BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

"As I already said I am referring to the god found in the KJV bible also" I am glad that you are! "whatever you want to call him. I don't know how clearer I could have been on that." I am glad that you are conceding to the definition that is given in the scriptures. Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." You said in the beginning of this debate that we have the Word, therefore you admit that God exists, it is that simple. In fact, you just reinforced that confirmation with your previous answer, thank you! Lets not complicate things, God is the Word. Plain and simple without confusion. God the Word exists.
God Exists

As I already said I am referring to the god found in the KJV bible also known as the Abrahamic God there's only one Abrahamic god or the god of Abraham or the the judeo christian god whatever you want to call him. I don't know how clearer I could have been on that. We both know we are talking about the same god. Pick any vere you want it makes no difference. Also you could have put the question you just posed in round 4 in to the comment section so to not waste an entire round in clarification.
God Exists

We may have a problem here, because I am not quite sure of WHO this god is, that you are claiming dose not exist. The God of the King James bible is the God that I claim exists and His name is; Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. So, you are going to have to give me a scripture showing me WHO you are talking about. And if you cant find a verse describing WHO you are talking about then I wont disagree; That god dose not exist. The bible / the Word speaks of there being many gods, however, there is only one true God. So, again I wont argue about all the others not being real. You will have to give me a verse about which god you are talking about, WHO is he?
God Exists

I shall first refute my opponent's arguments and the present my own. "As was stated in the opening statement, we are defining who God is by the definition in the King James Bible"... umm... no I never agreed to this only you did, "I will establish that God exists according to who the KJV bible defines God as being", "I" being the key word here not "we" the only thing I agreed to was "Question 1: Can you obtain a bible today if you so choose? Question 2: Is the King James Bible in print?" I agreed that you can get these books but in no way does that grant the validity of the book. I am simply referring to the God described in the book. I would no way advocate that because one can obtain a printed copy of harry potter that harry potter must then be real and that the book is prove of that. So "These two questions must first be answered with a yes or no answer, and then you may continue with your understanding as to why God does not exist." now it's clear what the terms actually were I will continue with my "understanding as to why God does not exist". Therefore my opponent is pushed back to where he started without having an argument as I have already brought to attention the authority/ validity of his reference the bible. Also my opponents is using a type of ontological argument or as I call it the ontological fallacy, this is possibly the poorest argument for god's existence and is almost never used by theologians anymore. Basically because 'there is a word for god therefore god exists', and in reference to my opponents argument that word is literally "Word" so if I ask someone what another word for 'silly' is do they say 'stupid' or 'god'? Also there is a word for unicorns, leprechauns, dragons (even in the bible) e.t.c. so this must mean they all exist to. I think it painfully obvious the ridiculousness behind this argument. It is also known as a 'Non sequitur' (definition: is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a 'non sequitur', the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion). Now for more evidence the Abrahamic God does not exist, I shall use a rather common argument in the existence of god debate which I have yet ever had an honest answer to: The Paradox of the Stone Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can"t. If he can't, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent,though, is not God. The ball is now in my opponent's court to try to present a credible argument. Thank you
God Exists

I find it quite interesting that my opponent has presented a lengthy speech, completely diverted from the initial definition of who we both have established and agreed upon as to who God is. Quote; "The god found in the KJV bible God and the god my opponent is referring to is a theistic god also known as the Abrahamic God who I shall refer to as throughout the debate." No; the definition that we both agreed to debate is written out for you in the King James Bible and it clearly says; (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is the agreed upon definition that my opponent has accepted. My opponent is attempting to confuse this debate by addressing a god as; (Romans 1:22-23) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, {23} And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." This debate is not about a belief in God, but about WHO He is, we must remember that it is based upon the definition and context of the scriptures in the KJV. And that is how this debate was established. My opponent has agreed that the Word does exist. And so let me say yet again, therefore God exists, by my opponents own words. Unless that is, that my opponent would like to establish that he lied. I have achieved my burden of proof by his own admonition. Its now my opponents duty to disprove a final authority / word of truth. I will implore my opponent to stay within the agreed upon definition of this debate or forfeit.
God Exists

