BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

Your texts make many claims, but are they true? What evidence do you have to back up the claims within the texts? Is any of the evidence scientific? Scientists are interested to know whether or not God exists. The reason being is if God created the universe this would explain a lot. Also, if God didn't create the universe this would also explain a lot. The point is whether of not God created the universe profoundly affects science. This is a question science can't just ignore. Why, wouldn't scientist look for answers about the nature of the universe? In conclusion, scientists need to look for evidence if God exists or not because the answer profoundly affects science and the way the universe works. Don't confuse this issue with religion and faith based approaches. Students in science class should be taught about what evidence and lack of evidence science has on God. Thanks for the debate.
The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

I can see the angle that you argue from. You present my argument as Ignorance Fallacy, and you argue that there must be a way to test the existence of God, we just have not found it yet. "Alright, how about Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, and so forth? Surely, they must have some sort of physical presence, despite what a spiritual person may claim." To the religious person God, and all of the other things mentioned above do not have physical manifestations of any kind in the universe. No Abrahamic text has identified any of the above to have any sort of physical presence. This presents the problem of testing the existence of God or any other object claimed to be spiritual: There is just nothing to look for, there is no start. Where unicorns and other kind of things like ghosts are said to be summoned and attracted to the physical plane by some sort of ritual, God, Satan, angels and demons are only said to exist in a manifestation that effects the individual's emotion, where they are "brought great joy and peace" by the presence of God and "given great fear and anger: by the presence of the "enemy" (demons, evil presence). The terms to try to see if God or any other spiritual thing claimed to exist by Abrahamic theism is just too ambiguous to pinpoint and be able to test, no matter how advanced we are in technology, or science. https://www.uwgb.edu...
The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

My opponent took an interesting angle. Let's take the example of ghosts and spirits. There are ghost hunters, who attempt to put a scientific or evidence based approach to spiritual questions. Using cameras and machines in lieu of a holy person and ritual. Then, there is ESP (extra sensory perception) and science . [1] Impact, events that we would have surely saw as supernatural in the stone age, now have scientific explanations. You could label a disease as spiritual in cause, but science often reveals the disease is caused by a pathogen. In fact, science has made great leaps and bounds over many so called spiritual or faith based fields. Next, lets assume for a second that God is corporal in nature. Just as diseases were labeled spiritual, but yet had a physical presence in the form of microorganisms. Well, how would we look for any being with a physical form, lets say unicorns for example? Well, we would look everywhere. Although we can't prove that unicorns don't exist, we can say we looked in locations x, y, and z and found no unicorns. This adds incremental evidence that unicorns don't exist. Just looking in your basement doesn't help much, but if seven billion people look in their basement and find no unicorns, this evidence adds up quickly. Alright, how about Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, and so forth? Surely, they must have some sort of physical presence, despite what a spiritual person may claim. Well, we do the exact same search we did for God and unicorns. Then, science looks at how humans got here, Abiogenesis and evolution, and find contradictory evidence between many religious beliefs. Science doesn't stop there, next scientists look at the big bang theory, multiverse theory, and evolutionary psychology. Soon we have a pretty good idea scientifically of why humans belief in God in the first place and how the universe was created. Yes, absolutely this is a scientific question, we should look for evidence of God existing and explain just how little evidence there is to students. We may even find aliens who claim "yo we helped evolution along." Yet, the best way to find these aliens is through science. Even if the aliens don't exist, we can still say we tried methods of communication A, B, and C, yet no aliens responded. This is a long winded answer to your question "2: Can it be tested No, the existence of God cannot be tested, as classified in Abrahamic Theism is a being that is "Not-physical" (Spiritual), therefore, cannot be studded with physical tools and measurements. There is no way to test measure or see God." My answer is if God exists, God may have a physical presence. The best way to find out if God has a physical presence is science. 1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
antartica should be exploit

I accept. I will assume my opponent simply made a typo when he said "globag".I will assume he meant, obviously, "glow bag", a glowy bag used for amusement at Halloween parties.Nobody wants a cold glow bag; warming glow bags are always better, especially in the cool fall weather. So where do we put all the cold from the glow bags? Antarctica. Where cold belongs in the first place.Therefore, Antarctica should be exploit.
Should all chruches be demolished

