BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

Correct. You are the insitgator and yet for all intents and purposes expected me to initiate the debate. You were also caught off your script in the second round, beginning to argue points as if I were a theist without any account for the actual definition I gave you. Copy/paste or just your routine?This debate, in my contrary opinion, does have a point, and the point is this:You and I consider ourselves atheists. This means literally nothing except that we do not believe in an all-powerful intervening creator. That is all it means. Baiting theists into debates by coming from the angle that you'll defeat them regardless of their definition is part of the hostilty treadmill that we all (and especially on this site) seem to be stuck in. By all means, take on a thesit's challenge. By all means, challenge a theist. But don't do it in an underhanded way, it's bad for social cohesion and as it happens there are a lot of smart theists who are very important to this planet.It also serves as a reminder that post-enlightenment 'New Atheists' can fall into the trap of thinking they're too big for their britches. Before posting a debate topic, first construct it and decide what direction you want to head in. Then pick it up with both hands, spin it around and look at it from a number of different angles. By far the most obvious trap for any instigator is uncareful definitions, and giving your opponent absolute control over them just doesn't make sense. If you really want to try this debate, try "The Abrahamic God of the Bible Exists", or something similar. Personal definitions are of course a problem with this topic.
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

No need to be rude. You said I could define it however I wanted.You did not stipulate anything about the God, this was an exercise in justifying explanations. You never said anything about a specific God or any of the Abrahamic religions. In my worldview, I call God a non-supernatural initial event. I have given you proofs of how this works. It is now up to you to demonstrate that this isn't true.
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

Ah, I see. Your plan is to provide such a nebulous, everyday definition of your god such that he cannot be disproved. Here, you define your god as the cause, or "catalyst" of all causal events. This is roughly about as reasonable as defining your god to be a toaster. You could easily win the debate by defining your god as a toaster, but what kind of strange debate would that be? Your definition of god is such that I cannot honestly have a debate with you on the topic. Thank you for nothing.
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

You are correct, the burden of proof lies with me. Here we go.Case 1: An event (let's say for the sake of argument the Theory of Evolution), given assumed conformity to the traditional inear understanding of time and causality, would have had a 'beginning'. The current best hypothesis for this is abiogensis, which I think is likely correct and experiments like Urey-Miller etc are at least working in that direction. In this case, abiogensis (or whichever process catalised the initial self-replecating molecule) I will define as 'God'.Of course, we can make this simpler. Let us take any event that has a beginning and a cause. The cause of the car engine to start is the arcing of the spark plugs which is caused by the turning of the key. Thus, the turning of the key is the catalyst. The turning of the key is 'God'. http://www.wikihow.com...
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

I would like to address your definition of god as a catalyst of events. This definition is exceedingly vague to me. I would like that you provide additional explanation for your definition of god. As my opening statement, I would like to say that this definition of your god seems unfalsifiable. The first point here, that your god seems unfalsifiable, means that your god is defined in such a way that we cannot test his existence. This point will stand until you can show that your god has empirical evidence behind him. . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Secondly, in order to affirm the existence of such a god, one requires a proof, whether logical or empirical. This is meant to be addressed by the debate we are having. Because I lack the burden of proof, I have no proofs of my own to make.
A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

My third debate on this topic. In this debate, PRO will attempt to prove the existence of a god, as defined by them. I expect clear, rational arguments and unambiguous definitions. Round 1 will be used for the definition of the word 'god', and of other definitions that may be useful. Round 2 will be for setting one's preliminary stance. Round 3, 4 and 5 will be used for rebuttal of one another's points. Correct English is preferable, but mistakes should not be grammar nazi'd. To make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; I am an agnostic atheist. I know that many apologists like to ask their opponents about whether they are agnostic or atheist, which I consider to be something of a silly question. I am atheist because I do not believe in a god, and I am agnostic because I am not 100% certain of my stance. However, I can state, within reasonable doubt, that a god does not exist, which is why I am an agnostic atheist. I hope this is clear to you. Empirical evidence and logical reasoning are the two tools that will be used in this debate. When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial. When using logical reasoning, please describe your deduction clearly. BOP lies on Pro, and if you don't agree, then don't bother accepting this argument. Cheers!
You don't have to like your government to take part in it and love you country.

