BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does the god exist

i will be argung against the god of the christianity. i will be using science and logic. if my oppnent doesnt use science and logic, he forfeits the arguement. if you win, that means you dont forfeit. god of christians is defined as the god of the bible. the god who spoke to jesus and moses and the wandering jew. he gave us the 10 commandments and died for our sins. etc. blah blah. i will be arguing against this god using science. to preview my arguments i will be using too. anti-kca arugment from consciousness 1. everything which is sentience has a cause 2. the Judeo-Christian god is sentient 3. therefore the Judeo-Crhstian god has a cause imperfect god argument 1. nothing perfect can exist 2. god is perfect 3. therefore god cant exist i will not defend them now buti will defend them later. i will also be using science and reason so have prepared. PLEASE ONLY EXCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU WILL NOT FORFEIT BY USING BS ARUGMENTS LIKE THE MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ONE
Does the god exist

yeah um im def not inexperienced with these arugments. in fact i have taken ten courses in philosophy. i have studied all the arugments intensely. in fact i have taken ten courses in philosophy of theism alone. that enough should prove that i know wtf im talking about. seriously. anyway here is the frist argumentation. 1. everything which is sentience has a cause 2. the Judeo-Christian god is sentient 3. therefore the Judeo-Crhstian god has a cause this is intuition. everything which is sentient has a cause. "First of all, sentience is really about the nerve functioning in the body." - Compelling Interest, roger resler "Current research in cell biology is is suggesting that sentience is a function of living structured water in and around the cells of our body" - Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy: Volume Two, Volume 2 by Michael Shea the brain is caused so sentience needs a cause ok here is the second arg. imperfect god argument 1. nothing perfect can exist 2. god is perfect 3. therefore god cant exist 1 is true bc as we all know "pobodys nerfect." 2 god is supposed to be perfect. like in the bible jesus says "god is perfect" 3 follows from the rules of scientific laws. let me remind my opponent that he has to use reason and science otherwise hes being fictitious and stupid so he needs to use real ones. the best theist arg i can think of right now is probably the wavefunction one whre the wave of the unverse neds god to observe it because its based in science. well i think that one is prety "godamn" stupid too (pardon the pun i said god and im an atheist lmao) but its the best one. i would use that one if i was the opponent.
Debate three

I believe we should have to complete three debates before being able to vote on one. Here are three good reasons why:1) It stops inexperienced voters from being able to sway debates.Take for example, my own debate "Anderson Silva did not throw his fight with Chris Weidman" (1). This was a controversial issue with many people refusing to believe there is any way Silva legitimately lost. A good portion of the views of the debate came from visitors to the site, as shown by how the debate had 9,649 views and only two votes over three days. These people would have mostly voted based off their opinions. The three debate-rule saved the legitimacy of this outcome.2) It makes it harder to vote-bomb.Say you are losing a debate. If you're a rational person, you'll learn from it and move on. Unfortunately the Internet is full of more irrational people than the North Korean government, and Debade.org is no exception. These irrational people may create new accounts just to vote for themselves. Or they may use fake accounts to vote-bomb the debates of people they dislike. Either way, this is prevented by the three debate rule.3) It makes you a better voter.After going through three debates, you learn the hard work most people put into debates, This makes you a better voter since having gone through debates, you are more qualified to judge them because you have experienced the process first hand. You learn the gratifying feeling of having an analytical mind vote on your debate, be it for you or against you. Either way, these people put just as much effort into reading your debate as you put into making it, and that is a great feeling. This feeling would be ruined by someone who joined the site two minutes ago, votes against you with seven points, and puts their reasoning as "Pro was better." I am not saying all newcomers are unqualified, but all could learn from participating in debates.I welcome my opponent to the site as he is new and hope that he eventually participates in three legitimate debates instead of three spam ones in order to bypass the three-debate rule, which is in place for a reason as I have proven.Sources:1: http://www.debate.org...
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Hey it's your friend Kylar :). I believe that King Richard III of England ordered the killing of King Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury in the Tower of London aka The Princes In The Tower. I have reasonable proof of that claim and I love a good debate on it. I am challenging anyone to a debate on this royal and touchy subject. Shall we debate? 1st round opening statements of why you are con and acceptanceGood luck :). Have fun, and lets have a good debate.Kylar
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Ok, the princes were declared illegitimate, so they posed no threat. However, when Tudor declared his wife-to-be legitimate, he declared the brothers, which was an accidental result of this,so Tudor needed a claim, as not many liked him-Armchair Readers Amazing book of history,my usual source, and as such killed the princes,Other Armchair books. Thanks for the debate!
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Thank you once again for the debate :). I believe that Richard's throne was in serious doubt. He usurped the throne, and while Henry Tudor did the same thing, Richard usurped the throne after killing his nephew's friends. That alone would stain his record as the true king. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were legitamate and therefore had a strong claim to the throne. Richard would have had to kill them to end the threat.Thanks again for the debate my friend, this was a good one.Kylar
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

