BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists and is a real being

He is in another debate similarly named so I"m not sure what is going on or whether he intends to respond. Meanwhile since this is my first time debating I am going to proceed and see if he defends his claim. I sincerely apologize if I was expected to add more on round one, but since it was unclear what we were debating it was pointless to proceed without first deciding what to debate. Pro"God exists and he is a real being. When pro offered to debate the God exists and he is a real being , he essentially shoulders the burden to provide the evidence and reasoning his claim is true. A coherent correspondence between that which I believe and facts of reality is the object or "truth" I pursue. Truth is that which corresponds to fact or reality. The concept of "god" is paradoxical and illogical. "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent" Richard Dawkins. This is a great example of the inconsistency of the primary identifying characteristics of god and logically demonstrates this cannot be the truth. Pro claimed; "God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. " The claims that this god is a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority are all bare assumptions that lack evidence and proof. Pro must back up this claim to win this debate. These are the claims that anyone could make for their dignified alien, imaginary beast or mythical being. And since claims like these bear no likeness to reality or fact one in justified to defer acceptance until there is reason or evidence.
God exists and is a real being

I accept. Thank you for starting this debate and I look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas. This is my first debate so we'll see how it goes. Since Pro has stated I go first I'll need to make sure we agree on the god we are debating. For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. The burden of proof lies with the pro since he has made the claim, however I share a burden of proof to show flaws (if any) in the propositions put forth by Pro
Evolution vs Creation

first ill start by saying that unless you fill in the blanks with assumptions there is absolutely no evidence for evolution... i wont be arguing biblical creation, even though thats what i believe, i will be arguing more for intelligent design... the odds that chemicals formed into precise codes that make our most complex software seem like childs play, are ASTRONOMICAL, even impossible... first we have to understand the basis is life, DNA, everything that has ever existed bore a code that told the stem cells what to become... cells literally pick and choose which bits of information they need, as if they have knowledge, or intelligence... natural selection cannot create complex codes, it cannot create more complex organisms... in fact, natural selection is BAD for evolution... because the intermediate stages of evolution would kill the species off, imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird, the arms would become bad long before they turned into wings... it simply cannot work... you dont get trial and error in nature, nature is ruthless and un-forgiving... if one single thing went wrong through the selection process the species would die off... we are talking about un-imaginable odds here... ill leave it at that for now, looking forward to a reply
Food is a choice

1. Drugs are very similar to food in that they are both substances that when consumed affect your body in various ways based on their components 2. The use of food is when you consume the substance into your body 3. Not very relevant, Not going to respond 4. Food is not vital for life, Energy and nutrients are. The delivery mechanism is horrible and is the leading cause of death every year. (Source: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=OucCLslw4J4) 5. Exercise can seriously injure some and is not a long-term solution to the food parable. 6. Food rots itself after time, Correct? That's why it composts? If you take in the nutrients from the food, You yourself can rot, Which is very very bad. 7. Yes, I think people should consume the energy and nutrients that the sun provides like all other living things do 8. People need not starve, They just need to use less harmful methods of getting energy than food. 9. I am speaking for everyone because everyone who eats is negatively affected by food. Food is a choice, And we as a species are making the wrong choice I really hate food for all the disease and nuclear war it has caused.
Food is a choice

1. Drug use is on a whole other scale than food. They are totally different and shouldn't even be compared. As for drugs, That would be a choice. 2. Also, In your round 1 you said the word "use". Food cannot be "used". This makes me confirm that you think drug use and food consumption are in the same bracket, Correct? 3. Drug use is undoubtedly bad for you but if someone does drugs then cool that's on them, Their choice. Back to the food topic. 4. As for food? Food is vital for life. You must eat to live. Not all food is bad, There's healthy food. True there is a lot of bad stuff that can be in food and you don't know what's in it, But a simple solution would be to grow your own garden with fruits and vegetables and incorporate that into what you eat. 5. Other solutions: Exercise & prevent yourself from perhaps being obese Eat in moderation and choose the right meals that are necessary for your body that has nutrients (fruits, Vegetables, Etc) Not eat junk food 24/7 and food that is unhealthy 6. Also, Please prove to me how food can give you leprosy? 7. "People don't want to use coal as their energy. We should use solar power like plants. " - Those are already sources of energy for the environment. Do you mean that those things should be consumed by people? 8. Are you saying that people should starve to death and die out? Or am I looking too far into your point. Enlighten me. 9. With your argument, Are you speaking for EVERY person (including vegetarians, Obese individuals, People who are skinny, People who are fit, Healthy and exercise, Etc) because everyone eats. Let me add this: Food is not a choice. The type of food you eat is a choice. You can't avoid or take away food, Simply put. Side note: I really love food.
Food is a choice

