BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is scientfic proof that a God created this world

As I am more or less certain that my partner, should he present an argument, will argue that "god is omnipotent," I think it might be fun to anticipate this and pre-rebut it. 1. The god that he is most likely calling omnipotent is the literary figure Yahweh, the Muslim god, who is also adored by Jews and Christians. The god is decidedly not omnipotent - as evidenced by the fact that he is never described as such in any of the literature in question. (The one exception to this is the King James Version of the book, "Revelation," wherein a worshiper exults these sentiments in a fit of awe. None of the other translations follow this lead - preferring to call this deity "almighty" instead.) 2. Further evidence that this god is not omnipotent is also afforded in nearly every major description of him that appears in the bible. This is a god that learns lessons, regrets his own actions, and is able to be moved against his will to destroy his most loyal follower - Job. In these stories, Yahweh is portrayed as a cosmic buffoon, an easily duped tyrant whose wrath rather than his wisdom enforces his will on earth. 3. The concept of omnipotence is entirely nonsensical as a description of an individual entity. Omnipotence absolutely requires an infinite dissolution of the omnipotent thing - a condition that never applies to this god.4. Yahweh is, in his own words, a jealous god - who brutally punishes adoration of other deities. As I am confident that the 'god' my partner is referring to is Yahweh, I should also point out that there are other gods who are described as omnipotent - the Unity Principle in Taoism, the Hindu god Brahma, and the Wiccan .... whatever that is. I think that the Jedi might also follow an omnipotent deity of some sort. As the argument presented by my partner could be an act of blasphemy against Yahweh - I argue that it should not be considered as an authoritative argument on behalf of Yahweh.Important: even much less than omnipotence, the term "perfect" cannot be used to describe Yahweh. If this god was ever perfect, then he could never change any aspect of himself without becoming imperfect. If he makes even one mistake, or regrets even one action, or learns even one lesson, then this god was never perfect. As this god regretted killing all the little children in the great flood - his imperfection is proved.
There is scientfic proof that a God created this world

I am always eager to annoy the gods. I accept this challenge, and thank my partner for presenting it. However, I must point out a few things. The Opening argument, as prepared by my partner, is a word for word copy of another argument, posted on another debate site. This can be seen at the following link: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com...Here is a copy and paste from the website in question: There are 4 primary attribute that describe what God would be. If any of these attributes are found in one force, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.These 4 primary attributes are:1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.3) Omnipotent, all powerful.4) Omniscient, having all knowledge. [1]Compared to this section from my partner's argument: There are 4 primary attributes that will describe a God thus proving it if one of these attributes are found in one force than we can continue on to see if God is realTHE 4 ATTRIBUTES1.ETERNAL- NOT INVOLVED WITH THE FLOW OF OUR TIME2.OMNIPRESENT- FOUND EVERYWHERE3.OMNIPOTENT- ALL POWERFUL4.OMNISCIENT- HAVING ALL KNOWLEDGEOf course, it could be the case that my partner himself wrote the passage, and is simply participating in two debates at once - on two seperate sites. I have often done this, myself. However, I was able to find another website, that both debates seem to mirror with suspicious precision. This is the "Scienec Reads for Kids" website, found here: http://readsforkids.wordpress.com...Here is a passage from the website: Heisenberg came to the conclusion that quantum events cannot be predicted. All freed electrons behave as if they are being influenced by an outside variable or force, Uncertainty Principle. In Signal Travels Farther & Faster Than Light by Malcolm W. Browne, a force was found connecting two freed electrons and proved to be Eternal, was present within our time yet was not involved with the flow of our time. YES, 1 – Eternal force was found! Compared to this passage, presented as the work of my partner: Heisenberg came to the conclusion that quantum events cannot be predicted.All freed electrons behave as if they are being influenced by an outside variable or force, Uncertainly Principle.In Signal Travels Farther and Farther Than Light by Malcolm W. Browne, A force was found connecting two freed electrons and proved to be Eternal, was present within our time yet was not involved with the flow of our time. [2] [1] http://whywontgodhealamputees.com...[2] http://readsforkids.wordpress.com...
Death Note is the best anime

