BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bible or Quran which one is the word of God

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity C.S Lewis. To argue about which is the word of God to an atheist is almost impossible. To start out I will say the the proof of burden; Cause beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that atheism can not be proved. The science as humans we are all flawed. We say so ourselves no one is perfect. So our scientific method is flawed and broken. Before the universe began can you tell me how nothing created something. No this is not a possibility because everything through atheism had to come from something. To start out with the Holy bible over 5,000 documents containing it in Greek and Semitic languages are from a literary perspective perfect. No one has been able to soundly debunk them ever. Only (theory) is in play. The Quran has been changed over a hundred times in its history before its last copy. I will go further in my next round.
The Christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of morality

Please do not submit new points in your final round - this should be used to provide your conclusion. Please only accept this argument if you are genuinely interested in debate with intellectual honesty. I am taking the stance that the Christian bible and its contents as well as the Christian God are not vital components of morality and that the complete absence of these things would not leave a person morally void. I am an atheist and therefore do not accept theistic claims of there being the existence of an all powerful cosmic creator. My opponent may of course use their belief in a deity in an attempt to give their argument more weight. All I ask is that my opponent remain intellectually honest. I am prepared to move in the natural direction this debate takes. This topic has a large scope after all so I do not wish to restrict any approach my opponent may wish to take, or indeed my responses to such approaches. Let's keep this debate civil
Operation Northwoods proves the U.S. Government is immoral or evil

If the US government was evil, the operation wouldn't have been rejected as you admitted. Is the United States a perfect do no wrong nation? No. The United States wouldn't have.. Brought about lend lease to the nations fighting the evil governments in World War 2. They wouldn't have initiated the Marshal Plan to help rebuild Europe helping them become wealthier than pre war levels. They wouldn't have helped rebuild Japan but committed harsh conditions on their conquered foe. They wouldn't have come to the aid of South Korea in 1950. Help South Vietnam in the through the 60s and 70s. Face the Soviets and deter them from trying to gobble of Europe. Save Kuwait from Iraq. The United States government provides more aid then any other nation in the world. When a disaster happens, the US government offers help, sends rescue teams and initiates operations to help. An evil government would take those opportunities to benefit themselves and pounce on them like a predator. I could go on and on. However, as you admitted the United States thought up possible methods to do something. The method that you bring forth as proof as evilness is also proof of goodness. The method was rejected and was not carried out. The United States helped save the world from the evil governments of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan. Then would stand of the way of the evil government of the Soviet Union. Come to the rescue or many nations throughout the decades and so on and so forth. The United States government is not evil. In comparison to other nations that were previously the mightiest of their time, the United States is a godsend. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://beta.foreignassistance.gov...
Operation Northwoods proves the U.S. Government is immoral or evil

Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban Government. Just so happened the man who rejected the plan was later to be assassinated (some believe by that same US Gov). The fact that they would propose a terrorist killing style event (false flag event like 9/11) proves that the US Gov is evil. http://abcnews.go.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
a just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment

I affirm the resolution "a just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment?" I will start out by defining the terms in the resolution. The death penalty is a form of punishment (execution) of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for a crime or number of crimes (Random House Webster). Ought means should, or an obligation or duty (Random House Webster). My value for this round is justice, justice is giving each his due which is prescribed by the resolution. My criterion is maximizing life, life is a perquisite to justice. If life did not exist the concept of justice would collapse because they are human created ideals. The only perception of justice is our own; since we are the original creators the only way to get the most accurate description of justice is to have the most amounts of people alive. The death penalty should not be used because deterrence does not work because life imprisonment is also a deterrent and is equally compared to with the death penalty. Life imprisonment is a hard enough sentence that is going from life imprisonment to the death penalty makes no difference. For example: a person would not be more deterred to touching a stove at high heat versus medium heat because both of the consequences will burn you. Also the government doesn't have stable information to state that one is guilty. My first contention is that a just society is not perfect, but it is a community full of individuals who strive to be the best people they can be. This means that there will be flaws in the death penalty, which leads to put many innocent people to the death penalty. Laurence A. Grayer writes…The United States has the largest death row population in the world, with over 3,300. There are many people who have been put on death row for crimes that they did not commit. Also included are mentally challenged and juvenile offenders, many of whom were sentenced to death without the jury hearing any evidence of justifying factors. Other prisoners among this lot will be executed despite evidence of their innocence or without any review of their case by an appellate court. Thus it proves that the death penalty doesn't work because there are many flaws and innocent people killed. With out the death penalty you could have saved 3,300 people in the U.S. Joshua Herman writes…Between 1973 and 1995, 68% of all death sentences were overturned due to serious, reversible error. Of this 68% courts found that the defendants deserved a sentence less than death in 82% of the cases. 7% of the individuals whose death sentences were reversed due to serious error were held to be actually innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Thus this evidence shows that 82% of the sentences, the people deserved a punishment less than death. The death penalty is unjust and also it decreases life through the evidence I have just provided. For all these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you its a pretty short case so deal with it
Dropping the Atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was wrong.

