BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
EXSISTENCE OF GOD

Answering your question you say that all what i just said did not prove that there was a God. well actually it does prove that there is a God and I will tell you why later, But First let me Go over what you just said. PART 1 You said: "there is no rite or wrong answere ever. Each of us thinks differently and have are on view of rite and wrong." You know what you are rite about everybody having there own views and everybody thinking differently. But that does not mean that there is no rite or wrong answere. I think that it was WRONG that when the terroists came in on 9/11 and destroyed the 2 towers and killed 5000 inocent people i think that was WRONG. I belive that when Hitler killed 6000000 jews and the only thing they did was be Jewis, i think thats WRONG! I ihink that it is wrong that Stallen killed a reporter just because he spailed Stallens name wrong in the news paper I hope you have the principals to say all these things are wrong. Part 2 Lets say i was a murder on the loose that escaped from prison and one night while your whole family was sleeping i broke into your house and stabbed them to death would you say that i did nothing wrong because because Hitler and stullen did the exact same things to families but sence you said "Hitler was not wrong in what he did." How can you say that these are the very things that you learned sence you were a boy that MURDER is wrong and now your saying 'Hitler was not wron in what he did". Part 3 This is why God must be real because if he wasnt do you see the utter chaos that would go on no one would know who is rite and who is wrong the only thing we would be able to rely on is amn and he has fallen so many times in history . Thats why thwere has to be a perfect God one who is all knowing and all wisr one who is PERFECT. This is something we can base what is rite and what is wrong off of. PART 4 You say in yor de bate that Hittler was not wrong well if he wasnt wron was America just wasting there time over there trying to free all the jews. Wate a second maby America should have thought about how hitller wasnt wrong in killin 6000000 jews maby they should have given poor little Hitler a chance to explain that no one can be wrong because there is no God ahhhhhh silly america. NO we went over there to get an evil man out of power and free those people. Part 5 He can it be just ified of taking someone out of power if they did nothin wrong. So if Hitler did nothing wrong how is it justice that we took him out ok power you said he was harmful, genacidal and trynnacial but not wrong. How can you murder some one and not be wrong. You have toatly contridicted yourself. PLEASE ANSWERE THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN THE DEBATE: Do you think 9/11 is wrong if no then what is wrong with you and if yes then who is the ultimate judge.
EXSISTENCE OF GOD

In answer to your points: There is no right or wrong answer ever. Each of us see things differently and have our own view of right and wrong. Although some of our ideas overlap, that in no way makes any "morals" absolute. I will say it, Hitler was not wrong in doing what he did. He was harmful, he was tyrannical, he was genocidal; however, he was not wrong because there is no such thing as right and wrong. We are justified in taking him out of power because of the harm he was doing to others and our will to see it stopped; however, that still does not mean that what he did was wrong. Think of it this way. We all have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong, what is "moral". These ideas change depending on religion, country, political system, political party, upbringing, environment, societal forces, and basically everything that we come in contact with. Since we all have different ideas on morals, how can any one set be right? The answer is that they can't and aren't. Therefore, again I say there is no such thing as morals. However, in answer to the topic. You are for the existence of God because there must be something to judge others? That in no way fits the criteria of empirical evidence needed to prove the existence of a Deity. Prove to me that God exists and I'll be more willing to listen; however, your point like your morals are not absolute and prove nothing.
EXSISTENCE OF GOD

I would first like to start off with thanking raisor for debating me if he ecepts my challenge and that i will try my hardest against you. part 1 if there is no God then who decides who is rite and who is wrong. Is it our concious? Is it the person who is in power over us, is that who we listen to. Well if it is the person who is in power over us then i guess it was ok for me to listen to Hitler or to Stallen because they were men who were in power. Oh yes they were in power killing people left in rite. And if you still think that you can judge what is rite and what is rong off of your concious then listen to this if you havnt already guessed it. It was STALLENS concious that had him kill a reporter for spelling his name wrong in the news paper. It was HITLERS conciouse that told him it was ok to kill 6,000,000 jews. So clearly we cant base it off our conciouse or the most powerful man at the time. We have to base it off a Supreme being some one who has dominion over all creatures. part 2 Do you see how chotic it would be if there was no God. I mean there would alwys be 2 rites to 1 problem and thats what atheism does, they will say that Hitler is wrong but they will say he is wrong not because God judged him but because its just wrong to kill 6000000 jews. Well who said it was wrong to kill. You know Al Sharpton a guy I dont like vey much do to his viw on the war on terror and other things like that, did a pretty good job debating christopher hitchens. He asked Christopher hitchens the very Question i am about to ask you and if you ask any atheist this question all they do is avoid the question and start blaming Christians for the stuff they did in the past or the real stupid ones will just sit there an twidle there thumbs. part 3 PLEASE ANSWER THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR DEBATE: If there is no God, no supreme being to judge Hitler then how do we Know what hitler did was wrong?
There is absolutely no verifiable (a.k.a. "scientific") evidence that NASA landed men on the moon.

