BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is evidence for God

1. "Who says we are talking about the Big Bang?" I do not need any one to say that because since the Big Bang did not happen, my belief in God is supported, as I stated in round 4. I have plenty of logical evidence that God is real, but the only scientific evidence I have of my own is that science has been wrong about other things before (e.g. the diameter of earth, the earth being flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe), so it could still be wrong about God not being real. I will explain why this evidence technically IS scientific. Problem- is there evidence for God? Research- see my other arguments Hypothesis (it is actually my honest belief)- there is probably evidence for God. Analysis- this cannot actually be done, but my logic deems it needless. The question is: "Is there evidence for God?" It is not "Is my opponent's evidence stronger than mine?" No matter how strong your evidence against God is, it cannot simply make my evidence supporting His existence magically disappear. The same logic is applicable to evidence for or against any other belief, is it not? Conclusion- there is probably evidence for God. 2. "You are saying it is okay to rely on a magical man in the sky instead of taking matters into your own hands." Not entirely. And God is not a "magical man in the sky." Christians are taught that magical power is satanic (2 Corinthians 11:13-15) and therefore sorcery is not to be practiced (Revelation 21:8+2 Kings 21:6+Leviticus 19:26). And trusting God is not letting Him do everything for you. It is for things that need to be done but that you cannot do yourself but and does not go beyond not being psychologically worried.
There is evidence for God

I provided some scientific evidence for God's existence in my conversation with a user named Burncastle in the comments. If you are an atheistic amputee, and if God made your limb grow back, and you could prove to yourself that it was real, you would probably be baffled as this would imply the existence of a deity. "So your god thinks it's OK to punish children..." I did not say that it was DEFINITELY a punishment for their sins. I also stated that it could be strengthening their faith. And it IS ok to punish children if you are their parent and they sinned. In this case, you also have to punish them properly. Did your parents not punish YOU when you broke a rule? And Jesus and Muhammad are not the same entity. And there is evidence to back up a claim of seeing heaven. Your life does not change just from seeing a man in a Bigfoot costume. It does change, however, from seeing Jesus face to face or seeing heaven in general.
There is evidence for God

"Perhaps you did not look at my source. It provided real evidence" Are you kidding me? You are letting a crappy website explain yourself? I want YOUR scientific evidence. " God hasn't given the amputee a new arm because that would confuse him" Why would it? If wouldn't confuse me. "It is either punishment of their sins or intended to strengthen their faith because that is what God does." So your god thinks it's OK to punish children...That's nice... " My source also said that Muslims have been having dreams of Jesus." The Muslim's Jesus is named Muhammad by the way. And what does that prove? I once had a dream of a giant rubber duck from Jupiter. Maybe I should start an organisation... "Claiming to have seen heaven, Jesus, or angels is not the same thing as claiming to see Bigfoot" Yes it is. Both have no evidence to back them up. How did you know that it was god that healed that lady's back? People's pain goes away out of nowhere all the time. Was it a magic man in the sky? No. You are saying god is to busy fixing people's very minor problems to do other things like stop wars or world hunger.
God

Since you cannot prove he is real, why believe in it. I use to believe in "God" most of my childhood. Now I just question if he is real or not. Like think, people would apparently live up to like 400 or something (according to the bible). Now, back then, they had like no medicine at all. What made them live that long? We have more technology, medicine, etc. I don't want you to stop believing in "God" if you really believe in him. I also question, how could a bible be the same for many, many years. Also, people in other places believe in other things like "God". They do the same thing we do, believe in him/her no matter what. This is some reasons why I question if "God", is real.
Nuclear Weapons Should be used in times of War

Argument 1: M.A.DM.A.D, which stands for mutually assured destruction, is the theory that if we launch a nuke, then a chain of nuclear engagements will commence that will destroy the world. In today's age, its virtually imposible to nuke a country without triggering M.A.D. Nations will feel threatened, mistrustful, and will likely be more open to nuclear warfare if someone starts a precedent. By well proven theory, nuclear attacks will result in the end of civilization. And even if the theory is not certain, the risk is to high for any serious consideration. [1]Argument 2: Repercussions The Sheer repercussions of nuclear warfare are uninmaginable. Nuclear warfare is internationally condemned, and heres a good example of a few things that most certainly will happen, using the US as an example.......1. The US would be kicked out of every international agency, including NATO.2. US allies will turn their weapons on us. 3. The US will be heavily embargoed, uranium included. They wouldn't even have the materials to build further bombs.4. The US, if it had not started M.A.G., would set off a cold war.5. We would face massive hacker attacks, directed at nuclear facilities, corporate secrets, and intelligence.6. Diplomacy would be irrecoverable, and the US would forever be tarnishedAnyways, the only reason I started this debate was because I was challenged. Its certain nothing but consequence would follow, by using the "quick way out". Sorry for forfeiting, but I thought you wanted to end the debate. Anyways, good luck. [2] [1] http://www.nuclearfiles.org...[2] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Nuclear Weapons Should be used in times of War

