BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
History. Greek and Roman gods or today's god

OK, this round"s argument is going to be short. I"ve a feeling that we"re talking about religious realism. While we both are atheist. While we"re talking about the Greek Mythology and are trying to compare it to Christianity we might encounter some other details of that religion. We also need to know that the Romans adapted the most of the Greek religious telling. The Greek people believed in quite amazing beliefs and stories. However we"ve to say that Christianity also has got many but aber many strange stories. But its still beLIEving in religion. You need to know that you can believe in everything you want (Ghost God, Loly-pop God,Pop-corn God...), but mostly people believe what the public or their parents say (similar to argumentum ad populum). Both Christianity and Greek/Roman Mythology sounds like nonsense to me. Hey, PRO please state a more complex argument. Good Luck.
History. Greek and Roman gods or today's god

Ok. I'm for Roman and Greek gods. Beacuse they are more realistic. Exemple: if all of gods are real, there have to be more gods than just one. Another example: Ares(Greek's god of war) has been god just for war or Pozejdon(Greek's god of sea) its just for sea. But today's god its one god for all. One god can't be for everything.
John Hanson was the real first president

The country was independent in fact, but had yet to establish a sound government. Samuel Hunginton was the president of the Continental Congress, but that was the Congress that was under no constitution. In 1781 when the Articles of Confederation were ratified, the Contintental Congress became the Confederate Congress. Samuel Huntington still held the chief spot of the Confederate Congress, just because he didn't do anything noteworthy didn't mean he still wasn't occupying that seat. Shortly after the Articles were ratified, Thomas Mckean took Huntingtons spot as the second president of the Confederate Congress. John Hanson took the spot of third president of Cofederate Congress. You claim that because Huntington was not the president because he did nothing. Hanson did not accomplished anything noteworthy while holding this insignificant seat either. To review, Samual Huntington was the first president of the Confederate Congress, thus invalidating Pro's claim of Hanson first. I do not concede that Huntington was the first president of the United States, as my argument is still for George Washington. Just to cite my courses for the round 4: the same book that I had cited before, and (https://historymyths.wordpress.com...). The same citing for this last round also.
John Hanson was the real first president

Well that was before the country was even independent, and that was NOT the argument, but it could be one, Huntington did no real work, and so was not president, just filled a seat, and you were close to refuting my argument, and at the time there was no constitution, so no President, he was like a chairman or speaker of the house. Good luck with the final round and the voting. Thanks for the debate.
John Hanson was the real first president

Considering you haven't brought forth anymore arguments, and have not rebutted mine, I shall bring forth a new point, which may be this argument you speak of. I have done more research into the subject, and have discovered John Hanson was not even the first president of the Confederate Congress under the Articles of Confederate and Perpetual Union. Samuel Huntington was in face the first president of Confederate Congress. Huntington was the president of the Contintental Congress, which preceded the Articles, but once the articles were ratified, he was still the president of that congress. There was even a second president of the congress before Hanson claimed the title. Thomas Mckean in July of 1781 took office and lasted until November of the same year before Hanson was elected by legislature. Consideringthese are true, this will invalidate your claim as Hanson as the first president of Confederate Congress. I do not concede that Huntington is the first president of the U.S., I merely state that him being the first confederate congress president invalidates your arguments.
John Hanson was the real first president

Your claim is that John Hanson helped author the Articles of Confederation, and then persuaded Maryland to ratify them, which would thus put those Articles into place. The Articles of Confederation were in fact written by John Dickinson, and slightly revised by the 13 members the continental congress. John Hanson was involved, but did not have anymore influence than the other 13 delegates. Despite him being the delegate for Maryland, there is no evidence or proof that he necessarily persuaded them. He may have discussed it, but it is not sure he was actually the reason it was ratified. John Hanson was voted by legislation, not the people of the United States, as President of the Confederate Congress. He was president of congress as their was no executive branch and had little power. He didn't have half the power The President of the United States had once the executive branch was created. Hanson was under complete control of the congress and had 2 secretaries and a superintendent who dealt with the majority of documents for his one year in that position. Under this term you claim he established Thanksgiving and other "accomplishments" which were upheld into Washington's term. Thanksgiving was recognized several times a year during the American Revolution by the Continental Congress (not yet the confederate congress). In 1789, Washington's first year as president, Washington proclaimed a Thanksgiving to be held that year. This was the first year it was a official, federal holiday. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln's presidency that it was declared a annual federal holiday. Either way, this holiday had little effect, if any at all, on the formation of the United States. I have never read John Hanson's associated with thanksgiving. You have not stated what else he actually did to further the country in his term as president of the congress, which wasn't the President of the United States. (United States History, 2012 BJU Press, Greenville, SC. Authors: Timothy Keesee, EdD, Mark Sidewell, PhD.) Also, (http://www.history.com...).
John Hanson was the real first president

