BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is not great

He allowed the Israelites to commit mass genocide, he tells women that they are lower than men, curses the Israelites to wander the desert for 40 years just for complaining, sends bears to kill children just for making fun of his prophet for being bald, says that you must stone homosexuals, that women are unclean when they are on they're menstruating, and I a can keep going on but I think you get the point. Point is this is not a god of love, this is a cruel god who won't accept anything but complete obedience from people. I've heard people claim that god advocate for free will, but does so by threatening to burn anyone who doesn't believe in him for eternity. The second claim I made is that the Christian religion is unreasonable so my other points doesn't tear apart my other points because they are points to a completely separate claim. Just in case I haven't mentioned it before I'm not requiring sources from you, I'm only interested in your argument, I just have to point that out before I continue. In the bible it claims that for a day the earth stood still, this is counter intuitive to science because if the earth were to ever stay still, in other words stop rotating, this would bring about disastrous implications for the earth. The bible states that there is a flood, but we often find trees that are much older than the time of the flood. Also, if we look at the supposed size of the boat it would have been impossible for all the species we know today to have fit on the boat, however with the amount of species that could have fit on the boat we would have to witness new species being made everyday since the flood to now to account for the variations of species we see today. Below I will post a link to the biblical contradictions within its own texts, I will leave it up to you if you want to address them, but it won't be necessary for our argument. Because the bible defies logic and reasoning in the modern world, then it's easy to see that the bible is in fact unreasonable. http://www.sacred-texts.com...
Ron Paul does not have the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

The previous two times I instigated this debate I received acceptances, yet no responses. Definitions from Princeton Wordnet Dictionary:societal: relating to human society and its membersbeneficial: promoting or enhancing well-beingdomestic: of concern to or concerning the internal affairs of a nationpolicy: a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a governmentRoundsRound 1: I'm laying out the framework and definitions! Round 2: Demostrate the keen logic and morality behind Ron Paul's superior policies. Round 3: Critique Barack Obama's dismal, failing, socialist policies to exhibit their detriments. Round 4: Respond to rebuttal, and present voting issues. This verbal duel will commence at Pro's leisure.
Ron Paul does not have the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

My opponent and I tried to do this debate previously but my opponent got unlucky with the timer and had to forfeit a round, so we'll do it again! Note that I don't actually care about American politics a lot so this should be an education for me! This first round is to clarify rules, set up definitions and provide a framework for the debate. There will be no need to cite candidates policies with sources. Our opening rounds should contain the same arguments as in our previous debate. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate. This debate is set in the United States of America.3 debate rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters. Voters please actually read the debate, not vote for your favorite. As an alternative to Ron Paul, I will argue that likely democratic nominee Barack Obama has the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race. In round two I will go over his key policies and explain why they're so awesome. In round three I will examine Ron Paul's policies and why they're not as great as they seem. In round four I will tie everything together and show why Ron Paul's policies are not the best for US society.
Jesus is real.

My opponent still does not address my arguments, so my extension in round 2 is well warranted. My opponent also childishly resorts to the ad hominem fallacy in this round in attempt to belittle me. Voters: My opponent does not address my arguments, demands that I do his research and present his evidence, and commits the ad hominem fallacy in round 3. For those reasons, I urge that you vote my case. Thank you.
Jesus is real.

Good afternoon. Usually, I'd post formalities, but based on what I've seen in another one of my opponent's "debates", I suspect that he is a troll. Incidentally, I am a Christian, so this debate will be devil's advocate for me. :D In other words, what I say doesn't reflect my actual belies. Nevertheless, let us proceed: Observation #1: Voters, you must keep in mind that the burden of proof belongs to my opponent when it comes to proving that Jesus is real. If he does not provide conclusive evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, you must vote against him. Observation #2: The resolution states "Jesus is real." This is a gnostic claim. If I argue with an agnostic claim, I will still being supporting the position of a contender. My opponent provides you with a personal experience that he suggest proves Jesus is real. First and foremost, personal experiences should not be used as evidence (much less conclusive evidence) in these online debates as we have no way of verifying the credibility of my opponent's claim (for all we know, he could have made the entire incident up). Noting that alone, this is easily dismissible. However, there is another problem with his personal experience. It suffers from the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, my opponent is suggesting that because his prayer occurred before his assailant committed suicide, that Jesus must exist. And for those not familiar, below is an example provided from a website that helps show the absurdity of this reasoning: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. For example, suppose Jill, who is in London, sneezed at the exact same time an earthquake started in California. It would clearly be irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster, since there is no reason to suspect any causal connection between the two events." : http://www.nizkor.org... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for my own argument, I affirm that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Jesus exist as He cannot be observed or studied with any scientific instruments. And given that the only means of communication (prayer) can pretty much always be summed up as the post hoc fallacy (as I've suggested above), that wouldn't be suitable evidence either.
Jesus is real.

