BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of a supernatural God

(1) We need art to survive My opponent asks, "How do you bridge the gap between intelligence that is only used for survival and intelligence that is not used at all for survival? That's like asking, "How do you bridge the gap between front teeth that is only used for survival and wisdom teeth that is not used at all for survival? " We evolved with Wisdom teeth. They exist with other types of teeth and evolved the same way, yet are not necessary for survival. Both abstract and concrete intelligence evolved from the brain. You can not have one without the other. Abstract reasoning skills are necessary for algebra, yet basic math only requires concrete intelligence. It can be argued that both basic math and algebra are needed for survival. (2) Morality is also used for survival. My opponent claims "Evolution is selfish. .. genes act only for their own survival, not for the survival of the species. " Humans and other animals are "wired" through evolution which compels us to do things for the survival of the species, not just the individual. An example of that would be a compulsion to have sex. When a lion cares for its cubs and provides them food, is that selfish? No, but it's needed for the the survival of the cubs and the species. That type of wired behavior came about with evolution. Mothers are compelled to nurture their offspring. They allow them to feed on their breasts. It's not selfish and it's behavior that came about through evolution. Humans have evolved as social creatures. We don't live alone. We depend on each other for survival. Stronger males protect weaker women and children. There is power in numbers. It's easier to survive together than alone. My opponent accuses me of not knowing evolution. I counter that accusation and claim my opponent is the one who does not understand evolution based on his quote, "Evolution is selfish. .. " (3) Free Will My opponent defined supernatural as "must include being beyond nature". Being able to know everything is beyond nature. A supernatural God would be capable of supernatural things, including being able to know everything, including the future. Just because my opponent doesn't believe that God knows the future, doesn't make it true. Belief is not the same as truth. I did not change the terms of the debate. According to my opponent's own definition of supernatural, an "all-knowing God" fits with a God who is "beyond nature". I conclude that my opponent failed to meet his burden of proof to provide evidence that a supernatural God exists.
The existence of a supernatural God

First off, I'd like to explain something: A "positive atheist" (AKA Gnostic Atheist) will claim there is no God. In that case, the burden of proof is on the Atheist to prove there is no God. Since that is impossible, I reject any positive atheism. Also, if an Atheist uses evolution as a positive claim, they have the burden of proof to provide evidence for evolution, which is possible, since there is overwhelming evidence to prove evolution as a fact. So, I still will insist that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who make the positive claim. (1) Beauty and Art NOW...my opponent said, "We need art to survive.". What proof is there for that? Just because humans have the ability to appreciate art, doesn't prove there is a God. It could just be a by-product of intelligence, which evolved for better survival. Not everything we have is for survival. Wisdom teeth, appendixes and other things are useless for survival. (2) Morality and Moral Behavior My opponent claims "This moral order cannot be derived from nature". Once again, where is the evidence for this? Morality is also used for survival. We don't kill each other, for example, so our species has a better chance to survive. We are creatures that tend to help each other survive. There's nothing supernatural about that. (3) Free Will It's been said that God is almighty and all-knowing. If God is all-knowing, won't he know if I'll be saved on judgment day before I am even born? If he knows the outcome, how can I use my free will to change the outcome of something God knows will happen? Either I can change what God knows will happen, which means he is not all knowing, or I can't change what he knows will happen, which means I don't have free will. If I have free will, then an all knowing God can't exist! So far, none of my opponent's arguments proves a supernatural God exists.
The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

I am not going to dispute the fact that congress is doing an abhorrent job, but I will say it is on both parties, not one over the other. I first want to thank you for trusting my honesty and I will agree with you that today's GOP has little to do with Ronald Reagan. I will also not dispute the fact that people don't understand the Obamacare law as well as they should, but you can't say that my premiums have not skyrocketed when they went from just over $50 a month to $180, my parents are forced to work multiple jobs because of the problems with the tax premiums, my parents don't need new health insurance, they have some of the best in the country. The law may be designed to give few people incentive to cut jobs, but the reality is they have been slashed. Most jobs created as of late part time, not full time. I must disagree that republicans are the problem, and once again I assert the point that if people truly believed that republicans were the problem, why would they have given republicans the house in 2010, why wouldn't they have taken it back from the republicans in 2012, and finally why are republicans winning almost 65% of the senate races thus far? Tell me that the people think that republicans are to blame, please tell me that they people are wrong, that we aren't being negatively effected by Obamacare, and that our premiums have not went up, please tell me again. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.bls.gov... http://www.politico.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.quinnipiac.edu... The last three are for the last argument, I apologize for not posting them, my IPad wouldn't let me for some reason. And with the first website link, those polls are very general, you have to select each race for more specifics.
The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