I would like to bring in all aspects to the argument. first off i would like to bring up the fact that the topic states both the bombs rather than just one. The bombs that were dropped led huge crater of destruction and took the lives of many people that had no involvement in the war. The extremes that were taking were just to avenge the events of pearl harbor. The bomb took the lives of 66,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki. there was no excuse for using this massive weapon and taking the lives of many innocent children and woman. the bombs not only cost the lives of many innocent children and women but it also was unnecessary. The United States dropped tons of warnings t over Hiroshima before the bombing stating the intentions to use the bombs and the japanese were contemplating their choices when the Americans bombed. the flyers that were dropped had no set date but after the horrific bombing of one providence the American government issued another plane to drop a second bomb 3 days later on Japan soil. 3 days is not enough time for a country to discuss wether or not they were going to surrender. this is why i strongly agree with the resolution: Dropping the Atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was wrong.
Is Bill Gates a good man.

You haven't won yet you imbecilic monkey. You posed this debate as question, not a comment, so all I was doing was answering your question. You fool. Yes, I'm glad you promoted that we should not get information from unreliable sources. I'm willing to wager that your brain is a more unreliable source than Fox News, you brainless ape. You're just a weak coward with a micro penis who's gotten too big for his boots. Go back to your zoo and stay away from these areas of the world that actually require brain activity. Clearly that's much too difficult for you.
Anonymous leaking personal identities of criminals is good.

Some criminals has committed crimes related to hacking. These criminals are better than most of the cyber police. They have more experience than paid workers. If police just gets a message from the Anonymous, they sure will just think that it is a prank, but the Anonymous are going to give them evidences. The Anonymous leaked KKK members' identities. History stated that Ku Klux Klan is "a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party"s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks." They commit crimes to kill or beat up other races which are not Whites. The Anonymous stated, "We removed several names from our list for further investigation. We would rather have a smaller, accurate list that we are comfortable with." They removed some names from the list of names of KKK members to find more evidences and put together. Police or other investigation organizations will appreciate helps from the Anonymous. They will believe the Anonymous' messages with evidences.
Anonymous leaking personal identities of criminals is good.

Anonymous people shouldn't be trying to track down criminals through means if their own hacking. This is the job of paid workers, whose job is to track criminal activity through the web. These 'anonymous' people should be leaving it to the professionals to catch people in this method. Not only that, but if the police get an anonymous message, saying so and so is a criminal, and they did such and such, don't think that the police will be taking it as immediate fact. There would definitely be superstitions of it being a prank, or even a criminal trying to pull something.
Anonymous leaking personal identities of criminals is good.

While its true that most criminals that are related to cyber hacking have lots of skill and experience with what they do, don't confuse yourself by thinking that they have more skill than the cyber police. A relative of mine works with the Canadian government to track down hackers, such as the ones we are discussing. He has gone through many years of computer science and programs in university to get his position. He works with several other workers, each of them have tracked down several cyber criminals, and they certainly have more skill and experience than most cyber criminals out there. If someone anonymous, like the one you told us about, wants to reveal information about cyber criminals, and their work is not only useful, but accurate as well, than I believe to avoid suspicion and confusion, this person should not give their findings without an identification for themselves. These people should even be running for positions similar to that of my relative. This way, they will not only be able to share their findings, but unlike the option of working under an unknown cover, they will also get the chance to discuss further with the police as to the details of the crime, that would be more difficult to make known when anonymous.
The 2nd Amendment Should Not Be Repealed

Violent crime in the 1990's was high, But crime occurred more in eastern cities like New York City. The eastern side of the country had less guns and a city will have less guns than the country. The east part of America has less guns than the North, South, And West. High crime may have been caused by the fact that gangs were more violent, Police were not on the street as much, Technology was not as advanced as now, And police are just generally better now than then. While these thing show why crime was probably higher then, The highest crime was in a part of the country with less guns. Also, Hawaii's crime rate has been growing for many years according to cityrating. Com. Massachusetts violent crime has gone down, But homicides have increased according to the Boston Globe. As for Texas, According to cityrating. Com, Crime was decreasing until about 2012 when illegal immigration became more popular and immigrants were more dangerous and causing more crime.
The 2nd Amendment Should Not Be Repealed

