BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God (Christian)

Rebuttal: “My opponent made a rule that I was to use physical evidence that our Creator exists but He didn't know I wasn't a Christian who believes this world is real.” So you think since you’re not a Christian you are exempt from all rules? “It appears my opponent knows nothing about quantum mechanics which is very important knowledge for our Creator to teach us how we were created. Through the study of quantum mechanics, physicists have learned that the objects we observe in this universe are only illusions that are NOT real.” Quantum Mechanics is the study of extremely small particles and that they don’t act the same as other objects. They apply to different laws of physics. It seems you are the one who knows nothing. http://www.pbs.org... “If my opponent wins this debate, he should by humble and thank all his friends who support him. It's obvious he needs all the support he can get because he surely doesn't have any knowledge to understand what I'm sharing in this debate or anywhere else I testify to my created existence.” I would like to officially thank all of my friends who support me. (I wish there were more arguments so I could do a longer rebuttal.) Conclusion: As I look through my opponent’s debates, he does not rebut any of my arguments. My opponent does not provide any arguments for God either, he is set on the goal of convincing us all of how we don’t exist through the voice that talks to him in his head. I look forward to the end of this debate, thank you! Ps (If all you want to do is preach about God then stick to the forum section, don’t actually debate because in a debate you have to try to win.)
The Existence of God (Christian)

I'll start off this debate with the fact that I am not a Christian or believe in their false deity named Jesus. My opponent is obviously confused as to who I am or what I'm doing in this forum. I've known our Creator since December 7th, 1979 when He spoke into my mind these words, "I AM YOUR CREATOR". From that point on, every time He came into my mind to give me a command to obey, I knew it was the same Creator who spoke into my mind. I'm won't go into detail about the long period of time He spent getting me ready to testify to His knowledge that I've been sharing in this forum as His last saint because it's obviously no evidence that He exists. To look at me as a 60 year old man of Norwegian blood who has spent his life as a farmer, musician and construction worker, you would be totally deceived that I am God's last saint. However, the knowledge I possess that contains the past, present and future and how we were created, is all the evidence that I need to understand there is definitely a Creator to everything we observe, smell, taste, hear, touch and feel emotionally. Since there is no evidence that a Creator exists, I will have to use other means to help the reader of these debates to understand that we do have a Creator to this virtual reality that we're living in, It's easier to look at the life we're experiencing as a dream that isn't real at all. I call it a make-believe world that our Creator created to give us the sense that we're real people. In fact, there is no evidence to show that our bodies are real, either. I will be using quantum mechanics and analogies to give you knowledge about how we were created. With this knowledge, you will be almost forced to believe that someone had to put it all together to build this virtual reality we're experiencing. I will end this first part of the debate with this fact. I am the knowledge of our Creator. It's impossible to show evidence of this but by the end of this debate, you will realize that I know things without ever going to school in this world to learn what I understand very well. I won't be using any biblical scriptures because I know that they are NOT evidence that our Creator exists. Anyone could have made up the stories in the Bible. But by the end of this debate, you will realize that it was impossible for people to create anything. God bless the readers who listen to the voice of the Lord in this debate, Saint Brad
The Existence of God (Christian)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously. Remember to win this debate you need to provide evidence that God exists. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. 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. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
Veganism is being blown WAY out of proportions.

Okay, so to make myself clear on the "WAY out of proportions" part, I've seen vegans on the internet treat veganism as a religion and make it sound like if you're not a vegan, you're an awful human being. Firstly, meat isn't a bad thing. Did you know that you can increase your metabolism speed by eating lots of high-protein foods. Most meats contain about 20 to 30 percent of protein. Coupled with the strength training, you can start building muscle mass. Protein helps with the growth and repair of damaged tissue, and those with muscle mass will have likely to have a faster metabolism speed. Before you say something along the lines of "but there are other sources of protein" meat has more protein than say peanuts. Secondly, if veganism is to support animal rights, then why don't people know about their contribute to stuff like global warming, and erosion to the surrounding area, and air/water pollution. Yes, these are real things, animals can contribute to, it's not just humans who do this. While, yes, animals being in a slaughterhouse is a bad thing, you can't stop factories and slaughterhouses won't stop just because a few people say "but, my veganism". Also, if a majority of the population was vegan, there would be a major drop in fruit and veggie production because more people will be demanding veggies. I think that's how it works. Finally, if you think the 722 gallons of water is bad, think about how much water it would take to water all the extra crops on top of the original amount of crops.
Veganism is being blown WAY out of proportions.

