BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Abrahamic God exists

My position is that there is a higher power with the Bible, Torah and Koran Qur'an being allegorical creations of man used to personify what I and many others accept as God. Universe Creation It is a generally accepted fact that the universe as we know it was created. The specifics of its creation have been heavily scrutinized but Newton provides insight on the a few of the functions that had to have happened 1. The law states that matter (and energy) can not be created or destroyed. Yet we as a people see the problem that birds are flying, children are swimming, and Joe Biden is attempting to work the muscles in his mouth to formulate words. All three display the traits of having mass and energy while the laws of physics dictate that neither the substance of the bird nor the expenditure of the wings flapping should be occurring. So, since physics can't provide a complete answer what helps complete the puzzle? What the universe would need is a force capable of creating every particle in the universe and enough energy so those particles can transfer all the energy of the universe among themselves. Omnipotence If this higher power (hereafter referred to as God) is capable of creating matter it stands to reason he is capable of omnipotence. An all powerful God would be all powerful quickly after he created all the power. Also, instead of separating God from the matter he created a plausible theory under the circumstances is that God is APART of the matter he created. He lives in every tree, fish and man by every tree, fish and man being made from God's original construct. He is able to do anything by being a creator and apart of the forces that do everything. Omnibenevolent: Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". with benevolence meaning "good will or disposition to do good" Omnibenevolent merely speaks to disposition to do good, not that all results from the actions end in perfection. God had the disposition to create matter, give that matter energy and bring that matter and energy to life (another miracle hard to settle without God in the diagram). From all evidence, if one could guess at his motives, he meant well.
The Abrahamic God exists

The argument will be that the Abrahamic (Judeo-christo-islamic) god exists. I am taking the CON (atheistic) position. First round is for stating your position and any terms you want to define. My position is that there is no proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god (hereafter referred to as God with a capital G), and in some respects God is also logically impossible. Definition of God: He is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he created the universe, and he judges, punishes and rewards people. All claims must be backed up by logic (please state your premises and conclusion) and/or evidence (please use sources to provide evidence). Good luck!
Claustrophobia should be the fear of Santa Claus

Pro's argument is that since Claus is in the word Claustrophobia, the word should mean the fear of Santa Claus.Smallspacesphobia sounds really wrong, Pro knows that which is why he put that word in the quotation marks. Homophobia means fear of Homo sexuals, however Homo (which is in Homophobia) can also be interpreted as the biological genus known as Homo, aka Humans. Modern Humans are Homo Sapiens. Which would result in the fact that Homophobia may also mean fear of Humans.So we do not always have to take things literally, especially in a language such as english which has been invaded by more fancypants lanugages such as Latin, Greek and languages rooted from the two.I ask Pro to share how many people in the world fear santa claus, to see if it is worthwhile trying to replace a well known and understood word which would require re-education and will cause linguistic confustions.
Transformers (pro) vs spiderman comics (con), which is better

I think the word you had to focus on was "neighborhood" and planet. Spiderman is a small scale superhero, but transformers are spread out over a gigantic area. Doctor OC and Hammerhead are puny villains that are no match for the power of the decepticons. Shockwave's great scheme in Dark cybertron could have destroyed the existence of space and time, ever had such a grand plot in the spiderman comics? And unlike nearly immortal characters in marvel comics, we killed off many major transformers such as Shockwave, Bumblebee, Nova Prime and Jhiaxus. Spiderman comics have lesser action, lesser death and lesser fun. And the Peter Parker strands, oh god why??
Transformers (pro) vs spiderman comics (con), which is better

Spiderman is just your neighborhood friendly superhero, while transformers features a planet-wide war. Tell me which has more action and death. Plus, there is none of the secret identity trash in transformers. The Peter Parker scenes are really boring. Lastly, transformers comics deals with a much wider range of characters than spiderman's, and all their individual dilemmas and sub-plots make for more entertainment. Plus, villainous decepticons declared themselves as autobots (Megatron) or factionless (Starscream) and they are not just maniac killers. Lastly, when Shockwave tried to destroy the world in his scheme, all cybertronians united against him and proved that in the end they all had the same goal, the survival and rebuilding of Cybertron,
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal In the United States

I will be debating that gay marriage should be illegal in all 50 states of America. My opponent will be debating that gay marriage should have full legalization through-out all 50 states. DefinitionsIllegal - not according to or authorized by lawGay - HomosexualRulesNo trolling, semantics, or anything that would be deemed innapropriate by the average DDO user.
There is Proof of Noah's Ark