The princes were in the tower, and as such it was possible to have been hidden their life from everyone, and as neither of us can be proven correct, we are both incorrect until proven otherwise, and once again, why not tell the truth of the matter the second your king? Why wait till you have married their sister? So they were kept in the tower until the king couldn't keep them illegitimate? That is more likely, as his throne was in question, when Richards wasn't.
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Thank you once again for a good debate so far my friend, I am enjoying this a lot :). I do not doubt in the slightest that King Henry VII of England may have had some motive in killing the princes. Indeed, according to the book The Princes In The Tower by Allison Weir, it leaves open the possibilty that Henry VII did the crime and that Tyrell was a liar. Just maybe perhaps, you are correct that Tyrell was a liar and wanted attention before he was beheaded for treason on Tower Hill. However, there is still a chance that King Richard III is truly the murderer. The fact is that on September 3rd 1483, King Richard III ordered Tyrell to go to London and obtain suitable garments for the investure of his son Edward as prince of Wales. The only way Edward of Middleham could be made prince of Wales is if the lawful one, the child King Edward V was dead. Therefore, it is probable that Richard III authorized their murder, so he could invest his son as Prince of Wales.
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

What you forget is that he respected his brother after his death- Catholicism pure.net, and while he had a motive and timing which happened to occur during his reign, and the princes vanished. His sucessor, Tudor,was marrying the sister of the Tower Brothers, and declared her legitimate, but also causing her brothers legitimacy on accident, so he had them murdered, as the story goes. That story could be just as believed, so while i cannot prove you wrong,neither can you, me. Tyrell could have easily have been a liar and a fraud hungry for attention. Back to Tudor- he publicly criticized his predicessor, but after marrying into power, claimed yhe murder. Why not before?
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

Thank you once again con for your arguments and the debate :). I will now post my Round III arguments. There is no doubt in my mind that King Richard III was a devout Roman Catholic and respected his brother King Edward IV with great love and affection. However, King Richard III did superivise the killing of Edward IV's brother George, Duke of Clarence. He then proceeded to like I said, abduct his nephews and imprison them where they were never seen again. Key thing here...he had a knight in his command named Sir James Tyrell. Tyrell later confessed in 1502 that Richard ordered him to kill the princes. Tyrell goes on to say that he hired with Richard's help 2 of the boy's jailers. The jailers entered and smothered Edward V to death, and cut the throat of his 9 year old brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Then, they called Tyrell in to see their naked dead bodies. The dead princes were castrated, and buried under a staircase. If Tyrelll had his orders from Richard then there is no doubt that King Richard III ordered the death of his nephews,Sources:Royal Blood-Library bookThe Princes In The Tower-Allison Weir
King Richard III of England authorized the killing of the Princes In The Tower

My opening arguments are as follows. King Richard III of England did authroize the killing of his nephews. The facts are very simple and clear, at least for this round. King Richard III killed the protectors of his nephews, without a trial. He then took ownership of the boys and proceeded to London, where he killed another of their friends without a trial. Then he locked his nephew's in the Tower of London, and they were never seen again. Therefore, they were killed by Richard.
netflix is better than youtube

