BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Loves You All

Since pro has not clearly defined "love", I will do so to prevent any conflicts against the meaning of the word. Definition of love: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... In order to disprove that god loves us, I will use pro's own argument to disprove god's love. " If you keep insisting God does not love you, you will forever prove that you can't feel His love in the fire of Hell." Based on the definition of love, all god has to do to love someone and give them constant affection. The other person does not have to love you back, in order for god to love you. Based on Pro's argument, god will send you to hell, if you do not love him. That means, god does not love you, if you don't love him. (Because god will send you to hell if you don't love him). Therefor, god does not love us all. Lets talk about god's creation shall we? If god did love us, the sun (which is our main natural light source), wouldn't give us skin cancer, or blindness if we looked at he's wonderful creation too long. If god did love us, he would show compassion and affection to the dying kids, or babies with birth defect. God, doesn't show any compassion to the hungry, for he lets them be. If god did love us, we could go out into space, without having to worry about us dying from lack of oxygen, or freezing to death. If god did love us, he wouldn't punish the people who question the existence of him. He would understand why people don't believe in him, because he never showed himself in physical form. He would understand why some people would believe in scientific theories, because he would understand people why people chose to believe in evidences for theories. (evidence for evolution-fossils and similarities between related living organisms. Evidence for big bang-Inflation, cosmic radiation, dark energy). If god did love us, he would let us explore the world, without having us to fear about the dangers of natural disasters. Source: http://science.nasa.gov... Source: http://necsi.edu... Source: http://listverse.com... That sums up my argument for round 1.
God Loves You All

God loves you all. God loves my opponent and God loves every person who gives reasons they think are logical as they try to prove God does not love them or anybody else. If you keep insisting God does not love you, you will forever prove that you can't feel His love in the fire of Hell. God is not going to put up with nonsense forever, and He is not going to allow bad attitudes to fly around freely stinking up His creation. Don't be a fool. Don't let your death be finalized as a sinner. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Death Penalty should be done away with

My opponent (Whoever chooses to accept) and I will be debating about whether or not the death penalty should be done away with. I am in favor that it should be. My opponent, whoever it will be, will not be. Anyone who wishes to debate me on this topic must follow these set of guidelines: You must follow common guidelines, such as plagiarism. A few jokes in between are acceptable, but other than that, take the debate seriously. Both sides must share their BoP. First round is for acceptance only. Failure to do so will result in an automatic loss.
Death Penalty should be done away with

Due to real-life problems, I was unable to post my response to the other argument. Here is my response to the case that Pro has presented. He mentioned that "the frequency of criminals escaping from prison ranges from 1% to literally less than 5%" Consider the following: 1) The number of escapees from prison may be 1%, but the fact that current populations detail that 1% would equal anywhere between 6,000 and 9,000 prisoners out of the 1 million total prisoners that are currently in the system makes a shocking fact. 2) In this year alone, six famous prisoners escaped from prison, several of those that were serving life sentences and one was even in solitary confinement. On May 4, 2014, Michael Wheatley, 55, dubbed "The Skull Cracker" who was given 13 life sentences for a string of raids on banks and building societies, failed to return to HMP Standford Hill open prison on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, United Kingdom. He was arrested on May 7, 2014. On June 8, 2014, Yves Denis Yvon Lamontagne, 35, Denis Lefebvre, 53, and Serge Pomerleau, 49, escaped from a Quebec Detention Center with help from a helicopter. The three men were arrested a couple weeks later and returned to the same facility from which they previously escaped.[14] On September 11, 2014, T.J. Lane, 19, a remorseless killer serving three life sentences for indiscriminately killing fellow students at his Ohio high school in 2012, and Clifford E. Opperud, 45, escaped Allen Correctional Institution. Lane was apprehended about 5 hours after his escape while Opperud was captured about 8 hours after his escape. [15] [16] (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3) The death penalty has been known to save many lives throughout history. According to the Heritage Foundation, they made a notice that "a 2003 study by Emory University researchers of data from more than 3,000 counties from 1977 through 1996 found that each execution, on average, resulted in 18 fewer murders per county." (Source: http://www.heritage.org...) Now, before people begin to think I am going off-topic by denouncing life sentences, I am going to mention this: this topic has been debated over a hundred times over the course of the last hundred or more years. The death sentence may be wrong, but the death sentence has been given by courts for two reasons: to protect future possible murder victims and as a perfect judgement to those who crimes are so heinous that even under extreme duress and/or the presence of a mental injury, the crime is not justified.
Death Penalty should be done away with

