BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Be it resolved that no God exists

A God would simply refer to as anything believed on by religion. Any figure worshiped would be considered a god. Before I start, let me simply imply that I am my own god in the definitional sense. I may not be in the heavens, but given hardwork, I can do anything . God can't simply exist by the following reasons: The concepts of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence may be theologically true, but these concepts have been earned not through evidence, but through delusion and force. It has been known that most gods have this attribute. But let me rebut every attribute, one by one Omnipotence. So, all power huh? The counterargument for this is 'omnilaziness'. Simply, God may have all power, but he's too lazy to use it. Or if the negative would claim that he does, he may be using it to delude the minds of more people. Besides from the basic reasoning that if God exists, why are there problems and why can't he solve it, there's also the issue of humans being much closer to the perception of God. Cavemen may look at us as Gods, and so will we at aliens. Omnipresence. Counterargument would be 'omniabsence'. All present, but where? Let's be a wisecrack, shall we? He may be here, he may be there, and everywhere. Around me are people. Are they all gods? So, basically, I am a God. Omniscience. Let me pray to god and ask him who will be my wife. Another point would be omniscience would practically mean before he created the world, he should have known how much suffering would be here. So, why did he act idiotically? Omnibenevolence? How did Satan come out? Argument number two would regard the number of Gods world religions have. YHWH (for respect reasons), God, Allah (Allahu Akbar), Satan and so on. Who's to worship. The negative side may claim that they are all one. In that case, we then have a 'Schrodinger God', wherein we have a God whose personality is mutually disagreeing. This God would tell us that killing is both okay and not.That forgiveness can be and can't be done. So there's the point, everything disagreeing at the time. Looking forward to my opponent's arguments.
The Holy Trinity

1-Please define the Trinity as you understand it. "God is one God in essence, power, and authority, and also eternally exists as three distinct co-equal persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit." "Defending Your faith" by Dan Story, p99. 2-Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit separate persons? Please see above answer. 3-Please define person as it relates to this issue. Any one of the three substances or modes of the Holy Trinity. 4-According to John 17:3, who is the only God? "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 KJV. "According to John 17:3, who is the only God?" That is a loaded question. Are you assuming that before I read that verse that I thought there was more than one God? My answer to your first question does not suggest that I believe in three gods (polytheism). It means I accept the doctrine of the Trinity in that "there is only one God who exists in three distinct persons, and all three share the exact same divine nature or essence." "Defending your Faith" by Dan Story, p99. 5-Is Jesus God? Jesus, like Yahweh and the Holy Spirit possess the defining characteristics of deity. He is omnipresent (present everywhere at once; Matt. 18:20; 28:20). He is omniscient (possesses infinite knowledge; John 4:29; 16:30; 21:17). And Jesus is omnipotent (all-powerful; John 5:25-29). Yes. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Trinity

I am the negative in this debate. I have to have some to deny in order to be in the negative. My opponent has not presented any affirmative argument for me to deny. If he presents some affirmative argumentation for the the Trinity, I will gladly attempt to deny it. If he wants me to be in the affirmative, then he is welcome to concede the debate and I will challenge him and affirm a non-Trinitarian proposition. Here are some questions for my opponent on this matter. 1-Please define the Trinity as you understand it. 2-Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit separate persons? 3-Please define person as it relates to this issue. 4-According to John 17:3, who is the only God? 5-Is Jesus God? This should be enough to get this thing going. Respectfully, DoctrinallyCorrect
Cloning is wrong/harmful