But that is not really loving the country as a whole. These things are possible because of our government. But they are not impossible elsewhere. To truly love the country, you must love that which can not be emulated or duplicated in other contries. And that really makes this a completely different debate--do the small parts of something just add up to make the whole, or is the whole different. One can love "baseball, Disney, TV or New York City" (even though Disney was anti-semitic and TV? Seriously?) Loving a part of something is not loving the whole. I enjoy water melon but I tend not to eat the rind. A band may have a good guitarist or bassist or singer or whatever, but that doesn't mean that I love the band.
Women are too stupid to LIVE debate against men

I'll now respond to his...err..."contentions". "This guy is obviously a scared faggot keyboard warrior and wetting his panties .. what a moron! LOLOL! OWNED AGAIN DUMB FAGGOT LOLOL! http://i.imgur.com...; Again, ad hominem. As i was writing this, something dawned on me. The arguments that he presents seems to be stock statements. Its almost like he isn't actually debating, but merely a bot is posting these arguments and responds to them in the programmed way. It makes sense, at least to me it does. Lets test it out: Opponent, what is (3^2)+(4^2)? Please post it to confirm you are a human before your debate. I look forward to his response.
Women are too stupid to LIVE debate against men

toamatt26 already has this troll on his plate in two debates(1)(2), so I'll take this one for the collective DDO team. I guess I'll show why he's a troll and not worth the proper argument of his biased and ad hominem based topic. A. Troll behavior. A troll is best defined by Urban Dictionary. While i cannot post a link, due to some browser restriction, and i apoliagize, the definition is: "One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attack other users on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance..." The entirety of the topic is ad hominem. He has provided no proof of his claim either. Now you might be saying the following: "Well what about his video? Is that not proof of his resolution?" The video does not sufficentally quallify for proof. It's one instance of that happening, and not a well preformed or managed "debate" at that. The whole point of the video is biased. There are right ways of using video in a debate(3), but it should not be your entire arguement unless that is the debate format. I believe that i mentioned this somewhere before, but i have not the time nor respect for this resolution to try to link it. Bring it. Sources: 1.http://www.debate.org... 2.http://www.debate.org... 3http://www.debate.org...
Allen iverson should be the known as the best basketball player ever

So MJ's PPG is 5 points higher than Iverson's, but Iverson's APG is one point higher than Jordan's so Allen is better? Allen Iverson has 21,561 points 11 years into his career Jordan had 24,491 points 11 years into his career. Overall it is quite obvious that MJ is much better than Iverson. You started this debate over a mere crossover, and now you're just grasping for arguments.
Allen iverson should be the known as the best basketball player ever

This is your first debate. You should've chosen a stronger topic so that you could get a feel for this site. Also making only 2 rounds is very bad. Allen Iverson's current PPG- 26.6 His career high PPG-31.4 MJ's career PPG- 30.1 Career High PPG- 37.1 Iverson would have to get around 37 a season for the rest of his career to match up to MJ. You have only said that he is better because he crossed up MJ in his rookie season. Let me compare this to another sport, may I? Baseball. You must have heard of Nolan Ryan. The strikeout king. 5000+ strikeouts. Well, Will Clark hit a home run off Ryan in his first major league at bat on the first pitch he ever saw in the MLB. It was also in the Astrodome, a stadium noted for being favorable to pitchers. So run out to the world and tell them that Will Clark, a backup first baseman now, is better than strikeout king Nolan Ryan. Do you have anything else showning why Iverson is better?
Should seat belts be mandatory? Last week, I got in an accident in my Honda Civic, and.....

You claim to have been hit so hard that the seatbelt injured you. Imagine what would have happened if you were not wearing a seat belt. You would have been thrown from the car and would have been injured more or if not killed. Even if you would not have been thrown from the car you would have hit your head on the dashboard of the car. Yes, seatbelts have caused injury but compared to when a seatbelt saves someone"s life, it is extremely important.
Should seat belts be mandatory? Last week, I got in an accident in my Honda Civic, and.....

when I slammed on the brakes, something happened to the seat belt - it tightened really hard - almost as if it was trying to choke me - The seat belt was sooooooooo tight around my neck and shoulder, I thought I might choke. The guy that hit me had to cut the seat belt with a knife to get me out. The airbag never went off. It was strange. So, should seat belts really be mandatory if they can hurt you/choke you?
gay rights

