BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God of Classic theism is real

"This isn't even an argument.", "I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness.", "I feel no compunction at stopping here. Illogical arguments and bible thumping don't demonstrate the existence of God. On top of this, my argument still remains entirely intact.", "My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance.", and, lastly:"Lafayette_Lion, if want to preach, then church is the best place to do that." My opponent has abusively NOT debated the resolution, AVOIDED my DIRECT questions with the skill of a politician, contradicted himself numerous times, and not ATTACKED OR significantly defended his case. If you have read the previous arguments you can see... "My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance. [1]"1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...... <.:Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God:.> This kind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite thorough, and it were the case that if God did exist, then there would be a discoverable proof of this." <.:Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God:.> This is exactly what my opponent has been saying the whole debate, and EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. This argument is hence void. I would like to close with this. I know it isn't really relevant but unlike my oppoent who tries to claim otherwise I am acknowledging that. If I am wrong, along with Paul, John, Mark, Isaiah, Elisha etc... and there is no God, what will that get me and every other christian? 80 something years of living a good life and beleiving in a God that doesn't exist. In the end i wont even know the difference. I have made the choice to be a christian. If my opponent, Darwin, and the "scientific community" are wrong, however, the choice's consequences are eternal...think about it [1], [2] And in Closing: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him(Jesus):"I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."-C.S. Lewis Best wishes to Freeman in his debating career. This has been a fun and enlightening experience. .:[1] http://www.billygraham.org... .:[2] http://www.sbc.net...
The God of Classic theism is real

My opponent is an evangelist masquerading around as a debater. Therefore, this round is going to be very brief. =====> In Defense of God <===== Contention 1: The Newspaper Argument "http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov......... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos." My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance. [1] =====> The Case Against God <===== Contention 1: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness 1. If God exists, God: (a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; (b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; (c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and (d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1) 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. .: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3) My opponent hasn't presented any reasonable objection. Allow my previous rebuttals to extend forward. ::Conclusion:: Lafayette_Lion, if want to preach, then church is the best place to do that. ::References:: 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
The God of Classic theism is real

My opponent's last round was littered with Bible verses and almost entirely void of logic. Consequently, I will keep this round relatively terse. It would simply be patronizing to the members of DDO for me to explain for a second and third time why circular reasoning is fallacious. =====> A Critique of Lafayette_Lion's Arguments <===== Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all? I never argued that evolution discredits the existence of God. Moreover, my opponent's argument in this section has already been demolished. Nothing else needs to be written on this topic. Contention 2: God is God I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness. =====> The Case Against God <===== "My opponent is saying HIS unbelief in MY belief makes my belief untrue." - Lafayette_Lion Actually, Lafayette_Lion, the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is that you don't understand the argument. As far as I can tell, my opponent did present one minor objection to the syllogism I have laid out, so I will address it briefly. 1. If God exists, God: (a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; (b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; (c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and (d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1) 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. .: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3) In response to the second premise of the syllogism, my opponent argues that not all humans could logically be expected to believe in God under theistic assumptions because they have free will. In response to this, I will simply reiterate what I said in a previous debate on this subject. The second premise of the syllogism has nothing to do with free will or its negation. If God exists and wants all humans to believe this before they die, then he could appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will. ::Conclusion:: I feel no compunction at stopping here. Illogical arguments and bible thumping don't demonstrate the existence of God. On top of this, my argument still remains entirely intact. Best, Freeman
The God of Classic theism is real

I am new at this form of debating(online debating). If my form isn't correct I'm sorry. I will be using the Bible as my basis of argument, so my case will be built around the Bible(New International Version). If my opponent disproves, please don't accept this debate. John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. This clearly defines the existence of God. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus clearly explained that many people would not accept the truth. This has proven timeless to date. Many people have chosen not to believe. God allowed human beings to have a free will. In the Bible, God indicated that he was not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. He also indicates that He knows many will reject the truth of His existence, but he clearly exists. Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all? If the God of Classic theism isn't real then the their option is Evolution. The only basis to Evolution is (with all due respect) the incorrect assumptions of Charles Darwin and scientists who have no more knowledge than he did. Contention 2: God is God Revelation 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Genesis 5:1-2 This is the written account of Adam's line when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. (2) He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." And one more: Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. I could go on, but this is a sufficient first round. I look forward to this debate/
The God of Classic theism is real

My opponent has abandoned all of his arguments and has resorted to preaching. Moreover, he has failed to give a sufficient rebuttal to my argument. However, my opponent did present a version of Pascal's wager in his last round. This argument is irrelevant to the existence of God, but I will respond to it anyway. =====> The Empty Wager Of Blaise Pascal <===== Blaise Pascal was a rather brilliant scientist that lived in the sixteenth century. During the later part of his life he ended up defending the Christian faith, and he addressed his Pensï¿½es to those people that couldn't manage to accrue religious faith. As it turns out, this happens to be me, along with quite a few other people. Pascal's wager basically states that faith is a safer bet to make than unbelief, since nothing of value is lost if one chooses to have faith. Needless to say, this line of reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons. For example, there are an infinite number of potential Gods and religions one could place faith in. Therefore, people will almost certainly be mistaken about their beliefs in God, given the diversity of beliefs on offer. Consequently, any faith placed in God or religion is likely to be in error, since all of these religious assumptions are unfounded. Moreover, those that cling to this belief in a God will have ended up misusing the only life they do have by living under an illusion. I will simply end this debate by allowing the viewers to see how Christopher Hitchens deals with Pascal's Wager. [1] ::References:: 1. Youtube video http://www.youtube.com... Lafayette_Lion, it has been interesting. Good luck in your future debates. Best, Freeman
Cats are better than dogs