We have our rights to whatever religion we choose. When people, such as the people who are debating against me, contradict this, they make the people who are loving and caring to jesus christ, Get very mad and angry. I almost died before, when i got carjacked, and i prayed to be safe. I saw the compassion in the eye's of him, and he let us go. He crashed and killed himself with his gun that he put to my head. I had to pay the money for the rental car, but we were ok. This proves that when you are a christian, or if you believe in jesus christ. you are being watched over.
The bible has no credibility.

Your points did nothing to prove the story. Your not even Proving you god exists so that doesn't make your point any better. Near death experiences are a reaction of the brain not a supernatural event. The United States Air Force triggered near death experiences with a centrifuge test multiple times. http://www.near-death.com... Now for evolution you said than it only goes with environment which is only somewhat true. Animals do adapt to certain environments but it's a long slow process that takes millions of years to have any significant change and if it's a long enough time that animal becomes a new species. Like how apes ( not apes as we know them today) became humans. That's the best summarized explanation of how evolution works. Now the Big Bang which you never elaborated on when you said that bit about planets spinning clockwise. The Big Bang theory says that the universe began and expanded farther and farther and the energy and matter that was the early universe started to become things like stars and planets. That has nothing to do with planets spinning clockwise. Your point about inbreeding does not apply to all animal most of the time incest results in deformed offspring plus if a large portion of the animals only had one offspring that would cease their blood line which would in turn doom their species if it was really an all knowing god a flood wouldn't have been nessisary. This doesn't look good for the bibles credibility.
The bible has no credibility.

My points on Noah's Ark are meant to prove that Noah's Ark did happen, therefore making the bible credible and that my god exists. It is true that having only two of every animal may cause deformations due to inbreeding. However, not all animal newborns that are created through inbreeding are deformed. For example, wolf packs, if isolated, may start inbreeding. Even during the middle ages, kings who wanted there descendant to have parents who are both part of the same genetic family would often have a child with a cousin or a sister. Also, could you please refute my arguments about the big bang and evolution? I would also like to mention Near Death Experiences. I know that it is easy to say that they are fake, but many people have reported seeing heaven, and almost all of them report seeing the exact same thing (Since it is a youtube video, I would recommend watching sermons and videos of those who were interviewed for some proof. But this video just about sums it up) Also, there is a phenomenon right now where people will just fall down during a sermon. This is called being "slain in the spirit." You can simply search up videos of this Healings are also something that is occuring
The bible has no credibility.

Your point with Noah's ark doesn't improve credibility of the bible. You need to prove your god exists in order for that claim to work but god isn't somthing you can prove it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis that and no evidence for the Christian god and the link you provided states that their is some cover up of the truth now you have to prove that a conspiracy exists. You also brought up evolution without acknowledging the fact that animals need ginetic diversity for offspring to not be deformed or impaired so evolution would be hindered by it just being two of every animal on one boat wouldn't work because you would need tons of additional families of that species for the species to have non deformed offspring which means the boat would need to be bigger. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
The bible has no credibility.

Under the laws of science that we live in, a flood the size of Noah's ark is very unlikely, that is true. However, we must remember that GOD created the flood. God does not work under the laws of science, because he is a god. That is also how the universe was made. God has infinite power to do anything. Also, finding two of every animal back then was plausible. Today, with the number of animals it would not be. Of course, creationists do not believe in the extensive evolution that non creationists believe in. However, we do believe in evolution to a certain point. It is proven that animals will change based on there environment. We believe that closely related animals are a form of evolution. For example, there are thousands of different types of worms. So in that case, having two of each animal on a boat was plausible Speaking of Noah's ark, a boat that matches the size descriptions in the bible show that the Ark has been found in turkey http://www.sunnyskyz.com...- I believe to prove the bible is credible, it would be wise to prove anti creationism not credible. If the Big Bang theory was true, all planets would be spinning clockwise. However, a few planets are spinning counter clockwise. The Big Bang says that energy was spinning rapidly clockwise, which means if that were the case, all planets would be spinning clockwise. Also, it is believed that the first living organism was created when it began raining on Earth, and a pool of the rain and volcanic rocks created a single celled organism. However, it is proven that life is never created by a non living thing.
The bible has no credibility.

