BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is not real.

Allow me to begin by thanking Clockwork for his time and writing. My opponent's entire case is a well thought out straw man argument. [1] Nowhere in my opening round did I mention Christianity or any other religious belief system. I simply wont be lured into contending points that I never raised, because I more than adequately set up the guidelines for this debate. ============== A quick syllogism: ============== 1.Anything with logically incompatible properties cannot exist. (This is not arguable) 2.Any God that knows the future is powerless to change it, and is therefore not omnipotent. 3.Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. (2) 4.God is described as having omniscience and omnipotence. (given) 5.Therefore God does not exist. (1) (3) (4) --> "This is sufficient proof to discredit the existence of any God that is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. It doesn't work with every definition of God, but for the sake of convenience this debate will focus only on Gods that fall within my definition of God." (round 1) Christian doctrine has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever. You simply can't infuse my definition of God with Christian assumptions that I never hinted at. Moreover, I already gave a coherent definition of what I meant by a God. And, by accepting the debate you choose to accept that definition. --> "God- any being that is simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient." (round 1) ======= Conclusion ======= Any God that knows that it will rain tomorrow in Seattle is incapable of preventing it from raining. Because if God could change the weather so that it didn't rain tomorrow then that means that God couldn't know that it was going to rain since it wasn't really going to rain. I know; I just blew your mind. If you know for a fact that something is going to happen -(and the future is whatever is going to happen)- then there's nothing you can do to stop it, even if you existed outside of time. It's confusing, but it's an entirely valid point that has so far gone uncontested. –(Resolution affirmed) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... All the best, Freeman
God is not real.

While my position my be one that I do not entirely agree with, I remind any potential voters that my burden lies in negating the Affirmative's claims as opposed to proving the opposite to be true. PRO's claims (2) and (3) are invalid and render his syllogism non-sequitur. Christian doctrine, particularly including the Catholic Canon, views God as an entity that exists outside of the barriers of time. Compare God to the author of a book. This hypothetical book tells the story of the universe, all things past, present, and future. The contents of this book also change in accordance with the story that comes before it, just like past events affect future occurrences. God can "read ahead" in this book and foretell the future; he can also edit any point in this book and thereby affect events at that point and at points in the future affected by his interference. There is no logical contradiction in PRO's syllogism if God is viewed as an entity that exists outside of time, as is the view of several religious belief systems. The resolution is negated.
God is not real.

I will demonstrate that it is logically impossible for a God to exist if that God is defined as being both omniscient and omnipotent. In the same way that married bachelors and square circles cannot exist a God that is claimed to be both omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist. It's an old argument, but it should still be pretty fun to debate. ============== A quick syllogism: ============== 1.Anything with logically incompatible properties cannot exist. (This is not arguable) 2.Any God that knows the future is powerless to change it, and is therefore not omnipotent. 3.Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. (2) 4.God is described as having omniscience and omnipotence. (given) 5.Therefore God does not exist. (1) (3) (4) This is sufficient proof to discredit the existence of any God that is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. It doesn't work with every definition of God, but for the sake of convenience this debate will focus only on Gods that fall within my definition of God. ========= Definitions ========= Omniscience- the capacity to know everything infinitely. (This includes knowledge of future events) Omnipotence- almighty: having unlimited power. God- any being that is simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient. Real- being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory. ========= Guidelines ========= Any attempts to engage in semantics will not be allowed. If you are unclear about the debate then please ask me so that I can clear things up. For the sake of convenience God will refer only to beings that are claimed to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore my syllogism only applies to them. Creating your own definition of God is not allowed All the best, Freeman
Should gays/lesbians not be allowed into survival shelters as they won't help rebuild the population

Thank you for a nice debate topic.You have selected CON, so you think that they should not be allowed into survival shelters. I selected pro, and I think that they should.Before I can put together a successful rebuttal to your arguments, you must do these:1) Why they shouldn't be allowed2) Have MULTIPLE arguments that gays should not be allowed, not just the repopulating one3) Why gays are lesser than the average saved humanThanks, I look forward to a good debate!
Should gays/lesbians not be allowed into survival shelters as they won't help rebuild the population