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم As stated before, DNA frequencies are transmitted generation to generation, but the "homosexual" habit can only blossum if that habit is constantly encouraged (no matter how subtle or unknowing). Being "homosexual" does not exclude anyone from Gods "love" as God will always "love" his/her creations as a parent loves its child. But an orderly household only exists when its members reflect the orderly nature of God, which is compatible polarities. God will experience everything contained in him or her, but the continuation of God exists only in the union of positive (male) and negative (female) polarities. لا إله إلا الله
gay rights

i disagree that it can be passed through DNA neither of my parents are gay. yes my mother experimented, but never gay. and i'm a full on lesbian. i know people who were adopted by a lesbian couple but yet WILL never be with a girl and cant even look at a girl that way. God says he loves all of his children. even the ones who are different, outcast, and over saw. god says he makes his children to his image. And its not like i chose to be this way. i cant help who i love. love should be love no matter what the gender as long as the two people are happy. why does everyone else care who people are laying in bed with every night. saying gay relationships should never exist or should against the law is the same as saying it about straight relationships. yes i admit our generation is known for how many gay people there are. but thats because we are tired of hiding. i mean while jesus was there in the manger there where lesbians somewhere us fulled with joy because of the word their savior has come. they where their waiting to praise him. and do you think he just rejected them? i think not. jesus and god dont care about our sexual preference as long as we believe in and love him and let him guide us to our purpose.
gay rights

Thanks for the challenge. If we assume that God is everything and everything is God, then we should assume that God will experience all that is contained in him/her. Including what we call "homosexuality" Now, everything in creation exists in polarities of positive and negative (Yang/Yin) When brough together, they function as one complete system. Yin and Yang exist in everything to a degree, but are most commonly differentiated by the names "male" and "female". Men are primarily composed of Yang energy, while women are primarily composed of Yin Energy. Man and Woman together is the natural order of the universe. But since this natural order has been altered (for many reasons), Man and Woman, generally, do not properly function in their respective roles. Because of this, many people assume an inverse Yin/Yang majority, and gravitate toward what most call "homosexuality" This "habit" can also be passed genetically through DNA, as DNA records all its life experiences. When Children are born, they assume a certain frequency from their biological Mother and Father. DNA frequencies are amplified by habit. If a "homosexual" habit was strong in one or both of the parents (no matter how suppressed or hidden from the public) then that child will naturally assume that potential. However, the "habit" can only be form if the child is encouraged toward it (no matter how subtle or unknowing). In essence, God will always, as stated, experience itself in as many ways as possible. But Universe order can only come from the compatible cooperation of POLARITIES. In this case, Man and Woman. That is how "God" continues itself
gay rights

I think all people should have the right to be gay if they so wish. they have to live with what they chose no one else. so why is it such a big problem? people always say "why and when did you decide to be gay?" and im just like "why and when did you decide to be straight?" and they say they were born that way but if your gay and you tell them you were born they way they will argue and disagree to the fullest. just because someone likes the same sex doesn't they are different they eat sleep bath and talk just the same as you. they aren't a freak species
Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*No round rulesResolutionUS public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that US public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that US public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.DefinitionsUS public schools - schools that are maintained at public expense for the education of the children of a community or district and that constitute a part of a system of free public education commonly including primary and secondary schools in the United States of America.http://dictionary.reference.com...biology - the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...curricula - the subjects comprising a course of study.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...should - used to indicate obligation,http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...focus - an act of concentrating interest or activity on somethinghttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...equally - to the same extent or degreehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Extraterrestials have visited Earth

Thank you for accepting. I will base my argument on the following points: - Happenings that have been confirmed a fact; over 1000 witnesses on a phenomenon - Accounts from reliable sources - Critical thinking from philosophical perspectives As we have 5 rounds, the debates can be kept brief and I will only focus on individual reliable accounts on the first round. I might just blatantly use Wikipedia articles as links to events I've listed. They explain the phenomenon in brief and hold a neutral tone. 1. Apollo astronaut Donald K. Slayton Apollo astronaut was testing a P-51 fighter, when he saw something that resembled a weather balloon. However, as soon as he got close to it, it started accelerating at 45 degree angle upwards. Donald was going himself at speed of 300 mph, yet he could not hope to catch up with the UFO. 2. Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell account Basically Apollo 14 astronaut confirms extraterrestials visiting Earth. Guy threw his entire reputation away when coming clear with this. He had fame, being Apollo astronaut and that. What motive would he have to lie and lose all credibility? http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. Cash-Landrum incident, 1980 What makes this UFO case so intriguing are the physiological effects befallen upon the victims. - Physiological imprint on car, confirmed by investigators - Extremely strong physiological effects on the victims; they had to be hospitalized a day after the incident - Multiple neutral investigators concluded no explanation to the incident whatsoever; it couldn't have been faked because of the physiological effects nor do any known phenomena have such an effect on humans. https://en.wikipedia.org... Three accounts will do for now. I will present more cases in the next round.
Extraterrestials have visited Earth

