BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god is false

Alright. I'll start with an Old Rebuttal you haven't answered yourself in a previous debate wrote by the following user: "logicinlife". Rebuttals: "1. One of God's attributes alone refutes Pro's claim - omnipotence - God CAN do anything 2. God provided and put together parts (in accordance to construct's definition #1) in constructing life (in accordance to definition #1 life). Such as creating environments for life. 3. God created (in accordance to the definition of create #1) by speaking the universe (nature by all its definitions provided) into existence (ex: Genesis 1:3, 1:6, 1:9 and so on) and speaking life and nature into existence (in accordance to definition #1 of life) in Genesis 1:11, "Let the land produce vegetation" 4. God created (in accordance to definition of #6 of create) everything as I demonstrated in point 3, which includes life. 5. God constructed (in accordance to the definition of construct #1,3,4) man, which is life (by definition of #1) and according to Pro. Genesis 2:7 7. Assuming God as creator of the universe also means that God created life indirectly through human reproduction and/or evolution. (depending on your view of evolution) 8. Assuming God as creator, human beings and life forms exist, therefore God created life. 9. Humans can create life now thanks to science in unusual ways, thus if mere humans can do so, than so can God who by definition is all powerful, all knowledgeable and so on. 10. God in the New Testament uses His Spirit to bring Christ (a living human being) into the World. 11. God saves us from death through the Cross (New Testament) therefore creating (by definition #1 of create) eternal life (by definition #4) 12. God created the Heavens and the Earth, Genesis 1:1, thus creating both life and eternal life. " So your statement : "That is my argument, and it disproves any god." is both true and false. Like a god of the Rome Mythology such as: Janus, the God of beginnings and transitions can not create life indeed, but that doesn't deny his existence. Although according to the bible our God, the Christian God is Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent and Benevolent. In short is means that God can literally do anything he want. He has always been there with no beginning and no end, and he is everywhere. And one who can do anything, can even create machines or life with his bare hands and so your argument is false. My request to you is to answer the Rebuttals instead of like you did with the last argument: Continue by posting the same line over and over again. Your turn. Source: http://www.debate.org... http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com... The Bible.
Dunsparce Is a Boss

is - to be. [1]So my opponents argument is it can look like it, as it can shape shift. But does this mean dunsparce is boss? If I changed my appearance to be meagan fox, am I meagan fox? No, I am not, I am still Alexander Adams, in a different form. So, even if my opponents argument is correct, appearance does not fully make dunsparce boss, as he still isn't, only resembles boss. Also to note his picture is a pissed priest... You must have shown him contraception. Also in special abilities all it shows is it can fly, not shape shifting or substitutes. [2] So, even if your argument is true, it fails to prove he IS boss, and it is not true either way. Also, we must ask can pokemon have the image we presented? Can it be a priest that found out you had a abortion, or newt gingrich when he lost his McDonalds? The answer is no, the pokemon animations cannot do this, they can make this: http://www.google.com...Yet do not make old fat men pissed because we took away their McDonalds. So, I will add to my case:P1: Romney is a moderateP2: Being moderate is funnyP3: If being moderate is funny, Dubsparce i not bossP4: Being moderate means your a mormon that cant drink alcohol, which is funnyC: Dunsparce isn't boss___________________My argument is logically sound, because I say it is. And I am the god. I can kill you if you vote pro. So vote con, or you will be attacked by this guy:http://www.google.com... [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
Dunsparce Is a Boss

Thank you for posting your opinion and I will take your argument into heavy consideration. First, I commend your finding of the sources used on the Dunsparce Wikipedia page, but I still stick to my claim that Dunsparce is indeed a boss.I think that Dunsparce is in fact alike to the picture that you have posted. Here is a list of similarities between the two:-Dunsparce can have Frustration, which is also the man in the picture appears to have.-Dunsparce uses its Glare. The man in the picture is glaring.-Dunsparce CAN somewhat change forms. It can put up a Substitute, which, in this picture, looks very similar to the picture of a boss that you have presented:http://2.bp.blogspot.com...^Dunsparce could just be in its alternate form, the Substitute.Lastly, I dispute the claim that my arguments do not work. My arguments sit in their cubicles and work all day, and they have been tasked by the all-powerful Dunsparce himself, so that is one more reason that Dunsparce is a boss. Dunsparce. What a boss. I love it.
Dunsparce Is a Boss

