BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God does not.exists

Let me just clarify that you chose the wrong side of the argument for what you are trying to prove: You should have chosen the "Con" side for "The Christian God does not exist". Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that the only trick you have up your sleeve is the old pocketwatch argument, as if atheists have never heard that one before. The reason you know that a person made the pocketwatch and not "nature" is that you already know how watches are made; you could gather the parts and build a watch yourself if you really wanted to. There are millions and millions of examples that you can physically observe which prove that watches are made by people. What we DO NOT have millions and millions of observable examples of is the creation of the entire universe. Nobody has ever seen, nor do they have any reason to believe that the universe was created by a being simply because it is here. That is why the pocketwatch argument nonsensical and invalid. Are we done here? I see no reason for this to go for 4 rounds.
The Christian God does not.exists

GOOD BEYListen About stoning homosexuals drunken teenagers people who work on the sabbeth you see that is why Jesus Christ came down he was fully God yet he was also fully Man he left his throne and all his riches suffered and felt what you and I feel. He suffered and died for all the sinners so they do did not have to die both physically and spiritually. You we don't have to stone anymore because that debt is gone it is paid in full past present and future sins are no more Whom the son sets free is free indeed and the best part he died but now is has risen he conquered death death has no more sting and he will come back soon. And all the world will be fine Now I hope you become a Christian but now I am leaving this debate.
The Christian God does not.exists

While I don't claim to have read the Bible cover-to-cover, I know what it contains and I absolutely despise it. It teaches that human beings are worthless, hapless sinners who are absolutely nothing when compared to their almighty god; that mankind can do absolutely nothing without the constant guidance of a supreme being. As a firm believer in the ability of man, this philosophy sickens me. It also says we should stone adulters, homosexuals, "drunkard teenagers", and people who work on the Sabbath to death, but nobody everybody conveniently forgets those parts when quoting it. The Bible repulses me.
We should censor some forms of speech

Well, my opponent has forfeited so I'll just restate my original points in my closing statements. I have shown how my opponents definitions do not support him. I've shown how censoring free speech is a violation of the 1st amendment. I've shown how my opponent's scenario was completely void. I've shown how censoring free speech will NOT make people safer. Finally, I've shown how censoring free speech will set us on the road to anarchy. Thank you for reading this debate. Now, here's a point break down in my opinion. agree before - your choice agree after - your choice conduct - me because my opponent forfeited a round spelling and grammar - Solid.Snake because when I copied and pasted each argument into word to spell check, I have 3 errors in my entire argument. Solid.Snake has no errors convincing arguments - me, my opponent gave up, so he must think that my arguments were convincing reliable sources - tied because no one offered any sources I thank the audience for reading this, and Solid.Snake for the opportunity to let me participate in this debate.
We should censor some forms of speech

My opponent's first definition, for freedom of speech, already dismantles his argument. It states that the government cannot interfere in free speech, and freedom of speech is the 1st Amendment. Therefore, censoring freedom of speech is unconstitutional. My opponent's next definition doesn't benefit him either. I'd like to point out the key word in that definition is suppressing. Do we, as a people, really want to have officials violating our right and suppressing our freedom. This right, by the way, was given to us by the same group that is now suppressing the very same right. Now, I'd lie to point out that it is illegal to threaten people's lives or property, so the scenario set up by my opponent is completely irrelevant. Next, it is obviously more important to feel safe, but limiting freedom of speech will NOT stop the type of speech my opponent wants stopped. Those people will find a way to get their opinions out anyway, or just carry out the work alone. It's like trying to reduce crimes by outlawing handguns. The only people who will lose their handguns are those who obey the law. Those committing the crimes will get the guns anyway. My opponents definition of freedom of speech already stated that free speech is void when it violates another right. This last argument is irrelevant. And that government agency my opponent is referring to would probably be the police. Now, here is an argument of my own. I think that freedom of speech should not be censored because it violates our 1st amendment rights. If these rights are violated, our entire system will break apart, and, in the words of Sheldon Cooper, we will descend in anarchy. We will have no government, no rights, and crime will sky rocket. Plus, war will break out as the land is fought over. The limiting of rights is the first step to eliminating, and when they are eliminated, we will either be ruled by a dictator (best case) or we will descend into anarchy (worst case). Once again, thank you for allowing me to partake in this debate, and I await a response.
We should censor some forms of speech