In order to be fair to my opponent I shall not use any rebuttals until my next round. In this round I shall present only my opening arguments. The god found in the KJV bible God and the god my opponent is referring to is a theistic god also known as the Abrahamic God who I shall refer to as throughout the debate. Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins (a devout christian) says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins (a devout atheist) thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. This is what you have to believe In order to believe in the Abrahmic God, for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, not knowing how disease spread or what earthquakes or storms were all of that for 98,000 years. The Abrahmic God watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person. And whats more after this event we are giving no more revelations, no more evidence of his existence nothing at all; and it all comes from a baseless claim in a well known contradictory book which has no historical credibility. And we are meant to believe this as absolute fact. I must appeal to my opponents and the voters better judgment and and see how obviously ludicrous this is. I would also like to know what prove my opponent has of the Abrahmic God's existence as he has the burden of prove in this debate. I see absolutely no evidence for a theistic god in this universe and would encourage my opponent to present some. This is my opening argument thank you
God Exists

Thank you for establishing that "Yes" we can in fact obtain a bible today. And agreeing that the King James bible is in fact in print. As was stated in the opening statement, we are defining who God is by the definition in the King James Bible. (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." So, we can clearly conclude, and as my opponent has agreed too, the bible - the Word does exist. Therefore, God does exist. It is now up to my opponent to show that the Word is not God, and that there is no final authority to truth. He must show that there is no final word of truth, and by doing so negate his own words as being false.
Doctors should be paid more than footballers.

First of all, you seem to confuse the idea of importance with demand. Yes, doctors are extremely vital part of society because they save lives. However, that has nothing to do with demand. Football players are paid so much because their large audience pool is willing to pay a big price for their performance. Sure, football players are entertainers and they're not as "important" as doctors when it comes to saving lives. However, important is a subjective term in which different people interpret differently. Saving lives are important, but so is entertainment. If people are willing to pay for entertainment in order to increase their utility level, then that's all it matters. Whether there is any element of stupidity or irrationality is the topic of another debate, but a lot of people as a collective are just willing to pay these entertainers for what they're "worth". It's not unfair for them to make much more than doctors if they can generate much more revenues than doctors. Sure, if there're more doctors, they will be able to save more lives. But then again, we're talking about pure economics here. They're paid for what they're worth. While it's hard to quantify the value of life, it's for sure that they don't make as much as football players because not everyone is able to afford millions and millions of dollar for one life. Therefore, supply and demand simply takes over. Football players are paid by their fans, but who is going to pay the extra salary for doctors? The government? The individual patient? Comparing losing a game to losing a family relative is like comparing apples to oranges. The nature and magnitude of these two events vary so drastically; it's almost meaningless to compare them in such a way. I can also argue the following way: would you rather see your favorite football player die or have an allergy for two days? Your false analogy is simply irrelevant here.
Doctors should be paid more than footballers.

Yes they should. Doctors save lives. Save lives. How much can you buy life for? Footballers entertain people for money and get paid more than doctors. Why is this? They are famous. I'm a football fan, but don't you think its a little bit unfair? Thousands of people die everyday, millions of tears are shed everyday but this number could decrease with doctors. If we pay them more they will work more! More lives saved already. Nobody cries when their football team looses. That's because football is not alive. Family and friends, however are. How would you feel if one of your loved ones are about to die? Would you just rather watch a game of football, or go and call the ambulance?!
Smoking in pubs should not be banned