The reason those buying health insurance won't be effected by the tax hikes coming is because they either aren't citizens or their just being shifted over from medicare/medicade. The main reason I argue about ronald reagen is because his reforms worked, and work well, my mom is proof of this having her salary double under reagen. A forty percent approval rating is dismal for the presidents signature law. My tax arguement is not invalide since my employer is now forced to give me heath insurance, my premiums have sky rocketed and my taxes on work checks have increaesed to pay for it on a national level. Republican "time wasting" on Obamacare is justififable, because the heart of the law, the employer mandate, is causing me and my parents to worry about weather or not we are going to get layed off or demoted to part time, as well as all my friends, family and neighbors. Although many provisions are popular, such as the planto keep young people on parents insurance till they turn 26, the rest is not. Higher taxes are not the solution they just sap more money out of the market, becausewhat buisnessman is going to invest in the market if he isn't sure if he has enough money to support himself after he gets taxed? Another study also shows that obama is considered the worst president since WWII, courtesy of pew research, gallup, and rasmussen, non partisan highlynrespected polls. Tell me how this wave of progressivism is less radical than any tea party person, your poll is also outdated. If the people of the United States blamed Republicans for this partisan ship, they wouldn't be saying obama is the worst president, and they would've given democrats back the house in 2012. All polls saying obama worst president since wwii found on washingtontimes, nytimes, usatoday, the hill, quinipiac, real claer politics, foxnews, nbc, abc, cbs, cnn, and even the very liberal msnbc
The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

My argument centers around the fact that it is the president who is gridlocking congress. With Obamacare what your article fails to mention is that the fact that republicans were trying to protect people from the wildly unpopular extremely devastating effects of Obamacare. Many Americans are with out health insurance as much as x10 the ammount of people dropped and with taxes they are already high enough as it is. Obama promised us if we like are plan we could keep it, lie, if we liked are doctor we could keep our doctor, lie, that insurance prices would go down, lie than this wouldn't cost us a dime, lie, that seven million people have signed up, 1.7 million citizenship can't be verified, 3.2 million are thought to have not even payed, and finally that this would result in a average of $500 savings per family instead it rocked prices almost $2000 ( that's in my house). On immigration the democrats are either in revolt or panicking. With Reagan his style of economy did work, I fact it led to the largest recovery since the Great Depression, helped cause the collapse of the soviet empire, and left us better off then almost ever. Have you ever read Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals if you have then you know that Obama is following them to a "T". These month long debates have been done here in Wisconsin when democrats didn't want a bill passed so your argument about republicans just doing that goes out the window, and don't say they didn't I can so prove otherwise. The stubborn resistance of the GOP leaders does not hamper growth if Obama wanted to grow they economy he had two years with filibuster proof majorities in both houses of congress and if the people thought he had done a good job they wouldn't have given republicans back the house. Greece and Spain on the contrary expanded government so much that when they finally tried to cut it it was met with violent resistance. And in regards to Bohner he has attempted to compromise but he's a piss poor leader who has got to go. http://www.rightwingnews.com... http://useconomy.about.com... http://www.forbes.com... http://dailycaller.com...? http://www.californiahealthline.org...
The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

I argue that I fact the recent polarizing stance and previous refusal of our president has divided congress extremely deeply and the fact that an increasingly large amount of Americans do agree with this position. Republicans cling to their traditions because they work and these traditions built this country into the greatest nation on this earth, don't believe me? Well research the views of the Republicans and then research the views of our founding fathers they are very much the same. Now I will refrain from vulgarity but I expect the same fair treatment.
The Republican party is the chief cause of govt. inaction for crucial issues.