Yes, Death Note might have all that but it will never surpass One Piece superiority and here's why. First, the characters, One Piece has a immense amount of incredible character that expand the anime's superiority. For instance, Not only one piece has a powerful set of main characters but also it has the most badass character of all time, Shanks. In addition, One piece shows a better develop of characters' strength than Death Note which gives the main character as you say god-like power. For instance, we see Luffy, the main character, become from a week town boy into a complete badass pirate who takes down whatever challenge he face ,so which would like to see a person gaining the power of a god or a person developing the power of a God. Secondly, the message. One Piece has better messages than Death Note because unlike Death Note, One Piece actually tries to teach it's viewers a lesson. For instance, One piece teaches that sometimes a trip is not about the destination but about what you learn on the trip. Finally and most importantly, The Plot. One Piece's is the main reason why it has gain the spot of best watch anime's and it is known among the masses. One Piece's plot is so unexpected that fans can't even tell what is going to happen next. For Instance, nobody expect that Luffy's father was Dragon nor that ace was going to die right after Luffy save him or that Sabo was alive after all of this year. To conclude, One piece is by far better than Death Note.
Death Note is the best anime

***SPOILER ALERT*** According to Anime News Network, Death Note is an "urprisingly gripping and original suspense tale that raises a handful of interesting questions about morality". Death Note is the best anime for three reasons. 1. It has the best characters 2. It has the best plot 3. It has a fantastic theme song (The World) So, point one, that Death Note has the best characters. Basically, the entire story line is about Light, which is extremely interesting to watch because he is the antagonist. He, along with many other characters, are cunning and decisive, making every scene captivating and suspenseful. Also, the main antagonist, L, is the three best detectives in the world. Point two, that Death Note has the best plot. It centers around two big themes: death and life and justice and judgement. Interspersed with comic relief, Death Note captures drama and suspense while displaying the sober effects of murder. Most importantly, justice wins in the end and L's legacy is revived in N. Finally, that Death Note has an awesome theme song. MojoWatch.com rated #5 out of ALL THE ANIME SONGS EVER. (). It' totally suits the show as it is extremely powerful and epic. May I mention that the Bleach theme is nowhere on this top ten list. I made a mistake by only making this debate two rounds. :( In conclusion, Death Note rules!
The vuvuzelas should be banned from the FIFA World Cup.

In case anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about, check out the Wikipedia page on vuvuzelas here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyone watching a World Cup match could easily be mistaken for thinking that the crowd was made up of a swarm of bees, not humans. For people watching the game at home, this underlying buzz is simply annoying and distracting. For people watching the game in the stadium, it drowns out most of the variety of the chants, cheers and boos that make a football game entertaining. But for the players themselves, it is even worse. Not only is it distracting for them when playing the game, it also makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to hear each other out on the pitch - the goalkeeper can't communicate with his defenders, and strikers and midfielders can't communicate with each other, both of which are necessary for a team to co-ordinate well in a game - and also, there are reports of the vuvuzela sound starting early in the day, meaning that players can't get enough sleep before they play, which would make them restless and not able to play as well as they otherwise could do. [1] If this only affects one team, then the other team get an unfair advantage. But even if it affects both teams, then it lowers the quality of the game nonetheless, meaning that the World Cup has been lessened in quality overall by the choice of South Africa as a host nation. Banning the vuvuzela would also, in this way, also serve to endear South Africa to the world of sport. Their bad choice of allowing the vuvuzela to be played has lessened their popularity, and makes it far less likely - given the protests by footballers [1], fans [2] and broadcasters [3] alike - that they will ever be approached to host a similar competition again. It is actually, therefore, in their best interests to ban the vuvuzela. If it is a South African tradition, then that's fine for them. Let them play this ungodly sound at their own national tournaments. If they don't like the sound of the fans chanting and cheering for their team, then they don't have to. But this is an international tournament, with the matches being televised across the world. For the World Cup at least, it should be banned. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.banvuvuzela.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com... See the embedded YouTube video. Although this is from when South Africa hosted the Confederations Cup last year, it is the same offending item under discussion, and the same country to blame.
Police officers must shoot to kill

This debate will involve the following question in its entirety: Police officers, when faced with no alternative to deadly force, must use that force to kill the targeted suspect. Shooting to wound or disarm the suspect is not acceptable. For this debate we will assume: 1) The suspect is threatening the life of the officer or innocents around him. 2) The officer has probable cause that the suspect will try to cause bodily harm to the officer or others. 3) The suspect is armed with a weapon capable of deadly force Definitions: 1) Deadly force: a physical force that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury =========================== OPENING =========================== I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. In centuries past, law officers were afforded more leeway in their application of deadly force [1]. Now that times have changed, law enforcement officers (from here on out will be referred to as LEOs) have more options to incapacitate dangerous suspects. But deadly force on the LEO's part remains an option on the table for situations that require it. Some, however, question the use of such force and ask why can't LEOs shoot to wound or disarm instead of killing the person? For all situations that require deadly force from a LEO I will contend that the suspect is armed, dangerous and has probable cause to inflict bodily harm on others. I will go through some key points now. =================== CONTENTIONS =================== 1) Requiring the LEO to target a suspect in a manner to wound or disarm requires more reaction time and aim on the part of the LEO, thus allowing the potential for a mistake, a missed shot and a fast reaction on the suspects part. 2) Requiring the LEO to train to aim for limbs, non vital areas of the body and held weapons is a strain on the LEO's training. 3) Deadly force applied to the suspect will stop him. Anything else can cause him to become temporarily incapacitated and allow valuable time to strike back at a LEO. =============== I await rebuttal
Abortion should be illegal.