I am indebted to my opponent for this information and will certainly bear this in mind the next time I hold an All-American Junk Food-themed dinner party – perhaps I should consider replacing those cigars I usually serve in hotdog buns with something slightly more palatable - a sausage made out of mechanically-recovered chicken and pork fat perhaps? But never mind that, this argument really revolves around freedom of choice and the unwarranted government interference with decent, law-abiding people's lives. Now, we both accept that smoking is bad for your health, so no arguments there. But public houses (pubs, bars, etc. ) are private premises. They have the right to grant or refuse entry to the public and they are not government buildings so they should be free to allow the people they invite in to eat and drink and smoke and watch strippers and gamble and sing and dance and play pool or whatever, so long as they don't cause a nuisance to their neighbours, obviously. Now, my opponent is a non-smoker who objects to smokey pubs. Fine. He shouldn't go to them then, he should go and hang out at Ben & Jerry's or somewhere else where smoking is voluntarily banned. And as far as the effect of smoke on kids is concerned, by the way, children aren't generally allowed in pubs so it's irrelevant. At the end of the day, this world is full of hazards. If you live in London, as I do, you are choked by the pollution whereas if you live in the tropics you are at risk of contacting malaria or some other ghastly disease. Even the late Wacko Jacko got fed up with living in an oxygen tent after a while and he died young, not through cigarette smoke, or being beaten up by the outraged father of a young boy, as you might expect, but (allegedly) as the result of taking drugs prescribed to him by his doctor. The point is, you can take the choice not to put your health at risk by not drinking, smoking, having unprotected sex with the girl you just met in the nightclub, or driving too fast or flying with Aeroflot or taking swimming lessons off Michael Barrymore or whatever but those who are prepared to live fast and die young should be allowed to. Thank you.
Smoking in pubs should not be banned

As everybody knows, drinking and smoking go together like fried patties of beef and bread buns - which put together are called 'beef burgers' (except in America where for some reason they call them 'hamburgers', even though there is absolutely no ham in them at all). Now, where do people go to drink and smoke? That's right: pubs. And where do people go to eat beef burgers? Yes, fast food restaurants. However, certain governments around the world have banned smoking in pubs. Why? Three main reasons: 1 - A smoke free environment is beneficial to the health of customers. 2 - A smoke free environment eliminates complaints from non-smoking bar staff. 3 - A smoke free environment means bagpipes need cleaning less often. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is fine, if you are a Scottish non-smoker with no friends who smoke, but will this government interference with people's freedom of choice end there? Consider the following scenario: You go into a fast food restaurant and order a hamburger and the assistant gives you a bun with a piece of lettuce and some relish in it. So, you ask where your patty of beef is and the assistant replies: "I'm sorry, but the state has decided on your behalf that fried patties of beef are bad for your health and they have duly banned them from being consumed in public places. Personally I am very happy about that because I am a vegan and used to object to handling meat products. And that fellow in the kilt and the tam-o-shanter over there is pleased too because the grease from the burgers used to drip onto his bagpipes which meant he had to clean them slightly more often than he does now." This scenario is, of course, ridiculous but so is the ban on smoking in pubs because: 1 - Smokers will still smoke, just outside the pub rather than inside, so there is no net benefit to their health and non-smokers have always had the option not to go into pubs if they are concerned about the effects of passive smoking. 2 - People who strongly object to smoking would be no more likely to apply for a job in a pub than a vegan would be to apply for a job in an abattoir. 3 - I am currently writing from 'bonny Scotland' and can confirm that, even here, the percentage of people who bring bagpipes with them to the pub is very low! All considered, then, I affirm that smoking in pubs should not be banned. Thank you.
Grade Inflation in the United States

Actually a typical American school is built around a rank based grading system so that the average grade for students is in the 70-80 range. Teachers often curve the grades to fit this model. Grade Percentage of students receiving grade A Top 7% B Next 24% C Middle 38% D Next 24% F Bottom 7% (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://www.altiusdirectory.com...) Rank based grading is the prevalent system in American schools because it directly counteracts grade inflation. It also gives an indicator as to how well a student is doing compared with other students and is known to push students to perform better by appealing to their competitive nature. Studies have shown that rank based grading produces better results including one by Todd Cherry and Larry Ellis which is detailed in International Review of Economics Education, volume 4, issue 1 (2005). (http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk...)- this link shows an excerpt from the study that should demonstrate the benefits of a rank based grading system. There is also an aspect of standards based grading (students being compared to a standard of what educators, businesspeople, parents, and other stakeholders have determined to be what every student should know and be able to do) designed to test the competence of students. Examples of this would include the SAT and ACT but those are both excellent at making sure it is only a small percentage of the test takers who can ace these and they are not a recurring grade students get throughout High School and Middle School. Obviously the American education system is designed to prevent the majority of students from getting A's to prevent grade inflation. (C:\Users\owner\Documents\Structure of the US Education System.doc)-this is from the US Department of Education. Can also be found at (http://www.google.com...) If you were referring to Elementary School according to Wikipedia this is because "grades may represent rewards from teachers for being friendly, prepared, compliant, a good school citizen, well organized and hard-working rather than mastering the subject material."
Sustainable Development And Climate Change

