BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution could not have created man

There's really nothing here to debate--this is a Prima Facie case. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God, so let's just say God created man through evolution. God could've created us any particular way he wanted. Believing in the existence of "God" and the process of "evolution" are not mutually exclusive, so where's the possible argument going to come from, unless you're prone to puerile nonsense. There's not a single inch for any possible refutation here. Lets substitute "Evolution could not have created man" for "That grey cheeseburger from McDonald's could not have caused me to vomit." Simple causality. Of course that grey cheeseburger from McDonald's could've cause me to vomit. Anything is possible. This is lame.
The Christian God exists (2)

I'm always thinking. Thanks for making this effort, bigtown. I believe that making an effort to sort these things out is never a bad idea.Yes, this is a considered subject, but I believe my arguments hold weight, and using pastafarianism, Harry Potter, etc. as counter-examples is effective, as it hammers home my points. I'm not trying to take this lightly, but I'm a pretty easygoing guy and I really can't help one or two jokes every now and again. Trust me, I have thought very seriously on this for a very long time (well, for a fifteen year old anyways). Changing from a die hard theist into an anti-theist is not something that happens overnight. You're welcome. I am not against god and am open to the idea of becoming a theist, I just have yet to see any valid evidence for the position.Okay, I'll continue to question myself and my beliefs.Einstein was a great scientist, but I believe he held the wrong views on religion. However, I don't blame him because at the time atheism was viewed as evil and there was a general societal consensus that theism was correct, as there was for many years. Old habits die hard. Yes, the world is such a wonderful place, but I believe that it came about through naturalistic processes. That doesn't make it any less wonderful for me. Just because the world looks fine-tuned for life does not mean it is. I think I've already addressed the logic and mathematics thing.Most of the first part of the bible paragraph was "times were different back then, and god was giving rules to help get humanity back on track". Wouldn't god just giving humanity a concrete set of laws that couldn't be misinterpreted a better idea than writing this whole book through tons of people and then sending it down to earth? To address the second part, homosexuality is not morally bad. I take a very mainstream view in this and agree with all of the points being made by people who have no objections to gay marriage, and I stand by those points. I don't think pedophilia is correct because of consent issues. I don't see any mainstream Christian as a Westboro Baptist Church type person, and I've certainly never seen you as that type. I don't have time at the moment to read 200+ page book, but I'll try to get to it. Well, I still think these absolutes are part of physical processes. My position on that is in my debate on objective morality with bigtown, which I linked to earlier.I've already addressed the last point.I'd like to remind bigtown that he must write "no round" for this round.I don't think he's fulfilled his BoP, but the reader can decide that.
The Christian God exists (2)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals.Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate.You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments.I await my opponent's arguments.
Original Rap Competition

Okay, original rap competition! . .. . That's pretty self-explanatory. BUT, this isn't a rap battle. We're just comming up with rap songs. It can be about anything. Maybe you want to make a rap Dwight Schrute would make. Maybe you want to make a rap Martin Luther King would, or maybe some comic book character. Anything you want. Make it about how awesome you ware, about a problem you have, whatever. It has to be original though. But, you can take parts from other raps, which I will do, I'm going to take a hook from Eminem. But, I'm not stealing the entire rap. Rap is art, voters, pick the person who comes up with the best piece of art. I would do an apply in the comments thingy but ain't nobody got time fo dat.
Original Rap Competition

B L A C K I'm fine with absence as long as I'm still breathin' Just close my eyes and I can always stop grievin' I've never defeated a demon but let them all in I can find truth in black and that's how it's always been Sometimes I wonder, why couldn't it happened this way But then I stop being a b*tch and try to enjoy today I believe this life and world is one huge screw up If had it not been for Wis I'd still be something to chew up [0] Not for long have I believed that you need a smile to be fully dressed Broken young, just told "stop feeling sorry for yourself" when I was depressed Everything is wrong so I don't know if better existed All I know is that now any problem that comes my way, I can resist it I can become the president, my strength is incredible Pain, failure, stress, bullies, embarrassment, edible But only at the price of becoming a robot I can't ever have friends, can't say I know not Alone and in the dark, just like it's always been Others would call it insanity but I've called it zen If friendly warmth exists in my life I can no longer feel it I don't see myself getting out of my cozy, warm black pit [0] - "Wis" is a reference to a person I know.
Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