I believe that freedom of speech only goes so far in some cases. Definitions: Freedom of speech: the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Censor: an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. Both definitions provided by www.dictionary.com Ok so I will provide an example where there should be some censorship. Suppose that an individual has set up a website that promotes hate speech against a certain group of people. He posts these people's addresses on said website and encourages members to attack, defame, humiliate, etc. those people. Now, what is more important: the right to feel safe and secure, to practice your own beliefs freely or the right to oppress another person's rights? Clearly the right of the people to practice their own beliefs freely and their right to feel safe and secure. I believe that while our government should keep free speech in general, it is when the freedom of speech interferes with another set of rights that the government should step in and take action. Better yet, we could set up an official government agency to deal with these issues (pardon my ignorance if something of the kind already exists).
1chemical (na sodium) + 1chemical (cl chloride )=1chemical (nacl salt) - maths ends in contradiction

con says "Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 atom of sodium, and on atom of chlorine floating around in empty space do not automatically make sodium chloride." what does the sign + mean when you do basic chemistry and add na to cl you get nacl or 1 chemical (na sodium) + 1 chemical (cl chloride ) = 1 chemical (nacl salt) [not 2 chemicals as mathematics would say thus 1+1=1 Thus mathematics ends in contradiction
1chemical (na sodium) + 1chemical (cl chloride )=1chemical (nacl salt) - maths ends in contradiction

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 atom of sodium, and on atom of chlorine floating around in empty space do not automatically make sodium chloride. You have failed to respond to any of the points made in my argument. As I said earlier, one atom of sodium REACTS with one atom of chlorine to make the chemical that we know as sodium chloride. 1 atom of sodium, and one atom of chlorine is present in every MOLECULE of salt. One atom plus one atom (reacting with) still equals two atoms. Here, I've even provided a picture in the link below, just in case you still don't understand. http://www.slocountymassage.com...
1chemical (na sodium) + 1chemical (cl chloride )=1chemical (nacl salt) - maths ends in contradiction

con says "1 atom of sodium plus one atom of chlorine does NOT equal sodium chloride" yes it does you obviously dont know chemistry con says "1 atom of sodium plus one atom of chlorine can be equivalent to the two element compound of sodium chloride" all you have done is prove deans point 1 atom of sodium chemical plus one atom of chlorine chemical can be equivalent to the two element compound of sodium chloride -which is 1 chemical con says "1 atom of sodium plus one atom of chlorine can be equivalent to the two element compound of sodium chloride," 1 atom na -chemical +1 atom chemical cl =1 chemical nacl but maths tell us that 1 atom na -chemical +1 atom cl chemical l should = two chemicals but it does not as 1 atom na -chemical +1 atom chemical cl =1 chemical nacl con says "
1chemical (na sodium) + 1chemical (cl chloride )=1chemical (nacl salt) - maths ends in contradiction

You make me laugh. 1 atom of sodium plus one atom of chlorine does NOT equal sodium chloride- so the first part of your assumption is incorrect. 1 atom of sodium plus one atom of chlorine can be equivalent to the two element compound of sodium chloride, so 1 atom plus 1 atom equals 2 atoms. So the second part of your assumption is incorrect. Even if one atom plus one atoms somehow magically equalled 1 atom, then this would still have no bearing on mathematics- or in other words, mathematics does not end in contradiction.
1chemical (na sodium) + 1chemical (cl chloride )=1chemical (nacl salt) - maths ends in contradiction

australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean show 1+1=1 mathematics ends in contradiction http://www.scribd.com... most say the most certain of things is 1+1= 2 but 1+1=1 1 chemical (na sodium) + 1 chemical (cl chloride ) = 1 chemical (nacl salt) [not 2 chemicals as mathematics would say thus 1+1=1 Thus mathematics ends in contradiction
Catholicism is the only true religion.

I believe Catholicism is the true religion because it was established by God himself. The Pope is infallible. It consists of 2000 year's worth of traditions. 1 billion people follow it's teachings. If there weren't any Catholics today, the whole world will be a mess. It's true that it has cost a thousand lives and produced the most famous martyrs, non Catholics, even recognize themselves. Catholicism has kept the true teachings of the Church ever since its establishment.
Catholicism is the only true religion.

LOL. I study theology and religion, that's probably why I'm an atheist.1) I don't kill myself because my well-being is higher than 0 and I enjoy helping and loving others and raising their well-being. There's no objective point to living, so you have to make your own. My point to living, I have assigned myself is science. I study science everyday and find joy and utility in it.2) Not enough space to answer, but we are the outcome of billions of ys of evolution. Pro has not filfilled BoP.
Catholicism is the only true religion.

