BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
satan fights for god, there is no heaven without hell

I would disagree. Heaven is described as being a wonderful place, and the Earth is merely a regular one. There can be a heaven without hell, so long as it's better than the Earth. Satan doesn't fight for God. Satan was cast out of heaven because he actually rebelled against God. If the bible is all true (Which I doubt) then that would mean Satan is actually a deceiver, and one that is meant to pull people away from God's teachings. I lack any way of seeing how pulling people from the path of God helps God. Quite frankly, it seems that would do just the opposite. Now, I ask you to find a way to make Satan's active rebellion against God into something that is actually helping God. As for the "No heaven without hell" statement, that isn't true. In catholic religion, 3 afterlife locations are described. Heaven, eternal bliss, Limbo, eternal nothingness, and Hell, eternal punishment. Without hell, there is still Limbo. Even without Hell or Limbo, an all powerful deity like God could definitely force you into non-existence or even just not let you into Heaven.
satan fights for god, there is no heaven without hell

Nasty people don't go anywhere in a hell-less existence. If heaven isn't real, then they stop existing. If it is real, the they would just go to either limbo or they wouldn't be let into heaven. You still have not shown examples to support that Satan fights for God, you've just restated that he does. Also, I agree. The bible is largely wrong as it's written, and you neither have to believe in God or the bible.
"Purpose" and "Meaning" are not just products of man. They inherently exist in the universe.

When people ask what the meaning of life is, they assume that everything has to have a meaning, and that everything inherently has a meaning. I argue that meaning is purely artificial, a human construct. Meaning does not exist outside the human realm. If something "means" something, it does so only to humans with no objective importance. In addition, this invalidates many "Why" questions. For example, "Why are we here?". "Why is the universe here?". These questions also assume purpose and are often linked with Intelligent Design/Creationism as "unanswerable questions" that validate faith. I essentially propose that there is no good reason, proof, explanation, etc. to show that meaning/purpose are more than artificial concepts. I invite my opponent to present an argument showing otherwise.
The pen is better than the sword.

I see your point of which the usage of pens is through writing and for other necessities in life, however, in history, there was a lot of turning points due to the sword. The problem is that not all history of the world was solved by a constitution or treaties as many fights that have occurred in the early periods of time were not solved so easily and thus the usage of the sword was necessary. The many turning points that the sword help make is through wars like the Fall of the Ancient Egyptians, the rise of the Romans and all the ancient civilizations. Also, swords were used capital punishment and also for surgery purposes. The pen may be widely used now, however, as the sword has been replaced by the gun, the pen shall be replaced by typing. As you see, the swords came first and left first. It soon may be time when pens will take their leave.
The pen is better than the sword.

Thank you Jatushan for accepting my argument. And now my argument : "History repeats itself. " This has been proven itself time and time again. We can usually predict the future by what has happened in the past. When dealing with this pen proverb, I must agree. Going back to what I was saying earlier, history repeats itself. In the past, peoples have been oppressed by the biggest swords. But, it was never permanent. Look to the American Revolution, the Vietnam War, even Hitler's Europe. "What do those have in common? " you say. Well, In all of these, the populace was oppressed by the sword. But, who came out on top? Who, through underground "penmanship" designed for the overthrow of the sword? The sword is often overtaken by the pen, having been proved by history multiple times. "The pen is mightier than the sword. " Affirmed.
Developed countries are responsible for Global Warming.

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES The industrial revolution did not start last week. 1760 was the date, and pretty much between then and the late 20th century, developed countries in North America and Europe and Japan were the dominant industrial machines that kept the world going. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Developing countries from Asia and South America followed the industrial economic model and became the factories of the world. Their lower cost of operation, due to very low cost of labor at first, made them the de facto destination for industrial production outsourcing. Factories that were originally in developed economies started to shift their operations to places like South East Asia, India and China. But they are merely offshore extensions of corporations that are based in America, Europe and Japan who are seeking ways to drive cost efficiency and profit while feeding the demand from developed and emerging markets. Globalization accelerated this process. While home grown companies and factories emerged from developing economies, they are predominantly export-oriented, either to provide low cost parts or act as cost repair centers for the developed world. Developing countries are notorious for side-stepping labor and environmental issues to retain their competitiveness, which are not possible in 1st world democratic countries which have come to adopt stricter regulations. This further fueled the movement of factories out of the 1st world and into developing countries. GLOBAL WARMING Global warming wasn’t a fad that started yesterday. Measurements from deep deposits of glacial ice at the Antarctic show a decline of global temperatures leading to the industrial revolution and a sharp increase preceding it, and that amounts of residual carbon deposits show a correlation between global temperature and carbon in the atmosphere. Due to the size of 1st world industrialized countries accounting for 60% of the world’s GDP, they remain a large contributor to carbon emissions. While it’s true that developed countries have recently increased their relative emissions, this is largely due to their export-oriented economies targeted towards 1st world countries; and their attractiveness as cost-efficient locations for factories of corporations based in 1st world. The role of developed countries in the industrial revolution and the “mutually-beneficial” relationship it enjoys with the industrial and export-oriented economies of the developed world cannot be ignored. This debate is not about whether global warming is true or false. In fact the motion presupposes it and the history of the early and modern industrial revolution and globalization show that both developed and developing countries are complicit regardless of who now plays a more proactive role in addressing the issue.In closing, both developed and developing countries are equally accountable for global warming and in lieu of their mutually-beneficial relationship, are equal stake-holders. This satisfies the motion that developed countries have an equal responsibility in mitigating global warming.
Developed countries are responsible for Global Warming.