I am definitely expecting a good one! My opponent gives a scenario:"This case was an enhancement to a previous ruling done in Edmund v. Florida. Tison v. Arizona involved a defendant named Gary Tison, who was serving a life sentence for killing a prison guard. His three sons broke him out of prison, as well as his cellmate Randy Greenawalt. Following their escape, they soon went on a killing spree that involved several innocent civilians. When the whole gang was brought to court and tried, they were found guilty and were given the death penalty. When the case went to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the death penalty is issued when the defendant(s) is(are) involved in a crime spree knowingly and shows little or no remorse for what he/she has done. "He then goes on to say:"Now, let us use this case as an example. Say Gary Tison was given a life sentence and broken out again. Say you were out on a highway and stopped to help him (unknowingly, of course). Then he guns down you and your whole family, and this trip begins again. Would you rather have him executed for his actions or sentenced to life in prison, only to repeat what he'd done before. "His point is that the death penalty takes away any chance for the criminal to repeat what he had done. Indeed, it does. However, the frequency of criminals escaping from prison ranges from 1% to literally less than 5%[1]. Now, taking that in mind, the costs of the death penalty definitely outnumber the benefits. I await my opponent's arguments. [1] . http://www.slate.com...
Death Penalty should be done away with

Thank you for such a swift beginning. Now let me present my opinion on why the death penalty should not be abolished. The death penalty has been the main form of capital punishment since the eighteenth century BC. It was used for the purpose of penalizing those who had committed such heinous crimes in their region that could not be allowed to let live. An example of one of those heinous crimes was in 1680. Captain George Kendall had been accused of being a spy for Spain, which was a bitter enemy of Great Britain at the time of the colonization of Jamestown. He was executed. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Throughout the twentieth century (and also the end of the 19th century), the Supreme Court received several cases that tried arguing that the Death Penalty was unconstitutional. However, they were all turned down. The original argument stated that the Death Penalty was allowed under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. About 44 cases since 1879 have been brought to the Supreme Court determining the regulations and constitutionality of the Death Penalty. Let me give one as an example. Tison v. Arizona (1987) This case was an enhancement to a previous ruling done in Edmund v. Florida. Tison v. Arizona involved a defendant named Gary Tison, who was serving a life sentence for killing a prison guard. His three sons broke him out of prison, as well as his cellmate Randy Greenawalt. Following their escape, they soon went on a killing spree that involved several innocent civilians. When the whole gang was brought to court and tried, they were found guilty and were given the death penalty. When the case went to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the death penalty is issued when the defendant(s) is(are) involved in a crime spree knowingly and shows little or no remorse for what he/she has done. Source: http://www.casebriefs.com... Now, let us use this case as an example. Say Gary Tison was given a life sentence and broken out again. Say you were out on a highway and stopped to help him (unknowingly, of course). Then he guns down you and your whole family, and this trip begins again. Would you rather have him executed for his actions or sentenced to life in prison, only to repeat what he'd done before. I will await my opponent's response.
Death Penalty should be done away with

I look forward to a great debate! Good luck to my opponent!The death penalty should be done away with because there is an alternative to that: Life in prison. Here are some of the costs if the alternative is not taken:- "The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)"[1]- "Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made"[2]However, if the alternative is taken, if an inmate is later on proven innocent, it can be; He can be released from prison.Some of death penalty's advocates claim that it is a detterent to all crime. However, as recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, "there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty."[3]There not only is no conclusive evidence to its detterent value, but logically thinking, criminals know that their life is over. Thus, they just make the last of it and commit more crimes while they can.Most of society support death penalty, yes. However, that does not instantly mean that the death penalty is effective. You have to logically think it yourself AND hear out the opposition. The resolution is affirm. I await my opponent's arguments.[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...[3] http://www.icomdp.org...
Is there a God

Counter argument: The idiom 'Where there is smoke there is fire' may convey the idea that where there is order there is authority. The Bible tells us that God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9) When we are advised to "Do unto others...etc." we may understand that sin is doing something we don't want done to ourselves. I would like not to have lied 6 times so far this year, so "why" you infer "does God let me lie"; the answer, possibly, is that I become aware of how I fall short of being in God's grace; I don't deserve to be in the company of God due to my bad habits. Suffering is something we can look back on and learn that we often base our happiness on material things and forget the simple pleasures of life. Perhaps controlling our ego is part of the experience that makes us into better companions. I hope these propositions are persuasive and I look forward to your further arguments.
Is there a God