Greetings, I'll take the debate. Two questions: Do you mean it's a choice as in you don't have to eat at all and to starve yourself? Meaning you can choose not to eat ever? Like never eat food again in your life? - If you meant that, Food is not a choice and it isn't optional. Everyone living thing needs food to survive. Or do you mean a "choice" between healthy food and junk food? Or perhaps choose not to eat too much and to eat moderately? - If you meant that, We'll debate about that. I didn't know what you meant exactly so I can't make a full blown argument this round, Let's start in Round 2. Go ahead.
Food is a choice

1 and 2. I suppose. But generally, Drugs are far worse they are actually harmful to your body. It will have a bad affect on your teeth, Lose brain cells and etc. Like I said drug use is on a completely different scale compared to food. You need food to live you don't need drugs to live. If a drug addict quits drugs for good, They won't die. If you quit eating food, Which is the source of your energy, You will die. 3. I said that since you brought drugs into this. Didn't know if you do drugs or not so I didn't want to offend you or anyone that's viewing the debate. 4. Food is vital for life. Energy in nutrients are food. You need fats, Proteins, Carbohydrates etc. Look at the food pyramid. 5. I guess, If you don't overdo it, And how is it not a long term solution? 6. Of course. Do you eat rotten food? No. You eat fresh food. You can't rot from consuming food, Stomach acid breaks down the food then the food comes out of you when you use the bathroom. 7. Inaccurate 8. Food is life 9. Not everyone, You can't speak for everyone - also, Like I said not ALL food is bad. What's next? Water is a choice? We can't drink water because A B and C? 10. We aren't making the "wrong choice". Like I said this isn't a choice. You must eat to live. It's nature. Animals hunt and eat other animals. They must eat to live. So based on your argument, Do you apply the same thing to animals in the wild? 11. You're probably the very first person who said they hate food and on top of that, Says it caused "nuclear war" what? Explain that. Round 3 is over now. You might have to make a follow up debate and challenge me or reply to me in the comments.
In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

Topic 17: DrAlexander vs. Girr29 I will make the introduction to this debate simple: I believe in matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means because: 1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety. 2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism. 3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well. I will leave it up to my opponent to determine why this is not enough and will expand on it in my second argument.
What are all the Political Ideologies and convince me to have the same political ideology as you.

I have already won the debate. As my opponent wants more, I will give it to him. 1. Marriage a) The Importance of Marriage Marriage connects people in relationships which would otherwise fragment. It causes fathers to remain with the family and care for their children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive way to promote the wellbeing of children. It forces men and women to commit to each other and care for the children their union produces. “According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration.” [1. http://www.heritage.org...] In the field of crime a lot of emphasis is placed on cohort size. High risk cohorts are more likely to be criminals, so policies which shrink the size of the high risk cohorts will reduce crime. This has been argued in the case of abortion (abortion lowers crime), but that specific correlation has been refuted. Regardless, the idea that changing cohort sizes would change the crime rate is still accepted. Marriage reduces the high risk cohort. High risk cohorts include single mothers producing children out of wedlock. An increase of 10 children out of 100,000 born out of wedlock will lead to a 5% increase in murder rates [2. http://phys.org...]. The cohort effect is not immediate and takes about 20 years to take affect. Policies which reduce marriage rates increase out-of-wedlock birth rates. This means crime will increase. Marriage is essential to a functioning society. b) Privatizing marriage: libertarians are crazy Privatizing marriage will erode marriage culture and create all the social ills mentioned above. More crime, more poverty, worse educational achievement, worse emotional health, and worse sexyal development. A libertarian case AGAINST marriage privatization can be found here. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... c) No fault divorce, wtf liberals? No fault divorce has been found to increase the divorce rates. This has been confirmed by a broad literature review from studies published from 1995 - 2006 http://www.marriagedebate.com... I have other debates and since I already won, I am just link spamming but if you are interested in education I recommend reading them.
Hillary cannot win the election