Ok, while ou gave information on the President as we know it, ad the office was called Pres of the USA, he was president. Now here is the promised elaberation-Hanson served in the Mariland-the last state to ratify the flawed articles-since 1759,and was among the earliest proponents of the new nation, and was recognizedas a leaders by his peers.Hanson, as a proponent who helped write these articles, and persuaded-heres where Maryland comes in- Maryland, the last state needed to pass and make effective the articles of confederation, the constitution of the time- to sign the articles. In gratitude, the Congress Assembled UNANIMOUSLY elected him the President of the USA,and as he was the first to hold this office, was THE first President of the USA. He also did many things during his term, such as establish thanksgiving and other achievements kept during Washingtons presidentcy.And there were seven successors to Hanson before Washington- Armchair ReadersThe Amazing Book of History, page 297-299.
thoughts on jews

Gasing the Jewish population would be immoral. One of the only reasons why people may say it is okay are to reduce overpopulation, but if all the jews were killed, it would only halt the world population by about a month (http://www.worldometers.info...). Also, killing people to reduce overpopulation is not an effective way to solve overpopulation. Would you be willing to die to reduce it? I know I'm not. The world population will fix it's self anyway.
In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good

My opponent has failed to structure this debate in any way. Thus, he has allowed me to make this into any form/shape/or image that I wish. Thus, I will define harm as such: Harm is a fictional supervillain in the DC Comics universe. He first appeared in Young Justice #4 (January 1999). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_(comics) I will define good as such: full: having the normally expected amount; "gives full measure"; "gives good measure"; "a good mile from here" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Lobbying will be defined as: Lobbyist (previously titled Angel) is a TV drama series produced by Korea Pictures International, Inc. for South Korea's biggest TV network SBS. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist_(TV_series) My opponent has the burden of proof to show that a South Korean TV network has had a show that is in the U.S. My opponent must then prove that this tv show produces more of a fictional super-villain than actually achieving a full amount of something. I contend that I get a full amount of tv and thus clearly good outweighs the harm. My opponent may not refute my framework next round as he allowed me to start and make any argument I wish to frame this debate. Assuming this is a reference to the Public Forum topic, when the first person drops their speech, the second person is allowed to frame and extend any thing he wishes. Thus, my opponent must be able to prove the paragraph above. If he fails to do this you Negate, Thank you.
God exists

I will now analyze his points he makes and show they are insufficient to show that the problem of evil rejects God. Firstly, the problem of evil does not affect my arguments for any God to exist like my fine tuning argument because for all we know the God of that argument could be the God of Christianity or of Islam or an all evil God. So already keep in mind that his problem of evil argument has absolutely no effect on any of my arguments for any type of God. Here we dive into him specifically raising objections to the Christian God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. The response I would say to Stephens Laws Evil God Hypothesis is the following modified objective moral value argument which refutes the validity of the evil god objection. 1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. 2. Evil exist 3. Therefore objective moral values exist (some things are evil) 4. Therefore, God exist. Premise 1 is true because without God there is absolutely no basis for objective moral values and objective moral values require a basis. And atheism gives you no basis because then atheism asserts that everything in our world is natural and not supernatural and atheism claims we don't have a soul or anything beyond the scientific processes that exist. But science cannot explain the immaterial things of life like moral values and friendship because molecular biology doesn't get down to the emotional and spiritual level of things on earth. So I can confidently say that without God objective moral values exist and I think that I have given a much stronger case for why premise 1 is true contrary to the reasons for why it is false that Con has proposed. Premise 2 is an obvious truth, because the evil God hypothesis already presupposes that evil exists. Lets just say that an evil God does exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to keep to his moral obligations. But he has no basis for those himself as God. He then would need his own divine law giver so this is where the evil god hypothesis really starts to break down. Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to not abide to, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. In other words, if Law"s evil god exists, then God exists. I believe that his argument is a weak attempt to defend that God does not exist. Sources: 1. . https://theosophical.wordpress.com... 2. Michael Bergmann and Jeffrey E. Brower, "The God of Eth and the God of Earth, " Think, (Winter 2007), pp. 36-7
August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