Why there isn't a God. A1: It's impossible for a God to exist because he is not immortal. God has psychological problems, he's so insecure he demands worship every seven days of the week. (Luke 18:1) "And he told them a parable that they ought always to pray and not lose heart." This verse states that you should praise God for what he's done even though he should already know that. A2: He creates faulty humans and then blames them for being faulty. (Romans 5:12) "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Now I understand that you have to earn your way into heaven by proving to God you are worthy, but if God hates sin so much then why doesn't he just get rid of it? Isn't he powerful enough to just get rid of sin altogether since he's so powerful? A3: The Great Disappointment. The Great Disappointment in the Millerite movement was the reaction that followed Baptist preacher William Miller's proclamations that Jesus Christ would return to the earth in 1844. Many followers had given away all of their possessions and were left bereft when the prophesy proved false. This proves that God made some of his people suffer because of a simple thing like visiting earth couldn't happen.
Is there a God

Even when we witness supernatural phenomena we can be doubtful because we are familiar with the magician's sleight of hand. It's when the magician is incorporeal that our horizons expand and we begin to accept that little miracles happen all around us daily. Mankind is 1/3 of sentient creation according to the Koran and it's more likely that we receive enlightenment from the other 2/3 than from the top; the 2/3 of the iceberg out of sight. A funny thing about arguments is that each time we handle a topic we have to approach the subject from a different angle because repetition stifles our interest. I suppose the same can be said for miracles and magic tricks, the magician has to find new audiences to startle or come up with new material; A predatory entity might wait at a watering hole to unleash his limited number of tricks upon the unsuspecting, and the knowledgeable might sell you a charm to ward off evil. Whatever the true nature of a miracle I imagine you will find it, and it helps to be hungry for it. Best wishes in your search.
Is there a God

If miracles happened to occur in more modern times as much as it did in historical days then I would be highly convinced about a God, and I'm sure lot of other people would be too. And by miracles I mean such events that had occurred in biblical times. Virgin Birth, Talking snakes, etc. There's just not much or any historical or scientific evidence that back 2000 so years ago there were all these events happening. Conclusion: Many events happened back in biblical times with little to no evidence to support it. The Great Disappointment was God's way of saying that no matter how hard you try, you are not worthy of meeting him because of how much you sin as a human. Even though he gave you free will which came with the cost of sin, it's still your fault. Is there a God or higher source of power? Possibly. Pro, thanks so much for this debate it was a lot of fun and really made me think. I wish you the best of luck in your later life and debates. Sincerely, Con P.S.: I would like to remind anyone who read this debate and Pro that this is opinion based and was just a debate on our opinions.
Is there a God

The flaw is our lack of experience with the subject. There's no reason, as far as I know, why Presbyterians and Baptists, Catholics and Protestants, Muslims and Druids can't all be subsets of one truth; This gives authority to many leaders that, in effect, can amount to many gods. Truth is then pertinent and particular to specific religions. I too would like to know why miraculous events appear less in modern times than in historical accounts, and your impressive honesty is reason enough I think to merit some revelation, and if it should occur I think you would agree that the fun has just begun... It's true that sadism can be deduced as the motivation behind the suffering. By all accounts the Gods are above human failings but it's also true by Biblical standards that God required blood sacrifices. Apparently Jesus had to pay a horrendous price to change things, and perhaps the "do as you would be done by" clause can help us overcome the sadistic trends that are just below our surface and easily provoked. The thing is to test the hypothesis to see if there is an adversary pushing us to bear arms against a sea of troubles so that we too can become casualties of war; maybe not what you have in mind in the way of excitement, but the possibility exists.
Is there a God

