BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal

Married heterosexual couples which are infertile are unable to procreate because of the circumstances. This is different then 2 people of the same sex marrying, where not only is procreation incidentally impossible, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE! To separate marriage from the role of procreation would be to render the entire institution of marriage pointless in the first place. Laws are written based on definitions; without them, a law is pointless and can be interpreted according to the whim of any individual. Marriage is between a man and a woman; that is how it has always been. To make a law stating that gays can marry displays a lack of understanding of the definition of marriage itself. If 2 gays were to swear an oath between themselves and government that they will live together until death, that could not be called marriage. It would be something else entirely.
Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

Let's begin, In the first two sentences, you quoted my own lines at me - and provided your reason(s) why my argument(s) are meaningless: "Then I cannot pay any attention to you because you clearly did not watch the videos which proves evolution in action in the here and now." Obviously, you didn't read my evidence in the third paragraph. Where I specifically state that science is in no place to critique God. But moving on, to those who read my last argument, you'll see that I said I watched all three of the videos when there is, in fact, four videos. My apologies, and allow me to elaborate. Yes, I did watch all three videos not seeing that there was a fourth - but after watching the fourth video, it still doesn't help their case - which is to prove Evolutionism. Later, you quote: "And you nor anyone can refute it." Well, actually, yes I have. You just haven't negated any of my evidence, nor have you given any other sources to backup your claim - besides YouTube videos. I find this quite an interesting dodge. However: 1. https://answersingenesis.org... ---> Explains evolution from a biblical and scientific perspective 2. https://www.theguardian.com... ---> The problem(s) with natural selection 3. http://www.icr.org... ---> Is evolution proven I'll be now quoting what @backwardseden said in the comment section, of this debate: "So the only thing left to prove is religion. And I made it very crystal clear that "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." And obviously if the dimwitted dullard snot meat sow does not wish to follow those rules, that's his problem. And gosh golly gee NO ONE has EVER been able to prove god. Simple." But you base this claim on nothing at all - besides being personal biased. I gave scientific evidence, that likely proves the existence of an Entity, from a non-theistic view. Also, "the dimwitted dullard snot meat sow." In conclusion: 1. They haven't refuted any of my arguments 2. They haven't given any reasons why God doesn't exist 3. They're simply reiterating claims and haven't given any reason why these claims are true
Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

"Youtube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary." Then I cannot pay any attention to you because you clearly did not watch the videos which proves evolution in action in the here and now. And you nor anyone can refute it. And I backed it up 4 times with 4 different videos. Oh and btw, 2 were PBS video"s from its show FRONTLINE which has a lot more going on for anything you have to say. See, you didn"t watch the videos did you? Nope. Because there are FOUR videos. NOT THREE. I truly hate those that cannot do simple comprehension and or flatly lie. Bye.
Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

Evolution is proven factAntibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.http://www.youtube.com...;- Frontline - Hunting the Nightmare Bactiria http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentaryhttp://www.youtube.com... ResistanceThe so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven factNo matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact. 1. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate. 2. Rules: The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

Onto the ignorance: "Um no first off I only use your first line, NOT lines PLURAL." Excuse me? It's plural. "You are flat out, as all christians are, their own worst enemy, just like god, christianity and the bible." Again, this is a broad claim, with a clear bias, with no backup. "YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary. That shows how stupid and maddening YOU are." No, it doesn't. YouTube videos as a citation are pathetic. Just because someone on YouTube says something doesn't make it true. YouTube wasn't meant to be a place to get peer-reviewed sources, but obviously, you don"t see that. Later, when you quote my own lines back at me: "Tell me Splat the Snookums dog, what does that have to do with anything except for 0% of the argument? Oh duh in high powered gear evolution was proved with the vidies which is 100% irrefutable that "Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now." I find it interesting that you say that the videos confirm evolution, as truth. But that doesn't make sense because in the same exact debate, but with a different person, you state: "I only mentioned one form of evolution. That"s it." 1. http://www.debate.org... ---> Second round, first rebuttal I merely point this out, because I said that same exact thing in my first argument: "I hope you realize that those videos are specifically talking about one part of Evolutionism, not Evolutionism as a whole." With this in mind, you can't say 'evolution is proven as truth,' because you only addressed one aspect of evolution. Also, if you read any of my sources, you'll also see that one of them specifically states that there are different kinds of Evolutionism. In the near future, don't contradict yourself with illogical fallacies. You later say: "So part 2 of the debate is for you to follow simpleton rules because evolution is proved "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." In which case YOU nor anyone has ever done." Well, we now know that isn't true, and that you gave a contradicting answer. So, in this case, you now have to prove why God doesn't exist - because if you don't, then you merely assert that evolution is false, and God is real. Also, as I said before, I gave an unbiased, logical, and non-theistic argument about the likeness of God's existence - which you still haven't refuted. Parsing through the personal insults, you add: "Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say" In reality, I should be saying this to you. You are an embarrassment to the Atheist community - but then again, I should've known you couldn't backup your own claims. Have a great day.
Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

