BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God's Existence

Yes, I am willing to debate this further for another 5. I've seen your argument before - it falls flat. Who created G-d, you ask? Well, no one - if someone created Him, then we'd rightfully not call Him G-d! Have you ever read Genesis 1:1? Tell me, is there a co-creator involved? Perhaps a creator before G-d, or anything else? None of the sort. G-d is the ONLY creator. "You alone are the L-RD; You made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to them all, and the heavenly host bow down before You." (Nehemiah 9:6) "'To whom will then you liken Me, that I should be his equal?' says the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:25) "I am the L-RD, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!" (42:8) "This is what the L-RD says, Israel"s King and Redeemer, the L-RD Almighty, 'I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no G-d! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me. . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any G-d besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" (44:6-8) "So said the L-RD, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, 'I am the L-RD Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.'" (44:24) "I am the L-RD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no G-d. . . I will strengthen you. . . I order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the L-RD and there is no other!" (45:5-6) ". . . who announced this before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the L-RD, and there is no G-d apart from Me, a righteous G-d and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am G-d, and there is no other!" (45:21-22) Why can't you people get this through your head? G-d is the sole creator, there is no other! Yes, G-d can be complex, why not, He's the creator after all!
God's Existence

"Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere? Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing?" - So, your argument seems to go as follows, correct me if I am wrong: P1: The universe is too complex to have been formed randomly ("Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere?") P2: The universe in its complexity could have been formed by God C : Therefor the universe was created by God ("Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing?") If we take for granted that all the premises above are true this follows; God is complex, therefor God requires a creator as well, and of course, God's God requires a creator. This obviously lends to an infinite regress, wherein our universe can only exist at the end. Our universe exists, therefor something complex can arise from nothing/chance. Thereby the premises of your argument must be false. We spent the first four rounds fighting over who has the burden of proof, so after your response, shall we start another 5 round debate?
God's Existence

We all know who's the troll around here. I surmised you'd offer some good arguments for this debate, but appears not. Oh well, your loss, readers just won't get the power of atheism, that's all. Just like your last debate, nothing happened. Perhaps next time you should try offering at least one argument so someone could actually respond? Here's my one argument, which you may as well try to refute: Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere? Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing? Perhaps there's still hope for this debate after all, you answer these claims, and we'll go from there.
Religion is unneeded in this scientific and technological age!

If you say they can be as unrelilable as religion then what point would there be to say one is irrelivent? Why not both? Because religion has time and time again led people to happiness. If you say science in technology, what would be the definition of happiness? Getting what you want? Religion has many variations, but the most common core value is love and what could be more happy? With these questions in mind i would like to look into your argument. First you give the fact that someone is undoubtably in the same situation as that man. I agree. But there are many people who have given way to society, and led equally disturbing life. Religion in the wrong hands, in misunderstanding eyes may very well be what you have described it as. But the world does not consist of generalizations, it is made of many individuals. Unique individuals. I trust you have seen "what would jesus do?" bracelets, posters, clothing etc. If people strived to be like jesus, real or not real, believing or not believing, people would be striving to be happier, at peace, honest, and moral building people. By the same token, Bhudists that strive to be like Bhuda, would avoid partaking in many of the same activities that jesus would. Now,my point is this. I could easily go to my mother and she can say, "this is wrong because of this," but i can also go to church, and they can tell me also why sometihng is wrong. I trust you believe that people learn in many different ways? Weather it is the emotional connection they feel with a god that is or isnt there, they can learn it. I also trust that you will agree that there is more than one way to learn? Next, What is it that a teacher can teach you that your priest can't? Calculus? Biology? Similarly to my first argument, these things will build a meaningless world if they are not applied to in the right direction. I do not deny that people of no religion have done good, but religion plays a crucial role in the developement of ethics and morals in todays society as it is fast growing and ideas spread much faster than before.
Religion is unneeded in this scientific and technological age!

I understand what you are saying as my point is indeed based on only 2 experiences but if you consider there is 7 billion people (give or take a few) on the planet and a large portion believe whole heartedly that some "invisible hand" (as you put it) will guide them in their life then you should be able to see that although that one man may or may not have done something wothwhile with his life, someone somewhere in roughly the same position would have. My argument isnt that we should believe in only technoogy or even scientific advances because as we know they both can be as unreliable as religion but that we should believe in our fellow man/women to guide us on our paths to happiness as they are the "helpers" that enable us to better ourselves and they help us.... Teachers, Doctors, Scienists these are the people that help better the world and make ourselves better. This is why i think religion is irrellevant our modern society.
Religion is unneeded in this scientific and technological age!

