BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

The debates about whether or not a God exists has been raging on ever since mankind first invented the idea. Regardless of all the excruciating work theists have put into proving their God, none have ever actually met their burden of proof. In this debate Con will present his/her best arguments and/or supporting evidence for the existence of God. I (Pro) will do my best to show that Con's arguments/evidence are not sufficient to establish with any proof or probable certainty that any Gods exists. The rules and definitions for this debate are as follows:DefinitionsGod - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Exist - To have actual being; be real. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Rules1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit is strictly prohibited (an example would be posting a picture with an overwhelming amount of text).2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.3) The burden of proof is held by Con!4) The debate has 5 rounds and there is 72 hours for each side to post their arguments. Con will present his/her opening arguments/evidence in Round 1 but will not make any more arguments or rebuttals in Round 5. This is only fair as I am not making any arguments or rebuttals in round 1 while Con is. Con can post a civil "thank you for the debate" of some sort in Round 5 but absolutely no arguments or rebuttals.5) Con need not show that all theists that ever existed have not fulfilled their burden of proof, rather the point of the debate is to show that Con will not fulfill his/her theistic burden of proof sufficient to establish the existence of God. If Con shows evidence and/or arguments to which I cannot refute then I will forfeight the debate.Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to the rules. I would prefer Con to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also prefer to debate against a genuine believer who debates with respect and intellectual honesty. I have no more further requests so let the debate begin! I thank Con in advance for accepting, and I hope we can have a civil and stimulating debate!
Boom Beach is better than Clash of Clans!

You can also argue about that with Boom Beach too. The setting is around a group of archipelagos. You also go to players islands' and loot gold. This gives you a "pirate" like environment in Boom Beach. The pirates of real life would set up bases on islands to claim it their fortresses. The part where you loot their resources gives it more of a pirate like environment. That was what I immediately thought of when I first played this game. Now on to builders. When a person who is trying out Boom Beach that has played Clash of Clans see that their is only one builder, he probably thinks the wait time is going to take forever. That isn't the case. The times are significantly shorter in Boom while in Clash you have to wait from days to weeks on one project! I am talking about the town hall in this case. The highest HQ level in Boom Beach only takes two days to complete! Then their are the options on buying builders in Clash of Clans. Many stockpile their gems to get a third, fourth, and fifth builders hut. That doesn't leave a lot of room to use gems on anything else in Clash unless if you are willing to spend real money. In Boom Beach, you can use gems on anything you want. Use it all or save them for bigger projects. Also the game is really generous when it comes to gems. You can find them on your map DAILY GUARANTEED! If you commit yourself to saving gems, you'll end up having a lot without spending any real money, while in Clash you have to rely on completing missions, finding them by clearing obstacles, and gem boxes. Maybe you can get gems another way. Forgot. Anyway, if you can get lucky in Boom Beach, you can get 15 gems in one chest on the map versus a gem box on average 2-5 days!
Boom Beach is better than Clash of Clans!

Sorry, realized my mistake when it was too late. When you said Clash had more players and has a higher rating, you are right, but remember Boom Beach is newer than Clash by about two years. Think how much things can change in two years in the gaming world! Boom Beach is already in the top 10 grossing in the App Store-and the game came out only in late March!!! Remember when Clash of Clans came out, it took months for it to become popular. Boom Beach is already popular, but that really isn't an argument since people now know what Supercell is now. The game itself now, I like how their isn't walls in Boom Beach. Think about the time dedicated to move the walls into place. If you are a high ranked player, think about how much you'll have to try to perfect the walls while in Boom Beach their isn't! Instead Boom Beach focuses solely on the weapons themselves and that doesn't cause lots of time. your turn
Boom Beach is better than Clash of Clans!

