BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

This debate is about the existence of God, specifically, the Christian God of the Bible, Old and New Testament. I will endeavor to show that there is a weightier body of evidence that God exists above my opponent's. This will be based primarily on historical events. You should be familiar with history from secular and Biblical sources. It is my position that the question of the existence of the God of the Bible is 1. testable: Susceptible to being tested. With respect to the scientific method, capable of being proven true or false. 2. falsifiable: Falsifiability of a statement is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. 3. Furthermore He does exist. www.yourdictionary.com & wikipedia The threshold of evidence that qualifies as proof is usually subjective person to person, and I don't think anyone is totally unbiased when it comes to this question. That's why I say, "I will endeavor to show that there is sufficient evidence that God exists above my opponent's argument." Rather than "I will prove God exists." Votes (as always) should be based on debate performance, not which position you believed when you started reading. Otherwise I might as well just take this debate down and make a poll instead. In this debate, I will show that there are prophesies in the Bible made before the fact, that are too specific to be lucky guesses. To predict the future so accurately requires unnatural knowledge, and the knowledge is claimed to come directly from God, with no competing claims. These prophesies will be compared to what actually happened as recorded by sources outside the Bible. The content of this prediction of the future is substantiated with outside sources. This accurate prediction of the distant future is evidence that God exists and has direct interaction with people. The evidence I will be presenting primarily involves prophesies in the Bible, and corraborating outside histories. I've got BOP. R1: Acceptance/introduction R2: I will show evidence that selected Biblical messages were accurate and detailed about events that are shown by non-Biblical sources to have happened. The predictions will be too accurate to be dismissed as coincidence or likely generalities, as is often the case with fake prophets/fortune tellers. But my opponent may go that way if he/she is able. R3-5 debate continues.
Abortion

No one has an abortion for fun. Most abortions to protect the mothers life, Or allow the baby to rest peacefully instead of forcing it out into the World, Where it may only live for seconds or even minutes. Other abortions may be because the mother financially can't raise a child, Or is a child herself. Abortion is needed to be legal, Because so many stillborn babies and dying because of starvation children will continue to be born. Would you rather have a hungry, Starving, Crying child with no way of feeding it, Or not have a child at all and put it through that torture?
Abortion

If someone wanted to be pregnant, Unless there was a health complication, They wouldn"t have gotten the abortion in the first place. Where was it ever written that abortion can damage your health or reproductive system, Even if it can, Most likely the damage from surgery (c-sections) or natural delivery can be more harmful, An abortion has never caused the death of any woman, Pregnancies have. Abortion early on in pregnancy, (which is when most abortions happen) is usually never harmful, And in cases like child pregnancy, Can save a unborn child"s life in some circumstances. There a millions of orphans in the adoption system, One more isn"t needed, Especially if danger can be caused to the mother and or child. No one has the right to tell women when and where the create or people, Or to tell her that she must keep the baby.
Abortion

Abortion is not the right choice you are throwing away an innocent life not knowing if you would ever get another one. Abortion can cause so many life dangers to your body you are basically destroying your reproductive System. When you kill an innocent life you are stopping more doctors, Lawyers, Teacher, Etc from coming into the world to help U. S. Even if not having a baby is not the right choice for you there is adoption where baby that can't have babice are actually glad to have one give it to them!
Ann Coulter is scary

"I might even run up to her and say something." ONLY BECAUSE SHE HAS SEDUCED YOU INTO TALKING TO HER!!! AHHHHHH!!! I would hightail it out of there before she could make eye contact. I might even cry! She is the scariest person I know and is claiming ridiculous things! People even buy her books and we all know that we would rather an asteroid hurtle into the earth! "She is basically calling herself dumb because she is campaigning for Hillary". This is the only thing smart she has EVER done! And she scares me because she is so flip-floppy! I hear that she is 368 years old because satan kicked her out of his bed. They were living together you know. But she scared him, oh she scared him alright. He has sent to earth the most vile and vicious creature to earth to plague Barnes and Nobles everywhere! Literature is no longer safe! Words are no longer safe! England is no longer safe! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ann Coulter is scary