I argue that the partisanship of the RECENT Republicans is the chief problem behind the largely lethargic and partisan Congress. When I refer to the Republicans, I'm referring to the Tea Party offshoot as well. Put simply, I'm implying that the Republican party has a negative influence on the govt. because of their partisanship and stubbornness, and their insistence to cling to ideas that would hamper the country if implemented. I want a clean debate, with no overtly offensive comments about either side. Round 1- acceptance and declaration of position. Round 2- Opening arguments only Round 3- Rebuttal and any further arguments Round 4- Rebuttal Round 5- Concluding rebuttals, assertions and final statements I look forward to this debate. Anyone can accept.
It's possible to be dishonest if you believe what you say is true.

When your friend called you dishonest for saying "not all of them but I been knew this" responding "no, not all but the majority" he may have been saying that your phrasing deliberately obfuscated the amount of republicans against Trump. Assuming that is not what your friend meant, if your friend meant that you had been lied to or misinformed deliberately and then repeated that lie not knowing it was a lie then what you said would still be a lie or at least false, and according to the definition of dishonest in my last argument that would make you dshonest.
It's possible to be dishonest if you believe what you say is true.

Ok like he just showed me a link about the Republican party being against Trump. Saying "Even his own party thinks he's a joke." I respond: "Not all of them but I been knew this." (He doesn't watch t.v. but i do) Then he responds: "No, not all, but the majority, and I doubt you "been knew" very little as you're evidently an ignorant, dishonest f*ckt*rd." Then he responds (sorry for the language) : "Sure... The evidence shows you're ignorant, that you're petulant, that your comprehension skills are abysmal, and that your critical thinking skills are worse. Combine these with the fact that you grammar skills are garbage, only beaten in terribleness by illiterate people, I see no reason to trust anything you claim. Further, I knew it's old, too, but it being old doesn't disprove it, she that's not a valid reason to dismiss it, so...red herring." I respond: I didnt dismiss it. (Insert insult here) I just said not all of the Republicans. (Insert insult here) and that i been knew it. (Insert insult here). What did you want me to say. (Insert insult here) Then he responds: "Yes, you did. You obviously don't know what dismissive statements are, lol. "Been knew it" Your learning is bad because your reading is bad, so your knowledge is necessarily bad. I wanted you to not say stupid sh*t, or falsehoods, or make claims without evidence...so, probably just shutting your retard hole altogether (by and large)." Then I responded: "About what? Why they're against trump? I thought your point of showing me this was to inform me that even they are against him. Okay soo what are you saying with this post then we can debate." He hasnt responded yet
It's possible to be dishonest if you believe what you say is true.

According to Merriam-Webster, 'Dishonest' means something or someone is "characterized by lack of truth, honesty, OR trustworthiness"(http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Because of the 'OR', anything displaying a lack of truth can be considered dishonest. You might not believe a drunk person that says they can safely drive, not because you think they are maliciously trying to decieve you, but because they are incapable making a good decision. I understand this argument may be criticized for going into semantics but one has to in order to answer the question definitively. Finally, in response to the mention of the polygraph, "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies"(http://www.apa.org...).
It's possible to be dishonest if you believe what you say is true.