There is absolutely no truth to the myth that more guns mean more crime, I have researched this subject in 1990 half of all american homes had guns now it is a bout 1/3 or about 37% a radical reduction, The fact that so many homes no longer have guns, Has been the reason crime has dropped a gun in the home just one gun, Causes all sort of evil. States with stricter gun laws like hawaii and masachusitts are much safer than texas or alabama. . This is a fact
The 2nd Amendment Should Not Be Repealed

Guns are used in self defense much more than they are used aggressively. There are many different sources that back this up. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to guns. Many people anti-gun talk about how the Australia buyback decreased crime. That is true, But not all guns were taken away. They were just the semi-automatic rifles that were banned. Also, Crime was already decreasing before the ban. Now, More people are buying guns in Australia than since before the gun ban. If Australia saw that banning the rifles worked when it came to crime, Why did they not ban all guns? The U. K. Has a heavy ban on guns. Crime has been increasing for many years and it is only getting worse. Some other countries like Switzerland and Canada allow guns and their crime rates are very low.
The 2nd Amendment Should Not Be Repealed

Let us stick with FBI stats as they are most reliable The fact is by far the most violent area the most vioent region is the south and always has been much more violent and thats the part of the country obseesed with gun play The FBI's final 2012 crime statistics confirm a long-term and somewhat puzzling fact — the South has more violent crime than the rest of America. The South accounted for 40. 9% of all reported violent crimes even though it makes up roughly a quarter of the country, According to the final Uniform Crime Report for 2012. The FBI's final 2012 crime statistics confirm a long-term and somewhat puzzling fact — the South has more violent crime than the rest of America. The South accounted for 40. 9% of all reported violent crimes even though it makes up roughly a quarter of the country, According to the final Uniform Crime Report for 2012. https://www. Businessinsider. Com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9
art is useful outside career field

Exactly. Outside the career field, there isn't much use of art today. As you said so, visitors cried due to the feelings expressed by art even though they didn't do art, so that rules out the use of art to a critic. 18-20 century art was popular because there were good artists that did good work. But suppose if I make one of trashy paintings or video clips, what sue will it be to me? Unless I have the skill, art is not useful for me. And if I have the skill, I would make it my career field or develop my skills by choosing it as a career field. For non-artistic people, art has no significant use in their life.
Death Penalty

Many thanks to my opponent for engaging in what I hope will be a fun, interesting and challenging debate :) For all intents and purposes, I accept Pro's proposed definitions and terms. I can't forsee arguments over semantics being a problem, and trust that we will both try to avoid that as much as possible. I suspect Pro will appeal to practicality while I will attempt to show that capital punishment is not reasonable and/or just. As such, it would fail to meet my opponent's criteria of the "ideal" punishment, for a more just and reasonable alternative would mean that there is a better available option. I agree that delving too deep into defining justice right off the bat can be problematic, so for now I accept what was presented and trust that we'll be able to resolve any disputes as we go along. Thanks again, OreEle, and good luck!
Death Penalty

Full resolution: The death penalty is an ideal form of punishment for particular criminal cases. My stance on the Death Penalty: While I support rehabilitation in as many cases as possible, there are some cases where the Death Penalty is the best option. I only believe that the DP (Death Penalty) will be of absolutly no value when we have the option of completely (with 100% certainty) brainwashing criminals to esentually make them into "new" people. Now, in order for this debate to really mean anything, my opponent and I will have to agree on what the purpose of the justice system is for. If my opponent would like, she may reject the challenge, we can talk via PM to come to some kind of agreement, and re-start the debate. But, if she does accept, I'll put some definitions down. Death Penalty - "The legal punishment of execution." ideal - "best available" These two definitions are not challengeable. What is challengeable is the purpose of the justice system (I predict much of this debate will focus around this). I view the justice system's purpose as a system to attempt to maximize justice for both individuals and society as a whole (since this is challengeable, it is subject to change through out the debate). justice - "The quality of being fair and reasonable." This is free to be challenged. Since we may have different views of the justice system, we may also have different views on justice. I could go on with definitions of "fair" and "reasonable" however, those only get more subjective as we dig deeper, so I will just leave them as subjective and free to be argued. My opponent is free to start this round, or accept and pass to me to start in the next round. Thank you,
Chocolate Mudcake from Woolies is the Best Cake

