BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
inferring God's existence is reasonable

Alright Pro, I didn't see your miracle point so sorry about that. Was it this? "what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them. ", yeah this kinda confused me. I didn't know what you were trying to say. Could you explain it to me? But to be honest, in this response you just ignored most of my debate. How god isn't real, because if he was he would make sure everyone knows he is still there, with the growing number of atheist wouldn't you think he would want everyone to know he is still alive, then let everyone to forget about him? Also the large number of different gods, like I said they aren't other perceptions of the Christian gods, because there is different afterlives and different morale. So if there really is one god, why do all these other gods exist? Pretty sure I wouldn't like to be forgotten about and/or humans worshiping a other god. But guess what, he didn't do anything to stop this, weird god right? He is either fake, or the laziest god in the world. Also like I said, religion is making people dumb, instead of figuring out how the world is made you just rely on religion for explanation. Also I don't think it makes more sense that the universe came from a god you can't prove is real, there is a reason for science. We are trying to figure out how the universe was made, and religion is getting in the way by making random explanations that are false and have no evidence. Also the NDE theory Susan made is silly? That is silly? Sorry, but it's hard to be civil when you believe in the explanation of a religion, and that religion's explanation about NDE can not be explained by evidence. Susan's theory can be explained by evidence, it's backed up. Your religion's theory is a random explanation that is backed up by nothing. I think your religion's explanation is more silly than Susan's theory. Actually if you read Susan's theory it does explain the commonality. I would show you the example, but it would be too long. It's pretty much the entire theory.
same sex marriage

I happily accept Pro's argument. I look forward to a fun and loving debate, and I do hope to perhaps change the minds of both Pro and voters as I have a pretty strong opinion on this particular topic. 1.) I am going to note the things that Pro agrees to for my own sake in every response, so that I nor the voters might forget. - Pro admits that gays and lesbians do not reproduce. - Pro says that gays and lesbians can "keep the population going" - Pro admits that he is for adultery by saying a friend could procreate with someone else's spouse. 2.) I believe we should both define marriage and become familiar with the reason why such a contract between two people should even exist to begin with. Marriage should exist so that two people can come together and vow to each other to not only be there for one another forever, but also to raise offspring in such a way that would benefit society through increasing population of that society. The reason of procreation is what gave rise to the reason of the entire institution of marriage in the first place which is to regulate from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities based upon pro creation.A279; I'd therefore like to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who, in principle, procreate and together benefit society through sharing obligations of rearing children and providing needed support for the entire family. Through this definition, gays and lesbians should not be able to be married because as pro stated they cannot procreate, in principle, and therefore defy the definition of marriage. Pro says they can keep the population going but that is not true as if everyone were completely gay or lesbian, population would eventually diminish. Pro admits to agreeing with adultery. This is significant because adultery is even outside the legal terms of a marriage. A marriage that involves more than two people is polygamy and this obviously shouldn't happen for significant reasons. I will list later if needed. Furthermore this is still outside the definition of marriage because it is between two people who can procreate and not more. Once again thanks for the argument. I would now like your response.
same sex marriage

I agree that if gays and lesbians get married they cant technically reproduce, but they can always adopt a kid or two to keep the population going and just because they are gay or lesbian doesn't mean the kids will be. its not just that, but there are also bi-sexual, so, a bi-Sexual person could always marry a girl, but have a guy friend get her pregnant, so that her and her wife can be happy together and that way it keeps the human population going.
same sex marriage

OK, first off incest has nothing to do with this topic, and neither does marrying your pet. its actually kind of rude to act like gay marriage and incest are the same thing, THEIR NOT, gay marriage is two guys wanting to be happy together, incest is 2 family members falling in love, NOT by any means the same thing. saying they are the same is like saying weed is the same as candy. its offensive. and last I checked, there was a thing called ADOPTION, or they can find a couple or teen that got pregnant but did not want the baby. this is why I think there is something wrong with society, gay marriage is perfectly normal. but we totally forgot about the other subject, lesbian marriage, lesbian marriages are amazing, they can get pregnant. If you want the people to be happy than accept gay and lesbian marriages, there completely natural, and its not like the whole world is either lesbian or gay. with out lesbians and gays the world would be overly populated. so the society should be thanking gays and lesbians.
same sex marriage

