BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existance of the holy trinity is probroly the truth.

I feel as if the trinity cannot logically exist. I am a Christian and believe in god but I believe the trinity is an absurd argument. The belief in Jesus, god, and the holy ghost all being one being just doesnt make sense to me. Im not sure what sects of Christianity believes this but I would like to reason on this topic.Though I may be the instigator it is pros position to defend the validity of the trinity existing, and it being logical. Thus the BOP belongs to pro. 1. The holy trinity: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to some Christian dogma....................http://www.merriam-webster.com......Structure1- acceptace2-posistions3-rebuttals4-summarization
Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate

I'd like to notify voters that my opponent could not complete the debate due to personal and educational reasons and did alert me via the PM system. We agreed to simply end the debate as a two round debate and thus I'd ask all potential voters to ignore the third round and vote as this was a two round debate from the start.I'd like to thank my opponent for an entertaining and educated debate and hope to debate her again in the future. Au revoir.
Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate

This is my first debate, so greeting to all who read it :). After reading an earlier debate involving the con (1) the area of the debate i am referring to is in round 2. I did comment the following statement but i thought it might be interesting to take this into a debate. I would have to say that a pile of laundry could in fact be art. For example if you look at one of the works of Tracey Emin entitled 'My Bed', Emin presents us with nothing more than an untidy bed surrounded by various personal items such as dirty underwear, sheets, cigarette ends, empty alcohol bottles etc. Whilst you could argue that this could be classed as lazy art you also have the reasoning behind the creation of the work which is Emin giving us an insight into a part of her life where she suffered a mental breakdown. The 'mess' around the bed alluding to the mental state of Emin during this time, the fact that the bed was in fact Emins actual bed and the fact that during this time she spent countless hours suffering in this bed....gives us such a personal insight into the world of the artist which revolutionises your view of the bed. No longer is it a conglomeration of random items but a personal expression of suffering and pain expressed. Therefor a pile of laundry could very much so 'be art', it could allude to any form of methodology...Identity, Feminism, Social History to name but a few along with being a direct representation of the artists and maybe the perceived role that person has had to take in society in order to progress through life. Speaking as a female artist i could easily tie my under ware to the end of a pole and proceed to produced painted works that are a representation of the submissive and responsible role that i as a woman have time and time again been expected to take in society and then photograph myself whilst doing this and exhibit the photographic images as a serious yet slightly humorous statement.....would this be considered lazy art?...to some yes but to those who take the time to understand the meaning behind the work then the answer in my opinion would be no...it would not be considered lazy art but instead an expression of emotion, frustration and an attempt to reach out and bring awareness to that specific issue along with highlighting the suffering i have gone through in trying to fight that oppressiveness. 1. https://www.debate.org...
No God = No Concept of God = No Believers in God

==Resolved==If there is no God, there would be no concept of God, and if there were no concept of God, then no one would have any idea, awarness, or desire for this being, and therefore-- there should be no believers.==Definitions==God - the single deity in monotheism or the monist deity in polytheism. God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org...God - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. http://dictionary.reference.com...==Rules==1R - Acceptance2R - Opening statements / (CON) Rebuttals3R - Rebuttals4R - Final Statements / Final Rebuttals / No New arguments- Tasteful humor ok.I look forward to a fun exchange; may the best debater win.
in what ways does Islam justify terrorism

So, ultimately, in what ways does Islam justify terrorism? Simply this: by the teachings and example of Muhammad, and the very "holy" Quran itself. That's right. The Quran itself justifies favouritism towards Muslims, and violence towards non-Muslims: Quran 48:29 "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, but compassionate amongst each other....." If this verse doesn't speak to you that Islam is a religion of terror and violence, then you just aren't listening. Thank you.
in what ways does Islam justify terrorism