I see you have chosen the wrong side(con) but I realize you are for it(pro) and I will be the one against it. Clash of Clans is better because it generally gets better reviews. Clash of Clans: Metacritic: 74/100 Touch Arcade: 4/5 Boom Beach: Metacritic : 69/100 Touch Arcade: 3.5/5 Clash of Clans also has more active players playing than Boom Beach which means more people to interact with.
Resolved: The board game "Guess Who" is racist and sexist as f***

"I can't find anything racist or sexist about the game. "Well of course you couldnt.... Youre a woman. With a tiny brain, and the attention span of a rock.....1) Evidence that the game causes people to be sexist + racistSee response above2) Reasons why the game is sexist + racist as f***In the game you select a card of the person your opponent has to guess. The game though is designed in a way that the possibility of getting a card of a white man is vastly larger then getting the card of a woman or a black guy. When you do get a card of a woman or a black person and the opponent asks if your person is black/a woman, you say yes and then the opponent knocks down upwards of 80% of the options, giving him a massive lead and usually a quick victory. So since getting a card of a woman or a black person gives your opponent a much larger chance to win, you hope you dont get a woman or a black guy when you pick your card. Then when you get a white male, youre relieved. But if you do get a black person or a woman, you get pissed off, simply because the card you picked was that of a woman or a black guy. Therefore Guess Who is racist and sexist as f***.
Resolved: The board game "Guess Who" is racist and sexist as f***

Guess Who is a board game where people have to guess which person their opponent has by asking a series of yes/no questions about the opponents character and eliminating characters who dont fit the description..... Picture of the game if you still dont know what im talking about: http://choptensils.files.wordpress.com... I am arguing that the game makes people dislike blacks and women, and therefore is racist and sexist as f***
Hate speech should be made illegal in the U.S.

Hate speech is disgusting. It supports the idea that being bigoted is something to be proud of. It promotes xenophobia, making people fear others. It allows people to bully or cyberbully others, without any limits. It makes people, such as homosexuals and Muslims, be afraid of who they are. Hate speech is a horrible thing, effecting so many people;physically and mentally. That is why, we, as a nation need to put an end to this, to protect our citizens.
Hate speech should be made illegal in the U.S.

I have to interject one moment. "God hates people" isn't exactly something that would spread hate outside of a religious group, but even then those people would know God is all loving or such. Any other insults yelled by someone out on the streets, even if it's 200 people, would that really be enough to spread hate? We're supposed to be proving our arguments, preferably via using sources; websites that support these arguments.My source for the 1st Amendment is wikipedia, naturally. https://en.wikipedia.org...I do admit hate speech is hurtful to our feelings. However, sometimes it's a neccesary evil.To further support my 1st argument, I would like to bring up YouTuber shofu. In his competitive videos, he sometimes jokingly insults his opponent for being not as skilled as him. This kind of speech is considered "Hate Speech", and would be deemed illegal, putting a pretty innocent guy in jail. All he's doing is entertainment.
Hate speech should be made illegal in the U.S.

It promotes xenophobia. allowing people to speak hatefully against others promotes xenophobia. If you let anyone go out on the streets and yell "god hates f*gs" people will soon start to think it is alright to do that. If you allow hate speech to continue, xenophobia will become wide spread. That means that teachers in schools could start enforcing bigotry and hate. Young children should not have to witness these fits thrown by other people.
Hate speech should be made illegal in the U.S.

Hate Speech is distasteful. However, making this illegal would ignore the first amendment to the Constitution; Freedom of Speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We should be able to speak our minds without penalty, as that's a basic right.At times, hate can be beneficial. With Trump as our president, people are concerned of what he's going to do, and disallowing hate speech would hinder a needed rebellion if need be.[I want this debate to go quickly, as I have school on Monday. I only see 1 point really on Pro's Round 2, so there's that.]
Naruto can beat Sasuke