Wow. See that"s why I hate debating with those who are clearly underdeveloped, malnourished with knowledge, christian, and are narcissists like you in any debates and pick their brain with tumbleweeds. Um no first off I only use your first line, NOT lines PLURAL. You are flat out, as all christians are, their own worst enemy, just like god, christianity and the bible. Let's begin from your own shelter" "YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary." That shows how stupid and maddening YOU are. Then you continue with a true shadowy effect of true ignorance "How could anyone say on the basis of scientific evidence that the whole scheme was not set up by a provident God to arrive at homo sapiens on planet Earth?" Tell me Splat the Snookums dog, what does that have to do with anything except for 0% of the argument? Oh duh in high powered gear evolution was proved with the vidies which is 100% irrefutable that "Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics." That"s all that was stated and in this debate NOTHING else is needed to prove that evolution is claiming its thunderous claw. NOTHING. Gosh golly gee gosh darned it all. So YOU lose that part of the debate. So part 2 of the debate is for you to follow simpleton rules because evolution is proved "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." In which case YOU nor anyone has ever done. If you don"t like it, in which case you clearly don"t, that"s not my problem, that"s yours, leave. I---don"t---care. I"m not here to please a cabbage batbrain like you that brings in nothingness and meaningless big black blank holes into a debate that has already stung its hornets nest from its opening words which you nor anyone has the intelligence to refute. I"m so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say.
Israel Was Wrong to Take Palestine

Pro did not cite any of his statistics but for arguments sake I will treat them as valid. Immigrating to a land is not an act of war on the Palestinian Arabs. And once again I need to reiterate that Palestinians never governed the land. I am well aware of the war Pro. You clearly are not. Being ignorant is one thing. Spreading lies when you are ignorant is another thing. But continuing to spread the same lies after someone refutes it for two rounds with sources is probably the highest level of dishonesty. At this point it is clear that you have a very strong prejudice against Israel that facts can't cure. The rest of these facts that I am reiterating are just for the readers because it is clear I can't get through to Pro. The War of Independence is when 5 Arab countries conspired to literally wipe Israel off the face of the map. 160,000 Arabs who lived within Israel"s borders accepted Israel"s invitation to choose peace and become Israeli citizens. Between 472,000 and 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (the number is disputed by scholars) left for various reasons 1. To escape the war. 2. Wealthy Arab leaders left, and without leadership the Arab communities fell apart. 3. Arab leaders encouraged the masses to get out of the way of the advancing Arab armies, promising that victory would be quick and they could soon return. 4. In some cases, Israeli troops forced Arab residents from their homes in sensitive, strategic zones vital to the survival of the Jewish state. So you see it is the Arab countries fault. Israel was simply taking necessary actions for war. The Arab countries really is responsible for the refugee problem and everyone except Jordan refused to accept them in their countries. I will thank Pro only for instigating this debate. It is very disappointing. He refused to take this issue seriously by not doing any research on the issue and then once I actually provide facts and research, he continues to spread the lies.
Israel Was Wrong to Take Palestine

