BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery a fake and a fraud. Indeed it is always up to theists to prove their god. No exceptions. None. How can you prove something that is unproved? How can you prove something that is unknown? How can you prove something that has never been seen by anyone - ever? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those outrageous and absurd claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves. There’s absolutely no evidence for their god. None. There’s no tests that can prove their god exists. None. There’s nothing that can demonstrate their god exists. None. If there was, those who could prove this cherry picker god would be the only quadrillionaires on the planet. Their god would be the only god worshiped on the planet. So how do you even know that this god even exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of leaving his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is truly a god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us. Now that’s evidence. The bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything. If this god of theists is a true god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. Talking to man is evidence in which there is none to be proved.. So until this so called god of theirs presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a fable unless you belong to the club of the truly gullible as many that are religious do rather than being shown something that is tangible in which there’s no proof that this god of theirs has ever done. That shows that those who worship this god with their gullibility, generally have a true lack of intelligence and education. . In closing for this round... if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove even exists, then you are an atheist. So your job as Con is to prove that the god according to the bible exists. Then again, why would you want to? All creationists will be discarded. Why? Not one creationist is willing to put god on trial again because everything they have is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

'who pretends he knows something about nothing who has to cover for himself by inventing excuses because he has no knowledge upon the subject matter at hand so he has to try to pretend he does' exactly yourself. 100% you didn't defend your argument whether it's fallacious or not. It IS fallacious. you didn't argue the main subject instead you switched to another subjects like the dodgy ignorant big-mouthed copy-paster you are. up to you dear readers to decide. By the way i didn't and will not drop to your level and reply with your insults although it's too easy. But no you're beneath me. Also it shows only you're such an ignorant. one last thing i'm not Christian :)
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Didn't read it. You tightened up your nuts so bad in the last round and utterly made a total fool and jackasseth reareth endeth of yourself that you are not worthy of my esteemed time. I am far to enriched and good for you at tea time and anytime. All you are is a punk kid who pretends he knows something about nothing who has to cover for himself by inventing excuses because he has no knowledge upon the subject matter at hand so he has to try to pretend he does. NEWSFLASH: It didn't work as I can smell your kind coming from way back from the big bang and beyond.If this was a game of poker I’d take all of your chips before you’d even sit down to the game. My my my my it must be fun to be friendless and loveless. You had your chance. You blew it. Ta ta.
Legos are better than Megablox

Let me begin by thanking mcol for starting this debate. It has been a pleasure to correspond with you. *Case Con: Rebuttals* ======== Contention 1: Mega Bloks and Legos are equally as dangerous. ======== Legos may have categories of large blocks, but they are still comparatively much smaller than Mega Bloks. Therefore, they are still much more dangerous. Duplo Lego Blocks: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Mega Bloks: http://www.noahsarktoys2play.com... Even though Legos and Mega Bloks may have pieces that are roughly equivalent in size, Mega Bloks are still on average much larger than Legos. Consequently, they are less likely to represent a choking hazard to small children. ======== Contention 2: Children Prefer Legos. ======== Children may prefer Legos to Mega Blox. However, this assertion is simply irrelevant. It is little more than an appeal to the crowd. [1] The fact that children prefer something does not logically demonstrate that it is better than something else. ======== Contention 3: Legos has better games than Mega Bloks. ======== "I never stated that "Legos has better games than Mega Bloks." I find it interesting that my opponent is twisting my words." Although you never said this directly it can clearly be extrapolated from what you did write. You simply argue that Legos are better than Mega Blox because there are different Lego Games. As I have stated earlier, this argument is simply irrelevant. Video games are not plastic interlocking bricks. Therefore, they cannot be used to establish the inherent goodness of Legos. ======= Conclusion ======= Legos are comparatively more dangerous to small children than Mega blocks because they represent a choking hazard. However, Mega Bloks are large and can safely be enjoyed by children of a much wider age range. At best the only thing mcol has been able to demonstrate in this debate is how Legos and Mega Bloks are equivalent in only one category. Like Legos, Mega Bloks also have many different and interesting interactive sets. Moreover, the rest of my opponents other arguments have clearly been shown to be fallacious. Therefore, the winner of this debate should be obvious. (Vote Con) ---References--- [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... Good Luck
Legos are better than Megablox