Ah well I definitely believe cloning a human is wrong for several reasons. Imagine a scenario in which you meet the most amazing, loving person ever. They're everything you have dreamed of. Kind, compassionate, fun, laughs all the time at your jokes. Is just perfect for you. You talk and talk and talk some more. Now after 6 months of the most incredible relationship you've ever had this person comes to you with tears on their face and of course you ask what's wrong? Why are you crying? And they respond by saying "I'm so sorry I should have told you but I'm a clone and I must go fight in your war." Now you and this person (clone) know full well the chances of clones surviving is less than 10%. For they are just cannon fodder, if one dies you can just clone another like you said right? So let's say you can clone this person again. The person looks exactly the same but has no memory of the past 6 months you have spent with them (assuming of course memory is not able to be replicated as current science is definitely limited in that regard). Or could you imagine if the government came to your door tonight and bagged you saying that they own you BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FACT A CLONE and are sending you off to do _______ (whatever bad thing you think the government would use clones for) and feeling that is totally fine? I mean after all are you 100% absolute positive as to exactly how you were born into this world? Were you there watching yourself being born? Could not your birth certificate (if indeed you've ever really looked at it) be completely made up? Could it not be possible you were just cloned days ago with all the memories of the "true person" who you were made from? Is it right for the government or whoever then to use you as they would a test dummy? I would definitely say it would be wrong to "own" another being simply because of how they were created. Whether you are born in a test tube or born in the womb, all should have equal value. Now if you want to say that if in the future we have the ability to create "zombie" clones, as in they are brain dead and merely just bodies with very little brain function that is a different story. Even so, I would say that is wrong too. For cloning is just a different way of creating a human being. In essence we would essentially be intentionally creating mentally disabled humans for the purpose of serving us as if they were robots for us to control and own. If you want to argue that either we should use mentally disabled persons for our own benefit, or that it is different then we can. In summary it matters not is to HOW we are created or formed. That is not what gives us our value and rights. Therefore, to say I have the right to use a person who is identical (what about identical twins and triplets in real life?) to me or someone else is wrong and indeed harmful to the person/clone.
Cloning is wrong/harmful

First off I would like to know what you think of when you think of cloning? The second question is wrong/harmful to whom? For instance it may be wrong for any person to clone another person. Or it may be harmful to the clone which has been made. Or it may be harmful for the person performing the procedure. So if you could please define what you mean by cloning? Cloning an entire human being? as in the movie The Island Using cloning of embryos/stem cells of humans with the intent of never forming a conscience being? Cloning animals? There are quite a few ways cloning can go. Perhaps do a quick wikipedia search to identify what you want to debate
Gay Marriage

I’m sorry to see that izzykay1204 forfeited. I hope he enjoyed the debate until that. I extend all my arguments to the final round. Here is my evaluation of the debate. If you disagree with me, please explain why: Arguments: Con Pro dropped all his initial arguments. Then he brought up new ones and after I rebutted them, heforfeited. He also admitted at the start of round 2, “You argument has some valid points. I must give you credit for that.” Both my rebuttals of his arguments and my own positive arguments remain without a response. Spelling/Grammar: Tie Each of us had proper spelling and grammar. Sources: Tie We each used sources. Conduct: Tie Proper conduct was maintained on both sides throughout. 3 points to me. 0 points to my opponent.
Gay Marriage

Sorry for the confusion. I just made this so I wasn't for sure how to start. Your argument has some valid points. I must give you credit for that.I have some more points to make though It will be great for the economy. Legalizing marriage for any two people opens up a huge market for the wedding industry. Just imagine the over-the-top expensive wedding a stereotypical gay man would throw. Expensive or not, more weddings means more jobs and stronger small businesses that dominate the wedding industry.The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person’s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God. To your sexual anatomy point , we are already in overpopulation in some parts in the world. So, there would be no fear of the human population going extinct. Further more, some animals are homosexual.Animals do things based on instinct. So, they are born with the instint to be gay. Homosexuality is a abnormal prental hormon that people are born with,and was labeled as a sexual oriantation disorder,so they are basicly outlawing something that people are born with they are trying to descrimanate against gays, yet it is just a natural thing they are trying to define natural.Here are some links to prove this http://www.news-medical.net...Gay marriage will also help children in foster homes. There are over 500,000 children currently living without parents in the United States; gay marriage will increase the chances for thousands of foster children to gain loving parents and families. The Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't actually ban incest, that laws pertaining to marriage and divorce could not be adapted to include polygamous unions, and that in cases of bestiality, one of the parties involved isn't human and therefore isn't covered by the Bill of Rights. In any case, the way to ban incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages is not by passing a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages. It's by passing a constitutional amendment banning incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages.
Unguarded borders in the US