Welcome to the Debate All who just arrived!Overview:I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be used in war, In Fact the Idea appauls me, I'm Merely Re-Instating a debate I happened to have passed by.R1: Ultimate Ends of War (It Sends a Message)Let's be honest here, how many people can say that Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea? If we had just kept sending more and more units then we'd just be losing more troops. We've tested these bombs many times and we know the destruction they're capable of, that's the main reason we use them. " Winston Churchill estimated that the lives of a million Americans and two hundred and fifty thousand British soldiers and sailors had been saved by this sudden shortening of the war."[1]Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a message to Emperor Hirohito that can't be denied.[2]" Hopefully, as a result, the world will be a safer place.""What did not happen as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “Operation Downfall,” a massive Allied (largely American) invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned."[3] Basically If "Operation Downfall" had taken effect then there would have been far more casualties on both sides. We can rest peacefully knowing that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not in vain.Sources:[1]: http://www.atomcentral.com... [2]: http://www.commondreams.org...[3]: http://www.forbes.com...R2: Nature's Recovery of FalloutLet's be honest here, we've never been on the best side with mother nature. Unlike us mother-nature has the ability to recover from the most devastating part of a Nuclear Weapon, that is to say of course the fallout." simply fallout, also known as Black Rain, is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast or a nuclear reaction conducted in an unshielded facility, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and shock wave have passed." To put simply fallout lasts longer than any other part of the Nuclear Weapons Effects, and can also be equally devastating.[1] While Cheronobyl wasn't hit by any nuclear-weapon it has experienced a lot of radiation, what not with it's meltdown and all. Surprisingly there have been animals that have addapted to the land there, also plants continue to grow over the broken city."Chernobyl’s abundant and surprisingly normal-looking wildlife has shaken up how biologists think about the environmental effects of radioactivity. The idea that the world’s biggest radioactive wasteland could become Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary is completely counterintuitive for anyone raised on nuclear dystopias."[3] Life will thrive in places unknown to us.Links:[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://www.slate.com...
You can be Muslim and a Redneck

my conclusion : i think everyone can be a muslim, no matter where they come from, their ethnic, what they have done before. Islam as a religion accepts everyone who want to be muslim. and redneck too. but, they have to seriously learn about islam (although step by step). and i believe they who just be a muslm, know well what they have to do, so it doesnt matter if they have to leave their bad habits (like drinking alcohol, zina, etc. <== it's not for redneck, but who has those bad habits). seriously, it was an amazing experience to have an experience with you. your arguments are so impressive. and i really, really, really dont care, who will be the winner of this awesome debate. nice to have a debate with you. i've learned so much. thank you
You can be Muslim and a Redneck

Concession speech: Well, that settles it. You can't be a Muslim and a Redneck, I guess. Let this be a lesson to all of us that if we believe in something, we've got to go all the way. If you're a Redneck and want to be a Muslim, you've got to put away your singing Bass fish, your tattoo that reads "Lawanda", and your membership in a local Biker Gang. I want to thank my opponent for an excellent debate. I must admit that this has been my most difficult debate, and though I have lost, I have learned much.
You can be Muslim and a Redneck