"why didn't the church do more research on the guy, and doesn't that person have to go trough a trial before he becomes a priest"Too bad, they trust people that much.Learn how people become a priest http://behind.ndandp.com..."I acknowledge that these sexual predators used their position in the diocese to gain by safesaver" href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/catholic-church-concealed-pedophile-priest-denis-mcalindens-abuses/story-fngburq5-1226672569531">access" - Bishop of NewcastleThat should solve cases. And not all Churches should be demolished. "They protect child molesters"That is an opinion. "how much of those donations does church keep for them self's"http://www.patheos.com...YEAH ownage by above i think. Just got owned by the info above."Perhaps we should preserve more majestic once and turn them into a monument"Its a church. You said you want to destroy all churches. Your a lyer. You make a suggestion that would not happen. You just make a "turn into a monument" excuse. Its a church made to be a church! You cannot just renames things. Its way more complicated than you think."express their domination everywhere"That is a opinion. Your making things up as they come. 3.7 million is not as much if you compare it against the world. "the amount of donations that churches make doesn't even come close to what could be done with the terrain that churches can be used for"That is a another opinion or maybe juat sarcasm. I still can't agree on the fact that "SHould all churches be demolished" but you pretty much convinced me that churches should be demolished. BUT AHA!You said all churches. Everything else you said was an agree unless if i quote to some of the refereing though i can't see why this sentance is underlined and line highlated.I would bet that you would win but i would win by that title. So i would win because that title was made to advantage me and challange you.Did you know that or that was random. "I'm attacking churches as structures and their uselessness"Funniest phrase i've ever heared that i must point out.I am hating this player for it's uselessness.Oh sh*t. Just realized that churches gave pedophiles an advantage.How do i rename my name.
Should all chruches be demolished

Your being a moron if you didn't know that. Just noting that your being moron.You start off by saying churches are a waste of space. You said all churches. "Waste of space" is not good enough because your dealing with the church and it's followers. Thats one reason your being an idiot. Trying to take down a church would be equal to taking down a piece of history.Oh yeah, churches are part of history aswell. Most churches were made before the 20s. They are also being used in todays modern society. If we compare a church to a anitque building thats being used for show mostly, churches are being much more useful because they show parts of history and people use those churches. Why instead on picking on churches, pick on sight seeing buildings.Or you might be suggesting that historical buildings should be taken down aswell.Or your just being a hater. Though i cannot say yet.Demolishing churches would have to be considered by the chief of the state since it's a church. Do you really think that churches will be demolished anyway.Unless your that of a hater that you would try to take down a church illegally.You are being a moron. fact.It says right here on this round, it shows that you are a moron. I am not insaulting you. It's true.It is fact that you are being a moron on this debate.POINTS1. Pro is being a moron2. Pro thinks that churches should be destroyed but is that of a moron in this debate that he doesn't realized that they he can't deal with believers.Pro's comeback prediction (What i think con might say if he ever did say this somehow)Con arguement focus on that i'm a moron.
Should all chruches be demolished

Yeah i know that. I've done dat with a piece of stick, a leaf, pencil and things.It might help if you don't try to get too attatched to things. Affection Anger Angst Anguish Annoyance Anxiety Apathy Arousal Awe Boredom Confidence Contempt Contentment Courage Curiosity Depression Desire Despair Disappointment Disgust Distrust Dread Ecstasy Embarrassment Envy Euphoria Excitement Fear Frustration Gratitude Grief Guilt Happiness Hatred Hope Horror Hostility Hurt Hysteria Indifference Interest Jealousy Joy Loathing Loneliness Love Lust Outrage Panic Passion Pity Pleasure Pride Rage Regret Relief Remorse Sadness Satisfaction Self-confidence Shame Shock Shyness Sorrow Suffering Surprise Terror Trust Wonder Worry Zeal Zest
Should all chruches be demolished