Step 1 Preheat oven to 160"C. Brush a round 22cm (base measurement) cake pan with melted butter. Line base and side with non-stick baking paper. Step 2 Place butter, Chocolate, Sugar, Water, Golden syrup and vanilla essence in a heavy-based saucepan. Stir over medium-low heat with a wooden spoon for 5 mins or until chocolate melts and the mixture is smooth. Set aside for 20 mins to cool. Step 3 Add eggs, 1 at a time, Beating well after each addition. Sift combined flours over chocolate mixture and stir with a wooden spoon until well combined. Step 4 Pour mixture into pan and bake in preheated oven for 50-60 mins or until a skewer comes out almost clean. Stand cake for 20 mins before turning onto a wire rack to cool. Dust with icing sugar.
Chocolate Mudcake from Woolies is the Best Cake

Step 1 Preheat a fan forced oven to 160"C. Brush a round 22cm (base measurement) cake pan with melted butter. Line base and side with non-stick baking paper. Step 2 Place butter, Chocolate, Sugar, Water, Golden syrup and vanilla essence in a heavy-based saucepan. Stir over medium-low heat with a wooden spoon for 5 mins or until chocolate melts and the mixture is smooth. Set aside for 20 mins to cool. Step 3 Add eggs, 1 at a time, Beating well after each addition. Sift combined flours over chocolate mixture and stir with a wooden spoon until well combined. Step 4 Pour mixture into pan and bake in preheated oven for 50-60 mins or until a skewer comes out almost clean. Stand cake for 20 mins before turning onto a wire rack to cool. Dust with icing sugar.
Hulk vs Darkness (Marvel's Green Scar vs Dark Horse's comics's Darkness)

I need 1 more win I think Green Scar can pwn the DarknessArgument next time and pls know who the darkness is first but here he ishttps://encrypted-tbn3.google.com...And no trolling or semantics And this is Green Scar http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net...(Green_Scar).jpg
Hulk vs Darkness (Marvel's Green Scar vs Dark Horse's comics's Darkness)

I did study up on green scar yesterday while waiting for you to post you're argument. In planet hulk, green scar is hurt by regular bladed weapons. While he is very tough, and his regenerative factor difficult to counteract, he can not, "take nuclear bomb to the chin." on one account, he did get nuked, and took a couple of years to regenerate. Now, if the hulk can be hurt by bladed weapons, I believe Jackie could use his demon arm, razor sharp tentacles able to cut a man in half, or to pick him up and throw a man instead. Also, when you stated the hulk is immune to the darkness, that is not completely true. It Just enrages him more, which increases his strength. Another power that Jackie obtains in the videogame is making black holes, which could also prove useful. I believe Jacky's powers are more versatile, and he could ultimately take down the hulk after a tough battle, most likely the toughest of his life.
Hulk vs Darkness (Marvel's Green Scar vs Dark Horse's comics's Darkness)

This is the strongest incarnation of the Hulk ( I would not post stuff from wikepedia anymore but I will post the link later on)This incarnation can lift more than 100 tons in a calm state meaning once he turns into the Hulk he can already lift this wieght without thinking. But while angry he exceeds his son's punching power of 100 trillion tons. . http://youtu.be...Meaning Hulk's punching power exceeds 100 trillion tons meaning if Green Scar gets stronger just being around jackie added to his anger he would reach this state faster and pretty much destroy earth. I am afraid GunFire would do nothing to Savage Hulk alone what more to Green Scar. Savage Hulk takes nuclear bombs to the chin and laugh. I am not joking Green Scar just stood there when Johnny shot him with a supernova. Reaching temperatures of 1 million degress. Plus I am afraid Jackie can do nothing to harm the Hulk but if he exceeds Sentry's powers(which is the power of a million suns exploding thru his fists) than maybe Jackie can finnaly make Hulk bleed but if he makes Hulk bleed Hulk will just regenerate. His healing factor exceeds Wolverine and arguable Deadpool. -This is totally unrelated but if Maestro beat Superman if I am correct in this video you would see a comic showing Maestro stepping on Supes Maestro is also a weaker uncarnation compared to GreenScar. Plus Hulk has beaten Superman ripoffs in his Savage Hulk state. Meaning Green Scar can take on Superman which is totally unrelated. . http://youtu.be...-Even if Darkness has the power to destroy the World Green Scar would keep on absorbing it. If it goes inside Hulk Hulk would absorb the darkness and you would not want that cause there is a possiblity that Hulk will be able to control Darkness if he absorbs enough.