First off let's look at how plausible events in the bible are. Events like a global flood that goes above the mountains is not plausible events like putting two of every animal on a boat made of wood in ancient times is impossible. The story of Noah is jus one example the creation account how could days pass before the sun why did earth and it's life forms take six days to create when it only took one day to create the rest of the universe how does that make sense. This doesn't fair well for the bibles credibility because of how implausible and rediculus the events are.
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

It seems my opponent didn't read the terms laid out for him. The strategy was being nice - your character and various qualities one might have are being held ceteris paribus, whatever they maybe - they may be rich and confident.He fails to refute arguments 1 and 3 on this basis. For the record, I've beaten the friendzone a few times. Also his refutation of 2 is obviously false. To the women reading this; think of yourself and your friends; Are you a rich bitch, insecure or taken? Are these the sole ways you can define yourself? Men, ask the same questions of your friends and sisters. The answers are very likely to be no. There are a great deal of types of women. It seems my opponents main issue may be that he has not had very much contact with women, considering his opinions of their variety.So to conclude, he drops my arguments about how some people can employ the nice strategy sucessful, because of their other attributes (note differentiation from strategy and attributes). This concedes the argument. It is possible for some people, by being just nice, not using any tricks or games or the like, to get a girl.His refuation to point 2 was laughably weak and simplistic.The resolution is negated. Thank-you.
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

I thank Thaddeus for his rebutle. But, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! TIP #2 IS WRONG!!!!!!!Attacks on Thaddeus' case:1) My opponent is agreeing with me. You can get a girl many other ways, and you don't have to be nice to get the girl. You can me rich, good looking, and/or famous, and be a total douche, and STILL get the girl.2) You must not have many moles, because most girls fall into only a couple categories.NOW FOR THE CATEGORIES!!!!Category 1) Rich B!tch. Up-tight, mean, only in it for the money, and doesn't give a crap if your nice.C2) Insecure. They think they're not worth anyone, so they will hook up with anyone so that they will have more self esteem. Hell, they'll probably date someone because they're a jerk, and they think that it will make them popular. So being nice won't matter.C3) TAKEN. Those perfect chicks that are nice to everyone, but they have a BF. So, being really really nice would only creep them out. Now, back to his arguments.3) Yes, confidence does help, but as I said, as stated in the resolution, you cannot get a girl PURELY on being nice to them. sorry.And the friendzone isn't a challenge zone. It's a hell zone. It's like being stuck in a pit of superglue. It's impossible to get out. Bees would only enrageth the female sex and further dig you deeper into the friendzone, or the freakzone, cause you threw bees at them.So, if you want to get a girl, as stated by my opponent, BE FAMOUS. BE GOOD LOOKING. HAVE LOTS OF CASH. Thank you.
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

Whilst I completely conceed that in general "being nice" is not a particularly potent strategy, I will argue that it is possible for one to get a girl by being purely nice. I shall therefore provide various scenarios where solely implementing the strategy of being nice would allow someone to get any girl (non-specific)Reasons why;1) If you are really good looking, famous or rich or all threeThere are plently of shallow girls out there. A chap with these qualities could get a girl no matter what strategy he employed. Therefore, being nice might even be considered a bonus!2) Girls are as varied as the moles on my bottomThough there are some generalisations that can be made for getting girls, they are only looking at the middle section of the bell curve. There are as many outliers as gays in Brighton. If you are trying to maximise performance with girls in general one can make statements like "the nice strategy is unfavourable", but cannot claim it is impossible to get a girl by employing the nice strategy. Some girls actually dig that sort of thing. Some girls also like men who dress up as pokemon. The point is there are a lot of girls out there, and making any absolute generalisation is obviously going to be false.3) Being purely nice as a strategy does not preclude the most important criteria for getting girls; confidenceIt is perfectly possible to be nice and confident. Confidence is the key attribute required to getting girls. It is not a strategy, but a character trait, so it can be employed in addition to being nice. (We assumed someone employing the strategy was to be held ceteris paribus - therefore his character traits won't have changed)To finish; I call the friendzone the challenge zone. Rise to the challenge and beat it to death. With bees!
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

