BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Supreme Being Exists

First off you state that the supreme being is a human, and since intelligent creatures only started forming after the universe came to be, the supreme being doesn't exist. The supreme being isn't a human, but a divine creature that doesn't exist on earth, but can take human form. Also it doesn't follow the laws of science since it created science and science could not have existed before it. Also, you never stated how the particles in the "big bang" came to be, so the thought that the supreme being is still valid. You also ask who created the supreme being. The supreme being was never created, it just is. The supreme being has no particles within itself, but can create a form to take.
The Supreme Being Exists

The SingularityIn particle physics, a gravitational singularity is a point in spacetime with infinite energy density and zero volume, making it extremely condensed with energy. [1][2] During the Big Bang, there was a singularity that contained photonic energy (i.e. light energy). The extremely concentrated singularity expanded slightly, releasing heat energy from the friction of the gradually contracting photons. The photons suddenly contracted immediately, producing particles and antiparticles.[1][3] These gradually became what is known as the universe today. The Grand Design QuestionThe question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of a Supreme Being. But, if the answer is the Supreme Being, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the Supreme Being?" [4] According to recent research, there CAN be something that created the universe initially. And, according to most physicists, it is the singularity, the initial focus of the Big Bang. Ancient Intelligence"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. [5] Intelligence has displayed itself in the evolution of various species, but the most complex form of intelligence is found in hominids. Hominids evolved from apes and emerged around 7.5 to 5.5 million years ago. [6] Biologically, such complex intelligence cannot have emerged prior to 7.5 million years ago, but, since the universe was created 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, [7] an intelligent Supreme Being would have had to have existed before that time, which is biologically impossible. ConclusionScientifically and theologically, the existence of a Supreme Being with the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence is impossible. Sources [1] A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking[2] Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://www.fqxi.org...)[3] Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino, A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.; Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.; Barao, F.; Baret, B.; Barrau, A.; Barrin, L.; Bartoloni, A.; Basara, L.; Basili, A.; Batalha, L.; Bates, J.; Battiston, R.; Bazo, J.; Becker, R.; Becker, U.; Behlmann, M.; Beischer, B.; Berdugo, J.; Berges, P.; Bertucci, B.; Bigongiari, G. et al. (2013). "First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–350 GeV". Physical Review Letters 110 (14): 141102.[4] The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow [5] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition, 2015 [6] Begun, David R. 2010. Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 39: 67 -84[7] "Planck reveals an almost perfect universe". Planck.ESA. 2013-03-21. (http://www.esa.int...)
The Supreme Being Exists

Mike, I won't rebut anything in this round. I will do that next round. First I want to get my thoughts out there. A supreme being obviously exists because where does everything come from? If there is such thing as the "Big Bang" how did that happen, and how did we get all the matter that is in the universe? This supreme being could be God, that is the Christian one, or it could be something else, like who knows, maybe we're all in a virtual reality designed by the supreme being who put us here. However, I think that the supreme being is the Christian God because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the greatest person who ever lived because he was incredibly unselfish and put others' needs in front of his own. Jesus never committed a sin in his life. Now Jesus preached of God. Jesus couldn't be lying because he never committed a sin, and lying is a sin. Thank You.
The Supreme Being Exists

Structure of the DebateRound 1 is for acceptance only. Rounds 2, 3 and 4 are for presentation arguments, rebuttals and conclusion arguments with no definite structure. Therefore, arguments may be presented in any format. Definitions of the Described TermsIn the used context: (a) "Supreme Being" (noun) is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority."; (b) "exists" is the third-person present form of "exist", that is defined as, "to have objective reality or being," and is a verb. To further expand on this debate's context of the Supreme Being: The aforementioned must have sentience and must have a psychological ability to process information in a way that is similar to the human mind. The Supreme Being described above must also have the three primary defining aspects of (a) omnipotence (defined as an abstract noun that means "the state of having the ability to perform any action, natural or supernatural,") and (b) omniscience (defined as an abstract noun meaning, "the state of having absolute, limitless and completely accurate knowledge of everything,"). For further sharp accuracy, "everything" is defined as, "all things", or, in other words, "all forms of scientifically existent or nonexistent matter, antimatter, energy, force or anything existent in the spacetime continuum, and beyond (in a spiritual sense,") but the simpler first definition of "all things" is used in this debate. The PositionsThe position of "Con" is to be AGAINST the assumption that one Supreme Being (as defined above) exists. The position of "Pro" is to argue FOR the position that a Supreme Being exists. All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof. External sources can be used to strengthen the arguments. Arguments of the Supreme Being as defined above being a force, or any similar positions, are not valid to this debate which is strictly in accordance with the above definitions.ConductDecent and acceptable conduct must be maintained. Profanity and/or vulgar language of any form is strictly prohibited. Inappropriate, abusive or insulting phrases are unacceptable. Polite etiquette and civil behavior must be maintained. Trolling is strictly forbidden. Any arguments that violate the code of conduct as mentioned here will be reported to DDO and will be removed from the debate. ConclusionThus, any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory. Sources1. The Oxford Dictionary of English; 2015 Edition (American English)2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
My old account should be permanently banned and not allowed back on this site