Hi again, Here is some breaking news about the wonderful "religion of peace": Not that this has anything to do with Islam, but all this is straight out of the Qur"an: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks"" " Qur"an 47:4 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment." " Qur"an 5:33 Odd sign in the photo: the Arabic letters appear reversed. "ISIS "beheads" 12 in battle for Libya"s Sirte," AFP, August 15, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller): Tripoli " Islamic State group jihadists have beheaded 12 people and hung them on crosses during a battle for the coastal city of Sirte, the national news agency LANA reported on Saturday. The fighting for control of Sirte, hometown of slain dictator Muammar Gaddafi, has been raging since Tuesday, with one top Libyan diplomat warning of a "massacre" in the city. LANA said the 12 people beheaded were local gunmen who had been battling IS in the eastern Sirte district known as "neighbourhood three". The agency also reported that IS militants executed 22 other Sirte residents who had taken up arms against the jihadist group as they lay wounded in a city hospital. It said the jihadists also set the hospital on fire. Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org... Islamists continue to prove how evil, wicked, racist, intolerant, hateful, and utterly vile and disgusting this stupid "religion" is. Actually, I correct myself. Islam is not a religion, its a satanic cult of death and destruction. Period. If you decide to disagree with me, go ahead, you will be jumping into the lions den. Thank you.
in what ways does Islam justify terrorism

Hi, I don't know why you didn't say anything, so I will address something that someone from the peanut gallery said. Yassine, you said: "The noun base root of Islam is 'Silm' or 'Salam', both of which mean: calm, tranquility, serenity, peace... . You lost all credibility when you started off with such a horrible linguistic misrepresentation....They are in no way related to "submission" or "surrender". Oh really? Didn't you read what I said? "There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars." Now, as much as you like to pretend that you are a scholar, let's see what the REAL Islamic scholars have to say about this, when they translated the Quran from Arabic: Quran 3:19a,20a "Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam....So if they dispute with you (Muhammad SAW) say: "I have SUBMITTED myself to Allah (in Islam), and (so have) those who follow me." - Muhsin Khan "Lo! religion with Allah (is) the SURRENDER (to His Will and Guidance)....And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have SURRENDERED my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me." - Pickthall Not convinced? Quran 2:136: "Say (O Muslims), "We believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down...and to Him we have SUBMITTED (in Islam)." - Mushin Khan "Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us...and unto Him we have SURRENDERED." - Pickthall You see? Islam is SUBMISSION and SURRENDER, if you want to be a true muslim(ie. muhammadan) Well, that should silence the peanut gallery a little.... ***** Anyways, to continue the debate... Quran 2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know." Quran 8:67 "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made a great slaughter in the land..." Its clear. Jihad and terrorism is Islam 101, and anyone who would disagree is naive and blindly ignorant. Thank you.
in what ways does Islam justify terrorism

Hello. I hope you are looking for some clarification on the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam -- whether it is commanded or not. in what ways does Islam justify terrorism?? Let me start with the word "Islam" itself. An Arabic word only has one root. The root word for Islam is "al-Silm," which means "submission" or "surrender." There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. Al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is PEACE which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law." Peace that is enforced by law.....yeah that's the Islamic definition of "peace". *** So 1) what is the method of "enforcement" laid out in the rule of Sharia (Islamic Law)? And 2) by what can it be justified? 1a) the Quran and Hadith use violence and intimidation as the method for promoting and advancing "peace" (ironically). Quran 8:7 "...But Allah intended to establish the truth by His words and to eliminate the disbelievers" Quran 8:12 "when Allah inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." 2a) the actions of Muslims instigating violence against anyone who does not believe in Allah as they see fitly is justified by the two "excellent examples" found in the Quran for muslims to follow: Muhammad (Quran 33:21), and Abraham (Quran 60:4) Quran 33:21 "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah..." also, Quran 60:4 "There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah . We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone". " ---------That right there is the crux of all Islamic terrorists. "..and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone". Thats the true spirit of Muhammad, and those who follow him wholeheartedly. "Muhammad said: I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah""" - - - from Sahih Al-Bukhari 6924, the most trusted Hadith in Islam. This should be enough to end this debate. Islam is violent and promotes hatred among all those who follow its teachings. Thank you.
Brazil will win the world cup