To your first point- Granted. That has already happened. What you want is already here. So what are you debating for? To your second point- It isn't as if we guard our borders with guns or walls is going to make a change. Terrorists aren't going to charge all at once, in a ship charging the shore. They will come legally, and be unnoticed. To your third point- It has become quite hard for immigrants to come to america. Isn't that what the US is about? The land of opportunity? Coming here illegally is one of the only things immigrants can do, with the lack of visas. The US economy is about competition. I am almost out of room here. Appearing militaristic is terrible. We say N Korea is terrible, but what will others think when we do this?
Unguarded borders in the US

-To your first point: I'm not saying close off the borders completely. I'm saying lets have border security. Tourists from other countries that want to come here legally, can do so. -ISIS has already entered the US: Even if that's true, That doesn't mean should make it easy for more terrorists to come in. -Immigration allows for immigrants to compete with Americans for jobs, which are already hard to find. If the immigrants don't get a job, than they are added to the millions of unemployed people, which without question is bad for the economy. -Lastly, the US should appear militaristic, as we are a force for good in the world and countries should respect us an our capabilities. But, I don't even think a guarded border gives that appearance
Unguarded borders in the US

Thank you for allowing me to debate in this topic. - Closing borders may indeed prevent diseases spreading faster, but they also limit travel from and into the US, and reduce national profit from tourism. - Closing borders will not prevent ISIS from entering the US. ISIS has already entered the US. - Immigration does not consume jobs. Americans do not need to struggle to find jobs. All immigrants do is partly create jobs. - Having soldiers stationed on all coasts and borders will give the appearance of the US being militaristic. http://www.factcheck.org...
Unguarded borders in the US

1. With unsecured borders we are more prone to diseases coming in. 2. National Security- With ISIS on the rise and with Islamic terrorism on the rise, we can not leave our borders open for anybody to come in. 3. The economy- Too many Americans need jobs. Adding more people to a country with such high unemployment is a bad idea. 4. Its in the US's best interest to uphold the rule of law. Coming here illegally is a felony. It is to our benefit if everybody knows the US takes crime seriously.
Literal biblical creation is unbelievable.

My simple contention is that believing in a literal interpretation of genesis as an historical fact is an absurd position for any educated person to take. Even putting aside the mountains of evidence against such a literal interpretation, I still would assert that it is intuitively "unbelievable". The important word to consider here is "literal" and I would appreciate if my potential opponent would consider this before joining. I realise this puts me in a win/win scenario but it's my first debate.
Literal biblical creation is unbelievable.

As I said before this is my first online debate and I am consequently unfamiliar with the format. So let the debate begin in earnest. There are two ways to approach this debate from my position, one would be to cite scientific evidence against the literal interpretation of Genesis, however I wish to avoid such an approach since I do not believe it is necessary. The other would be to look at the passages in Genesis itself and see if it bares up to critical scrutiny, based upon our experiences of the world as it is. This is the approach I shall prefer, however I will not eliminate scientific evidence from my argument if it is relevant. Genesis Chapter 1 1) The creation of light. After the creation of light (verse 3) there is reference to evening and morning, and yet we have an entire 2 "days" until the creation of the sun. Surely evening and morning are functions of the sun and could not exist without it. 2) Verses 6 and 7. Here heaven is created between the waters of the earth and other waters (having been separated). I see no other interpretation than the ignorance of the authors in interpreting the blue sky as "water" above the heavens. Furthermore, there is no credibility in the concept of waters above the earth, gravitionally it is impossible. 3) Verse 28. Here man is given dominion over the other living creatures of the earth and commanded to subdue it. This, for me, shouts out as the author giving license to man to do what he will with the planet and although not a particularly strong point against it being unbelievable, it certainly points strongly to it being a human construction and not a literal account of history. Genesis Chapter 2 1) Creation of Eve. The creation of light, the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars and every living thing on earth was done from nothing, but Eve must be made from a part of Adam. Why this exception, except to make clear this passage "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". This is an odd passage to include before the "fall", since the sins of procreation were not yet established. 2) God makes man a second time. Chapter 1 verse 27, Chapter 2 verse 7. Genesis Chapter 3 1) Talking snake. I honestly don't think this needs any clarification, just talking snake. 2) "upon thy belly shalt thou go". Not exactly a punishment for a snake. Genesis Chapter 4 1) Cain gets a wife when his mum is the only woman in the whole world (verse 17) 2) Cain builds a City when there's only himself, his miraculous wife, Adam, Eve, Abel (deceased), and Enoch in existence (verses 1-17) And I haven't even begun on the flood chapters. I believe I have made sufficient points to warrant an actual debate now, and I hasten to add that my position is against a literal interpretation of Genesis: suggesting an allegorical interpretation will not suffice in repsonse. Good luck.
Literal biblical creation is unbelievable.