This debate is for round 1 of August Beginner's Tournament: Salam vs. FullMetalResolutionIn a democracy, voting ought to be compulsoryDefinitionsDemocracy: A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.Voting: The means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.Ought: Indicating a moral desirabilityCompulsory: Required; mandatory; obligatoryFormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro's Case, Con's CaseRound 3: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseRound 4: Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseRules4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voters: 2500 Elo Points, 3 days to vote.1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.4. No trolling.5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.9. Failure to adhere to the rules or format above leads to an immediate loss
the bible has no significant contradictions in it

However they do have to do with contradiction as these points completely go against the main part of the religion? They contradict the whole meaning of God, and just show that it is impossible for someone to be what the Bible states?And what is his plan adding up to?Well if there is sinful nature, he created it, therefore must have knew that there would be problems, therefore knew he would have to send sinners to hell, therefore non-benevolent? It goes round and round like a merry-go-round, and if that isn't contradictive of what they have been teaching for the past two thousand years then I don't know what is.
the bible has no significant contradictions in it

you are arguing points that dont have to do with contradiction, but with the way things should or shouldnt be and how that compares to traditional teachings about God. God can exist, and decide the wages of sin is death and hell. who are we to judge? the traditional answer as to how we live in a fallen world, is that we have a sinful nature and live in a fallen state for that reason. perhaps God chose to have a tempter in the garden and it's all his plan. just some examples of poor examples on your part.
the bible has no significant contradictions in it

Okay, here we go, now I take a GCSE Philosophy, Religion and Ethics (PRE) course. We have learnt about the many ways that Christians see God and what they believe him to be.The main, and most promenant contradiction in the Bible, is the other half to the most important part of Christianity, and that is Heaven and Hell. Now to start, Christians believe their God has many different values. The biggest of these are that he is;Benevolent- An all loving and all caring entity.Omniscient- An all knowing entity.Omnipotent- An all powerful entity.The judge- To govern and rule over life and afterlife.So here is the biggest contradiction of them all. If God is said in the Bible to be a benevolent being, then why does he send people to hell? Surely if he loves every one of us, then why are we punished?Secondly, the Bible says that we are made in God's image. So why do we have so many faults? Why did he give us faults?We have freewill to say and do as we please. Surely this means that God is not in control of us, and is not Omnipotent?In the Garden of Eden, a serpent tempts Eve to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life. This is reffered to "The garden of the lord" in Genesis. Why is a serpent inside of his Garden? The garden is there to serve protection to Adam and Eve, so why is it there?Here is a very unanswerable question. Now in order for good to exist, evil must, otherwise you would not know if something was good. So as the bible talks about good, therefore evil, and evil towards humans whom were built in God's image, God cannot be benevolent. If God is the judge and is omnipotent, then he must make a decision based on the actions of the person in question. Therefore, if they have commited a sin, then they must be sent to hell. So how can he be all powerful if he is benevolent?Science has proved many miraculous events in the Bible to be either false or pure chance. Take for example the story of Moses. Everybody knows that he parted the sea in order for him and the hebrews to move to safety from the Egyptian soldiers. However, at the time, the sea was meerly a lake a few feet deep, called the Reed sea. A strong wind coming in from the desert could have easily parted the land. The Bible states that jesus had nails hammered into his hands when crucified, when infact they were in his wrists.
the bible has no significant contradictions in it

the only one's i predict you might find, as trivial details, like how many people were at a place, or the color of something. or things that are too vague to mean anything, "our God is a venegful God" "our God is a merciful God". anything else i will argue, has reasonable explanations. please provide no more than three. more than that and people are just copy and pasting everything conceivable throwing it to teh wall to see what sticks. three makes you pick your best and stake your credibility on it, and it makes it easier to deal with, all it takes is one blatant contradiction to show the bible has error.
Feminism is necessary

