BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You cannot disprove the existence of God.

Certainly there is no way to disprove the existence of a god or other such entities. However there is also no way to disprove the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. Yet most people would agree that none of those things exist since the evidence shows that they are more likely than not, nonexistent. The same applies to gods there is no evidence to show that said entity exists therefore it makes more scientific sense to assume there is no god. To show that there is no god is impossible and to show that there is a god is also impossible. Likewise to show that leprechauns aren't real is impossible and to show that they are real is also impossible. It's essentially a paradox; If something isn't real you can't prove it's real and you can't prove that it's not real. What you can do is search for evidence of existence and where there is none one must conclude that what is being sought after is not real. However since the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence one should remain open to possible existence upon the provision of sufficient evidence, which is unlikely to happen. The best way to disprove the existence of a god would be to understand when and how the notion of the existence of god came to be. For example Santa Clause isn't real and we all know that because we know how the myth came to be and practical knowledge shows that it is unlikely that such a person can exist.
You cannot disprove the existence of God.

I understand what you're trying to say and I'm not siding with you I'm just stating that to definitively prove something doesn't exist is impossible and therefore not worth debating. However to using logic to prove that something doesn't exist is possible and is what I was trying to do...though I guess what I was saying wasn't very clear. I was essentially showing that you can prove there is no god but at the same time stating that if you're looking for an absolute answer there is none to be had.
You cannot disprove the existence of God.

You are, once again, missing what I am trying to say. I'm not looking for an arguement where there is an absolute true answer, but rather two people regardless of belief, taking a side and using simple logic and twist to not necessarily prove a point in the end, but for the simple reason of the debate. and technically yeah you are siding with me. I'm pro that you cannot disprove, don't argue with me about whether or not you ACTUALLY can disprove (people try and disprove things on this site all the time and in the end it's still a matter of one's own thought) but take up your side of the arguement, and flow with it. just. forfet. you're not getting me. sorry if I wasn't clear. XD
You cannot disprove the existence of God.

I'm not taking your side of the argument. What I was doing is stating that there is no way for anyone to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. In order to prove something exist one requires evidence and when something doesn't exist there will be no evidence and hence one must conclude that it does not exist, but cannot prove that it doesn't exist since there will be a complete lack of evidence to substantiate either claim. Do unicorns exist? No they do not. Can you prove they don't exist? No. How do you tell they're not real…well you look for them and when you've exhausted all means of locating them you must conclude that the don not exist. The same applies to the gods. They do not exist on Earth, they have no influence on the Earth or its inhabitants (something some may doubt), and there is no proof to show existence. Since there is no way to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist one must use conjecture. There simply is no evidence to show that there is a god and the complete lack of evidence is proof that there is no supreme creator. And although the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that there is no god it does prove that there is no god in the popular sense of a deity which is an active part of the world.
Pizza is the best food ever!

https://www.verywell.com... According to this article, antioxidants are very beneficial because they can prevent many cells in your body from coming in contact with illnesses/diseases such as cancer and heart stroke. Antioxidants can kill you if you take too much of them but if you digest only a small amount, then you should be fine. Larger doses of antioxidants can increase risk of cancer and other diseases. I couldn't help but laugh when my opponent said that you can get all your food groups on a pizza that is topped with poop, anthrax, and chopped up bits of Justin Bieber. Vegans can eat pizza too if it doesn't have any toppings made from animals. http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com... This image shows a vegan pizza made of a vegan cashew cheese sauce. Pizza as a whole is not healthy because it contains lots of calories and the more toppings that are added to the pizza, the more calories there are but pizza can actually be a very healthy food because it contains two things that are very healthy for your body: cheese and tomato sauce. http://hellogiggles.com... The most important reason why cheese is good for you is because it contains calcium. Calcium is very beneficial to your body because it makes your bones stronger. Stronger bones means less slouching, less back pain, and a more relaxed spine, which are all beneficial. https://tomatofest.com... Tomatoes are healthy for a variety of reasons such as lower risk of prostate cancer (which is very harmful because it can lead to difficulty urinating and pain in the pelvis) and other cancers, decrease in skin damage, and better eyesight. Pizza contains two ingredients that make you healthier, both physically and mentally. Plus, you can add whatever toppings you want to it, depending on what satisfies your taste buds. You can't add toppings to corn and you can't add toppings to shrimp either because the toppings will just fall off.
Pizza is the best food ever!

