BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is an irrational stance on God

My opponent accuses atheists of "spiritual genocide" and complains about "militant" atheism. What does militant mean? It means, "Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."Personally, I am close friends with many Christians. Many of these people have devoted themselves and built their lives on the Christian faith. From time to time, we discuss religion. We disagree. I explain the reasons why I don't believe what they believe, and vice-versa. Is this "militant atheism" on my part? Am I guilty of "spiritual genocide" because I'm openly critical of the Christian faith?In Round #1, my opponent defined atheism as "claiming a god [Creator of our reality] does not exist." Whether or not atheism is "irrational" is not a matter of how emotionally gratifying you find it to believe that God exists. Christianity may very well make you feel good. It may make you feel like your life is more purposeful. But, snorting cocaine will also make you feel really good. Taking LSD can make you feel like you've discovered the meaning of life. Is it "irrational" to say no to cocaine and LSD?
Atheism is an irrational stance on God

According to the OED, the word ‘rational' means “based on or in accordance with reason or logic.” I will argue that it is hardly unreasonable (or illogical) to claim that a deity does not exist. It is true that Christianity offers people solace, friendship, love, security, and more. The same can be said for many (if not all) religions. The same can be said for all sorts of ludicrous beliefs. Just because it’s emotionally gratifying to believe in X does not make it rational to believe in X. My opponent seems to think that atheists are hostile towards Christians, and friendly towards Muslims. This isn’t true. Many atheists are critical of Islam. For example, Sam Harris: “While I do not mean to single out the doctrine of Islam for special abuse, there is no question that, at this point in history, it represents a unique danger to all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike…insofar as a person is observant of the doctrine of Islam — that is, insofar as he really believes it — he will pose a problem for us. Indeed, it has grown rather obvious that the liabilities of the Muslim faith are by no means confined to the beliefs of Muslims “extremists.” The response of the Muslim world to the events of September 11, 2001, leaves no doubt that a significant number of human beings in the twenty-first century believe in the possibility of martyrdom….To see that our problem is with Islam itself, and not merely with “terrorism,” we need only ask ourselves why Muslim terrorists do what they do…The answer to this question is obvious…The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran…” [1] Christopher Hitchens called Islam “the most depraved” of all religions. “The most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form… The whole idea of wanting to end up with Sharia with a religion-governed state — a state of religious law — and the best means of getting there is Jihad, Holy War, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness and I think their religion is nonsense, in its entirety.” [2] If you’re looking at atheists from the western world, you’ll probably hear more about Christianity than you will about Islam because Christianity is the dominant religion in the west. But let’s cut to the chase. Is it irrational to claim that a deity doesn’t exist, because Christianity is emotionally gratifying and certain liberals (not necessarily atheists) have been too tolerant of Islam? Definitely not. [1] Sam Harris, “The End of Faith” [2] http://www.inquisitr.com...
Lebanon Bombing is Impetus for West's Planned Sunni-Shi'ia War

It was, starting at least in 2007, the goal of the US, Saudis, and Israelis to trigger a region wide sectarian war with which to overrun the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. This was documented in detail in Seymour Hersh's 2007 New Yorker article, "The Redirection (http://www.newyorker.com...)".
Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City

As I can clearly see that my knowledge of both of these games is limited, I'm not going to attempt to argue this on a gameplay mechanic. As I will continue to state in my rebuttals, Pro has failed to do two things. -Pro has failed to define superior. I will now define 'superior' as containing more dragons. . http://www.debate.org...As you can see, a quick Google search turned up this. Monster Legends contains fewer dragons than Dragon City - Dragon City contains 276 dragons. [1]Meanwhile, according to the page of Monster Legends, it only contains 'over 100 monsters'. This means that it cannot have more dragons. Therefore, Dragon City is superior to Monster Legends. But let's assume that superior did not mean more dragons. It is impossible, by the nature of superiority, to prove that any game is objectively superior to another. I can say that Ocarina of Time is worse than Big Rigs- and to me, Big Rigs is superior. Therefore, this debate is an autowin for Con on both counts. Thank you, and please vote Con.1. ) . https://www.quora.com...
Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City

