BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guardcats

In this debate, I will be arguing that guardtrolls are better than guardcats at home defense.Let's define what I mean by troll: While Pro's arguments are valid, they don't offer proof that they would successfully guard one's house. R1: "Cats are nocturnal."While this may be true, this does not offer evidence that they would guard one's house successfully. All this proves is that they can see in the dark. R2: "Cats can and have protected their owners from harm on multiple occasions."While I do not deny that cats have protected their owners from harm, they do not offer proof that they would be good at guarding property.R3: "Also, many people have Ailurophobia, which is fear of cats."This only represents a portion of people.C1: Guardcats would be terrible at home defense.If someone breaks into the home, the cat will either not care, meow, or hiss. This would not wake the owners up, and if it did, they would think the cat is just meowing (if that's a word), or just doing its cat things. If the cat was a problem for the robber, the robber could easily kill it with his weapon of choice (baseball bat, knife, shovel, hands, etc) thus eliminating the cat from the picture.C2: Trolls are scarier than cats.If you were a robber, would you want to see this in the house you are robbing: Or this? A troll would scare robbers off at first glance! Even if the robber wasn't scared, the troll would bash the robbers head in with his huge mace/ club. His grunting noise when he swings his club and the loud thud of the robbers brains splattering over the place would wake up the owners of the house (if they are home at the time.) Once the owners are up, they can call the police and report that a robber has broken into their house, and they need a wall cleaner asap.C2: Trolls are stronger than cats.Trolls can carry and swing clubs: http://www.youtube.com...Cats can only scratch at best. C3: Trolls smell bad.If you were a robber, the last house you would want to rob is a house with a guardtroll. Not only with the troll mash you when you enter, the troll would smell terrible: http://aqwwiki.wikidot.com...It is very difficult for people to do their job when there is a terrible smell, because it is very distracting. Of course, a robbers "job" would be to rob the house of all of its items that are of value. Doing this would become much more difficult with the musty stench of a troll. In conclusion, guardcats are ineffective and inefficient. Cats can only scratch at best, and are too easy for robbers to get rid of. Cats are quiet, so they won't wake up the owners to warn them, and cats just don't care! (Source: http://io9.com...) Trolls on the other hand are scary, dangerous, strong, loud, and release a stench strong enough to make robbers puke before even entering the house they are about to rob.
Guardcats

When it comes to guarding property, dogs usually have the advantages of size and intimidation. That's why most people choose dogs over cats to protect their property. However, cats have some advantages which dogs don't, as I will show. 1. Cats are nocturnal. Proof: http://www.animalhumanesociety.org... Burglars rarely try to break into someone's house in the middle of the day. Rather, they usually conduct their business at night. Therefore, when a burglar breaks into your house, your cat will be awake. Domestic breeds of dogs, on the other hand, are not nocturnal. Proof:https://answers.yahoo.com... Therefore, when a burglar breaks into your house at night, your dog will likely be asleep. Therefore, cats are better than dogs at being awake and alert when burglars enter your house at night. 2. Dogs are not always larger than cats. Among cats there is the Maine Coon, which is quite large. Proof: http://pictures-of-cats.org... Meanwhile, when it comes to dogs there are breeds like the Chihuahua, or the Poodle. These breeds of dog are not very large; surely a Maine Coon is bigger than a Chihuahua. 3. Dogs can and have been bribed by burglars. Proof:http://www.experts123.com... So even if your dog is awoken, if the burglar offers it food then it will likely stop barking. I haven't heard of a cat being bribed, though I may be wrong. 4. Cats can and have protected their owners from harm on multiple occasions. http://www.people.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Also, many people have Ailurophobia, which is fear of cats. http://www.healthguideinfo.com... Now, wouldn't YOU be creeper out by a set of glistening eyes watching you from a dark corner? Now, I am not saying that guardcats should replace guard dogs. HOWEVER, possessing cats as well as dogs will minimize the risk of burglary.
Guardcats

Guardcat: a domesticated cat which is used for guarding things, usually property. First Round is for acceptance. Burden of proof is on Pro to show that using Guardcats is a good idea; burden of proof is also upon Con to Prove that using Guardcats is not a good idea. In other words, burden of proof is shared. Do not accept this debate if you do not feel that you can continue without forfeiting for the entirety of these four Rounds. No cursing, no sexually suggestive language, and no violent threats, please. Trolling is permitted.
Belief is pascals wager

belief is kinda like this, if you dont do x, x will happen, if you do x, x will happen. like if you walk pass the fence with the barking dog it might break free and bite you or something, so you go back and find a way around all beliefs are pacals Wager, trust and paranoia, happiness and sadness, love and hate. belief is doubt, so as a balance of doubting i must believe the opposite is true, i must disbelieve to believe and believe to disbelieve i have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason, to trust or distrust
Belief is pascals wager