I will start of by defining the topic. .. Naruto: a top rank ninja Can beat: kill or defeat Sasuke: A rogue, missing and top rank ninja 1. Naruto has his senjutsu mode. With that, his speed and chakra is increased so he can easily destroy Sasuke with a Rasenshuriken. But with Sasuke having the mangekyo sharingan, he can use sasanoo to defend himself. Naruto can firstly, create a shadow clone and use it to distract Sasuke and have his other clone use 'Frog Kata', Rasenshuriken and other Rasen jutsu. Allowing it to quickly sneak behind Sasuke and attack him. Same goes with having to stand still to access it, he can just make shadow clones and hide them then make one a decoy for Sasuke to hit. 2. Naruto can also go into his nine-tails chakra form for a short while without having his chakra depleted. Which destroys the use of Tsukoyomi since he can switch his chakra with the Nine-tails. This chakra mode has given him increased stamina, strength, speed and also gives him the ability to sense the hatred within. Since we have not seen Sasuke's eternal mangekyo sharingan, we can only assume it possesses the same abilities as Madara's eternal mangekyo sharingan allowing Sasuke to dodge the attacks for 5mins. Naruto can than use shadow clones without his nine-tails chakra form and keep attacking him for five minutes. I will continue my arguments in round 3 and good luck to my opponent. Note (this is not part of my arguments this is just for entertainment use): When Sasuke actually finds out the truth about Itachi whichA few years later, Madara infiltrated Konoha to try to rekindle the flames of war. He was found by Itachi Uchiha first, who convinced Madara to spare the village in exchange for helping to wipe out the Uchiha clan for deserting him decades earlier. Madara complied, training Itachi and providing assistance. However, Itachi never truly trusted Madara and kept an eye on him for the rest of his life. Do you think he'll turn to Naruto's side? Please anwser in the comments.
An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

Again, Con has refused to cite anything other than the alleged "word of God", specifically a Christian God. It seems fallacious at best to use God's "word" to prove something about him.Though these quotes, which I feel should not even be valid sources for proving Con's point, are slightly more relevant to the topic than in the previous round, they still do not account for the suffering of innocent children. Surely infanticide, rape, and genital mutilations exceed the definitions of "light and momentary troubles", "each other's burdens", and "trouble". I understand that many have argued that good cannot exist without evil, heaven without hell, pleasure without suffering, etc. However, it seems that the degree of such evil and suffering on earth far exceeds what would be "necessary" to juxtapose the good which exists.In summary, Con has not used any reputable sources to prove their point. The one source used was not even valid as it represents the words of a being speaking about his own actions. Furthermore, the words of only one God (a Christian God) were used here. Finally, the quotes themselves do not properly prove Con's point.
An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

We MUST look to the Bible as it IS the word of God. Only God knows why God does what God does, so it should not be looked to anywhere else. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us (2 Corinthians 4:17) Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world. (John 16:33) I think it is clear that God intended for man to suffer in his image.
An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

Thank you for this response. I am assuming that this was directed mainly to show that suffering is required/necessary/justifiable in spite of my evidence. I feel, however, that this argument is fairly easy to refute.First of all, these are all taken from Billy Graham's website - https://billygraham.org... can put aside for a second that Con did not cite this source. Billy Graham is also known for his article, "Why I Believe the Bible Is the Word of God". Not only is Billy an evangelical Christian who is sure to be biased on this subject, but Con is attempting to use the alleged "word of God" to prove that that very God exists in the capacity it claims to. This would be like trying to prove that Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan soley because of the fact that Lebron James said he is. Furthermore, it would be like quoting a blog that a fan of his team wrote who claims that Lebron is the sole arbiter of skillfulness in the NBA.Beyond that, even if these quotes were spoken by God and even if it was valid to take God's word as proof regarding something about himself, these are not the right quotes to do so. Not a single one shows a justification or upside to the suffering that pervades today's civilization. Furthermore, the Bible is the word of just one God. There are countless religions with even more Gods on this planet (today and in the past) and there is no way of guaranteeing that this God is the one to listen to.I would urge Con to consider at least using different portions from the Bible and other scripture but, more preferably, use logic and academic sources to justify the deployment of evil.
An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

