BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aquaman Deserve Some Respect

The same can be said here on this side. You did an exceptional job in advocating for Aquaman's respect. I appreciate how you are trying to give him more justice to his overall character. As for my stance on the topic, my position has been ever so slightly changed by your points. I think that Aquaman is, in a weird way, a late bloomer who was taken advantage of and made fun by the media because he was different and not as powerful as his peers. I guess thats something that a lot of fans can relate to. But I'm still convinced that Aquaman doesn't deserve respect. Even when the new Aquaman movie comes out featuring that guy in the full beard with that poor excuse of a trident and people show respect, I still won't think he deserves it. His abilities are cool and all and hes reputable in some sort , but he's just not consistent with his image. There are just so many things about him that the writers keep messing around with,all the time. If they just started out right and went on from there, Aquaman could have obtained more fans and praise. But whats done is done, and the only way for him to get respect is when people start forgetting about him in the 40s.
Aquaman Deserve Some Respect

I must say- this has been educational. You obviously know your material, I appreciate it! I'm not sure how to debate any further, however, as you have given me many different angles to the topic that don't seem to relate to the argument, providing a claim that seems conflicting compared to the argument and agreeing with my side of the argument. Nevertheless, you have taught me quite a few pieces of information I haven't known about, such as Aquaman's origins. Not to say that I don't appreciate or am ungrateful for the interesting perspective, ideas, and knowledge. To conclude, I believe that Aquaman deserves respect for his powers- from diplomacy to strength and speed- to his throne, and lastly, his limited weaknesses. While these differ between different versions of the character, a variety of aspects remain the same- most of which I have mentioned. I agree with you on several points, such as how the image society has created for Aquaman has contributed to the disrespect. Thank you for the debate! While it was most certainly not what I had expected, it brought a new and enjoyable perspective to the table- one I had not considered before. Hopefully you've enjoyed it as well, and good luck during voting!
Aquaman Deserve Some Respect

This is a repost so I can give another chance to debate with anyone who's willing. Thanks for considering the debate! Expectations and setup is simple- three rounds ( acceptance/claim -> evidence/points -> conclusion), 8,000 characters, 24 hour reply, ten day voting period, and lastly, "select winner" voting. Rules: No resources are off the table- just state your source and use quotes if using an article. Otherwise- no limits! Go crazy and/or creative with your resources, guys. This is meant to be a more laid back debate so feel free to go wild. Aquaman- the "gayest superhero of all time" they say- "weakest superhero of all time" they say- My claim: Show some respect! This bro's got a lot of advantages over his enemies- at least three of which I will address in the second round. Good luck to my contender, and let's have an awesome debate! Looking forward to it.
shuold kahoot be used in congess

Hello COWMYON, I accept your argument. Because you didn't define kahoot, I will define Kahoot as a free game-based learning platform which is held at https://kahoot.it... First I would like to point out that your source, christianmingle.com is a dating website and is thus not a very credible source. Congress is very prone to making bad decisions, which can culminate to become a major threat to US security. This is evidently a problem for the United States, and must be stopped. https://www.theguardian.com... Congressmen and women need to be educated to make better decisions for the USA. Kahoot is a perfect choice to do this, as it is a learning platform, and thus educates it's participants. Because of this, Kahoot should clearly be used in congress to educate them on how to make better decisions for the US.
can god create a stone he cant lift

I am a newb to this site so I'm not shore what to expect. Thanks 4 accepting. I don't know what my opponent means. so I'll just state my argument. Professor gottlieb points out that the question is not even a question since it is inherently contradictory. There is no such thing as "a stone god cannot lift". It is like saying god cannot create a square circle. Since the phrase "a stone god cannot lift" has no meaning no question has been posed, thus it cannot prove anything.
Religious classes should be permitted in public schools.

