BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

" It could be the case, for example, that atheism causes materialism - the atheist, after all, has nothing else to believe in, so why not focus on worldly possessions? Could not the poor schmuck, upon discovering that religion really did not hold the answers for him, then focus on securing his worldly comfort instead of the afterlife?" The Ten Commandments are an example of materialism caused issues in one's faith, and potently could have led to atheism. The fact that the Ten Commandments say "thou shall not covet…" shows that there where pre-existing issues regarding materialism. Materialistic things would cause one to stray from ones faith in order to get what they wanted. If "god will provide", then if one was truly faithful, eventually they would be given (the opportunity to achieve) what they wanted. Impatiens or ignorant would led people to forceful try to obtain materialistic things rather than wait for their faith to provide. Some people will do whatever they want, regardless of other people's judgment. Because society used to be religious based, people had somewhat of an obligation to obtain certain moral, or they would be shunned by their community. Once another faith that allowed someone to do whatever it was that they were forbidden to do in their other faith, they would convert, or become atheist. If you lived in a community that forced you to be a certain faith that caused you to be unhappy and miserable, once it became socially acceptable to become atheist, would you? "Science describes facts about the world around us. These facts are not materialist in any way - i.e. there is no inherent VALUE to a description of phenomena. If science fails to produce any evidence that a god exists, atheism could easily develop completely independent of any considerations of value." The reason people (In the scientific community) try to prove/disprove, with scientific evidence weather a god exist, is for reassurance. Once a conclusion that was accepted was made, the other group would try to use the new knowledge to get the others to convert (to a religious or to atheism). People need reassurance, because they either waste their whole life, or all of eternity (the afterlife). Conclusion: Because society was (is in some places) religious based, atheism developed to adjust to social change, a society that could focus on material things ( a materialistic community).
God is immoral and evil.

All powerful / All knowingYes, if God exists he is all powerful and all knowing by definition.All goodGod is defined as omnibenevolent, and is all good by definition. The idea of "God" being "evil" is logically contradictory. God by definition is "all good", so trying to argue that an "all good" entity is "evil" is absolute logical suicide. Lets say "Plash" is defined as an "all red" house. Pro's argument is analogous to trying to argue that Plash is blue. If it is all red, by definition, it cannot be blue. Hence, Plash being blue is logically impossible. Similarly, if a being is all good, by definition, the being can not be evil. Hence, the idea of God being evil is incoherent.Conclusion The resolution is logically contradictory. Thus, due to the Law of Non-Contradiction; the resolution has be negated.
God is immoral and evil.

Fo the sake of this argument, we will be talking specifically about the Christian God, spoken about in the Bible. I will be arguing that God is evil and immoral, and Con will be arguing that God is good and moraly just. I thank Con in advance for taking on this debate, and hope we both enjoy it.All powerful / All knowingI put forward that the Christian God is said to be both all knowing and all powerful. This is shown in the following... All knowing; Job 37:16 - Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge. Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. All powerful;Matthew 19:26 - But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.So from the Bible, we can establish that God is all knowing, nd that God is all powerful.Gods ChoiceI put it to Con that when God was creating the world, he had many options. For example, he could have created a world in which the sky was 14 shades of green with yellow polkadots. He could have created a world that was cube shaped. he could have created a universe that played jazz music faintly in the background, all day... just because. He is all powerful, and he created, so there is no reason to asume otherwise.Now, we look at the world in which he chose to create. He chose to create a world with hunger, rape, slavery, violence, lies and evil. He could have picked any other scenario while creating, but he didnt. He could have created a world with no evil do-ers at all.Now, people argue that he had to allow evil to grant us free-will, but let me bring Cons attention to a few points before the free-will argument comes up. He created a world in which the laws of physics are enforced. Man cannot chose to disobey them. This is a restriction on free will, but he did it anyway. So clearly he doesn't mind restrictions on free will.. I also would like to point out that since he knew everything, he knew everyones choices when he was creating the world, and so what you have owuld not be free-will, but simply just the illusion of free will while this predetermined choice is acted out. Also, taking away evil doesn't restrict free-will, it just changes the options avialable to people. So to sum up, he chose to create a world filled with evil.Evil God.Once you accept the first part, its very easy to see how we can prove tht God is evil. He knew that by creating this specific world, things like WW2 would happen,would keep slaves and that discrimination would still be running riot 2000 years after jesus.A god that chooses all the suffering of the wolrd, over creating a world withought suffering, to me, is evil and immoral.
The United Nations should intervene militarily in Syria