I find it acceptable that he believes in the moon landing, but I will try to prove that there is, in fact, scientific evidence for a visit to the moon. However, I have to cut this round short and make brief points, then I will elaborate in the next rounds. I hope that the instigator finds that acceptable, too. -- Arguments -- Although I understand and accept the definition of "scientific evidence" that my opponent has provided, I still question what such evidence involves. Does technology count? Technology is scientific. In fact, technology helps us with scientific progress in too many ways. If my opponent can go along with this, then I have an argument to make which involves technology. 1.1 Laser reflector on the surface of the moon During the Apollo 11 mission, a laser reflector was positioned. As the first reference says, "Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope . .. The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon. " If such equipment can indeed be used by experts with advanced equipment, how could there possibly not be scientific evidence? This equipment can help predicting eclipses, which automatically puts it into the science category. Moreover, there is other evidence. 1.2 Moon rocks According to the second and third sources, moon rocks have been brought back to the Earth from the Apollo mission. All in all, 382 kilograms of moon rocks have been brought back during the missions from year 1969 and the year 1972. Numerous geologists have analyzed these rocks and have concluded that it is impossible for them to be anything but moon rocks. Now, some people claim that these rocks could have been found on Antarctica. However, 382 kilograms of moon rock to be found o Antarctica sounds like a fantasy. Moreover, another claim is that robots brought these rocks back. However, such technology was not available during the Apollo missions from 1969-1972. The sources that I referred to explicate on the matter. -- Conclusion -- Although my arguments in this round are short, there is one great and irrefutable point, and that is the one regarding the moon rocks. It is ultimate scientific evidence supporting the moon landing missions, and the facts are established scientific facts. There is, in fact, no need to make more claims. One strong and irrefutable point is most probably enough. -- References -- R1: . http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov... R2: . http://www.dave.co.nz... R3: . http://science.nasa.gov...
There is absolutely no verifiable (a.k.a. "scientific") evidence that NASA landed men on the moon.

To be clear, I am not arguing that the manned Apollo moon missions were a hoax. Personally, I highly suspect that they were, but that's not the issue here. What I AM saying, is that there simply isn't any verifiable evidence to support NASA's claims, and so they shouldn't be taken seriously to the scientific community (unless we're going to lend equal credibility to "UFO abductees").
Communism and Fascism are almost complete opposites

DEBATE MOTION: Communism and Fascism are almost complete oppositesDebate Format: 3 rounds, 72 hours to post, 10,000 CharactersVoting Format: Open Voting to people with ELO score of more than 1500 only, Select WinnerDebate Structure:1. Round One: Acceptance2. Round Two: Opening Statements3. Round Three: Rebuttals and Case Building4. Round Four: RebuttalsIf the opponent trolls, he will be shot by the gun of losing his this debate. If the opponent doesn't troll, then may the grace of the great fatherland and luck be with him.
Evolution is a Bad Joke

You might want to ask Mao Tse Tung (spell check?), Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and other evolutionists how they are justified in killing their neighbors. I'm trying to be funny here. Let's focus on the joke side of evolution. Evolution says cows became whales. The cows waded in the water untill their legs shrank as they chased seaweed, The sharks somehow ddin't smell the cow's blood when they gave birth to little swimming cows, and somehow their nose moved to the top of their heads to keep them from drowning as they learned to outswim the sharks. The sharks were only fish, they were not as smart as the cows, and the cows fooled them good untill the remains of their legs turned into flippers and theri little flly swatter tails grew musclse from pushing water untill they became whale tails. Bad Joke.
Evolution is a Bad Joke

Now that was a bad joke. I thought this debate was about evolution and not biogenesis or the Big Bang. One inaccuracy, you act as if organisms turn into others over the course of days or spontaneously, however that is not the case. Genetic mutations and adaptions to environment over the course of many millions of years and generations cause the diversity of species around the world. You can say anything sarcastically and make it sound ridiculous. Also, how in the world does natural selection correlate to killing your neighbor? Survival of the fittest talks about genes and species. If you are brown bear in a the arctic competing against polar bears, which species will stick around long term? The polar bears because they have the best genes and adaptations for their environment, making them the "fittest". You make it seem as if we need to kill off all that are not the "fittest", however that would not affect the speed of our evolution at all. Evolution has nothing to do with evil.
Evolution is a Bad Joke