well, since this is my last argument, i will not type any long text except this: Human emotion is a terrible and wonderful thing at the same time, it is never connected to logic, a critical thing that runs describes this world and the way that it functioned, humans get emotionally connected to any subject and it can get confusing. When you get emotionally connected to something, no amount of logic, reasonable thinking or evidence can make yo think otherwise because your emotions make you feel good on that subject. In this case, the churches. We are emotionally connected to them, they size and majesty wow's us, their uniqueness attracts us and give us comfort, it is the house of god in which we are welcome, there is plenty to get connected to and that is why it becomes a problem. Church should be demolished, i have presented plenty of evidences and logical examples during this debate that prove that i make reasonable arguments, but no matter how much sense i make, it wouldn't matter to the emotional people because, yeah, it makes them mad that i would make such a statement because it makes them feel bad. The terrible deeds that church has done during the history and we still worship it, why? emotional connection, because every person that critically thinks of it will realize that church is terrible, but they will never leave it, for reason they won't know why, i have talked to plenty of people not knowing the answer to a question . Lets leave the emotional connection on stall until logical things that have to be done
Should all chruches be demolished

They trust people so much that when they figure out their trust has been betrayed (acts of pedophilia) what they do is hide that person and his wrong deeds to trust him even more, oh they are such good people, good people or corrupted bastards, lets ask the molested children for their opinion. So, the fact that they hide child molesters is an opinion, and not a fact. I guess molested children are just an idea, not a reality haha, it's like yo are trying to ignore that fact, you only talk about the priests and use the word molestation without mentioning the children. There are victims in this crime, which you are continuously ignoring in your texts. You used your extreme, now let me use mine, your only donates 6 million? aww that's so cute http://abcnews.go.com... 13 million dollars worth of home, who knows how many spent on everything else, yes, so much donations, so so so many. Church is a structure designed to be a worshiping temple, it is still a structure, it can easily made into something else, it is not made out of holy elements, it's just concrete and iron. Also it's not that easy? Look at all the churches in america that are now skateboard parks, yes, it's that easy They don't express their dominance? in my town, 100 k cortices max, here are 8 huge churches, at least 15 mini churches, they are empty all the time except Sunday and who knows how many chapels,when something only serves as a display and it's everywhere, it's a sign of dominance. I almost convinced you ? aww, key word almost. This debate that we are having doesn't mean that whoever wins that this decision will be sent to some Cort to vote, it's an internet debate where we express our opinions and preset or sides of the debate. if this was real, my entire text would be full of 8k characters full of links pictures and more aggressive arguments that would attack mosques and Jewish temples as co-arguments
One Piece Universe vs. Naruto Universe

Yup, it's another classic pirates vs. ninjas debate, except these aren't any ordinary pirates or ninjas! The full resolution is, "In a war, the One Piece universe would beat the Naruto universe. " Burden of Proof - I, Pro, must prove that in a war between the One Piece universe and Naruto universe, the former would win. My opponent, Con, must prove that in a war between the One Piece universe and Naruto universe, the latter would win. Rules for Battle - 1. All current characters in the series will be restored to full health and power.2. All deceased characters will be brought back to life with full health and power.3. Any characters that died before the series began (i. e. the Sage of the Six Paths, Gol D. Roger, etc. ) will be excluded from rule number two. This includes the ten tails. 4. The only exception to rule number three is Brook (from One Piece) and Edo Tensei (from Naruto).5. The setting of the battle will take place on an open plain with several large lakes dotted around the area.6. Neither universe will have any knowledge of the other universe's abilities and/or weaknesses.7. We are assuming that all characters from the Naruto universe are working together cooperatively to defeat the One Piece universe. Likewise, all characters from the One Piece universe are working together cooperatively to defeat the Naruto universe.
Abortion