Well I'll attempt to show you what is wrong with it. If we allow gays to be married, we degrade what marriage was meant for and therefore gives rise to opportunities of people who want to marry another person in their own family, incest, and even people who might want to marry their own pets. This would be harmful in various ways. Furthermore, gay marriage in itself is pointless due to the fact that, as stated before, marriage is to be used as an agreement between man and woman to share certain responsibilities for both each other and the children they procreate (which in turn benefits society). Homosexual marriage validates and promotes homosexual lifestyle. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality. You also stated "LET THE PEOPLE BE HAPPY" but we do not create laws to make people happy. We create laws to do what is right. Quite simply, a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage since they cannot, in principle, create any kids which is the point of a relationship to begin with. Male got with female so that they could reproduce and further populate the earth. It is why we were created male and female to begin with. I look forward to your reply!
same sex marriage

OK I would like to state, that I am no expert on laws, but being bi-sexual my self, I would love to marry a girl. I see nothing wrong with a girl/boy wanting to marry a girl/boy. I was walking down the street one day and saw a cute gay couple holding hands as they walked past me. I wanna be able to see that everywhere, not just where I am from, cause where I am from same sex marriage is perfectly legal, I have lots of gay/lesbian friends. I could go on for hours about this but truthfully I think its a dumb thing to argue about. I say " LET THE PEOPLE BE HAPPY" let them marry who ever they want. if a girl wants a girl, let her be with the girl, if a boy wants to be with a boy, let him be with the boy. Its the 21st century this generation(my generation) is supposed to help change the way things are in the society and make it better for the generations to come.
Historic place names should not be changed to appease the Jews.

If it makes some Jews happy, and nobody else minds, then why not? It's not like they're forcing anyone to change place names. They're just bringing up things they think are issues, and trying to get them changed. They're not trying to force anyone to change them. So why not? Let's now turn to refuting your examples. Let's start with Carleton pond. This name was first officially used around 1920, which doesn't make it very historical. It's been knows as Carleton pond and spring pond as well for most of that time, anyway. Also, there was a town vote about it. It was changed to make the town happy, not just a group of angry Jews. Matajudios will also be put up to vote soon, so if it is changed it will be a decision of the town. If your still concerned about the historical value, it is thought the original name was not Castrillo Matajudios, but rather Castrillo Motajudios, Hill of the Jews. I have yet to hear word of complaints about the name of the financial centre of London, Old Jewry Road. In fact I would think many Jews would be flattered.
Historic place names should not be changed to appease the Jews.

The small town of Castrillo Matajudios in Spain has had its name since 1492 but now, 522 years later, meddling Jews from Israel and other parts of the world are demanding the town change its name just because "matajudios" happens to mean "kill the Jews" in Spanish. [1,2] While it is true that there used to be a sizeable Jewish population in Spain, most of them were killed, exiled or converted during the Spanish Inquisition, so these days only 0.03% of the Spanish population are Jewish, and none of them live in Castrillo Matajudios. [3] Therefore, the town's name is unlikely to cause widespread offense in Spain but, nevertheless, Jews from abroad have putting pressure on the mayor to do their bidding and because he is desperate not to be labelled as an "anti-Semite" he was obliged to put the issue of the town's name to a vote. [4] Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in the United States, the Jews forced the residents of Mont Vernon to vote to change the name of a nearby body of water called Jew's Pond because the verb "Jew" now means to cheat and "Jew down" means to aggressively bargain on a price [5,6}. Similarly, "Jewry" has now become a byword for unscrupulous business practices [7] and there are roads in The City of London called Old Jewry and Jewry Street [8,9]. I would hate to see the Jews put pressure on the Lord Mayor of London to change these ancient street names as well. Following the Second World War, very generously, but with hindsight, somewhat recklessly, the British gave the Jews a homeland in Palestine [10]. If the Jews want to meddle with ancient place names they should do so there, but nowhere else. Certainly, we must not cave in to their demands if they do. Thank you. [1] http://politica.elpais.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [4] http://www.castrillomatajudios.es... [5] http://www.theatlantic.com... [6] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [7] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [8] https://maps.google.co.uk... [9] https://maps.google.co.uk... [10] http://unispal.un.org...
Gay Marriage