Again mabye you fessed up because you wanted to be made an example of in order to prevent things like this from happening again. I reckon you could possibly be a hero anyway bud and for this reason I do not think that you should be permanently banned as there is too much uncertainty regarding the intent of your actions. A lot of the debates on this site are on whether murder or torture can sometimes be morally permissable. And they can. So why couldnt your behaviour be permissible if you had good intentions when you carried it out. And we cant be sure of your intentions!! Cheers....
My old account should be permanently banned and not allowed back on this site

When I asked one of my "friends" for help with my math homework, he told me to check sourmath.com. A few months later, someone asked me how to use tinyurl, so I showed them, and while I was on there, I decided to trick some people with it. I posted it under the name wafllecopter and with my real account, made it seem like it wasn't me. Over time I felt guilty and decided to fess up. That, and the other stuff is why I deserve to be banned.
My old account should be permanently banned and not allowed back on this site

Well bud to be honest you sound like a man after my own heart so arguing to have you banned could have serious repercussions for me as I sometimes find it quite hard to refrain from name calling. And if you had shown me how to do that thing with the porno, I most certainly would have ended up doing it had I not seen the example that was made of you. So mabye you do not want things like this to happen on this site. Mabye you did the above to force whoever runs the site to make an example of you. And mabye this argument is just you stating your dissatisfaction with how strictly the rules are enforced here. So considering that you could possibly have been this sites hero seeking no recognition for his good deeds I could not in good conscience argue to have you banned from this sight. And even if you werent a hero who had himself made an example of for our sake you have still written out all of that and are arguing that you should be banned because of it. And from this I believe that it is clear that you have seen the error in your ways and I think you should be allowed to continue debating. You have to show me how to do that thing with the porno!!
My old account should be permanently banned and not allowed back on this site

I don't believe you were here when I was banned. I had multiple accounts, votebombed I-am-a-panda, and posted a porno which people could not "x" out of. The reactions to that video were very funny by the way. The terms of service say that I can not have multiple accounts. They also say that I can not post pornographic material. I am not sure if votebombing is in there, but I'm sure I got reported multiple times for it which led to my eventual banning. I also called everyone motherfuckers and bastards. I may have said bastard children, but I don't remember exactly what it was.
Is atheism justifiable? (a viable possibility, worthwhile, true)

I accept. I'm an atheist, because no god has been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically, and the origins of the universe do not allow for creation or a creator, divine or otherwise; since god is supposedly the creator of our universe that wasn't created, my rejection of god is justifiable. No definitions were provided, so I shall supply my own. atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Is atheism justifiable? (a viable possibility, worthwhile, true)

My opponent should be an atheist and will defend that view. I understand everybody has the right to believe whatever they want, that is not up for debate. The reader should vote according to whether or not that person makes a convincing argument compared to my arguments. Whether or not THIS SPECIFIC atheist can (without prior bias) convince the reader/judge that he/she is correct despite my arguments against his/her position. I would love to debate anybody about anything Christian related, however, this is not relevant to this specific debate. Does this person's atheistic belief hold water and have the power to convince you or do the opposing arguments make more sense? Use round 1 to accept and simply state why you are an atheist (keep it short, 1 or 2 sentences total is enough) and specifically what position you will defend (big bang, evolution, whatever). Round 2 is your full opening argument. Rounds 3-4 are presenting more evidence and rebuttals. Round 5 is for closing statements.
One-Round Rap Battle!