Antioxidants suck. They can actually kill you, and overdosing on them has even been shown to give people lung cancer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Also cigarrettes have anti-oxidants and they are not good for you. http://www.smokersonly.org... So even if antioxidants and tomatoes are good for you, it doesn't follow that pizza is good for you. Pro mentions that you can get all your food groups on a pizza, but is he aware that you can get all your food groups on a pizza that is topped with poop, anthrax and bits of chopped up Justin Bieber?Is he arguing that because something contains 4 food groups that it is healthy? Because I doubt throwing poop, anthrax and the Biebs on a pizza would mean I am eating healthy just because it has four food groups. In response to my opponent's first argument, vegans can eat corn also so......
Pizza is the best food ever!

Corn may have its beat but pizza also has its beat. http://www.howtolearn.com... 1) Every pizza contains sauce that is inside it and the sauce is made of tomatoes. According to this article, most tomatoes contain an antioxidant, which is something added to prevent harmful chemical reactions. This antioxidant is called lycopene and it has been shown to reduce the risk of certain types of cancer. Nobody wants cancer and nobody deserves cancer, so pizza is actually a good food to eat because not only is it delicious but it also decreases your risk of getting cancer, a deadly disease. The article also mentions that you can get most of your food groups all in one pizza. Pizza is a very beneficial food because it can cover fruit, vegetables, meat, and even dairy all in one food. Because of this, pizza is actually very healthy to eat since it can include all the basic food groups. What other food can include all the food groups in one?
Pizza is the best food ever!

1. My opponent's biggest argument is the versatility of Pizza, but corn has it beat. Corn can be made into corn meal which makes grits, and corn flake cereal. When ground up even finer it can make cornbread, deep fry batter and hush puppies. The finest grade of corn can make pancakes, doughnuts, breading, baby food, and can even make pizza dough. That's right, you can't even eat a pizza without corn. Another thing corn can make when grounded a different way is tortillos. 2. The waste from corn called corn steep liquor is used to make Pennicillen. A drug that saves millions of lives every year. Pizza on the other hand does not save lives. It makes people fat and kills them. 3. Corn starch comes from corn, which is used as an ingredient in many things including confectionnaire sugar. Corn starch is also used to keep the crease in my pants because I use it to iron. Corn starch is also the main ingredient in biodegradable plastic. You know the stuff that frozen pizza is wrapped in, good luck eating your Digornno pizza without it being kept fresh in plastic.4. Corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup which is used as a sweetener in many candies and in soft drinks, without corn syrup Pepsi would probably double in price. If you want something to wash down your nasty, greasy pizza than Pepsi is the way to go. 5. Corn is used to make whiskey, perhaps you don't want to wash your pepsi down with soda, you can knock back some Jack Daniels instead. Or how about if you are at a bar and only ugly chicks are there. You can drink some whiskey and go home with women you think look like super models. Having a hard time dealing with your stressful life? Whiskey can help. Wanna sing some karaoke but are shy? Your friend whisky will lower those inhibitions for you.6. Corn makes ethanol. A substance used to make gas for your car. A clean energy that makes the environment cleaner. Unlike pizza, corn is literally saving the planet from global warming. Besides that your car needs corn to go get your pizza warpped in plastic made from corn and chased down by soda or whiskey made from corn. A pizza you would not be able to eat if not for the Pennicillen that was made from corn that saved your life. 7. Corn is used to make glue. Thank god that was put in there too as it made the glue I ate as a child more edible. http://mentalfloss.com...As far as Shrimp is concerned. Well it was heavily featured in Forrest Gump, which was a good movie.
Pizza is the best food ever!

It's okay. I forgive you. Pizza is a better food than both corn and shrimp because pizza is more satisfying as it usually tends to have at least five slices. Corn and shrimp can both go on pizza, depending on what type of pizza you like. Not only that but every country can make pizzas that contain toppings relative to their culture. For example, Swedes can make a pizza with Swedish meatballs as the topping. India has already localized many popular pizza chains such as Pizza Hut.
Pizza is the best food ever!

