BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

First I'm going to explain why scientifically inexplicable things DON'T happen to atheists. It's because they don't happen at all. there is no such thing as faith healing or the like. We don't believe things that are supernatural happen, and therefore look for more rational answers. When confronted with the extraordinary, we do not accept magic to be an answer. Have you heard of James Randi? This won't of course be enough but I would like to point out that his organization is offering a million dollar prize for anyone who can prove the supernatural.(1) As you may have already guessed, it has yet to be won. If you really can prove it, contact him, win a million dollars. This is because faith healing, like magic, is all a mixture of trickery and emotion. People like Peter Popoff are great examples of this, he works by knowing things about people that he couldn't possibly know, such as their name and sickness, as if he is receiving a message from god. Then with the entire crowed emotional he will "smite" their arthritis or throw out their walker. They are healed! Nope, just high on emotion makes them feel better. This has been know to kill people, faith healers claiming cancer is gone, so people don't get treatment. However, that's not all of what you mentioned. Firstly, the "scientific" documentation of miracles, was not done by a scientist. I found no mention of him anywhere else on the internet. Not to mention the lack of evidence, only a short paragraph. The website itself says that anyone skeptical will find it laughable... and they were right. As for your others, I conclude that Wikipedia is a reliable source, but I disagree with these so called "incurable" diseases. I argue that there is no such thing as an incurable disease, proven by your own sources and my own(2). This does not mean, however, that science can cure all diseases, only that they are curable. The bodies immune system is an amazing thing, and while there may not yet be a medicinal cure for these diseases the immune system can, in rare instances, rid the body of disease. What more would I require of you? Win the million dollars. I am sincere as well. I am no scientist, I cannot claim to know all there is about medicine. The people from the James Randi foundation are scientists, and will not be fooled by tricks, cheap or elaborate. If you wish to convince skeptics worldwide, then have science really confirm what you "know" to be true. You say it shouldn't be hard to find miracles happening to atheists, I disagree. Try it. (1) http://www.randi.org... (2) http://modernmanna.org...
gun control and the purge related..

Although you did not stick on our subject of debate (which is: gun control and purge related) I believe that the government has the responsibility of keeping its citizens safe. IF AND ONLY IF the government was not able to do so, citizens should defend themselves. Other than that keeping the guns with citizens during peace times would be promote mob rule and the formation of these mobs that will practice illegal acts and will not respect the law, the government, nor the people who are represented by the government.
gun control and the purge related..

I would have to disagree with your opinion. You stated that and I quote: " the government wants to take away people's guns (gun control) is so they can/plan have a purge" at the same time you forgot the fact that the arms that ordinary people bear which are mainly light arms can't in any way stand a chance against the vast military power of any nation including naval and air force (which I doubt any ordinary person can have access to) , not to mention weapons of mass destruction that have been transformed to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with a minimum range of 5,500 Km. Concerning reducing the number of population there are plenty of peaceful strategies that are based on the meaningful education of the public to spread awareness on the advantages of population planning. Concerning the "want people to become defenseless by the time they take over the world" opinion, How could people with their light arms defend themselves against weapons of mass destruction that can cross continents and strikes the surface at a speed of 7 km/sec.
gun control and the purge related..

In my opinion, I believe why the government wants to take away people's guns (gun control) is so they can/plan have a purge. (If you don't know what a purge is; google it,it is based on a movie but I am scared if it happens in real life) WHY would they want a purge, you may ask ? Because maybe they want to reduce the population by killing millions of people. Or they want people to become defenseless by the time they take over the world.
Marvel is better than DC

I think DC, being the older comic book company, has shown that as times and people's taste change, they are able to adapt and change as well. The prime example of this would be one of DC cornerstone superheroes: Batman. The Batman has changed and adapted thru his nearly 75 years in Comics. These adaptations and changes have not always be for the best : mainly the softening of Batman in the early 50s thru mid 60's being a prime example,he was turned into a campy, comedian because of the Comics Code which destroyed numerous characters and a number of Comic book companies. But there has been times when Batman has adapted and changed for the better: The "Dark Knight" transformation ushered in by Frank Miller in 1986 was a great transformation for Batman. this time being portrayed as an 55 year old Batman coming out of retirement . Wayne must deal with being older and feeling the effects of years of being a vigilante and what it has done to his body and his mindset. You feel the character's situation and how his life has been and you actually realize Wayne/Batman is a great deal like you are, and even with his costume and all his gadgets, Batman is basically a Human being just like you are. Even DC's equally well known Superhero, Superman , adapts and changes as the years go by. And just like Batman, these changes have sometimes have not been all that good.. Yet Superman continues to carry on and entertain and inspire folks.. DC has managed to stay alive and productive for 80 years, in an Industry that can be very tough to make it in. DC has adapted and changed, not always for the best, but they remain a viable Company and a number of their Superheroes have become well known Icons, familiar to millions of People the World over.
The Impossibility of Impossibility