'Cat are smarter than dish' Well of course cats are smarter than dishes! However, this has no importance to the resolution, therefore I will just ignore this, and interpret it to mean dogs. 'They are independent' Prove this. Dogs are as independent as cats, and unless you prove otherwise then this is negated. 'tot can train them to be toilet trained' I'm again assuming that this means you can train them, but so can you to dogs. Dogs can be toilet trained as well, which negates this. 'they bathe them selves And how does this make them smarter?
Police profiling has some merit

I did not mean to say that the day that it is instituted, it will turn into a big injust and corrupt system. My belief is that once we give the government enough power to say that one group of people are "suspicious" and one group is not, we give it leeway to run amok. What we have today is not profiling in the sense that black men who are 6'1" commit the most ammount of crimes and there fore should be singled out, or at least should have the government's finger pressing down on them, but more of a practical approach. This practical approach is what police do today, they note which race, neighborhood, e.t.c. cause the most ammount of trouble and decide to keep an eye out for them. Of course, it is usefull to look at all the evidence of a crime and piece together the clues as to who did it. However, as you pointed out, killers have a style as unique as a fingerprint, so, once a certain killer is caught, there will be no use, whatsoever, to use the same standards of looking at diferent crimes by different people, would there? If each time John the tearer killed someone, he left a little note in the mouth of the victim as to his location and we catch him, but another person starts killing and leaves a note in the dresser, would it do any good to look in the mouth of the victim? Might I remind you that serial killers, despite the media's hype, are excedingly rare. A more common crime is drug dealing, in which profiling is much more useful. However profiling accuses the whole for what the part did. If 100 Swiss men commited suicide, would we profile all Swiss men, saying that since a bunch of them killed themselves, they all must have suicidal tendancies? Of course not, because in each race, gender, country, et cetera, there will allways be a few oddballs and crazy people. Do we say that since we have a couple insane people in group A that all people in group A are likely to be insane? Might I also remind you that in order to have a useful profiling system, we would need to go all the way, and to do that, we would need special programs. Programs to ensure the fair treatment of the profiled, because we all know that the ACLU would be screaching about fairness and such. Those extra programs would cost money, and a lot of money. Taxpayer money. YOUR MONEY! The money that should go towards roads and schools, not to some specialised idiot who talks about things that no one in thier right mind would want to listen to. What a waste! I leave you with the definition of the word profiling, as put by Funk and Wagmalls standard family dictionary, :3)A short biographical sketch vividly presenting the MOST striking characteristics of a personality. Do we want to show only the most outlandish examples in a race and say that that is what the race is? Thanks for the debate, it was rather fun.
Police profiling has some merit

Let us assume that we must decide for next year, as anything could be solved with enough time so it's easier to assume we are in the present. In 1984 by George Orwell, he introduces the concept of "thoughtcrime" where even ones thoughts, whether inoccent or no, can incriminate you. If we were to modify this theory, we can see the concept of appearancecrime, where ones LOOKS can be incriminating. This is not the same as a discription, which is evidence, but ones looks can fully send one to jail. To give the government the right to profile is saying "hey you, you where a green shirt, there have been crimes commited by people who where green shirts, I'll bring you in for interrogation, to confirm your guilt!". If one gives the government to much power, it will take the power away from you.
Police profiling has some merit

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, (I'm actually for profiling, but I just like debating!) Police profiling is simple, for now, however tomorrow, say 10-20 years, what will it be like? It would reflect the government's veiws! So, today, not saying that the governments racist, the government looks mainly in the ghettos and such, but tomorrow, what if the trouble is not that some ethnicity is causing troubles, but instead a radical Jewish group blows up the Statue of Liberty, not saying that Jews are going to do so, then the government would look for Jews, and what if Paul Policeman had a brother who died in the explosion, we would have a big problem on our hands! Also, is profiling practical? What if we had an african american policeman? would he not, today at least, go lenient on the very people his Chief ordered him to profile? Is it not against one's constitutional rights, unfaliable and nonflexible, to be profiled on the basis of religion, that's #1, or, if one created a criticising newspaper article, and was profiled against, would that not be against the right of free(to an extent)speech, that's #'s 1 and 1 again?
Police profiling has some merit