It is the end of the world... something bad is going to happen and the world's governments plan for it by creating bunkers where a select few will live on and survive. Given that one of the roles of these people will be to rebuild society, is it ok for gays/lesbians to be discriminated against when selecting those who go into the bunkers on the grounds that they won't contribute directly to rebuilding the population?
Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States.

unconstitutional- not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country . http://dictionary.reference.com... Federal- pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states . http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution declares what powers Congress do and do not have. Such a power as to give federal aid to private companies is not even vaguely listed. 2. Ammendment X to the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people, respectively. " . http://www.law.cornell.edu... Therefore, because the Constitution does not delegate such a power to the United States, it is reserved to the states. The states may aid private companies, but the federal government may not. As I see it, this is in clear black and white. I await my opponent's argument.
God Probably Doesn't Exist

This debate is impossible to accept, if you wish to accept let me know in the comments.You must have a minimum of 2500 ELO to vote on this debate.Definitions:God: The sentient eternal (has always existed and held his properties) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the universe.Probably: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.Doesn't Exist: Does not have objective reality or being.Debate format is the typical Lincoln-Douglas format.R1: AcceptanceR2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)R3: Rebuttals to opening argumentsR4: Defense of your original arguments.Rules:No forfeits.No insults.No semantics.72 Hours to Post Argument.10,000 Characters Max.2 week voting period.Select winner voting system.Follow the format.
Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Pro will be defending targeted killing as morally permissibleCon will be refuting targeted killing as not morally permissible. Some basic rules:1. Cases, if too long to fit the 8000 character limit, may be posted in a google document or some other link that we can all see. All refutations must be outside of a link.2. In the event of a forfeit, all seven points are to be given to the winner.3. This will be an LD styled debate. All forms of LD cases are acceptable. Round format will go as such:1. Con posts debate. Pro accepts and posts case.2. Con posts case and refutes. Pro defends and refutes.3. Con defends and refutes. Pro defends and refutes.
God is Black****

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
God is Black****

I would like to first start by saying that However the debate turns out I have nothing against people who are black or people who believe in any religions, it is your decision what you believe. That being said I will wish you the best of luck and begin. For my first point I would like to state that since no one can seem to agree with who or what god is we really can't say that he is a color at all and if he is a certain color than there is no evidence that he would be black, he could be blue for all we know. My second point is that we cant prove that god is actually real and therefore nobody has been proven to have seen him so that any accounts of what color he is should be disregarded. My third point ties to my first in saying that since god may not be human therefore he does not have a race because race is an attribute associated with humans. This doesn't mean that god isn't a certain color, but if he is we would have no way of telling which color he is. In my fourth and final point I will again state that since there are so many religions that have different beliefs about who or what god is that there can be no proof of his true color. Once again thank you, and I look forward to your next post.
abortion should be legal and not be shamed

I wonder if your, "they'll do it anyway, so we better make it legal and shame-free" logic extends to gun rights, or bodily autonomy concerning vaccination... But that's irrelevant. I would side with science, and say that the most benign and effective means of contraception is abstinence. Sex is primarily for procreation, and is designed to be enjoyed by a man and a woman within the confines and commitment of marriage. All other forms of sex come with a litany of problems. A traditional family is ideal for a child's development and care... Your argument is convenience over life... You embrace the selfish nature of people, rather than encouraging individual responsibility for our actions. In closing, choices have consequences, (including the choice to mate.) Make your choice before the sex. A fetus is neither dead, nor an insect, nor a plant. It is a human, with its own DNA from conception. Abortion doesn't PREVENT anything. Abortion terminates a life that would have otherwise been.
abortion should be legal and not be shamed

it is quite heart breaking that so many women die during legal abortions, but if abortions were illegal, it would not stop them, and women seeking an abortion would find one by unsafe and illegal means, so it is best to provide a safe and legal means of abortion. wikipedia states that unsafe and illegal abortions symptoms include, but are not limited too: abdominal pain, vaginal infection, abnormal vaginal bleeding and shock. women have abortions to choose when to have children based on their age, financial stability and relationship stability. It is not the government's position to legislate against women's choices. The fetus is like a dead brain without self-awareness or consciousness, so it's actually dead. Abortion prevents unnecessary unplanned pregnancies and prevents children from neglecting because their mothers did not want to have that child at that time. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support to raise him or her.
abortion should be legal and not be shamed

