BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

. . . I accept my opponent's definitions, but would like to amend and make clarifications on the position of Strong Atheism. Strong Atheism: "Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a God or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to "God" out there. " [1] Strong Atheism does not imply absolute certainty. [2] It asserts a confidence akin to the confidence in Newton's Law of Gravity or the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing in science, nor rational thinking can be asserted with 100% certainty because that would require an unrealistic, extraordinary level and means of knowledge that no rational person can claim. However, we are still warranted to make claims about reality such as "gravity exists," "the Universe is expanding," and likewise "there is no God. " I await my opponent's opening argument. Sources: [1] . http://www.strongatheism.net... [2] . http://www.strongatheism.net...
Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

I ask only that you-tube videos not be considered a form of argument or rebuttal. I don't have the patience :P I will define the two terms and await Geo's acceptance. The debate proper should begin in round two. Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in god. Generally this position entails agnosticism as to whether there could be *some* god, but also an explicit rejection of most conceptions of him in conjunction with extreme doubt in relation to others Strong Atheism: Belief that there is NO god; that the statement "there is at least one god" is false. Generally such people would contend that it is impossible for god to exist, but I will let Geo clarify his position on that point. I will be arguing that strong atheism makes claims that cannot be supported by either reason or evidence and thus must be rejected.
god has no moral compass

The Dossier of Reason is proof. You are an insult. You didn't even dream, Nor think about sizing up about your s--t to #'s1 and 6 from which is what your freeze dried brain nitpicked at for the most part to prove how ignorant and shallow and completely IMMORAL you are as you spit on the human race just like your god in which you cannot even prove even exists.
god has no moral compass

Typical 17 year old christian crap that speaks from his a$$ held high from granny farts at a nuclear silo as his cabbage batbrain is held between his jock strap to catch his yodeling grunge country opera nun's pep rally as he jump starts his battery powered easy bake oven so he can learn to bake and fry water. Yeah yah can't READ, Just like nearly every---single---christian here on DDO. What does RD1 say Mr. Christian smarty pink panty punk puke? Why it says. . . "(Taken from Dossier of Reason)" So since you constantly said "your", It not "mine" you pipsqueak mousey teeny bopper high schooler with no edumacation WHO CAN'T READ. Its the Dossier of Reason who happens to be correct. And you happen to be incorrect and thus show yourself to be completely immoral just like YOUR god. And yah know what? I only looked at a few of YOUR comparisons and hookups or whatever yah wish to call them to realize this. Oh but herb everything! You cannot even prove that YOUR god even exists! Now go to beddy bye.
god has no moral compass

1. He did it as a test of humanity. It allows the true good to become good. 2. And? 3. Fear in the bible is not meant as fear used today, Used as a word more about respect. Plus, Doesn't evil fear good? 4. Please refer to 1. 5. Please refer to 1. 6. This is more about your interpretation of good and evil. They could've had it coming in God's eyes, And maybe he's correct in those views. Your main argument for this point is that you see these acts as evil when they could have been righteous. 7. Please refer to 1 and 6. 8. Please refer to 6. 9. He could've meant unjust violence. 10. Please refer to 6. 11. Please refer to 6 and 1. 12. Please refer to 1. 13. Please refer to 6. 14. Please refer to 6. 15. Please refer to 6 and 1. 16. Please refer to 1. 17. Please refer to 1. 18. Please refer to 6. 19. Please refer to 6. 20. Please refer to 6. 21. Please refer to 6. 22. Were they innocent by your standards or God's standards? Either way, Please refer to 6. 23. Please refer to 6. 24. This more about God making mistakes rather than being immoral. 25. Please refer to 6. 26. Please refer to 6. 27. Please refer to 6. 28. Please refer to 6. 29. That's not what that quote means. 30. Please refer to 6. 31. Please refer to 6. 32. Please refer to 6. 33. Probably needed to punish him harder. 34. Please refer to 33. 35. Please refer to 6. 36, Please refer to 6. 37. Please refer to 6. 38. Please refer to 37. 40, Please refer to 6. 41. Please refer to 6. 42. Please refer to 6. 43. Please refer to 6. 44. Please refer to 6 for the pharaoh. In Abraham's case, He did it for safety. 45. Please refer to 6. 46. Please refer to 6. 47. Please refer to 6. 48. Please refer to 6. 49. Please refer to 6. 50. Please refer to 6. 51. Please refer to 6. 52. Please refer to 6. 53. Please refer to 6. 54. Please refer to 6. 55. Please refer to 6. 56. Please refer to 6. 57. Please refer to 6. 58. Please refer to 6. 59. Please refer to 6. 60. Please refer to 6. 61. Please refer to 6. 62. Please refer to 6. Also, A father would die before his child would. 63. Please refer to 6. 64. Please refer to 6. 65. Please refer to 6. 66. Please refer to 6. 67. Please refer to 6. 68. Please refer to 6. 69. Please refer to 67. 70. Please refer to 6. Seriously, Dude, A good chunk of your arguments crumble at point 6.
god has no moral compass