Sorry for the delay, I had 6 other debates to do over the past two days.Anyway, I am here negate Tip #2, stating that you can get a girl by purely being nice to them. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.This debate is mainly from the forum page I provided in my first argument. My sources are the many posts provided on this forum. If you are unsure that that's where I got them, check it out for yourself.Anyway, I will plan out a scinereo. You are walking along, side by side with a friend youve had a crush on for several months, and, then, she turns to you. She looks into your eyes. Your heart starts beating rapidly. She grabs your hand. You start sweating. You can tell your face is turning red. She then utters 5 words no man should hear: "You are a great FRIEND". BOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Don't you see? If you are really nice to someone, you will be what some call "friendzoned".http://www.youtube.com...Many of you Im sure have experienced this. Quoting Yourfavoritemartian, "Friend zone is like the mafia, youll NEVER GET OUT". These words could never be truer. IF you are purely nice to someone, without doing anything else (which is the strategy, thad), you will never get the girl. From past expereince, when you become friends with someone, and then your always there for her, always nice to her, she will not want to go out with you because she see's only a friend in you.http://www.youtube.com...They won't think of you as a boyfriend or someone they will go out with, but someone who they can look to in a time of distress.Its almost like....... They treat you like...... THAT GAY BEST FRIEND.Im not saying any of you that are stuck in this scenario are gay, but women who friendzone you think of you as someone they wouldn't go out with. That means you will forever be thier friend, and you will never get the girl and ride off into the sunset.Im sorry, I have to rush to a meeting at my job, so this is all I will get to today. I will have a more in depth argument next round.Thank you.
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

Clarification for terms of debate. By purely being nice to them, we mean as a strategy - all other things being held ceteris paribus. This means that though one is purely being nice, one doesn't cease to eat or drink or breath just because these activities do not fall into the category of nice, nor does one's personality change except by this one criteria we are holding as the variable; being nice.Therefore, someone who is a confident person, employing this strategy, is still considered to be a confident person."You" in relation to the debate shall be considered to mean anyone, not the user known as Thaddeus specifically, unless cheesedingo wants to argue that the user known as Thaddeus can't get a girl by being nice.Therefore, Cheesedingo's burden of proof is to show that no-one can get a girl by being nice as a strategy. Get in this case means to have a relationship with themAnything else?Oh yes, no trolling, semantics and DANCE MAGIC DANCE
You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for his arguments. But, sadly, He too hasn't read the terms laid out for him. As stated in the argument, one cant get a girl PURELY by being nice to them. It is defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) as "to a full extent : totally". My opponent says that people keep their prior traits and being kind is a strategy used. But we are PURELY focusing on the "Nice" aspect to this argument. Therefore, my points on 1 and 3 are still strong, and I assume he agrees with the rest of argument one and two that don't have to do with having prior traits in my first argument. As for his argument on my second argument, I guess I failed to mention the 4th category: Misunderstood.This is to all the ladies out there.Ladies, do you fall into any of the 3 categories that I provided? Be honest. Try to see yourself from someone elses shoes. I'm not saying your a rich b!tch. You could be insecure or already have that special someone. But, if you don't, you probably fit into one of the 4th category of misunderstood. You try to get that special someone, but they only see you as a frien and don't see your potential. They don't see you as someone who they would go out with. I'm not saying your any less than any other girl in any way, shape, or form. The reason this is relevant, is because men will not try to get you to like them, because they do not like you. They will not try the "being nice" strategy to begin with. If you don't fall into any of these categories, then you are God's gift to men, so call me! ;DIn conclusion, my opponent has failed to attack a lot of my argument and has only said things like how my arguments are "laughably weak and simplistic." My argument is still strong.Nontheless, I had a great debate with Thaddeus, and I look forward to more debates with him in the future. I thank all of the voters for reading these arguments, and a very special thank you to all the ladies for reading our arguments (mostly mine).CHEESEDINGO1 IS OUT. VOTE FOR CON! NO TO TIP #2!!!!
Julian Assange should be freed from his charges

Yes, it was great that he was trying to expose what America was doing to innocent people. However, whether his intentions were good or bad, he broke the law. By hacking into Milnet, he broke at least one law against computer hacking. So should his charges really be erased? Well no. If a man breaks into your house because he thinks you have illegal drugs, and finds drugs, does that mean he shouldn't be in trouble for breaking into your house? Of course he should be in trouble. In the eyes of the law, whether Julian brought justice or not, he has broken the law and therefore shall be punished. What Julian should've done was first go to the police, tell them he has reason to believe America is killing innocent people and then offer that he can hack into Milnet and prove it. Then the police are aware of the situation before he does anything and they can decide where to go with it from there. Thank you and good luck to you too.