You should list your sources for those statistics, but I'll assume their accuracy for argument's sake. Yes... Some adopted children become "destructive mentally"... But, so do children and adults from all backgrounds. 19 russian children killed by adoptors is certainly a tragedy, but it pales in comparison to the 2700 babies killed by abortionists each day, just in the US alone, according to concernedwomen.org, which also states, "Abortion increases breast cancer risks, other health risks, and leads to serious emotional consequences.Also, '421 women have died as a result of legal abortion.'" And the debate as to whether or not these babies are somehow less than human is a whole other debate, but i will address the "no different than stepping on a spider or cutting down a tree" remark... Do we step on adult spiders and cut down mature trees? Yes... But, we don't murder humans... Or at least, we all know murdering people is evil... But cutting down a tree is not.
abortion should be legal and not be shamed

adopting is not always a smart idea, statistics show that a number of children that are adopted become destructive mentally. It is unthinkable that 19 Russian children have been murdered by American adopters, in addition to untold other adopted children surviving unspeakable abuse. you saying "murder of a preborn children" is quite In-valid. a fetus does not become human until the 24th or 28th week. it is not murder if it is not human. it is no different that stepping on a spider or cutting down a tree.
abortion should be legal and not be shamed

Thanks for instigating this debate. I zealously take the opposite position on the matter, being persuaded that "abortion," (which I will often, for the sake of accuracy, refer to as the murdering of a preborn child), is quite evil and sinful. The mere concept that it may not be evil could only be considered from a point of subjective morality, which is quite problematic, in and of itself, but that's another debate altogether. As for the point concerning unfit parents, adoption is absolutely a better option for all parties involved, (the mother, the father, the baby, and the loving adopting family,) barring some infinitesimally small percentage of cases that cause life-threatening deliveries for the mother. All lives are tough. Your reasoning on a tough life rendering one better off dead, is very inconsistent... That is, unless you advocate for mercy killing everyone whose circumstances include some degree of discomfort. Shame is one method by which society encourages good behavior.
Atheism is a religion

I am going to be arguing that atheism is a religion for the following reasons: NUMBER 1: Atheists have faith The only truly rational position is Agnosticism as Atheism is essentially just a belief in the fact that there are no gods. To be an atheist one does not get rid of all assumptions and faith one still has to have faith that: A). Their position is completely right B). A god is not hiding from them giving no evidence of his existence C). They have not been brainwashed into thinking that religions do not exist D). Evidence that a god exists will not be discovered Therefore to be an atheist one has to have some sort of faith, something we see in all religions. In this way Atheism is a religion and Agnosticism is not. NUMBER 2: Atheism has it's own preachers Look at Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett; they are generally looking to convert people to atheism (note that this is being written by an atheist) and not simply give atheism a respectful position in society. I think its a good thing, but these four are essentially just preachers who use rational argument instead of scripture to try and convert people. NUMBER 3: Atheism (though it is often not well defined) has it's own orthodoxy I'm defining orthodoxy here as a set of beliefs held by a large percentage of a group. In this case atheist orthodoxy is a belief in the Big Bang, a belief in evolution, and often times a rejection of moral relativism for a more scientific view of morality. Obviously not all atheists agree with all of this but the same can be said for the orthodoxy of any of the other main religions. One could also make a case that atheism has everything religion has; it worships rationality and follows science. It has prophets (Nietzsche, Epicurus, Marx). It has gods (Bertrand Russell, Darwin, Stephen Hawking, and perhaps the Four Horsemen of the non-apocalypse). It has its own scripture (The God Delusion, Why I am not a Christian, The Origin of the Species, The Grand Design). The only real thing which differentiates Atheism from the major religions is the lack of faith in a material god.
Atheism is a religion