Nicely done Con. :) "Nevertheless, the definition I provided did not include that last bit, so Pro must comply to that part only" Not sure why this is an argument... It's literally a fact that on some jurisdictions homosexual marriage is allowed. We can't agree to ignore that fact. Also, you put the definition in the second round, which means I hadn't yet agreed to it yet. I had the right to point that out. "I acknowledge the validity of your claim. But I honestly didn't know about that second part as it doesn't even appear on my google search. I did not falsely accused you. It was a misunderstanding" It was a misunderstanding that we can forget about, but the original accusation made was proved wrong making it a false accusation. "In this case it is certainly a bad thing to be disrespectful towards religious views. And it does directly affect their religious community. It defies the very definition of a sacred ritual they hold" Like I had said before, the definition has been changed and modified many times. No one is obligated to follow another persons religion. The second amendment even says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [1] Religion can have *nothing* to do with law. If your reasoning is because it isn't respectful to religion then it is directly rebutted by the law. The religious are free to keep having traditional marriage, but not everyone is obligated to do so as well. "They can co-exist, but they must be labeled and called different names, or else it would be disrespectful. Islam and Christianity co-exist and are very similar, but they each call their god different names. Christianity calls their god "God" and Islam calls him "Allah". It would be disrespectful for one to refer to Christianity's god as "Allah" and vice-versa" The definition can be changed to include more groups of people: There's different forms of religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) just like there's different forms of marriage, (Multiracial, homosexual, heterosexual etc) We can just make it a broad term then put specifics in each term. It's fine to use a broad term to include everything then put specifics in when needed. "But Christians don't claim he can't. The Jewish man is free to pray at his house. But if the Jewish were eating with Christians and they make prayer before their meal, it would be disrespectful for the Jewish man to interupt their prayer with his own Jewish prayer" Yet again, this is support for me. The Jewish man (gay person) is trying to pray (get married) and the Christians (People against gay marriage) are telling him he can't. If the Jewish man is free to keep it with himself, and not disrupting the Christians, then it's fine. My arguments about how gay people should be given the same benefits still stand: Con has even admitted that they should get the same benefits. He went on to say that it should be called a different name though, and I've shown why we don't have to do that. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

*Disclaimer: I have realized that BOT is not entirely on me. Both sides have an equal share of BOT, therefore BOT is also on Pro, unless Pro proves otherwise.__________________________________________________________________________________Marriage (noun): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.https://www.google.com...-The above definition is the definition used by the world for thousands of years, ever since the concept of marriage was introduced. That is the common definition used by every dictionary. -By definition, a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Although recently, some dictionaries have altered the definition of the term "marriage" so that it allows those of the same gender to marry, it has not been completely incorporated into the world yet and it shouldn't be incorporated into the world.-Throughout history in many cases, marriage has been a sacred and spiritual event. [1] Some of these spiritual marriages were religious and others were not. Regardless of whether or not they were religious or not, changing the definition of marriage or having two people of the same gender marry each other would be disrespectful. It would be equivilent to altering Buddhist scriptures or deliberately altering the stories in the Bible. *Therefore, there should be no homosexual marriages, unless the definition of "marriage" is completely altered, which I have established that it shouldn't. Two homosexual individuals are free to have a relationship, participate in sexual acts, and even live together and have children, but they cannot marry. They are even free to have their own ritual in which they are spiritually bonded, but it cannot be called marriage. They should come up with their own term for bonding two of the same gender. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

. http://www.debate.org...This is the official DDO pokemon challenge. Once upon a time a new Debater woke here. Debates in this world are unlike any other. Depending on which pokemon you have with you, your debate skills are improved. The debater went to get his first pokemon and was beyond excited. After choosing charmander as his start pokemon he left Pewter to become the greatest ever. He decided to head to Pewter City First. On the road there he had to choose between two paths:-He would have to fight Action. -He would have to fight Defro. The adventurer decided to take on Defro. ================================================================================= =================================================================================This will be extremely hard for me, because I am normally completely for homosexuality. I'm doing this for the sake of playing devil's advocate to improve my own skills and allow Fanath a bigger chance of succeeding so that he can move on the the badge holders. The resolution: There should not be Homosexual Marriage. -I, Defro, will take the position of Con, whereas the brave new adventurer, Fanath, will take the position of Pro, as agreed upon in a private PM.
Gun rights.