First: Gay Marriage, lesbian Marriage, and same sex Marriage are all illegal. Hard to prove crimes are not legal crimes. Second: gay or lesbian are accusation that have both civil and criminal implication. Third: Separation of church and state is an unlabeled test held in the United States Constitution a legal test as it is not a religious test given to hold political office. A public religious test of intelligence publicly describes as law attaching themselves to long standing likelihood"s with plagiarism. Fourth: law is nothing more than a public test to support, or decline deception guiding impartial separation. As a winner and looser in court can only ever both agree that a separation as occur as a Unite State to them both no matter the outcome of verdict discovered by jury or trial. This United States can then be set as standard between both counsel and judge in all case take before the United States judicial Constitutional separation. Fifth: Marriage, Binivir, UnosMulier, VirMulier and Civil Union are all a constitutional separation to support the general welfare on well-defined state a witness can see clear and legal as a unique United State. Without exposure to unneeded consummations Sixth: The Constitutional common defense to the General welfare describes marriage as a single United State that can be shared in its general witnessing to describe a union between a woman and man who are a citizen of any governing state or nation. Who then by their own entrance alone, by fact create, starting, nurture, and introducing a new never seen citizen into a State, or Nation without need of crossing any state or international border. With no any outside assistance to reposition a living being.
basketball is more challenging then tennis

Well, if you're on a team of players, such as a program like how it is in Champlin Park, there is a team, and if you decide to lose on purpose, you actually can end up losing the match for your team. And in tennis you constantly make quick decisions as well, such as where to hit it, how hard you hit it, how high, or backspin or front spin. If you end up messing up, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage as well since you possibly be down in points.
basketball is more challenging then tennis

But that's where you're incorrect. You do indeed have to run, because if the ball lands short or where you aren't, you have to run to go get the ball and have a chance to win the point. And, as you stated that you don't have to jump, you actually do, if the ball is to high to reach from where you are standing. For example if you're at the net and the player hits it above your head, you would have to jump to try to get the ball, or run back quickly to hit the ball. Or if you're in the back and your opponent hits it high and it bounces above you, you would have to jump or run back near the fence to get the ball and hit it back.
Interacial relationship

This is a subject i think needs to be raised stereotypes ruin this world , my arguement is going to just state simple opinion and rights. Why do people have such a problem with interacial relationships? I really dont see the problem and idont see why people even need to raise the subject? white men protest against other white women bieng "projected" by black men or "manipulated" by them interacial is beautiful. I dont see the need to judge someones opinion about falling for someone with a different race Noone can say"stick to your own" dosent the world teach equality noone was put into this world to be segregrated by each other If you are so determined for people to stick to thier own , why do people have such a problem with homosexuality Which i would state is very different ! I can honestly say a person is a person and noone can determine who anybody else falls for and so people should establish this fact.
Interacial relationship

Ok first off before everyone flames down my account for heinously going con on interracial relationship I did this because it looked like it was gonna out of time and I think that would be a waste because this could be a good debate. So don't flame me. Also I'm black and am totally into Interracial relationships. Just didn't want a good topic to go to waste. Ok lets begin. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some place around the world the tradition is that interracial is bad and in some place not allowed. For example in many Arab countries ,laws and customs continue to exist which revoke the civil rights of women who marry men not native to the woman's country of birth, or to men who are non-Muslim in particular. Women who follow through on this choice run a high risk of being subjected to honor killings by male family members. So as one can see interracial relationships in some place is dangers and can lead to death. Furthermore in the country where I live the United States interracial marriage was so socially unacceptable it was illegal up until 1967 in a Supreme Court ruling. Also in Britain interracial marriage is not common in fact only a mere 2% are interracial. Why are interracial marriages so low? Because interracial relationships are looked down upon. Personally I don't know why I guess its just one of thoughs things kind of like why do Christians and Atheists have to hate each other and why do black people have to like watermelon and fried chicken. (Personally I dislike the latter.) Society while claiming to accept interracial relationships still looks down on them. For example I am a black male but my peers and classmates find it odd that I prefer white women as opposed to black women. If it were a perfect world I'm sure interracial relationships would be fine but its not so they are looked down upon. That is why i urge Con in this debate.
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

Round one acceptanceCite: being able to use Wikipedia as a source and put it in MLA citation, and be considered acceptable and credible on an essay or paperFeatured articles: http://en.wikipedia.org..."At the very least": The bottom line. This means that the requirement can be loosened to good articles, or all articles that aren't "incomplete" and "need help", or even all the articles.Burden of proof is shared.
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

