BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved; Christianity was a positive influence in the development of modern science

This is a debate about the nature of the historical impact of Christianity on the development of science. I must show a positive relationship historically between Christianity and the development of science. My opponent must show that the relationship is either balanced between negative and positive influences or that Christianity has more often than not stifled science, rather than promoted it. If either myself or my opponent fails to meet their burden, we will have lost the debate.
Data is more human the Spock

My opponent says "as human as they could make him", implying that he is not fully human. By saying "as human as they could make him" is admitting that he is not human. And my opponent says that he has the curiosity and wishes to be human, but If I have the curiousity that a cat does in a lazer pointer, and I want to be a cat, that does not make me a cat. While Spock refuses to accept his human side, saying that he refuses to accept it still means that he has it. Even if he tries to ignore it does not make it go away. The government ignores the national debt, but it sure as hell is still there. Ignorance and refusal to accept does not make it any less true. Therefore, I firmly believe that Spock is more human than Data. Thank you. I am glad to have participated in this debate. Vote for CHEESEDINGO!
Data is more human the Spock

Data was created by humans to be as human as they could make him, he has the curiosity that people do, wishes to be human, and tries to the best of his ability to be so. Spock on the other hand refuses to accept his human side, he tries to ignore his feeling, and let me also remind you that Vulcans have the most intense emotions so they aren't solely a human thing. To me, the only time Spock shows his human side is when he loses control of his emotions. Data, on the other hand, is always trying to improve himself, and take the best things about people and and integrate them into his life.
Data is more human the Spock

This debate can either be really stupid or rather philosophical. Stupid: Data is 0% biological human. He is an android. No human whatsoever. Spock, on the other hand, is 50% biological human. As basic math goes, 50% is more than 0%. Therefore, Spock is more human. Smart: Is this debate about which is more human-like? If so, I believe that you could make a rather sufficient argument. Either way, more of an argument is needed than the one sentence provided.
DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

This is based off a similar debate from Edeb8, a debate site with this particular feature mentioned within this debate that isn't on DDO. I will now defend this particular feature.1. Better VotingThe admin of the website can justify this. Edeb8 has people judge your voting score, and as found by the admin, voting score is somehow actually better in these unlimited-character debates than limited-character debates. As posted from a screen shot below, admin says... (If you can't see it, click here: http://www.debate.org.... The quote says "On average....debates with unlimited characters have an average vote rating of 4.2, which is between exceptional and constructive. Debates with limited characters have less than this, having only an average vote rating of 3.76." This actually makes sense. People nowadays are even complaining about 10,000 characters. Why only go as far as 10,000 characters? Go unlimited. You can express your ideas in a clearer way and be able to justify your arguments better with unlimited. With unlimited, you don't have to worry about going over the limit and be able to have better arguments and reveal the true debater inside you.2. Realism stimulationSee video for example of live debate. http://www.youtube.com...As you can clearly see, people have the ability to speak as much as they can, but in a limited amount of time. Similarly, in online debates, we should have a similar environment to real life to produce a more realistic debate and have a better debating experience. People will still have limited time to research, it is not as if they can post 1 billion sources in merely 3 days; they will still be limited to how much they can type. Therefore the initial challenge of choosing your words carefully still remains, only not as strict as before, and more closer to the experience of real-life debating. 3. More concentration on materialWithin unlimited characters, you can now focus on organizing your arguments. You can now analyze them further more than ever before. You aren't concerned about which little arguments you have to delete and be forced to only go for the most important arguments. Now we can truly see how much good arguments--no matter how small--in addition to the big important arguments the opponents can bring forward. Even if one man posts 10 arguments compared to another's 3 arguments, those 3 may be far more important and the debaters will gain more skill by learning what are the truly important arguments in contrast to the little, not helping-much arguments. Both limited and unlimited can help increase the debater's skill within noticing the small errors compared to the big errors, but unlimited offers the greater challenge within the ability to not just include the big arguments but the little arguments along as well. In conclusion....unlimited characters are cool and offer something new, some spice to the good old formula. There is a reason the admin/Larztheloser chose to include it on his site. DDO should include unlimited characters as well.Onto you, Fuzzy.
We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