Your highschools is going against the Constitution then, also I have plenty evidence of the Engel v. Vitale, my sources are: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com... If the Engel v. Vitale case banned OPTIONAL religious school prayers than what hope does a religious class have. If the Supreme Court is in charge of deciding what is constitutional and what is not, then your opinion doesn't stand against the Supreme Court's decision. "Extracurriculars do not affect your GPA. Furthermore, as I have already said, there are classes with all religions included, not just one about only 1 religion." An extracurricular activity does not relate to schools. Also a religious class is defined as a class that studies the beliefs, doctrines, rituals, customs, rites, and personal roles of a religion. "First of all, religion as I have already mentioned can help people in life. And even if we learn this stuff in kindergarten, there are much more things in the bible to learn. And if kindergarten helped so much with these lessons, why are people still stealing?" Many people in the U.S.A are Christian, if the bible helped so much, why do they still steal. Actually, also its a small amount of people that steal, and most of the people who don't steal learned not to in kindergarten, not by reading the bible. "It promotes diversity" How would a class on religion promote diversity? Diversity is defined as the state of being varied/different. Sure you know that a Christian worships Jesus, that doesn't make the population varied. Also how does teaching a child about a religion help them more? Even though many White and African Americans practice the same religion, they still hate each other, how that supposed to change through a religious class? Also racism is based of your race, not skin color, as I said early Africans and Whites hate each other, and they are both Christian. Also laws enforce that violence and fear cannot be used to force someone to convert from one religion to another, this makes it safe for people to practice there religions. Also how would religious education stop racism, if you have kids who were raised by parents who are racist? In fact one of the leading causes for racism is that kids had this idea told to them by there parents over and over because parents have the most influence over kids.
Religious classes should be permitted in public schools.

The main reason religious classes were banned in schools was of the constitution.According to Engel v. Vitale the Supreme Court stated it was unconstitutional to read the bible at public schools. Schools don't have the funds to may for the material and teachers for many religions, they have to select a few. This would make the schools choose certain religions over other which would be in violation of the freedom of religion, because the schools are allowing certain religions in classes, but not others, and when the schools have to assign classes to students, some kids will end up in a religious class that they don't want for an elective.Also if a student was to choose a religious class they would choose there own religion because the class would be easy for them and thus help the GPA. Also schools have more important things to fund other than religious classes. If schools are having trouble to fund things such as math and science classes where is the money going to come from? This can be seen in schools such as Hopkins Junior High, which is considered to be among the best schools in the state of California, yet it doesn't receive enough funding. Also religious classes are a waste of time, at schools kids could learn new languages, of how to play instruments, things that help in life. What would religion teach to us? That we shouldn't steal. We learn these things in kindergarten without having to read the bible. These things are taught to use without the use of religious materials.
Religious classes should be permitted in public schools.

Hello friends. This debate will be about religious classes. I will be in favour of a class about religion being permitted as an optional course in schools. (even though it already is) Keep in mind that it is an optional course, and not a mandatory one. You (con) will be in favour of religious classes not being allowed to be in schools. You will debate explaining why religious classes in schools should be banned. This will be a debate concerning the United States of America and Canada. It will focus mainly on religious classes being available in public schools in these countries. First round is acceptance. Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point loss. Good luck, have fun! (GL HF)
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

Thanks to Pro for keeping this brief. Burden of Proof Pro has quite spectacularly failed to lay out a case for the resolution. I could have said nothing in this debate and be rewarded the win. This is a strategic failure of Pro. Points Dropped Pro completely drops my argument from interaction, which alone is enough to negate the resolution. I will address the priority arguments in this round. Science vs Moral Reasoning Pro conflates the reasoning process with the essence in question itself. Regardless of whether or not morality is objective, i.e. regardless of whether or not there exist objective moral facts and values, the reasoning process to justify these and these existence is necessarily subjective. Pro helps me in affirming this with the following, “You don't have very many people saying rape, murder and theft are moral. This is how morals are objective as opposed to subjective.”. This is exactly what I am talking about, it is subjective in the method by which moral facts are determined, since it necessarily appeals to personal opinion, or intuition, or personal feelings, etc. This by definition is subjective. Science doesn’t have this problem, since empirical data is the same regardless of who looks at it, who measures it, etc. We use machines to take measurements, too, which completely eliminates any human bias from the equation. A hypothesis forms a logical framework, from which well-characterised predictions are generated, and these are compared against empirical data. If they contradict, then the hypothesis is false, if they do not, then it is affirmed. Moreover, hyes, I was justifying that oour moral intuitions are subjective, by their very nature – and science goes a way to explaining why that is the case. Thus it is impossible to satisfy any of the premises required for moral arguments based on them alone objectively. My point here was that we have two hypothesis for the same facts, and clearly the scientific explanation offers more explanatory power. Summary Voting for Pro should be impossible as already noted, although I do thank him for this debate.
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

