BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is holy

How can God be holy if God does not exist? First prove to me the EXISTANCE of God (oh wait... you can't), and then I'll debate whether or not this "god" in question is in fact holy. Anyway, just to throw this out there -- You say that God created me? Prove it. You say that God exists through the Bible and the Prophets; I say that Tom Sawyer exists through Mark Twain, but that doesn't make him real. There have been multiple sightings of "Him" you say; I say that there have also been sightings of Big Foot... and me. People have seen me. That doesn't make me holy just because I say I am. And if people wrote a ridiculously famous book about how holy I am, that was edited and re-written and passed on over hundreds of years, that STILL would not make me holy. It'd just mean that it was a Helluva book ~ I'll leave it at that. Adam and Eve is a fictitious story; even the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged it (and most other stories in the Bible) as a proverb or something not to be taken literally but instead to teach a lesson or moral obligation. This is because not only can these Biblical stories not be proven, but there is also factual evidence AGAINST most of them. Jesus was a real person, but he cannot guarantee my entrance to Heaven (if such a place exists). He may have been the most influential historical figure; however, he is no more human or holy than you or I.
God is holy

Ok yes its hard to start an argument but as a catholic i am very offended when people try to say God doesnt exist because how can you prove that He doesnt He created you and me its as simple as that and another thing we know He exists through the Bible the Prophets and through His son. plus there are multiple sitings of Him and His son and the Mother of God so why do people think that He isnt real when throughout history every little detail about it started out with God creating the world. i mean he gave us free will and thats why the world went bad because of adam and eve but we dont need to keep going on and on about being evil we dont need to be evil because God is real and we can now make it to heaven because of Jesus. ok so basically my point is i dont want to be a commy anymore and i like God and he is holy.
Boyhood should have been named Best Picture at the 87th Academy Awards

This debate is tailored for film lovers who value true cinema. The topic revolves around Birdman"s controversial win for Best Picture. I am taking the stance that Birdman, or any other picture, should not have won in place of Boyhood. In order to accept my challenge, place a brief summary of what you intend to argue in the comments. (Note: You do not have to argue that Birdman deserved to win, only that Boyhood did not deserve to win Best Picture). Anyone who accepts this challenge without my consent will be forced to forfeit. There will be 4 rounds with Round One acting as a mere acceptance round. Round 1: ChallengeRound 2: Opening StatementsRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Rebuttal and Closing Statements. LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL BUT IMPASSIONED!
LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time

What you said about LeBron is true but does it really matter that he can run a 4.53 40 yard dash? To answer myself, No it doesn't. I also think that you are saying way too much. In your opening statement you say that you are " many people are stuck in the 90s era with their heads up MJ's a**. To be honest MJ may be the most overrated player of all time" but then go on to say in your second argument "I would honestly like to see who it is that you think is better than LeBron, besides Michael" Thank you for winning this debate for me when you say that Michael is better than LeBron. Case Closed.
LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time

Let me start by saying that yes the greatest NBA player of all time will always be controversial due to who you are a fan. However I do not agree that LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time. First, you are right when saying that he is the youngest to score 24,000 points but to really judge who is the greatest it would be more effective to choose someone who is already retired because as of now James could have a terrible injury ending his career next week. With this debate you also didn't state who could out play LeBron James you just criticized Michael Jordan. Realizing this I am choosing to not prove who is the best NBA player of all time but instead use facts from many different players to prove the LeBron James is not the greatest of all time.
LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time

There is always going to be the debate of who is the best NBA player of all time. In my opinion LeBron will be the greatest player ever. Look at where he's heading. He's the youngest to ever score 24,000 points. His player efficiency rating is through the roof, but many people are stuck in the 90s era with their heads up MJ's a**. To be honest MJ may be the most overrated player of all time. Let it begin!
LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time

You didn't win the argument. You said that you will prove that not only is Michael better, but others are. I was saying I would like to see you prove who else would be better besides Michael. I'm not saying Michael is better, you're saying there are others besides Michael who are. And also, yes it does matter how fast he is, because who's going to beat him coming down the court or him going full speed off of a speed. You have one more round to prove yourself buddy. Let's see it.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