The following sources provide evidence of Noah's Ark: Proof: http://www.sunnyskyz.com...- -Exact measurements (300x50 Egyptian cubits) -Exact location (Arabian Mountains) -Exact amount of stories high (3) All of these are stated in the Bible Even more Proof: http://www.foxnews.com... I have provided evidence of the Ark, thus I cannot lose.
There is Proof of Noah's Ark

I did not realize that I only had 500 characters so I shortened my arguments a little and took my sources out. So without further to do my top 5 arguments. 1) The bible is not an accurate source of history. 2) It is a mathematical impossibly for the diversity of species that exist today came from the flood. 3) With how big and with it being made of wood the ark would have sank. 4) There is no geological evidence of a flood. 5) Disease would have killed all of the animals.
There is Proof of Noah's Ark

I will be arguing/providing evidence that Noah's Ark does exist, my opponent will be arguing that Noah's Ark does not exist. I will be providing evidence that, according to the Bible: -There is a structure measured "three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits" -Genesis 6:15 -There is a structure "with lower, second, and third stories" -Genesis 6:16 -There is a structure located "upon the mountains of Ararat" -Genesis 8:4 Good luck.
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

Well see, with taxes, there has to be a certain amount of patriotism or otherwise it might be more expensive to Collect taxes then that tax income itself. It's good you brought up the concept of obligation, because think about it, why Would you feel obligated to pay your taxes? If your brother came to you asking for money, you'd help out because of Family Loyalty. The more loyal to your family, the more you'd be willing to help. The same goes for your nation. The more Nation Loyalty you have, the more you would be willing to contribute to your nation. Except we call Nation Loyalty Patriotism. Now imagine if everyone was loyal, absolutely loyal, to their nation. Would we need the IRS to track everyone's tax payments? Of course not. It would be more efficient to just trust people to pay the right tax amounts. But that can only happen where there's a high level of patriotism.
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

Sweet. That's cool, I understand now. Of course the prisoner's dilemma is a great concept to use. I have seen it before in Nash's equilibrium (Game Theory) which is a very interesting topic which does show how idealistic capitalism works.... I must say that you make an assumption that taxes rely on patriotism. Can it not just be people feel obligated and there is a sense of fear of the law?
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

Sure, here's a breakdown of a) what prisoner's dilemma is, and b) how it applies. Imagine two prisoners being kept in separate cells, being interrogated by the police. At the moment, the police have what they need to put these two away on lesser charges, but they want evidence to put them away for the more serious charge. So the officers offer the prisoners this deal: If you talk, and your partner doesn't, you go off for free, and he'll get 3 years. And same if he talks but you don't. If you both talk, you'll both get 2 years. And if you both don't talk, you both get 1 year. Now logically, these prisoners will both talk. Because that yields the better outcome. Paradoxically they would have been better off if they both stayed silent. Now Patriotism changes things a little. With all things being equal, Bob and John WOULD betray each other and both talk. But if they were both members of the same fraternity ... or members of the same Nation, the bond of trust makes it possible for both people to cooperate. What patriotism does is it changes the "payoff" of selling out your partner to "going off free" AND "guilt at betraying your countrymen". The greater the level of patriotism, the more trusting countrymen are of each other and engage in cooperative ventures they would not go on with strangers. Collective action is a little different, though in many ways a derivative of Prisoner's Dilemma. Here, we have a large number of players. If all players "contribute", the society functions well. If one player cops out, the society will still function well. However, if too many players cop out, then the society falls apart. An example of a Collective Action scenario in the real world is taxation. We might have the IRS, but with hundreds of millions of Americans, they depend heavily on Americans being at least somewhat truthful with their income tax filing. Now Americans know that taxes are important, to pay to the government. They also know that if they cheat a little they won't get caught. But if too many Americans cheat, then America'll be in trouble. With high levels of patriotism, people won't cheat. The society becomes more efficient and we would need the IRS less. Unlike before the era of patriotism where the government had to spend army on a military JUST to ensure the steady flow of taxation, in states with high levels of patriotism, such is unnecessary and money could therefore be spent more on social services.
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