I am grateful for your chance to allow me to debate with you, i felt that it was necessary to get that squared away primarily so with that lets begin. (Sorry in advance for my copy and paste) Though my flatline response is that your argument is pretty good much better than those i usually see on here, but being a warhawk is no way to fly. another war is most surely the way not too go, and can only lead us to further economic instability and the loss of life from a generation that is suffering through perpetual war. Author this argument, know that our world has dramatically changed in the last 2 decades, we have gone from artificially manufacturing wars (by setting both sides of the stage in supplying arms to enemy and allied forces, while previous setting the international scenes to lead us to war) to creating wars that can never end (enter terrorism). Whether or not you believe in these claims is up to you but know this, our country is increasingly year by year turning into a nation parallel to nazi germany, man like Hitler pose a greater threat to freedom than any individual can imagine. Supporting the imperial role of the current United States is reinvigorating the ideas of Adolf Hitler and others that sought for a world power that subordinated the rest of people on this planet. Dont let anyone fool you, this is all very real, more than you or I would ever care to know.
The United Nations should intervene militarily in Syria

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate, as it is my first, and I wish you good luck. I believe that the United Nations (UN) should intervene militarily in Syria for various reasons. Primarily in that regardless of the knowledge that Assad has agreed to and I believe completed the handover of chemical weapons. Assad has used these chemical weapons, which is a breach of "Chemical Weapons Convention" (CWC) which came into force in 1997. Worse than this, Assad used these chemical weapons on civilians of his own nation, in the war against them. I would state that this is a crime against humanity, and in itself, means that Assad cannot remain in power. Secondly, the use of chemical weapons provokes an even more worrying issue. I feel that the use of chemical weapons is an often understated and underestimated. I believe that any use of chemical or biological weapons should be met with serious repercussions, more than simply demanding the return of such weapons. I would like to point out, that the bombs dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2, killed and wounded an absolute maximum of 25,000. The Black Death killed an estimate of 75-200 million people. I believe that this represents the incredible potential for destruction from chemical and biological weapons, colossally more so than nuclear. It is worrying to think what the development of such weapons could create, and reminds us of the reason they were banned in the first place in the initial Geneva Protocol. Due to this destructive power, I feel that the use of chemical weapons should be punished far more than we have done thus far. Finally, in a rather more idealistic point, I would like to think that any attempt to go against the majority consensus of the world, which I think doubtlessly considers the war upon Syria by Assad to be wrong, should be punished. Even if I knew that military intervention in Syria in any form would cause only destruction within it, and cause more deaths than it saved, I would still promote it. This is because it must be symbolic, that any action against the majority consensus will not go unpunished, for otherwise leaders in other Arab countries or anywhere around the world will feel there are no repercussions for such actions. I believe that in the long term, a better world would be one where there is such strong knowledge that a country that attempted to inflict death and destruction upon anyone would know that doing so would cause thousands of times such upon themselves, and would be warded from doing so as a result. In this world I believe there would be no destruction, simply from the unspoken threat of the worlds opinion. Thank you for considering my argument, and again good luck.
Gay marriage is not a civil right

I accept, based on the following assumptions: Gay marriage is meant as synonymous to Same Sex Marriage.Civil Right is a right that is given to one by being a member of a community. This constitutes a policy / moral debate, not a factual one. The is does not mean this debate is on the disagreement of the fact that it is, in some places, not a civil right.The debate has no geographic leaning, but assumed to be regarding a modern first world country (a Western European / North American country, for example)Plagiarism from anywhere of any kind without citation results in an instant forfeit. Citing or quotations should not consist of more than 50% of the entire argument, in order to promote The Burden of Proof is on my opponent, due to his acceptance of "gay marriage is not a civil right [being] part of my argument".Any disagreements with these things should be posted to prior the argument. Any enfraction of the rules after acceptance means an instant loss. Any challenge to the definitions do not count as 'instant loss', but a semantic debate should be frowned upon, and loss of conduct if something is redefined for no reason, or redefined for inadequate reasons.
Gay marriage is not a civil right