Free will. God gave the people free will, with free will comes pain and suffering. Without free will there is no meaning to life itself. The only thing we can conclude is that God wants suffering because there obviously has to be a meaning to life. God knew what free will would mean. Sin, bad choices, and suffering. If he didn't think free will all the way through that wouldn't really make him a great God. Harm on innocent people. Natural disasters, terrorists attacks, war and disease. All of these kill thousands if not millions of innocent people on a regular basis. Why does God want these people to die? What have they done so bad that they deserve death? The Great Disappointment. I'm bringing this point up once again only because it relates to the whole God wants suffering point I made earlier. Why did God not show up for people that gave away all of their possessions just to see him? Did he want to disappoint them? Did he not think they were worthy? A bunch of these people gave away their houses just to meet God. Why would God let them do this if he knew it would leave them homeless and struggling? How come there can be a talking snake to Adam and Eve but not to me? Why did a snake tell Eve to eat an apple from a tree? Was Eve schizophrenic? If God wants so many followers how come he can't do the same things he did back when the bible took place? Why should I stop having so much fun on Earth for an afterlife that isn't guaranteed? Also anybody can write a book on how something is a God and how it's the reason for all existence but why should I believe this one? Because it says it's the truth? Every other religion in the world says it knows the truth, major religion or small, it all says that their God knows the truth. Why should I believe in the Christianity God if there are so many different theologies? Every single theology takes the word of God differently. Presbyterianism says that women and girls should wear long skirts. Baptists however are allowed to wear whatever they please. Why? You also just said in your last argument that the authors of the bible may have not been to smart, does that mean that the holy bible is possibly flawed? I look forward to seeing your response.
Is there a God

You make the point that suffering is something we can look back on, but some people suffer too much and commit suicide because they can't take anymore suffering. There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13) This says that God will not create a challenge too great for someone, but if that's true then why do people commit suicide? The Bible has been written in all the languages in the world. From Afrikaans to Zuni. But the Bible's original written language is Hebrew. When text is translated from one language into another it gets screwed up. People take the literal translation and use that instead of what it is most commonly used for. Example: De Nada in Spanish is used to say You're welcome but its literal translation is For nothing. If people did not know what the phrase is used for don't you think that they would just use the literal translation and not its actual meaning? The Bible was written by man. I know a lot of people know this but my point is that everyone lies. People will lie about the dumbest things. People aren't the brightest either. Some people I know are serious about thinking that Tupac is alive and so are a lot of others. When people who aren't too smart lie they can really mess with some people's minds. Is it possible that the person who wrote the bible isn't too smart? As a result, God can't prevent suffering and translations are flawed. I look forward to seeing your counter argument.
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

I believe that fathers should have no say in whether a women gets a abortion or not. I have 3 main arguments regarding this issue.Here are my arguments.1. fathers don't face the burden of carrying a child2. Most fathers are not in there child's life3. Having the child or having an abortion effects the mother more.Whoever excepts this debate, I am looking forward to the arguments you will present.
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

I have to start off my argument by saying, it's been a pleasure debating with you. You say "Anyways you stated that i act like its not a big deal. To be honest it's not for most men."? It might be for most men, working multiple jobs while the woman is in labor. Then you go on to say "I never said all men. I stated most men which is true." Like I said earlier, this is circumstantial, there is no way for you to know this for certain. Then you say "It's a true fact the birth effects the mother more. For exampe When a mother gives birth the male body does not change. " Don't you think that the man could be suffering mentally from having more than one job, which in most cases suffering mentally is worse than suffering physically. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're argument is biased in some way. Anyways, there is no way for you to prove your "facts" as you have not shown any evidence or sources.
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

We all know it takes a mans semen to create a child however you said it takes two to make a child and the point i was making is that a child can be made without the presence of a male\male body part. The point is that it's just as easy to make a child without the presence of a man so just because the man is present does not give him the right to what will happen to the child. I hope you understood that. Also It's not impractical to have a child without sexual intercourse. There is also artificial insemination. Anyways you stated that i act like its not a big deal. To be honest it's not for most men. nowadays in society the male is looked at as the house hold figure. The one that has the good job and holds the family together right. So it should not be hard for a man to give up some money for the child he's the father of. The father does not suffer like a Mother. You are making it seem as if the father is paying for all that stuff by himself which he isn't. The mother would have a job as well. I never said all men. I stated most men which is true. A lot of children that are born unexpectedly do not have fathers as they get older because most of them don't want to take the responsibility of being a father. If the mother doesn't get an abortion like they ask, they end up walking away from the situation. It's a true fact the birth effects the mother more. For exampe When a mother gives birth the male body does not change. The mother is the one who has all the Extra weight from the pregnancy. No my argument may not apply to all mothers and father however it does apply to majority.