Hello, apprently I have to introduce myself. I hope this isn't a technical debating term because I'm new to this website and debating in general. I'm 19, male, a UK citizen and have personal experience with both Netflix and YouTube.I will be CON (Netflix is not better than YouTube).Let's first get some descriptions in here:Netflix:'Netflix, Inc. is an American provider of on-demand Internet streaming media available to viewers in North and South America, the Caribbean, and parts of Europe (Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), and of flat rate DVD-by-mail in the United States, where mailed DVDs are sent via Permit Reply Mail.' [1]YouTube:'YouTube is a video-sharing website, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005 and owned by Google since late 2006, on which users can upload, view and share videos. The company is based in San Bruno, California, and uses Adobe Flash Video and HTML5 technology to display a wide variety of user-generated video content, including video clips, TV clips, and music videos, and amateur content such as video blogging, short original videos, and educational videos.' [2]Quick things for you to consider: YouTube is free; Netflix is not YouTube is used worldwide; Netflix is not YouTube supports a huge amount of user-generated content; Netflix does not YouTube promotes discussion and builds communities; Netflix does not YouTube is multifunctional (education, entertainment, sharing); Netflix is predominately entertainment Except for being internet streaming services, both offer completely different services. Netflix caters for people wanting to watch a full-length film or television program -- YouTube doesn't generally offer this legally, but does have many other traits (listed above) which make it the best service for a general audience.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Adolf Hitler, as evil than you think he was, does not deserve all of the hate he had received.

I will debate you on this. Personally i see nothing right in any action that Hitler did at all. First of killing over 6 million Jews is just one of the thing that he deserved to be hated for. He knew what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong. I might have taken a different standpoint if Adolf Hitler was oblivious to the things he was doing. It was totally irrational. He was a mass murderer. Second of all!, After legally gaining power in Germany, Hitler quickly began solidifying his position by putting those that disagreed with him into concentration camps. He created massive amounts of propaganda that strengthened German pride by blaming all their problems on Communists and Jews. The concept of pan-Germanism inspired Hitler to combine German peoples in various countries in Europe as well as look east for lebensraum. Nobody needs to be the scape goat. the Nazis created an elaborate and intensive system to work Jews as slaves and kill them. Hitler is considered one of the most evil people in history because of the Holocaust. Any thing that he could ave done that would have even seemed "GOOD" had evil intentions behind.
Adolf Hitler, as evil than you think he was, does not deserve all of the hate he had received.

Hello! Welcome to this debate. I am not very strict with rules, but please stay on topic. This debate could wander into almost anything political, so please Con, you are arguing why he does deserve all the hatred he receives. And also no ad hominem. This is quite a sensitive subject, so I would appreciate that there is consideration of Pro's points, and I will appreciate your points. Also please, if possible, please cite sources and I wish for a stimulating debate! The first Con round is acceptance of the rules. Yes, I know how controversial this is, but I do not think Hitler's actions were right and justifies. I am not a Nazi or anywhere near, and I despise what he did, but for too long we've been looking at things with blind fury and ignorance, and this debate is one that needs to be discussed. Because as I will expand on, Hitler's actions weren't as bad as events before and since, yet we turn a blind eye to them. Before we can tackle the big issues with genocide and war, we need to open our eyes to the truth.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person

1. Romantic love is a strong emotional bond between two people where both parties share the same love and compassion for one another. 2. The romantic bond between two people has to be known to everyone around them. 3. A relationship between a man and a woman can only work when both sides agree to fully committed to one another for the rest of their lives. 4. In order to prove one"s commitment, commitment between two people must go as far a marriage. 5. People have to first date in order to find the right person to love. 6. Just because a man and a woman date that does not mean that they are committed to each other. 7. People sometimes have to keep searching for the right person to love therefore dating does not show true love. 8. If a person decides to break the bond between his or her partner then he or she was never in love with their partner in the first place. 9. The romantic bond can be broken if a person decides to break up, have a divorce, or to cheat with another partner. 10. Cheating on your partner proves that a person was never in love and that the relationship was based on sex. 11. A break up or divorce shows that a person gave up on the relationship due to reasons of stress. 12. People cannot date another person when they are still thinking about the last relationship that did not work out. 13. Therefore people must think about and commit to the person they truly romantically love. People have to understand that love is something that needs to be cherished only between two people. Dating multiple people is something that many people do in modern society but there is no love involved. Love is not something people can just divide for others to share. People have to give everything to one person in order to create a romantic bond. People do make mistakes which cause break ups and divorces but it just means that they are still looking for the one person they love or that they did not give one hundred percent of their love to their partner. Therefore, I believe that romance can only be between two people that truly love each other.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person