If you're not an atheist, then your statement makes no sense against religion and religious people, it's just utter absurdity then. Your whole position has been neutralized since your worldview is based upon space dust, but the thing is you're not consistent with your valueless space dust worldview, you're appealing to absolute values such as morality and logic etc. which your space dust worldview cannot account for to begin with, so your whole argument has no epistemic foundation to begin with, it's just absurd that space dust is appealing to non-material values such as logic in a debate and claims religion is harmful. On what basis can space dust claim such things? It cannot, therefore your entire position has no validity epistemically and therefore can be refused with two words, are you ready? So what!
We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

"This argument falls flat because it makes an assumption that all atheist want nothing." Strawman, my argument point out that atheists has no justification for why religion is bad since atheists ultimately cannot account for good or bad. Atheists believe they're nothing but evolved space dust, so what!? Who cares what space dust do to space dust? It's absurd that you who believes you're nothing but space dust claim the world will be better if religious people are killed, because nothing is better or worse in the worldview of space dust, because absolute values such as good and bad, cannot be account for, neither can atheists account for truth, morality, logic or any other absolute universal value, yet atheists will appeal to values such as good and bad but doesn't understand that betray their non-theistic worldview. Atheists borrow values from theism such as morality, but then foolishly reject God which is the precondition for morality, and thus the atheists commit epistemic suicide.
We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

1): 1) I"f the atheistic worldview consists of nothing but valueless space dust, then nothing has more value than any other thing" The atheistic worldview has nothing to do with the value of space dust. The world view is that things have to be proved scientifically to be called right. "2) The atheist worldview does only consist of space dust. 3) Therefore, nothing has more value than any other thing." This argument falls flat because it makes an assumption that all atheist want nothing. This is false, not all atheist are nihilistic. This nihilism argument falls flat because Con hasn't proved that they are all nihilistic. Thus making his whole argument not beating out mine. "You desiring to kill all believers of God proves that you're inconsistent with your atheistic worldview. According to your worldview, no action is more meaningful than any other action, you're space dust correct? So what does it matter that some space dust chemically fizz religion apart from fizzing non-religion?" Again he tries to argue that we follow a nihilistic philosophy, which is untrue. Yes, there are some nihilistic atheist but there are also different ones. You haven't proved that we are all nihilistic. My arguments still stand from round 1 that stays unrefuted. Con is essentially ignoring what I said about the positives, and is arguing over atheism itself, which is irrelevant to this debate. We are arguing whether it is okay to kill every person on Earth if they believe in a god, not if Atheism is a nihilistic world view.
We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

1) If the atheistic worldview consists of nothing but valueless space dust, then nothing has more value than any other thing. 2) The atheist worldview does only consist of space dust. 3) Therefore, nothing has more value than any other thing. You desiring to kill all believers of God proves that you're inconsistent with your atheistic worldview. According to your worldview, no action is more meaningful than any other action, you're space dust correct? So what does it matter that some space dust chemically fizz religion apart from fizzing non-religion?
We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

Hello everyone, I am What50 and it has been a while since I debated. I propose to you a very controversial idea, but I guarantee you that this can solve a plethora of problems. 1: First off we can end all religious conflict. There is a huge increase of Religious conflict throughout the world. Primarily it is the Religion of Islam that is having the highest religious conflict compared to other religion. We have to ask, we can end all this uneeded terroist attacks from the past and just end it all with one single clean swipe of the whole world. 2: It doesn't matter anyways. Yes we will killing a whole bunch of humans but at the end of the day will it matter? If Christians were right, than 2.2 billion of them will go to heaven which for them is objectively better than Earth. While the rest of them will go to hell. Same goes for the other religion at the end of the day, there can only be one right answer, and the rest of us will be damned to whatever they see deem fit. 3: We can be solving so much of the worlds problems. For instance we can remove the threat of terroist attacks, due to many of them, are doing it for religious purposes. We will wasting less food, have more resources to benefit, we can stop the human overpopulation, less carbon build up due to less humans, more jobs will be avaible reducing the homelessness rate, less criminals due to 10.4% of them having no religious preference that means the other prisoners who are religious will die, having less criminals. We will be reducing waste, and total garbage pileup, and we will have less pollution despicably the carbon build up. Look at these benefits if we just kill every religious figure in the world. So much of the world problems can be solved, and we can keep the human race going with less violence. Citation: https://www.telegraph.co.uk... https://www.statista.com...
I am your God