"Bill O'Reilly isn't scary to me... " Dude, he is Irish. He could place a curse on your family for saying that! And Ann Coulter is very scary. She could skin a cat just with her eyes! Also, she called democrats dumb. She wrote a book saying "If Democrats had brains they would be Republicans." She called them dumber than republicans! That leaves only like 1% to having a higher IQ than 2. Now that IS scary.
Ann Coulter is scary

Come on, she's not scary. I agree that she's hot, her eyes don't scare me at all. So what if she bad mouths democrats? That's her right. Bill O'Reilly isn't scary to me... He's an idiot, but I don't think he's scary. And also she endorsed Hillary on Fox News! That's awesome! I don't think any of the things you said about Ann Coulter makes her "scary".
Non Hunting Guns should be banned from civilian use

Thank out for showing interest in my debates, and I would be more than happy to have a more extensive debate than my previous ones. As you have probably found out, considering the fact that you have read my previous debates, is that my entire platform is as follows: Those guns not manufactured specifically for hunting shall be banned for civilian use. Those guns manufactured for hunting shall be in storage inside cities, and outside of cities shall be visible at all times. In order to purchase a gun, one must go through an extensive background check every year in order to have a license, and if one uses a gun illegally, their license shall be revoked. Now, as instigator of this debate, you have the liberty to reject my proposition, but I think it's always good to debate specifics rather than general ideas, so I would support my proposition, but as I said, you may reject it if you so choose. Now, the common arguments I've heard against my proposition are that it limits personal security, it limits personal freedom, and it (somehow) allows the government to be oppressive. It does not limit personal security, because I feel much less secure knowing that anyone at any time could pull out a Five-seveN and shoot 50 people, like what happened at Ft. Hood. If you look at it, I can absolutely see how one would think that it limits personal freedoms, because in the most direct sense, it does. However, if you examine it, I feel more free to do what I want when I know that people won't be able to get their guns to shoot me with. And if someone is pointing a gun at you, frankly, you do what they tell you to do. I know I am ignoring the gun user, but frankly, they're not the ones about to get shot. I have also heard that people use them for self defense, but I've lived for almost 36 years and counting and I've never so much as held a gun. The same goes for millions of other Americans. So maybe you would prefer to have a gun for self defense, but it is by no means necessary, and it is a huge risk, letting everyone have something manufactured to kill other people. We do not kill people in America, we don't need to have the means to do it. 12 people volunteered their life and wellbeing to serve the country. They knew well that they might not come back alive, but what they did not know is that they were to die at Ft. Hood by a crazy person with a legally purchased gun. Francheska Velez was pregnant at the time. She didn't get to have her baby because we allow crazy people to carry really dangerous guns. And with that, I will allow my opponent to take the stage.
Should the U.S. keep the penny

This argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.
The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

Full resolution: Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is a more justified method of deducing moral actions than the principle of utility.This debate is for Group A Round 2 of my tourney.===Resolution and BoP===The Pro will argue for Kant's first formulation as more justified while Con will argue for the principle of utility as more justified. Neither debater can win by simply disproving the other's case. The winner must not only prove their own case but disprove the other's. ===Definitions===Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative was to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[1] Hereon referred to as FF.The principle of utility states that "actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain."[2] Hereon referred to as PU.Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid[3]===Structure and rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.===========================================================[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://inside.msj.edu...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

Unfortunately, I do not have much time so I will have to make this very breifIntrinsic Good Of PleasureIntrinsc good is defined by something that is inherently good. Happiness is a state of conciousness that is inherently good, so all pleasure is an intrinsic good. My opponent brings up the point that herion makes one feel happiness even though it is not good. This has more to do with the instrumental good of heroin rather than the intrinsic good of pleasure. The state of pleasure that one achieves by heroin can still be considered an intrinsic good. It makes one feel good and therefore it is good. However, the instrumental good, the act of taking the heroin to achieve the pleasure, is where the fault lies. There are more beneficial ways of one achieving a state similar to a high, such as excercising, meditation, saring love with someone, etc. FF Supports the PUMy opponent brings up the point that I beg the question because I rely on utilitarianism to disproove the theory. I would like to ask the readers what they would do in a situation where your family needed money to survive. Would you do the best for your family and take a risky job, or would you not take it because it does not support universbility? Circular ReasoningMy opponent here says that his orginal premise remains cohesive due to the fact that lying undermines that lie and wills it to fail. Again, this is relying on the premise of universability because lying does not will for that lie to fail unless everyone were to lie. In reality, everyone does lie and people get away with it al the time. ConclusionMy main point has been that the best way to maximise ones actions is to achieve the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people. I showed why this is the most sound framework for one's actions because it allows for us to reach an intrinisic good. Also, I have shown how my opponents case fo universability is not sound because there are instinces where it does not apply to the real world. It should therefore not be a standrard for our real world actions. I apologize for the short response but again, I do not have enough time to bring about a detailed response.
Earth is flat