Bang, kaboom, everthing exploded then congealed and some pond scum got zapped by lightning and became self replicationg living cells which turned into some kind of tadpole which crawled out of the scum and became some kind of monkey (primate) which was your greatest of great great great grandfathers. It's ok for you to kill your neighbor because natural selection made you the survivor of the fittest. It's a joke........a bad joke.
Evolution is a Bad Joke

My opponent must argue that evolution is not a bad joke. To do this, my opponent is free to ignore the humor I will display in pointing out how ridiculous it is to believe in evolution, and my opponent is free to ignore the evil that has been forced on the world through wars instigated by people who believe in the basic hypothesis of evolutionary theory which are 1) Survival of the Fittest and 2) Natural selection. My opponent is also free to ignore the eiils of individuals who committed heinous crimes in belief that according to evolutionary theory, they do not need to fear God so it's ok for them to do anything they feel like doing untill somebody or something stops them.
Evolution is a Bad Joke

This comment just proves your ignorance on the subject. Modern cows did not evolve into whales, just like how modern apes did not evolve into Homosapiens. There is also evidence for the claim of land mammal to whale; whales have land mammal bones, so scientists can theorize they were once land mammals. Again, you think that evolution transpires almost instantly, the transformation of species takes millions of years. Please do proper research on the topic.
The United States military should be reduced in half.

While my opponent would like to avoid a philosophical discussion between anarchism and realism, I do believe that, given the former embraces international anarchy while the latter actively attempts to enact a controlled environment amidst the anarchy, this debate may be slightly more philosophical in nature than a pure number crunching exercise. Given the international implications of lowering the US military budget, I think such a philosophical discussion may not only be wholly warranted, but also central to the debate. Cheers, and good luck. Accept.
The United States military should be reduced in half.

It is my contention that the U. S. military should be substantially reduced in size and scope. This includes the number of personnel, goals, and overall military spending. The military shall refer to every branch of the armed forces. Although I am an anarchist, I will be arguing from the perspective that the U. S. military should exist and be federally funded through taxes to avoid any tangents about the proper role and responsibility of government (though I'm sure that will be a factor in the debate, I don't want to be arguing from the position of anarchism as I think that would deter from the overall quality and discussion). I'd like to wish my opponent luck. I will provide my opening arguments in R2. While character limits will be enforced, it will be permissible to post our sources (no analysis or description from within) on another page if need-be. Regards,Danielle
writing on laptops and mobiles and tabs etc. is better than notebooks

The same can be said for traditional means of doing schoolwork - you can get a copy of the paper and get help from a friend. Backups on hard drives only work if you remembered to put it on. The use of computers can also distract students - earlier in my English class I spied three students off task (one watching a tv show online, one drawing on MS paint, and the last playing an online game). Laptops can diminish opportunities to learn, and might even be more harmful than helpful to others.
writing on laptops and mobiles and tabs etc. is better than notebooks

Hello, and thank you for the debate! I decided to assume the role of devil's advocate, since I go to a high school where laptops are mandatory. Though it may be easier to erase, documents typed on the computer are easier to lose due to no battery, saving over, accidentally closing without saving, etc., which can result in loss of great amounts of time. Physically writing down notes/definitions on paper with pencil/pen is a great way to memorize information compared to copy-pasting.
Repealing the Don't ask don't policy.

I am 100% for establishing a free military where gays can serve openly without negative repercussions. But, repealing DADT will not magically solve the problem of discharging gays for being gay. As I pointed out in my first set of arguments, there are preexisting laws that prevent gays from serving in the military and they would have to be overcome before we can just repeal DADT. It is paramount that we realize that DADT was established to defend the rights of gays because certain political barriers prevented gays from serving openly. Now I will go to the line by line and answer the arguments appropriately. I agree with everything you said about how allowing gays to serve openly allows for a higher unit cohesion, but you dropped my contention that there ARE previous barriers that must be overcome first and foremost for us to see any action. DADT would die if we annihilated these previous problems. I know for a fact that there are previous barriers because I read ALL about it last year in debate! :) Thanks!
Repealing the Don't ask don't policy.

Homosexuals are having to hide their identities and it is dehumanizing. If it is in favor of the rights of the certain individuals why does it force them to hide their identities? Gays aren't prosecuted (from military personnel), its a myth. The only prosecuting is strictly coming from the law-enforcement within the miltary. Britian had a policy closely correlating with the DADT policy. It was abandoned and thus repealed (1999) and since then there has only been 2 resignations and one of them was apparently leaving anyways, also the amount of dishonorable discharges declined . Cohesion levels went up. Cohesion level is actually altered due to the DADT policy. Nice Forensics Logo btw.
Repealing the Don't ask don't policy.