thank you for your fast response, mr. mightbenihilism. you write, "The reason I put this motion is because I think Muslim Rednecks need someone to stand up for them, and since they cannot operate a computer effectively, I will do so on their behalf." i think if we want to stand up a community, we cant see what's religion they have, i think it's better if we look at humanity side.... but it's not important again talk about why u post this motion, however i appraciate your idea to blow this motion. 1. "Considering that geckos are harmless and often cute, I feel that such an act would be discourteous. Is it though? It depends. However, I can see a Redneck killing a gecko far quicker and with much more joy than I would a stoic Lutheran from Iowa." ==> that hadist state that killing gecko is SUNNAH and you cant just put one hadist. without see other hadist. and that hadist state that kill gecko is allowed if that it danger us. Imam Suyuthi mentioned in "al Asbah an Nazhoir", animals are divided into 4 groups ; 1. animals that useful and not danger us, are prohobited to be killed 2. Animals that danger us and not useful then it is advisable to be killed like: snakes and dangerous animals. 3. Animals that have benefits inside but in other side they can danger us , such as: the eagle is not recomended or makruh to kill them. 4. Animals that do not contain the benefits inside nor dangerous, such as: caterpillars, beetles insect it is not forbidden nor encouraged to kill them. so, muslim habits different with redneck habits who kill gecko just for fun. 2. "So, a Muslim can have free sex with slave-women." you wrong, muslim still can do sex, even with slave women, without MARRY first. and if they do sex without marry realitionship, they will be punnished (zinah's sin) and get the sin. so, it's not true if we say they do free sex dude. different with redneck who free to take a girl to their bedroom and making love. 3."Laziness is sometimes characteristic of some Rednecks, as is a fondness for over-indulging in alcohol. I will be the first to admit that. However, I argue, ontologically, that laziness and alcoholism are not enough to define Redneck behavior." ==> it's true that alcoholism are not enough to define Redneck behavior. but with a simple example, we can take a conclusion they're not inappropriate become a muslim. why? because islam clearly tell us, not to drink alcohol. except if alcohol is used for medice action. meanwhile, the rednect is free to consume alcohol, can we say it same like muslim habit?? i think if we say that "true" muslim is same like redneck, it's nor wise argument, or even 100% wrong. but, muslim as religion still accept them to be a muslim, if they release their identity as "real" redneck. thank u for your brillant ideas. i'm sorry if my post is hurting you. haha. i'm waiting your rebuttal.
You can be Muslim and a Redneck

before i give my opinion, i want to remain you that MUSLIM and REDNECK 100 percent diffrent (i even confuse, why u put this motion).. first, muslim is a people who have islam religion. and in islam RELIGION (not SECT) teaches how we behave with each other. islam has a lot of instruction to behave. while, REDNECK has no courtesy, example : islam prohobits us not to free sex, in other hands REDNECK who uneducated people often do free sex. so, they have different world, and i believe muslim will not being redneck, and redneck so. second, muslim is educated people, if they truly learn about islam, because islam teaches them to lern, read, and being educated people. if u see muslim who lazy, get drunk, they're not muslim. like the other religion, every religion teach us to be a good person, so if u see a christian people who steal, not means their religion teach them to steal, but they who did not learn about their religion. so, i believe YOU CANT be a muslim and a redneck
You can be Muslim and a Redneck

Topic: You can be Muslim and a Redneck The argument here is that it is possible to be both a Muslim and a Redneck. A Muslim is defined as one who follows a sect of Islam. A Redneck is defined as "a white person who lives in a small town or in the country especially in the southern U.S., who typically has a working-class job, and who is seen by others as being uneducated and having opinions and attitudes that are offensive." Common other terms are : Hillbillies, Mountain People, Yokels, Hayseeds, Hicks. I argue that Islam does not contradict the main features of being a Redneck, and some of the minor features of being a Redneck (such as putting bacon in a vanilla shake while drunk) can be dispensed with while still qualifying a person as a "Redneck". The Con's job is to demonstrate that there are aspects of being a Redneck which are incompatible with Islam, and that these aspects are so vital to being a Redneck, that should one be without them, they cease being a Redneck. The Con does not need to restrict themselves to the definition of "Redneck" given above, but their definitions of Redneck should fall within what is generally accepted as being Redneck in aspect. (For instance, the Con should not argue that since Rednecks are furniture, and since Islam requires some level of consciousness, that Rednecks cannot be Muslims. Generally speaking, most people do not view furniture as being "Rednecks"). NOTE: I am not trying to prove that Islam and being a Redneck are incompatible. I am fishing for good arguments against it. The Con should assume that they are trying to demonstrate the impossibility of my assertion, not that I haven't proven it. I am aware that the definition of Redneck is fuzzy and philosophically imprecise, but such, I hope, will make for a more interesting debate. I hope this debate will help us all what it means to truly be a Muslim, and to truly be a Redneck. You can rebut in the first round. I'll respond. You rebut. Etc. etc. No "I accept". Thank you for reading.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

Yes i am admitting we may need minimum wage, but we may not. You say "However China's people are not doing very well and a large number of them are living in poverty. I will give you the fact that we never know how something will work until we try it. However, we have seen country after country fall into poverty because they do not have a minimum wage. In an easier term if you saw several people stick their hand on a sharp object and get cut would you try just to see if you could be different and not get cut?" Well that is different then minimum wage. That is a physical example compared with a mental example. Minimum wage is a mental example because we dont have to lower pay when we get rid of minimum wage, but when you stick you're hand into a sharp object, then the same thing will happen every time. The US is a Democracy run government which means we should have the right to pay people what we want, but it is up to us to make the choice to whether we fall like china or stand strong like a country should. I just think getting rid of minimum wage gives just a little more freedom that the US deserves.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

