is build things. WE HAVE TO PUT ON LIPSTICK. hmmm my arguement just kinda wins the debate itself. the people dont even need to speak.
the abuse of illegal drugs should be a matter of public health, not criminal justice

You are pretty impressive at debating. I admit my defeat, I am a novice actually, and I did so just so I could see some good points for the affirmative. Thank you for this insight, and I consent my defeat. However, legalization is subjective for a value because legalizaion is not universaly accepted, so, correct me if I'm wrong, a value must universally accepted therefore everything is dropped.
Most atheists do not believe everything came from nothing.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god, disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... Belief that everything came from nothing is not a required belief of qualifying as an atheist. An atheist can believe this, but I have never encountered one. The thought that atheists believe everything came from nothing is a huge misconception. I want to debate to find out if there is any evidence for this perceived misconception.
Most atheists do not believe everything came from nothing.

Hi ^^ I am new to this site, so I thought this would be an easy debate To be honest with you, I fail to see where this debate is going to get either of us. I am an atheist, and I too fail to see how everything came from nothing. I just accept that everything has always been here, just sometimes in different forms. I would say that quite a sizable chunk of atheists accept the big bang as true. Here is a link to an explanation of the big bang theory [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ] (Wikipedia is reliable right?) According to the big bang theory, the universe as we know it today started from "an extremely dense and hot state". While it doesnt say this extremely dense and hot state came from nothing, It is quite possible the majority of atheists do believe that. But wait! You have no proof most atheists do not believe everything came from nothing. While I have no proof either, doesnt the burden of proof lie on you?