Pascal's Wager is an argument for believing that a certain thing exists, or at least acting as though it does because the penalty for disbelieving in that certain thing and being incorrect is much worse than the penalty for believing it and being wrong. Originally this argument was used an argument for believing in God (Christian in particular). The argument in this example would be that it is better to believe in God and be wrong, and suffer little to no consequence, than to disbelieve in God and be wrong, and suffer eternal punishment. I am having a bit of trouble understanding the argument you are making, though. Are you making the argument that people should believe in ghosts, holograms, and terrorist neighbors because of Pascal's Wager? Or are you making the argument that we choose to disbelieve in these things because of Pascal's Wager? Or is it simply that any and all beliefs held are Pascal's Wagers? Or none of these? This is my first debate here, and I would really appreciate it if you laid out your argument for me. I don't want to misunderstand your claim. Thanks, and good luck!
Belief is pascals wager

are you sure, how do you know, so you are certain there are no ghosts? and your friends are not keeping secrets from you? the moon in the night sky is not a hologram? your neighbour is not an alquida plotting to blow up the Capitol, while manifacturing the bombs right next door with unstable and shaky hands, and she is not making the bombs to blow aliens up at the capitol because the government is not run by aliens?
Belief is pascals wager

i dont know if a real god exist, i think god is possible thou non belief=i dont know disbelief=belief god is information, anything i believe is belief in god i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind know=Physical experience of now belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it i cant damage my body in a dream without waking up in order for a simulation to exist there must be something to simulate information exist beyond Space and time, and is the opposite of matter, opposite of true i know infinity can never be destruction even thou i have to imagine it, as it is absolute. without knowing, i am dead, there is no life without knowing i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive acceptance is life and denial is death i am my brain, it dosnt make decisions for me, i make those decisions, as i have no beliefs belief is doubt, and belief goes to imagination, know negates belief as i dont have to imagine it, i dont have to imagine that im reading these Words on my screen, so its not about belief pascals Wager is much more... any belief is pascals Wager, anything you can mention you can believe goes to pascals Wager, as there is a Wager there, why believe? what is the upside of that belief? what is the Down side of not believing, its there on every single belief =(is) 1+4=3+1+1=5=10-5=1*5 a penguin is not nature, not life, not an animal? belief is non sense, know is sense. we are talking about non sense, i am not suppose to make sense, like these Words on your screen makes sense , your neighbour dosnt make sense right now, he is non sense, which enables my ability to accept false as true and real imagination is endless, infinty, creation existence is defined by experience
Belief is pascals wager

im talking about if i believe in god, not that i do talking about beliefs is not a we thing, i can never know if you have a belief know is physical, and beliefs are mental belief is nothing, i cant believe in Things only about Things kind of, i can imagine my neighbour is sleeping and believe it, where as i dont have to imagine that im reading these Words on my screen and writing them on my keyboard i cant believe in reality, and i cant know imagination belief is non sense, you are right, i have to imagine it penguin=nature=life=animal
Belief is pascals wager

I saw a couple of your other debates, and sometimes you write quite clearly. I'm not sure if you're messing with me right now... Might as well give it a shot anyway, I suppose. Pro said "im getting at, pascals Wager is way more then just that.. yet it isnt, as god is information, so whatever i believe is belief in god, theism, as theism is belief" Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this. To me it seems like you are saying that you believe in a god, but earlier in Round 2 you said "i have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason, to trust or distrust". So somehow you believe things when belief doesn't exist, and while maintaining that you have no beliefs. Pro said "pascals Wager isnt real, like belief isnt real" Response: You have provided no evidence of any kind for this statement. If it were true, I would win. Things that don't exist aren't each other. Pro said "belief=Be lie, as i have to imagine it=a position on an imaginary claim" Response: Definition of gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Pro said "kNow=now" Response: Con says "................" Pro said "i already gave you several Wagers, are you sure ghosts dosnt exist in reality?" Response:You gave me pairs of opposites, but in no way defined any mathematical relationship between them, nor did you explain a way to observe any actual, physical, data relating to your argument. Also, no, I am not sure ghosts don't exist, but I have never seen or heard of valid evidence of a ghost, so I do not believe in them. I am 100% ghostnostic. this is math: pascals Wager=belief=love/hate=trust/paranoia=theism/atheism=religion=god=evil=vampyre=demon=zombie=satan Response: Does penguin=sqrt(awesomeflightlessbird)? unless one can love without belief, like unless one can love based on only knowledge, then i am right Response: That's up to you to prove. Also: Non-Sequitur.
Belief is pascals wager

im getting at, pascals Wager is way more then just that.. yet it isnt, as god is information, so whatever i believe is belief in god, theism, as theism is belief a god claim=i just looked at my dog pascals Wager isnt real, like belief isnt real creation is endless information belief=Be lie, as i have to imagine it=a position on an imaginary claim kNow=now i already gave you several Wagers, are you sure ghosts dosnt exist in reality? this is math: pascals Wager=belief=love/hate=trust/paranoia=theism/atheism=religion=god=evil=vampyre=demon=zombie=satan unless one can love without belief, like unless one can love based on only knowledge, then i am right
Can you Convert me (christians only)