Thank you Wylted for accepting my challenge! One reason why pizza is the best food ever is because everyone, regardless of whether they're vegan, vegetarian, into meat, etc, can eat this delicious Italian dish. Vegans are people who don't eat anything made from animals. Vegans can simply eat pizza with vegan dough and vegan cheese and vegetables on top, since plants are not animals. Vegetarians can just eat pizza with vegetables as toppings instead of meat. They can also eat plain cheese pizza. The point is anyone can eat pizza because there's a different type of pizza for everyone's tastes. Another reason why pizza is the best food ever is because it can go well with literally any other food or drink. This makes pizza a more trustworthy food because of how compatible it is with other foods and beverages.
chsTG vs. theLwerd

== Auxiliary Issues == Hey everyone! 1. I called out both of my opponents who forfeited (Bellum and chsTG). 2. I know I rapped a little fast during some parts... meh, I figured since it was an auto-win that I could play around a little bit. == Lyrics == Pro, where are you at? Thought you'd come back to get at me And attack, but you blacked out like Hennessy Does to me -- Gives a buzz to me Through your jealousy I hope you'll give some love to me But I guess we'll look back to history, bro Like what that PCP kid is to me, yo Both hated though didn't come loud and get at me You choked b; graduated Punked Out Academy Boast of a host of skills to vocally roast me Almost as sexy as my dope a-ss anatomy Toast me: I'm fine - a little rough around the edges Step outta line, get you by the throat like a necklace Check this - to best me you'd need an armada Test this, I'm reckless and that's why you gotta Respect this feminist; reminisce to Genesis From the beginning, man, it was clear I'm winning this Thought my opponents would be showing up and bringing it But I'd own it slinging lyrics or with swinging fists Bellum, I'ma tell him go to Hell cuz I am heaven-sent I'm the real deal; his flow is illin sick and decadent Steal my seal civilian cuz I'm the real president Call yourself a lawyer cuz the verdict is so evident Lyrical destroyer, verse is great it is just common sense No offense, I'm perfect taste - immense is your incompetence chsTG stayed home with his STD Shot blown, now he's owned by me I guarantee we'll see he's playing hide and seek Cuz he lied and he cried when he saw that he'd face me So he moaned and he groaned; stayed out of the war zone I'm prone to be blowing sh-t up like a whore's phone Waited for his verse but all I got was a ghost tone So I guess this beating we'll have to postpone After that he'll be needing a gross bone thrown He's on his own; I'm the most dopest MC known http://www.youtube.com...
Police officers should be more friendly

Being a LEO is unlike most jobs. For example, Leo's are often targeted for murder based on just being Leos. In 1992 the FBI released data it gathered from 3 studies done on over 120 instances of Leos being targeted ffor death. These studies found that predators would study Leos and often times pass up the people with command presence (jerks). Those without command presence were seen as weak and were more likely to be attacked. http://www.policeone.com... Presence is also important for other things. A cop is dealing with public safety issues. It's been found that a phrase like "sir could you kindly step back" isn't going to get as quick and effective of a response as yelling "BACK UP"!. In matters of public safety it is more important to be effective in getting civilians out of dangerous areas than being percieved as friendly. Cops have a job to do and safety to consider. Being mean is effective at doing that.
Police officers should be more friendly

I am honored to debate with you today! In your in argument here you are generalizing police officers, but its true that they can be rude and that can be a good thing. In some cases being harsh and rude to us civilians is unnecessary. If a police officer were to be nice and kind to the person their giving the ticket to it could help with the current rioting. A police officer being kind to a person will change the negative view they have on police officers and help them understand that not all of them are "bad". But I do agree that in certain situations you have to be harsh and invasive such as a criminal running away on foot. Though having a friendly officer tell you that you were going to fast and he will need to write you a ticket without seeming threatening will help people and police officers to understand each other. So to wrap up with what I'm saying is that there is for sure some cases where rude or harsh actions need to be taken. But in other cases it's unnecessary. Thanks!
Police officers should be more friendly

1,000 characters. 3 hours between arguments. Do not accept the debate if you can't handle this. Full Resoltion: Police Officers should be friendly and polite when approaching citizens on the job in most circumstances. Background: Often police officers can come across as rude, they are often short with people and skip the pleasentries as they say. Some people really dislike cops because of their bad attitude and think there is absolutely no harm in an officer being polite and friendly while writing them a ticket or taking down their witness statement or even arresting them.My goal is to prove that police officers should generally engage in behavior most would find rude. You don't want a friendly officer out there writing tickets. Even if he knows when to cut the friendly off. Police shouldn't just be harsh when dealing with suspected criminals, but also when dealing with trivial matters, such as writing a ticket, directing traffic or handling the scene of an accident.
Police officers should be more friendly