I'm going to be taking another stab at this topic. I believe veganism is being blown way out of proportions because a lot of vegans seem to be in a mentality that veganism is the only way to go, and its actually the reason I'm not a vegan. One way that veganism is being blown out of proportions is the fact that some vegans try to make you feel guilty about eating meat. I all seriousness, what's the point to veganism. Is it to say the animals? Is it to be more healthy? I'd like to know because the last time I debated on this topic, the person said it was bad for animals to be in slaughter houses, but he also said it was bad for them to be in the wild. So, I'd like to the purpose of veganism.
Veganism is being blown WAY out of proportions.

To start off my last argument, I'd just like to say that if you find me rude or offensive during this round, don't be so surprised. After all, if you don't give others respect, expect them to return the favour. The last person you debated on the topic was quite lacking in intelligence, and certainly did not know how to justify his case. From what I've seen, he was helping you for the entire duration of his arguments, and was certainly making a brilliant f*cking mess out of the debate. The thing is, everything emits pollution to a certain degree, but pollution caused by animals in the natural environment is minimal. They are part of a well-functioning ecosystem that controls itself on its own. Certainly, animals in the natural environment can pollute water to a small degree, or others, but it is nothing compared to the amount of pollution and resource consommation caused by man-led grazing and the livestock industry. Once again, the world can't tolerate 8 billion full-fledged meat consumers; it would take 5 earths to sustain 8 billion average Americans. At one point, people have to realize that our planet can support 8 billion vegans but not 8 billion meat eaters. Contrary to some of the comments, the amount of deforestation caused by vegetable farming is much smaller than the amount caused by grazing and livestock farming. One acre of land can yield 50000 pounds of tomatoes, but only 250 pounds of beef. You can perhaps say that traditionally vegan peoples, such as the Chinese and Japanese, often tend to be shorter compared to their caucasian counterparts. However, this can have a genetic factor as well; humans adopt to their respective living conditions physically through a long period of time, and this is called "evolution." Their heights may also be related to diet, but it is important to keep in mind that historically, they had less food to eat than in many developed nations. Also, Japan has the longest life expectancy rate, partly due to their diet structure which is small on meat. Now, just saying, I'm pretty sure that not all vegans treat their diet like a religion on the internet. If you've come upon one then good for you. They don't represent all vegans. Again, if you can't find a precise example then I'm assuming that the example doesn't exist and can't be found. In other words, you need proof in order for other people to believe you. Without it, it would be like me saying that meat-eaters worship meat and treat vegans like subhumans. Saying that one vegan who treats veganism like a religion represents all vegans would be like saying coming upon one ignorant and disrespectful meat-eater like you means that all meat-eaters are like you. The majority of vegans stick to their own and simply mind their own business. On the other hand, non-vegans like you are really not minding your own business. Simply let vegans be who they are, without any of the disrespect. F*cking ypocrite.
Veganism is being blown WAY out of proportions.

Firstly, there are vegans on the internet that treat veganism as a religion. Though, I can't give an actual example, they do exist. In fact, I believe this is one of the reasons why a lot of people don't turn to veganism, its because of people on the internet. Vegans put a bad impression on themselves, thus, people decided to say no to veganism. I have nothing against veganism, you do you man, my issue is when you have vegans knocking on my hypothetical door (the internet) acting as a Jahovus witness and wants me to convert. And, yes, some vegans can be ignorant or uninformed because there will be vegans who will be those thing. Unfortunately, I have had the unfortunate displeasure of coming across one of those people on a YouTube comment section. They kept arguing other people in the comments and when I called him out on it, he made like a good 5 minute read, as a comment. I know I'm not going to detailed about it, but its one of those moments where you don't want to go back to it. Except I just went back to it, god damn it. Secondly, not to be rude, but have you heard of this thing called limits. It's very helpful when eating. Also, meat isn't the only reason for obesity and the such, sodas, candy, chips, and other foods contribute to that. Yet, not even a mention on your end. Third, if you can go to my page and look for my first vegan argument, you'll find that my opponent has all the information on animals being a danger to the environment right there. I would tolerate if the information would be used if me and my opponent were swapped, but nope, he just made a big cluster f*ck of a mess that is not being consistent. But, for real http://www.debate.org... here's the link. Go do the research because my opponent has done it for you.
The United States should support Israel

