BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Does not Exist

The rule asking for respect pretty much excludes trolling, I hope we can avoid it altogether.I find it interesting that the negation has been formulated in the affirmative, giving Pro the burden of proof, this is rare in debates on the existence of God, where it usually falls upon the theist to propose the usual arguments for the existence of God (Thomas Aquinas' five ways plus newer formulations of the older arguments). I will be interested to see what my partner in this debate has in store for us. I also note that he particularly wishes to disprove the existence of the God as Catholic know Him. Pro has succeeded in arousing my curiosity.With no further ado I yield the floor.
God Does not Exist

Well, This is part of the Noob tourney with ObiWan. I am arguing that the god that catholics beleive in does not exist.Conditions:1. Respect is key. Just becuase we have different views does not mean we should disrespect eachother.2. If there is trolling on either side, do not dock off points for it, just ignore it and don't count it as part of the argument.That is all.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would certainly defeat Spider-Man.

If Batman and Spider-Man were to fight, Spider-Man would beat the living daylights out of Batman. First, Spider-Man has superhuman abilities. Batman is an olympic level human in terms of physical attributes. Clearly, Spider-Man is superior in this regard. Second, Spider-Man has the advantage in terms of intellect. Whereas Batman abuses his billions of dollars to buy fancy gadgets, Spider-Man actually creates his sophisticated devices (while using an extremely limited amount of resources) whenever he needs them. He is also well known for coming up with advanced battle strategies on the spot. In fact, due to his intelligence, Spider-Man was able to defeat the villain known as Fire Lord (a villain almost as powerful as Silver Surfer) in Amazing Spider-Man issues 269-270 without needing a rematch. Third, although Batman knows plenty of martial arts, Spider-Man has managed to develop his own unique fighting style that even Captain America (who is regarded as the best martial artist in the Marvel Universe)(someone who Batman thought of as being superior during both comic book crossovers) cannot help but praise. Fourth, Spider-Man has his spider sense, so Batman won't be able to count on surprising Spider-Man. Taking these four points into account, our favorite web head would mop the floor with the Dark Knight any day of the week. I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Bettered This World

Joseph Smith Bettered This World 1. Joseph Smith improved 14 million people’s lives 2. Humanitarian aid world wide 3. His people are great citizens ---Threat of Hell Pressure--- There is no threat of hell for us. LDS believe in three glories of heaven and outer darkness. Outer Darkness (hell) is where the devils angels go; impossible for most to even go to. Everyone will go to some degree of heaven rather your LDS or not. That hole argument of were scared to go to hell is false. Kingdoms of Glory http://lds.org... ---DNA--- They are estimating when haplogroup X came over. They don’t know for sure, what they use is a mutation rate. The mutation rate they used is many times slower then what occurs in modern humans. Using a realistic mutation rate could make the timeframe consistent with the Book of Mormon. (Parsons et al., 1997; see also Ivanov et al., 1996; Denver, 2000; Howell et al., 1996; Pitman, 2003) “The forces of genetic mixing are so powerful that everyone in the world has Jewish ancestors, though the amount of DNA from those ancestors in a given individual may be small. In fact, everyone on earth is by now a descendant of Abraham, Moses, and Aaron--if indeed they existed.” Steve Olson in the highly acclaimed book, Mapping Human History ---Seer Stone--- What I said last round still stands. ---James Strang--- Like I said last round you may believe what you want to believe. He is irrelevant in a debate about rather JOSEPH SMITH BETTERED THE WORLD> ---Infinite Regress--- You can go to the last round for my original response to infinite regress. As far as what happens when we become Gods I do not know. Nobody knows everything pertaining to Gods plan. God reveals his stuff little bit by little bit. This is irrelevant in a debate about rather JOSEPH SMITH BETTERED THIS WORLD. “Line upon Line, Precept upon Precept” 2 Nephi 28:30 ---Closing--- Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was the first prophet of the true restored church. Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his own blood when he was murdered in 1844 at 39 years old. http://josephsmith.net... If we take the truth of the gospel out of it Joseph Smith has still bettered this world. There are now approximately 14 million members of his church who are happy. His church has donated 884.6 million worth of humanitarian aid since 1985. His people are great citizens and law abiding. Many great politicians are LDS. I HAVE PROVED THAT JOSEPH SMITH HAS BETTERED THIS WORLD. LDS people: http://www.mormon.org... LDS politicians: http://www.famousmormons.net... LDS Statistics: http://lds.org...
Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Bettered This World