Apologies for forfeiting the 4th round. I have work and school to contend with. As far as Con's answers to my questions, he gave the following answers 1. It is completely objective 2. It actually works Morals are completely objective as well. Or they should be. You don't have very many people saying rape, murder and theft are moral. This is how morals are objective as opposed to subjective. As for Con's claim that the naturalist position "may posit that our 'moral intuitions' are a complex mixture of emergent and innate biological behaviors and responses", I am guessing he is trying to justify the idea that morals are in fact, subjective.But they are not. The question then arises for Con and any science minded person, how do these "innate biological behaviors and responses" develop? Where do they come from? The answer, for the science minded is "I don't know" Same with where do emotions come from and how do they develop. This is why scientific reasoning ultimately does not matter when debating God, there is no answer scientifically to this. You definately have the "God exlanation" for that, but not a very concrete answer coming from the "naturalistic explanation" When you debate creation vs evolution, which is essentially what this debate is about, these questions should be brought up. So often, they are not by the creationist, then they fail when the evolutionist spouts off with his scientific jargon. In conclusion, morals DO come into play when debating the existance of God. Morals play a much bigger part to science, which makes scientific explanations and justifications superficial.
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

I gotta hand it to Con, he sure blindsided me. I thought he was going to talk about how it was scientifically impossible for God to exist. Instead he talked about God's interactions with reality. However, he has failed to answer my questions I posed in the first round during my introduction, save for the first one Is science reasoning either for or against the existance of God more important than the moral justifications that uphold a Christian worldveiw? Why? I really have not seen any answer to this, and since this is what the whole debate is about, it demands an answer. I did answer in the first round with a resounding no. But Con must answer this question and justify it to win this debate
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

Thanks Pro. Overview Pro grapples the second horn of my dilemma, thus the argument follows. God’s interactions with reality affect reality, which leads to a posterori detectable effects. This is what empiricism deals with, anything that is detectable a posterori. Whether or not God is transcendent is completely irrelevant to the question posed by this debate, since science will deal with the manifest interactions with reality that God makes. We seldom actually directly detect things in science anyway. The existence of exo-planets for example is detected by measuring the effects of the planets on the star with eclipses and “wobbles”, the Higgs Boson famously is detected by measuring its decay effects (since it is too short-lived to detect directly). In forensics, the existence of a murderer can be detected by evidential effects he has, for example fingerprints, damage to victim, etc. Thus, regardless of what God is, his existence can be inferred from the interactions he makes through reality – which can be assessed via. scientific methods. “God” Pro straight-up affirms the Christian God within this debate, which ironically works against Pro’s case, since the Christian God entails many well-characterised effects on reality that can be assessed empirically: 1.Age of the Earth & Universe and relational ages The God of the Bible created the Earth and Universe within 7 days, as well as all of life. Thus, we should be able to test this interaction of God on reality via. empirical means – by dating various portions of the Earth, universe and evidence of the earliest life on Earth. 2. Global Flood The God of the Bible entails a worldwide flood that is in the Noachian flood myth, thus clear geological and archaeological science can be performed to confirm or disprove this, which would have the potential to falsify God’s existence (since the Christian God is defined according to the Bible). 3.Subjective Interactions Pro asserts that God interacts with reality via. revelation and miracles, these are also empirically testable via. various methodologies. For example the miracle of the raising of the dead: “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many” (Matthew 27:52) This is a claim that must be true if the Christian God (so defined by the Bible) exists, thus we can test this empirically by second-order effects – for example by independent witnesses and testimony of the many local towns that must have seen these saints. Summary This case is pretty straightforward, and open&shut, regardless of God’s nature – if God interacts with reality, then science has something to say about his existence.
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

