BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States government would be wise to invest more in NASA.

Now, back to the debate. My opponent has no clear thesis or arguement, his facts may be accurate but he makes no point with them. "Is that budget worth it? " Unfortunately, our contender never actually answers this question. The economy One of the few clear points that my opponent made was the opinion that our economy isn't doing so well. However, this is not true. During the second quarter of 2014 the United States economy grew by 4 percent. [1] Unemployment in the workforce has fallen to 3.1 percent which is significantly lower than it was during the recession. [2] Also, my point that NASA is GOOD for the economy still stands. Con has made very few points, and has not clearly taken a position. Vote Pro! "The cut for this year is 1%. Apparently, there is still some good news, such as, some departments received more money, but the bad news is much worse. " - Con^^^ What do you mean by that? How does it aide in your arguement that NASA doesn't need more funding? That kinda sounds like we're arguing for the same thing. sources: [1]: . https://www.bea.gov...[2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...[3]:
White people

Quick Rebuttal:"people's opinions matter and should be accepted"Well, my opinion is that not all white people are failures, leaving your whole argument moot. Why I won:1. Con has failed to fulfill his burden of proof. ..2. Con provides no evidence to support Con's arguments. ..3. Con tried to change the meaning of the debate in round two. ..4. Con committed logical fallacies, such as: ad hominem and anecdotal fallacy.5. Con did not refute my arguments properly. So, yeah.
White people

Now, to the argument. .. In round one, Con said "white people have failed us. "In round two, Con said "You fail to see my reasoning. Only most of white people have wronged the world. " Since that "reasoning" was left undefined, I defined what this argument would entail in my round one. This is an example of how Con tried to change the resolution of this argument. An analogy to prove this: I created a debate under the resolution, "People are Female", I then claimed, "no, I meant only some people are female"Rebuttals:"Only most of white people have wronged the world. Unacceptable behavior continues, stemming from white people. "I commend to Con, that he needs to provide evidence when attempting to affirm something. "As I said before, I meant to say only most of white people. "Then you should have said that in round one or in the title. Since the key part of the debate was left undefined, I defined it, therefore, we argue under my petense. "Most of white people". Con has to provide evidence for how "most", or the majority of white people are failures. "Ramsey, Dave didn't fail us. "Your opinion. .. "Everyone should agree when I say white people took over all other races. "Con provides no evidence for this. .. Even still, some people would deem this as a success. "Also, the KKK has had several negative effects on the world. " Con again fails to provide evidence for this. .. Even if the KKK had negative effects on the world, it does not prove that white people have failed us. They could be deemed as a failure to some people, and a success to others. It's all subjective. "Never before have I seen such an awful sight as the KKK. Even white children who play call of duty make me think white people are bad. "Your opinion. "Dang, white people suck. "An example of ad hominem, and it is only Con's opinion. .. So far:1. Con has failed to fulfill his burden of proof. ..2. Con provides no evidence to support Con's arguments. ..3. Con tried to change the meaning of the debate in round two. ..4. Con committed logical fallacies, such as: ad hominem and anecdotal fallacy. I hope I get another speedy reply. To you, Con, for round three.
White people

You fail to see my reasoning. Only most of white people have wronged the world. Unacceptable behavior continues, stemming from white people. As I said before, I meant to say only most of white people. Ramsey, Dave didn't fail us. Everyone should agree when I say white people took over all other races. Also, the KKK has had several negative effects on the world. Never before have I seen such an awful sight as the KKK. Even white children who play call of duty make me think white people are bad Rethink your arguement, please. Dang, white people suck. #HolocaustRound2
Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. (Google: truth define)God is not accordance with fact or reality if you cannot answer how God did what God did. You say God did this and that. Yet you do not say how. It is really easy for God to do so since I am sure the Bible does say God is all-knowing. God can simply add verses that are used in a later date for science so that both science and your Religion agrees Christianity yet God did not but God did have supposed divine intervention with Jesus and the Bible but maybe it was asking too much to add evidence that science cannot deny. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. If the tools works correctly then God has no reason to not give evidence yet God does not.
Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