Okay, you made some good points here. In response to your comments concerning the humanitarian efforts of Mormonism. What you have said about improving people's lives and the people being great citizens, I must ask, can one's life be improved and can one be a great citizen to the same degree as a Mormon yet not be under the influence of Mormonism? If yes, then what is the point of being a Mormon? I would argue that Mormonism does not improve the lives of people in regards to studies in the fields of philosophy. In fact, Mormonism has hindered millions of people from seeking anything of philosophical value outside of Mormonism. This is because of social pressures and the 'threat of Hell' pressure also. Feeding people bread to keep them alive is one thing. Giving them a chance to think for themselves without the consequences of having to forsake your family and eternal paradise is quite another. Now, about this DNA - What you said seems to make sense, until I looked at this article. http://www.pbs.org... It says that the gene was introduced between 36,000 and 23,000 years ago or between 17,000 and 12,000 years ago. This is far to early for the Israelites to have come to America, therefore this Haplogroup X is not of the ancient Hebrews spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Now, concering the poetic structure - it is obvious that this is no coincidence. Since I am the con in this debate, my best option seems to be this. Could it not be that Joseph Smith styled the Book of Mormon off the King James Bible, therefore the structure would naturally flow from Joseph Smith's writings? The Umimm and the Thummim - it is quite possible that God used this device to translate the Book of Mormon for Joseph Smith, however my question was not directed toward this but rather the seer stone. It seems a bit odd that a stone tied to superstition would be used to translate the Word of God. It also seemed a bit odd that Joseph Smith had to hide his face while looking at the stone. Could it not be that he had some papers he was looking at in his hat instead? I simply asked about James Strang because his case seems oddly similar to Joseph Smith's experience. I was wondering what would stop someone from believing James Strang? I mean didn't he have a vision and unearth some plates just like Joseph Smith? What makes his revelation less significant? As for infinite regress - if man may become God, do they become an omnipotent spirit being capable of creating other human beings with the abilitiy to eventually become Gods? If this is so, then we have an infinite progress. As we know, one cannot travel across infinity, therefore an infinite progress is also impossible. There must be an end. I have made several points, some relating to science, some relating to logic. I seem to have closed the DNA argument, unless you have a very good rebuttel. (which I'm sure you do) :) Regards, Jason
Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Bettered This World

You made several interesting points, first of which is the point concerning DNA. You said that some tribes of Native Americans have minuscule traces of European and Middle Eastern genetics. Allow me to ask, why are these traces so minuscule? The BOM makes it seem as if the Lamanites were a large nation with a distinct national identity. Certainly such a small trace of genetics would make what is spoken of in the BOM a longshot. You mentioned something about scriptorio. The word sounds Latin in origin, not Hebrew. The ancient Roman word for a building where books or scrolls were stored was called a scriptorium. I would then assume that a scriptorio would be one who takes care of the scriptorium. Of course I'm only theorizing based on my minuscule studies of the Latin language, however, I do know with reasonable certainty that the reason why a book has its title in the 'back' is because books written in semetic languages are written right to left instead of left to right. Arabic is a good example of this. If one buys a copy of the Koran with both the original Arabic and the English translation side by side, then one must read the English translation backwards. Allow me to ask, was the original BOM written in this way? You also mentioned the Hebrew poetry scheme. What you provided was interesting, however, I would need to see more examples of this happening before I take it as more than just a coincidence. Now about the seer stone. I only want to know why would God use something tied to superstitions as the tool to reveal the BOM? I believe that the ancient prophets needed no such medium. Concerning James Strang, what I would like to know is why I should or should not believe that he was telling the truth about his experiences? And finally the nature of God, Mormon theology states that Elohim used to be a man on another planet. He was able to become divine by obeying the God he worshipped. This would then lead one to believe that the God Elohim worshipped was a man at one point also. This assumes an infinite regress of Gods, which is impossible. Sources are from several places which I found neatly packaged in this website - mormondoctrine.net/articles/God_became_God.htm
Standardized tests in all schools

Con may have misunderstood that I was suggesting that you could pass a class without learning the material. Con presents the hypothetical scenario that a student could no all of the appropriate material and then fail the test due to overstudying and stressing themselves out about the test. I understand that this is a possible scenario, but one hypothetical scenario is not a fair basis to condemn the entire testing process. As I stated in round two, a retesting opportunity would ideally be the solution to such a scenario. However, in order for Con to win this debate, they would be required to have disputed my arguments, and given some reasonable logic to substantiate the claim that standardized testing is unfair. Con argued on the basis of personal opinions, personal experience, and hypothetical scenarios, while offering no credible evidence to support the claim that standardized testing is unfair. If Con had provided some concrete reasoning for how someone could pass a class and fail the exam, or justification for why this is an unfair process, then Con would have a much more firm argument. In conclusion: It is possible to pass a class without learning all of the proper material. Standardized testing measures students' knowledge and ability before admitting them to the next level of schooling. Standardized testing does not warrant any judgement as unfair unless it can be successfully argued as discriminatory or unreasonable. Failing a standardized test results in a student's inability to proceed on to the next grade level. Con has not successfully disputed any of these points.
Standardized tests in all schools