YOU SILARGS SHEEP RAT I AM YOUR GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "death is logic is reason" -Igblarg soviet russia YOUR HEAD VILL BE PUT IN BURNING HOT CHIKEN SOUP YOU VILL RUN THROUGHT THE DESSERT LOOKING FOR VATER IN THE SAND HOLY ANCIENT SHAMANS WEARING TIN BUCKETS ARE THERE HEADS VILL BEAT VOU WITH WHIPS! DEAD PEOPLE WILL PULL YOU BACK UNDER THE WATER http://www.youtube.com...
I am your God

1. "Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god. " Circular logic. My opponent must assume that he is, indeed, my god before his argument follows through. In addition, I have already stated that I can comprehend my god. Since my opponent has stated that I cannot comprehend him, he cannot be my god. Furthermore, even if he states otherwise, he cannot prove that he is *my* god and not the god of someone else. 2. "Proof? I have all the proof in the world" My opponent includes sources on shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement, none of which are relevant. I will take this as a concession that he has no proof for his claim, but plenty of proof for other things involving shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement. CONCLUSION: My opponent has effectively forfeited this debate. All of my points are left standing and thus, the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
I am your God

1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him. Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god. 2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic. Proof? I have all the proof in the world http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://thezeitgeistmovement.com...
I am your God

My opponent's definition of "God" is merely a definition and thus, not a source, but statement of debate parameters. Furthermore, his links to "Physics", "Logic", "Reason", and "Contradiction" are just meaningless citations. Each of those terms involve a large field of study and his reference was brief. Thus, these do not count as sources for his argument because they in no way contribute to it. Second, my opponent's argument is flawed. Essentially, my opponent counters my argument in that he is a god that defies logic and nature. 1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him. 2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic. 3. I do not have a god. Possession is an attribute that follows existence, thus, my opponent must prove that he as a god exists before he can show that he is also my god. He has done neither. Since my opponent has failed to meet his burden, I will await further arguments. Thank you.
I am your God

"Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist." First off a god is a "supernatural creator and overseer of the universe" http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore I can create the laws of physics http://en.wikipedia.org... Because I am your God I can go beyond your primitive human conceptions of reason and logic I can exist and not exist at the same time ( this is a fact ) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: My opponent does not understand that because I am your God. I can go beyond his human misconception of logic.
I am your God

This will be a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument GIVEN: Alk09 14-year old male in Bellevue, Washington, United States. Religion: Atheist 1. ASSUME Alk09 is my god. 2. My god is a 14 year old male Atheist 3. An Atheist is one who does not believe in any gods 4. My god does not believe in himself 5. My god has stated that he is my god and thus, that he exists. Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist. Therefore, reject the assumption.
Resolved: Religion Benefits Modern Society

Introduction: Agreed with my opponent's definition of religion. To clarify the resolution, my opponent has asserted that religion benefits modern society. In order to win this debate, I will either have to show that religion harms modern society or simply that it does not benefit it. My opponent's argument thus far consisted of the following sentence: "Religion benefits modern society, as it creates and enforces moral laws which all in said religion are forced to follow." This makes the following assertions: 1. Religion creates moral laws 2. Religion enforces moral laws 3. All those in a religion or forced to follow the moral laws laid down by said religion My argument for this round will consist of showing that each of those contentions is false. Contentions: 1. Based on my opponent's definition, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe creates moral laws. Why would such a belief create moral laws? It does not logically follow that a religion would cause moral laws to come into existence spontaneously. If it were somehow true, than what would happen when two religions proposed contradictory moral laws? A religion may propose an idea about morality, but these ideas are not universally accepted and they often directly contradict moral ideas that are derived from logic and reasoning. Simply because religion proposes moral ideas does not mean that it is beneficial to modern society. In order for this alleged moral contribution to be relevant, my opponent would have to show that the moral ideas proposed by religions are logical and beneficial. That fact that many religions would directly contradict each other would also have to be reconciled. 2. In modern society, religions do not have the power to enforce their moral laws. I really don't see how this could be contended. Though people may attempt to make their religious ideas into law, religions do not directly possess this power and in any case it is unconstitutional in the United States. 3. No one in a religion is forced to follow its laws in modern society. Again, this is hardly a contentious issue. Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder. The religion does not force its followers to obey moral laws. Conclusion: I could go into a number of arguments that morally does not come from religion and I could provide many examples of the negative influences of religion. However, the argument that my opponent has provided does not make this necessary. My opponent's only argument has been that religion creates and enforces moral laws, but it clearly does not do either of these things.
Pets