I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on "community policing". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.
Police officers should be more friendly

Haven't you noticed that recent officer causalities are because of the whole police brutality argument going on. The reason why some police officers are in danger is because they are not in a good relationship with the people they are protecting. Some people think that the police force is against them (which I don't believe myself) and are trying to be cruel to them. You can see this by all the rioting and protesting going on all over America. The more rude or harsh police officers will only enhance this current issue in America leading to more rioting, protests, and untrust in the police force leading to more casualties on the Police forces side. If the police would treat people kinder it would calm all of the rioting and protests and help restore trust with citizens and police officers. Those studies are back in 1992 and are not recent enough to provide the evidence that this is the case during this time being. Like I said if it's for the safety of the public to be rude then its ok.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Romantic love is strictly a passionate, intimate love between people. 2. In this debate we are strictly talking about romantic love, and nothing that can be confused with it, such as platonic love. 3. There is never a given restriction on the number of people one can romantically love. Although in the society we live in today is based on monogamous principles, I still believe that it is possible to have love for numerous people at once. The majority doesn't represent the entirety 4. There is no need of physical contact in order for a romantic love to be present between people. I continue o stand by this ideal. 5. The memory of a deceased lover is still love, although the partner is no longer there to accept the love and return it. 6. The same goes for a couple that has broken up, but one partner still yearns for the other. If one of them holds onto the romantic bond that joined the two in the first place then that love will always have a connection. 7. Monogamy is an ideal that our society is typically run around. However, there are many scenarios in where there are completely polyandrous relationships. Those relationships are the backbone of many religions and cultures. 8. Adultery, albeit bad or "taboo", happens all of the time in relationships where true love has been established. If one romantic love can be torn apart by loving another person, then that proves that humans were never meant to have monogamous relations in the first place. 9. Therefore, it is still possible to have a romantic relationships with more than one person. I have agreed to some premises, but not enough to make me change my stance on the debate. With so many examples today of real world relationships in where there are multiple partners, it's hard to say that romantic relationships between more than 2 people isn't possible. Whether it be polyandrous relationships, or others where a partner is seeing another, these are all examples.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

3. Just because people are married doesn't mean that a true romantic love exists. Many of these marriages in where there are multiple spouses are most often because of religious or cultural views. It is not the persons will to have multiple spouses; it is simply the rule of wherever they are from. Romantic love can be created from that scenario, however I would find it impossible to find a romantic love between two people I possibly didn't even want to marry. 5. Remembering a past love is completely different than currently being in a romantic relationship. Reflecting on a past romance gives you insight on how it feels to be in love, yet isn't the same as currently being in love. One will always have memories of an ex and the love that they shared, however once the relationship is stopped and all contact has been cut off then the romantic love ends. 7. A physical attraction isn't needed in order for a couple to be romantically in love. Saying an attraction is needed is similar to saying sex is needed in order for a romantic relationship to take place. A physical attraction certainly helps a romantic love blossom, but it is not strictly needed in order to be in love. 8. I agree with your premise, but that is simply an example of a specific situation. A majority of the marriages today stem from true love and are still together because of the romantic love the couple shares.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

3. There are relationships in where each member knows of one another, and approves of an open relationship. Many societies today have polyandrous relationships in where there is one husband, and multiple wives. The wives know each other and work together in order to create their own family. Although these relationships are few in number, they are still concrete examples of romantic love existing amongst more than 2 people. 5. Maybe they wouldn't mean it in the present, but in the past the love a couple shared had to have been real. I think that once that romantic connection has been made that it is then there within them for the rest of their lives. Just remembering a past love is proof of that. 7. Wouldn't you agree that a physical attraction must be present in order for romantic love to blossom? Otherwise it would just be a platonic relationship. 8. I know almost all societies today are made up of monogamous families, but are those participating in the romantic relationship really sold out for their partner? About half of the marriages today end in divorce; many of them because of a cheating member in a relationship, or the couple losing their romantic love that they once shared.