If you saw the history on how Israel was created you'd see how even though the middle eastern Jews and Arabs in peace before ww2 when the European Jews arrived they forced many Palestinians out of their land. You're trying to tell me that fighting for your freedom from unlawful occupation is wrong. They have also used barbaric tactics such as slaughtering Palestinian villages (not military targets) to get others to move away so they can claim the land. Also when you used the example of USA and Japan the reason that there are alot more deaths on the Japanese side is that alot of then are civilian compared to none on the Americans. The US and Israel have a history of doing terror bombing and occupation to get what they want (USA when they bombed German civilian cities and Israel for trying to occupy Lebanon). When you said that Israel restrains for using violence in retaliation they have and use the fact that Palestine cant support itself to control food imports and other life necessities. If Palestine have to recognize Israel should Israel also recognize them as an independent nation. Finally I'll leave you with one more point my friend, if Netanyahu realm wants peace negotiations then why does he still allow settlements in the west bank. Thanks for the debate.
The United States should support Israel

Well, if you actually do read about the conflicts you will see that Palestinian instigation was indeed the root of the conflicts. As to the fact of more Palestinian casualties, that does not mean anything. The Japanese casualties in WW@ were almost 3 million. The US casualties in the European and Pacific theaters combined totaled 420,000. Does this mean that the US was the aggressor? No, Japan started the conflict by bombing Pearl Harbor and reaped the consequences of attacking a nation far more powerful than they were, much similar to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. As to the missiles, it is nearly impossible to track them and they are small enough to not show up on radar. The fact that Israel restrains from retaliating with their own far superior missiles is more proof that they just want to be left alone. Israel actually embraces Arabs who live there peacefully, granting them citizenship and all the rights that a Jew would have. Yes, Netanyahu does disagree with their opinions, but rightfully so. That does not mean he wishes to oppress them, he just disagrees with them. You ask 'How can Netanyahu possibly be counted on to help progress negotiations?' Well this brings it right back full circle. He has perfectly good reason to be opinionated against the Palestinians right now. The fact that Palestinians don't even recognize Israel as a nation is a good indicator. So in conclusion, all of your argument attempt to pain Israel as aggressive, oppressive and war-mongering, while in reality they are only acting in self defense (which they are good at since they have endured centuries of persecution), when they have to military ability to easily annihilate the Palestinians. Maybe you should look at the behaviors of the Palestinians and ask them to change instead. Thanks for the debate.
The United States should support Israel

Good response. I'm still finding it hard how Israel isn't the aggressor in a lot of the conflicts. It confuses me how you can call Palestine the 'aggressor' even though when conflicts arise Israel complains how less than 100 Israelis are killed (primarily soldiers) when around 1800 Palestinians (primarily civilians) die in he same process. It also reflects very badly how Israel can get affected by 5 dollar rockets while they possess multi-million dollar ballistic missiles. On the part where you mentioned Mr. Netanyahu's claim, stated prior to the election that Palestine would never have a state as long as he is in power. Netanyahu during the election called on his supporters to counter the votes of Israeli Arabs (who are Israeli citizens) whom he considered as the enemy. How can Netanyahu possibly be counted on to help progress negotiations for which he clearly showed his opinion.
The United States should support Israel

Ok, good points. However, I have not yet found an instance that Israel has been wrong. I guess technically, you could see their bombing of 'UN Humanitarian Center' (which is a very loose term in itself) as wrong, but you have to understand why. In the recent invasion of Gaza, Hamas was well known to hide their artillery and rockets in public places like Mosques, schools and humanitarian centers. Israel actually went so far as to call the buildings 10 minutes before they bombed them so the occupants could have time to evacuate. And in all conflicts so far, the Palestinians have been the aggressors, not the Israelis. Israel only defends itself from attack. In the last election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on the one state solution. He pointed out the last time that they attempted it by returning land that Israel captured during the Six Day War. The result was Hamas moving their rockets into the returned land, and launching their rockets further into Israel. So please answer why the media, the UN, and in this country demand Israel amend their actions?
The United States should support Israel