Abortion is far from just financial means of the welfare of a child. There are countless factors and, often, the mental well being of both the couple and potential child come into play. You refer to abortion as "slaughtering" and "put to sleep", however before the first seven weeks the foetus does not even have a gender come into play. The 'child' is a series of differentiating cells with no certainty in its outcome or future. It is not "slaughter at birth" but a discontinuation of potential life. However, the way in which you choose to determine life comes down entirely to the individual. Some believe life is at viability, others long before. Some at birth itself. You have to remember, in a situation in which parents did not ask for the pregnancy. There was no planning or desire at that stage, continuation could be harmful to both of those involved. Mentally and, for the woman, physically. Many relationships that encounter an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy crumble. To determine that the parents should 'live up to their responsibilities' is condemning their current, established lives as less than a potential life with no certainty about it. Anyone can give up a child to adoption, this much is true. But it is the long lasting effects on those involved that must be considered. The mother and father, now thrust into being parents will always have the knowledge that they gave away a child. That they thrust them into the unknowing and unforgiving world of adoption with no certainty that they will find new parents. There are all too many children already in adoption who are desperately searching for homes they might never find. The child's mental welfare is at stake as well. They could never be adopted, or conversely adopted by a cruel family. There are a large proportion of 'adopters' who do it purely for the money they will receive with no real concern for the child. You stated " My mom chose it for me because she knew that it was the right choice for her." in relevance to adoption. But it is not the right choice for everyone. It suited her, and has evidently worked well for you. But not everyone, child or parents, see adoption as a possibility. I do not believe adoption is cruel. I believe that those involved should take greater care in not getting pregnant. I do not believe abortion is a form of contraceptive that can be whipped out whenever required. But I do believe that people make mistakes, and childbirth is very unforgiving. Then there are cases such as rape pregnancies. Should they too be forced to carry a child forced upon them unwillingly as an every day reminder of the act? Abortion is not something I would hope people need. However removing the choice of abortion is removing the freedom of women everywhere. Some may find it offensive and cruel, however it is not their choice to make.
Abortion

We all know that the point of Abortion is for parents who cannot afford to take care of a child but does that mean that the child must be put to sleep? Its pretty much a slaughter at birth. Now this is not reasonable. People don't deserve this. If an adult brings a child into our world, they should live up to their responsibilities as a parent. My mom chose to save me. She didn't chose to abort me and I am grateful. You should also be grateful that you are alive today. I have never heard of someone who cannot give a child up for adoption. That is nonsense. Adoption isn't something that just happened to me. My mom chose it for me because she knew that it was the right choice for her. I hope you understand this that Abortion is a very cruel thing to do to someone. I accept that everyone has different opinions and I respect your opinion. But I hope who ever is with Abortion, I hope you all come to your senses and live for what's right! In any case, I hope you change your mind and know that you are alive today.
Abortion

I would like to start by explaining my views and opinions here are not intended to offend or upset you. I understand you are yourself alive because your mother chose not to abort you, so this topic will have great importance to you. If I, at any point, upset you with my opinions. Please do let me know and I will try to reign my discussion in a little. I'm here for a friendly debate. Not to cause grievance. With that said, I will now respond. You explain that you, yourself are a product of the absence of abortion. That your mother chose the 'hardest choice' and she was 'wise' for her decision. And that may well be true for her, and indeed yourself. However examples such as yourself are not always the way they go. There are children who are carried full term, despite being accidents, that suffer serious problems for the remainder of their lives. Children neglected, or even abused because of the resentment their own parents can feel for them. I can't condone these parent's actions, but I also cannot deny that they exist. This lifestyle is horrible for the child, and can be traumatising throughout later life. it only takes a quick look online to find cases such as this. Just the words "Parent" and "resentment" spring a deafening cacophony of neglect. Then there are the parents who themselves have their lives torn apart. The parents who were on track. Perhaps getting top grades in University (Or college), or heading for that promotion in their job. An unexpected pregnancy hits and it spirals away. Of course not all do, but it's an outright fabrication to presume it doesn't happen. At which point, you have to agree that society is condemning the mother and father's lives as less than that of the fetus. They are expected to carry the child and give birth to them, yet all the while their mental and emotional well being is being stripped from them. I believe that if you can carry the child to full term. Perhaps give it to adoption, or even raise the child yourself. Then that is fantastic. But for the parents who can't. To tear away the chance of abortion. To prevent raising a happier, more stable child within a loving family in years to come. To condemn the parents and child to sadness and despair because of your own idealistic beliefs is not a decision we should have. The mother and the father in the situation are the ones who should make that decision.
Abortion

I know that you're scared and don't want to listen, but let me tell you a story before you make your decision. There was once a young girl in the same place as you, she wasn't sure if this she'd be able to go through. She was trapped by her own choices with no easy way out, she chose the hardest choice but the best without a doubt. She was really just a girl but was wise and chose the option, to give her baby a better life and give her up for adoption. She knew what truly mattered and decided to be brave, 'cause her life would be interrupted but her baby's would be saved. She had amazing strength and love I hope I'll get that from her, 'cause I guess I didn't tell you that woman was my mother. So before you make your choice put yourself in my place, 'cause I'm one of those babies a mother chose to save."