BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why I do not believe in god and never will... Rightly. Justly. And with good cause.

I will just say before I post this, I do not entirely know why those hateful things are in the bible, but there are some possible reasons. The bible was not written by God, it is possible for there to be some culture in there and some things written in there just because of the time the bible was made. About the homophobia, there are many places in the bible where it talks about homosexuality, so I would have an easier time responding if you mention what you think are the prime examples of homophobia. The bible does mention women being put at lower ranks, that is correct, but it is still likely for it to just be because of how things went back then. I don't exactly know what you are referring to by genocides, but if you are talking about Noah's arc (sorry if that is not what you meant), it is not that god hated mankind, he was just disappointed and wanted them to have a fresh start, which is why he had to kill so many people. About the evidence that god exists, there is certainly evidence. First of all, (this point is not evidence, it is just pointing out how Atheism is not logical, the next point will be evidence) to say that we just happen to be in a world where all animals happen to breathe, excrete, and eat is highly unlikely. Every animal has lots of similarity which fits them into the animal kingdom, assuming the universe was created without any help from a divine power is almost impossible. One of the strongest points that I would like to see you explain is the prophecies. There have been many prophecies in the bible that have come true, such as: "...This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever." You can get even more examples of such prophecies here: http://www.reasons.org...
Why I do not believe in god and never will... Rightly. Justly. And with good cause.

I found out at a very early age that since the book of Ruth from the torah is out of chronological order in comparison to the bible, then the entire text of the bible is out of order. And then I started to read the torah and wow what a monster and devil the god in it truly is, not love nor care by any means.I could not believe the horrors into what I was reading. There was this god character hating children and causing their knowing suffering in which is so point blank obvious through many verses, hating gays (though naturally I didn’t discover that until a later age), hating women and keeping women at lower ranks, absolutely loves war and deliberate genocides for absolutely no reason which means that he kills innocent children and babies still suckling on their mother’s nipples and he also kills innocent pregnant mother’s. Ah yes that’s the first sign of abortion in which christians are so against. So that is a super major hypocritical contradiction. And then this god kills, but man cannot and yet god says for man to kill under this god’s thumb in his holy wars which is also a major thumb sucking hypocritical contradiction. Indeed there are a good thousand hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible making it truly unreadable. Then naturally there’s slavery in which this god approves of. He also loves raped women. There’s also no free will if you believe in this monstrosity god. Indeed through my studies of god for 42+ years and having talked with roughly 25,000 or so, the god of the bible/ torah is completely bankrupt and immoral. I will never believe in the god of the bible for obvious reasons. And hey, there’s no proof this god even exists to pour syrup over the strains of coffee. Your mission in this debate is to prove why this god character of the bible/ torah should be worshiped, bowed down to and idolized and be believed in. Rules…If you pretend you have some insight for the subject in which this debate is based upon and you really don’t, and you thus invent excuses and or flat out lie in order for your steam boat mechanical minced mutton moron mind to toot along golden railroad tracks because nothing else will as so many christians do rather than saying the words “I don’t know”, I will turn on your happy hairy hoo hunky running of the mill hamster and I will thus properly and rightly insult you and deservedly so.No creationist will be accepted. Why? Because there’s not one creationist that will dare put his god on trial again. After all, the creationist is not stupid. He 100% knows that he will flat out lose every---single---time---he---tries. Why? Because all he has to go on is faith. All the creationist has is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.
People be taxed depending on income

My opponent is advocating for a progressive tax. I am mainly for a flat tax over a progressive tax due to several reasons. Without furder ado, I shall present my arguments.Simplicity and the IRSA flat tax would replace all the complex forms by the IRS with just two postcards. A flat tax would save a lot of time this way and make paying taxes less frustrating. A flat tax system has no loopholes or complexity. A flat tax can also eliminate or at least drastically shrink the IRS's power. This way, the IRS can not abuse their power like they are doing right now. The IRS can spy on citizens and snoop on your personal information, a flat tax would get rid of the IRS's abusive power. FairnessA person making $300,000 a year would pay a tax of $3000 with a 10% taxation rate. Someone making $30,000 a year would pay $300. The person with the 300K income would pay 10 times as much money as the person with a 30K income because they make 10 times more money. A progressive tax system would mean someone making 300K would pay more percent of their wage then someone who makes 30K. This is unfair because the one making more money is being punished for working harder and getting into a good college. It just makes sense that some people make more money than others. Are we trying to encourage prejudice with the current tax system by having different taxation rates for everyone? MoneyA flat tax would save time and money due to it's simplicity. Ends corruptionUSA's progressive tax system allows for corruption. A flat tax eliminated deductions, loopholes, credits ect. It would reduce government power and get rid of the IRS like I mentioned earlier.
People be taxed depending on income