I thank freeman for correcting my "Megablox" error. Actually, it is easy to see freman's simply choosing Mega Bloks. When saying Mega Bloks were big, he chose a picture featuring the huge Mega Bloks. I would like to point out that Lego has someting exactly like this, Duplo, which features other elements besides plain blocks, contrary to Mega Bloks. However, when talking about how Mega Bloks are interactive, he speaks of the much smaller type, which I was referring to when I said Mega Bloks were equally, if not more dangerous then Legos. As for "Contention 3," I never stated that "Legos has better games than Mega Bloks." I find it interesting that my opponent is twisting my words.
Legos are better than Megablox

For the record, "Megablox" do not exist, so I will continue to assume that my opponent is referring to Mega Bloks. [1] Hopefully this will clear up some confusion. *Case Con: Rebuttals* ======== Contention 1: Mega Bloks and Legos are equally as dangerous. ======== "My opponent's argument that Megablox are safer then Legos can be easily rebuttled, because Megablox makes much smaller pieces in their sets." This claim is simply false. Mega Bloks are much larger than legos, and I have proof that this is true. [2] Perhaps certain types of Mega Bloks are small, but this is irrelevant because Mega Bloks can often be larger than Legos. ======== Contention 2: Children Prefer Legos. ======== "My first contention would be that more "innocent children" prefer Legos, because of the variety of characters, the interactive sets, and the Lego videogames and upcoming MMOG. With this, I affirm that Legos are superior to Megablox." Legos may have interactive sets and characters, but so does Mega Bloks. In fact, Mega Bloks has tons of cool themes and sets that include Halo, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Caribbean. [3]-[4]-[5] Therefore, Mega Bloks and Legos are tied at best in this category. And in the case of a tie I automatically win the point because you will have failed to demonstrate that Legos are better. ======== Contention 3: Legos has better games than Mega Bloks. ======== Your argument regarding video games can be dismissed as irrelevant, because video games aren't legos even if they have a Lego theme. (Definition: Lego) Lego is a line of construction toys manufactured by the Lego Group, a privately held company based in Billund, Denmark. The company's flagship product, Lego, consists of colorful interlocking plastic bricks and an accompanying array of gears, minifigures and various other parts. http://en.wikipedia.org... Video games, of any type, are not colorful interlocking plastic bricks. Therefore, your argument in this area is simply extraneous. ========= Conclusion ========= My opponent has failed to show that Legos are better than Mega Bloks. At best he has shown how they are only equivalent in one category. Furthermore, I have shown that certain Mega Bloks are safer than Legos by virtue of their large size. Small children are more likely to choke to death while playing with legos as opposed to Mega Bloks. Therefore, we can conclusively say that Legos are worse than Mega Bloks because they are clearly more dangerous to the lives of young children. (Resolution Negated) ---References--- [1] http://www.megabrands.com... [2] http://www.noahsarktoys2play.com... [3] http://www.megabrands.com... [4] http://www.megabrands.com... [5] http://www.megabrands.com...
Legos are better than Megablox

My opponent's argument that Megablox are safer then Legos can be easily rebuttled, because Megablox makes much smaller pieces in their sets. My first contention would be that more "innocent children" prefer Legos, because of the variety of characters, the interactive sets, and the Lego videogames and upcoming MMOG. With this, I affirm that Legos are superior to Megablox.
Legos are better than Megablox

Let me begin by thanking mcol for starting this debate. I will assume that my opponent is referring to "Mega Bloks". *Case Con- Rebuttals* "Legos were made before Megablox, Megablox is simply copying Lego." My opponent's only argument is clearly fallacious. The fact that something is older than something else does not make it better in comparison. John McCain is much older than Barrack Obama, and yet this does not automatically make him "better". And even if something is an exact copy of something else then that just makes those two things roughly equivalent. It doesn't make one better than the other. *Case Con* Contention: 1 Mega Bloks are safer than Legos. Mega blocks are quite large and it would be extremely difficult for a small child to accidentally swallow them. [1] On the other hand, legos are quite small and represent a choking hazard for small children. [2] Therefore, the fact that Mega Bloks are safer for children makes them immeasurably better than legos. ======= Conclusion ======= Legos may be older than Mega Blocks, but this does not make them better. Moreover, Legos are more dangerous than Mega Blocks and are more likely to result in the death of innocent children. Therefore, we can conclude that Legos are not better than Mega Bloks. The resolution is negated. ---References--- [1] http://www.viewpoints.com... [2] http://frn.sdstate.edu...
You are a troll and have lowered the quality of this site