You can't be tamed?Well get ready to be maimed.Now prepare yourself for he who shall not be named.Merda!Well of course I can say it.I'm the top dog on DDOnow deal with it!You think I'm gonna plead?Fvck you!I'll lead a fvcking stampedeof lyrical magic 'til your face is black and blue.Oh whoopsie daisyforgot to introduce myself.My name is Merda Social Pinkoand my name is an end-- in and of itself.Merda stands for sh!tit best describes your rhymes.they suck so bad should be in the New York Times.Looks like I still have some roomgood thing too.My rap ain't even in full bloom.Time for my rhymes to consumeyou into a tombwhere I'll bury youuntil the big KABOOM!That's where I exhume your corpse,ride it like a horse,with a tour de forcewith no remorse. Of course.And then I make yo' mommy watchwhile I down a fifth of scotchthen go to town on her too'til her pvssy is black and blue.And to anyone who seesSome passersby hidden behind the trees...I'll fvck them up tooI got a fvcking mental disease!And when I'm finished with y'allI'll go back to my liarout behing the malland sit in my rocking chair petting my polar bearplaying some solitaire.Oh you're back?You want some more?You come to my lair to attack?Now you fell through my trap doorontu the floorinto a room with a wild boar.He looks at you deeplywith those big black eyesand you can tell he wants to give it to youin between your thighs.You run and scream but no one can hear ya'!And with the force of a football teamthe boar just creamed in ya'.I guess that's enough.Well I'm feeling kind of parchedI'll go have a Duff.
One-Round Rap Battle!

Enter the Lemon, he can't be tamed You chose to battle me and you'll just end up ashamed Gather up your tissues and be prepared to lose Cry now or later- whatever you choose I'll leave you helpless, alone in the dust Don't plead on your knees 'cause I will never be just Don't think you will conquer all of my schemes 'Cause if you win, it'll be in your dreams I've met a few fools but you top the list I'm superior- you get the gist? Your just a puppet and I'm cuttin' the strings A dieing bird as I crush it's wings Maybe you can bark but can you bite? Dial the fuzz, 'cause I'm ready to fight Don't even try to hit me, you know you'll miss Lemme turn around and give you something to kiss Here's a shovel- go dig your grave You six feet deep is what I crave Right now your strangled in death's embrace I'll defeat you and leave no trace You want me to go at a quicker pace? Nah I ain't done- this isn't a race If it were you'd be dead last and I'd be first place Im gonna smack that daft look off of your face Your a disgrace to the human race It's been fun, I gotta admit Watching you crumble after each hit Do you really think you'll end up glorified? I can see that your horrified So I'll say good luck 'cause I know you'll need it Save yourself from all the pity and just quit Lemon's out- Let's see if you'll omit
One-Round Rap Battle!

Although unoriginal, I have always wanted to participate in a "Rap Battle" debate upon viewing many. I would like to dedicate this round to explain a few ground rules that my opponent must agree with in choosing to accept this battle. Here we go: ★ Battle Rules ★ 1.) Please show some sort of rhyme pattern. I am aware not all rap uses a rhyming format, but I would appreciate if my preference would be considered. 2.) Have fun! I dislike serious debate topics, and any disses I may present towards my opponent are unintentional and are simply used for the purpose of this battle. Whoever my opponent may be, I wish you the best of luck. Furthermore, I'll be back in Round Two!
Human's Are Formed From Vibration And Energy

Pro clarified their stance in the comments of this debate. They explained that everything is made of subatomic particles which are vibrating. However, the resolution is, "Human's [sic] Are Formed From Vibration And Energy". While the subatomic particles vibrate and *contain* energy, they are not energy and vibrations in and of themselves. Protons and electrons are made of quarks.[1] Therefore, humans are not made of vibrations and energy. Sources: [1] http://particleadventure.org...
Objective morality does not exist

So I've seen that some prominent atheists like Logicked and Sam Harris believe in objective morality so I wanted to give my own opinion and explain why objective morality does not exist: 1. Not all cultures have the same moral values. Except for murder, theft and rape, many cultures around the world and throughout history did not share moral values. In fact, in some Islamic countries today (like Egypt and Saudi Arabia) rape is not even seen as a heinous act. Well, under some circumstances it is, but mostly the woman is blamed under the premise that she didn't cover up her ankle or her wrist thus giving the man no other option but to rape her (that's Islamic logic for you). 2. What used to be moral back then isn't moral now. Slavery used to be seen as moral by many people only 300 years ago. Why? It brought the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people at the expense of a smaller number of people. There was also the fact that European, Asian and Arabic anthropology did not recognize black people as humans. Also, people used to think nothing of it when they used to burn, drown or hang people accused of witchcraft since, due to their lack of scientific knowledge, they thought that those really were witches sent by the Devil. I wanted to put an argument that people later in history may have different morals than us today, but that is an unfounded argument.
The history of Menstruation is an interesting one!

!Here's a Disney video about periods! Walt Disney’s ‘The Story of Menstruation’ End period stigma! !! Here are my sources if you want to learn more about periods: . http://www.cycleharmony.com...menstrual-myths-a-rituals/menstrual-rites-of-the-native-americans . http://myperiodblog.com/2010/11/17/history-of-menstruation-part-1/ . http://fwsablog.org.uk... . http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.co.uk... . http://www.weirdasianews.com...-menstrual-blood-employers-food/ . http://theconversation.com... . http://www.gurl.com... . http://www.mum.org...
The history of Menstruation is an interesting one!

People don't like talking about periods, especially the mens, but they have a fascinating history! And I think everyone should know it! We learn about sewage and poop in history after all, why shouldn’t we learn about periods, they’re both waste products? Anyway, periods have a far more interesting history than poop. I am pro, and argue periods have a verrryy interesting history. Con argues the history of periods isn’t interesting. simples :) (I'm not being totally serious, by the way, hence bads grammsers ) ______-______-______-_______-________-__________-__________-____________-_______ Definitions: Interesting adjective arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention. "an interesting debate" menstruation Menstration noun the process in a woman of discharging blood and other material from the lining of the uterus at intervals of about one lunar month from puberty until the menopause, except during pregnancy. synonyms: period, menstrual cycle history noun 1. the study of past events, particularly in human affairs. "medieval European history" 2. the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing. "the history of the Empire"
Riddle Debate

First off, I got this from a logic book and the book didn't say what was his answer. That was part of the riddle. There was only one politician. The riddle was to see who was lying and who was telling the truth. If the first man said he was a politician, that would have thrown off the riddle. If he said yes then he would be telling the truth, but a politician would have told the truth. That means he would have been a truth telling politician. But if he lied about being a politician, then he would have been a pastor, but pastors in this world don't lie so he had to have said no. If the first guy said no then the second guy is not a politician bacause, he just denied being a politician. Now, if the first guy is a politician, then the third guy is not a politician because he said that the first guy is a politician. Now, if the first guys is not a politician, then the third guy is a politician because the third guy lied about the first guy being a politician. Now you can't be a politician or a preacher because you are not a native of this town. This was quite solvable. I won, so I get all seven points.
Riddle Debate

Not only did your riddle fail to adress what the person you asked answered it just says "He answers." but it also fails to address the issue as to whether the 'first guy' is you or the politician, since you are either a preacher or politician.There are four people involved in this:You, the man you asked, the guy who says 'first guy' (whoever that may be) denied being a politician and the one who states that he is a politician.Below I shall state all possible outcomes Assuming the 'first guy' is the one you asked (I explain them after): You: Preacher, Guy you asked: Politician, Third guy: Politician, Fourth individual: Preacher [2 Preachers and 2 Politician] You: Preacher, Guy you asked: Preacher, Third guy: Preacher, Fourth individual: Politician [3 preachers and 1 Politician] You: Preacher, Guy you asked: Politician, Third guy: Preacher, Fourth individual: Preacher [3 preachers and 1 Politician] You: Preacher, Guy you asked: Preacher, Third guy: Politician, Fourth individual: Politician [2 Preachers and 2 Politicians] You: Politician, Guy you asked: Politician, Third guy: Politician, Fourth individual: Preacher [1 Preachers and 3 Politician] You: Politician, Guy you asked: Preacher, Third guy: Preacher, Fourth individual: Politician [2 Politicians and 2 Preachers] You: Politician, Guy you asked: Politician, Third guy: Preacher, Fourth individual: Preacher [2Po 2Pr] You: Politician, Guy you asked: Preacher, Third guy: Politician, Fourth individual: Politician [3Po 1Pr] You could be either since there is no data to show it.The guy you ask could be either as I do not know his answer.THe third guy guy could be either as he could have seen the guy in a fictional movie made by politicians displaying him having said "I am not a politician" even though he is one, or really have seen him say it.The last guy would be a politician if the guy you asked was a preacher and a preacher if he were a politician.Thanks.
Riddle Debate

If you get this right then you get all seven points, but if you don't get it right, then I het all seven points. In a world far, far away, there are two types of people. Politicians and preachers. Politicians always lie and preachers tell the truth. You go up to one person and ask him if he is a politician.He answers.Another person comes up and says he saw the first guy deny being a politician.Then, a third person comes up and says that the first guy is a politician.How many politicians are there?
university education should be free

However what Pro said is false. First of all the rich don't look down at you and laugh. Also it is your fault that you are poor. It is not the rich fault that they were rich. You should know that life is unfair and evryone is good and bad at things. Second of all, you don't need education to get the jobs. Only about 40% of all jobs are by getting educated. Do you think someone would study for a cleaning lady test?