I'm just going to summarise my argument here, rather than restate any major points. This round is for a summary of the debate as it has gone as a whole.1) The purpose of marriage. I've gone through this repeatedly now: the purpose of modern marriage is to create stability. The second purpose isidea of childrearing - though this is debated. Finally, the idea of it being specifically for procreation: this is the important one for the debate. Though my opponent wishes to claim his argument is that it promotes traditional views of marriage, in essence, the clash is on whether marriage should be about procreation. My aim was to show that this was unnecessary. If this was shown, the argument my opponent promoted is entirely undermined.2) Arguments in favour of procreative marriageMy opponent ends with illustrating the analogy that marriage is light a traffic light: "[criminalising SSM] is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life". The argument in itself has severe lack of defence: it seemed to be purely about the purpose of marriage being procreation, which of course begs the question of why that should be the purose of marriage. The defence for this point simply seemed to be a loose, rare criticism of my counterplan, without actually defending this idea in the slightest. With more divorces and more single parents, children born out of wedlock and similar things than ever, the outdated view of marriage is just that: outdated. It does not apply to the current circumstance: and why should we apply 11th century ideas to a 21st century world?However, the argument my opponent presented (then dropped: I assumed that he conceded this point when he never brought it up again but apparently not) on this causing negative effects was completely unfounded: the sources provided linked to completely different issues, and most of which hardly considered truly "wrong", such as an increase of cohabitation as a result. And even then, the argument was "because revision of the meaning of marriage occurred at the same time as cohabitation increased, marriage is the cause" isn't an argument any more than the rising price of bavarian cheese caused this change. 3) Arguments against procreation marriageI touched on the criticisms a moment ago: procreation simply is outdated. Modern marriages don't focus on it: from experts to polls, no-one, bar a minority of the fringe right wing Christian conservatives promote this view. Marriage is no longer a relationship about producing children.Using marriage as a way to use people to produce children is further immoral. As shown through the Kantian moral system, marriage, in the way used by my opponent, is a way of getting people to reproduce: and using people as a means to an end is immoral. 4) Arguments in generalThe entire point about it being democratic was dropped. Just thought I'd remind everyone of this. Further, the statement of the ban on gay marriage costing more than it saves was stated in R4. This was not addressed either.I urge voters to take these things into account when voting.
Homosexuality is immoral

If you are you should change because the bible say the truth and it says here Daniel 4:3 3 How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation. and here in 1 Chronicles 29:10-12 10 Therefore David blessed the Lord in the presence of all the assembly. And David said: "Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever. 11 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. 12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.
Homosexuality is immoral

M for pointing out the shocking plagiarism that joch43 used in his entry. I think that it has no place in this debate or indeed anywhere on this site. The people who debate on this website (mostly) are people who are genuinely interested in having proper debate on important issues that divide society. It is almost proof that the person who's views are based on unfounded prejudices has to resort to plagiarism in order to try and compete in this debate, proves that there are next to no coherent arguments to be made for that point of view and that it has no place in modern culture. I have not made many arguments in this debate due to the fact that Pro has offered next to nothing which can be viewed as legitimate material and all of this I have successfully proved false. Ladies and Gentlemen, there would be no justice in the world if this debate ends as a draw or if joch43 wins. When you cast your vote, show that plagiarism has no merit or reward, and more importantly, that unfounded prejudices are not justified. I await my 'opponent's' response with curiousness.
Homosexuality is immoral

Alas. I hoped for too much. My opponent has fallen into the trap of using the bible to back up his answers. I had hoped that he would have read my previous entry a little more thoroughly and realised why he cannot do that. I gave what a sound analysis and that stands as he has not rebutted it at all. What a pity. His entry actually helps him more than me... He gave some lovely examples of God changing his mind and that proves my point that if God changes his mind about things, then not everything he said can be absolutely binding and how we should live as a society. The very fact that he changes his mind, undermines the point that everything he says is law. I have little else to say apart from could my opponent please present some material which hasn't been proved wrong already by my 2nd round rebuttal...
Homosexuality is immoral