It's definitely been interesting. Having said that, I did have a few concerns regarding your last argument. Let me explain: Dropped Argument Last round I very directly said that my opponent's definition of "requisite" should be disregarded. I said this because she was using the definition of a noun, and the word "necessary" is used as an adjective in the debate resolution "Feminism is necessary". Because of this, I said, Pro's definition/argument should be disregarded. So, with that in mind, what was my opponent's response? ?? ? NOTHING. She didn't even ATTEMPT to discredit my argument. By being silent, I can only presume she did so because she was not able to refute my argument. As captain of the debate team, it seems rather unlikely that she just forgot to respond. After all, with only 2,000 characters per round, it's not a very long debate. I encourage the voters to see her drop for what it is, an admission of guilt. What We're Debating Again, my opponent seems to be trying to change the debate as we go along. She brings up many reasons why we should like feminism, but when reading them, ask yourself "Is this what they were supposed to be debating? " I would argue the answer is no. For example. .. Do we have to have a "fully functional, fair society"? No. Do we have to "live cohesively"? No. Do people have to have "a sense of self-worth and identity"? No. Certainly all those things are nice, but we don't have to have them, therefore, feminism is NOT necessary. Straw Man Argument My opponent has engaged in another logical fallacy. This one is known as a straw man argument. This is done when someone misrepresents her opponent's arguments. [5] I never said that the age of something determined it's worth. What I said was that we can tell something is NOT necessary if we can live without it. Even if that something is helpful, if we can go on without it, it's NOT necessary. That's exactly what we see with feminism. Feminism may or not be beneficial, but that's NOT what we're debating. We're debating if it's necessary, and since we could (and have) lived life without it. .. It's not necessary. No Semantics Here I used generally accepted definitions from a reliable dictionary. Conclusion I think the choice is clear. I showed that feminism is NOT necessary. After I did that, Pro tried to change what we were debating in order to salvage her chances of winning. I ask the voters to recognize her attempt, and to vote for Con accordingly. Sources: 5. . http://www.nizkor.org...
Feminism is necessary

I would like to clear up the matter of "Moving the Goalposts." As I am part of a debate team myself, I understand what "moving the goalposts" is, as well as the problems it causes. In this case, I do not agree with my opponent's argument. You provided the definition of necessary as "essential, indispensable, requisite." I would like to fully define all three of these words: Essential: "absolutely necessary; extremely important." Indispensable: "absolutely necessary." Requisite: "made necessary by particular circumstances or regulations; a thing that is necessary for the achievement of a specified end." The definition you provided simply used synonyms for the word necessary. I elaborated on the definition as using synonyms does not provide a clear definition of the word. As this has become a problem, I would elaborate on the definition again, using a much clearer definition: "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential." I believe in both of these cases, the definition has supported my case that feminism is indeed necessary. I would like to conclude with my argument that feminism is indeed necessary for a fully functional, fair society. It is needed for humans to live cohesively. Feminism provides people with a sense of self-worth and identity, something that is required for a fully functional human being. I would like to remind you again that the length of something's existence does not determine its worth. I would also like to state the fact that as most of my opponent's argument has consisted of semantics, it is not valid considering the definitions we provided. I feel this conversation has fallen to semantics, therefore not allowing for a real debate on this issue. I would be happy to debate this topic with you again, as I am interested in what you have to say. I do not feel this debate accurately represents what either of us has to say. I found the definitions of all three words simply through Google. Thank you and good luck! :)
Feminism is necessary

Thanks Pro for the timely response. Definition Problems There is a problem with Pro's definition of "requisite"... it defines "requisite" as a noun, while the word "necessary" is used as an adjective in the debate resolution. We know this because when one diagrams the sentence "Feminism is necessary", the word "necessary" describes "feminism" and is therefore an adjective.[3] With this in mind, Pro's definition of a noun isn't interchangeable with the adjective "necessary". In other words, Pro's argument concerning the definition of "necessary" should be disregarded. Logical Fallacy Pro has engaged in a logical fallacy known as "Moving the Goalposts". I doubt if she did it on purpose, but regardless of her motivation, her argument should be disregarded nonetheless. Let me explain: Moving the goalposts: "Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too." [4] Basically, once I showed feminism is NOT necessary, Pro tried to change the resolution from Feminism is Necessary to "Feminism is Necessary for the achievement of a specific end". That's unfair. If Pro wanted to debate that, she should have said so before I accepted the debate. It's too late to change the debate now, so I ask the voters to ignore her attempt to do so. Sources: 3. http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...