So your admitting that maybe we should have a minimum wage????? And since when are riots an acceptable part of a strong society? Our minimum wage law was put in place for a reason. If it is taken away then companies will start paying less and less. And yes the United States is a strong country however, China is considered a strong country as far as trading goes because their government does well and makes a lot of money. However their people are not doing very well and a large number of them are living in poverty. I will give you the fact that we never know how something will work until we try it. However, we have seen country after country fall into poverty because they do not have a minimum wage. In an easier term if you saw several people stick their hand on a sharp object and get cut would you try just to see if you could be different and not get cut? Just something to think about. The minimum wage in no way hurts us it doesn't stop have a maximum amount people can be paid so therefor people do not lose money because of it. However, it does stop people from being payed less then a certain amount. I have enjoyed this debate with you and urge everyone voting to please vote in favor of the minimum wage. The minimum wage helps our economy.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

China may have seen it done to other countries, but we where once the most powerful country in the world at one point, but we made a mistake by putting in certain laws and if the highest paying job is 50 cent, well then there may be riots. China and other countries may have seen other countries do it to themselves, but if the US is so ignorant to have that done to them, well then they should keep minimum wage, then there should be a law, but you will never know until you try something new. Just because you saw other countries do it doesn't mean we will.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

Okay so you say that eventually the price will get so low that people will have to start paying more. Actually they will not if the highest paying job for an unskilled worker is 50 cents people will take the job. 50 cents an hour is better then nothing an hour. You say we will not messing up our economy like china has because we have seen it happen. However, china saw it happen to other third world countries and let it happen to them anyway. It is human nature to be greedy kinda sad but that is the hard truth. If an employer can make a larger profit by paying it's workers less it will. Therefore our wage gap would increase and our economy would go into a recession.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

I believe your incorrect. The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages also, you say that only employers can only pay so little, because then people would not work. They will eventually bring it up until people work. So if they get rid of it, then it would have no point in keeping the law. Also, we wont do what China did because China made that mistake and as we see that they messed up their economy, but we dont have too.
A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy

The minimum wage helps our government and economy because without it workers could be forced to work for as little as 30 cents an hour. If the minimum wage goes down then every employer can pay less which would cause people to make less per year. If one employer was paying 50 cents an hour and another was paying 40 cents and still had plenty of workers the company paying 50 cents an hour would want to lower it. If their were no regulation as to how low a person can be payed per hour then workers will make less and less. The employer usually wants to make as much profit as possible so therefore will most likely lower their wages to the lowest possible and still have employees. For example china has a huge wage gap between owners of factories and the people who work in them. This is because without a minimum wage the employers or owners of the factory can pay their as little as they chose. Giving them a large profit and sending their workers into poverty. This is part of the reason so many jobs are sent overseas people over there will work for almost nothing and live in poverty generation after generation. If people are only making 30 cents an hour then our entire economy will go into a recession because people will not have money to spend.
Neil Armstrong landed on the moon

Not the mention that if you look closely at the back rounds most of the ma are the same. And if you look carefully at one of the rocks you can see the letter "c" on it suggesting it was a prop. They have good reason for faking it to people where saying that who ever puts a man on the moon first they would win the cold war and the space race. Also if you seed the video up by x2 it looks like it was on earth.
Neil Armstrong landed on the moon

In this debate, I will prove that all the common arguments against the moon landing are false or at least a false accusation. The shadow were parallel because there was only one light source, the sun which would be completely understandable since they did not want to waste the resources they had for extra lighting. As for them showing up brightly in the shadow of the landing module, you can see fairly well in shadows, a simple google search will show this. But, NASA did not only just film it and show it, they also made it even more visible when that technology came around. Sorta like the contrast settings on a tv or iPad. The flag movement can easily be explained by Newton's laws. Even if your in a vacuum, the law of inertia still apply, and when the astronaut shakes the flag pole to sink it in, you can see physics at work. Below is a video that I believe is very informative in what happened and the techniques used. . http://video.nationalgeographic.com...
THBT Now is A Good Time To Be Young

Sir, concerning your earlier argument, there is this thing called an 'ebook.' The modern youth may rebel and commit crimes, but this is not the only generation that has done so. Recall Nirvana and Generation X? Baghdad Bombings? Atleast my generation does not have to experience world wide wars, holocausts, bubonic plaques, Spanish Inquisitions, and slavery. The world improves with each generation because we learn from our mistakes. Yet again, there is never a better time than the present.