1. Easier resources While both give you a steady supply of both Gold and Food( both are needed to advance your monsters/dragons, gems are a whole 'nother ballpark. Gems allow you to buy certain monsters/dragons, speed up construction, and buy you extra food/gold. In Monster legends, it is surprisingly easy to get gems, allowing you to gain them during events, buy them, watch videos to gain them, and let's you perform different tasks to get them. Plus, sometimes, they bump up the number of gems you can get from videos/tasks to 2x or 4x the usual amount! Dragon city lacks all of the easy ones,, only allowing you to gain gems by either buying them with real money, or by doing certain tasks. 2. Better PVP system While both have a standard PVP system, Monster Legends takes it up a lot. You can fight other people normally, compete in events, and join a clan to fight other clans, KoK style. Dragon City has the bare minimum, only having a PVP system limited to only a couple people at a time. 3. Wider variety While in Dragon City, you can only get dragons(obviously), in Monster City, you can get almost anything imaginable, from boxes of chocolate(Chocolove), to fire trolls(firesque)! 4. Better teacher Pandalf, the one that teaches you in Monster Legends, is better at teaching you the ways of the game than the teacher in Dragon City, Deus. Plus, later in the game, you can get Pandalf as a character! 5. Easier way to get legendaries In Monster Legends, you can get insane discounts on legendaries, allowing you to buy them much cheaper than usual. You can also get them in events, and breed them pretty early on. In Dragon City, you can breed legends, but only when your very far into the game. Also, there are legendaries in events in Dragon City, but they are only in the very end of surprisingly difficult events, where you usually have to buy your way through it using real money. And these are just a few of the reasons why Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City
Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City

Rebuttal only as agreed upon. There are two major flaws in Pro's argument. Firstly, Pro has provided no sources for his arguments. This means that such assertions as'In Monster Legends you can get insane discounts on legendaries' are not demonstrably true. The only way to prove such an assertion would be to a) provide us with a screenshot with proof of these 'insane' discounts, or to link us to a legitimate source (not the wiki, as you could have just edited it to prove your point). This means that all of Pro's arguments can be disregarded. Secondly, Pro makes another assertion which his entire rebuttal is based upon. 'it is not the correct definition'Who says this is not the correct definition? I provided you with a definition, with a source. You failed to define the motion, and so I did so. You cannot now say'Oops, I forgot. Let me retroactively define the motion over your definition. 'According to the Cambridge Union Society. the closing government cannot change the definition [1]. This is exactly what you have, however, done, and so I would encourage readers (and voters) to disregard this attempted redefinition. Then, of course, this disproves Pro's rebuttal, and my argument still stands. As BoP is on Pro as the instigator (and he did not specify that BoP was on me) Con wins in this debate. tl;dr? Pro's arguments are sourceless and Pro has failed to tell us why exactly this makes Monster Legends 'superior' to Dragon City. BoP rests upon Pro, and as such the motion is denied. ]]Vote Con.1. ). https://cus.org...
Monster Legends is superior to Dragon City

Rebuttals: To be fair, Con has a valid point on this, however, it is not the correct definition of superior. Superior: 1. higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc. Obviously, this is not the correct way to put it. However, the other definition for it is better. 2. Above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc. ( both from . http://dictionary.reference.com...) Based on this definition, it is safe to assume that Con's thesis is not correct. Having more of something does not make it "superior" to another. Since this is the only argument Con made, his standing is very brittle, as I have disproved his only argument, so he has basically no arguments.
America is a slave to fashion.

1. I am going to assume that your statement is that people will always be critisized about their clothes. This statement is untrue. There are many situations in which people will not be critisized about their clothes. First of all, they will not be critisized if their clothes are judged to be "cool", and they generally fit in. There just would not be any reason for it. Second of all, they will not be critised if there are more important things going on, or in less affluent societies. for example, communities of homeless do not generally judge the clothes eachother wear because they have more pressig things to worry about, such as finding food. Third, there are many people who won't critisize people's clothing, be it because they are too nice, too shy, too afraid, or if they have worse clothing themselves. Therefore, when people are around people like that their clothing choices willnot be critized. Finally, people's clothing will not be critisized when there are things such as uniforms in affect. For example, in a school where everyone must wear the same uniform, clothing will not be critisized because it will all be the same. As to the slave of fashion thing, there are many people who just don't care about what they ear very much, or have their own preferred style. While it may appear from the news and the media that fashion is alll important to Americans, it really is only important to one segment of the population, and by no means is it important to everyone. Just because this does not hold true for your peer group does not mean it s wrong. There you go. (in general it is not a good idea to accept an absolute burden of proof in a debate)
Resolved: Poseidon and prometheus were originally the same entity