Please don't take things from the Bible literally and out of context. That's the reason there are priests to interpret for you. If you think God intended for people to suffer in the 1st place then I suggest you study Christianity more than Satanism. If God made everyone good, that would be against free will. Here are my questions: 1)Why don't you just kill yourself if yourself if there's no point in living? 2)What chemicals during the Big Bang created our intelligence? 3)How do you justify?
Catholicism is the only true religion.

I'm not prideful at all. God should be able to convince someone to go to him without inflicting pain. Immoral acts of god: Killing 99.999% of the population (Noah's ark)Having a child killed by a bear(really)Having a father almost kill his son to prove loyaltyHaving his son killed, so that he would save the population, FROM HIMSELF.Commanding genocide.THIS GOD IS MORALLY REPUGNANT. This god lets innocent children starve and die. Even if this god existed, why would we worship him? He's a JERK.
Catholicism is the only true religion.

In their pride and complacency, humans think that they need neither God nor the grace God offers, but tragedy, sorrow, and suffering can lead to transformation. Because this world is prelude and preparation for the afterlife, even a life filled with suffering is useful if it causes the person to turn to God and accept divine grace. This, Catholics believe, is a central fact of existence: that God uses everything, even suffering, to call people back to God. Offer your sufferings to God.
Catholicism is the only true religion.

Pro did not address my 2nd argument.Problem Of Free Will.B) 1)An omniscient god knows the future.2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. An omniscient god knows your actions.4) You don't have free will.Given god is omniscient, you have no free will. We Suffer Because Of Original Sin?A god who would punish someone for the crimes of others is horrible.If a god wanted all to be saved, they would. i.e omnipotence.
Catholicism is the only true religion.

God is not a puppet master, pulling our strings, but a mighty, omniscient God who looks at each thing we could do and meets us there when we make our choice. God creates everything for good. No exceptions. He gave the angels a free will, and He gave us our free will. As it says in Timothy..... God desires all men to be saved. But it is up to each of us to choose God over sin. Does God know what MY choice will be? Yes! Do I have the free will to make that choice? Yes! We suffer because we sin....
Catholicism is the only true religion.

Problem Of Evil:P1)If an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent god exists, then evil and suffering doesn't.P2) Evil and Suffering existC1) An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god does not exist.Problem Of Free Will:1) God knows the future2) God knows what actions he will perform3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)4) God's actions are predetermined5) God has no free will.Character count is too low!
Catholicism is the only true religion.

We have ideas of many things."These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us."One of the ideas we have is the idea of God -- an infinite, all-perfect being."This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause."Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God."But only God himself has those
Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party

Well, what more can I say? It's obvious that my opponent just doesn't care. Well, here we go. 1. Your original topic stated that Fox News was a branch of the GOP. This is so false that I trust I don't need to prove it. 2. You have provided no evidence. 3. Your whole argument was based on personal bias, which has no bearing on truth. Therefore, Fox News is NOT a branch of the Republican party, and your conceived "bias" is a figment of your imagination and prejudices. Thanks for nothing. What a ripoff.
Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party

Well, since my opponent failed to respond, I find I don't have much to say. I did look around on the web, though, and found something interesting. According to a study conducted by Sacred Heart University (http://www.newsmax.com...) Fox News is the "most trusted for accurate reporting" news source for Americans. Here are the results, as published in Newsmax. "Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%)." This is a large jump since 2003 when, in a similar study, CNN topped Fox. This suggests to me that Fox has made more of an effort to BE "fair and balanced," obviously contrary to what you've said. By the way, your original topic was "Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party." This is obviously and demonstrably false, and therefore I've won the debate, literally. I understand what you meant, but perhaps a little less absurd levity would be appropriate. I'm not bitter at you for missing the debate deadline. I know how things get. Thanks. Sola Gratia.
Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party

"It is obvious that Fox News is a fraternity for washed up, bitter Republicans who can't get elected." A strong statement, KCrump, which you fail to back up with proof. In fact, proof is conspicuously absent from your argument. Evidence, too, it lacking. Everyone knows that Bill Kristol, O'Reilly, and Hannity are Conservative, but Chris Wallace, who has more of a "news" show, is not. According to his FoxNews.com bio, more than half of the people he interviewed were Democrats. Now, unless it's just an attack show, that doesn't make sense if the whole network has such a "Right-wing" bias. And if it was an attack show, would these people consent to be on there? I think not. After Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot," she appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Matthews let John Edward's wife (he can't stand up for himself) call in and tell Ann Coulter what she thought of her. That, my friend, is biased. Of course, being the partisan you obviously are, you'll probably say something like "Ann Coulter deserved it. Haw, haw." But if it was your precious Bill Clinton, or Ariana Huffington, would you be so equitable? You have provided no evidence, much less proof, and so I feel this is the best I can do for now.
Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party