1. Many people have an architectural skill that simply cannot be matched. You could give any fool instructions, but could they make the Statue of Liberty? No? 2. Can you think of anything else that could be interpreted as Wormwood? Either the Chernobyl disaster was the Wormwood Star, or it has yet to happen if it will, meaning we cannot know. 3. There are many obvious parables and allegories in the bible. Since most of them are told by Jesus, we can assume that many of that what can be scientifically proven is hard fact, and what cannot be has a decent change of being allegorical. 4. Virgin Mary comes from Catholic subsects. I am anti-Catholic. Even though they have cleaned up, the fact is that Catholic priests are out to make money. Before Martin Luther (not that Martin Luther), they sold "saving charms' to wear and said that if you didn't pay for them you'd burn in hell for all eternity. Since Virgin Mary is almost entirely Catholic (they worship her as a second God), I don't believe in Virgin Mary. 5. God allows many so we can see every interpretation of His word, and not just one. This way we can have the broadest view of what was meant. 6. Viewing from a different angle. 7. "Lost in translation" can be good. Read 5. 8. The Bible says he will in the Second Coming, and many of the events leading up to this have started already. 9. You mean God Hates Douchebags? The Bible says sex is only for reproduction. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Thus, the Bible forbids prostitution and other such things, including homosexuality. And don't get me started about Landover Baptist and homos. I hate both. 10. It depends on what you believe. Catholic Bibles contain five books most people do not believe are God's word. In these books it says that sinners cannot go to heaven. Because these were removed in Protestant Bibles, someone came up with the idea of "innocents." Retards, children, infants and those who had never received a chance to accept the Lord enter Heaven, because the good Lord will not punish them for not hearing his word. I believe in innocents because our God is merciful enough to do such. It takes a little faith as well. I cannot give you faith. Read a Bible, especially Genesis, Exodus, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Revelations if nothing else. Accept Jesus into your heart, and walk away knowing your final destination is Heaven.
Can you Convert me (christians only)

My Second Rebuttal: 1.Even if he did give Noah specific instructions on the construction of the ark it still is not plausible that such a vessel could be built on gopher wood. 2.You said most likely but most likely isn't definite which gives bible readers yet another thing to speculate on.It is 3.It being based on fact can be disputed. 4.If that is true then how is the virgin birth possible? 5.Not everybody can work off these said simlarities. They are so many bible versions (KJV, NIV, etc.) why would god allow so many? 6.There was no standing demon in the Bible one Gospel (Matthew) says there is two demon possessed men two other Gospels (Mark and Luke) only mention one demon possesed man how would one man see two men and one man see two? Seems highly unlikely to me. 7.Why would God allow something get lost in translation in his word? You can not just assume when the bible has something wrong or something that doesn't make sense that something got lost. Why would God allow this? 8.You failed to disprove that Jesus did not fulfill all of the prophecies that the Messiah was destined to fulfill. He didn't fulfill all the prophecies 9.So many Christians are known to intolerant of homosexuals. The Westboro Baptist Church is known for it anti-homosexual protests they even protested the recently deceased Elizibeth Edward's funeral.There is one Christian oorganization known as GodHates....... I won't finish that but it rhymes with bags. They are several different Christian denominations. Why is God's word taken so differently between these people? Many Churches in the 1700's and 1800's approved of slavery. Our first few presidents (all but Thomas Jefferson confirmed to be religous) kept slaves in the White House. Catholic priest have somehow got out of the word they can molestate young boys.I am not saying all Christians are like this but it is obvious many are. You will surely agree with me the bible is misinterpted my question is why would God allow his word to be able to be misinterpted? 10.A lot of Christians believe that people who have never heard the Gospel go to heaven, I have found no biblicial evidence to support this. Why is sin inherited from our ancestors? Why is it that I am destined death (referring to hell) because my ancestors ate some fruit? Why would such a loving god allow sin to be transferred their descendants (all the people who have ever lived besides Adam and Eve). If someone has never heard the Gospel wouldn't they also condemed.For what because our ancestors made a mistake. I will give you an article from a Christian about those who never heard the Gospel http://www.gotquestions.org...
Can you Convert me (christians only)