I thank my opponent for their response and will now state my arguments.Contention 1: Cats are accomodating and polite to guests.Dogs are typically excited and eager to greet guests. Unfortunately, this behavior is more often than not unappreciated by said guest. The larger, more popular dogs are capable of physically harming humans by jumping on them, especially small children. A cat is less social which is actually a good thing. A cat will not randomly jump on a guest with malicious intent or even good intent and be capable of severely harming said guest while a dog could.Contention 2: There are no recorded cases of non-disease related deaths caused by cats.While both dogs and cats can spread disease, there is no record of a person being completely mauled to death by a cat. While listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org......) are fatal attacks by dogs that have resulted in deaths.Contention 3: Cats are quieter.It is physically impossible for a cat to be louder than a dog. While dogs can be deafeningly loud and impossible to shut up without muzzling, cats can only mew so loud and won't be heard mewing more often than not.Contention 4: Cats take up less room.Dogs make bigger feces, take more room, take more maintenance, and cost more to own.
Pets

In this following debate I was planning to prove why dogs are better pets than cats. Now its going to be a little difficult because you will also be stating some pros on dogs. So I believe it will be getting better after you respond in round two when you will say good things about cats. I have several topics I would like to cover in my debate. First of all, the saying is "Dog is men's best friend", not cats are men's best friend. So I will be doing my best to answer why is a dog a men's best friend. Some reasons that dogs are better than cats are security, having a fun time, active lifestyle, and unity between each others. Dogs will take care of your house better than a cat will. When have you have ever seen a cat warn his owner from a robbery or house on fire. There are stories where dogs wakes up their owners and live to tell the story. Dogs are used as police dogs, that alarm people if there are drugs, bombs, or even a missing person somewhere. A cat can't do that. Dogs are heroes. I have a dog which takes care of my house and senses someone walking by. My family or I can't hear anything but the dog just get up and starts barking.When do you see a cat doing that. A cat will be laying down and just mining their own business. I personally see cats as a waste of money because they basically live by themselves, at the other end a dog wants to be member of the family. My dog gets sad and desperate when the whole family is in a room and he gets locked out and abandoned. Dog's feeling are almost readable for the human. Hope you respond back. Can't wait to see your retaliation.
Cam Newton shouldn't have won the MVP award.

Cam got lucky with a bunch of wins because the defense set them up to score points. Carolina had 24 int and 15 fumbles while only giving away 10 int and 9 fumbles to have a +20 on the give/takeaways, 1st place. Carolina's defense was first place in the league for int and fumbles for takeaways. Cam had an easier schedule and didn't play any of the top teams. They played 4 playoff teams out of the 16 teams they played, two of which had a 9-7 record and the other two were 10-6. They actually lost to a team that was 7-7, Atlanta. Seattle actually played against 7 teams with better record or same as, out of the 16 games played. After going 2-4 with a loss to Carolina, Russell Wilson was on fire and got his team to the playoffs when they were counted out. Tom Brady played against 6 teams over .500 and 3 teams at .500 with a hurt core of receivers. Patriots would have been in the super bowl if they hadn't had so many injuries to make them lose home field advantage. The ability to win so many games with weak receivers is MVP to the core.
Cam Newton shouldn't have won the MVP award.

So by most valuable, that usually means that without him in the line up, that team would lose. I believe the defense carried Cam throughout the season and he didn't have as great an impact on his team as a couple of other quarterbacks, like Tom Brady or Russell Wilson. I believe both of those quarterbacks carried their perspective teams on their shoulders and wouldn't have won as many games if they weren't playing as MVP's. I do believe Cam had a break out year but I don't think he carried his team. MVP on his team but not of the league, he was 3rd at best.