Do you want me to just list your sources? Those are cases of placebo. They happen to religious people more because people who are easy to trick trick themselves easily too. They're just not reported as placebo events because the healed person thinks it a miracle. The placebo effect is difficult to control or understand because it's a product of the human brain, something we cannot fully understand yet. But it is not supernatural. Placebo can be as small as you not noticing a cut, and only feeling the pain when you look at it. But the larger cases are often seen more as supernatural events because religious people attribute it to magic a miracle. While they do not happen as much to athiests, who are less susceptible to placebo, placebo still happens to them, so these are not unexplainable, supernatual religion exclusive occurences.If you require an explantion of the placebo effect, you could oogle it yourself. Lazy? http://en.wikipedia.org...Now, I await your next response.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

so where are the examples of things happening for more serious illness? where's the examples of things happening to nonlourdes or religous contexts if you say it does happen? you can't just say you dont hear of them cause they aren't interesting etc, cause that's a cop out. there surely has to be examples, and if the religous community can show examples, teh nonreligous have the burden to show them too. that's the whole point of the debate, an it's not been honored. also there is some confusions on your part as to whether they do occur elsewhere or whether it's all attributeable to placebo and how those religous are mentally prone to something like that that would work. as it appears now, you are jsut making a bunch of assertions, with no necessary basis in reality per examples etc, and reasoning yourself in abstractions to a predetermined outcome. without evidence, your arguments fail for a lack of basis in the real world.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

First up, Dairy Girl, the placebo has cured larger, more serious diseases. You haven't seen it because it's brain activity, and we still don't fully know how the brain works. But it's not supernatural. It's explained as the brain causing a massive override, which can even cause harm in cases, where people ignore injuries because the body administered its own painkillers. Also, that wouldn't be conceding to the concept that it never happens to athiets, as the placebo effect can happen to anyone. The difference is the hysteria that religious people have. For every person that gets cured at Lourdes, there's a hundred people who don't. You don't hear from them because they aren't interesting, and the religious followrs don't advertise when their methods don't work in the same way movies don't advertise their bad reviews. The placebo effect is an uncontrollable, but scientific and natural phenomenon. Your move,Duncan.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

placebo. problem is that i never see placebo causing phhysical regeneration or spontaneous regeneration of serious diseases. some of those listed had severe nerve and vessel damage etc that heals. placebo ive only seen happen for smaller diseases, thjings immune related that can't really be seen etc. also we probbaly should be able to get placebo to work on atheists, even if it's not something GOd related, on more serious diseases. also technically you seem to be essentially conceding the proposition. you are admitting these thing dont happen to atheists, which is what i asked to see examples of. you instead try to explain why it happens to theists and not atheists. you may have some points, but they dont meet the criteria of the debate.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

Well Dairy Girl, there is a scientific explanation for all of these events, and it is an interesting one too. The Placebo Effect is a strange ability of the mind which allows it to cure and treat illnesses and injuries with only thoughts. Man follow a lifestyle called "The Secret" based on it. When new medicines are tested, some patients are given a sugar pill instead of the medicine to see if they merely imagine the problem themselves. Placebo is the mind forcing the body to react to a problem that may or may not exist, and is one of the mysteries of the brain. It is why some can be given water and told it is a medicine, and still be cured, or why those skeptical of the treatment may not be cured. It is not so much to athiests as to non believers, as if a religious person receives a pill and thinks they may be sick from it, their mind can artificially create the feeling of nausea itself, and prevent the product from working. The Placebo effect can easily explain this Dairy Girl, so I'll wait and see how you respond to this. Duncan.
People should eat much less meat

Side Note: Please attach a picture to your next argument, as I stated that it is mandatory to have a picture or poster or cartoon in your argument in the rules of this debate.Also, you did not challenge any of my above arguments in round 2, so I will assume that you have nothing to say to counter them. RebuttalsEvolution:Humans have many evolutional characteristics of herbivores. For example, humans cannot detoxify vitamin A, have relatively small jaws in relation to head size, and have flattened teeth and nails, all are characteristics of a herbivore. Humans have very long colons and small intestines as well, which is again a herbivore characteristic. [1] The times have changed, what can I say? Don't base diet choices on the choices of people who lived a looooong time ago. Nutrient Deficiency: Wiki isn't a very good source, as anybody can change it, for future reference. Diets low in animal protein contain less saturated fat and are cholesterol free, therefore lower a vegetarian's risk of becoming overweight/obese, and getting things like heart disease from a high build-up of saturated fats etc. in their arteries. Also, vegetables contain more fiber, antioxidants, and complex carbs (as opposed to simple carbs that are basically pure sugar). [2]ArgumentsThe EnvironmentGreenhouse gasesMethane gas, one of the greenhouse gases, is a direct by-product of the regular cow digestive process. Animal agriculture accounts for about 17% of greenhouse emissions. More greenhouse gases are emitted by animal agriculture than by cars.[3] The animals have to be raised, fed cheap corn and soy (usually produced with pesticides), slaughtered, and then chopped up and packaged and shipped out and then eaten, and sometimes thrown away. This process is terrible for the environment. Land30% of the worlds land is used to produce meat. Forests are torn down to host factory farms. The Amazon is getting torn down, about 7 football fields deforested each minute. Think of the plants that haven't even been discovered yet. There might be the cure to cancer, destroyed, because people want their burgers. FoodMeat wastes food. It takes up to 13 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Obviously, that isn't efficient. Also, it takes up to 2,400 gallons of water for ONE pound of meat. Growing a pound of wheat, though, only needs 25 gallons. ConclusionMeat is tainting and ruining the environment!! Sources:[1] http://michaelbluejay.com...;[2] http://www.peta.org...;[3] http://www.greatgreenidea.com...;[4] http://www.peta.org...;It's fine. Mine's pretty short too.
People should eat much less meat