I realize that you have formulated an opinion based offf of your experiences. But what i also must bring to your attention is that you have encountered very few people (two in your argument at least) to conclude that these ideas aply to everyone, or a large enough part of the world population to enfluence things so greatly as the economy. Before i put forth my argument i would also like to say that you predict the outcome of a man's life based on what you THINK would happen, a mistake as ignorant as his, for believeing that some "invisible hand" so to speak would have guided his life to anything more succesful than what it was, when the reality is that these things are not know. It is easy to say that we should believe in technology, but a road that leads to material is not a road that leads to humanity, or peace. People for as long as humanity has been recorded have sought riches, and technology, but it has done us no good, for where are we? In warm homes, automobiles, societies with malls and luxuries. Yet the smallest portion of our people move to provide the same luxuries to those less fortunate around the world, and even more it is hardly the wealthiest and the ones with the most technology that take these initiatives. I don't claim that religion is the way to these standards of living, but i also recognize the fact that people in general are distracted by selfishness, doing as you say and reveering technology and all it has to offer... to themselves.
Religion is unneeded in this scientific and technological age!

RELIGION Religion is the belief that somewhere someone is watching over us and helping us to better ourselves. I believe that in today's world religion is exactly what we DONT NEED! It is distracting people from making something of their life ..... for instance I saw homeless man on the street he held up a sign to me that read "I am only homeless because GOD did not follow up on the promise that was made to me" when I asked the man what the sign read he simply said "when I was young I was promised the world as long as I served god with undisguised faith... so I skipped school to be at his church praising him.... now look where I am" Now if that man hadn't have been promised the world by a false deity then he would have made something of himself and who knows he could have created a cure for aids... any thing is possible. I understand that belief is what keeps alt of us going in our times of need.... but why believe god will help when really we should believe in our technology and our friends..... for example I read on the Internet recently that a woman had been "saved by god" she had recently had kidney problems and she had prayed every day and night in the hope that god would save her and find her a donor. meanwhile a doctor was working through the night to find her what she needed in the vain attempt at saving a human life... he eventually found her one and saved her life with the operation.... when she uploaded her story to the Internet it was entitled "Praise be to the man who saved me" the blog went on and on about her beliefs but it was the last line that caught my eye .... it read: "I have none to thank but the lord almighty.... God" I was gob smacked as I believe the only person she should thank should be that doctor. Therefore this is why our economy is failing we expect our deity to pull through for us when in reality the only people who pull through are the kind hearted loving people we call humans. Thank you for reading this!
RESOLVED: Homeschooling is better than Public Schooling.

Thank you, DDDDaniel, for suggesting a topic of great mutual interest. I eagerly accept, and hope that we will find one another's viewpoints enlightening. I would like to propose three refinements and clarifications to the scope and rules of the debate. First, I would propose that we limit our arguments and evidence to home- and public-schooling within the United States. I trust we will find that education policy remains a sufficiently complex topic while remaining within our own national boundaries and cultural context. Second, given that your definition of "better" is not limited in scope, I would understand that our arguments can extend beyond measures of simple academic performance to encompass issues relevant to the whole development of the person (e.g., lack of socialization, undetected parental abuse) as well as broader social impacts of homeschooling on political society (e.g., religious separatism, political extremism). Finally, I would like to articulate my understanding of the burden of proof. The proponent for the resolution bears the primary burden of proof. As Con, I will be arguing that homeschooling is either equivalent to or worse than public schooling and/or that the resolution cannot be proved from the evidence presented by Pro. Pro has the burden to show that, on balance and with all evidence considered, it is more likely than not that homeschooling is better than public schooling (in the United States, if you agree with my proposed limitation). Con has no affirmative burden, and can prevail by providing sufficient positive evidence to render the resolution, on balance, to be more likely false than true, equally likely to be false or true, or by successfully refuting evidence proffered by Pro in support of the resolution. Please let me know if you agree with these clarifications. Good luck. I'm looking forward to a spirited discussion.
RESOLVED: Homeschooling is better than Public Schooling.