Official Resolution - "Abortion should be illegal in the United States of America (or a similar Western state) in all cases except from cases where it is performed in order to save the life of the mother from death or serious physical injury.""Cases where it is performed in order to save the life of the mother from death or serious physical injury" refers to cases where keeping the fetus would cause death or serious physical injury, and only such cases.Representing the Pro sideBob13FamousdebaterRepresenting the Con sideTejreticsSolonKRUniferousDefinitionsAbortion- intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetusIllegal- prohibited by lawFirst round is acceptance.Additional RulesNo trolling.No unfair semantics.The burden of proof is shared.
Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

Hello buildingapologetics, and thank you for opening up the possibility of debate!Seeing as I have written a plethora of material related to the debate on abortion, I will use some of said material for my round 1 argument.1. Historical contextAbortion is nearly as old as civilization is. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, although earlier abortion was primarily practiced via extensive physical labor. Assuming we are talking about legality in The United States, the historical context here is a bit different considering how young the country is. In America, abortion was legal in the country's infancy but was illegalized, one of the reasons was due to a lack of desire to have the population dominated by the children of immigrants, the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent “untrained” practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees. The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor’s judgment, to save the woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physicians-only” practice. As you and I are aware the ruling on abortion being illegal was overturned in 1973 with Roe V. Wade and is now constitutionally justified in the united states, so long as it's performed by a trained medical practitioner.2. Consequences of illegal abortionThe consequences for making abortion legal are only bad to America's citizens and result in more death than legal abortion. Before roe v wade it's estimated that 1.2 million women would seek out abortions per year, and be forced to get illegal, or "back-alley" abortions, which resulted in many thousands of deaths of women and their fetuses.3. Human rightsYou would call it a human right to force the woman to have an unwanted child, I would call that oppression. By taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she must have a child regardless of the circumstance, you effectively oppress the woman by giving her fewer rights than the fetus that is using her organs to sustain itself. There are laws put in place that say that no one can use your organs or blood, regardless if you are dead or living, and regardless of how many people it would benefit or even save. Giving a fetus unlimited rights to use a woman's organs without her consent effectively gives a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother, and that isn't (in my opinion) how we should treat it.4. Faults with contraceptionA common argument presented within the pro-life community is "Why don't you just use a form of contraception?" and the answer is quite simple. Contraception fails and fails a lot more than most people would think.
Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

I am pro life, and I believe abortion on demand should be illegal at all stages. If you believe abortion should be legal on demand, you may present your case first. By on demand, I mean for any reason. This is not about instances of rape, incest, or the safety of the mother. This is over the issue of whether a mother should be able to get an abortion whenever she wants to. Since this issue revolves around when life begins, I ask my opponent to provide the criteria that they believe must be satisfied before the baby has a right not to be killed.
Tix should've been removed from Roblox.

Sure it's inefficient, but it was the only thing free players had. They couldn't even buy 1 robux without their 10 or 16 tix (depends on the time period). Users that do not have money to spend on robux now do not even have anything to use except the leftover tix they hopefully traded in by the time it was removed. If they did trade it in by that time, the economy drastically changed in Roblox. Here are some sources to prove that Roblox's visits actually went down. http://web.archive.org... Here, we see that Roblox is the #306 in the global rank of websites. https://www.similarweb.com... This is the current rank, at #310.
evolution is not possible

Point 1. Ghosts are/were in the form of humans and animals seen today and as far as we know ghosts have no organs so it would be impossible for them to evolve with the body over thousands of years. Point 2. If creatures evolved from the same cell and came to live in the same part of the world why are there not just elephants in Asia and wolves in Scotland for they all need the same things and parts to survive. Point 3. If creatures needed the same form to survive and came from the same cell : Why are they in different shapes and sizes ? Point 4. Creatures such as owls, fish,birds and woodlice have always looked the same as today from thousands of years ago. I have proof and confirmation at : Ancient pictures of animals .com, were animals painted by cavemen and Ancient Greeks are shown. Point 5. Mammoths are just as capable to live as elephants who have not changed. A mammoth is a relation of an elephant, which died out and did not evolve. Point 6. I don't have much more to say, but feel free to bring up a point I have not thought of .
evolution is not possible