I must admit the reason I started this debate was to understand why people love patriotism so much and think it's such a great thing. I now understand, but I must say the idea with schools may just be that people are giving not to the country but to the children....it may be a sense of responsibility rather then love of country. What you say about the prisoners dilemna is interesting and I'd still love to hear your dichotomy.... Sorry for using this site to gain information and better insight rather then to debate on it.
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

Opening Arguments: The resolution asks if Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing. And I contend that it is a great thing. It is great because Patriotism allows for greater collective action. With a higher level of Patriotism, people become more trusting of their fellow countrymen. As a result, the higher level of trust allows for greater cooperative ventures, more pooled resources, and a sense of family, or belonging, between people of the same nation, making the world a happier place. My opponent contends however that Patriotism leads to wars, rights being taken away, and "snobbishness" and goes even further to say "blind faith is the only driving factor". But his error is in his failure to study what the world was like before patriotism, and what the world Would be like without patriotism. Those familiar with the game Prisoner's Dilemma, understand that when two individuals meet, Trust is illogical. They should always back stab each other. War, xenophobia, these are all NATURAL. It is Natural to distrust anyone other than yourself, or anyone other than your family. It is Natural to enter into war. But what Nationalism did was united large groups of people, with somewhat similar interests, and allowed them to cooperate for the collective good, DESPITE their inherent instinct to not trust other people. Why do we have public education? Because people love the country enough to sacrifice for the country's greater good. The same goes for all public services. Where there is no Patriotism, there will be no public service. I intend to make a dichotomy between a world without Patriotism and a world with Patriotism. And as the readers shall see, the world with Patriotism will have all the drawbacks already mentioned by my opponent, with none of the benefits of Patriotism. -Hear me Roar!
Patriotism (Nationalism) is a great thing

The point of this debate is to explore whether Patriotism is truly useful in the world and discuss the positives and negatives of it. I would like to define patriotism as a pride of your country and absolute devotion to it (you can still criticize it). Here are my points.... Patriotism creates a us vs. them attitude leading to..... -war -xenophobia -rights being taken away Patriotism is a snobby thing. -where blind faith is the only driving factor I would just like to hear why patriotism is so great because it is obvious to any observer that it causes problems.
The school must politically influence

Happy to think with you today. Schools necessarily politically influence people. Facts, Learning how to compile and interpret data, Et cetera lead one down certain political roads. If one takes a statistics class and learns how to interpret statistics, What constitutes well put together data and what factors to look for when it comes to accuracy of data, One will immediately be able to throw out many of the statistics that people use that are inaccurate, Poorly interpreted, Et cetera. On certain issues, The stats people bring up are quite false. One immediately is less likely to side with people using poor statistics to 'prove' their side is 'correct. ' If one takes certain science classes, There will (should) be little room to doubt that climate change is occurring, Whether or not man has a significant impact on it. One is immediately less likely to be on the side of any political figure who denies this. The vast majority of classes you may take may influence you politically. The simple act of becoming educated, Literate, Et cetera will have you in favor of certain political problems, Particularly the more educated one becomes, And the better your credentials become. It's little wonder that the majority of college graduates tend to gravitate towards one party and not the other. So before you continue, You need to tell me in what way you think schools politically influence kids that they should not. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Homeschooling

Both public and private schools offer so much to teach our future generations. Starting with the most basic level of teaching and advancing students in education as they advance in grades. Schools also give children a chance to be social and requires them to work with other students. In school students are required to take basic classes like English, math, geography, science, and other requirements depending on the country. Schools require students to take these classes to ensure they have a basic level of necessary knowledge. In addition to these classes students usually have their own choice of electives, which are chosen by the student depending on their interests and desires. With time students will receive more freedom in choice, like in high school. Schools are also a very social environment. Students must interact with people they may have never met before.
Homeschooling

For many different reasons, there are parents out there who feel that public, or even private schools, aren"t the right environments for their children to thrive in education. People who feel strongly about this matter often opt to homeschool their kids. Firstly, you make the decision about what your children learn. You have total control over what subjects your children are learning. Secondly, you make the decisions about how your children learn. There is no way a school classroom can tailor its teaching style for each child. Yet each child differs. As a home schooling parent, you can teach your child in the style that best fits him or her, and you can tweak your teaching style as needed. Thirdly, you get to choose the curriculum. You can decide how many books, worksheets, crafts, and so forth that your student does. You can reject or accept aspects of various curricula and/or design your own. And finally, your child gets one-on-one instruction. Time and again, studies have shown that children learn well with individual instruction.
Homeschooling