1. Opinions welcome 2. Make sure to use solid facts To support your claim Opinion: Some people look down on others because of how the dress, how they look, and how they smell. I believe that if they evened out the odds so to speak, that people would be able to get along better, and relate to one another better. Because of this, people might feel better about themselves because everyone else has a similar financial situation as them. This could potentially reduce suicide as well because those particular people don't feel much more 'disapproved' of as others. How I think it should work: I think that depending on your income, is what your tax is on your house, and electricity, and other things such as tools, and objects for entertainment. (Food, and water however are a requirement for life and should be charged the same for all.) for instance: the more your income the more you pay. So a pack of cigarettes cost more for someone with a 50,000 dollar income than a 25,000 dollar income.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks

First and foremost, I would like point out that there have been too many close calls with nuclear weapons. The Cold War era is a perfect example. Tsar Bomba could have ended life as we know it. Radioactive materials have been known to cause plenty of issues. Some of the issues (emphasis on SOME) include, birth defects, death, water contamination, and radiation poisoning. If that's not bad enough for you, then look the fear it has caused. During the Cold War era, schools practiced nuclear bomb drills. I'm sure that the Middle Eastern area is scared out of their minds that we, or other countries, will wipe them off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power has the potential to destroy everything. We SHOULD be afraid. Almost every country that has nuclear weapons, has threatened other countries with them. They could be the downfall of humanity. Of all the other things that could kill us all, we are the largest threat. Without nuclear power, the world would be one step better.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks

== Structure ==R1: AcceptanceR2: CaseR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and closing== Rules ==(1) You accept all definitions provided in R1. Contest any of the rules, structure, or definitions in the comment section BEFORE accepting. (2) Try to refrain from semantics(3) Place sources WITHIN the text of the debate--no comment section, no external link(4) Don't break the structure== Definitions ==Nuclear power: "Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactors to release nuclear energy, and thereby generate electricity." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... The rest of the resolution does not need defining as it is common knowledge. Don't be a troll and use semantics :P_______Minimum voting elo is 2000. _______I think that is it...
Drug Legalization

Idk, the list on the right of the of the page showed your name. So, be happy you're famous! :D To start, i in no way advocate the use of drugs. I'm sorry if i don't hit every point of the debate or make multiple points in one of the numbered topics, but hopefully you'll have a wonderful rebuttal waiting for me! Basically: 1: More people use drugs when they are illegal. Historically this has been the case. For instance, in the 1920s alcohol was illegal. During that time you had the Al Capons, his men bootlegged alcohol from Belgium and Holland. Their were increased car accidents, crime, and consumption of alcohol. All of the effects i listed decreased dramatically after the passing of the 21st amendment. There is no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime. In the Netherlands, where Marijuana is legal, you have less people using it there than you do here (percentage wise) where it's illegal. 2: The "Gateway Drug" theory is a myth. One of the most addictive drugs in the country is nicotine, and no one ever calls nicotine a gateway drug. The man buying marijuana can't get the marijuana from the store like he would if it were legal. He must go through the drug dealer, with the dirty needles, harder drugs, high prices, and crime associates. You don't see the bartender selling alcohol to kids, or else he would lose his liquor license. 3: Making an item illegal does not eliminate it, it merely causes the people who want it to get it in the worse manner possible. Thus, creating a black market. Prohibiting behavior people find "bad" is silly. Why not make sky diving illegal then? It's dangerous too. 4: People who use drugs now will continue to use if they're legal or not. What stops drug use is awareness. It is unlikely that if meth were suddenly legalized tomorrow that i would want to go and purchase meth. 5: Arresting drug is not a solution. Arresting someone who's been using heroin, who may have never committed a violent crime in the past. Spending money to house them, feed them, and clothe them for ridiculous sentences (50,60 year sentences) costs nearly $47,102 [http://www.lao.ca.gov...] a year. Yet, serial killers get released before they do, and often the drug users come out of prison as hardened criminals. 6: Since what i have stated above is true, this would mean the comsumption of drugs that are illegal is at it's highest point now. Which means that continuing the drug war will do nothing to improve conditions. My solution: Regulate illegal drugs like alcohol, the drug war is a failure
CFLs are superior to Incandescent light bulbs