no you made me mad because of a vote bomb on my debate: on a funny political debate your RFD was a period aks . yes that little dot on my institution and gay marriage debate your RFD was still a period . you ruined a debate I was winning fair and square on overpopulation rdf =. counter vote bomb it: . http://www.debate.org... Also your argument here renders you a troll. on your recent debate with thett you flirted with him: . http://www.debate.org... You also said retarded things/ also here you spammed this debate: . http://www.debate.org... for these examples he should be banned. I hope innomen sees this debate.
America is a struggling country

The fact that we are able to provide FREE lunch to HALF of the educated students in america speaks for the strength of our country, as does the welfare system. In other countries, there is no welfare, you're just done for. The fact that we have the ability to feed and manage those who can't do so themselves is impressive. And before you bring up our homeless, let's just understand that EVERY country has homeless, and is not a reflection on the nations ability.
Shooter McGavin was right

Let me begin by painting a scenario. Suppose that Happy Gilmore got onto a hockey team and became very good at the sport. Now suppose that Shooter discovered some bizzare talent of hockey, such as being a good goalie because of double jointedness. Now suppose that Shooter brought his fans into the sport of hockey and they started to bring a civilized golf-like attitude to the sport. How would Happy react? He'd be pissed off. He would see his sport being turned into something that it isn't and he would be pissed off at Shooter for causing that. It is completely unfair that Happy cannot see Shooter's point of view. Next, Shooter's supposed crimes against Happy: 1. The 9th green at 9:00. Every sport has its hazing practices for new players. Golf is not different in this way. It is clear that this was just a playful hazing. Nor was this an uncommon inciident as evidenced by the wry smiles of the other players and even the PR girl who said "Let me guess the old 9th green at 9:00" Happy's reponse to this "I've gotta go kill Shooter McGavin" is a gross overreaction to a harmless hazing. 2. His hatred of Happy's antics. As explained above, Happy brought an element to golf that had never existed before. As a golf purist, Shooter resented the new element to his sport. He felt the same way that Happy might feel if he saw the sport he loved being changed. 3. His buying of Happy's Grandmother's house. This is a clear case of a win-win situation that Shooter created that Happy refused. Happy joined the tour with the sole purpose of getting money so that his grandmother could keep her house. He didn't like golf, which he stated again and again, he only thought he could make money off of it. Shooter, who loved golf, resented this. So he bought the house and offered it completely free of charge if Happy quit the tour. Happy gets what he wants, Shooter gets what he wants. A classic win-win. Instead Happy refuses this generous offer. 4. Making Happy play the ball where it lies. When the structure collapses and the tour director says that he'll have a crew clean it up, this is ridiculous. Shooter correctly points out he had to hit the ball off of a man's foot and it would be unfair if Happy received special treatment. Shooter is absolutely correct in this case. Now, far from being a bad person, Shooter was actually a good person. As evidenced by his banter with the other pros at the bar scene, he seems to have many friends that he gets along with. In an interview with a reporter Shooter says the following: "I think the real winner this weekend is the city of Portland. Everytime I come here it gets harder to leave. I think you guys put something in the water. Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go play a little golf. " (shoots finger-gun and winks) Shooter is shown as a genial and good-natured guy that is willing to give the city of Portland the credit it deserves. Shooter was clearly right in his feelings towards Happy and it is indeed easy to see his point of view.
Shooter McGavin was right