Varying Star Constellations This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator. https://gyazo.com... After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that "there are stars seen in Egypt and"Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10) The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat: https://gyazo.com... You seen the view of the SR-71 Blackbird as well? They pretty much went into space, hence why they are wearing spacesuits pretty much. https://gyazo.com... If the curved window causes everything to look curved, why does it still look slightly straight? Because the window wasn't that much curved. It still isn't straight enough to say it's flat, and also it's facing upwards to the right. Even despite being slightly straight, it's still curved. My opponent possibly won't comprehend why the Earth is round. Oh yeah, why don't we fly into space if we live on a globe? It's not possible to do that as we live on gravity which keeps us in. Gravity is not supernatural, we need something that'll keep us to the floor without making us float about, this is gravity. Honestly, if the Earth was flat, then the Earth must have an edge. A sphere or oblate spheroid has no edge, because going around it will only return you to the start point. Seriously, Earth cannot be flat, it's scientifically impossible.
Earth is flat

"If the Earth was a ball, why don't we fall off?" That's a common question asked by flat brains not realising that gravity and a magnetic field was holding us onto the ground." My opponent is stereotypical, I've not posed this question personally, I've attended the public indoctrination system, and realize that modern science has invented the theory of gravity. His ad hominem is noted, and I suggest voters consider this when awarding conduct points. The rest of the first paragraph is just unrelated text book nonsense with a hilarious ending : "The Concorde can see a curvature however as you said windows are curved so the ground must be curved." It's sad to see future generations getting dumbed down so severely, no offense to my opponent. He continues about the edge, as do most uninformed globalists. I'm almost sure that I've already responded to this argument, explaining that there may not even be an edge. He incorrectly asserts that "the artic" is blocking the edge, and we should be able to walk up and step off the edge. I don't know if it is because I've explained this a dozen times or so, or if he is just that oblivious, regardless, the Antarctic circle is as far as we can go as civilians, so it would be speculated what's beyond that. But I did find, since I have many requests for a photo of the edge, this, rare photograph of the edge. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com... OK, sorry about that, i had to do it. He makes another argument in the final round which of course is excused due to lack of rules, so ill try to explain this to him, though i fear it falls on deaf ears. The moon. Seeing the moon upside down in opposite hemispheres does not mean anyone is upside down. Get a friend and go to a room, each on opposite sides against a wall. Imagine an arrow on the ceiling, pointing at yourself. You see the arrow pointing up, your friend will see the arrow pointing down. This doesn't mean one of you are doing a head stand. The moon is at the equator between the hemispheres, so it is only logical that this happens. My opponent offers a picture of the view from atop Mount Everest. He obviously has no clue about photography, and dismissed my source that explains that it is impossible. At this time I present this video. https://youtu.be... This balloon went well over 100,000 feet. It features two cameras. A fisheye lens, which gives wide angle view, but distorts the image, and a regular lens. There is no known lens or camera that will straighten curved lines. Straight lines become curved at certain times with the fish eye lens. Lines closer to the edge are more and more curved while lines in the center become straighter. Lines in the upper part of the screen curve downward, while the bottom lines are curved upwards. http://www.uwphotographyguide.com... He brings up the erratosthenes experiment again... please refer to my rebuttal in the previous round(2). and thus ends another round of the top ten "proofs" that the earth is a globe. Forward all my original points to the final round. https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...
Earth is flat