I still violated and went against my own side. Thus, conduct points go to you. And btw, fha;lsfhjldhf;alshghlajg. There is grammar. I have no sources. No one will agree with me. All points now go to Con. So please, I urge everyone to vote Con. lLol. At least i dont have to worry about grammar lmao lol rofl peanut butter. Now, the statement it is impossible for me to lose is an impossibility.
The Impossibility of Impossibility

Within this debate I will be arguing about a very serious topic: the impossibility of impossibility. Is impossibility possible? Or is it impossible? That is the question. So here, we come, to debate about this question that has been pondered over many many years, perhaps even centuries. We question about the existence of impossibility. Could everything be possible after all? I don't think so. I think there exists some impossibility, and thus, impossibility is proved possible.pro will have to argue impossibility is impossible. Oh, what a paradox!Impossible: unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.from http://dictionary.reference.com...;
enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from extraterrestials

It was an unidentifed object. it didn't have any natural explanations that weren't grasping at straws. many people saw it.You've answered your own claim. If something is unidentified, it does not mean that the answer is extraterrestrial life, it means that we do not know what it is or who made it. Definition of unidentified: not known[1]. It looked like something not man made.This is not evidence that it was made by extraterrestrials. You still have to prove that there are UFOs from extraterrestrials. Sources:[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from extraterrestials

Hello, Pro. I'll accept this debate. I am intrigued by the idea that exterresstrials exist. Burden of proofSince you claimed that enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from exterrestrials, you must meet your burden of proof in proving that there is indeed evidence that sighted UFOs are from extraterrestrials. Here is one example...In that example on a wikipedia page, it shows that people claim to have spotted a UFO. On the page, it does not say anywhere or prove that the said UFO was from extraterrestrials. There is not even any mention of extraterrestrials at all.
Gay Marriage

"If we deny that humans have an essence, and also something they are directed toward just because they have the essence, we are reduced to saying there is nothing objective that makes a human a human, which goes against postulate 1."This does not change the fact that they are different. No amount of morality, something I believe to ultimately be subjective, is going to change that. I also don't believe that human nature is completely "objective," and I would like con to try and convince me otherwise.So with this said, this means that we cannot change them, so why not let them be as they are and be comfortable with it?"This logic applied to sexuality yields results that sexual desire is rationally and essentially...directed toward the man ejaculating his semen into the woman"s vagina, and not toward anything else....Thus, I hold gay marriage to be inherently unreasonable..."It's perhaps unfortunate, then, that we cannot use reason to change innate attraction."This should explain why gay marriage does hurt the "traditional family:" making gay marriage out to be marriage would logically make all marriages purely subjective. I hope this also explains why using arguments from nature (in which a nature is defined as an essence in which there is an inherent principle of change) is not just using the naturalistic fallacy (i.ewhatever happens in the wild is morally good)."While I agree that the "naturalistic fallacy" is inappropriate to use and, of course, a fallacy, I do not believe that gay marriage encourages homosexuallity, due to the fact that it is not a choice; therefore, it would remain the same either way. I do not believe that homosexuallity is morally wrong, nor do I believe that gay marraige is. The fact that a homosexual couple cannot provide offspring and that their marriage is different does not make it this way.I think that if two people are in love (whatever "love" is to you or to me), have sexual feelings for each other (at least in the case of those who are not asexual, which is a debate for another time) and devote themselves to each other over all others (perhaps save for relatives), it would be hard to tell them they aren't married if they went through a marriage ceremony, regardless of genders.
Gay Marriage