Resolved: Gun rights should remain legal or become legal in secular societies. I noticed in Con's big issues that he is anti-gun rights. After asking for clarification he stated that he thought guns were bad for society, and gave exception to "maybe" the police and militia. With that in mind, let's set up a general definition for what it means to have a right to gun ownership, or a right to bear and keep arms:Gun Rights: "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia. " [1]Therefore, someone who is against gun rights would be against either one's personal right to (a) gun(s) for personal use, or would be against the use of guns for a militia, including the military and police. As I assume my opponent is against the former and not the latter, my arguments shall be opposition to this idea. My opponent may choose whether or not to start argumentation in his acceptance to this debate, or he can simply accept. I say this, as BOP is shared between the two of us. I eagerly await a response. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Rules:
Percyy Jackson is better than Harry Potter

This debate should be fun, since I"m a fan of both seriesSince (I think) my opponent started with his opening argument, I wil refute his and come out with mine. I argue that for the reasons my opponent states, that Harry Potter is better than Percy Jackson, as well as a point of my own that will be mentioned later.But first, let's go through the points he makes. For simplicity, Percy Jackson will be referenced as PJ (not peanut butter jelly, although that makes me hungry) from now on, and Harry Potter will be referenced as HP from now on."PJ has a better story-line."On the contrary, HP has the far better story line. While the plot of PJ is far too jumpy and really scatter-brained looking, the plot for HP follows smoothly from one event to the next, with hardly a wild, crazy jump between books, as we see from the PJ books. Thusly, HP's story-line is far superior, and a reason why HP is better than PJ."PJ has better characters."On the contrary, HP has far more realistic, relatable characters that actually seem like they could exist. This is for a few reasons: 1. JK Rowling put a vastly superior amount of time into the history and backstory to her books, designing each individual character trait and flaw to each character, major or minor, which trumps Rick Riordan's one little book about random adventures no one cares about. 2. The characters in HP have more depth than the characters in PJ. The only deeply intriguing and interesting character that has more to her than just appears on the surface is Annabeth, but she alone isn't enough to support the entire series. Even the main character, Percy himself, is pretty shallow and not that well developed throughout the entire series. On the other hand, virtually every character in the HP universe has interesting quirks and things that no one would suspect about them, everywhere from major to minor, which makes HP superior in the catagory of characters."PJ had a better story line."Already went over this.Because HP has better characters and a superior storyline to it, HP is clearly better than PJ. But as a point independent of my opponent's case...The HP movies were at least somewhat in line with the book.Yeah, that's right, I went there. The HP movies are good AND in line with what the books actually talk about, for the most part. While the PJ movie might be a decent movie, independent of any series, when it's put in comparrison to the actual book it was meant to represent, they barely even got the names right. Almost none of the events in the movie were in line, or even semi in line, with what the book was talking about, and as a formerly hardcore PJ fan, I cringed throughout the entire movie as the book I loved so dearly was butchered and fed to the wolves.Thus, because HP is better book-wise and movie-wise, HP is far superior to PJ.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:I as Con will refute pro's claims about why businesses should be allowed to discriminate. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on this topic but I fully intend to refute pro's claims in this debate.ARGUMENTS:#1. Social ContractWhen one lives in an organized society, one must adhere to the rules of that society. According to Thomas Hobbes and his view of the Social Contract, we give up liberty when moving into a society[1]. I tend to agree with the same understanding of the Social Contract. Therefore if a society declares that a business is allowed or not to allowed to discriminate, I believe the business must comply with the rules.In the United States, businesses can't discriminate against race, ethic, religion, sex, or disability[2][3]. Therefore I am arguing for the status quo and my opponent is making the claims against the status quo.[1]http://oregonstate.edu...[2]http://www.archives.gov...[3]http://www.eeoc.gov...#2. Discrimination of ServiceIn theory, there is nothing wrong with a business discriminating against certain customers. The most popular example of this would be "no shirt, no shoes, no service." I would state by allowing businesses to discriminate in who they serve is problematic in reality. What happens if there is only one doctor in a town and he doesn't like Muslims. A Muslim would have to go to another town to see a doctor. By allowing businesses to discriminate, the amount services offered to some groups of people will become limited. This becomes extremely problematic in basic essentials that relates to health, clothes, and food.#3. Discrimination of EmploymentDiscrimination of employment inherently causes problems for people who need to be employed. As I mentioned previously, the United States prevents discrimination in hiring. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disability Act prevent discrimination in hiring of race, sex, ethnic, religion, and disability. To allow people to be discriminated against limits their capacity to be hired.#5. The Practical Results of Business DisciminationI think it is important to understand the results of business discrimination.#5A. Ghettos in ItalyJews were segregated in many cities of Italy during the 16th and 17th centuries. The businesses too discriminated against Jews. Therefore, the Jews were seen as outcasts and limited in employability as well.The Jews that lived in the ghettos suffered from unemployment and depression in such environments.[4]http://www.npr.org...I will argue more the next round since I have a limited amount of time to post.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