Industrialized countries are far more likely to cause damage to the environment which can cause damage to the climate. The nations who participate in manufacturing release more dangerous greenhouse gases that cause damage to the ozone and can eventually cause climate change. Undeveloped nations have a much smaller footprint in regards to ozone damage. It is this reason that the developed countries have a responsible to the 3rd world countries to clean up their environmental act.
Muhammad was not mentioned in the bible.

Although you may not note the name Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible, there are references to him and his blood line. After Abraham (from whom Muhammad is descended) had died, God spoke through Moses about a long-awaited messenger. In Deuteronomy 18: 18 it is written that the messenger will come from the Israelite's "brethren." Brethren is a reference to the Ishmaelites. Ishmael, Abraham's first born son, was the older brother of Isaac (of whom the Israelites come). God had promised Abraham that his descendants will become a great nation. Blessings are not determined by the status of the parents, so despite Hagar's status as a concubine, Ishmael also received this blessing to become a great nation. It was not until Muhammad's rise after Jesus' earthly death that the promise of God to make Abraham's descendants (both branches) a great nation was finally fulfilled. Deuteronomy 33:1-2 speaks of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as messengers of God. It says that God (or His revelation) will come from Sinai (Moses), rise from Seir (most likely the village of Sa'ir near Jerusalem, i.e. Jesus), and shining forth from Paran. Genesis 21:21 describes Paran (i.e. Arabia, specifically Mecca) as the place where Ishmael settled. The descendant of Ishmael is none other than Muhammad. Psalms 84:4-6 mentions the Pilgrims passing through Ba'ca, also known as the city of Mecca. Isaiah 42:1-13 sates that God's elect and messenger will bring down a law to be awaited in the isles and who "shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set judgement on earth." Verse 11, connects that awaited one with the descendants of Ke'dar. Is Ke'dar mentioned in the bloodline of Jesus? No, according to Genesis 25:13, he is the second son of Ishmael and the ancestor of the prophet Muhammad.
Muhammad was not mentioned in the bible.

Muhammad was NOT prophesied in the bible as muslims claim. It is a very unproven and ambitious claim made by muslims. The Quran says that muhammad was prophesied in the Gospel and Torah but no mention is made of him in the english, hebrew or greek texts of the bible. Quran 7:157 Quran 61:6 How true is this really. I hope I will find an opponent to discuss this with me. I am new to this site and this is my first debate ☺ I do not mean to offend anyone but merely seek a debate to practice and learn a few things.
The Jewish People were mandate by God to reject Jesus as God or the messiah

In this debate, I will argue that the Jewish people in the time of Jesus were forbiden to worship Jesus as God nor accepting him as their messiah. Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals Only Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements I ask that whoever accepts this debate is a Christian. The Hebrew Bible is in this debate is the only authoritative book, as in the time of Jesus, the New Testament was not written.
Lawns

