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

And before you can argue His existence, you must verify WHO He is. You must define what and who either exists or does not exist. I will not argue that there are many different gods, but it is the God of the KJV bible that I believe, worship, and that I am claiming to exist. So WHO does the KJV bible says God is? (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And since you can obtain and read the Words of the KJV bible then my God exists.
God Does Not Exist

First of all, I'm using the basis of creation and evolution to question your Bible's authenticity and the existence of God so it is completely related. Once again you are using the Bible which as I have prior said, is unreliable. You are basing your arguments on a book written thousands of years ago by someone that you don't know. What proof do you have that the Bible is the word of God, not the work of some guy who was afraid of death?
God Does Not Exist

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. You challenged me to a debate about whether God existed or not. Evolution and creation is a whole other debate, so lets stick to the initial challenge first and if you would like to change to the second debate, then challenge me later on that one. Lets finish this one first. You agreed that there is a final authority and truth. Just as the scriptures above state; His Word is truth. And; John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. There is as you agree a final Word of truth. (1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Why? (John 14:6) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." God is the Word of truth, so you agree that God exists.
women could preach.

Thanks to Pro for his timely response. Please extend the argument from last round that Pro didn't comment on, namely Titus 1:5-9.Pro begins this round by presenting an alternate version of the Corinthians verse. I'm not sure how that helps though because even his version says that women are not to talk in church. If they can't talk then they can't preach.He then goes on to talk about Paul and the old law, saying that Paul knows we're not under the old law, meaning the Old Testament laws. This is irrelevant to this debate though, because we're talking about a specific commandment from God about how the church is to be structured. He also asks if I follow all the laws, but that too is irrelevant to the subject of this debate.He posts some verses from Esther, but yet again these are irrelevant. It's important that you focus on biblical instructions that are specifically about church structure. If the instructions about structure are ignored, in favor of trying to find a technicality that you can argue will support your agenda, then you aren't following the Bible. The Bible clearly states, with no ambiguity, that women are to remain quiet in church and not hold positions of authority over men. It also says that church leaders are to be "husbands of one wife", and always refers to them as "he", never is a female preacher mentioned. You can't get around these blatant and obvious orders about the church, no matter how hard you try to make a verse say something different. Then he posts some verses about churches being held in houses, but again, I don't see how that helps him any. Church is church, even if the service is held in someone's house, the same rules would apply unless specifically said to be an exception. There is no exception made.Andronicus and Junia were likely husband and wife. " who are of note among the apostles", means they were well known by the apostles, not that Junia was an apostle. Pro is trying to imply here that Paul would boldly say "Women cannot preach", then turn around and allow a woman preacher. That is clearly an unfounded assertion since there is nothing in that chapter that says that Junia preached, or held a position of authority within the church.I believe that Pro means well, and wants to be fair to women, but the Bible is clear and unapologetic on this issue. Any attempts to make women preaching acceptable biblically is a stretch, and misuse of the Bible that is clearly not supported.
women could preach.

The bible just has two verses that say women can't preach which are 1cor14:34, 1tim2:11,12. That's it, and said by the same person "Paul".. i think Paul was putting his point of view and i think there was a problem going on for him to say that, which he was specific, and said ( I don't allow women teach) he never said (God don't allow it) one thing is paul and another thing is God saying it.
Boxing should not be banned.