Dropped Arguments Con didn’t refute any of my arguments. Con dropped every single one of my arguments. Rebuttal Con didn’t really argue any points; he just listed off a bunch of facts about Poseidon and Prometheus. I will not contend the existence of these myths, because these myths support my point. Prometheus-Enki Connection As Con so kindly pointed out, Prometheus was credited with bringing arts and crafts to humanity, and Prometheus was credited with making man out of clay. As I mentioned in the last round, Prometheus also saved mankind from a flood. The Sumerian God Enki shares all of these attributes with Prometheus. It was Enki who brought arts and crafts to humanity, it was Enki who created man from clay, and it was Enki who saved man from the flood. Poseidon-Enki Connection As I mentioned before, “Enki” and “Poseidon” both mean “Lord of the Earth”. Enki and Poseidon were both sea gods, they were both the older brother of a storm god (Zeus/Enlil) that served as the head of the pantheon, and they both were the son of the progenitor of the gods (Cronus/An). Both Poseidon and Enki shared a close relation to the sun god (Apollo/Utu), which was the son of the storm god (Zeus/Enlil). Prometheus-Agni Connection As Mātariśvan, Agni brought fire to mankind from the heavens. As Apam Napat, Agni created mankind. Prometheus brought fire to mankind from the heavens, and created mankind from clay. Poseidon-Agni Connection Like Poseidon, Agni was the brother of the storm god (Zeus/Indra), and the son of the progenitor of the gods (Cronus/ Dyauṣpitṛ). Poseidon’s Latin name is Neptūnus, which like Apam Napat derives from the Proto-Indo-European *H2epom Nepots. Apam Napat is the Vedic god of fresh water, and is one of the many names of Agni. *H2epom Nepots Origin Both Prometheus and Poseidon share a common origin. Both originate from the proto-Indo-European myth of *H2epom Nepots. Poseidon and Prometheus was originally the same entity.
Resolved: Poseidon and prometheus were originally the same entity

first to understand who these people were. Poseidon:Greek god of the sea. Son of Kronos and Rhea. He and his siblings were swallowed by Kronos, but they were later rescued by their brother Zeus. The brothers Zeus, Poseidon and Hades later divided the world among themselves, with Poseidon receiving dominion over the sea. His chief consort was Amphitrite. Father of Antaios, Orion and Polyphemos. Poseidon was secondarily a god of mariners (to whom he may send storms or a fair voyage), of waters in general, and of earthquakes. In the latter capacity he was known as Enosigaios or Enosichthon, meaning "earth-shaker". Athena defeated Poseidon in their famous contest for the allegiance of Athens. While Poseidon offered humanity the boon of the horse, Athena offered the olive. Elsewhere, he helped Apollo build the walls of Troy. However, he became an implacable enemy of Troy after Laomedon refused to pay him, and he sided with the Greeks in the Trojan War. Poseidon was closely associated with horses as Hippios ("of horses"), and the horse was sacred to him. He fathered many famous horses, including the winged Pegasus by the Gorgon Medusa, and another winged horse, Areon, by Erinys. In Corinth, horse-races were held in his honour. On Argos horses were sacrificed to him by drowning in a whirlpool. Poseidon was generally depicted as an older, bearded man carrying a trident (the three-pronged fisherman's spear). There were temples at Cape Sunium, the southern-most tip of Greece, at Pylos in Crete, and Mount Mykale in Greek Anatolia. Freshwater springs were often consecrated to Poseidon as well. As an oracular deity, he had an oracle at Cape Tainairon and, according to one tradition, he was the first keeper of the oracle at Delphi. Regattas were held in his honour off Cape Sunium. Poseidon's chief festival was the Isthmia, scene of the Isthmian Games, celebrated near the Isthmus of Corinth. Prometheus:Greek god and culture hero. Son of the Titan Iapetos and Klymene. Prometheus is best known for the story of his conflict with Zeus. This began when Prometheus tricked Zeus into accepting the bones and fat of a sacrifice instead of the meat. Zeus retaliated by hiding fire from humanity, but Prometheus stole the fire and gave it to mankind. As punishment for this rebellion, Zeus had Prometheus chained to a rock in the Caucasus Mountains, where an eagle fed on his liver, which continually restored itself. Zeus also sent Pandora and her jar of evils to even the score with humanity. As for Prometheus, Herakles eventually killed the eagle and released him. As a culture hero, Prometheus was also given credit for teaching humanity various handicrafts and arts, and he was considered a patron of craftsmen and artisans. According to another tradition, Prometheus actually created humanity, shaping the first man and woman out of clay and water.
Resolved: Poseidon and prometheus were originally the same entity