Well If your Read the whole Bible God's thinking changed Like this Example at Genesis 17: 10-14: 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. But in these texts is says thats circumcision is not required anymore :Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-11; 6:11-16; 1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Colossians 2:8-12; Philippians 3:1-3. But if the bible about Homosexuality there is no texts in the bible that contradicts Genesis 1:24 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Homosexuality is immoral

That is not an acceptable point as it is generally accepted that a) not every single word of the old testament is true (even most Christians believe that the old testament is there to be interpreted and not taken literally), and b) if we based our ideas on society on the old testament we would live in an awful world where women are treated as unequal. We have moved on as a society and our ideas of morality are more advanced than they were in the old testament. For example, in the old testament: Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without permission. Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without permission. They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority. They could not testify in court. They could not appear in public venues. They were not allowed to talk to strangers. They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. . http://www.religioustolerance.org... Just because it says it in the bible, does not mean we should agree with it. I will happily give more examples. Now unless my opponent is a hard-line Christian who follows every single law in the bible, I think it likely that he may have broken a few rules. "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. " -- Leviticus 19:19 Has he ever worn linen or wool? I think it very likely. "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place. .. ." -- Ephesians 5:4 I bet that he has sworn once or twice. Everyone has at some point in there lives, used language which would not be deemed, 'appropriate,' by the old testament. I could go on but I will not bore you and think it that is time to bring this back to the topic of the debate. My point is that it is virtually impossible that my opponent has followed all of the laws in the old testament, and therefore think that his probable point that it's immoral due to the bible is defeated as he can't choose to ignore the laws he doesn't like and then back up his point on the ones that he doesn't. If he concedes that some of the old testament is not true than there is a possibility that large chunks of it are not true and then his case falls apart. There is not much more I can say until my opponent makes his case which I hope is not like his others and fails to exceed 5 lines. Proceed.
Rapping

This is becoming like fightnight in Manila. Take a sip of this Manzanilla. In it contains lethal venom to kill ya. No more tricks I intend to rid ya. I give this man the boot because I can. I got no real plans for Arizonan. So I leave him with his self in his hand. Drooling out into a dripping pan. Nothing more than just a neanderthal man. Just bro to bro, I'll let you know. You came like a square, you just choked. I said I'll provide from the go. I let you know. So there is no longer need for your puppet show. My style has a certain elegance. My opponent showed in his no coherence. My rap base is quiet militant. To his rap you could sqaure dance. Seems my opponent's smile is upside down. Mocking my words like a clown. So when you come back in the next round. Come better or you just mite drown.
Rapping

So ScottyDouglas think he got game, wearing a suit of armor like that ain't lame. Pitchin some rhymes but started to fail, when he began rap his boring tale. He says he'll provide, what does that mean? His rhymes lack coherence that any could glean. So here's my comeback to the dirty knight, ready for my moves? Fight or flight? Scotty claims his rap flows. Puffing up his ego grows. Higher and higher, there it goes. While we all were thinking, "Man, this blows". So let's get some real rhymes filled with class, not like we were ones smoking grass. Let's rap about our rockin school or some hotty that walks by that makes us drool. Not some onward drive that doesn't relate, to anything we can respectfully debate. Meaningless aps are especially neat when we have a topic , that would be a treat. So I am ready for upcoming rounds, where I can make poor Scotty frown. Back and forth, here we go, onto more raps bro to bro.
Rapping

I got no need to say Hi. Introductions needed...I ask why? Im just notta' friendly type of guy. Nor need i be a nice, ohh..no..not I. I got da' skills you should apply. Keep your eyes focused i will provide. As we just start to began this flow. There some things we all should know. I've been doing this for years, Its what I know. When i speak I get a golden glow. I end up being in a turbulent mode. Im first my opponent i do not know. No worries indeed onward I drove. This is showing the dual side of me. It is like a monster coming out you see. It can appear very frightening. In the opponent's box there could be a opening. He has his hands full dealing with me. So this here is it. Time to get a good tatse of my spit. This is what I envisioned from the get. Just from this my opponent may submit. Just throw his hand's up leave and quit. I'm making this a difficult task. Showing true colors sheding the mask. I wipe my hands and give it back. Come so hard that is all I ask.