My opponent first tries to argue against the poll I cited, showing that Hillary has more support than Obama if either of them were to face McCain, and that Hillary has more votes than McCain in a Hillary-McCain election. First he argues that "mcain is a very moderate republican. so if hillary were to win the primaries many of obamas voters would flock to mcain" However, the poll was made in a way that people were asked "In a McCain vs. Hillary election" and "In a McCain vs. Obama election" who would you vote for? Note how McCain has 45% in both cases, Obama has 45% in his, and Hillary has 47%? Yeah, they don't add up to 100. They didn't just ask "Out of these three, who do you like? " Then he claims that he could find at least a dozen polls saying McCain will win. First, I must ask, why did he not do just that? He could have at least matched what I gave, and provided ONE of the >11 polls he speaks of. Second, I must say that the gallup poll is one of the most well-known and well-respected polls around. It's probably the only such poll many people actually know by name. Alright, so at least by some standards, McCain and Obama are formidable. That does not change the fact that Hillary is also formidable, and I have shown that she definitely can win. We cannot rule her out yet, and that's just what PRO is arguing we should do, without giving us sufficient reasons why. I suppose it doesn't matter that Hillary is more of a democrat than Obama either, other than the fact that it could help her with getting the democratic nomination, since the democratic voters tend to have democratic values. Yes, there are some rumors about Hillary, though we can see absolutely ZERO of them mentioned in this debate. I must wonder - why? Did my opponent not know of any of these rumors? I actually don't know of any, though I'm sure they're out there. However, the fact of the matter is, Hillary still has a chance to win the election. That is what my opponent challenged me to show, and that's what I've shown. I've shown more than mere possibility, which is all I have to show based on the resolution, I've shown that it's not even improbable.
Hillary cannot win the election

This poll you looked at states that hillary had more chance of victory than mcain. what you have to realize is that mcain is a very moderate republican.so if hillary were to win the primaries many of obamas voters would flock to mcain. also polls mean almost nothing. i could look up at least a dozen polls that say mcain will win. saying that mcain or obama are not formidable is ridiculous mcain has been a liked and respected senetor for longer than hillary. Obama is very new to politics and is already winning the election. Hillary is not far behind obama but shes losing supporters left and right. You say that hillary has more democratic values than obama. i now ask....SO? democratic values dont matter. i wouldnt vote for the most conservative candidate no matter what.if a complete radical had more democratic values all it means is that they are more liberal. and hillary is definitely a radical. There are uncountable rumors about hillary. Obam has a few and a challenge you to find any REALISTIC evidence about mcain doing something wild or terrible. If you want evidence of hillary doing something like that go to barnes and nobles. there are more books about hillary being a complete idiot than all the other candidates combined.
Hillary cannot win the election

Okay for the sake of simplicity i will start with your first point by simply saying that it was stupid. Obviously i was talking about the presidential election. Your next point is that because of bill she might be expected to do well. clearly this has not helped her much so far seeing as she is losing. also people do not always think aboout bill as good. though admit he was a very good president not everyone agrees. last i would like to point out that people dont think of bill when talk about hillary. As you pointed out hillary won the senetorial election but i would like to remind you that she was not running against as formidable opponents as Barrack Obam or John Mcain. also the presidential election is much bigger and in her previous campaigns people looked more at her politics then at the real Hillary. Now for you final argument Barrack Obama has many more suppoters than hillary and he has the delegate lead. this will overule any nominee votes. and these things will not even matter in the general election. finally when i said she cannot win i didnt mean it was physically or mentally impossible. i simply meant she will not win. if your going to take everything i say so literally this is going to be a very long and annoying debate.
Hillary cannot win the election

I'll get right on down to the reasons Hillary can win "The Election." I'll name each point, that way it'll be organized. ================== The Flagrant Gelatin ================== It was never specified which election we're talking about. For example, Hillary might lose the presidential election but succeed in getting reelected as a New York senator. In doing this, she would be winning the election. Not the presidential election, but the senatorial election. ================== The Uncanny Koala ================== Hillary's own image might not be as good as either of the other two possible 2008 Presidential candidates. However, many people love Bill Clinton and his politics. They know that with Hillary in office, they get Bill Clinton as an automatic policy adviser. He had one of the most successful Presidencies, so people will expect the same from Hillary. ================== The Envenomed Basilisk ================== Hillary's 'messy past' did not stop her from winning the 2006 Senatorial election [by a wide margin, too], so why would it stop her from winning the 2008 Presidential election? ================== The Remorseful Corpse ================== Hillary is a nominee for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. Since Obama does not have the majority of the nomination vote things, Hillary still has a chance to win that. And then she has a chance to win the election. My opponent already acknowledged that she might win the primaries. My opponent simply claims that if she does McCain will beat her. My opponent has not shown why it is impossible for her to win. If anything, he has shown that he doesn't think she is likely to win, or maybe even that she probably won't win. However, my opponent is supposed to be arguing that she CANNOT win. It's possible that she will win the 2008 Presidential Election. That'll be all for now.
Skyim is the worst in the series with or without mods.