You're right in saying that the middle east will have tension regardless but as the United States we should act as a mediator and listen to both sides because they are both wrong in some ways (Palestine with the rockets and Israel with the killing of civilians and occupation). Israel has also bombed UN humanitarian centers so to consider that Palestine is the only aggressor is absurd. There should be a cooperation from both sides to form a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live equally in peace. Even though this won't end tension in the middle east I would at least help.
The United States should support Israel

Yes, that's it! Give a free state to the people who desire to wipe the Jewish race from the face of the Earth! What a grand idea! But instead, how about forcing the Palestinians to be like normal people and not shoot rockets into civilian centers? And I am sorry, but tension will exist whether Israel is there or not. Take the Iraq-Iran war for example. Two Muslim, Shia sect nations killing hundreds of thousands of each other. And then the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The list goes on and on...
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

The essential element for a sustainable economy is private-property ownership. "Regulations" are merely permissions to pollute. They violate the Natural Law that says man cannot pollute his neighbor's property. Under a libertarian regime, ZERO pollution would be permitted without the consent of all affected property owners. This is the direction in which we should move. Unfortunately, all of the liberals you mention in your opening argument are for increasingly liberal pollution standards, by which one man may pollute another's property with government permission (regulation). This does not solve the problem, but only serves as a measure of control for the centralized state. An economy based on absolute property rights (i.e. capitalism) is the most sustainable, based on both an economic, and an environmental standpoint.
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

A few weeks ago, I posted a debate topic on whether or not America should have an environmentally sustainable economy. My opinion was called frindge, but now the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, endorses having an environmentally sustainable economy to combat Global Warming. Former Vice President Gore, Former Vice President Al Gore, Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta agree with President Clinton on this issue. America's economy must become sustainable, or we will find that we will deplete the world's natural resources and then our economy will really be in the tank. Here is the video of President Bill Clinton talking about creating a sustainable economy. [Bill Clinton Endorses Sustainable Economy http://www.crooksandliars.com...]
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

The monitoring authority would be the owners of property. If I own land, it is within my right to pollute it as much as I want. This makes no sense, of course, since I will be destroying its value, but it is my right. Just as it is the right of a man to mutilate his own body or destroy his own DVD collection. There are some levels of pollution I may accept. There are some levels of pollution I may even accept from my neighbors. There are other levels of pollution that I may require my neighbor to pay some form of consideration to me in order for me to accept. Any pollution that damages my property will damage me economically, and therefore, I would typically require commensurate compensation. In this type of legal regime, the one thing a person could NOT do is pollute another person's property without his consent. Thus, the most pernicious forms of pollution -- air and water -- would be essentially impermissible. After all, it is hard to confine air pollutants to a single property-owner's air, or to achieve uniform consent from all affected parties. Polluters of this nature would be liable for class-action legal suits. Elements of a sustainable economy are free trade, private property, and honest money. In every instance, the government intervenes to prevent this sustainable prosperity. They enact protectionism and phony "free trade" cartel deals; they abolish and regulate private property through eminent domain, taxation, and regulation; and they inflate the money supply for the benefit of the rich and politically connected at the expense of the poor. This model is NOT sustainable and will result in massive poverty if the path is not corrected. I invite liberals and progressives to rethink their positions and join me in the fight for liberty!
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

Hmmm, I guess I do subcribe to your view, as far as I believe in no pollution. However, I have always assumed that the eventual goal of liberalism was to eliminate pollution and create a completely sustainable economy, and I feel that many of my liberal friends, though maybe not politicians, believe in this eventual goal. I have spoken with Leon Panetta and he obviously believes in eliminating pollutants because it ruins ocean health: maybe this is why he left the Clinton administration. You made your point more clear in your last argument and I agree with you that pollution should be eliminated, especially when it can end up on one's private property. However, how would pollution be reduced if there was no monitoring entity? Who would monitor what is happening?