I have the info, But you reject it. And you will continue to do so. But here are the twelve points if you have more questions ask me, But don't expect short answers. I point out flaws but you choose to deny it. I will only be consistent if I keep pointing out the same flaws if you are making similar arguments. 1. The truth about reality is knowable. Depends on how you define truth and in what way it is knowable. 2. The opposite of true is false. The opposite of false is true. Really redundant statement. 3. It is true that the theistic God exists. 1st point define truth and tell me how which then I will point out flaws. 4. If God exists, Then miracles are possible. That is a big if. Stick to proving God exists no point spending time on miracles when you only need to prove God's existence and also how it is Yahweh not the other countless Gods. 5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God. No it can't. I assuming miracles only happen once. Outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. I am not going to go on faith that the Bible is true because it was written by God and that is also written in the Bible. I do not do it for anything else why would I do it for something so important like this? 6. The New Testament is historically reliable. Would really take a long time to verify but I will only accept this if I accept the scientists to be reliable (Agenda is the truth not the pursuit of more followers into their Religion) and if it has succeeded going through peer review. 7. The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God. Doesn't matter to me. Either The New Testament goes through a reliable peer review or you can prove your Biblical God exists. I highly doubt you can since you would have mentioned it in the earlier rounds. 8. Jesus" claim to be God was miraculously confirmed. ? The claim should be Jesus claiming to be God has been provenHighly doubt it is the case but show me proof anyway. a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;b. His sinless and miraculous life;c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrectionAll from The New Testament and requires for the documents to be true and for your God to exist for whatever you said here to be believed to be true. 9. Therefore, Jesus was God. Didn't know there was a past God or Jesus stopped being God when he died. Kind of confusing but certainly not useful in proving the New Testament to be true or your God exists. 10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true. New Testament has to be true and your God must also exist for this claim to be even considered. 11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. Instead of repeating myself read what I said in point 10 rebuttal. 12. Therefore, It is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anythingthat is opposed to it is false). No evidence or explanations given instead claims were given in all your points. Hopefully you provide evidence.
Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

I have the info, But you reject it. And you will continue to do so. But here are the twelve points if you have more questions ask me, But don't expect short answers. 1. The truth about reality is knowable. 2. The opposite of true is false. 3. It is true that the theistic God exists. 4. If God exists, Then miracles are possible. 5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God. 6. The New Testament is historically reliable. 7. The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God. 8. Jesus" claim to be God was miraculously confirmed. a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself; b. His sinless and miraculous life; c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection 9. Therefore, Jesus was God. 10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true. 11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. 12. Therefore, It is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything that is opposed to it is false).
Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

Seems like a forfeit to me. The difference is with the debate you had with Sonofcharl even though he agreed with your faulty premises he still debunked your arguments. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I do see how Sonofcharl definitely presents his point much more clearly due to how he presented his arguments. Instead of what I do which is quote as much as I can and rebut the claims he instead brings up topics that rebut your claims without quoting every you said. Obviously you don't want details. So you can look up all the people I mentioned and they have websites were you can find out all this information. Instead of pointing the arguments that Frank Turek made you instead provided filler. What I wanted were arguments. Whether it be from Frank Turek or you. It is clear you had the opportunity to give me their arguments but you didn't. Evidence: Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliable, Which I intend to demonstrate in this debate and the next. Instead of giving me proof that they are reliable instead you say you will but you didn't. Instead of presenting your arguments about why the New Testament is reliable you were debunking claims that I might make. In all reality you know God exists and willfully suppress the truth. I can say that to you about God not existing. You do not know God exists you believe. It. You do not have the information nor does the Bible. The Bible says the Earth was created in 7 days not how it happened. It did not say how God was capable of doing it instead stated what God did which is why I say Science explains things and Religion assumes how it is done. The information for biblical Christianity is out there. The information is also out there to show how Christianity is flawed. By you giving up you clearly state that you either are not capable of finding the information or you give up. Whichever it may be I stayed for your arguments. Pointed out flaws while you could not rebut the claims I made.
"There is Only One Race, The Human Race" Is an Incorrect Statement