You may be the Dragonborn, but you're no chosen one. Plenty of steps along the way you face opportunities to deny your destiny. By the last dlc, you're not even the only dragonborn: you face a previous chosen one who refused his fate. Chosen one stories don't usually work because they don't address how the "chosen" reacts to their quest, but Skyrim does. Being the chosen or just his mate is irrelevant if this isn't met. The dark brotherhood in Skyrim does give early bonuses: a set of very useful armour and an easy source of income. It also fans out for the later quests, and you're free to consult the others on different approaches. The Dawnguard expansion improved both vampires and werewolves with respective skills, and the Volkihar questline had some really neat levels and quests. Around your comment on npcs: Skyrim and Oblivion worked on different levels. Oblivion let you travel to any city from the start, and so the gameplay was centred on only leaving the walls if an npc had given you a quest: thus you spend more time talking with them . Skyrim encouraged you to carve out the map from hubs, unlocking new ones along the way. You still had town quests, but they often had you venture off to unexplored areas, with more dungeons along the way to detour by. Also, this does have to be said. Oblivion npcs were all developed in chargen, and had about three voice actors to go round. There was that stupid conversation minigame too. A man would talk to himself, and they would discuss their favourite shop in town, run by them. Skyrim dialled back on npcs because there is always an uncanny valley issue with them , and they instead based the game on freedom. You might think it unfair to use technology as an argument,but the game is still mechanically superior. The reason I don't think it's unfair to mention tech is because you speak of only Elder Scrolls 3 and 4. Skyrim can't be worst in a series that includes Elder Scrolls Online, and very few even mention Arena or Daggerfall in these discussions. I won't make mention of mods because I don't think they should be counted as intrinsic quality for the games. See you next round, Duncan.
Skyim is the worst in the series with or without mods.

Hello Darkrock, and welcome to Debate.org. I hope you enjoy your time here. I'll just explain my own position in terms of Elder Scrolls. I started with Oblivion, did a few quests, finished the Shivering Isles and then broke the main quest by using the Wabbajack on Dagon. Skyrim has me hooked. I bought it on release date and I'm still playing it now (I even ascended to PC gaming so I could mod it). I won't start my argument this round, but there's one thing I'll ask of you: You can use the videos as sources if you want, but make the arguments your own (ie not saying "I'll just leave this here"). Warning's out of the way, and we're about to discuss one of my favorite games, let's make this a fun debate! See you next round, Duncan
Skyim is the worst in the series with or without mods.

Hello everyone! This is my very first debate and I think this is going to be a lot of fun. I also like to say that this debate is not for the console gamers since modding is a part of the elder scrolls and if my opponent wish to debate about Skyrim with added mods that makes the game better we will do that. I can of course do the same thing with the previous TES titles. When I talk about how skyrim is the worst I talk mainly about the roleplay elements and some of the points that Samyoul and Sorcerer Dave talks about. Here is the link to Samyoul video "The Elder Scrolls : The Dumbing Down ;. My opponent if he wishes can take some of the points that Sorcerer Dave made in his video that is named " Why The Elder Scrolls Isn't Dumbing Down". Link here ";.
The words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

AS the negative. I am going to argue that it does not matter. 1. It is a saying. By law, you are not required to say the pledge. and now I will attack your case. n 1. They have no idea what they're saying. And in the event they do interpret the message of the pledge instead of just saying it verbatim like every other child, he is not required by law to recite the pledge. And it says under God... There are more than 1 god in this world (meaning multiple religions). and on that note, that's my attack for your 2nd argument. 2. You said yourself, the US wasn't founded on Christianity. So "god" in the pledge doesn't necessarily mean it's referring the christian god.. those are your assumptions. 3. Skip because that wasn't one of my arguments. 4. The US is under "god".. any god. and one of your arguments maybe there may be atheists. If they don't believe in a god, that's their business and their business alone. 5. The child is not required by law to say the pledge. 6. They pledge is not a law so the first amendment doesn't apply here. 7. It means the person saying the pledge is assuming the entire nation is united with the belief. And under the first amendment, they are free to express their ideas and have their own religion and thoughts. 8. Not required by law to say the pledge. They president is one person and can not speak for everyone. He was elected to run the country and it's affairs. Not to declare why the US is not a christian country. And sorry for the late responses. Do you want to make the same debate with these same arguments and have another round of arguments?