1.I disagree that love is something that can only be shared with one other person. Every person is different from the next. When you fall romantically in love, it is never the same for different people. You can"t compare the love you have for two different people because the reasons you are in love with them are for different reasons. 2.I agree that dating is usually the first step to showing you like someone. 3.I agree with this premise, but I don"t understand what it has to do with being romantically in love with two people at the same time. 4.I"m not sure what you mean by this premise. If someone is dating two people, then really they are not choosing who to be with because if they were they wouldn"t be dating two people. 5.I agree with this premise, but again I do not understand how this supports your argument that you cannot romantically love two people at the same time. 6.I also agree with this premise but I don"t think it supports your argument. 7.I do not agree that a man cheating on his girlfriend means he was never in love with her. 8.I do not agree that you cannot date someone else if you are still romantically in love with your ex. You can fall romantically in love with your new partner and still be romantically in love with your ex because you are in love with these two people for different reasons. While you cannot compare the two loves, it does not mean that they don"t have the same intensity. 9.A person is not forced to choose between an ex and a new partner if they do not want to. Even if they decided to choose, they can still be romantically in love with two people at the same time.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person

1. I disagree that a person can love more than one person romantically because love is something that a person can share with only one person. 2. Dating is the first step to showing a person likes another person. 3. Throughout time, dating can establish a romantic bond when two people enjoy each other company both emotionally and sexually. 4.When people date more than one person they are choosing who to be with. 5. Most people don"t like knowing that their partner is dating someone else while in the relationship because those people feel unloved. 6. A person who dates another person while in a relationship is considered a cheater in society. 7. Cheating on your partner proves that a person does not love their partner because their partner did something wrong in the relationship. For example, a person can cheat on their partner because of the lack of sexual activity in the relationship. 8. Even after a break up, a person can have feeling for an ex. However, those people can"t date a new person because they are still in love with their ex. 9. Therefore, those people are forced to choose between an ex and another person they have feelings for.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person

1. Romantic love is a strong emotional bond between two people where both parties share the same love and compassion for one another. 2. The romantic bond between two people has to be known to everyone around them. 3. A relationship between a man and a woman can only work when both sides agree to fully committed to one another for the rest of their lives. 4. In order to prove one"s commitment, commitment between two people must go as far a marriage. 5. People have to first date in order to find the right person to love. 6. Just because a man and a woman date that does not mean that they are committed to each other. 7. People sometimes have to keep searching for the right person to love therefore dating does not show true love. 8. If a person decides to break the bond between his or her partner then he or she was never in love with their partner in the first place. 9. The romantic bond can be broken if a person decides to break up, have a divorce, or to cheat with another partner. 10. Cheating on your partner proves that a person was never in love and that the relationship was based on sex. 11. A break up or divorce shows that a person gave up on the relationship due to reasons of stress. 12. People cannot date another person when they are still thinking about the last relationship that did not work out. 13. Therefore people must think about and commit to the person they truly romantically love. Noncontroversial premises: 1 and 2 Premise one explains the romantic bond between two people and premise two explains that the romantic bond is public. Controversial premises 3-13 True love can never last unless people are willing to commit to each other and they must prove their commitment with marriage. Dating a person only shows that you like the person or that you find your date attractive. Dating multiple people does not show love because of the lack of commitment. Breaking up or cheating on your partner proves that a person has the inability to love one person only. A person must get over their ex in order to date a new person. Also, people are afraid to commit to a new person when the last relationship did not work out.