1. Evolutiona) Humans didn't evolve to become pure vegetarians, our omnivorous attributes are found through out our bodies. The anatomical differences between the average veggie eating animal and our own species are quite apperent. The average adult human digestive tract from mouth to anus is about 8 times body length, this is about midway between our canivorous friends dogs and our favourite large herbivore beast cattle, who tend to have digestive tracts around 20 times their own body length. This is clear evidence of human omnivorence. b) The human appendix is a vestigial organ that is located at the end of the small intestine located at the end of the small intestine or beginning of the Large intestine. It is speculated to once have the purpose of digesting cellulose into its monomer componenets. This is probably one of the most obvious signs of human indepence from herbivore diets. c) The earliest known evidence of vegetarianism can only be seen in ancient Greece and ancient India. All other ancient civilizations and tribes in the 2 million years before today that we know of have diets that are omnivourous. This is clear evidence of humans evolution favouring people whose diets were not purely vegetarianConclusion with all the evidence meat is what the human body was designed to consume. Ergo, meat is good.2. Nutrient Diffeciency[1] Zinc is an essential mineral required for many enzymatic based metabolic reactions[4][6]. A lack of Zinc Meat is the most cost effective and effecient forms of a zinc supplement. Zinc deffiency can lead to Cancer, Diarrhea , Pneumonia, and even Anorexia[7]. A study at the University of Sydney in Austrailia clearly demonstrated that the amount of zinc consumed by vegetarians is not enough to supply the body with its daily value worth of Zinc.[4] Conclusion)Even though many nutrients can be supplied through the ingestion of non meat products; meat, remains the most cost effective and best available supplement of nutrients for the majority of people.Citation1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu...6. http://ods.od.nih.gov...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...My Apologies that this is very short and unrefined, I have been quite busy with my studies lately.
Anime beats cartoons

As a rebuttal for the entire argument, anime is another type of cartoon. "Cartoon", as a commenter pointed out, is an entire category of TV show. Thus cartoons reign supreme. As my next point, Steven Universe and similar cartoons are good for people who don't want or can't handle a dark plot. The plot is still involved without being too dark of depressing. While I can appreciate the dark plot, I also like to lighten things up with Steven Universe. Steven Universe isn't about "finding some rocks/gems along". It's about a group of nonhuman heroes called the Crystal Gems and their half-human sort of son, Steven. It has an involved story, especially in talking about Homeworld and the war. It also has numerous arcs, such as (SPOILER ALERT) the Homeworld arc and the Peridot Redemption arc. These all add to the story in their own way. Thank you for this debate. Vote Luma.
Anime beats cartoons

I'm not saying that all cartoons are bad. But what I'm trying to say here is that the majority of anime have deeper stories, better action, better jokes etc. You used Steven Universe as most of your examples right? So lets use Full Metal Alchemist as a example. The story plotline for Steven Universe is about finding some rocks/gems along. But Full Metal Alchemist is a dark and deep story but it can be enjoyed by all ages. The plot is that The world of Fullmetal Alchemist is styled after the European Industrial Revolution. Set in a fictional universe in which alchemy is one of the most advanced scientific techniques, the story follows the Elric brothers Edward and Alphonse, who are searching for a philosopher's stone to restore their bodies after a failed attempt to bring their mother back to life using alchemy. Thats really dark. I have read through the manga again and looking at it as a older person I found out how dark and deep the story was. None of the cartoons made me think like that. Thank you for accepting vote for Mafuba.
Anime beats cartoons

I apologize for my forfeiture of round 2 of the debate. This was unintentional. I can only access Debate.org during weekdays. I hope you understand, and allow me to post my arguments now. The debate here is between anime (Japanese animation) and cartoons. However, both are strongly influenced by each other, making this a bit hard to debate. Yes, Ben 10 and Teen Titans, while both extremely successful, did have anime influences. To rebut your first point, there are many cartoons with good storylines, such as Steven Universe and Adventure Time. Both have meaningful stories, lessons to be learned, and a storyline. As you pointed out with your second sentence of the first paragraph, anime and cartoons are equal in this regard. They also have great action scenes (such as in Message Received of Steven Universe) and jokes (again, I'll use Steven Universe) that appeal to all ages. I agree, a lot of cartoons do have no ongoing plot, and cheesy action. But Spongebob, the example you used, is a cartoon that makes this work. It appeals to all ages with its humor, and gives us such memorable episodes as Band Geeks.
Anime beats cartoons

Anime is far better then cartoons in my opinion. First of all, anime has meaningful stories and a storyline. Sure some anime is horrible but it's the same for cartoons. Anime also has good action and jokes unlike cartoons. I mean Ben 10 and Avatar? Talking about those cartoons, the cartoons that succeed was based off anime. For example, Avatar, Ben 10 and Teen Titans. But even if you look at those cartoons they don't even touch anime like Dragonball, Full Metal Alchemist, One Piece. Those anime has great jokes, action and stories. Cartoons have a majority of cartoons that have no story, bad jokes, no action at all or cheesy action. Example: Spongebob, Tom and Jerry etc.
An Omniscient Moral Entity Cannot Create a Universe Containing Immorality

Definition: An omniscient entity is one which lacks no knowledge of any information, whether necessary or contingent, for at least one point of its existence. I posit this so as to not definitionally exclude different versions of omniscience from the argument. Specifically, this definition is designed to not immediately rule out: anterograde omniscience; “middle knowledge”-style omniscience; present-restricted omniscience; any other form of temporarily suppressed omniscience. (Often these are suggested to preserve the possibility of free will. ) However, in all of these cases, the god-like being “eventually” acquires all knowledge such that it lacks no knowledge at some point of its existence. Thus, they are encompassed by the definition. Remark: Concerning the use of the terms 'morality' and 'immorality', I want to establish that it will not be necessary to justify, or even define, their contents or meanings. For the purposes of this argument, I will only recognize that a moral thing differs from an immoral thing categorically; no element of one is contained by the other. This is true by virtue of their logical relation to one another: one is the other's negation, X and not-X. Therefore, I will make use only of their relation, not their contents. This means that I will avoid invoking terms such as "evil", "good", or "suffering" in the course of the argument, for these allude to moral content. With this in mind, I have simply built the terms 'moral' and 'immoral' into the resolution and my premises and will use them as merely referring to exclusively disjunct properties. Having provided for these things, I cordially invite you to oppose me.
Anarcho-Socialism/Communism is possible under certain conditions

Hello con, and welcome to the debate. For this debate, I must bring up some basic information about Anarcho-Socialism for clarity: 1. Anarcho-Socialism is made up of Anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state, Socialism, which is an economic system in which the higher classes pay higher taxes to help provide basic government services to the poor for free or cheap, and, if not socialism, then communism, which calls for the elimination of classes when by itself, but combined with anarchism its goal is to eventually eliminate currency, and therefore wages. The economic basis for Anarcho-Communism is summed up in this statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This means that the relationship between the individual and the community is a "give-and-take" relationship. An example would be if someone got injured on the job or sick, then the community would help him out with health care, assuming there is still currency, in the hopes that if the situation is reversed the same result will occur. The social basis for Anarcho-Socialism is one that tries to satisfy both the need for inequality, and the want of relative equality. One might ask how this is possible. This is possible through the dissolution of nation-states and borders. What Ancoms believe is that the world should be transformed from states, which have organized borders and coercion, to what are called communes. Communes are small, self-governing city-like governments in which there is no government hierarchy. All citizens are equal, and have an equal say in government. But one must obviously notice that there are fundamental differences between different types of humans, so equality cannot work in this scenario alone. For example, a Muslim wants to ban gay marriage, because he claims that allowing gay marriage would establish an anti-Muslim government, which discriminates against his religious beliefs. On the other hand, a gay man believes that gay marriage should be legal, because if not, then the government would take a pro-Muslim view, thus discriminating against him. One can see that there is no good way to go without discriminating against someone in this situation. But that is not what Ancoms propose. Ancoms propose that communes should each give special rights and privileges to a specific group of people. In the gay vs. Muslim example, there would be a commune with privileges for Muslims, and the same for homosexuals. That way everybody would have perfect freedom of association. In an ancom society, there would be no borders, so there is no excuse for why a gay person should complain about being discriminated in a Muslim commune, even though he either made the conscious decision to move to the Muslim commune, or he was born into it and knows about the laws, and still is choosing to stay. The best and most irrefutable part of Anarcho-Communism is that, if the state, currency, and borders are abolished, and each commune benefits a certain people, 100% of the people involved would benefit.