BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Odin is superior to Yahweh

Greetings! I have been absent form this community for a long time, so I figured I would drop in for a visit. I have been studying pagan beliefs for a few months now, and have critically analyzed the qualities of Odin against the popular deity known as YHWH (Yahweh). In my research, I have come to the conclusion that Odin is, in fact, a superior deity to Yahweh. Both in a historical and religious sense. I will, of course, elaborate later. Let me begin by saying that I am a pagan (specifically Asatru), who converted from Christianity some time ago. I don't necessarily believe that Odin is a literal deity, as Christians believe YHWH to be, but a manifestation of nature/the human psyche. This doesn't matter as much for the sake of this debate, as our sources will only come from written history, or that which documents the gods' natures. Secondly, both my opponent and I will have limited reference material. I will take most of my information from various ancient documents regarding Odin's characteristics. I would expect Con to do the same via the Bible. Note that this is a historical debate, not a philosophical debate. No arguments without evidence/sources, period. Thirdly, I am inclined to believe that the Yeshua figure in the new testament is actually a different deity from the YHWH deity (Yahweh is, essentially, the culmination of a variety of gods from different pagan pantheons throughout the area). However, I won't mind if Con uses the New Testament to argue the nature of YHWH, so long as they can adequately reconcile this nature with the deity from the Old Testament in the process; of this reconciliation, I will be the judge. Ultimately, it would be in everyone's best interests for Con to use the Old Testament. It would be preferred if this debate was as unaffected by Christianity as possible. We will attempt to explain how the deities' characteristics have impacted their followers, and the aspects thereof. Here is the structure of the debate: Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Round Four: Conclusion No ad hominem attacks; this is strictly an intellectual debate. If you have any questions prior to accepting, please ask in the comments. May we arrive at truth. Reyn Til Runa.
In order for democracy to develop across the world monotheism must cease

Their is one difference between the ancient democracies and the modern democracies, that is the the latter have been extremely influence by the monotheistic religions. Monotheistic religions cannot go hand in hand with democracies since they themselves teach monarchy. and thus for true democracy to develop more democratic, polytheistic, existentialistic philosophies must replace the monotheistic religions world wide, especially in the U.S., the so called leader of the free world.
Free will does not exist.

For the purpose of this debate I will assume that god does not exist. (If you want to try to prove that god exists then go to relgion. ) Also. Please don't come into this debate saying that we must have free will because every day we make choices and so on. Without religion or a soul it is impossible for the brain to evade standard physical laws. In this round I will be defending scientific determinism. Usually people dismiss me when I first propose this. I proceed with several questions: 1. Does an atom have free will? Why would you believe that atoms working together would be able to fight the laws of the universe? 2. If conciousness is what allows for free will then how does it react with matter without being subject to the laws of the universe? 3. Where do you draw your abitrary line? If a labotomy can completely change who you are, then the physical makeup of your brain clearly matters in determining how you act. If dopamine can change how you act then what happened to your will? Clearly matter and the laws of the universe have an effect on the choices of an individual. My claim is that it is arbitrary to try and have a dual ownership of choices. The truth is that without relying on the supernatural there is no explanation of free will. Because free will IS supernatural. It is a supernatural claim to say that a mysterious ruler that is not tangible has arisen from the collection of atoms and allowed for a violation of that objects natural course of action. Furthermore the tables in this debate are intially tilted in my favor because I am not the one claiming the existence of anything. It is the contender in this round that will be trying to prove the existence of something. (Refer to Russell's Teapot if you don't believe my claims. )
Impossible to know anything with absolution

After reading a previous debate as to whether it was possible to know anything with absolute certainty I have decided to 'refresh' the argument. The counter argument being for you to be certain of this statement you would be contradicting yourself, now lets consider schrodinger cat where the cat is in a superimposed state of dead or alive in with no certainty of which; now consider the scenario we believe both that it is impossible and possible to know something then we do not know anything in absolution. This statement is dependent more on the person rather than itself, provided the person in question is uncertain about the statement itself they are essentially in a state of mind where this can be true. I therefore believe that this is an opinionative debate, however I believe it is the more PROBABLE of the two extremes which is why i debate for. Now lets look at some other aspects of this debate using probability, know for there to be some sort of certainty (let alone complete certainty) there must be a probability of it occurring, now lets look at probabilities of the future; in the observable universe alone at an instantaneous point in time there are an infinite number of possibilities for each individual object (bear in mind the universe is actually much bigger). so now we can exclude the future we can not 'anticipate anything with absolution because we have an infinite number of possibilities and 1/infinity = 0 We now indulge into the past, probabilities which have collapsed onto themselves meaning they much be certain right? Lets think about it first, we can see things as a result of light bouncing of matter, now imagine that light (if there is such a thing called light) is altered before it even reaches our eyes, we do not know how or if it was altered but it has affected events which have already occurred and hence it prevents us from proposing certainty. Dependency restricts absolution
Impossible to know anything with absolution

I am Axerz. I will argue that there are somethings we can be certain of: #1: The act of doubting 1. I can doubt everything 2. If I doubt everything, I can't doubt the fact I am doubting 3. Therefore, there is something that doubts #2. Not being able to know something, implies the existence of a concept of knowledge 1. I do not know anything 2. If the concept of knowledge did not exist ,I would not be able to make this statement (compare this with not playing football without the concept of the game). 3. Therefore, there are at least concepts of knowledge #3. Assuming everything comes from a mere illusion implies the existence of an illusion This one is quite obvious. An argument from illusion relies on the existence of an illusion. #4. In order to think of something, it must exist 1. Something non-existent have the same properties as nothing In order have a property, you need to exist. And therefore, when you do not have any properties, you cannot exist. 2. (skeptical premise): I might only be an illusion 3. If I do indeed not exist, I would have no properties 4. However, something with no properties is nothing 5. We know we are thinking of me, and not of nothing 6. Therefore, I exist #5. Sceptisiscm refutes itself 1. We know nothing 2. Since we know nothing, we do not know if we know nothing You can now do the following things: 1. Saying we know we know nothing, thereby refuting your claim 2. Saying that we don't know if we know nothing, meaning you have failed to proof your claim.
Title too long. Posted in arguement in quotations.

"In a 1 Round debate, the last person speaking influences the audience (other than arguements/points), solely by being the last person speaking." i wud like 2 point out the wurd 'solely" in the resoultion. i'ts parlitucarly important to my case. i contind that pore grammer also has an impact on the adeience. i speek only of expeerience here so hopefully the adeience will garee withh my point. ar yuo geting tirred rite about now of deficering wat it is I am trying to to say? miny of yuo might be are. pore garmer certinlee haz da impax on da adeienciegls wich indepdentely provs the revolution flase but I wil continu furver. Buy now most or all of yuo hav revalized that my pore grammer is but a farce, a starteggic tool in my 'anoying debats toolbox' amung many ohter tools that I wood use too win the round. 4 example, in this debat I partended to smoke cigrartets and lite them with a legend of ZELda liter (wich is'nt actuall true: http://www.debate.org... in reding this, yuo hav almost certinly revalized that i only went to the excurchiating extend of bazterdizing the eNglish languge to prove a point and whil u mite hav rejetced me at first becuz of my pore gramer and thunk me a bad debatter, yuo hav chanjd that opinion and understanded the method beihdn this splelling mandess. This meens that notonly wer yuo infulenced by my gra!mer skills, yuo wer also infulenced by my starteggic use thereof. Those 2 things are inpedendent of speeking second in th debat, wich negats the revolution becuz PRO have failed to jutsify his use of the word 'solely'
Title too long. Posted in arguement in quotations.

Sorry, but I didn't have enough room to put all of the resolution on the title, so, here it is. If you accept this debate, you MUST abide by this title: "In a 1 Round debate, the last person speaking influences the audience (other than arguements/points), solely by being the last person speaking." I will affirm my side. The implications of speaking are subject to the audiences attetion. We know that, undoubtedly, the audiences attention reserves are pooled at maximum at the beginning and the very end. The debates in this site are no exception. My alternate account, James.ticknor, has had a few of these debate. While the result of these are questionable, it can be inferred that the other side won because they were the last person to speak. Here's my reasoning: 1) The Sloppy Joe Story (http://www.debate.org......)- This story was thought up in my quaint little mind, therefore, I can impose any aspect of reality that I choose, without it being imposed upon. A unique concept, but irrelivant. My opponent asserted his arguement, and won. Why is that? He did not list that my supposive story defied nature, and I have no proof. Therefore, he could not contend fully against it, unless he asked me for proof. I was thwarted because I could not rebutt. This too, is another point. 2) Humans Are Stuipid (http://www.debate.org......)- In this debate, my opponent did not attack my point. This was mentioned also in the comments. Yet again, I'm being beaten. Though my opponent did not even present his own arguement! He just reiterated that he opposed the resolution. Now, he is winning because of something already known. 3) The Smile Debate (http://www.debate.org......)- In this debate, my opponent lists reasons why others shouldn't smile just because they are alive. I could not rebut that, people who have mental trauma or distraughtness, do not have the mental coherency to decide things in their life, because they are influenced by their mental illness. Not only that, but he presented points not pertaining to the masses. I even said "And this is everyday situations for everyday people". Not everyone has those problems. I would like to assert that these instances are evidences. The source? My own. I have cited for everyone the sites of each proof. My opponent may argue that the result of the votes may be because that the simply argued better than I, but I have refuted that already. Of which, I didn't have the chance to rebut, therefore, asserting the topic again, that the last person speaking is the most influental. This debate, also, will be evidence, win or lose. An oximoron? = ) We shall see.
Border fences. . . . Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations soverinty.

And what is Pro's definition of a perfect U. S. Citizen? And which planet do illegal aliens come from? The U. S. A. Is a nation founded on immigration and multi-culturalism. So why does Pro choose to be so selfish now? Is Pro something of a racist nimby? Just doesn't want people who look and sound a little different living next door. There is only one world so embrace it. What's the point of hiding behind mental barricades?
Border fences. . . . Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations soverinty.

DEBATE. Org, A New topic, New topic. . . Border fences/ Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations sovereignty. By. . . Lookingattheissues 2 A nation can't survive if the borders aren't secure and will disingrate and fail like the once infameous Rome. Other countries by building fences /walls on their borders prove that they are effective in stopping invaders from invading a nation. Only those who believe in Nations without borders, A one world, Object to border fences/walls. ". . . . A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, Explaining how immigration " both legal and illegal " was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. The cost to America's citizens to provide welfare to aliens flooding America's cities and towns is growing by leaps and bounds to the point of dissolution and unsustainable and will collapse under the ever increasing demands made upon it. Since America's borders are ineffective in keeping out illegal aliens and the elite in politics and education, ". . . . Encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. "and adovcate". . . . . Replacing. . . . The melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. . . . And claim. . . . It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, Emphasizing their similarities. " quote March 11, 2017 Dan Volkman " America must have control of who and how many aliens are allowed to enter this country. An impregnable border is a must if a nation is long to remain a nation.
Shirt under Sweartshirt

Unfortunately you should not be allowed to wear a hoodie without a shirt because the whole purpose is to add extra warmth and protection on top of your shirt. If you need to take it off for any reason you cant take it off because you don't have a shirt underneath. If it is too hot you can do that either you have to just live with the fact that since the wearer did not wear a shirt under the hoodie they will be burning hot.
Shirt under Sweartshirt

We shouldn't wear a shirt underneath a sweatshirt because the sweatshirt itself considers as the "shirt" you are wearing. And if you actually search on Google, the definition of sweatshirt, it says that it is a loose, heavy shirt, typically made of cotton, worn when exercising or as leisurewear. But then again, wearing a shirt underneath a sweatshirt would depend your preference. But I'm just talking about why we should not. The final decision lies in the wearer.
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

Evolution should not be taught in public schools. The reason beind is that it is only a theory, and it is in opposition to some religious teachings. I get your point that our schools are mixed religions and teching creation could offend people. But so could teching Evolution. The teaching of evolution could bring confusion to children of certain religions. Personally i think all aspects of our rise as humans should be taught as to not offend any religious or scientific prospects. And also it would enlighten the rising generation as to the different beliefs people have in the human begginings.
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

I don't think Creationism should be taught in public schools because it can offend other religious people and/or Athiest people. I dislike the fact that so many people try to convert them. I say it's wrong. If anything, most if not all wars are caused by religion. I'm not saying I'm Athiest, I just don't think people should preach in a school environment, especially if one views God in the Babtist way and some students are Methodists or Catholics. Evolution should be taught because it's only a theory based on scientific facts. Just like the Elements of Chemistry, Evolution is an important factor of Biology.
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

I do not wish to abolish biology in any way. The simple fact is that this one point in biology is viewed in several different ways. All ways should be taught without bias. I am also not saying we go into detail over each religious stance just a simple overview of the stances. And also an idea of human evolution. The fact of our nation being a melting pot is a truth not a law as was black slavery. Truths need to be acknowledged and as such we teach that way and accept every aspect.
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