Atheism is defined as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Religion is defined as: 1) "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" 2) " A particular system of faith and worship" 3) "A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Atheism clearly does not fit the first definition, since atheism is disbelief or lack of belief, and the first definition requires a belief in a superhuman controlling power. Nor does it fit the second definition since there is no faith or worship involved in atheism. The third definition, I suppose, one could argue that some atheists fit that definition if they are very devoted to atheism to the point where they want to make other atheist, but atheism does not inherently meet that definition, since in order for it to do so, it depends on what atheists themselves do. Atheism does NOT have anything to do with science or any belief. ALL atheists are different, and the ONLY thing they have in common is a lack of belief in all deity.
Drugs must be made legal

Thank you for your reply. I have thought about your points and before I start on the actual debate I will list the numbers of people that buy and die of drugs, tobacco and alcohol. NOTE: These are not exactly the numbers for there are people dying every day. Drugs: 250, 000 In the world. Tobacco: over 500,000, Alcohol: 2.5000000 1. I strongly agree about the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol are killing many more people. One could argue that the amount would prove their point right and my point wrong but that person would have growing errors as to say that the amount of deaths is all. Drugs are known to be much stronger and much deadlier than Tobacco and Alcohol and that is why Drugs are banned. Heroin can kill an average person quicker than Alcohol and certainly Tobacco and it would be ridiculous to make such Drugs legal. The main reason why less people have died is because less people have broken the law so to have drugs. It was thought to have alcohol banned in America in 1920 to 1933 and that was one of the main causes of the mafia bosses and the corruption in America started. This was because alcohol was used for dinner parties and personal entertainment. Drugs are more dangerous and if they were made legal they would be top of this list of these poor people that have died. 2. I am aware of the fact that there are many bad things happening in America but why pay no attention to drugs? Some dishonest people who are very likely to break the law, for their own sake would not take drugs fearing for it to kill them. I am un able to think of any logical reason for drugs to be made legal and as for such people who take dangerous risks such as mountain climbing, skyjumping , diving and so on (forgive me if I got any of these sports wrong) with most of them doing it for charity and them all doing it with protective suit on(some of them for sport). Suicides do happen but the government does not want it and try stop it. I look forward to hearing your next argument back to you pro
Drugs must be made legal

I hope that my opponent's life gets sorted out soon and for the better. Whenever he would like to continue this debate, I'm up for it.1. You did not make it sound like the result besides (in the other part two of this debate) I will explain the logic of that.I think you mean that we'll continue this debate in the to-be-announced part two of this debate.2. People do not take drugs for their entertainmentThat's simply not true. I know people who do drugs for entertainment. Personally. There is no simpler way of saying that that's not true.4. "But you are right in saying that we can do whatever we want putting substances in our bodies" meaning we have the ability to do it physically but we should not be allowed to take such things.I'm sorry I misunderstood; I figured it went without saying that we do, in fact, have the capabilities to use drugs. That seemed superfluous. However, in this case, I really fail to see what saying this had to do with furthering your point.___Whenever my opponent wants to begin part two of this debate, I'll be ready. For now, voters, vote on who made the better argument.
Drugs must be made legal

I am truly sorry opponent and voters, although I would love to answer fully, I have got too much going on at the moment in my personal life. I would love to continue at the right time on this round but in another debate (with only three more rounds). I am sorry. 1. You did not make it sound like the result besides (in the other part two of this debate) I will explain the logic of that. 2. People do not take drugs for their entertainment 4. "But you are right in saying that we can do whatever we want putting substances in our bodies" meaning we have the ability to do it physically but we should not be allowed to take such things. It of course is optional if you want to answer part two but please feel free to do so :).