For the last round I will refute my opponents points. It is Worth the Value My opponent in the second round claims that the United States uses 600 million gallons of fuel on their lawns which averages out to be 5 gallons per household. The current average price of gas in the United States is $3.62 times that over 5 times that makes $18.10 for a years worth of gas for the lawn. The overall price of maintaining a lawn which includes watering, mowing, and weeding adds up to an average price of $241.00 a year. The average cost of a home in the United States since February 2013 is $152,000. 18% of $152,000 is $27,360, which simple math shows that $27,360 > $241. The price on the environment is matched by the benefits that a lawn brings with CO2 cleaning and giving purifying water. The cost of maintaining a lawn is worth the price. Exercise. There is no such thing as safe exercise, injuries will always be apart of exercising. 400,000 people died in the United States because of exercising, the only safe exercise is not exercising; but the does not get anyone healthy. Mowing the lawn is just exercise that makes people healthy and adds value to a home. For those who use riding mowers still get sun light that helps with lower blood pressure, reduces risk of type 2 diabetes ,and reduces risk of stroke. Having a lawn is a great thing and I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. Vote Pro Sources http://gasbuddy.com... http://www.homeadvisor.com... http://www.statisticbrain.com... http://simplegreenorganichappy.com... http://www.secretstodefeatingdisease.com...
Lawns

In this round, I will rebut my opponents arguments. Is It Worth the Value? Although lawns do add to the value of a home, is it worth the massive amounts of time, effort, water, and fuel used to maintain it? It is estimated that the average American will spend 150 hours mowing. And like I said above, the U. S uses 600,000,00 gallons of fuel on their lawns. Not to mention the environmental cost of the fertizilers that run off into rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water, killing the fish and other wildlife. Is that worth an 18% increase in your home's value? Exercise Could be SaferMore than 74,000 Americans are injured by lawnmowers are injured each year, just a little less than the amount of people injured by firearms. 30% of these incidents result in amputations, and more than 5,000 of those 74,000 injures are on children. This is a quote from U. S. A TODAY newspaper, "Lawn mowers hit or run over hundreds of children every year, and one of them was Mason Lindley. When his mother, Tracey, hit a bump as she backed up her riding mower, she was horrified to see 3-year-old Mason underneath the machine. Her children "had been taught not to come around the mower," says Lindley of Burlington, N. C. "He must have had something really important to tell me. "But Mason didn't remember what it was when he woke up from surgery. He was missing his spleen, part of a lung, part of his pancreas and stomach, and all but 6 inches of his intestine. Mason died last year of complications from minor surgery after surviving three years with his injuries. "As in this case, many people use riding mowers over push mowers, defeating the whole argument that mowing is good exercise. *********I hope I've convinced you to the side of Con. Sources: . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...http://www.uphs.upenn.edu...http://peoplepoweredmachines.wordpress.com...http://www.safelawns.org...
Lawns

org. For this round I will point out the reasons that having a lawn is a good thing. Adds Value to HomeIf someone keeps their lawn well maintained it can add up to 18% on a home value. The reasoning for this is that having a more attractive home makes it more valuable. Giving a home a well maintained lawn can complement a home and give it a fresh clean look. Lawns also can clean the air around the home by absorbing CO2 and releasing Oxygen into the air around the home giving it fresh air feel. Freshly cut grass has been voted number one as UK's favorite smell and this is possible by a well maintained lawn. Lawns help with Exercise. Obesity is a problem throughout the world. Mexico has the highest obesity rate at 30% of residents considered obese, coming in at second is the United States at 28%, and United Kingdom comes in at 25%. The causes of such high obese rates is that it people aren't eating the proper foods and getting enough exercise, but having a lawn can fulfill one of those requirements. Mowing can be great exercise with an engine powered lawn can burn up to 178 calories, while having a non-engined lawn can burn up to 251 calories in a 30 minute time span. A lawn also is a great place to have safe fun. It is much safer to have children play out front compared to having them go to a park alone. It is a great place of children to get out an play and have some daily exercise. A lawn is great, I have one and I must say it is just great to see a well maintained lawn and the fresh smell of cut grass gives me goose bumps. Thank con and I will be looking forward to your response. Sources. http://margiestibora.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.livestrong.com...
Lawns

In this round, I will point out the reasons lawns are a bad concept and shouldn't be used everywhere. Waste of SuppliesTaking care of a lawn uses a massive amount of resources that can be used for better purposes. Yale University estimated that the U. S uses 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline to mow and trim lawns. That's 5 gallons per household. The human energy used to push mowers could be used for better activities. In some Western states, (New Mexico, California, etc. ) the amount of fuel used to move the water to irrigate the lawns is the same as the amount that is used to mow the lawn itself. The water that is used to irrigate lawns could instead be used to irrigate crops or be given to those who need it. Also, massive amounts of natural gas is wasted by being turned into fertilizer for lawns. The amount of gas used to make 200 bags of fertilizer is enough to heat a home for a full year. The transport of this fertilizer to the stores, and then to your home costs additional fossil fuels. Space Could be For Better PurposesThe space used for lawns could be used for something better, like a garden. There are other things that could be used, but the garden is one of the better choices. Having a garden gives you access to fresh and healthy vegetables and decreases your carbon footprint by making it so you don't have to go to the store for all your food. It saves you money by not having to buy all your food from a supermarket. You save money, time, gas, and energy on mowing because a garden doesn't need to be mowed. Other, more arid, parts of the world could just not have lawns or a garden. They could have whatever plants and soil type is native to their area. This would save massive amounts of oil, natural gas, and water. ******I thank Pro once more for this debate. Sources: . http://www.safelawns.org... . http://homeguides.sfgate.com...
Lawns