It also said a long time ago that slavery was legal and right, but it changed, besides my arguements was for anyone who agrees with creationism being taught in schools. since we seem to be on the same page here, i say you are a worthy opponent, exept i say that evolution should be taught, if you disagree then you should also disagree with any teachings of biology what's so ever. Biology means, the teachings of life, and evolution happens to fall under this catagory. I also never said abolish religion, just abolish it from schools. And also, i know how the Frech Indian war went down, this is not about that, it's about how christians came in and put a beating on my great grandfathers tribe into forcing them into the word of god. If they disagreed, or stood up for themselves, they had thier feet chopped in half at the top of the foot, etc. Evolution might offend people, just as the teachings of how the Solar System revolved around earth, remember Galileo and how he was placed under house arrest for proving otherwise. For a long time, it was offensive to say that the earth was not center of the universe, now we have astronomy. I just think that Evolution has strong points and may soon be provin, for understanding this, we may have an understanding for our future. You are a great opponent! You rock!
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

Well, first of all the war with the native americans was started with a frech-indian alliance against england over american territory. So the cruelty came from both indians and french and english. Anyways I agree with the fact wars are started over religion. But look at our nation its called a melting pot fot a reason! All aspects of religion and science are accepted here. Therefor all aspects of both religion and science should be taught so as to cultivate respect for other ideas. And in doing so ensure our nation stays its course in freedom of religion and acceptance and understanding or those religions.
Teachings of Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools.

Ok, fine it can offend some people on teaching evolution, but how many topics can offend people that are taught in schools anyway. What about History in which it teaches old religions based on ancient peoples. Do you think that children want to hear that thier ancestors were cruel to Native Americans? How they slaughtered them by the numbers forcing them to believe in thier God? It then that creates confusion because they're taught that thier religion is about bringing peace on Earth and yet they force it cruely upon people. You can't start a war on Evolution, but you can start a war on Religions, or Riots in schools for that matter.
Why the Tigers getting Prince Fielder will benefit them

First thing is Prince Fielder was third in the voting for NL MVP, and second thin he had the second most home runs in the NL. Thirdly he also had the second most RBI's in the NL. Put in to a line up with Miguel Cabrera who led the Al in batting average last year, and all the other bats in the line up I see that the Tigers could be a championship contending team
Public Behaviour

Resolved, that no circumstance can excuse Ms. Langrall's behaviour in the following incident: Police: Woman threw urine-soaked sweatshirt on cop Megan Nicole Langrall was arrested for shoplifting in Shrewsbury Township, police said. By TED CZECH Daily Record/Sunday News Updated: 11/16/2009 08:29:33 AM EST A Codorus Township woman threw a sweatshirt soaked with urine, saliva and mucus in a state trooper's face after he arrested her for retail theft Saturday, according to state police. Police arrested Megan Nicole Langrall, 24, at the Wal-Mart in Shrewsbury Township about 4 p.m. They then placed her in the backseat of a police cruiser to take her to state police's barracks in Loganville. On the way to the barracks, Langrall urinated in the backseat of the cruiser, police said. Troopers took Langrall inside the barracks and gave her an emergency blanket in which to wrap herself. They also told her that if she was wearing a shirt under her urine-soaked sweatshirt, she could take her sweatshirt off, police said. When Cpl. William Tucker approached Langrall with several wipes to clean her hands, Langrall took off her sweatshirt -- which contained urine, saliva and mucus -- and threw it in Tucker's face, police said. Police charged Langrall with retail theft, aggravated harassment by a prisoner, harassment, disorderly conduct, institutional vandalism and criminal mischief. State police filed the charges before District Judge Walter P. Reamer. http://ydr.inyork.com... 'Megan Langrall' on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com...
Walking sideways on the second Sunday of a month should be illegal.

While it is true tripping on a nuke will indeed destroy earth, there is one crucial flaw in your plow. Nuclear bombs never existed. Normally I wouldn't have evidence for such a profound theory, but now I do. You see, it all has to do with MARTIN SCORSESE. In the year 2011, Martin Scorsese released Hugo, a film that starred Sacha Baron Cohen. 2+0+1+1= 4. As in the same number of letters in the word sims. A video game in which you can impersonate ANYBODY. Alive or dead, fictional or non-fictional. BOOOOOOOOOM! Evidence that nuclear bombs do not exist and that humans should be free to walk sideways on the second sunday of a month
Life

My opponent has the burden of proof. He must show the fairness of life. I will argue why life is not fair, a position that I believe to be fairly self-evident. I've attended the richest high school in my country, while living in one of the poorest districts. I had it easy while I watched my friends struggle and suffer. Today some of them are begging on the street, universally denied employment and without the means of getting a qualification. I, meanwhile, am at my country's top university on a scholarship. And that's not to mention all the millions of children in Africa, born deseased and into a life of poverty. I want my opponent to tell me how, morally and as human beings, he considers my life to have been in any way "fair" compaired to theirs. It isn't.