The debate which has haunted the halls of debate.org as well as countless other forums. I will argue for the fact that extraterrestials have visited Earth. Con's goal is to prove me wrong. For the sake of the debate I need to clarify some things: - This argument is about extraterrestials visiting Earth in the past and/or present. It's not about the existence of extraterrestials. - I, as Pro, carry Burden of Proof. Round 1 is for acceptance. Good luck to anyone who might take up the challenge.
Our Decisions are not our fault as Allah pre-determined everything

You lack evidence of whether Allah really predetermined anything or not. And if really knew Satan would turn against him, why didn't he stop him? If he knew Hitler would be a cruel ruler, why didn't he stop him? And how come our fate is always intertwined with our choices? Why some day if I choose to travel in a car I don't land up in a train? No, I believe that if Allah is there, he isn't exerting any control over us, for enough atrocities have been committed in his name yet there is no reaction.
Our Decisions are not our fault as Allah pre-determined everything

Allah has pre-determined everything in the universe, he has even predicted one's fate in the afterlife. He knew that Satan would turn against him, he knew Muhammad would be chosen and that the disbelievers would turn against him, he pre-determined everything. It is comparable to writing a program and knowing its going to execute certain commands, its all pre-determined by Allah so it is simply futile to think this is our freewill.
High speed internet porn should be banned

"Pornography should be banned" Well, what's wrong with pornography? Why should we ban something that makes us feel good? Well, here's why: To start off, I want to make clear I am only talking about pornography here and not masturbation. Getting an A+ for a test you've been working on makes you feel good. Getting a job promotion you've been working on your entire life, makes you feel great! But also meeting a girl, sharing love and evenutually have sex makes you feel good. See, all the things decribed above are rewards that require time and effort. But what if you could get your job promotion or your A+ by simply clicking a button, would you still put time and effort in it, or would you click the button? Well, with sex this is possible: The human brain doesn't know the difference between pixels and real women, so getting the job done behind your computer gives the same dopamine kick as sex does. On average, children do their firs porn search from the age of 12 and there are almost no men who don't watch porn. Porn tube site make it possible for people to click and click and click to keep their dopamine rush high thinking they are not harming themselves but they are. There is an entire online community called "nofap" whith people who have decided to give up porn and masturbation for a while after noticing some negative influences they thought were porn induced. (most were addicts) These were the results of some successful rebooters: -More motivation to meet girls -Not looking at girls in a sexual way -More vitality -More joy in life -More confidence -Started noticing real girls more -Porn induced fetishes disappeared -Sex is more exciting Many of these rebooters also reported some porn-induced sexual dysfunctions, formed by brain changes which were reversed after they gave up porn. People reported not being able to get or keep an erection with real girls or fantasies (which rules out performance anxiety), but had no erection problems when looking at porn. It was also very common for these people to never wake up with morning erections,but after abstaining from porn also these came back. This clearly shows that porn in definitely creating brain changes right now, and is destroying young men's sexual performance. Many teenagers are addicted to porn before they even had any sexual experience. Conclusion: High speed internet porn should be banned because it is endless and very easy to access, making very young children already addicted to this concept wile not knowing it defnitely shapes the brain in way that is harmful when it comes to real sex when they're 17 years old. For more information on these Nofap-rebooters, check the following links: Rebootnation.org reddit.com/r/nofap yourbrainonporn.com
Spawn(any kind) vs Goku

I accept that Goku, I am assuming from the Dragonball series[1], could beat any of the Spawns[2]. In this debate, I will also assume beat means either dead, or at least at the mercy of the other warrior. Since my opponent has not stated where the fight will be, I will allow him to point that out. No semantics as well please. So, under these conditions, I accept. [1]http://dragonball.wikia.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics)