BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it is possible that god exists

There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they annihilated each other and created light. Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light. This tiny bit of matter left over was about 4.6% and contained atoms (protons and neutrons). All of life is made from a portion of this 4.6%. One theory is that the Big Bang was caused by the implosion and resulting explosion of a prior universe. Is it possible there is a teapot in orbit around Mars? Yes, we can't prove there isn't, but there is no reason to think so. Would this debate ever be solved into the right answer maybe, maybe not the time may come or may not there is no way to prove there is not a god and there is no way to prove there is a god or that god created the universe. How is anyone ever going to resolve this matter unless if god if he exists comes forward and proves it to all there's no way of knowing all of it could have been made up to make people believe and have something to worship. My opponent picked a topic for an easy win but i reckon i gave him a run for his money, I believe there is more evidence to prove the big bang created our universe prior to many other universes unless someone comes forward in order to prove there is a god we will never know . If you use your sense of wisdom you can quite easily gather that there is more evidence facing towards the big bang theory than to any other theory. There may be a god there may not everyone asks the same question 'is there a god' we will never know so if you think clearly and realise there is a lot of scientific evidence pointing towards the big bang and people believe only in god because they have nothing else to believe in Believe Big Bang Believe Con. Thank you for this debate.
it is possible that god exists

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible. I repeat in accordance with the bible!!! The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since. This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang. The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case. However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one. Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ... However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the 'why' questions than anyone else. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu... http://www.umich.edu... Thank you.
it is possible that god exists

This is my first debate on religion so either cut me some slack or let a noob on this topic come forth. (I wish izbo was still here then) C1: kalam Cosmological argument Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent) [1] There is a logic to this, if q is true then p is true. therefore p is true. Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space. Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally. And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang. [2] So what I am saying is how does everything come from nothing. C2: teneology: 1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. 2. Teleology exists. 3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists. "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [3] So the concept is something just doesn't pop up, something smart had to have done it. The example is a house. Moreover, as David Oderberg has argued, teleology is present not just in organic processes, but also in the inorganic. Processes such as the water cycle and the rock cycle are inherently teleological in nature. [3] [4] C3: laws of logic here are some arguments: I cannot be w and w at once. something cannot make itself So I cannot make myself, someone else has to. These arguments are from my 5th source. The laws of logic are absolute. The laws of logic are absolute even in another diminsion or universe. [5] The laws of logic do not rely on people as they are absolute, wether or not we exist. They are not related to physical properties my 5th source is where this is from. That is it for now. http://plato.stanford.edu... [1] http://winteryknight.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonzï¿½lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79 [4] https://school.carm.org... [5]
I am the user know as interrogator.

Since it is obvious I am the interrogator, not much will be said. Argument: My opponent says that he is the one and only, but fails to show why or how. He does state that he loves key lime pie. He stated this more than a month ago. I replied to this thread, telling him I also liked key lime pie. And he said thank you. This is even more proof to support my case. See the source if you don't believe me. (1)My opponent asks how I knew he had a "crush on that Canadian girl? " Obviously because he is me. Thank you for this debate. I believe it is clear for anyone and everyone to see that I am the user known as interrogator. Sources:(1). . http://www.debate.org...
I am the user know as interrogator.

Intro:Hello everyone. I would like to thank myself for acepting this wonderful debate.I will be referring to my other account as "my opponent." At any point my opponent wishes to forfeit, he may do so.Many people may be thinking, "Another funny/fake Koopin debate." Think what you will, but first let me ask you something. What is your favorite game, chess or checkers?I think that the best game is checkers.It is said that those who are smart love chess.Now back to the debate.Reasons for my case:Nonentity. Obviously this girl is pretty cute. Someone wrote an anonymous letter saying how cute she was. Koopin’s response was: “WHOEVER THAT WAS, STAY AWAY FROM MY GAL! THE CANADIAN IS IN LOVE WITH ME! NOT YOU!” (1) It is clear that Koopin thinks she is cute too. Now, I would ask the audience to look at this post, from interrogator: “Nonentity. Hello there my little African flower.” (2) Aha! So now we see that both Koopin and myself (my opponent) thinks that Nonentity is cute. This shows that maybe, Koopin is just trying to complement nonentity from two different accounts. (Smooth Koopin is smooth.) Now lets move on. My slip up: I made a thread titled “Interrogator needs a new name.” I made a slip up when I responded to Cody on my Koopin account. I said: “Good idea cody bear. Smart name. I will change it.” (3) This is even more evidence, to show that I am interrogator. Our similar likes: Interrogator has stated that he likes KFC. I have said that I like KFC in one of his forums, and he agreed with me. I then stated that most other brands of chicken are not good, he agreed with me again. (4) He agrees with me on the death penalty, Drug Legalization, Euthanasia, and much more. (5) I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I will stop here because I don’t want to go into deeper details when they are not needed. Alone non of these things prove my case, but if you at the all of the evidence you can see it is very likely. Sources: (1). http://www.debate.org... (post 2) (2). http://www.debate.org... (post 7) (3). http://www.debate.org... (post 9) (4). http://www.debate.org... (page 2,3)(5). http://www.debate.org...
I am the user know as interrogator.

Hello ladies and genlemen. I am the Interrogator. Very outspoken, provocative, intense, and controversial in every way. I came here not looking for answers. But to share with you my experiences in life, and delight you with my wit as well as my charm. My perspective may baffle your mind at first, and it may seem unreal. Through time as your conscious minds begin to broaden your awareness, you will have realized that you have been touched by the hands of enlightenment. The truth as strange as it may be, will come to light for all to see. Please do not be confused. This fried chicken guy, named Koopin, is not me. He will NEVER be me. But he is a worthy opponent. And I shall win this debate at every cost.
should adalessons be able to make thier own surgical choices

To start out I'm going to provide a definition to clarify for people who may not know the more technical and obscure term in the title. Adalessons: an alien species that landed on earth a few years ago and since have gained human rights under a UN policy called Rights for Peaceful Extraterrestrials. [1] So if the UN has given them rights, so should the US. Source: [1] Jonbonbon's Encyclopedia of Foregin Policy
Colonialsim has been good for mankind

Preface-Colonialism is a vast and general topic to argue about as there has been both good instances of this and bad. I"m most in favor of colonialism though, but it"s fun to argue for the opposite sometimes. Now, during the midst of the renaissance period, the promotion and eagerness to explore and discover new lands grew drastically as many European leaders hoped to expand their territory and find new ways to build their economy. This led to many explorers such as Christopher Columbus and Bartolomeus Dias to discover new routes and pieces of lands. During their journeys, they not only found new land, but new people. These Natives had lived on these lands for thousands of years, undisturbed, until they were discovered by the Europeans. After the discovery of a new continent by Christopher Columbus, the Spanish authorities allowed the colonization and exploration of these new lands. This allowed for the rise of one of the first Spanish Conquistadors, Hernan Cort"s . He, along with a couple hundred European troops(and Native Allies) managed to topple the entire Aztec Empire through both disease and advanced technology. Soon, the entire empire was razed to the ground, killing hundreds of thousands along the way. In doing so, he had set off a chain reaction, which led to the destruction of hundreds of smaller tribes as other Europeans began to travel to what was now known as "The New World". Many of the captured Natives from the crumbling Aztec Empire were forced into enslavement and hard labor, however, so many were dying off from disease, the Spanish looked towards a new front, one that would not only change the course of Spanish History, but primarily US history, Africa. During the beginning of the Enlightenment period, the brutality of the Spanish began to be questioned by the many religious leaders and Jesuits who were either at mainland Europe or living in the New World. Despite some Jesuits opposing the enslavement of the Natives, many still attempted to convert the Natives to Christianity, claiming their god was inferior and a "false" god. This form of colonization was seen by the rest of the world, creating a ripple effect as new European settlers from both Englandand France had began to set up colonies along the Northern coasts of America. This ultimately led to the eradication of hundreds of Native tribes and the destruction of an entire culture.
Kingdom Hearts 1 is better than Kingdom Hearts 2

After surfing the web over the past few years I've noticed how all of the Kingdom Hearts fans prefer Kingdom Hearts 2 over the original. I am very curious as to why because of how much better the first was than the second. There was much more passion and originality put into KH1 with the game play, the bonus nuggets of fun (i.e. extra bosses, better Coliseum tournaments, trinities, Dalmatians, etc) and most important the storyline. In the first game THEY ACTUALLY HAD A REASON FOR DISNEY because Kingdom hearts could be opened by the six princesses of heart tying Sora's search for Riku & Kairi with Disney worlds for an ultimate unique experience. Also the camera was closer to Sora making it more like you were him, and taking away his peripheral vision which made sure you did more exploring in the more in depth worlds. It just seems to me that Kingdom Hearts 2 had a lot of unnecessary things added to it like the new storyline which just made things bogus and confusing which is taking away what made Kingdom Hearts 1 so great. They added the Drive feature which allows you to wield two Keyblades of your choice at once for a determined period of time. Which is awesome at first but after you realize that it makes the game a little too easy considering how there is added reaction commands, and team moves called limits. The new Sora (with an almost top down camera angle) moves much faster throughout the worlds and there is barley any exploring to be done. The boss fights in KH2 were simple, boring and repetitive and made it less climatic to fight them because of the fact that you could finish the world in twenty minutes if that. Not saying that Kingdom Hearts 2 was awful because it is one of my favorite games, but it will never come close to the first.
Kingdom Hearts 1 is better than Kingdom Hearts 2

I notice that you avoided most of the things things I stated in round 3 because you didn't say much (maybe because you were busy or you know that its the truth). The bosses have gotten lame and easy. The first game was harder and more lengthly therefore making it longer to beat. In general, the first game had a feeling to it what made it a classic; like the feeling you get on Christmas Morning. The second one I agree does have more to offer with the fighting but it will never match the first one with how the dialogue, the emotional music and the unique gaming style combined together to make a beautiful gaming experience. In the second there is a slight bit of that feeling near the end of the game, but it doesn't give full blast of the feeling like the first. Its like comparing "Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" to "Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess", twilight princess had better graphics and took a longer time to beat, but Ocarina had a better story and it is a classic. Your case about Dumbo was a very lame attempt at a comeback. Here are some Disney worlds (that I should have stated before to avoid this topic) that could have made kingdom hearts 2 more interesting: Toy Story, Robin hood, the black cauldron, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, Dinosaurs, Atlantis, The emperors new groove, Lilo and Stitch, Treasure planet, snow white and the seven dwarfs, sleeping beauty, The sword and the stone, the jungle book, the rescuers, a bugs life, the incredibles, monsters inc... the list goes on and on. I disagree that it would be stupid to drop Disney altogether with the second games' storyline. They could have just as easily made up other worlds like twilight town and traverse town just like they did with the organization. You still can't deny that there is a lot of random filler crap in the second game. I know I can't convince you to like the 1st better because the second one is new (maybe because you played the old one too much and a new adventure seems glorious) or it just might be your preference but Kingdom Hearts 1 is still the best game to ever be released to the gaming world.
Kingdom Hearts 1 is better than Kingdom Hearts 2

It seems my opponent was left speechless by my withering arguments. .. .or he just was busy this week. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not post any new arguments this round. just extending what I already gave. Although I would appreciate it if my opponent could communicate in the comment section somewhere what the problem was, so that I know he is still active on this sight enough to finish at least one more round of this debate.
Asia is more livable than N/S America

Pro, while I appreciate that you put more thought into this argument, it's not clear where Pro is getting his data. My source showcases the top 25 countries, and it only includes 3 Asian nations. But suppose that there were 5 Asian nations in the top 20 - even then, Canada and the US rank higher, as I've shown, and at least 2 Asian nations are in the bottom 25. This means that the average trends higher for the Americas. Pro can assert all he wants that Trump is suddenly reducing that livability, but he provides no evidence to support these claims. He also doesn't support his claims regarding China (which may be overblown, given the rapidly aging population and a substantially smaller young population), but this is a red herring - even if they do have a higher GDP, that doesn't mean that China is more livable or even that it will become more livable. China has the world's deadliest pollution [https://www.nytimes.com...], and serious population size issues that don't exist in the U.S.[http://maps.unomaha.edu...] But realistically, we should understand that every continent has a broad variety of countries that are stratified across the livability spectrum. Some have more success than others, but Asia in particular, a continent with the widest variety of countries, this success seems all the more stratified. The Americas certainly have their problem countries as well, but unless one of us somehow calculates the average livability across all of those countries, there is no way to define livability for the continent as a whole. Pointing to individual examples is only going to take us so far. The problem with that is that it's Pro's burden to prove the resolution true. It's not my burden to show that the Americas are more livable, only that Asia is not necessarily more livable than the Americas. I think I've shown that with my evidence, but even if you're not buying that, there's enough evidence here to at least throw Pro's case into uncertainty. He's provided nothing but assertions and numbers without sources, and that's not enough to prove his point. That's enough to vote Con. P.S.: Sure, though it'll have to be another debate.
Asia is more livable than N/S America

According to the "human development index" , out of the top twenty countries , 5 are from Asia , 11 are from Europe , 2 are from Australia and 2 are from N/S America . Now due to Mr.Trump's reforms , people are preferring Australia one USA . China is more likely to overtake USA on economy by 2030 . If we see in terms of economical growth , the GDP growth rate of USA is about 2% , China's gdp growth rate is 7.6% whereas India's GDP is 7.5% . P.S:- Let's debate politics in the next round
Asia is more livable than N/S America

Thanks to my opponent for challenging me to this debate. As he has left the task of defining the essential term - livable - to me, I will do so. Livable: "suitable for living in, on, or with" https://www.merriam-webster.com... That's very general, so allow me to specify. Livability should be based in the ability of human beings to live in a given region and prosper. Towards that end, the United Nations developed a means of tracking this form of human progress, and it's called the Human Development Index. They use three criteria to define this: "having a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, and having a good standard of living." Please note that none of these include having a large population size - more people living in an area doesn't tell you if that area is livable, only that people can live in cramped spaces. A person is not better off being crammed into an elevator with 10 other people than they are being one of 3 in a wide open room. Now, the beauty of having this system in place is that there are actually ways of tracking what makes a livable country, quantifying those traits, and comparing them between nations. It makes my job rather easy, as 24/7 Wall St. did exactly that. So, let's look at how it compared countries within the two continents we're discussing. http://247wallst.com... Japan makes #20, Hong Kong at #12, Singapore at #11 as of 2015. Not too shabby. However, Canada sits at #9, and the U.S. at #8. That already sets the Americas higher than Asian countries, but if you also compare those on the bottom 25 list, it becomes more stark. Djibouti is #21 and Afghanistan is #18. No countries from North or South America make this list. This data makes it pretty clear that, when it comes to real statistics regarding livability, the Americas dominate Asia.
there are so many things wrong with roblox

2 more things wrong with roblox Roblox is not kid friendly Before yall say its the players fault I would like to say that my statement is true Games that are not kid friendly "da clubz" Sex place teen sex sex games sex hacks Roblox allows Naked dressing Bad models And nothing has been done to stop it Roblox basically is the worst MMO I have nothing to refute
there are so many things wrong with roblox

When in the world that I said minecraft is better because all I just say is that people try compare it. And you basically show the cons of minecraft and this debate is about roblox. You were to debate why roblox is good with no problems. If you want to go off topic about this debate it will effect you later on. Certainly I think minecraft is better but I am not talking about it. Like I said you can do those things to get full access you need BC for many things. It is hackable that its not as hackable as roblox. Atleast I dont go and see hacks everyday on minecraft as much as roblox. And just because the game is cheap does not mean its awsome. For example superman 64 is 4.53 and its whack and I am not saying the higher the price the better the game but you went to th exstenction and kept talking about minecraft. I did say it makes people compare em. Your the one who brung it up. Just for you to be aware of it