My definitions then stand :)except one -__-"Dunsparce (ノコッチ Nokocchi?) is a land snake based on the tsuchinoko, a legendary snake-like cryptid from Japan. It has a yellow hourglass-shaped body, two tiny wings on its sides, a drill for a tail,[16] and two spikes under its chin. Its underbelly is blue, as are the markings on its back. Dunsparce lives in caves[17] and deep underground in nests of complex design.[16] Its rudimentary wings enable it to hover above the ground,[18] providing it with an alternate method of motion besides crawling. Despite these wings and bug-like appearance, Dunsparce is solely a Normal-type Pokémon."http://en.wikipedia.org...Sources wikipedia used in that:Pokédex: DUNSPARCE has a drill for its tail. It uses this tail to burrow into the ground backwards. This POKéMON is known to make its nest in complex shapes deep under the ground. Game Freak. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. (Nintendo). Game Boy Advance. (2003-03-17)Pokédex: It hides deep inside caves where no light ever reaches it and remains virtually motionless there. Game Freak. 'Pokémon Crystal'. (Nintendo). Game Boy. (2001-07-29)Pokédex: If spotted it escapes by burrowing with its tail. It can float slightly using its wings. Game Freak. Pokémon Silver. (Nintendo). Game Boy. (2000-10-15)If you look at it, my argument still stands, and my opponents arguments do not work. A dunsparce is not a boss (remember its picture, it does not resemble this, as it cannot shape shift) Dunsparce is not like that ^, hence not a boss. I win... for now.
Dunsparce Is a Boss

The opposition is clearly mistaken, or at least delusional. He is quoting stuff from Bulbapedia, which is like Wikipedia in that it can be edited by anyone. We cannot trust Bulbapedia. We cannot trust the media. We must look to our instincts, and our hearts. In our hearts, we all know that Dunsparce is a boss. Even if I were to accept the validity of these sources, it is stated in Boss #3 that a boss is someoen who exercises authority and dominates. It could be said that Dunsparces exercise authority and dominate, because they dominate their competition in the Pokemon game. Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to point out that the opposition spelled Dunsparce wrong twice in his argument ("Dunsprce" and "Dudsparce") which clearly represents his innate fear of the almighty Dunsparce. It is similar to Harry Potter, where everyone is too afraid to say Voldemort's name, and instead resort to saying "you-know-who" or the like. For the debater of the "con" argument, it is evident that although he tries to be brave, he too fears the power of Dunsparce, who is a boss. I would like to conclude my argument by saying DUNSPARCE FOREVER. :)
Dunsparce Is a Boss

Boss - a person who employs or superintends workers; manager. Boss #2- a politician who controls the party organization, as in a particular district. Boss #3 - a person who makes decisions, exercises authority, dominates, etc.: My grandfather was the boss in his family. http://dictionary.reference.com...Dunsprce - "Dunsparce are pale yellow, serpentine Pokémon with two small, white-colored wings which are capable of lifting the Pokémon a few inches off the ground. They also possess a drill on the end of their tail for digging which resembles a rattlesnake's rattle. Besides their main pale yellow coloration, they have accentuations of blue, such as the ring patterning encircling their eyes, the thick stripes on the pattern on its back, and its underside, and beige, such as its eyelids and back. Dunsparce's eyes seemed perpetually closed and goggle-like in appearance, somewhat like Baltoy's, and there are pointed prongs on the underside of its chin. " http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... No where in there does it say politician, the ruler, or a manager that hires people. Dudsparce = see bulbapediaBoss =http://www.google.com... A dunsparce is not a boss.
Dunsparce Is a Boss

Dunsparce is a sexy beast. I use Dunsparce in all of my battles and I never lose. In fact, yesterday I played Pokemon Diamond and I took out a Bidoof, which is the second best Pokemon ever and is so good that it is even banned from Ubers. Dunsparce also has the coolest looking shiny form. It is pink, which is commonly regarded as the most manly color of all time. When people come up against Dunsparces in battle, they always run, because Dunsparces are just that terrifying. Yeah. Dunsparce is your worst nightmare. Don't deny it. :/
Christians are not allowed to eat pork.