Fox News is indeed a branch of the Republican Party. All of their talent have blatantly obvious conservative viewpoints. For example, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace, the list goes on. Even when they bring on guests, they resort to an embittered ex-Clinton employee such as Dick Morris to analyze the Presidential election or people who are just out of touch with the issues like William Kristol. Furthermore, the "liberals" they do employ are of the worst quality. For example, Allen Colmes is a wimpering step-child for Sean Hannity to walk over during their telecasts each night. They tend to bring on, for the lack of a better word, the weakest of opponents for their conservative powerhouses to go up against. And when Fox actually decides to bring on someone who won't lie down for them during a discussion, they cut off their microphone, claim they cannot hear them, cut to a commercial, or just plain ignore them. It has gotten to the point where Fox News or "Noise" as my friend Keith Olbermanns says, is laughable. Sometimes I only tune in for a good laugh because Fox does not report the news. Most of their broadcasts are opinion based shows with plainly conservative slants. I am not even sure if Fox employs any journalists at all to be honest. They claim to be fair and balanced, but it is obvious that Fox News is a fraternity for washed up, bitter Republicans who can't get elected.
who we are? what is happening to us

I agree to almost everything you say.We are on a flat Earth and the controllers of this atmosphere are outside the sky as well as inside/beneath our Earth underground. the outer edge is Antarctica and inner circle (the centre is where you find the underground kingdom) is the North Pole.NASA and Roscosmos are among the group who are corrupt and like to guard the edges (where the true dome, which is bigger than the sky you see, meets Antarctica).This is a semi-simulated reality. The sky is simulated and a lot of science you are taught in schools including macroevolution are lies that you are bullied into thinking just as we were bullied into denying them before (yes, ironic). The world runs on peer pressure and groupthink and those that question it are branded mentally ill if they do it too fast and hard.Take your time, question the world and reality slowly and the truth will come to you also. In time I will reveal who I am and convince the world of the truth. Perhaps I won't win, perhaps I will. I don't really care.
who we are? what is happening to us

i don't really know but sometimes i feel like we don't feel others we just feel our body i know its just a topic a garbage for someone who don't really like to read but someday you think you are special and some day you think you are nothing for this world,i don't care if we live in a dream or its just a stimulation but who we really are if there is a god ok wait if we are in our dreams this means after death we are in our real world so we really meet with god after death oh wait what just i say does god exist sure but not in dreams in real life god exists not in this cruel world full of fake and bad peoples where we are just a toy for someone life starts as a child then start schooling, after completing studies find some better job for living then marriage then kids , are we living in a loop or this whole universe set in a loop by someone who made human and you know what someone who created us is very clever suspect know we never find the answers because our future is written by someone who is intelligent than human race like a drama we are for someone who see us from sky like a mirror thanks
polygamy is more natural than.. monogamy

The opposition has failed to support any of their central ideas with facts while I have not only addressed theirs, but have brought up points of my own that have not been countered. I have stressed the importance of monogamy in regards to humans and have stated before that humans are the ideal focal point because of our understanding of our history and the unknown factors that arise when studying both polygamy and monogamy. Where do we set the boundaries in a controlled environment to determine what ideal conditions are for mating various species? What species do we look at considering the vastness of the animal kingdom? Certainly it wouldn't be practical to look at all of them and there would be a bias and grey area when deciding what animals to select and under what conditions. Bi-parental care has no specific record of when it has dated back but even in today's society, there is scientific proof that the offspring is put into more favorable conditions. These favorable conditions are in itself natural as the human race strives towards evolution and improving the well-being of humankind.
polygamy is more natural than.. monogamy

polygamy is more natural than monogamy polygamy is more widely practiced in human society now and historically, so that is an indicator, given we are part of the natural world. polygamy is by far most widely practiced in the animal kingdom, even with closely related primates. they did a study on primates, and concluded that the wider a species shoulder, the more polygamous that species is. humans are on the conservative, but polygamous side of things.