Con has reached out to me via a private message to address that his forfeit was due to the computer telling him he had more time than he actually did. I'll make a short extension to my previous argument and then he can respond to both.Since this should be an issue of law, religion should not play a role. We must ask ourselves: Are there secular reasons to ban gay marriage? Con answered this question in a poll with this reasoning:"A necessary (though not sufficient) condition for marriage is the possibility of the marital act, i.e. sexual intercourse. Two individuals of the same sex cannot engage in sexual intercourse self-evidently. Hence, a necessary condition for marriage is lacking to all gay marriages. Thus, gay marriage is a impossible given our genetic makeup, just as square circles are impossible given the postulates of Euclidean geometry. This is a secular reason to "ban" gay marriage, although the word "ban" is a little inappropriate in this situation."Does this mean marriage must involve sexual intercourse and, by extension, reproduction, to be legitimate? Con seems to think so, as attested by this quote on how it would affect him:"It would determine society's attitude toward my future marriage, as well as society's attitude toward all marriages present, past, and future....The reason that marriage has tax breaks, has a certain measure of dignity, etc. is because of the worth everyone recognizes the worth of marriage for primarily procreation and secondarily the bonding of two people..."By this logic, we should ban all people incapable of procreation the right to marry, as well as those who choose not to procreate. To say that we should ban a type of marriage on grounds of maintaining procreation is moot; people who are gay do not choose to be (though that is for a debate of another time), so there will be no significant change either way. Mankind is certainly not endangered by of underpopulation due to homosexuality.
Gay Marriage

I would like to welcome con to DDO and to his/her first debate :) Now, let's get started...Also, I would like to apologize that this argument is not as extensive as I would have liked. I've been extremely busy this week and haven't had much time for DDO. Here's what I have, made with what little time I had. One commonly used argument against gay marriage is the destruction of the traditional family. This argument might actually have some validity if the traditional family was in danger or exclusively required for survival, which it's not. If that's the argument, more laws should be passed to encourage, or even force, a "traditional" family, which would be an encroachment on our rights. Furthermore, many traditions are based on cultural norms, which are challenged on both large and small scales on a regular basis. On a related note, my opponent has claimed that Ireland, who now allows gay marriage, "will end up crying over this illogical and emotionally charged decision when the chickens come home to roost in a country whose institutions have fallen apart due to a lack of large and strong families to pay the taxes." [1] I would like con to show me something that claims that to be a legitimate statistic. Moreover, it's commonly argued that homosexuality is simply against human nature, therefore being wrong and unworthy of a marriage license. It seems that "human nature" in this context is subjective. Some ancient civilizations accepted (or even encouraged) homosexuality and often people identified as bisexual. Also, it's not like we are the only animals who behave this way; the list of other animals who do is extensive. [2] If I remember correctly - and I mean this in complete seriousness - bonobos in particular with often have orgies with any gender for the sake of stress relief.Back to you, con. Sources: [1]: http://www.debate.org...[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Slum tourism is helping the poor

I kind of am tired of repeating the same thing over and over, so I will not be refuting my opponent's arguments this round. I believe that slum tourism does not help the poor for 3 reasons: 1. Slum tours make very little profits. Even if they want to place that money in the community, there is very little to do so. And even if people do donate separately of the tour, slum tourism is still growing as an industry which means its audience is also small. 1 million people went on a slum tour in 2014, that is not much considering the amount of tourists in the world--thus the donations sent t0 charities are also small in number. (https://www.citymetric.com...) 2. Often, profits do not end up back in the community. There are stories of communities being toured and then not receiving any money in return. Stories of locals hosting such tours and barely making anything, if at all. I will admit, this could be because of the little profits made in the first place. Either way, the community is not benefited very much. 3. Even if the slum tours are good and the profits go to charity, this is not a long-term solution to poverty. It does not truly help poor people. I am not saying that we should stop charity, I am saying that it is NOT sustainable.
Slum tourism is helping the poor

Definitions: slum tourism - tourism in financially distressed countries poverty - living on less than $2.37 a day First, who are affected by poverty and what does it mean for them? Right now, more than three billion people live in on less than $3.14 a day, and one billion of those people are children. In addition, 805 million people are food insecure and 750 million people lack access to clean drinking water, causing a total of 842 000 deaths a year. This correlates to 165 million children under the age of five getting stunted, due to chronic malnutrition in 2011. Secondly, how does slum tourism help change all this? There are many charities that help with poverty. For example, the Against Malaria Foundation donates every single penny to help kids from getting malaria, amounting to a total of 29 million nets donated to various countries so far. Another great charity is the END Fund, which helped treat more than 140 million people suffering from neglected tropical diseases, including the 10 000 surgeries provided. You already know from my previous contention that poverty is dangerous. But how do people know about these charities? Well first, some tour organizations directly donate their profit to charities, so not all people have to donate to charities, for example, Reality Tours and Travel directly donate over 80% of their profit to leading charities and back to the community. Now, what about the rest of the people? Well in almost all tours, at the end, the tour guide will recommend you to donate to a leading charity. So there is already a high chance of donations. 1) http://realitytoursandtravel.com... 2) http://www.globalissues.org... 3) https://www.dosomething.org... 4) https://www.unicef.org...
China is the strongest Nation on Earth