"If the Earth was a ball, why don't we fall off?" That's a common question asked by flat brains not realising that gravity and a magnetic field was holding us onto the ground. The Pool Table and the 8-ball card is the logic that Earth shouldn't be classed as a planet if it's flat. The Earth isn't a perfect sphere, it's bulging at the equator hence why Chimborazo is the tallest and not Everest. The Concorde can see a curvature however as you said windows are curved so the ground must be curved. Also if the Earth were flat, where is the edge? Flat Earthers have yet to answer this question, some have said it's blocked by the Artic. But even so, we have the power to walk up the wall with equipment and jump off the edge into outer space? But no, we circle the Earth, showing it being spherical. It is impossible for the Earth to be flat. The Moon proof again: No flat earther has answered this, I asked why is the moon upside down in the Southern Hemisphere? https://gyazo.com... https://gyazo.com... How is this possible on a flat earth? Look at the moon in South Africa and then look at the moon in UK, different right? Because it's upside down over in South Africa and right side up in the UK. Know why? Because everyone in South Africa and Antarctica is upside down. This is a fact if you look at the moon. It's too easy to see this but flat earthers don't get it and still think their "planet" is flat, you're a man of the 21st century. Remember the Earth is a squashed up sphere bulging at the equator. https://gyazo.com... No curvature below 10,886 meters? False, there is a curvature on the summit of Mt Everest. https://gyazo.com... Remember, if you had 2 sticks and looked at their shadows they are different? https://gyazo.com... The evidence is way too high that the Earth is a round planet just like the other planets.
Earth is flat

Here's a source: http://www.popsci.com... I'll use some examples why the Earth is round and this is probably one of the easiest ones: 1) Plane View Sit on a plane, look at the view, Earth has a slight curve, therefore Earth is round. https://gyazo.com... This is a screenshot showing a very tad light curve on a plane view. It's not very easy to notice, strain your eyes and look at it as focused as possible you should see a small curve, don't expect a massive one as the Earth is enormous. This therefore means the Earth is round 2) Ships and Horizon When the ship comes up after a long sail, this is how it would look like: https://gyazo.com... The same way an ant walks up an orange and comes to the top. This means the Earth is spherical. It's the 21st century, it's way too easy to determine we live on a sphere.
There is no such thing as White Community or White Culture.

To be clear:Of course, there's no such thing as a unified culture. Again, America does not have a unified culture that dominates the nation. Thus, the debate is kind of a worthless topic if it's meant the way my opponent meant it. The way I defined the resolution is more geared toward's the first two sentences of his first round, which goes as follows:"There's an idea that exists in many people's minds that there is an ethnic basis for many cultures in the US. This is often just an old unquestioned assumption, or because the person who believes it DOES exist in a culture that has a strong ethnic basis." That sounds a lot like a statement about what we're debating, and considering the wording of the resolution it makes perfect sense. Since it was not clearly defined in the first round at all, I was able to define it and finalize it in my firstround.In the opening statement of this debate, my opponent said that he would like to debate about whether or not there were any white cultures at all. This is an entirely different statement than referring to a "unified white culture across America.." He only mentioned the unified white culture at the end of his statement, which can refer to a unified culture in a specific region or area.Also, I apologize for using Europe as an example. My opponent brought up Europe in the second round, and I thought due to that fact, Europe was being used in the debate.To finish off this round, we are currently debating that there are no white cultures or communities within America, and my opponent has not debated against that idea. Thus, this round is all I need.
There is no such thing as White Community or White Culture.

I think my opponent has misunderstood me. I made it clear in R1 that I'm talking about the non-existence of a unified "white" culture in the US only, not the entire world. I accepted Con's fair word definitions, but in my R2 clarification, I only explained WHY I was making this debate because I had deleted the explanation in the original R1 when I edited it. The explanation of my own motivations did not change or alter the substance of my R1 in any significant way. Also, in R2, my clarification of my argument only involved quoting and restating what I already said in R1. I didn't add anything in R2 to change my argument. I really wanted to have a challenge to my idea. This isn't supposed to be a "gotcha" debate. It looks like Con has agreed that there is too much diversity in "white" America for there to be a unified culture, which was clearly my point in R1. If Con wishes, we can both FF and I'll try this in the forums instead.