I would like to say that i dont understand the last passage about what i think is american football but i think your trying to imply that the fans can pick up the game. even though there have been many instances where teams have lost at there home ground no matter how good the fans or the team itself is. so making a prediction that a team is going to win just because its at home, is reasonable but you cant title the debate BRAZIL WILL WIN THE WORLD CUP because you never know
This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents!!~

Alright, sorry for missing out on this debate so far. I'm still a bit busy with classes, thus I'm simply going to use this first round for C/X. #1. Do you have any credible sources to support your claim your first argument? Suggesting that children and teenagers will absorb "bad things" (presumably, you mean that their personalities and actions will be influenced towards violence) is quite a leap. #2. For your second point, why would violent video games in particular be a cause for poor education? Why not video games in general? In addition, would you please be so kind as to cite your claim with a reliable source? I'll refute it in the next round, but believe you argument would be a bit stronger if you had some official to back you up. #3. Do you have any evidence that shows violent video games correlate with criminal activities? That's all the questions I have. When these are answered, I believe our debate can really begin (though I'll really begin next round regardless of how you answer).
This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents!!~

Good Afternoon lady and gentlemen. Today I would like to begin with the motion 'This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents' This house means Asia&Europe. Violent VDO game means GTA. Violent VDO game is really dangerous for the little children and teenagers too! 'coz it can change their minds from nice children/teenagers to be offensive. I have 2 arguments for this case. I will begin with the first argument 1. for the habit of the children/teenager -The children and teenager have to learn the good things so, they will absorb the good things from what they have learned.. If u give this violent game to them, they will also learn from this kind of game. 2. For their education -many children/teenager that play this kind of games and don't care about their education so, they just don't care and that's why their education go lower and lower 3. To decrease the crime -now ... we have the problems about the children/teenagers that kill each other at school .. and that's because of their offensive from the this kind of game To solve this problem we have to change them from playing violent VDO games to play RPG games ... ie. FFVII or Kingdom of heart
This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents!!~

*sigh* Tifa-chan has done nothign to answer my questions. I guess I will negate her position here then. RE:"-The children and teenager have to learn the good things so, they will absorb the good things from what they have learned.. If u give this violent game to them, they will also learn from this kind of game." 1) Children can indeed learn good things from violent video games and that is better hand eye coordination as well as better problem solving skills. 2) My opponent provides us with no evidence that supports her claims; she has shown nothing that would suggest that violent video games would encourage children/teenagers to have violent behavior. 3) As suggested by my highly credible source ( http://www.psychiatrictimes.com... ), there is more than enough reason to believe that violent video games ACTUALLY serve as an outlet for aggression. In other words, it eases the stress that would typically cause children to instigate real violence, ergo, is beneficial. Thus, given the above three facts, the instigator's first argument fails. RE:"-many children/teenager that play this kind of games and don't care about their education so, they just don't care and that's why their education go lower and lower" 1) The instigator provides no evidence to support this claim, therefore, you have no reason to consider it. 2) It's true that a child's grades could very will decrease if they were to play violent video games too often, but this doesn't just apply to violent video games, bu video games in general. Hell, it actually applies to entertainment in general. The simple solution is for parents to monitor their children's performance when it comes to education and to not buy their children so many games (or other forms of entertainment) while knowing full well that their children won't be as devoted to their studies. Merely banning violent video games will solve nothing. RE:"-now ... we have the problems about the children/teenagers that kill each other at school .. and that's because of their offensive from the this kind of game" 1) The instigator provides no evidence for this claim, ergo, dismiss it. 2) Given the rising popularity of video games (hell, when Halo 2 debuted, it made 125 millions dollars on its openign day), one would think that would be a rival number of teenage crime. However, interestingly enough, school shootings are seldom (they don't occur every day nor do the amount come close to the video game population). In addition, even if you don't buy this, simply look back to my evidence which demonstrates how violent video games actually reduce the incentive to instigate real violence and you will see just how unrealistic my sexy opponent's claims are. RE:"To solve this problem we have to change them from playing violent VDO games to play RPG games ... ie. FFVII or Kingdom of heart" Since my opponent hasn't even provided evidence of there being a problem, I don't think you need to consider any solutions that have spewed from her mouth. Hopefully, my opponent is able to respond in the next round so that we can actually have a debate.
Gingers have no souls