I never said you could pass a clas without learning the material maybe you could do all the work . And pass the small test but when it comes time to take the standardized tests. The student studys too hard there in which opposing the fact that they did learn the material. But studied too much . The fact that we have to have 21 credits alone to pass highschool . The standardized test should not exist . Ther in proving they are not fair
Standardized tests in all schools

Failing a test is always unfortunate, and I'm sorry to hear that your friend failed by just three points. In most situations, there is supposed to be an established retesting opportunity, which is intended to prevent students from having to repeat an entire semester/year of classes. I find it equally unfortunate that your friend was unable to capitalize on such an opportunity. However, for the sake of the argument, let's suggest that a teenager is attempting to get their driver's license. They take and pass all of the proper courses, but then go to take their actual driving exam, and fall painfully short of passing the driving portion of the exam. In order to uphold the integrity of the process, that is a fail. It would be irresponsible to grant that person a driver's license when they have not thoroughly proven themselves capable of driving safely. Likewise, to curve the grade and bump up a failing student to a passing student would be damaging to the integrity of the test, and could also result in the student having a much more difficult time at the next level. Hypothetically speaking, if the standardized test is an isolated incident, and the student knew everything that they were supposed to have learned, then retesting would be the best option. There is no way that you can argue that a student should be passed because they were close enough. If 3 points are accepted as close enough, then why not 4, then why not 5, and so on and so fourth. This results in a lowering of standards, which was a proven disaster with the "No Child Left Behind" Program during the Bush administration. For the third and final round: Once again I challenge Con to disprove my argument that students can pass a class without really learning the material. I would challenge Con to prove beyond firsthand experience that standardized testing is unfair.
Standardized tests in all schools

Standardized tests, when properly administered, provide a standard assessment of students' learned knowledge and determine whether or not students are prepared to move on to the next progressive level of schooling. If administered properly, this type of testing is a fair process that simply gauges student ability. In response to Con's claim that these tests are unfair, I would ask: What makes standardized tests unfair? I would like to also note that one personal experience is not sufficient evidence to judge the entire testing practice. Regarding Con's initial hypothetical that a student passes all of their classes, fails the test, and is held back: It is possible that a student could technically pass a class (via cheating, getting a D or C, extra credit) and not have achieved the appropriate level of knowledge. It's the same concept as taking notes. I could take notes for an hour, and then not remember a single thing, as it is all written on paper. I have the information in hand, but I have the responsibility to use it as well. Standardized tests are meant to be difficult. They are designed to test you, and you as the student have a responsibility to study for them if you want to perform well. Failing the standardized test is the result of a lack of preparedness, or the result of a failure to learn the proper information, either of which are the fault of the student, and in some cases, select teachers. If you pass your class, but don't learn anything, then what's the point? So in round two: I challenge Con to provide reasonable evidence that supports the claim that standardized testing is an unfair practice. I also challenge Con to disprove my argument that students can pass a class without really learning the material.
We Should Place a Birth Tax on Blacks

Cannibalism. Who are the white people that eat these black fetuses? Gravitational potential energy is the energy that something possesses due to its position above Earth. It has nothing to do with nutritional content and instead has to do with potential energy from gravity. I don't see what the point of taxing black people is. What exactly would this accomplish? It's not made very clear. Most black people and most people in general do not commit crimes.
We Should Place a Birth Tax on Blacks

Actually, black fetuses, according to many white people, taste really good. I've never tried one myself, but I know it's gonna taste good, and provide us lots of energy. Think about it. The average black person is taller than non-black people, so they have more gravitational potential energy (GPE=mgh). Thus, we will get more energy from eating black people and black fetuses. Also, black people need to pay a tax of $50K or so for having a child, to atone for the crimes their fellow black brethren commit.
We Should Place a Birth Tax on Blacks

First I would like to point out how your entire claim is based blatant racism. Not that calling someone racist is a good way to open an argument but in this case it is true. Ok, so let us start with your first claim. "Their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, giving everyone hypothermia." What the actual f*ck! lol Yes, darker colors do absorb more wavelengths of light and convert them to heat. The reason for darker skin is because of melanin which is an adaption to protect skin in areas with excess sun exposure. The hypothermia claim is absurd because it says that the cause of cold weather is black people. I don't even feel like I need to explain this provide evidence and we will go from there. Also, "black people are very violent in society". Are you referring to BLM or black people in general? Most black people aren't violent just like most white people aren't violent just like most Asian people aren't violent just like most Hispanic people aren't violent. And in case you were referring to BLM then they are a violent, cop hating organization that cherry picks police brutality to push their agenda. They are not violent just because of some PIGMENTATION in their skin!!!!! "If they can't afford it they will be killed" get the f*ck out of here.
We Should Place a Birth Tax on Blacks