DADT was implemented in order to defend the rights of homosexuals and continues to be as such. Now if this debate were to say "Repeal DADT AND allow Gays to serve openly in the military" then you would have basis for your arguments. Preexisting laws prevent the ability for gays to serve at all in the military and restricts their rights. Without it, more persecution would happen than happens now. A military operative is required by oath to repect and follow rules under the branch they serve. That means if you were asked if you were homosexual or not, you would be bound by oath to tell the truth. With DADT this does not occur and it actually prevents prosecution if the knowledge is leaked. I have homosexual friends in the military and the people above them KNOW that they are gay but take no action because they never asked. If the knowledge is leaked without the person actually making the statement, no prosecution is allowed without negative repercussions by the person in question. That is why DADT is far more beneficial than if there was no law because, as I said before, pre-existing laws prohibit all gays into the military. Thanks!
Repealing the Don't ask don't policy.

DADT is a counterproductive and it rids of very effective military personnel. Doctors, Mechanics, Pilots, Engineers, and etc. are being dishonorably discharged for coming out and saying they are homosexual. Bill Clinton established this policy to theoretically raise the cohesion level of the troops, but what it has don is it has been responsible for over ten thouand dishonorable discharges over the past decade.
We should get rid of illegal aliens.

I challenge this statement: "Get them out of our country!!!!!!! They are destroying the economy and are screwing up our government systems even more." I challenge my opponent to come up with evidence to prove his statements. I won't even ask my opponent to prove some of the more baseless claims. They obviously are not destroying our economy, and especially not screwing up our government. I will attempt to stick to the broader issue of identifying the problem and seeking proper solutions. My case: I reject the idea that all illegal immigrants should be removed. The main reason is that it would be very costly to attempt such a scheme that would not likely be successfull. Not to mention that it would be borderline Ethnic Cleansing to do so (since it will be aimed almost exclusively on Latin Americans (particularly mexicans). Ex-convicts and criminals absolutely should be removed. Furthermore, deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible will not solve the issue. We would have to do this sort of round up over and over again, at the expense of the American tax payer. We should be looking for some better long term solutions. Probably the best thing we could do to secure our southern border is to help raise the Mexican economy. A strong Mexican economy would have the dual benefits of helping our own economy, and giving potential immigrants no reason to illegally enter the United States. Canada is a good example, since we don't have a significant number of illegal Canadians. Conclusion: Deporting all illegal immigrants would be too expensive, not efficient, and would fix nothing in the long term. However, any immigrant who chooses not to follow our laws should be deported. This would be much easier since there would be no national round up. We should seek long term solutions, like helping to reform the Mexican economy.
Marching band is a sport

Thank you for the debate. It does not matter what kind of marching band my friend is you. You support the resolution "Marching band is a sport." It does not matter what division it is, such as it does not matter if you're in middle school basket ball or the NBA. Basketball is still a sport. My opponent does not still seem to realize that how long you practice and the size of the practice area does not provide evidence to support the claim that it is a sport, nor the weight of something you carry. My opponent's only valid argument is the amount of physical activity, however that alone is not enough to make it a sport, and it is a far strech to do so. Being in any band is a form of art, and art can not be considered a sport. They require much movement and practice, but pertain to the concept of human creativity and percision. Exhibition drill is the same way, and not technically a sport. Just because something is difficult doesn't make it a sport. For example, stage concert, orchestra, theatre, dance- these things can be just as exhausting, and require the same, if not more practice. Dancer operate on a stage, not as big as a football field, but physically exerting. Art is something that takes a lifetime of practice. This does not make it a sport. For these reasons, I urge you to =VOTE CON=
Marching band is a sport

First off, is your friend part of Drum Corps International? And there is a large difference between high school and middle school. And different schools practice at different times. Mine generally lasted around 6 hours. When I played football, they laster about 3 hours. So that is more than enough to get an extensive workout. Most practices are around as long as football or any other sport is. So the same amount of physical activity is exerted. Plus instruments like baritones and tubas can be excruciatingly heavy for anyone. Same goes with the drumline, which some instruments can be around 20-40 lbs. And this is a fact. So the argument that there is not enough physical activity to where it can be considered a sport would not be correct. I am simply saying that it should be considered a full on sport like other physical activity's. It should also earn the same amount of respect that the others receive as well.
Marching band is a sport

Briefly, I participated in marching band, middle school. I have a close friend in high school who I pick up from marching band. I asked his opinion and he said, "I wouldn't classify it as a sport." When I asked him why, he said, "It's nothing like football. It's just for fun." I also asked him about the judges you mentioned. He said, "Yeah, there are judges that measure how well you keep in beat and alignment." This doesn't fit the definition for "sport" that you compare it to with football, my friend. Marching band can be good exercise, but it does not involve enough physical activity to be called a physical sport. The quantity of practice has no relation to it's definement as a sport.