Fair enough! Alright to keep this simple for the both of us, I'll just go at it point by point. *disclaimer: I'm not intolerant myself by any means. I just believe that intolerant individuals should be treated with the same rights as others.* 1. Private property rights: All human beings have a right to their property. This includes those who run businesses. With your property being your property, it should be legal for you to decide who or what is on your property. A racist business owner is within his/her rights to not allow black people into his property just as a home owner is within his/her rights to not allow specific people onto their property. 2. Freedom of association: Nobody is requiring an individual to associate with a certain privately-ran business. In a market economy, we are offered multiple choices as to where we can shop, eat, play, work, watch movies, ect. Both parties (those being a business owner and a customer/employee) should have the freedom to associate with whoever they please. A business owner should be allowed to disassociate with a person they think wrongly of, just as a potential customer/employee should have the freedom to disassociate with that business owner and associate with a more tolerant-minded individual. 3. Economic incentives: It's not economically sound for a business to conduct discriminatory policies, anyways. Businesses that do/would, are turning away potential clients/customers, as well as potential employees. This works as an incentive for businesses to be more tolerant of other individuals, as it would hurt their competitive edge in a market. 4. Personal beliefs: Those who are strong in their convictions should not be held in any obligation to provide a service to those who are seen as wrongful/harmful to them. While we can both agree that there is a large difference between, say, an African American serving a KKK member, as opposed to a Christian serving a homosexual. The subjective preference of the Christian shouldn't be enforced into suppression simply because we view their belief as irrational or immoral. When taken to far, it could even lead to unrest between parties that do not necessarily get along. A real world example being that after the civil rights act was passed, crime rates took a leap [1]. (Although I will give my opponent that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.) 1. http://www.disastercenter.com...
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

I would ask my opponent let us stick to the Oxford definitions so that we are all on the same page.Discriminate:"Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age[1]"[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Race: "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc[2]"[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Sex:"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions[3]"[3]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Gender:"The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)[4]"[4]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Sexual Orientation:"A person"s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual[5]"[5]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Sexual Harassment:"Harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.[6]"[6]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Preference:"A greater liking for one alternative over another or others[7]"[7]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Conspiracy:"A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful[8]"[8]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...I hope we agree to all of these.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

Thanks for accepting! To begin, I'll be presenting my definitions of specific words that I'll be using frequently throughout the debate:Discriminate- to show partiality or prejudice based on a general category not on individual merit.Race- a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits (skin color being a leading example in this debate)Gender- either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functionsSexual Orientation- a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted.Feel free to adjust my definitions as you see fit, or add definitions that you believe will be beneficial to the debate.
Gay Marriage should be Legalized

I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legalized. I am giving us each 72 hours since I will have limited time for research and rounds. First round is acceptance. Any sources can be used, as long as they can be linked and viewed on the Internet or can be quoted, like the Bible or a study. Please no trolling. If so, I will end the debate. Gay Marriage is defined as The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"