I have some obnoxious friends, who keep throwing around the word dishonest, when we debate a topic. Its hard to explain how they use it. E.G. Like the sky is blue. No, its light blue or sky blue...you're so dishonest. I don't believe a person can be dishonest if they truly believe in what they said. I mean, they could pass a polygraph right. Im sorry if it sounds stupid, it does to me, but i need an outside opinion.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3.I agree that it is possible for the person to not forget their old lover, however, I do not think it will be with the same amount of love as if they were still together. I think that regardless of how you felt, not being together forces you to lose your romantic love, although not completely. 4. I agree that memories are not always completely consuming, however, if you compare the memories of your old field trip to your new one, the will one be that is better an therefore you appreciate it and love it more. 5. That is possible, for the person to look for someone they can romantically love and be with while still feeling romantic love with someone else, however, I think by the time this person begins to feel romantic love for a new person, they will lose their old feelings or they will no longer be as strong or meaningful. The old feelings lack the actual desire for romance. 6. I do not agree with this because if the person realized the hook up was wrong to begin with, once they are sober, then they will not continue to try and create a romantic love after this one mistake because they have another person whom they romantically love and give all their effort to. 7. It is possible for a person to always feel some type of way about the first person they were with, however, I think over time if you are no longer together it seems impossible for the feelings to stay the same especially if you are with a new person. 8. If you are allowing yourself to let the lustful attraction to turn into romantic love, then you must be giving this person more of your attention and time and romance than to your former lover. You love one and lose the other. 9. Therefore it is not possible to love more than one person at once.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. During that time it is possible that during the coping time, the person wanted found someone who could love them back and supported them while they grieved the pain of a lost lover. Causing the person to romantically love both the new lover while not forgetting the old. 4. memories are not always completely consuming. It is possible that you remember a field trip when you where younger but that memory is not going to prevent you from creating new ones on a new field trip. 5. If the feelings are not lost then it does not mean the person will just be trying to hold onto them and do nothign else. It is possible for the person to hold on to old feelings of their former romantic love that they unfortunately could not be with and find a new person to love romantically to creat a relationship that works in their favor. 6. maybe when they were hooking up their intention was not to fall in love but, like we said before love is unpredictable. So maybe if the person was sober they would not have experimented but since they did they now have two romatic lovers, although it was not planned. 7. That was be true. Since this person if the first person you romantically loved, then those feelings will not change when you find someone else and grow feelings for them. 8. Although your mind is focused on your lover, it is possible that someone new comes into your life and your are attracted to them lustfully. That lust could then turn into romantic love and you now romantically love them both. 9. Therefore it is possible to love more than one person at once.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. if that was the situation then the person would need time for them to cope. and during that time they're not going to look for anyone else because they would be torn apart and that would cause them more and stronger feelings because they want to fix everything so they can be together again. 4. if you are too focused on the memories and the past feelings you are not going to have enough time to love someone else because that involves time and it wont happen if you are too busy mourning. 5. the feelings would if the feelings were not easily lost then what makes you think they are going to look for another lover if their mind is focused on their past lover. 6. i agree but that doesn't mean just because they "hooked up" once they are going to be romantically in love with one another it can simply be lust and a fantasy and it only occurred because they were under the influence but im pretty sure if they were sober the person would not act upon it because they are inlove with the other person and mistakes happen. 7. if you act upon your desire and lets say it was your first time and you did it with that person you are going to grow attached and will not forget about that person and you will grow feelings for this person. 8. how would one put themselves in a situation like that if youre mind is focused on your lover, you're not going to have enough time to spend with this person. you will push your self away from something like that because you are committed to the other person. 9. therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I agree that is possible if they ended on a bad note. What if they did not end on a bad not and they just could not be together any longer due to death or an illness? Then they would be looking for a person similar to the one they have loved. 4. it is possible that the person feels pity as well as love. When you romantically love someone you can also give them your pity. and just because they are not around to give you love back does not mean the memories will not suffice and allow for the feelings to remain while simultaneously having romantic feelings for a new person. 5. Feelings are not easily lost from one person to the next. especially if the relationship ended unwillingly. 6. Where other substances, such as alcohol or drugs, are involved, a person is usually unlikely to think logically and avoid situations that we would otherwise. Therefore when those substance are involved it is almost impossible to keep your loyalty to one person because you may not even be conscious of it. 7. When you romantically love someone, you love every part of that person. Their personality, their physical appearance, also their imperfections, whereas lust is pure sexual desire. There is no emotional connection. 8. I agree that it takes time to become romantically attached to someone. sometimes those situations are unavoidable if they come up at a place like work or school because those are mandatory. 9. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. if they are similar and they old lover ended on a bad note what makes you think they're going to want or go look for someone similar to the past person. 4. if the person is gone then they're not going to feel that same, they are going to feel pity not the romantic love because noone is going to be there to give them the romantic love back to them and thats what that person needs. 5. i agree love is unpredictable and so is someones feelings so one can have feelings and then lose feelings for the other person through time and slowly forget how that person made them feel before. 6. i agree but you can also push yourself away from putting yourself in that situation because you are loyal to your other lover. 7. how do you know what you're feeling is romantic love instead of lust. 8. you can not just get romantically attached to someone by seeing them, it takes time and if you love someone else romantically you will not put yourself in a situation like that and let it build with another person.9. therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once.