Since my opponent has not questioned my argument, it stands. And now, a story: An elderly man was sitting alone on a dark path. He wasn't sure of which direction to go, and he'd forgotten both where he was traveling to...and who he was. He'd sat down for a moment to rest his weary legs, and suddenly looked up to see an elderly woman before him. She grinned toothlessly and with a cackle, spoke: "Now your third wish. What will it be?" "Third wish?" The man was baffled. "How can it be a third wish if I haven’t had a first and second wish?" "You’ve had two wishes already," the hag said, "but your second wish was for me to return everything to the way it was before you had made your first wish. That’s why you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes." She cackled at the poor man. "So it is that you have one wish left." "All right," he said hesitantly, "I don't believe this, but there's no harm in trying. I wish to know who I am." "Funny," said the old woman as she granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish..." -Anonymous
Sustainable Development And Climate Change

http://www.antiessays.com... I thank the commenters who brought this to my attention. Now, since my opponent's rant does not make any real points in his favor, I will simply make my case and explain why my opponent's case does not fulfill his burden [that is, if his plagiarized first round should count at all]. As you can see, one of the things my opponent is arguing FOR in this debate is Sustainable Development. My opponent must argue FOR both Sustainable development AND climate change. I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that development is not sustainable, and I am therefore against the concept of sustainable development. Development requires that we take something that is undeveloped and develop it. However, we reach a point where we can no longer develop any further. My opponent has only helped in showing this. he indeed azrgues that development is not sustainable. He as in the source he plagiarized from, of course. And my opponent has certainly made no case in favor of climate change, which he must do to fulfill the AND of the resolution. As CON, I have many avenues of argumentation. I can argue against sustainable development, or I can argue against climate change. Or I could argue against both. For now, what I have done will suffice. I hope my opponent brings his own content to the table next round, or at least properly cites the original authors if he is incapable of making his own argument.
Sustainable Development And Climate Change

Not until the spread of the Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, has man possessed the ability to adversely alter, on a global scale, the geologic and climatic cycles that have existed for millennia. Planet earth, which man calls home, is approximately 5 billion years old. The science of paleontology tells us that man is a relative new comer to the planet. Modern man did not arrive on the scene until approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Developments in hunting, agriculture, literacy, and the sciences, have allowed man to thrive and inhabit nearly every corner of the planet. However, this success has not been good for the earth. The world's population has recently surpassed 6 billion and the developed countries community models and lifestyles are not sustainable. Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and entertainment construction has spread across the surface of the planet like an oil slick. We are depleting resources and altering ecosystems at an alarming rate. Only now are we beginning to comprehend the long-term effects of more than a century of environmental ignorance, neglect, and apathy.
Communist Gulag Guard Recruitment

"The guards would help guard treasonous evil people persons, as well as enemies of communist Russia." There is nothing wrong with disliking communism in Russia. "$1000 a month is not very much. Don't worry! We'll give you a penny raise if you work hard!" $1000.01 is not very much for being a guard. "Yes you will!" Given that I hate communism, I probably would hate living the job.
Communist Gulag Guard Recruitment

Hello, we are very sorry you are not satisfied. If you have more questions, state them below.Q: Also, what would the guards even do? There is a US military for the job you assigned them and it's not like the US military kills it's own citizens or even many other citizens deliberately.A: The guards would help guard treasonous evil people persons, as well as enemies of communist Russia. Also, the US military doesn't really like us, as we don't see eye to eye on various topics like communism Democracy, and capitalism.~~~$1000 a month is not very much.Don't worry! We'll give you a penny raise if you work hard!"You'll love it here!" No I won't.Yes you will!