My Arguments will show how the USA or Russia are better. Now I will start off with several points. 1. www. globalfirepower. com In here it states China is the third strongest nation. 2. . http://www.military-today.com... China has merely the tenth best aircraft. 3. . http://www.military-today.com... Once again China merely holds tenth place. 4. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... China doesn't have as many aircraft as China or Russia. 5. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... Russia has more tanks. 6. . http://nationalinterest.org... America holds first with best navies for this, while China 2, Russia third. 7. . http://www.military-today.com... Holds a mere fourth place for best aircraft carriers. 8. . http://www.military-today.com... Show me where China has even a place here. 9. . http://www.military-today.com... China holds 7th place here compared to the places America and Russia have. 10. . http://www.military-today.com... China holds 5th while America has 4th and Russia has 6th 11. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... China holds 15th place here. 12. . http://www.military-today.com... China isn't on here. 13. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... Russia and America beat them here. 14. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... Russia wins in MLRS with America trailing behind China for once. 15. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... America dwarfs them here. 16. Russia's cyber warfare capabilities are near equal to China's. Russia has the second-best electronic warfare capabilities (next to Japan, India, and America, which are tied). Russia also has good defense measures. Conclusion from arguments. In almost everything Russia and America beat China or almost beat them. My opponent will have to try to prove after all these sources that China is the stronger than Russia and America.
China is the strongest Nation on Earth

China is powerful, but not the strongest nation at least not now. Pro will try to disprove this. Rules: 1. No biased voters. 2. Nothing inappropriate. 3. Forfeits will count against you. 4. Wikipedia is valid source unless my sources disprove it which I believe are more reliable. 5. Don't take nuclear weapons into account to make this more fair 6. Pro will have to prove that China is the strongest nation without accounting allies. nation: a large area of land that is controlled by its own government This nation must be recognized by the UN and must exist today meaning no ISIS, Yugoslavia etc.
The recent removal of a inoperable tumor was an act of God.

First I would like to point out some errors that bothered me. Wrong:asume Correct: assume Wrong: surguons Correct: surgeons Wrong: "who done it," Correct "who did it," Ok well now lets get started, "Well let's assume for a second that there is a God." - Fine by me, I don't have to pretend. Ok so by the statement above regardless of what your beliefs are (spectators) me and Samacado have both agreed that in regards to this debate we will both agree that there is a God. So just please keep that in mind. "It was the surgeons who did it, not some deity in the sky taking care of the entire universe." - Well, by making this statement you are basically discluding any point of prayer. With a high risk operation like the one mentioned above you can be certain that the family members (who believe in God because in this debate we have both agreed that we will assume God exists) have been praying. In the bible it clearly states that those who prayer will be heard regardless of Gods will. -So, when you are in an operation such as the topic when the risk factor is high and the statistics are against you BUT the operation goes well and the tumor is removed, assuming that there is a God and that family members where praying it is common sense to assume that God did help in some way.
It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'll just make my refutations according to my opponent's paragraphs. 1. If you're killing for a reason then you are not killing somebody in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever, hence resolution is negated because we can not evaluate the morality of an impossible act as I said previously. My opponent contradicts himself here again. 2. Another contradiction, if morality is subjective then it is impossible to make an absolute objective moral statement as the resolution would require. I pointed out this earlier and my opponent again does not respond. 3. Social norms are not known by everybody as we do not even have a universal guide to norms (objective morality doesn't exist as my opponent admitted). Psychopaths may have no guilt, but that doesn't mean they don't get some pleasure or joy out of killing thus they are not killing for "absolutely no reason whatsoever" so this argument has no bearing here. 4. If I believe something is impossible I don't believe it's morally wrong. Pigs can't fly, that doesn't mean I don't think it would be awesome if pigs could fly. 5. I'm sorry there is an argument here? At the moment all Pro has done is make baseless assertions, ignore Con's arguments, and contradict himself. 6 + 7. Again my opponent does not understand his own argument, if somebody is killing me because I looked at them the wrong way then they are killing for a reason. The reason being I looked at them the wrong way. This is completely irrelevant to the resolution we are debating. 8. If you choose Con you're saying that you don't buy a Pro argument if it has no warrant, if it's completely off topic, if it contradicts itself, if it does not answer the resolution, if it fails to respond to the Con's case, and is just a poor show of debating in general. Conclusion. 1. I'm pretty sure I lost conduct due to my bluntness, but I can't stand debaters who try to pull red herrings all over the place. 2. In terms of arguments, Con has proved that you negate because: a. Objective morality does not exist thus we do not make an objective moral statement by Affirming. b. It is impossible to kill for no reason whatsoever, therefore we can not evaluate the morality of an impossible action.