The structure of your argument is very inefficient. "Another thing is that boxing requires a lot of mental focus and discipline. While some boxers are aggressive outside of the ring, many others have the strict discipline to channel their instincts and wait until they are in the ring," "Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way.Men in particular are likely to feel aggressive sometimes due to testosterone. It is our natural instinct, and boxing allows for men (and women) to decompress therapeutically through this mental and physical workout." I've already explained that boxing is a physical outlet. Boxing is also a mental outlet that makes people feel better when they are weak or bullied. It gives them mental toughness and confidence." You have repeated an argument several times. This is because you have sorted your points by different sources, rather than by your arguments."Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way."There is something called a punching bag, if you don't know what that is look at these images: https://www.google.nl... "People who get into boxing are typically from hard-knock neighborhoods where they would have to use their fists in the street to protect themselves."Again, punching bags! The site http://www.scientificamerican.com...... doesn't provide any proof of your arguments. It just talks about not being aware of testosterone. the site you used https://howtheyplay.com...... provides arguments against you."People who get into boxing know and accept the risks. Obviously getting punched repeatedly can be harmful, but if people accept the possible consequences, it is their decision to put themselves in danger the same way people can choose to smoke cigarettes. Far more people have died from cigarettes and alcohol than boxing but we do not ban those things. We have the freedom to put ourselves in danger."Smoking is irrelevant because it is addictive. It has a short-term adrenaline buzz that will make you want more. "Cigarette makers know that nicotine addiction helps sell their products." according to http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...;
Boxing should not be banned.

The obvious point to make is that boxing is dangerous. A report in the journal Neuroscience estimated that since the year 1900, on average, 10 boxers died from ring injuries each year(https://www.wsws.org...), 10 times more than the shark fatalities worldwide in 2007(http://www.nytimes.com...). Independent says that "Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring. These injuries included ruptures in brain vessels, epidural haemorrhage's and subdural haematomas, in which bleeding occurs in the brain" Would you like me to present to you what that looks like or have the words alone already disgust you? Wikipedia defines duelling as "An arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules" it also said that "Legislation against dueling goes back to the medieval period. The Forth Council of the Lateran (1215) outlawed duels" Boxing highly correlates with that definition, and so must be banned.
Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided

Okay, let's address every point here. First of, I was accused of making a strawman fallacy. I admit that I didn't fully understand your argument, and I apologize. I will however continue to ignore the polls, homophobic rapper, Ugandese scientists who were working for a homophobic government and the 'gay teen expert'. Opinions don't change the facts, and neither does a random rapper. The Ugandese scientists obviously had a huge bias and the point that the the 'gay teen expert' made is just completely pointless: someone having a crush on you won't make you gay. However, after this you continue to state that the study you used is the 'largest, most reliable, unbiased study'. It may be the largest, but I would dispute the 'most reliable' and 'unbiased' claims. First of all, Dr. Whitehead is widely known as a Christian scientist [1], and the position of Christianity on homosexuality is well known [2]. Furthermore, there are more recent studies that do show that a certain stretch on the x-chromosome is related to homosexuality [3] (See the study I referenced earlier). Of course this study alone is not enough evidence either, but it does show that the study that pro used is far from definitive or certainly true. What I will admit, and never denied, is that environmental factors play a role too. At least a significant part of that may be explained by epigenetics (certain genes being turned on and off by environmental factors) [4] [5]. However, genetics can't be ignored, and stating that 'Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided' is definitely not true. Even if it is not entirely genetics, the 'gay supporters' who blame it on genetics almost certainly have a solid case, backed up by science. Pro claimed 'Homophobes are CORRECT' and 'Gary supporters are WRONG' (I assume he meant gay), and this is evidently not true. The only evidence Pro presented that was not completely worthless was one paper of a biased scientist which even acknowledges that genetics plays a role. Furthermore, Pro ignores the evidence that there are stretches of DNA on the X chromosome that play a part, as well as the fact that homosexuality can be found in many types of animals. In his next argument, I hope that Pro addresses the biases in the study, responds to the studies that I have presented (including the ones about epigenetics), responds to the argument about sheep and provides some more solid examples that being gay is completely decided by environmental factors, and not by genetics. I will remind pro that the burden of proof lies on him, and I look forward to his new argument. [1] http://www.transchristians.org... [2] http://www.christianbiblereference.org... [3] Sanders, A R et al "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation" (published in Psychological medicine, May 2015, Vol.45(7), pp.1379-88 [Peer Reviewed Journal] [4]: The biological basis of human sexual orientation: is there a role for epigenetics?, Ngun, Tuck C ; Vilain, Eric, Advances in genetics, 2014, Vol.86, pp.167-84 [Peer Reviewed Journal] [5]: http://www.nimbios.org...
Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided

Even though the topic is not very clearly stated, it can be boiled down to one statement: Homosexuality is a choice, in which my opponent is pro and I am con. In this argument I will first address the arguments made by con, after which I will give my own arguments. However, I will acknowledge that it is a very complex topic. There are undeniably environmental factors that have an impact too. However, genetics are also very relevant, and people most certainly don't choose to be gay. Pro starts of with some polls of what Americans think. Those can be entirely ignored, because opinions (which the polls measure) are completely irrelevant where facts are concerned. Even if a poll showed that 100?% of people thought the earth was flat, it would still be round. Similarly, even if 100% of people thought that being gay is a choice, that would simply mean that all people are wrong. After this pro mentions a report by Ugandan 'scientists', who made a report for the government. The government is notoriously anti-gay which causes an enormous bias, and the paper is not peer reviewed. We can therefore ignore this too. A random rapper is an even worse source, so can be ignored too. The only valid argument that Pro made was the referencing of the study by Neal E. Whitehead. However, this is by no means definitive prove. It's just one paper. I could easily give you opposing papers that gives an opposing argument: Look for instance at the paper by Sanders, A R et al, called "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation" (published in Psychological medicine, May 2015, Vol.45(7), pp.1379-88 [Peer Reviewed Journal]), which states that "Our study results provide further evidence for early (prenatal) biological influences on variation in male sexual orientation.". (Full disclosure, it also mentions that environmental factors have an influence). Another clear indication that homosexuality is natural and something you're born with is the behaviour of rams: Up to 1 in every 10 rams is homosexual. I think that it is extremely unlikely that the rams decided to become gay, and a natural explanation makes most sense. There are also some other indications that this is the case, such as the fact that there were observable differences in the homosexual ram's brains: https://www.newscientist.com... Finally, a logical argument: Being gay is not easy. There are gay people even in countries where it's punishable by death. There is no logical reason for anybody to become gay voluntarily. This leaves two options open: Somebody forced them to be gay (highly unlikely) or they were born gay (possibly in combination with some environmental factors). With that I have countered all of Pro's arguments and given my own. I look forward to Pro's response.
Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided

Polls in the 1970s and 1980s, "show the majority in U.S believed gays were made gay, not born gay. "Most people in the 1970's and 1980's did not accept homosexuality Today, The Gallup polls show most Americans who support gays believe gays were born gay, "Not made gay. gays and Lesbians Born, Not Made" Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com... Scientists in the most homophobic country believe gays were made, Not born Google Ugandan 'Scientists' Claim Gays Are 'Made, Not Born'" The Homophobic Atheist Rapper was shunned by the atheist community Because he believes befriending gays could lead to unwanted come ons Google this Atheist."Rapper."Homophobe." Should the "atheist movement" withhold support? http://www.advocate.com...; The question is, who's right? "Homophobes or gay supporters? The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to enironmental factors including but not limited to experimentation, peer pressure, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, sexual abuse, childhood abuse, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness,ect. "In other words, gays are MADE gay, not born gay. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8 It looks like the majority from the 1970s and 1980s were CORRECT The majority in U.S in today's society are WRONG Homophobes are CORRECT Gary supporters are WRONG The homophobic atheist rapper is CORRECT too. " The pro gay atheists who opposed and shunned the homophobic atheist rapper were WRONG According to gay teen expert Ellen Friedrich, Gays commonly develop crushes on their straight friends Google '5 types of straight crushes' Homophobia rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Angela pilot 2011)
Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided

Con fails to understand that the purpose of me mentioning random homophobes and polls of homophobes opinions is to highlight their opinions to show that their opinions turned out to be correct according to the most reliable study on homosexuality thus far. . "Whitehead is widely known as a Christian scientist [1], and the position of Christianity on homosexuality is well known [2]." Thus is a ad hominid fallacy. Fallacies don't win arguments Attacking the person instead of the claim is flawed logic. Using con's logic, every gay person who argues in favor of gay marriage is wrong because they are gay. Secondly, it's possible that con is lying about whitehead. Where are the sources? "Furthermore, there are more recent studies that do show that a certain stretch on the x-chromosome is related to homosexuality" the best way to determine if a trait is genetic is to research twins. the larger the study is, the more accurate it is likely to be. therefore, the study that I posted is the most reliable because it is a study on twins and is the largest the study con is referring to didn't involve twins and even if they did, its nowhere near as large as the study that I cited. Researching twins is by far the best way to learn if a behavior is genetic or not. Therefore, the study that I cited is by far the most reliable study thus far "The only evidence Pro presented that was not completely worthless was one paper of a biased scientist" Again, con is spewing an ad hominem attack. Con is attacking the person instead of the claim. If con wants to prove that their claims are flawed, prove that the claims are flawed instead of attacking the person who made the claim. I'm not claiming every gay person is biased because they're gay. Again, the most reliable study proves that the homophobes' claims are in fact CORRECT. Con would like everyone to deem any claim by any homophobe "invalid" and "bias" not by examining the claim. but by simply not liking the person who stated the claim. Using con's logic, it's literally impossible for a homophobe to state a valid claim. "In his next argument, I hope that Pro addresses the biases in the study" Con hasn't even proved the studies are biased. All con knows is the scientists don't embrace behaviors that commonly triggers deadly std epidemics. In conclusion, I proved that homophobes are right about the fact that the majority if not all gays are made gay, not born gay. I also proved that gay supporters are wrong for believing that all gays were born gay. Con attempted to downplay the largest, most reliable study on twins by attacking everything but the study itself.
Smoking

"The meaning of pro stand for positive. And con stands for Negative."-I'm glad my Opponent understands this. This means that as the con, I have to show negatives for smoking and you as the pro must show positives. All you've shown is negatives.=Voters=Conduct- Put a tie, we both had good conduct. S/G- My Opponent made a few mistakes, but not a whole lot so either vote for me or vote as a tie. Sources-Tie, neither of us used sources. Arguments-Vote for me, my Opponent hasn't provded a single argument supporting his side. All his statements have supported my side of the debate.
Smoking

The topic says "Smoking" and my Opponent is pro. Yet his only statements regard the risks of smoking, which mean they actually support my side, Con, against smoking. No resolution has been stated thus far, and since the debate is titled "smoking" my Opponent must support it. Also his logic is flawed in his statement of "People who smoke are more likely 90% of the time will die than people who doesn't smoke"-Everyone dies, not just smokers.
I will not win this debate

Pro claims it must be a tie. However, this is not the case.The resolution reads: "I will not win this debate." Right after I finish this debate, I will vote for pro. On his profile, it will show this debate as "won." SOURCE: Debate Statistics Debates: 3 Lost: 1 Tied: 0 Won: 2 Win Ratio: 66.67% Percentile: 88.85% Elo Ranking: 1,935 Statistics based on completed debates. Because it will show that Pro "won" the debate, the resolution would be negated. Therefore the rest of the voters must vote for me, as the resolution was negated. Pro claims that he will vote for me when I do this. However, this will not work for two reasons.1) I will post my argument when Pro is not on.2) Even if he did, the resolution would have already been negated, and it would have been too late. Pro also claims that the third voter must vote for me when I do this. Once again, this is not the case. After the next voter votes for me, it will show that I am winning. However, this does not matter, as the resolution has already been negated. Therefore, the voters still must vote for me, as the resolution has already been negated.
I will not win this debate

Well the resolution is flawed. The voters are unable to vote for me or you since there is no real debate. Neither one of us has provided evidence that shows you will either win or lose. However, I do have some evidence. If I show that Pro has in fact won, then the voters will vote for me because Pro was wrong. How am I going to show that Pro has "won? " I will do the following: when I post my last round, I will vote for you. On your profile, it will show that you have in fact won the debate.
I will not win this debate

By the way, why so blunt with the resolution? How do you know you are going to lose? I don't think you're definatly going to lose. I think you might lose, I think I might lose. The debate could go either way. I disagree with your resolution. My resolution is that I might win, I might lose, you might win, I might lose. But how do you determine the winner? Ahhh, a tricky one! If only I could ask the Doctor...