Point 1: False. Living beings such as microrganisms usually are single cells - meaning that they do not require the same organs. Point 2: ??? No evidence...Point 3: Does it matter if animals are in different shapes and sizes? Furthermore, I do not recognize what my opponent means when he says that different creatures need the same structures.Point 4: My opponent is now misunderstanding the point of evolution. Weaker species are likelier to die out, stronger species are likelier to live. However, this does not mean that "old" species are likely to die - animals that exist for a long time just mean that they have good survivability. Also, I'd like my opponent to specify which animals he is referring to. Last time I checked, 99.99% of species to have lived on planet Earth are already extinct. In conclusion, I've shown how my opponents arguments are either factually inaccurate or logically disproven. I'm sorry for the rather short response, I have some personal issues in real life currently.
evolution is not possible

Point 1. Living beings always needed certain organs to survive, and if any living being managed to evolve through thousands of years without them: it would be a miracle. Point 2. Ghosts have always been in the form of the living being they were in life and spirits cant evolve. Point 3. There are all sorts of different creatures who need the same structure,yet they are in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. Point 4. Creatures in models shaped thousands of years ago are the same as today.
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

Pro makes a good argument but I now realize that I can't decide what arrows Hawkeye would take. However, neither can pro. He also stated that the fact that robin hood was my idol was irrelevant. Pro misunderstood this because I wasn't aiming for this to be relevant. I was simply stating that it isn't normal to train because of an idol. I guess the oliver would have the money to train but I don't think it was intense training as Clint would be doing at that age. Pro states that all the arrows that the green arrow uses, I doubt that the green arrow's quiver can hold that many different arrows. He must have some that he carries without preparation, as I don't know these I have to leave it to the readers to find that and apply it the the vote. Also as this is the last side of the debate, pro cannot correct me on this. I also must state that the fact that Hawkeye has died isn't a weakness, I would think its a strength. The fact that he is back just adds to how awesome he is. If anything, the fact that green arrow hasn't died is just stupid. Hawkeye and green arrow are similar. The fact that there was a fire didn't kill Hawkeye. If the green arrow's quiver had a fire in it and the explosive arrows exploded. I'm sure that he would easily die. I'm also sure that when green arrow died but it turned out it was just a kid napping, it was because they wanted to kill him off. Technically they both died, but DC didn't want to admit it. Marvel brought him back to life I shall now leave it to the voters to vote on whom they think is better
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

In my final argument I would like to make the point that my opponent has said some untrue things about my side. He says and I quote, "And the island. I know he was there, its just that before the island I remember him having girlfriends and drinking and getting speeding tickets. I didn't see much training." This may be that my opponent has been watching too much of the (very good) TV show "Arrow" and/or been reading the comics based on the show where for his whole life he had been a troublemaker. In the original origins Oliver did have a phase in his life where he was a drunken playboy yes but this was only a very small phase in his life and it was during his time with his uncle. The whole point in DC creating the island was to get Oliver back on track and realize that he needs to use his ability for the good of the people. Every hero goes through different phases and a good example of Hawkeye was his time spent being dead. Hawkeye was killed while on a murder during a fight with a Kree warcraft. His quiver set on fire and his explosive arrows exploded which sent hawkeye into the into the engine of the ship therefore saving his team-mates. Amazing way to go out but one, Oliver Queen's whole costume is fire-proof and two, He has defeated and killed Parallax, one of the most powerful beings in the DC universe. So hawkeye is killed by a simple fire and while he Green Arrow defeated one of the most dangerous characters in DC. I think its obvious who is better here. Luckily Hawkeye was resurrected so Oliver won't be fighting a corpse. My opponent also states that I only stated Hawkeye's most common arrows which after some research this turned out to be true and I apologize for not noticing the link at the bottom of the page. However Con also states that if Hawkeye got to choose he would win as he would take two of each. I think this is false as if he arrows I originally stated were his most commonly used then surely he would stock up on those arrows rather than all of them. My opponent also states that Robin Hood was his childhood idol but never wanted to follow in his footsteps. I find this irrelevant to his argument as that does not make Hawkeye better. I urge the voters to vote Pro as my opponent has come up with unreliable facts and it is obvious that Oliver Queens feats are of higher standard. Thank you for reading.