The Flood In Sumerian mythology Enlil, the God of storms, became angry with humanity. Enlil sent a flood to wipe out the humanity, but his older brother, Enki, warns Ziusudra, the ruler of Shuruppak, of the impending flood. Enki instructs Ziusudra to build a boat, in order to save his family and lifestock. The flood lasted 7 days, after which Ziusudra made sacrifices and prostrated himself before An, the God of the Sky, and Enlil, the God of the storms. In Greek mythology King Lycaon of Arcadia fed Zeus the flesh of his own son. Zeus became angry with King Lycaon, and turned him into a wolf. Zeus than flooded the Earth, in order to punish humanity for Lycaon’s sins; only those who fled into the mountains survived. Prometheus warned his son, Deucalion, king of Phthia, of the impending flood. Deucalion and his family took refuge in a wooden chest. The flood lasted 9 days, after which Deucalion made sacrifices to Zeus, who is both the God of the sky and the God of storms. The two deluge myths are nearly identical; the only major plot difference is that Prometheus, rather than Poseidon, saved Deucalion from the deluge. Recap The Greek myth of Poseidon is equivalent to the Sumerian myth of Enki, the Vedic myth of Agni, and the PIE myth of *H2epom Nepot. The Greek myth of Prometheus is equivalent to the Vedic myth of Agni, and the PIE myth of *H2epom Nepot. The Greek myth of the Deucalion Deluge is equivalent to the Sumerian Deluge myth; in the Deucalion Deluge myth Prometheus is equated with Enki of the Sumerian Deluge myth. Both Poseidon and Prometheus are equated with the Sumerian God Enki, the Vedic God Agni, and the PIE god *H2epom Nepot. Because of this we can safely assume that Poseidon and Prometheus were derived from the same God at some point in time. We can also conclude that because the Greek religion is has its roots in the Proto-Indo-European religion, and because both Poseidon and Prometheus derive from the same PIE deity, that Poseidon and Prometheus were originally the same deity. . http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Corruption is worse than armed robbery

"Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit." - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org... Corruption is the root cause of all fraudulent acts in the society including armed robbery. You cannot say that armed robbery is worse than what it is spawned from. Furthermore, corruption can do a lot of damage to country's economy while armed robbery only has an effect on a country's citizens. If a country's economy is badly affected by corruption, it can and will put the country in a bad light. Corruption also has its levels and its ranks. Since it is mostly done by those in power, and those in power have their ranks, it is very easy to tell that corruption is no small 'business'. This is a crime that goes hand in hand with embezzlement and bribery. And it unknowingly eats up a country's economy until the citizens are left to fend for themselves and the people in power are living the 'high life'.
Corruption is worse than armed robbery

Corruption is worse than armed robbery. I say this because when an robbery takes place it is possible to track down the robbers and get the stolen money back however when it comes to corruption, the government and other people in the leadership can extort money without people even knowing and even if the scandalous act is put on the news for the world to see, it would still be hard to get the money back. While both corruption and armed robbery are no great things, I can safely argue that it is possible to track down any criminal, regardless of the crime. Here are some examples of corruption "scandals" and if you read the article, you'll also see the fines against the criminal charges. https://en.wikipedia.org... Quickly it becomes clear that people involved in corruption can and are caught all the time and can be made to pay for their crimes.
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

Now notice this foolishness. His entire argument is premised on not only the speed of light being constant throughout time, but that he can accurate measure that speed. Now he says that the measurement is not relevant. He is confused. A real scientist who understands the limits of science would say that we have never observed the speed of light changing, but that does not imply it did not change in the past. He will never say this because a) he is not a real scientist and b) because it is an admission against interest that defeats his claim and exposes that he is making the arbitrary assumption I accused him of. Again, since his argument is based on an arbitrary assumption which he has not only failed to prove, but cannot prove scientifically (that darn requirement of observation again), we are free to reject that assumption and when we do, his argument falls apart. This dude has failed to carry his BOP and loses the debate.
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

"You have no idea what the speed of light was before people started measuring it." Whether we measure it or not makes no difference. If a tree falls in the woods and you're not there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does. "Now, you claim that that the speed of light slowing down has never been observed." No, I claim that the speed of light doesn't change IN A VACUUM. "But I do thank you for confirming that you have no basis to claim God creating light in transit is 'absurd'" My basis for its absurdity is in the form of a question, which you have now ignored twice. My two questions still stand unanswered either as a result of blindness (in which case you should pay a visit to the doctor), cowardice or lack of an answer. 1) Why would such a kind God want to trick everyone on Earth by making it look like the universe is very old? 2) Can God make a rock that even he cannot lift? If you are a troll, then congratulations because you do it very well. However, I ask that you don't accept any of my debate challenges anymore as this is a waste of my time. That is, unless you begin to argue more reasonably.
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

You keep missing the point. You have no idea what the speed of light was before people started measuring it. Given this, you depart from science, which mandates observation, and assume that the speed of light is constant. This assumption is not grounded in science, making it arbitrary. If you can arbitrary choose one assumption, I can arbitrarily choose another. When we use my assumption, the data supports my conclusion that the earth is approximate 6K years old. The speed of light is not a law of the universe, BTW. Now, you claim that that the speed of light slowing down has never been observed. While there is data to indicate to the contrary, let us assume that is true. So? Has the speed of light prior to, say, 1650 been observed? Nope. This is why you are making an arbitrary assumption. Reject that assumption and your argument fails. But I do thank you for confirming that you have no basis to claim God creating light in transit is "absurd", that such is merely an emotional response of one who really has no logical reason behind anything they claim to be true. So, where is your objective proof that the earth is 13.8B years old. So far, you have merely begged the question.