You are correct, there never was a "state of Palestine", that was a error on my part. However, Palestinians did control modern day Israel. During Palestinian control, Israel was peaceful and almost all people there were not in conflict. It was not until the radical Jewish group, Zionism, started acting that problems arrived. The Palestinians allowed Jewish immigrants to live in Palestine, but the Zionists wanted complete control. They forced the Palestinians out unjustly and started a war. The 1947-1949 War was completely unjust on the side of the Jewish. They invaded and forced the Palestinians out. Meanwhile, the Palestinians fought only defenselessly. The UN was wrong to support the Jewish during this fight. How could it be just? This debate has nothing to do with the modern functioning of Israel, it is strictly the capture of Palestine by the Zionists.
There is no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'

For your fist paragraph you misunderstood my meaning about the 'observer' as in not a being that watches but as the thing that you take a frame of reference from. If two meteorites are hurling toward the moon at the same speed they'd appear as if they were floating still next to each other, only slightly moving closer to each other because of their gravitational pull its only by adding the moon into the equation that any observer would know that they were actually moving very fast at another object. Relativity, and I, didn't say that the universe couldn't exist without the observer I meant that every judgement we make about motion is relative and from our limited frames of reference. The argument about the tree is completely irrelevant in this context because I'm not arguing that just because we don't see it doesn't mean it can't exist, I'm arguing that motion and speed are relative and the only 'objective' (if that could exist in this sense) frame of reference would be space time. In your second paragraph, this sentiment "The theory is if Space is moving and we are stationary, it would imply that everything would have to be stationary and space moves around us. But the theory requires Space time to be as one not separate. If space is moving around us, then is Time moving around as well?" I'd argue is a straw-man. I did not say that human's could be the stationary object that bends space-time, I said something with enough mass to do that, which is a black-hole. The singularity in a black hole has enough mass and gravity to bend space time in onto itself. It essentially locks itself there in space time until it decays and dies. You said in your words that saying time moves us around like space seems hyperbolic, well at the point of singularity our rules of physics...break. Black holes don't move, they warp space time to a one dimensional point at which it no longer moves but pulls things toward it by pulling down on space time. It's stuck in place, the singularity of black holes, as Steven hawking said, stop time where they are. Also things being pulled into the event horizon of black holes don't effect the singularity and don't pull on it. I assert that motionless objects are those like singularities and wormholes that break space time in such a way in one spot that they are motionless in the frame of reference to the rest of the universe.
There is no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'

Actually, there is one assumption to that hypothesis and that is objects themselves cannot exist without the "observer". My questions are these, "Does the universe continue if there was no living conscious able to observe it?" If it does not, then why do things happen that is outside of our(Man's) observation? What if we see a tree that is fallen in the forest? Can we not conclude that it has fallen from a point of standing up? Is there any tree that has "not fallen" look like it "has literally fallen"? Would it cause the same vibrations in the air from it falling as if someone was around to sense them, specifically with hearing? The theory states for all observers. If no one can ever observe an immovable object, then wouldn't stand to reason that an immovable object cannot exist? Are we moving through Time or not(relativity not important)? The theory is if Space is moving and we are stationary, it would imply that everything would have to be stationary and space moves around us. But the theory requires Spacetime to be as one not separate. If space is moving around us, then is Time moving around as well? Space moving around us is possible to conceive, but having Time moving around us might seem impossible to perceive. We, in fact, can perceive moving through Time, an analogy would be a river. But to say that time moves around us like space can seem......hyperbolic. If Time moves everything around us, then how is anything immovable? Does not matter require both Space and Time to come together as one object? Can you prove one thing that Time(with or without Space) does not move? Does not objects, including black holes, always attract other matter? How is that attraction possible without Time? How can Spacetime function without Time? Relativity does not negate all of Time's impact on an object. I stand by my assertion that there is no immovable object.
There is no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'

Einstein's Theory of Relativity argues that everything is in motion in relation to the observer so it depends whether or not you are determining whether or not that object is moving around in space or space is moving around it or the observers perception of the stationary (or larger/'inert') object and it's colliding object could be skewed. Say there is a black hole with enough mass to create a singularity large enough to tear space time, if that were the case; that object would be locked in its position and everything else would just be moving around it in space time while that object would be locked in place.
There is no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'

My argument is that there is currently no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'. I argue that is physically impossible to be an immovable object. We are technically traveling through space at an "x" miles/per hour, thus concluding that every object known in existence always moves. Two objects with the exact same force may collide together, but the gravity in the galaxy will still keep the objects moving through the universe. I only know of one way there could be an immovable object. My opponent is required to either prove my understanding of the universe to be incorrect or prove how there can be an 'Immovable Object' that does not travel through space as we speak. Round 1 is acceptance and Opponents argument. Round 2 is critique and biased conclusions(e.g. philosophical or theological point of view).
Genetically-modified plants should continue to be used in agriculture.