Thanks, Sitruk39. BOP: You must prove that Christianity is false, or I must convince you it is true. Rebuttal: 1. Noah was given extremely specific dimensions to build his Ark. These measurements are plausible, and have been tested to work. Also, gravity could easily pull the saltwater to a different place because it has a different mass. 2. A person seeing a "falling star" at the time would not interpret is a meteorite, but most likely a series of lights. Chernobyl most likely exploded in a burst of light. One might describe it as perhaps the brightest, strangest object in the then-known universe. 3. Christianity certainly isn't the first religion. But it is the first one clearly based in fact. 4. Technically, Joseph was created by God to impregnate Mary with Jesus. 5. There are so many versions and translations of the Bible, one can easily work off of the similairities. 6. Human misconceptions. Perhaps one mistook the demon for a second man. 7. Once again, Human misconception. God used lower humans to write his word, meaning something could be lost in translation. Oh, and go read the Bible. Put up some more arguments- this is the point of the site.
Can you Convert me (christians only)

How could such a structure (450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep) be built on gopher wood ? Johan's Ark (built by dutch creationist Johan Huibers in Schagen) is about half the size of the bibilicial Ark and had to be built on a steel hull which makes the arguement for the ark implausible (unless you credit divine intervention but we are talking facts here). Secondly it seems unlikely that a world flood happened when we have both salt and freshwater and each have their own distinct species how could a global flood create this? 2. In 1948 the State of Israel was declared but I fail to see how the Chernobyl disaster was a fallen star. While the word Chernobly(Russian) does translate to Wormwood it is hardly compelling that a series of explosions represents a fallen star , without biblicial evidence that a star represents a series of explosions it is simply speculation. Just because Chernobyl translates to Wormwood doesn't make it a fulfilled prophecy. 3. There were religions way before the bible people revered such gods as Horus and Mirtha. Just because a book is around for a long time doesn't make it a godbreathed collection of book to base your principles on. My seperate arguement. 1. The Bible also has conflicting genealogies present in Matthew and Luke. Some Biblician Scholars say that one is through Mary and one is through Joseph but Joseph's would be irrevelant since he supposedly was Jesus's stepfather. 2. The Bible also was translated form 3 different languages. Languages often do not cleanly translate wouldn't that take away from the original meaning of the scriptures and take its supposed inerrancy away. 3. Why in Matthew is says Jesus healed one blind man out of Jericho while another states that he healed two. It also states that he saw two demon possessed men while another only mentions one, while they do not technically contradict each other if it is godbreathed it seems they would be closer to being identicial. 4. Stephan L. Harris stated : "Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace. [Isa. 9:6-7] [11:7-12:16] Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a 'shameful' death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews". This arguement is often countered by saying that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies during the millennial reign but once again, this is speculation. Why would the God of the Bible leave his followers to speculate on things written in his word? Why would he let his followers wonder about a Old Testament proprecy?
Can you Convert me (christians only)

Christianity is the religion I believe to be true because- I. Noah's flood claims that fish and other aquatic lifeforms were scattered to the mountains. This has been proven by science to be true. Other versions of the story exist as well, but the Christian version has the most basis in fact. For example, a traditional Australian version claims that the continents were created to flood. The continents existed because of a big fish someone caught of the side of an island, the only existing landmass at the time. The chopped-up fish became Europe, Asia, America, etc. II. The Biblical version of the End Times closely correlates to modern events. For example, it claims in the Bible that the End Times will be coming after numerous prophesised events. Two of these are as follows- A. Israel will be reunited. 1. This happened in the 1940s after World War II. The Israelites kept their heritage long enough to kick the Palestinians out (upwards of two thousand years), an incredible feat. Divine intervention? B. A star named Wormwood will fall to Earth. Anyone who has tuned into modern civilization for the last 25 years has most likely heard of the Chernobyl disaster. Russian (or was it Hebrew?) to English translation: Chernobyl means Wormwood. Think about it- people in biblical times had no knowledge of atomic power. They could not fathom elementary particles. So it is reasonable to assume that an onlooker could misinterpret the event as a fallen star and write that a star named Chernobyl fell to Earth. III. The Bible came first A. The Israelis are God's chosen people, but the bible states that only the Jew RACE, and not the RELIGION, are the Lord's chosen. They came first by 1500 or so years, but unless you are pure Jew you are unsaved by these means. Even then the automatic Jew-saver is questioned. B. Other popular religions, such as Islam, came long after the Bible. In the aforementioned's case, approximately 500 years after Revelations was finished. Does it not stand to reason that the good Lord would want to get his word here as soon as he humanly could? (No offense, God.) The Godhand