It is a shame that my opponent has forfeited, although there may be good reason for it. With that said, a commenter has requested a source for my claims. So I will give the full context and a source. "1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say TO THE ISRAELITES [emphasis mine]: "Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 4 ""There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."[1] Note the "to the Israelites" part. Also, I would like to thank Solomon Grim for pointing out this part of the New Testament. Matthew 5:17-18 "17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."[2] This is often used to mean Christians still have to follow the laws of the OT. However, Jesus says nothing shall pass from the law TILL ALL BE ACCOMPLISHED-since he came "to fulfill" (accomplish) the law and prophecies, this means the laws (at least of the Old Testament) are now subject to change (if you are Christian). [1]http://www.biblegateway.com... [2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
Christians are not allowed to eat pork.

Christians are people of The Book. In this case, "The Book" is the Holy Bible. Christians were meant to believe in this book and follow its instructions, as the Muslims do with the Holy Qur'an, and Buddhist do with the Tipitaka. The Holy Bible consist of two parts, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Since, this is a fact and cannot be argued against, for it is not an opinion, the Prophet Jesus Christ was the last of the Mosaic successors, and never made a new religion in his own lifetime, the Old Testament was included as being part of the Holy Bible. Thus, it is naturally obligatory for a Christian to obey his book. Furthermore, Christianity and Islam branch out of Judaism. so Jesus (as), and Mohammad (saw), and there people are considered to be the "people of Moses". P.S. (a.s.) and (s.a.w.) are just abbreviations for a respectful word when you speak of a prophet of the Lord.
Christians are not allowed to eat pork.

I am not trying to provoke anyone, but this is a very simple topic. Most Christians tend to love pig ribs, bacon, and pepperoni pizza{the pig kind, and yes, you can get non-pork pepperoni and bacon} and look down upon Muslims because they do not eat pork. King James Bible And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. http://biblehub.com...
private schools are better than public schools

Firstly I'm not native English speaker. Secondly, I studied in a private school only five years of primary education and then I had to go to public school because that school was closed. I can say that I didn't like a public school where I studied because of some reasons: teachers did not pay much attention to children that's why many of them did not do homework. while in a private school teachers were demanding and I strictly fulfilled all tasks assigned to me.secondly if we did not understand something teachers explained us again with a great initiative. I don't know about you but I'm from Kazakhstan.and while I studied in private school we deeply studied English since first grade every day of week even on sunday.being children we watched tales and different films in English to improve our listening skills. when I entered in public school they were just starting to learn English and only twice a week.I was not interested in repeating what I have already learned and that's why I did not improve my English.discipline in class was terrible, chidren make noise and I always heard bad words that I had not heard before.Teachers explained topics without any interest that's why I wasn't interested to learn too.also teachers instead of helping constantly humiliated by saying that we are so stupid.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

1. DNA is a type of code. 2. The only known source by which all types of codes form is intelligence. 3. Despite decades of extensive research there are no natural means by which functional DNA is known to form abiotically. 4. It is therefore logical and follows historical scientific methodology to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life's DNA code is the hypothesis most likely to be true. Rule: Other arguments concerning Intelligent Design (and not Creationism) may be discussed, but Con's retort must include a direct counter to the above argument. To enter this debate means to accept this rule. I welcome anyone who will assume the role of Con.
The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared

I give the verses in the proposition (KJV): Dan 2: 44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Mark 1: 14, 15 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." First round acceptance only. Usual rules apply. Each disputant is permitted three questions per round (beginning with round 2) which are to be identified and answered by his opponent in the reply.
Eternal Security Is the Truth (Christianity)

This argument will be featuring the doctrine of Eternal Security I will be arguing as a Christian against the doctrine of eternal security saying it is a false doctrine that leads souls to hell (con). My opponent who believes in the eternal security of the Christian i.e. once saved always saved it is 100% impossible to lose your salvation, he will be arguing for (Pro) I ask that my opponent be one who has studied the scriptures and can post many scriptures and put up a good debate, The character count will be set at 6,000 hopefully that is not to many words for people to read There will be 5 rounds
The Soviets played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies

Operation Barbarossa was the largest invasion in history. It consisted of over 4 million German, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Finnish soldiers. Hitler believed that with the defeat of the Soviet Union, Britain would become demoralized and surrender. As the Germany advanced they destroyed the Soviet army in the millions. By the winter of 1941 however, the German advance could be measured only in feet, not miles. Operation Barbarossa failed with the Soviet victory at the Battle of Moscow. This victory was Hitler's first major defeat. In 1942, the axis launched Case Blue: the offensive at the Caucus oil-fields and the city of Stalingrad. The Battle of Stalingrad became the bloodiest battle in history where some 2 million German and Soviet men died. In addition to being Germany's largest defeat, this battle was also the turning point of the war in Europe. The Germans launched one final major offensive at Kursk in 1943 but were defeated and this defeat ended all chances of a German victory. On May 8, 1945 the Soviets finally captured Berlin and the war in Europe came to an end. However before the Germans ever invaded the USSR, they successfully defeated Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. They successfully conquered most of Europe in 2 short years. Yet Hitler failed to conquer Britain and Italy was a complete failure in securing Africa. Britain managed to hold out. Neither Britain, nor the United States ever fought any major decisive battles against Germany. They never destroyed German divisions the way the Soviet Union did. For example, during the three years the western allies spent fighting Germany and Italy in Africa, they only defeated 500,000 axis soldiers. The Soviets destroyed 850,000 axis soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad alone. It is easy to prove that all the battles that had some effect on the outcome of the war were fought on the eastern front. The battles I am talking about are the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Battle of Kursk. Significance of these three battles: Battle of Moscow: This was the largest battle in history and this axis defeat ended all hopes of a quick victory for Germany in the east. Battle of Stalingrad: This battle was the decisive turning point of the war. Battle of Kursk: When Hitler lost this battle, he lost all chances of winning the war. The only major battle that the western allies fought was the Battle of the Bulge. By the time this battle was fought, Germany was down to boys and old men; there was no chance Germany was going to win the war. There were 3 million allied troops in France and only 200,000 Germans fighting them. So here are my arguments which on why it was the Soviets who played the most important role in defeating Germany: -80% of the German army was destroyed in the east. -All of the decisive battles of the war were fought in the east. -It was the Soviets who captured Berlin. -Most of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Finnish divisions who perished during WWII were killed fighting the Soviets.
The Democrats will win the presidency in 2008.

I think this debate between yourself and I is going to come down to the candidates themselves. Let's first look to the Democratic side where you first attack Mrs. Clinton on her stance to "attack Iran". You obviously have done little to no research or what research you have done is from a right wing source if this is what you believe. First off, the legislation you speak of has nothing to do with "attacking Iran". The legislation would give the "Revolutionary Guard" of Iran the label of a terrorist organization. this in no way shape or form guarantees an attack form the United states. In fact, it actually increases our diplomacy, not our ability to "attack". (http://www.politico.com...) And as for your comment on Barack Obama not sponsoring a national health care system, your once again flawed in your interpretation. Barack Obama believes that there are many major flaws with our current health care system, and advocates a National Health care system. His own website even speaks of this. The only difference is, the type of national health care he advocates is different form the type that his main opposition, Hillary clinton, is advocating. (http://www.barackobama.com...) Now for the Republicans. you already touched on the fact of Rudy Guiliani being very far left to be running under the Republican banner. This is going to be his main flaw. Rudy is Pro-Choice. Something that is a staple of the Republican party. No republican would ever win a national election while being pro-choice. Plus, his lack of any political experience besides being mayor will decrease his popularity in the long run as well. With Mitt Romney, I hate to say it, but his religion is what will stop him. While I myself think it is ridiculous to not vote for someone based on their religion, sex, or race, the majority of the Republican people are located in the "Bible Belt" that you yourself mentioned. these hardcore Republicans TEND to be fairly narrow minded about things like this, and I wouldn't expect it to be any different for Romney. We'll end with your personal favorite, Ron Paul. you've already mentioned that he isn't well known, but his popularity is rising. This is the EXACT reason he for sure won't even be the nomination for the GOP in 2008. He lack all of the top Republican like Romney, Guiliani, and the new breakout star, Huckabee. Speaking of Huckabee, the Republicans have already picked their potential wild card, and it's him. Ron Paul is sort of like Ross Perot. At BEST, he'll get close to winning it. But right now, Republican party is so split I can't even see him getting the nomination. Finally, the one thing we can't forget is that President Bush is still in office. Bush, who at one point has had the lowest presidential approving rating EVER (26%) is not an asset to any Republican running. As long as they potential candidates still have any ties to Mr. Bush, they won't do to well. Thanks for the debate!