In round two I will show examples for my arguments. Shooter McGavin: The character from the movie Happy Gilmore was right: By this I mean that if you view things from his point of view his actions are easily defendible and not really that bad. Making him a complicated bad guy, that could be identified with, which also portrays Happy in a somewhat bad light. As I said earlier, this will be a four round debate, though I believe three rounds will be more than enough to argue each side. Although con can take any action that he or she wishes, I believe that it might be appropriate to take the first round as an introduction of ideas. That way con can try to disprove my ideas when I present them in round two.
lets make a fun debate people keep it clean and relaxing

Whether you can oppose religion using logic.I think you can't.So my pro case is that 'one cannot oppose religion using logic'There is only one contention.It is that religion is emotionally appealing, and is about one's ability to emotionally distinguish between right and wrong. It is not about one's ability to determine if there is or isn't a god. Therefore you can't really 'convert' one to atheism merely by using logic.
Intelligence gift or curse

What do you think. I think it is a curse to be smart because then people don't understand how you think or any ... i don't know the words... any thing about people I guess like the way it's acceptable to talk or act. It bothers me and I thought someone might think the same or tell me other wise like there point of view. EVER one tells me "oh your lucky that you are smart" NO it's the opposite of. Also I think you are more likely to be sad or depressed
gays have the right to get maried in all of the fifty states

I welcome Coltong to debate.org and hope he will enjoy the experience here. My opponent failed to list rules and definitions. We will use the definition for marriage as, (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> http://www.merriam-webster.com... I think we can manage standard rules: 1. Be respectful 2. No plagarism 3. Site sources 4. No forfeited rounds Back to my opponent!
gays have the right to get maried in all of the fifty states

Homosexual marriage would be a even further drain on society. It would increase taxes and further entrench us into debt. There should never be forced laws upon any state if so that state chooses to not pass the law in question. By the way the government and state approaches marriage it is a legal binding contract. Therefore marriages that bring forth children have the most economic value for governments and states, opposed to homosexuals marriages.
gays have the right to get maried in all of the fifty states

The government regulates gay marriage because it is avoiding the expense. The state should not allow gay marriage if it is a drain on society. Forced laws on states should not be allowed and it was designed for states to decide. Every state prohibits close relatives from marrying so we can see that marriage is approached as a legal institution. Marriage is of legal significance and should be recognized as such. Two opposite-sex persons is the ideal situation for society and government.
A God is intrinsically impossible

Contentions:Same rules apply.Contention Two: Omnipotence "Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability). [3] So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible." That defies logic by definition. Anything that occurs has to be within the limits of logic. That is not in violation of his existence. It is logical. If both omnipotent Gods challenge each other in an arm wrestle, it would make sense that neither will win, for both have equal power. Again, others remain uncontested. I need to sleep.
A God is intrinsically impossible

I will be arguing in favor of the resolution that a God's existence is indeed possible. Rebuttals: Pro's arguments will be rebut subsequently, each concurring with his original statement. Contention One: Cause "The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing." No. According to the laws of conservation of energy[1], energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed. And if so impossible to be created from nothing, wouldn't that go on my side? "The big bang, or any sort of beginning phenomena you care to imagine, would obviously require some type of energy. So God is a being that uses some kind of energy. Again, as we already know, energy does not come from nowhere." God did NOT come into existence. WE did. He is eternal. "Obviously, since the only thing that could have come from nothing is nothing itself" If you do not believe in God, the you must believe that the Universe is eternal AND came from nothing. The other contentions will remain uncontested, as I have to sleep. They will no longer be so after you reply. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Death Penalty

Why would having a lesser consequence be better? Why should tax payees have to pay for a murderers food, shelter, etc? This isn't just about whether or not the death penalty would lower murders; keeping these low-lifes in a prison is simply a waste of money. Here are the expenses: employees of the prison, electricity of the prison, food for the prisoners, amo, health care, and so many more all coming from the tax payer's pocket. Also, I haven't heard you defend your reasoning.
Death Penalty

It is alright to use abstract arguments depending on the subject matter but when you are making an assertion that if is true should be backed up by evidence, that assertion may be discarded. If the death penalty deters violence then we should see lower rates of violence in countries that employ the death penalty. It's not enough for something to make sense in theory. You also have to bring statistical evidence. You have not alloted me enough space to dismantle your other arguments.