Pro has the burden of proof. Resolution is given in the title.-R1 Acceptance-R2 Opening arguments-R3 Rebuttals -R4 Rebuttals-R5 Conclusions No semantics or trolling, please.Definitions: ge·net·i·cal·ly mod·i·fied jəG6;nedik(ə)lē G2;mädəfīd/ adjective (of an organism or crop) containing genetic material that has been artificially altered so as to produce a desired characteristic.
Christianity is the One True Faith

I did notice that you said that to make my claims valid the Scriptures have to be 100% True and you claim there not. Your assertion has no evidence to back it up and considering that no one has every proven the Bible to be wrong I don't see any validity in your claims. However, even if one wrong thing in a book written by say Albert Einstein was wrong that doesn't mean you just throw the whole book out( Strange comparison but I think it gets the point across. ) People claim that because you can't see it or overwhelmingly prove it then it's not true correct? Well the wind has never been observed, emotions have never been proven, and not even math can be proven with something as simple as Science but that doesn't mean it's not true does it? I'd like to go back to a few of the prophecies I mentioned and give a couple quick nonChristian historical sources to prove them. Darkness and an Earthquake on the land was confirmed by Thallus who said- " The whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness and the rocks were rent by an Earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. " Origen against Celsus says-" In whose reign Jesus appeared to be crucified and the Great Earthquakes which then took place. " We also have one of the most reliable Historians in History by the name of Josephus state that- "About this time Jesus, a wise man, if it is right to call him a man, for he was a worker of astonishing deed, a teacher of such men that receive the truth with Joy, and he drew to himself many Jews and Greeks. This man was the CHRIST. And when Pilate at the denunciation of the foremost among us had condemned him to the cross, those who first loved him did not abandon him, but he appeared to them alive on the third day. The holy prophets having foretold this and many other marvels about him. " We also have many rabbinical sources that testify of Jesus. "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus for he had practices Magic" " When the disciples found the tomb empty they realized he had been risen. And the Jewish authorities also came and found it empty. " I guess I'll turn it over to you for the moment.
Christianity is the One True Faith

HOWEVER, for one to concede to these arguments, one would first have to admit the Bible is irrefutably true. That assertion is false. The Bible is not 100% truth, therefore my opponent’s arguments are irrelevant and should be ignored. I’ll go into that assertion further in the next few rounds. But, until then, I’ll turn the argument over to my opponent. I’m very anxious to see what he argues next!
Christianity is the One True Faith

The first thing that I noticed you say is that I have to show compelling truth that Christianity is in fact the One True Faith. I plan to do just that my Friend. I'd like to start out with a few basic pieces of proof the my Religion is True. 1. The first piece of evidence I have is all the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Some of these prophecies include the facts that Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced( Crucifixion), he would speak in parables, he would be killed by the Religious Leaders of the time, darkness would fall upon the land, there would be an earthquake, his death would result in the Fall of Jerusalem( Titus 70 AD), he would do many miracles, he would go to Egypt, would be born of a virgin, would have water and blood come from his side, would remain silent during trial, and would make a Triumphant entry into Jerusalem. 2. My second piece of evidence is the Ressurection, in which there were over 500 witnesses, Testiomony by the Apostles, and the absence of Jesus Body to this day. 3. My last piece of evidence is that Scripture prophesied the exact day Messiah would be made known thousands of years beforehand. In Daniel chapter 9 Gabriel said that from the commandment to restore Jerusalem to the Messiah would be 173,880 days(69 weeks of 360 day years. ) If you do the math you realize that from the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 12, 445 BC from the Triumphant entry on April 6, AD 32 is precisely 173880 days! Jesus himself wept when he said "If thou had known in this your day the things which belonged to your piece are his from your eyes. " These are my first 3 pieces and I'll turn it to you.