(1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals and closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent. ********I will be arguing against lawns because they serve no piratical purpose, and are a straight up odd concept.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

Even though the first fleet brought the first wave of immigration over to Australia and shaped Australia to what is it today, for some Australians, particularly among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, January 26 is not a day of celebration, but is seen as a day which commemorates the invasion by British settlers of lands already owned. It is a day of mourning as it symbolises invasion of land and makes people in the community angry rather than happy as Australians are celebrating a negative day for Aboriginals. January 26 refers to an invasion and dispossession of Aboriginal land when the first fleet arrived so why should we celebrate an invasion to the Aboriginals? The Aboriginal people call it "Invasion Day" as this means it began the decades of injustice Aboriginal people faced while we celebrated the First Fleet.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

Although Australia Day marks a day of trauma for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, it is also a day when we can all come together and celebrate what our country has become. He have apologised to the Indigenous peoples about the terrible actions of the British when they landed in Australia. Today, we can use Australia day to symbolise a day of coming together as one country. Furthermore, Australia Day marks the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet. If it wasn"t for the first fleet, Australia would be nothing like it is today. The first fleet brought the first wave of immigration over to Australia. This immigration continued for many years following as we saw the arrival of more convicts and other British immigrants, and people from many European countries. After the abolishment of "The White Australia Policy", we saw many Asian and African immigrants in Australia, bringing with them their diverse cultures and traditions. Although many Aboriginals were killed and mistreated after the British arrived, Australia would not be anywhere near as multicultural as it is today if it weren"t for the arrival of the First Fleet.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date because of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people find Australia Day so offensive and they need to be recognised. Australians to this current day do not recognise the background history that Australia Day means for the Aboriginals. It"s simply insane that anyone could expect Aboriginal people to embrace January 26 as the national day, given what Australia Day actually means to them. Australia Day portrays a variety of meanings. For some, it's a celebration of culture. For others it's a day of mourning for ancestors. The day involves remembering the history of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including the trauma caused by government policies and the separation of children at that time. Obviously the current government is unable to see the real reason of the date, that"s why it needs to be changed. Excluding the Aboriginals of the celebration of this date is very offensive as they were the first settlers of this land. Instead we are celebrating our settlers and not recognising their existence.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

The date of Australia should not be changed. The first fleet began a long line of immigrants arriving in Australia which led Australia to becoming such a multicultural nation. Although the arrival of the first fleet which was a traumatic time for the Indigenous people, we now choose to celebrate it as a day of coming together as one. After all of that pain the first fleet brought we now can celebrate, no matter if you are Indigenous, Asian African, European or anything else, on the 26th of January the great nation we have become.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

Although we have moved on from this past event and become a multicultural nation what if your Aboriginal ancestors were slaughtered and had their land and their children stolen, would you celebrate the date on which this all began? January 26 refers to an invasion and dispossession of Aboriginal land when the first fleet arrived. Therefore that"s why Australia date should be changed, as this is offensive to Aboriginal people. While white Australians are celebrating Aboriginals are mourning the day that they are not recognised and their land was invaded. Overall Australia day date should be changed as we as a country need to recognise the importance of Aboriginals and how we invaded their land.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date.

Although it marks a day of suffering for the Indigenous Australians, we are at a stage now where we have apologised for all of the wrong doings of the British when they settled Australia. Instead of purely treating Australia Day as "Invasion Day", we can use it as a symbol to represent how we have grown as a nation and apologised for our past actions. Australia Day is an extremely well known national day of celebration. Not just for "white Australians" but for all Australians. It is a day where we can come together as a nation and celebrate this great country we can call our own. We can also forgive and forget about all of the hurt and trauma in Australia"s past and focus on the future and working towards an even more equal Australia. Although Australia as a country does have a long way to go before we can say everyone in Australia is treated with the same respect and have the same rights, we sure can say we are trying our hardest to work towards it. Indigenous Australians, Immigrants, any and every other Australian in between can come together on Australia as one community, one nation.