Let's look at some quotes from the Bible: The Bible says, "It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). The devil said to God, "If You take all those possessions away from him, he"ll curse You and turn from You." But God replied, "You can do anything to him, except you can"t kill him, and then we"ll see" (Cf. Job 1:11-12). The Bible says, "Great is the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16). Man said, "I don"t need You, God. I can build my world without You." God said, "If you take that position, you will suffer and die." Man took that position, and he began to suffer, and he has been dying ever since. Physical death is just the death of the body, but the spirit lives on. If your spirit is separated from God for eternity, it will be lost forever. Jesus said, "for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me" (Matthew 25:35-36).
An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist.As of 2016, 5.6 million children under the age of 5 die each year (http://www.who.int...). 3 million girls each year risk undergoing forced genital mutilation (http://www.who.int...). 1 out of every 5 women will be raped at some point in their lives (https://www.nsvrc.org...).In order for these atrocities to be sustained, God must either be impotent, not all-knowing, or both. Though it is sometimes argued that evil is a necessary good in this world for purposes that, perhaps, only God knows, surely this level of evil would not be necessary.
Resolved: It is possible to be Pro-Choice but anti-abortion

We're a bit all over the map here but I'll try to focus in on the main topic here. (Before I go on, I wanted to say the the man who believed in flying spaghetti monsters might not be mocking anyone or anything, he might truly believe in them. So that would make him crazy, rather than religiously intolerant. Although there's a fine line there). Anyway... Your first example of the gun owner isn't valid. Just because you support a man's right to buy a gun, doesn't mean you support his committing acts of violence and other crimes with it. I support a man's right to buy a car. I support his right to buy a drink. I don't support everything he chooses to do with the car and or alcohol. It's NOT his legal right to do whatever he chooses with the gun. There are laws. One law says he can buy the gun. Another says he CANNOT kill people with it (unless he's a police officer, soldier, etc.) Shoplifters do not have a right to steal. No one has a right to commit a crime. I doubt anyone supports a person's right to break the law. (Remember, abortion is legal). Since I'm agreeing with you, I don't see how you're supporting your side of the debate. I never said I was pro-life. I said being pro-life doesn not preclude you from being pro-choice. Everyone is for free speech. That doesn't mean we support all the things people SAY wth that right. Something being "wrong," is not the same as illegal. Some people think abortion is wrong. Some do not. But there is no disputing it is legal. Someone killing another while he sleeps is wrone AND illegal. Abortion is considered murder by some, simply a medical procedure by others. The law says it's a medical procedure. I appreciate your response but I didn't read anything that clearly made your position stronger. You did nothing to disprove that someone can support a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) but not support all the choices she makes with that right (one of those choices being abortion). Therefore, you can be pro-choice but pro-life or anti-abortion. It's the right to choose your support, not the actions which result because of the right. Not everyone makes the same choices.
Iran deal: definitely a bad move

Since it appears that round 1 is for opening statements I will provide mine here. My opponent is arguing that the Iran Deal is definitely a bad move. Iran Deal: Recent diplomatic treaty that restricts Iran's access to centrifuges and allows for international inspections of their civilian nuclear program. Definitely: without any questionThe Iran Deal provides a framework to limit the ability of their nuclear program to continue development of nuclear material. The only current alternative is to allow them to continue at their current capacity without oversight. Short of another long and costly war, there is no way to completely stop their actions. A diplomatic solution is the best option we have and diplomacy requires compromise.
Wealthy foreigners should be allowed to keep slaves

I would like to thank dexterbeagle for accepting this debate and I duly apologise for then delay in my response, which is as follows: As the famous American politician, Ernest Istook, put it "Our economic freedom is founded on individual property rights; government should never be permitted to take those away." Now, whatever you your moral stance on slavery is, you cannot deny that the slaves belonging to wealthy foreigners are their property - bought and paid for - and to deprive them of their assets amounts to little more than government-sanctioned theft. Yes, I know some people reading this while sitting in their comfortable homes in the UK, the US and other developed countries might be opposed to the concept of slavery, even though it was deemed acceptable by their own predecessors in the only a dozen or so generations ago, but the fact is that many people today choose to become slaves. That's right, if you are living a parched, desolate, sun-baked country where food, water and shelter are hard to come by, you would be a fool to pass up the opportunity to become a slave and, instead, die of thirst, hunger or heatstroke - third world countries don't have welfare systems like we have and there are precious few jobs available. Finally, we must not impose our own socio-political beliefs on people from other cultures. What right have we to say our opinions are superior to theirs just because our skin is white? We must shed our imperialistic instincts and start respecting other races' cultural values, even if they do not match our own. Thank you. Source: http://www.brainyquote.com...