Section 1: This is both true, and false. It takes the author a long time to notice it, and when they do fix it, there is an extremely high chance that it will change again. Section 2: I'd like to apologize to my opponent for the vampire, and to inform him that he brought up the topic, and that he skipped 2. I'd also like to bring up the fact that my opponent neglected to show any viable proof of the bot of which he speaks. Section 3: Again my opponent says that we can use resources as the author which he should know we can't because that is what they are, resources. Beside, I'm retty sure that the majority of the articles on wikipedia were written by one person. Section 4: I'd like to start this section by stating that my opponent has not won yet. I will now say that I agree with my opponent on his last section. Equality is bad when it comes to using resources. I would now like to ask the voters to vote honestly, and thank both the readers and my opponent for their time.
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

1. If people fixed their problems then Wikipedia is trustworthy.3. Okay, don't get off topic. We're not debating about vampires, just Wikipedia.As for posting the opinion and everyone trusting Wikipedia, the bot will revert your edit almost instantly, so you can't get your non-sources biased edit in.4. It is written by a ton of people, so we could just post The Community or People of The Community. We could also identify Wikipedia articles by the first 3 sources listed on them.5. Of course they have the same concept. Again, different equals bad, as pointed out in the previous rounds.I win, vote me.Oh, and Airmax. Be a dear and please fix that imaginary round 2 and make it not imaginary.
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

Section 1: My opponent hath stated that there are AIs that can fix the problems, but how come it never happens? Where is the proof that the writer of the document, do not, themselves, fix the problem after they've found it. Section 2: I would like to apologize to my opponent if I upset him. I was just using him to help my cause, but if he put that by mistake, I'd like to say that I understand. Everyone makes mistakes. Section 3: For this I'd like to state that vampires do exist, but they are not blood sucking monsters. They are people who are allergic to the sun. They don't burn up and turn into ash though, they just get a nasty sun burn the minute they step out into it. For the record, Dracula was real, and he had this problem. The rumor of vampires being blood suckers is because of Vlad the Impaler, a feared warlord, was rumored to drink his enemies' blood. He does have something to do with vampires, because many artists portrait him as such. My opponent has also, in a way, stated that Wikipedia is the home to fictional fanatics who really want to prove that their favorite fictional creatures exist. If he is not, I'd like to state it anyway. Wikipedia is one of the few places where you can post your opinion and almost everybody will believe you. Section 4: In this section, he said nothing about what his title said. He just said that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and that it can have special annotations and citations, but that's not telling you who wrote the article, that's just telling the reader where the author got their information. Section 5: My opponent does not seem to understand what it means for things to be similar. I was stating that the documents have the same concept (more or less), or at least (sometimes) the same exact answer, but with different wording. http://www.google.com...
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

1. Easily hacked any anyone can change anythingYet none of these changes last long, especially not on featured articles. 2. Yes, I am stated the other definition of "unbiased". No need to get all semantic on me.3. Use more than one source...Of course. They converse about controvercies especially within subjective topics, especially supernatural beings such as the vampire (see http://en.wikipedia.org...). Do vampires really exist? There are humongous portions of the Vampire article merely dedicated to the belief, not to mention the films and games based off of vampires. Wikipedia has many sources to back up sources, even if one source is wrong, 5 right sources are right behind proving it incorrect. The Vampire article mentioned has 166 sources, 65 more sources than the 7 trade center. We see here, even with the featured articles, there are some that are far more amazing than others, depending on the topic. Regardless, each of them have humongous amount of sources supporting and checking to make sure that the article is as professional and non-biased as possible. 4. Who posted the document?These Wikipedia articles can have special annotations or citations. Perhaps a mere "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" would suffice.5. No diversity on wikipediaMy opponent offers nothing to support that "the modified information can go months before its noticed". As for "answers that are similar to each other", I'm not sure what this means. This only supports that wikipedia is trustworthy. Imagine I asked a computer to calculate 1+1 one hundred times, and each time it came up with a ridiculous negative number or 23 digit number, and never came up with the answer "2". If all those one hundred times the computer came up with "2", only then would it be trustworthy. Similar answers are good and credible.