We must place a birth tax on blacks, because they are very violent in society. Also, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, giving everyone hypothermia. Furthermore, because they absorb too much sunlight, causing plants to die, and thus herbivores and carnivores die, and we will have no animals or plants to get food from. Thus, I propose a birth tax of $50K USD on all black people. If a black woman is pregnant with twins, the birth tax is $100K, etc. If the fetus is biracial or only partially African, it's still a birth tax of $50K. If a family cannot afford the birth tax for blacks, the woman will be forced to get an abortion. Also, we should tax every alive black person $50K right now. If they can't afford it, they will be killed.
drop outs

Well in Round 3 my opponent has provided evidence that there are a lot of high school drop outs these days. .. but she has failed to argue her case. The topic of this debate was to argue whether it would be completely bad for people to drop out of high school or not. All that CON successfully did in this debate was state the obvious that there are lots of high school drop outs. And the source CON provided in Round 3 should not count as a reliable source because it was irrelevant to argument of this debate. She was meant to argue that that because of dropping out of high school: 1. People cannot get a well paid job in life 2. Most of them will go on to do drugs and get Pregnant CON failed to provide any evidence at all for those facts, however in Round 1 I successfully provided evidence to rebut her argument. In Round 1 I showed that there are many celebrities today who dropped out of high school in their past lives, but yet managed to go to have very successful careers. So I proved fact 1 to be incorrect. As for fact 2 about most of them going on to do drugs and get pregnant, again CON failed to prove that to be true. I gave her a chance to try and prove it but she didn't use it correctly. I have not bothered to truly rebut fact 2 because of how CON handled this debate there was no need to, and it was only a sub topic. The main topic of the debate was fact 1 that People cannot get a well paid job in life which I managed to prove wrong. Well anyway I thank for CON for this very quick debate.
drop outs

.. drop outs are happening because of per pressure (your friends) so to my opppemnt game on and keep this going I'm willing to prove my points in any way GAME ONNNNNNNN! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! " REBUTTAL: Before I should truly rebut this, my opponent really should try prove that argument as well as explain it in better detail. Seeing as I am a nice guy I will allow my opponent to this, so I will not be posting any major arguments in this round. CON please use your next round wisely. I end my second round here. ..
Capitol Punishment

I agree with you misspiggy, but i would like to point out that you are the neg and i am the aff you are supposed to be pointing out why it is wrong not why it is right. I will begin on my case If it is wrong to take a human life then it is wrong to tak a human life. Therefore the state can't say that when they take a human life that it is just. They are punishing someone for what they (The state) are doing. That defies both logic and reasoning
Capitol Punishment

Capital Punishment is good, because how else do you punish murder? sentence them to jail for 20 years? when you kill a person you take away their life, but what is life? well it depends but this person that you killed could have been in the most happiest stage of their life and what did the killer do? end it. end their life. We should end their happiness too and sadly jail has positive notations, so death is our only answer.
Humans can achieve a Godly state.

1) The New TestamentWhile Jesus may have been part of the Father he was not the Father. The Trinity is 3 in 1, not 1 in 3. While they are connected they are not the same and therefore cannot be given the same characteristics. Jesus was the Word of God but the Word doesn't mean that He possesses the knowledge behind the words. While you claim Jesus has the "ability" to become all-knowing, evidence says that he was NOT all-knowing and in fact had things hidden from him by the Father (who is not human) preventing him from being all-knowing. Unfortunately the mind is not infinite. People cannot remember their early childhood, they can only focus on 7 things at once, we are forgetful and I'm sure you cannot remember what you ate a year ago today. Don't worry, no one can because the mind is not infinite but finite like everything in nature. The human mind will pass away when a person dies leaving it as a finite thing. Since people only live 100 years tops they only have the opportunity to acquire knowledge in an 100 year span.All the knowledge in the world would take more than 100 years to acquire. "Every hour, enough information is consumed by Internet traffic to fill 7 million DVDsRead more: http://techland.time.com...; There's more information on the Internet in a single hour than a person can acquire in a lifetime.2) The Buddha The same argument can be applied to the Buddha. Since Buddha was no more than a man, he did not have the potential to acquire all knowledge because that is impossible a) by the nature of the brain and mind and b) by the vast amounts of knowledge available to any person at anytime. Thus it is impossible for a person to become all-knowing and therefore the resolution cannot be met. "Humans have the ability to be all-knowing and supernal." - False