Regarding Con's assertion that either God does interact with reality or he doesn't, He does. Where I believe Con and other atheists err is the fact that God is not physical, but rather transcendent. Where do we read about the Christian God? The bible. Does the bible give evidences of a physical God? No. But it DOES give evidences of a transcendent God. The bible illustrates God as one who exists out of and independent from the material universe. For the atheist to demand material evidence for a transcendent God cannot and does not work because you cannot assign materialistic properties to a transcendent being.[1] That is called a category mistake.[2] This is why you cannot scientifically test the validity of God's existence. What makes God Transcendent? Three things:[3] 1. Self revelation- A transcendent God would only be known through decision to reveal himself to our material world which he has done. 2. God is Authoritative- God's authority is documented throughout the bible, God never once defends his authority, 3. God is Miraculous- God's miracles are also well documented throughout the bible. The bible is ultimately the way to determine whether God interacts with with reality. empirical dectectabilty does not matter as it is begging for material evidence, and you simply can not ask for material evidence when discussing the transcendent Christian God. The only way to denounce God is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible is not true. And the only way to do that is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is unreal. You then enter this infinite loop, like a dog forever chasing it's tail. There is no need for scientific reasoning as you cannot utilize it in this case 1. https://carm.org... 2. https://carm.org... 3. https://carm.org...
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

I will try to be as concise as humanly possible.Argument from Interaction This argument can be formulated as below:1. Either God interacts with reality or he doesn't2. If God does not interact with reality, then reality is exactly as if God does not exist3.If God does interact with reality, then these interactions with reality will be epirically detectable4. If these interactions with reality are empirically detectable, then scientific reasoning does matterC. Thus, either reality is exactly as if God doesn't exist, or scientific reasoning does matterHowever, Pro cannot grapple the first horn of this dilemma, since that would entail God's existance unlikely due to the law of parsimony (it is simply more likely that something that does nothing doesn't exist at all, then existing stoically by virtue of simplicity). Furthermore it contradicts the nature of God (with a capital G), since this is the God of theism, and hence God will interact with reality by virtue of his benevolence (be it interacting with people after they die, or a specific way God must have created the world), also if God does not interact with reality, then God could not have created the universe at all, which would contradict the definition of God, since God is by definition a creator.Thus, in all cases, scientific reasoning matters when debating God's existance.
Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

Does scientific reasoning really matter in the whole scheme of things when talking about whether the Christian God exists or not? Is it more important than the moral justifications in favor of the Christian God's existance? Why? These are the questions I am charging Con with answering. Obviously, the answer should be no. How is the question of what's right and what's wrong and why something is right or wrong less important than the question of where we all come from? Why do the scientific objections to the existance of God trump the moral implications that Christianity presents? That is basically what this debate is going to be about. I'll let con start with his arguments and My rebuttals will follow. To make this easier on the both of us, this debate will be only about the Christian God and Christianity and not Allah or something.
Spiderman could kill Batman in a gladiator fight.

1. Just because you have a lot of strength does not mean you can pack a punch. Imagine a really buff guy coming up to you and punching you in the face, lightly. You see, a buff man can punch any way possible. It depends on the swing (power) on how hard the punch is. I thought this was a gladiator fight. Lol, where'd the skyscrapers come from? 2. I know exactly what spider sense is. However there is a flaw in your argument. The Spider-Sense gives him awareness, but not speed. Meaning that Spidey can know what's coming, but not have enough time to evade it. And Batman was trained and he specializes in being quick with his attacks. 3. Batman is a master of many artforms and styles of Kung-Fu, Karate, and many other martial arts. 4. Last but certainly not least, Batman has beaten Superman. Twice. (At least to my knowledge). So let's do a little math. Batman > Superman Superman > Spider-Man Therefore Batman > Spider-Man and Spider-Man < Batman
Spiderman could kill Batman in a gladiator fight.

1. Hold on a sec, what you say doesn't make much sense. If I can lift 10 tons, then that means the muscles in my arms have developed much more than someone who can only lift 1000 pounds. If my 10 ton muscles are more developed then the 1000 lbs. guy, then It's self explanatory that the guy who can lift 10 tons can hit 20 times harder because his muscles are 20 times more developed. On the subject of training, Spiderman has developed his own martial art known as the way of the spider which combines elements from his training with Captain America and other martial arts from Shang-Chi. It also utilises his spider sense to counter any blow from an attacker whilst allowing him for the perfect counter strike. ( E ) I highly doubt Batman's armour can protect him from the sheer weight of a skyscraper collapsing on him. 2. I'm not sure you completely understand spider sense. Let try to explain it a little more simply, spider sense gives spider man omnipotent awareness of his surroundings, so unless your name is Venom or Carnage, it is Impossible to sneak up on spiderman. 3. Again, The way of the spider and his spider sense pretty much renders stealth and the majority of conventional martial arts useless. E. http://marvel.wikia.com...