Look, I explained my points, So now you're insulting me instead of using logic. Even if I lack the CAPACITY to comprehend others, You still failed to make a good point. Also, I am seventeen, And even if I wasn't, I would still have more emotional control than you would. Have a nice day. P. S. Look up a list of logical fallacies. I'll make it easy for you. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
god has no moral compass

OK I'm done. There's no chance that you are 17 years old, But must be 14 years old or less. You have certainly proven that unless you have a 0% capability to comprehend what anybody says to you imn which would mean that you have no genuine friends or loved ones. Now you go back and you look at what I told you. Goo goo ga ga. Wow. You don't even understand simpleton nursery rhymes. Yep you proved you are 14 or less with your 14 year old comment in stating "I froze at 1 and 6" and I stopped reading from there because there is no reasoning and none reasons that you can give. Nothing more need be said as both 1 & 6 by their outlines alone proves that YOUR god, In which you cannot even prove even exists, Are completely immoral and bankrupt and thus by you agreeing with them, It proves that you are completely immoral and bankrupt also.
US should not be invading Iran.

~~Rebuttels~~ I opponent is wrong in so many areas in his contention. I am afraid that this goes farther then just pretecting allies and getting oil. Iran actually poses a threat to our national security. They have funded terror cells in the middle-eastern countries for years. The bullets and explosives that are killing our service men, are made in Iran. Iran has been funding groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palistinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations all over the world [1]. They also have been working on nuclear power for quite sometime now. If that happens then we have a big problem, because we will be fighting a nuclear nation. The International Atomic Energy Agency eleased a report in November 8, 2011 stating that they have evedence that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear device [2]. My opponent goes further to criticize the U. S. role in bringing two terrorist regimes down. He even goes to make a very ignorant asumption that the Taliban has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda, when the truth is the exact opposite. When Osama Bin Laden(the leader of Al Quaeda at the time) was exiled from both Iraq and his home country of Saudi Arabia he was allowed to take refuge in Afganistan under th protection of the Taliban. Al Qaeda and the Taliban from that poin on were very close allies. They fought and even trained the Taliban in their training camps. One example of this is the notorious 055 brigade that were trained by Al Qaeda that is noted to have slaughtered countless people [3]. And on top of that lets not forget about 9/11. . Also, yes I will admit that we went ti Iraq for oil, but how is that bad? Like my opponent mentioned in his own argument, we need a jump start in our economy, and the oil from Irag could have helped us greatly if people would have actually let us take it, but of course liberals have their job to cry about everything. ~~My Argument~~ C1: The Threat from Iran. As I stated in my rebuttel of my opponnets contention, Iran is close to getting nukes. This remains an important reason, and thus will stand. C2: They have provoked us. Aside from funding our enemies (which I stated in my rebuttel), Iran has done other things to us that have been worthy of declaring war with them, and then crushing them. There first example of this would be the 1979 Iran hostage crises. This is where the Iranians barged into the U. S. imbassy, and took 52 of our diplomats hostage for 444 days [4]. Another good example of actions of war is the 1983 Hezbollah bombings. The terrorist group that it is openly funded by Iran bombed a U. S. embassy. This cost 17 american lives, and is worthy of retaliation [4]. And a more recent event is that Iranian troops arrested four american hikers who were not even on the Iranians borders [5]. I will now await my opponent's rebuttels. I will release more contentions in the later rounds sense this is a five round debate. Vote Con! [1] . http://terrorism.about.com... [2] . http://www.iaea.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://mypetjawa.mu.nu...
US should not be invading Iran.

Contention #1: There is no business to invade Iran. We have no reason to go to Iran just because of oil or "helping other countries". If we want to help other countries, we should fix our own economy first. Helping Iran's people is also good but we should not abuse our powers to cause rebellions in Middle-Eastern countries. We have to deal with our issues first. We have done enough in Libya and the leader of Syria has already told the USA not to get involved. Look at the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were supposed to be in Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda. Instead, we bombed the streets and tried to take the nation under our control, and attempted to remove the Taliban, even though they have virtually no connection to Al Qaeda or their supposed goals. Many innocent lives were taken, and no real progress has really been made on the country as a whole. Iraq as well has worsened. Neither of these countries ever asked for US aid, but they attacked them anyways. Iraq didn't even have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and all the US wanted was to control their oil for themselves, not for other countries to develop as stable nations. Many innocent civillians died and the country is on the verge of civil war. Also, a few decades ago, the US oppressed the people of Nicaragua, and killed countless innocent civilians for their resources. Further, East Timor, an area by Indonesia, had many innocent civilians of theirs brutally murdered, and another race of people almost died out, mainly due to the United States. We need not to get into other country's affairs unless they want us to help. We don't have any good reason to invade Iran. We can benefit mankind by withdrawing all of our troops and stop sticking our noses under other people's business. I really am out of time so I will expan dlater since this has 5 rounds.http://academic.evergreen.edu...http://www.chomsky.info...
The Chicken came first.