This is a personal favorite of mine to debate. Each side has its fervent supporters and its ardent critics. It should be a fun topic.ROUND 1: Acceptance, Statement of Sides, and Definitions (No Arguments)ROUND 2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)ROUND 3: Continuing Arguments and Rebuttals.ROUND 4: Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements. (No new Arguments.)RULES: All quotes must be underlined or otherwise set apart from the text. Source citations must be in-text or at the end of the speech. Citations must have a URL or the title, author, and date of publication. Both sides may propose definitions, but are not required to. A forfeit automatically titles to win to the forfeit-er's opponent.As the PRO, I am arguing that Homeschooling is better than Public Schooling.Definitions:Homeschooling - "The education of children at home by their parents."Public School - "A school supported by public funds."Better - "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality."All definitions were taken from oxforddictionaries.comhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
moral

This is my first debate and I'm going to start kicking the door. What is your opinion about abortion in the case of an anencephalic fetus. A pseudo-human creature can be considered a real human, not only has a human body, but a mind, which has complex feelings, that can modify the world around it, which has high purposes. Can you even consider a human anencephalon as a real human? For me these anencephalons are simply aberrations.
The wealthiest ten per cent of citizens should be exempted from paying tax

A. M. A. Bench, Esq. for accepting this debate (I assume at least one of his given names must be Adolf in honour of his infamous relative) and for duly posting his rebuttals. Ladies and gentlemen, I didn't realise Hitler had any surviving relatives but if Herr Bench can prove he is, indeed, the Fuehrer's sole remaining descendant then, not only will he inherit the deceased dictator's castle in Bavaria but also the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Nazi gold that is currently stashed in Swiss banks. With this being the case, I would expect him to join me in arguing that the richest 10% of citizens should be exempted from tax, but in the meantime, I would like to respond to his objections as follows: The proletariat would, indeed, protest if this policy was announced prior to an election, which is exactly why the Republican American Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is so evasive about his tax policies: all he will is say is that he wants to cut them; but he won't say who will benefit (although I personally suspect the rich will benefit more than the poor). Furthermore, here in Britain, the Conservatives were elected and the first thing they did was slash public spending to pay for tax cuts for the top 5% of earners (they didn't mention this in their election campaign, of course, but that was always their plan). This shows it is possible to squeeze the poor until their pips squeak and get away with it - and it's all made possible by ensuring you have the political and financial backing of the bosses of big business and media moguls - which is easy because they are wealthy people who benefit from tax cuts for the rich. You see, democracy may exist in theory, but in practice, members the old Establishment still control the levers of power. Finally, I agree that the government shouldn't give money to big business to create jobs, if they have any money to spare, they should give it to toffs like me - I would happily use the money to employ some forelock-tugging skivvies to attend to my every whim and desire, but I"m not asking for that, all I'm asking for is to be exempted from tax, along with the other 10% most wealthy citizens. Thank you.
This house would legalize multi-partner marriage with any gender

Well, basically all this argument is based on the ideal of polyamory and we can define it as the multi partner and gender marriage Polygamy (a man with more than one wife), polyandry (a women with more than one husband), and polyamory (multiple men and women all married to each other) tumble out as naturally as same-sex marriage. "Love has no gender. Some hearts contain a male and a female, some two females or two males. We expected as much. What we probably didn"t expect is that some of the hearts have threesomes: a male with two females, a female with two males. Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right. Love not only knows no gender, it apparently knows no number. Marriage was based on love, which was why gay and lesbian people wanted the same rights. "Marriage is the institution of two people who love each other committing themselves to a shared life together If people were intellectually honest they would see the arguments for legalizing gay or lesbian marriage could apply directly to those in other alternative relationships "If it's about love and commitment and respect, don't they have that? They would say they do
If you win a loser contest does that make you a winner.