Are you a joke? Is this a social experiment? I want to laugh at the moment. I don't know what to say. I have loads of things to say to you, but I'll get on. Gingers, (like me) do not 'steal' people's souls. Seriously, I don't know why I am debating this. This is like your other bizarre racist debates but really, you've crossed the line now. Okay, let me talk about it down on your level. If you believe in this weird soul stuff, then how can you say that just because a person's hair colour happens to be ginger, they have no soul? You can't live without a soul right, so how are gingers born then? You cannot be born without a soul, weird guy.
Gingers have no souls

Right. Just to let you know, I am not really half Indian. My Mother is, not me. Do I look half Indian? I've been holding back a bit from throwing big-time insults at you but you keep crossing my boundaries. Here are some things that accurately sum up YOUR life: You are exactly like Hitler, but worse. You are a sad person in life and everyone hates you. You are ugly, definitely 100% stupid and so stinky I can smell your foul stink. (it leaks into all your writing, believe me) You definitely belong in a mental asylum if that not where you are already. (Get some help with your disorder) Pro, you cannot judge someone by how they look. Nobody is better than anyone else, but everyone is better than people like you. You are amongst the worst. Closing statement: Pro has not said anything in this so-called 'debate'. The only thing he has done is hurl extreme racist insults and attacks at not only me, but other members too. He has not given any reasoning or 'proof' that gingers are soulless.
Gingers have no souls

? Wow, you really are mentally insane. I've never met a person like that before. How does it feel knowing everyone hates you and you are such a sad loser in life? Also, you did not reply to anything I stated in my last argument, the junk you just said is not relevant to this debate. If this is some stupid way you're trying to confuse me because I am younger than you, would you please stop, because you are playing right into your own loss of this debate. If you could prove somehow gingers are soulless, that would be surprising, but interesting to see. Go on then loser.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is False

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been greatly used to 'prove' the existence of a supreme being which 'brought' the universe into being. The argument goes as follow 1. Everything begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. At first glance, this is a completely sound argument with the first two seemingly obvious statements followed by a logical conclusion. However, despite the seemingly logical appearance, deep down under the rational surface is fallacies being used to pull the wool over people's eyes. 1.Here are the problems with the first premise. 1. Fallacy of composition: A fallacy of composition is, according to Google, "the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole". It is true that everything we see in our daily life has a cause. For example, a chair has to be made by a human being. But assuming what is true for the objects within the universe, to be true for the universe itself, is a fallacy. For examples, every cells in my body duplicate. Therefore I duplicate! Hopefully, that statement is self-evidently nonsensical. 2. The problems with the second premise. 1. Theists 'prove' that the universe had an absolute 'beginning' by showing that an actual infinity is not possible or self-contradictory. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that it presupposes human-constructed logic to be the absolute true that can be applied to the universe. In reality, could an actual infinity exist? The answer is I don't know but using human logic to show that infinity leads to a contradiction and therefore could not exist is not any better. Why? Because human developed a language of logic and reason in order to predict the patterns appear in nature. But, an actual infinity can nowhere be found on Earth. Therefore, the language of logic cannot be used to describe such a thing as infinity. However, an actual infinity cannot be found on Earth do not imply the impossibility of an actual infinity of the universe because human logic is non-applicable to the universe. 2. Even if the universe had a cause that brought it into existence, there is no possible reason to believe that God is that cause which brought it into being. In conclusion, I think the conclusion does not follow. Even if the conclusion is true, that the universe has a cause of its existence; there is no rational reason to believe that the cause is a transcendent personal God.