In exactly the same vein, It could be said that the egg did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. And you did say that a chicken like creature laid an egg, which definitely implies that the chicken came first. And at which specific moment in time did the clock strike and the chicken like creature become the chicken? Starting with a dinosaur, is starting in the middle somewhat. Should we perhaps start with the first single cell organism and move forwards from there? Division became egg production.
The Bible faced misinterpretations/mistranslations

Alright. So, what you're saying is that the Jews believe Christians are mistranslating the Broble, and that Christians believe the Jews are mistranslating, too. Christ, this is really hard to argue about... Well, I can't, actually. You phrased your argument in such a way that it is literally impossible for me to answer in any other way then agreeing with you. You said, in the "wrap it up" section, you said "I wanted to prove that Christians believe the Jews Misinterpret and translate the Bible and jews too belive that Christians are manipulating the context of the Bible so wether my opponent is Christan or Jew he BELIEVES that the other religion is misinterpreting his Holy Book". Well, all of that is completely true. This isn't a debate, this is you proving something, so I don't even think this belongs on the website. But good job on making me unable to speak.
The Bible faced misinterpretations/mistranslations

First of all, it's well known the "Christian-Jew" debate on the verse of Isaiah 7:14 which states : “ The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel." and here we find Christians translating the word into "The Virgin" to prove that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in Isaiah while Jews translate it into the word "younf woman" and claims Christians are Mistranlating the word, so whether you're a Christian oe Jew , you BELIEVE that there's a MISTRANSLATION of the text, it's not an assumption it's a FACT proving that indeed the Quran wasn't lying when it claims that the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are MISTRANSLATING some of the Holy Text when it says "Yuharifoon Al Kalm A'n mawdi'hi" in other words mistranslating. Indeed the whole text of Isaiah is a field of debate between Jews and Christians , for many reasons :1- that the prophecy of Isaiah was given to King Ahaz while Christians belive it's about Jesus.2- Immanuel prophecy in Judaism has nothing to do with Jesus while Christians belive that it means "God is with us " and that it is referring to Jesus3- Isaiah 53: "52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God’s servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly" jews use this verse to prove that the servant is Israel not Jesus at all.To wrap it up, what I wanted to prove that Christians believe the Jews Misinterpret and translate the Bible and jews too belive that Christians are manipulating the context of the Bible so wether my opponent is Christan or Jew he BELIEVES that the other religion is misinterpreting his Holy Book so isn't that just a proof ? Goodluck ! Sources :jews for Judaism website
This is a goofy debate- The Hue green is NOT green.

Just in case...color: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue. http://dictionary.reference.com... Color is objective. When light reaches a certain wavelength interval and frequency interval, this is when colors change. The wavelength interval for green is ~560–490 nm, and the frequency interval is ~540–610 THz; anything that meets that specific criteria objectively constitutes "green." It just so happens that, uh, that the "hue," or "color" of green is...well, green, which means the criteria for "greenness" is met; therefore, green is green. All one really needs to do is take a glance at the color wheel to realize that the hue green is...well, green.
This is a goofy debate- The Hue green is NOT green.

<"All there is is names."> Not true. I've already shown how there's an objective criteria for the color, or hue, green, so yeah, it's more than a name; once the criteria is met, then you have green. Fact. <"color technically does not exist. Light exists, and light bounces off of things giving the perception that there is a color, but technically there is no actual "color" there. Just the absence of light. So therefore, the color green is NOT green."> Completely wrong...for many reasons. Firstly, the absence of light is *not* color. The absence of light is black, which is technically the opposite of color (though it's entirely annoying to hear douches say that when I say black is my favorite color...) This is basic. Secondly, you explain, in a very succinct way, how color comes about, but then say it doesn't exist by virtue of humans being able to perceive it? Huh? That makes no sense, since perception is a tool we use to help us *confirm* existence. Thirdly, I've already went over how green is objective. When the criteria for "greenness" is met, then we have green. I've even explained (though not in an insane amount of detail) the science behind this. You haven't at all addressed it. Fourth, if there's a perception of it, then, in one form or another, it exists. Color, as an abstraction, certainly exists. This includes green; therefore, green exists. Fifth, whether or not green exists in reality is so hilariously irrelevant. The issue is whether or not green is green -- not whether or not green exists. The idea of green clearly does, as proven by this "debate," so you really have nothing here. At least this is an attempt, but your last part really isn't, because no matter what language you use, it's still the same hue, which is what this debate is over -- if the hue green, is, indeed, green. Whether it's German, French, English, or f-cking Martian, the same hue is still being referred to, and still holds the same objective constituency; thus, making green...well, green, no matter the language. You cannot get past that.
This is a goofy debate- The Hue green is NOT green.