Thanks for that Con.Wow, it took me all day to read Con's last round.Such breadth...such depth could not be contained by 10,000 characters.Simply breathtaking...in that it only takes one breath to read Con's last round aloud.*Review*The uncontested-therefore-accepted definitions provided 1st round clearly demonstrate that a winner is someone who is victorious in a contest and this contest could easily be a competition for supremacy in the quality of being a loser.When one is victorious, one is a winner, even if one is a major loser.*Responding to Con*Con reasons:"No because you are loser."My response:No need for name calling, jeez.While it may be true that I'm a person who fails frequently, I'm still able to win in a competition to be the supreme frequently failing person.Con asserts:"Losers have no right to win."My response:Ah the lesser-known 28th amendment, the right to win."The right of the people who fail less than frequently to win and be victorious shall not be infringed."Sarcasm aside, winning is not a right and being a loser does not preclude one from also being a winner, especially in a contest to be the supreme loser.Con continues:"Even if they do they would be in a loser contest for a reason."My response:Yeah, the reason would be to win the contest, becoming a winner.Con imagines:"If it was a different contest that would be different."My response:I tend to dismiss tautologies, but what the heck, I've got 10,000 characters.Why would a different contest's winner be any more victorious than a loser contest's winner?*Conclusion*I extend all dropped arguments.Winners of any competition, including loser contests, are winners.
If you win a loser contest does that make you a winner.

I accept, Con.I noticed there were no definitions supplied.So, let me be the supplier.Definitionsif - on the condition or supposition that.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...you - used to refer to any person in general.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...win - be successful or victorious in a contest.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...loser - a person who fails frequently or is generally unsuccessful in life.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...contest - an event in which people compete for supremacy in an activity or quality.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...make - constitute; amount to.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...winner - a person who wins something.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...loser contest - an event in which people compete for supremacy in the quality of being a person who fails frequently or is generally unsuccessful in life.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Full ResolutionIf you win a loser contest, does that make you a winner?In this resolution, the noun "loser" is being used to modify the object "contest," whereby "loser contest" becomes one singular term of the debate, instead of two separate terms.*Winning a Loser Contest*By competing for supremacy in the quality of being a loser and arising victorious, one wins the loser contest.When one wins the loser contest, one satisfies the definition of a person who wins something.What did they win?Supremacy in a contest where people compete for a particular quality.Though antithetical it may sound, one can be a winner and a supreme loser simultaneously; "winner" and "loser" are not mutually exclusive terms.If you win, you're a winner.
If you win a loser contest does that make you a winner.

Thanks for that Con.Con spent a majority of last round discussing my rudeness.Ironically, Con used this to attempt to insult my debate prowess.Uh oh.*Responding to Con*Con complains:"My Foe said that I was name calling. I was expressing the fact that you are loser."My response:I was actually joking, but whatevs.The definitions are clear about "you" meaning "any person in general," so I had interpreted "No because you are a loser" to in fact mean the general you, I was making a joke about how you phrased it, but now having explained it all, it's fading...still originally very funny though.Con continues:"I never said any ones name or said it directly to anyone so that is false."My response:Ok, it was a joke, chill.Con gets judgy:"Also, they were being very rude about saying it took them all day to read it."My response:Oh come on, that was funny.There's nothing wrong with me being ironic when you posted an extremely short post in a crucial round you specifically intended to utilize 10,000 characters as opposed to any other smaller character amount.It's just funny.Con defends:"My point was very clear in one sentence."My response:So clear, that you're going to re-post it this round?Your point "they're a loser for a reason" is irrelevant to whether or not they win something.The reason could be that one frequently fails, thus they are a loser, but they manage to become a person who wins some contest.Con reminds:"There are 5 rounds and I believe that as long as you get your point across there shouldn't be a character limit and judging by it."My response:Ok, now that you've cleared up your lack of a response last round, you're gonna really bring it this round, right?Con insults:"Just because you copy and paste almost everything you put down on your debate arguments doesn't mean you can do this."My response:The only things I copy and paste are direct quotes.I'm either quoting Con or quoting a citation.Con repeats:"Losers are not winners in the contest because they are a loser for a reason."My response:Ugh.A person who fails frequently can enter a competition for supreme loser and arise victorious.They might be a loser, but they are a contest winner.Con continues:"and why would anybody be in a loser contest if all they do is "win win win no matter what?"My response:They would be in the loser contest to win supremacy with respects to being a loser.Nothing about the definition of "winner" says anything about "winning all the time no matter what."One who wins a competition is a winner, losers included.*Conclusion*Con's just not really responding to anything I've posited thus far.These crucial, resolution-affirming arguments have also served to refute Con's assertions.As such, those affirming arguments stand.Con?