I disagee with you, because firstly,nowadays there is a continuous population growth, it is leading to overcrowded schools in many areas. This means that teachers are more overwhelmed than ever, often handling classes of 30-40 or more children at a time. Teachers are spreading themselves too thinly to provide personalized attention to children in their classes, which means your child may not receive the full benefit of their support. Your child's educational struggles are increasingly likely to go unaddressed, resulting in poor test scores and falling behind. When homeschooled, your kids will have your undivided attention. Any learning issues or bad behaviors can be addressed and corrected quickly, helping your child reach his or her full potential. Secondly, with homeschooling, your children can learn at their own speed. Combined with the personal attention offered by a homeschooling environment, many children who learn from home wind up ahead of the traditional educational schedule as homeschooling statistics confirm. This environment also helps parents incorporate subjects that might not be included in the local school's curriculum, such as foreign language. And finally, I think one of the best arguments in favor of homeschooling is the guarantee of your child's safety. Bullying, fights and other school violence become a non-issue when your child is educated from home. Homeschooling can also help you avoid all the problems that can result from school violence, including disciplinary actions, or, for example, trips to the school.
The Civil War South did not have the legal right to secede from the Union.

My opponent is arguing that secession was not legal during the civil war I will argue that it was. I will argue that secession was not only perfectly legal but was in fact very much recognized as a legitimate for reaction to federal tyranny by the founders and early American legal experts. To fully understand this we must go back to the beginning and look at the original intent of the founders when they wrote our founding documents and set up a historical background. The Constitution nowhere prohibited secession and when the Constitution does not prohibit it, it is allowed by the states; Specifically, under the 10th Amendment. In fact the South was not the first group of states to threaten secession but they were the first and so far only that followed through on the threat. New England made the threat in 1813 in opposition to the War of 1812. [1] Virginia reserved the right to secede from the union as part of the condition for joining in the first place, a right that was maintained until Lincoln, and one which technically could still be in effect. New York and Rhode Island had similar provisions. [2] It was not all about slavery and in fact William Lloyd Garrison, a leading abolitionist, pushed the idea of secession as he thought Northern secession would destroy Southern slavery. Among the names of those who supported the idea of secession were Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville. [3] Certain other states ceded from their original state though not from the Union, such as West Virginia(formerly part of Virginia) and Maine (formerly part of Massachusetts). During the civil Lincoln’s number one stated goal was to “keep the Union together”. In other words he wanted to violate the state’s rights to leave when they wanted to and voluntarily sever their relationship with US Federal Government. By Lincoln declaring war, it set a precedent for the Federal Government to forcibly coerce states to stay, something that had no place in the original interpretation of the Constitution. Even now there are still active secessionist movements particularly in Texas. In response to the current secessionist petitioning going on (which by the way wouldn’t have much legal force as they are not an official declaration but not because there is no legal basis for secession) and reiterating what he has said earlier following Rick Perry’s comments on the subject, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has said that secession is a very American principal, however he is a contemporary example and not a primary source. [4] However the principal he cites is the very basis on which America was founded. The colonies seceded from Britain do that mentality has always been at the core of the American identity. I will pass it back to my opponent and await his response. 1 http://teachingamericanhistory.org...2 http://www.columbiatribune.com...3 Woods, Thomas Politically Incorrect Guide to American History p. 62-644 http://www.usnews.com...
The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy is Not Rational

DEFINITION:Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world.No other terms will be predefined - the rest will be argued in the debate itself. The BOP will be split - I will have to show that the dichotomy falls, while my opponent will have to refute my case and provide reasons why it stands.You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 10,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for ten days. I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy is Not Rational

I'd like to make three more points before I close. 1. If our definitions of concepts were actually equivalent to whatever corresponding particulars we have happened to come across, no two definitions would be the same, making objective communication utterly impossible. 2. If, in response to the above argument, my opponent says that a concept like "cat" actually refers to all cats in existence (and is thus the same for everyone and thus objective), I'd point out that it is only by virtue of an abstract set of criteria that my opponent is able to refer to all the particulars of a concept en masse without tracking them down one by one. 3. My opponent's notion of "concept" makes no provision for uncertainty, and thus leaves no room for scientific inquiry, because science utterly depends on our ability to formulate and test hypothesis. Is asking "Might aliens exist" really contradictory, as my opponent explicitly states is the case, or has he made a mistake? I think the answer is clear.