Greetings, all. Seeing as how my opponent is both the instigator AND the affirmative, it is his duty to post an opening argument. As of now, I will post a rather simple opening statement to reduce the amount of white space in my box. :) As of now, my opponent has mentioned but provided absolutely NO evidence in support of his case. As such, there is no argument for me to attack. However, I will say that I believe in biblical creation, and it is thus believable. I await my opponent's arguments so that the real debate may begin. Good luck.
An alternative to Gasoline

hydro power aren't run by water they are run by hydrogen. The hydrogen is sparked and reacts to make water. Hydrogen isn't a real practical source of energy because the amount of it on this planet is very little to almost none. The hydrogen is abstracted from water through electricity so some CO2 is involve. The process of abstracting hydrogen is not practical for replacement of gas. Maybe in the future but not now. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The effects of it one the environment if massively produce are unknown. I think environmentalist need to look at its impact before suggesting it. Getting rid of vehicles may decrease green house gases but it is unrealistic. It may help traffic in cities but not else where. I don't think this will happen unless nuclear war happens in which will be worse for the environment.
An alternative to Gasoline

Thank you for taking me on with this challenge and you put up a pretty good arguement. True, but electricity is still a better alternaive then gasoline. what about hydro powered cars? Cars that run on water instead of gasoline? You could easily fill up your car right at home and the Earth is full of water. We may of had shortages on water recently but that is because the pollution of fossil fuel. Pollution caused the weather to be weird around where I live. Another alternative to Gasoline is getting rid of vehicles and riding bikes, running, jogging, running, etc... If you think about it, it would help you get to some places faster because you wouldn't have to wait in car traffic. It would be crowded but at least you would keep moving and also, this would help people lose weight because you would be getting exercise and also, people would be more active and healthy once they get use to it.
An alternative to Gasoline

I accept the challenge. Hopefully this will be fun. I wish there were good alternatives to gasoline but there are not any good alternatives here right now that can replace it. Electricity is not unlimited source. The biggest sources of electricity is coal. It is cleaner but is still fossil fuel and still produces a lot of CO2. Coal is also limited. People can argue that solar and wind power are not limited but the technology use to harness the electricity is not advanced enough yet. A lot of fossil fuel are needed to make solar panels and wind mills. There is also no good way to store of this energy. When night comes the solar panel doesn't produce electricity. Right now engineers are trying to develope a storage for electricity during the day but it isn't efficient and cheap enough at this time. "If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving." This statement is false for many reasons. 1) The environment will not be better off. Vegetable oil burns less CO2 but that isn't the only thing that concerns the environment. In order to use vegetable oil to replace even 50% of gasoline it will have to take all the farm land of the United States of America and none will be used for food. This makes the environmental impact a disaster. 2) Farmers will make more money but starvation will increase. During the gas price boom last year ethanol (in which is more efficient than vegetable oil) use skyrocket. As a result a corn shortage happened and prices went up for food that had relation with corn. This shortage wasn't a problem in United States as much in poor countries. 3) Obesity is the problem in the United States not really starvation. Going hungry in the United States is nothing like going hungry in Africa. There is enough food production and food is profitable. More farmers live in Beverly Hills than movie stars. Food is a good enough reason to farm.
An alternative to Gasoline

I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.
An alternative to Gasoline

I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it. First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time. Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however. Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone. We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future. In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.
Communism VS Capitalism

Of course, people die in war. Once again, the numbers compare nothing to the murders from communism. Official estimates put the crusades at about 5 million dead from both side. As I have stated previously, Zedong's 70 million and Stalin's 20 million make that number look weak. Even Hitler pales in comparison to these numbers. I would like to remind my opposition the debate is between capitalism and communism, and does not involve nationalism or religion. If you wish to apply those things to capitalism, please prove that capitalism relates to those things first. If anything, communism supports nationalism. "[Marx] tacitly supported proletarian nationalism as a stage to achieve proletarian rule over a nation." Dang, out of characters.