Thank you. Just what I was waiting for. The color green is NOT green. More elaboration: Who says the color green is green? why can't green be red, or blue, or why can't red be green? All there is is names. There is no scientific naming for the different light waves, just numbers. color technically does not exist. Light exists, and light bounces off of things giving the perception that there is a color, but technically there is no actual "color" there. Just the absence of light. So therefore, the color green is NOT green. Comment les aimez-vous des pommes ? Also, that brings different languages. In francais, the color green is NOT green. It is Vert. In espanol,, the color green is NOT green. It is Verde. In italiano, the color green is NOT green. It is also Verde. In portugues, the color green is NOT green. It is, yet again, verde. In deutsch, the color green is NOT green. It is grun. In Hollanders, the color green is NOT green. It is groen. In danske, the color green is NOT green. It is gron. In islenska, the color green is NOT green. It is graen. In finnish, the color green is NOT green. It is kokematon. In русский, the color green is NOT green. It is зеленый. Get my point? Therefore, the color green is NOT green.
Cats are better than dogs

I am arguing that cats are better than dogs. Cats cost roughly $1035 in the first year of having them. The average sized dog costs $1580 in the first year .While dogs use their tongues to scoop liquid into their mouths, lapping cats stick the tip of their tongue in a liquid then retract it four times as quickly, bringing the liquid up in a neat column and leaving little mess. This is both a cleaner and more effective way of drinking. (1) I will now use science to prove that cats are better than dogs... - "Cats can detect a vast range of sound frequencies, from 55 Hz to 79 KHz. Dogs only manage between 67 Hz and 44 KHz." (1) - "Cats can see in light levels six times lower than humans can. Dogs have decent night vision, too, but still they can see in light five times as dim." (1) - "Cats even beat dogs in smell. While certain breeds of dogs, like bloodhounds, have up to 300 million olfactory receptors in their noses, most breeds have far fewer. The average cat sports approximately 200 million olfactory receptors, much more than the average dog." (1) "According to a 2009 study, the area of land required to keep a medium-sized dog fed is larger than the amount needed to power two SUVs, roughly 0.84 hectares annually. A cat, however, requires far less energy to live, needing the equivalent of 0.15 hectares." (1) - Cats also have significantly better balance. Ask yourself this question : "Have you ever seen a dog land on a fence?" I didn't think so. - When cats walk, they lay their hindpaw almost exactly in the print left by the forepaw. This supreme precision is coupled with a streamlined musculature and a very flexible backbone. Since their spine has more vertebrae, they're also able to twist themselves as ably as a gymnast, which helps them navigate tight spaces and (almost) always land on their feet. (1) Con states that "most dogs don't require much care." - I am honestly shocked. A dog requires walks, training, people to pick up their waste. Most dogs cannot be left alone at home and they cannot be left alone on holidays. Cats just need someone to come in once a day and put food in their bowl and that's it - in the worst case scenario they can just go in the garden and catch a mouse, a bird or a squirrel. Dogs rely heavily on others whereas cats are independent. Dogs do what their owners say. This means they have very little free will. "Dogs have masters. Cats have slaves." Sources http://www.realclearscience.com... (1) https://www.google.co.uk... (2)
Cats are better than dogs

As con, I will argue that dogs are better than cats. There are hundreds of breeds of dogs, all of which have a use in modern society. German Shepherd Dogs are used around the world as scent dogs, and Beagles are widely used as hunting dogs. Most dogs don't require much care. A dog can stay healthy as long as he is taken for a short 15-20 minute walk every day, and be fed twice a day. Much: 1.) adj.great in quantity, measure, or degree 2.) n. a great quantity, measure, or degree 3.) adv. to a great extent or degree; greatly; far P.S. Sorry if my debate isn't structured the correct way, this is my first debate.
Cats are better than dogs

As pro I am arguing that "Cats are better than dogs" therefore my opponent will be arguing that dogs are better than cats. My opponent will begin his argument in the first round however he must forfeit or leave the last Round blank in order to make this a fair debate. Round 1: Con's intro and main points Round 2: Pros intro and main points - con's contradictions Round 3: Pros contradictions - cons forfeiture / blank space Definitions Cats - a small mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet and many breeds have been developed. Dogs - a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Better - more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. Rules Standard rules really. No trolling. No swearing. Forfeiture of any unplanned rounds means that they have lost. Keep to the debate structure.