There is only one living RACE: Homo Sapien Sapien AND NO, I am not just repeating myself for giggles. The specific type of human YOU are today falls within that category, ALL OTHER RACES of humans are EXTINCT. Any reference to hair colour, eye colour, SKIN colour, is merely a reference to PHENOTYPE (http://dictionary.reference.com......) which is in reference to observable traits not to be confused entirely with GENOTYPE; however there is in fact a relationship between the two. To understand this relationship a little bit better you would need to compare the current LIVING human species to other mammalian species. When you do this you find that within the species Homo Sapien Sapien there are fewer genetic differences than most other species: Compare a Wild Horse to a Domestic Horse for example: in Domestic Horses there are 32 pairs of chromosomes; however in "wild" horses there are 33 pairs of chromosomes(Przewalski's horse). IN THE HUMAN GENOME (not to be confused with non-living species other than Homo SAPIEN SAPIEN, you can see how this can get old... quickly) there are 23 chromosomal pairs barring genetic defect/ disease (why this is relevant is that you wouldn't say a horse with 33 pairs of chromosomes is any less healthy or a horse because of an extra set of chromosomes, you wouldn't even say this is abnormal). LET ME JUST BE CLEAR to address all of those with any designs on "racism", humans are so genetically limited in our diversity that limiting our genetic diversity any more than it already is would even more expose US to EXTINCTION. For this I will briefly reference plants (http://www.nature.com......) and if you're busy clicking about my links you'll notice in this one that it references that limited diversity produces a susceptibility to disease; AND BOY DOES IT. DIVERSITY will save us all, and I mean that literally! So in conclusion: THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE: HUMAN
Genetically Modified Food

I would like to point out that I provided refutation in R2 as it gives my opponent a chance to defend his arguments. Had I reserved my refutation, my opponent would only be able to refute my arguments and have no chance to defend his own asI would post last. Thus, it was not a violation of the rules and instead just gave my opponent a chance to argue on his behalf. I will move on to defend my pillars and further refutation. My opponent says that there would be larger yields of food, but the question remains: Is the food safe? The food has been filled with viruses that have major consequences. Test on animals shows that it has a toxic effect. My opponent has completely ignored my refutation to his point. I have already shown that GM foods are safe to eat and the fact that they are toxic to animals is not conclusive evidence. Oranges are toxic to mice, thus oranges are toxic to humans? ? This is a massive logical fallacy to assume that just because something is poisonous to animals that it will be poisonous to humans. Humans and animals are completely different. Secondly, my opponent says that GM foods have been filled with viruses. This is ridiculous; no “viruses” are put in the food, just a gene from something else. We all have genes in us; these genes have no effect at all on us. And also, studies have shown that GM foods don’t increase yield production. In fact, an experiment was made and after 13 years of research, it was proven that certain crops suffered reduced yields. My opponent has ignored the fact that GM crops can be grown in desert like conditions. Can any other crops be grown in desert like conditions? I didn’t think so. This allows more crops to be grown in more areas, thus leading to a larger yield as there are more crops planted in previously inhospitable places. Secondly, my opponent failed to tell the voters that it was only ONE crop that had reduced yields and that was soya according to my opponent’s source. My opponent has not rebutted my refutation or defended his points, thus they all fall. I have defended my points and they all still stand. I have shown you how GM foods are not at all toxic and are safe to consume, they produce larger yields, and are extremely beneficial to society. I have not violated the rules, only given my opponent a chance to defend his points.
Genetically Modified Food

It is now time to refute my opponent's argument but before I do that I must recognize to you that my opponent did not follow the rules of the debate. In round two, my opponent was suppose to introduce his argument, but instead, decided to refute my argument at an earlier time. "I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent...." Argument 1. My opponent says that their would be larger yields of food, but the question remains: is the food safe? The food has been filled with viruses that have major consequences. Test on animals shws that it has a toxic effect. And also, studies have shown that GM foods don't increase yield production. In fact, an experiment was made and after 13 years of research, it was provven that certain crops suffered reduced yields. I hope that this added information helps you decided that GM food is bad, my opponent did not follow the guidelines, and for you to vote pro. http://www.bangmfood.org...
Genetically Modified Food

I would like to put forth some definitions to guide this debate. Genetically Modified Food (GMO) - foods that have had genes foreign genes inserted into the genetic code of the food. Examples include genes that make vegetables grow bigger etc. [1]We will have a shared BOP, I will assume that my opponent will be arguing that GMO foods need to be banned while I will be arguing that GMO foods need to stay. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments! SOURCES1. . http://www.umm.edu...
Genetically Modified Food

Have you ever wondered what is in the food you eat. Well I did research and found out that most of the food we eat is genetically modified. That means it has been injected with chemicals and fillers to make it supposedly are larger quantity of food, but these fillers deadly. So I think that genetically modified foods should be banned. Rules Round one is acceptance. Round two is presentation of argument. Round three is rebuttal and conclusion. No cursing, slandering, or racist remarks. A forfeit is the automatic loss of the grammar point. I look forward to this debate.
Homosexuality is not a choice.

"Most will argue that people will "hide" their true feelings by having relations with people of the opposite sex in order to stay "acceptable" to the majority of society" I do not believe my opponent can generalise most people"s views in this case. In regards to my debater"s point about a women being beaten and then choosing to become homosexual as a result of such abuse " I have never heard a homosexual person tell me that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. Fearing members of the opposite sex does not cause homosexuality, and I have never heard of such a case. If it does indeed exist, it does not account for the majority of the homosexual population. It is also rather insulting to suggest that homosexuality is the result of abuse from the members of the opposite sex. Such examples should not be used in serious debates. In regards to my debater"s comment about pansexuality: I am arguing about homosexuality, and not pansexuality. To clarify on the matter, however, I would argue that pansexuality was not a choice. I am dating a pansexual, and am aware that they have the potential ability to fall for and have sexual feelings for a person regardless of sex or gender. As my girlfriend puts it "it"s hearts, not parts". As aforementioned, I believe sexuality is not a choice. My argument still stands. Sexuality is the ability to have feelings for people. It is not a choice. "-The pro must show evidence that this trait is biologically apart of an individuals person, in order to argue that this state of mind is not a choice, but rather "who they are". -The pros argument states that although one can deny being "homosexual" they still are none the less. I would like to answer this argument with my first argument relating to examples of why this cannot always be the case. And if it is not always the case, then the pro cannot imply that all homosexuals have been homosexuals since birth." Here I must acknowledge some mistakes in my opponent"s logic and understanding of my argument. I am not stating that homosexuality is definitely a biological trait. There may or may not be a "homosexual gene" but this is diverting from the debate. I am stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality may be the result of a predisposition as a result of environmental and/or biological factors. I need not provide evidence that suggests behaviour is nature or nurture. That is an entirely different argument. In regards to my opponent"s comment on not always being homosexual: we cannot know this for certain. We may state that sexuality occurs when one becomes pubescent, however I shall look to my previous point: we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realises their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice. I would like to remind my fellow debater that this topic specifically regards homosexuality, and not pansexuality. They are two different sexualities and I would much appreciate that the debate stays on topic.
Homosexuality is not a choice.

This is my first argument on debate.org and so I am arguing something close to my heart. I apologise for any mistakes I have made in creating this, and welcome any comments and arguments put forward. Homosexuality is defined as: a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex. For the sake of this argument, a choice in being homosexual is not about the choice to act on homosexual feelings but the choice of being someone who has the feelings towards members of the same sex in the first place. My argument is: homosexuality is not something that can be decided by an individual. They may choose to act against such homosexual feelings by not having relations with a member of the same sex, but their homosexuality still remains. I look forward to hearing a counter argument, thank you -CR
It is probable that God does not exist

Again an introduction of a new premise I would not have chosen to debate but for the sake of argument, I will. To the athiest premise1 I would say. Physical constants can indeed support life but they are not the "necessary," I say that because life is not always present in these life sustaining constants. Which would bring us to premise2 where I would agree that physical constants are contingent to GODS design. Which brings me to premise 3. That physical constantants can and are completely contingent to GODS plan because it is quite possible he "designed" them to work independant of himself. The burden of proving he didn't or can't would be yours. Now to the perfectionist argument I would simply ask "what's more perfect? an unlimited power source or a limited one. Or from another stand point perfection has to be measured by something or someone. They decide what that perfection is. Who can GOD be measured against if he is indeed the highest being? Therfore he has all the right to call himself and whatever else he deems perfect, for he is doing the measuring. Your example was talking about "perfection" by design, and from that standpoint correct, but who is the designer of GOD? What if he is designed to be unlimited? Wouldn't that make him perfect by design? Or how can perfection be reached if our world is the result of a chance happening. What other event could we measure it by to call it or anything in it perfect. Seeing how all of mankind thruout the ages have chased after some form of perfection, its hard for me, where and yourself included not to believe perfection exist. Where there is a any comparison, perfection must exist. You need something to compare it too.