Police profiling has attached to it a negative stigma. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that it is often automatically associated with "racial profiling." From the outset, I want to clarify that I do not agree with the basic premise of racial profiling for the reasons of it being ineffective, inaccurate, and harbors a racist outlook. For instance, any police officer or federal agent who honestly believes that a certain race is more prone to crime is not understanding how profiling works. While it is true that a certain demographic may be more prone to crime for a myriad of reasons (all of which I will expound on later) but not a certain race. There is no such thing as a "bad" gene that is transmitted or encoded via DNA. With that simple clarification, let us discuss why profiling is often beneficial. The FBI has been using profiling for a couple of decades now with enormous success. There is an actual science to profiling, it is not some wild guess. Allow me to define police profiling to the best of my ability. Profiling is the building of a suspect composite based upon preexisting physical evidence. Profiling examines evidence that yield specific behavioral patterns. From there, a psychological profile can be built from the ground up, thus increasing the liklihood of capture exponentially. I would like for CON to prove or persuade the audience on why profiling has no benefit. I look forward to the debate with my challenger.
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy

I'm For - Book of Daniel speaks of events which 90% have already occurred. Jesus did refer to the book and Daniel, but my position is that the majority has already been fulfilled. Against - Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events). Rules, if my opponent agrees should help the debate run easier. -Short factual replies, if something takes an essay to say, it may lose it's meaning. -If a prophecy has already come to pass, it cannot be used continually to fit an idea. -Preferably an opponent which is interested in the subject. -Every point must be answered or clearly noted if the opponent or I wish a direct reply ie - 1)... a)... *.... My opening statement. Book of Daniel reads much like a text book, which slowly reveals visions, concepts, timeline and explanation for each vision and it's meaning. A book which which teach's the reader from start to finish, and allows a clear understanding of each vision, and what's implying/suggesting. I see this in practice in chapter 4, where the Kings dream is shown, then Daniel explains, and also fulfilled. Then chapter 7:9 vision shown, 7:15 explained. Again chapter 8:1 vision, 8:15 explained. But what's interesting to note at 8:17 Gabriel says "Son of Man, understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." 1) If the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is Persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for end time anti-Christ times? 2) Also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-Christ times. 3) I would like my opponent to show the first vision which can be directly linked to apocalyptic era.
Pokemon or Yu Gi Oh

Thank you for starting this debate. I will make my point brief, seeing that not a lot needs to be said. In your whole argument you did not say that Pokemon was better than Yu Gi Oh. Realizing this, I have decided that I will prove some of your facts wrong. First of all, you claim that Pokemon was first ever anime comic ever. This statement is wrong. Pokemon was created in 1996, a anime called Manga has been around since the 1950's, that's way before Pokemon. Secondly, Yu Gi Oh has plots in it, therefore it does make some since. You have failed to show me that Pokemon has made that much money, you have failed to show how many awards it received, and you have also failed to prove that Yu Gi Oh doesn't do anything. Thank you. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
RAP BATTLE(begginners)

Damn your threats were a tease Man you said that there'd be war I'd rather be dead than on my knees Guess you don't know what "L" stands for Try to get up here on my level, I'll Walk on you like the floor, meanwhile My attack leaves you bedeviled But like a whore you're back for more Then accuse me of plagiarizing But that accusation is crucial We both know you're just crying Cuz my obliteration was brutal I'll prove to you that you're lying I dare you to type it in Google Then come back apologizing When your worthless search is futile I know you're a beginner, ungroomed So I wasn't expecting a Grammy You won't be the winner but I assumed You'd at least bring the Heat from Miami Though your flow's cold like icicles I rode you like a bicycle Brought you down to the ground Even while I was getting high on nickels So no complaints that you lost Yeah you're catching balls like Randy Moss But even that can't beat the Saints Still undefeated, I'm the boss
RAP BATTLE(begginners)

I heard you , i aint speaking chinese Your gonna be on your knees blowin' something that aint a sneeze This battle has been a long haul, But im getting my rap game runnning, yours is still on a crawl Dont tell me to stop my game, cause i aint stopping at all Cause on a 1 on 1 battle your gonna fall Spittin' what you got, acting like you ball But you know you got this from somwhere online So ill ask you to make up a real rhyme Maybe you got it from one of your friends on a chatline Your so weird you call your girls and end up on a flatline Since there's no more copy and pasting, you better post your rap before the deadline Get your rap together cause homie i got mine Yah im the novice and thats fine Your 22, so our years are seperated by 9 Judging from your last rap, you might be tipsy from some wine And now youve seen my skills, dont say im bad, thats a lie But when you lose this rap, just dont go whine You may be the queen of rap, but u no im comin' up on the rise
RAP BATTLE(begginners)

Damn you must not've heard of me; you're sounding so absurd to me If this is war dude then you're going down like Germany I could still win even without another word from me As it just occurred to me your skills haven't reached maturity About to get beaten by a girl and feel a world of insecurity And I'm glad to see you claim that you respect women Was that supposed to impress me? Sorry, it didn't Like your last verse - how could you think you made a fool of me? Yours was worse; rhymes so sad I thought it was eulogy So I hope this means that your days of rapping are dead Maybe some Hooked on Phonics should happen instead After I win, my ego's fed; we'll make peace and break bread But til then I won't cease; you're too easy to shred So you better bring your A-game in upcoming rounds But don't think of acting foul just cause your balls are out of bounds On your weakness I'll pounce even after smoking an ounce Cuz there's only 1 title and there can't be 2 crowns