I will first reinforce my arguments and then move on to attack my opponent's case. Cost: Lets be honest. How many people actually buy there bulbs online? I prefer not to look up a statistic for this but honestly I don't believe I need one because the voters will agree. It is rare to come across someone who buys their bulbs online. Additionally, my opponent failed to include shipping in her calculations but that wouldn't have a significant difference it is still important since she chose online ordering (which I still believe doesn't reflect the stereotypical homeowner).My numbers that I have are from HomeDepot.com (same price in store where, to my experience, most people get there lightbulbs) show that the cheapest set of four bulbs of comparable quality showed even greater differences in costs. I chose to demonstrate packs of four because it highlights the true value in both of the bulbs and also because I know I rarely buy just one bulb at a time and the voters will reflect that. Here is my data -[1] The Incandescent output nearly double the lumens of the comparable CFLs [2] COST: $1.27 -[2] The CFL only output about 800 lumens and was 14 watts, similar to your example. Warranty and life hours were also similar. However, the COST: $7.97 So as you can see differences in costs are quite steep and while it may not make up entirely for the savings of the CFL it narrows the gap. Another thing my opponent failed to address is the cost of disposal for CFL's being as that they contain noxious gases and mercury. It costs about 3.50 dollars to dispose of each CFl compared to less then 10 cents per incandescent [3] This concludes my cost argument... again my side of the story may not recover all of the cost benefits associated with CFL's but it should help the voters realize that the cost savings isn't significant enough to rule out my other arguments and factors which I will discuss in succeeding rounds [1] http://www.homedepot.com... [2] http://www.homedepot.com...- 100687001/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 [3] http://www.ehso.com...
CFLs are superior to Incandescent light bulbs

I accept your terms and definitions and I would like to define my own terms in addition to yours... I would like to define hertz as: The hertz (symbol Hz) is the SI unit of frequency defined as the number of cycles per second of a periodic phenomenon. One of its most common uses is the description of the sine wave, particularly those used in radio and audio applications.[1] I would also like to define superior as: being of higher grade or quality. Also as "having superior functionality or practicality" meaning, one excels in functionality and or practicality over the other.[2] Also I would like to layout what I would like to center my half of the debate upon so that we can avoid proposing new arguments on the very last round (but I understand if it comes to you just then and you have to put it in). -Negative health effects of CFL's -hazards of CFL's -Ideal soft warming light of incandescents -costs -Inconvenience of CFL's I would also like to elaborate on the fact that this debate applies to their application in the personal housing applications and is not to extend into talk of its superiority in applications in commercial lighting as per what you stated in your round one arguments "the burden to show that Incandescent are better for your standard american family household". Thanks again for such a provocative topic this could go either way Sources: [1][http://en.wikipedia.org...] [2][http://dictionary.reference.com...
CFLs are superior to Incandescent light bulbs

Pro (that's me) has the burden to show that CFLs are better, while Con (that would be my opponent) has the burden to show that Incandescent are better for your standard american family household. By "superior" and "better" I mean by judging the whole picture, not just in a single category. As such we will both want to highlight our strengths and down play our weaknesses. Some common ways things are valued are, cost, safety, efficiency, ease, etc. We can of course use anything that helps our case, but it is up to voters to determine what really matters. CFL - Compact Fluorescent Lamp (or Lightblub) [1] Incandescent Bulb [2] My opponent is free to start their argument in R1, or they may simply accept and offer any definitions they may have and allow me to start in R2. Thank you, [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
CFLs are superior to Incandescent light bulbs

There is nothing for me to address, so I will just summarize. CFL's are not much more expensive at the time of purchase. Since they last so much longer, and use such a smaller amount of electricity, there is no cost reason for them not to be used for every socket that they can fit in. Since this is the final round, I will not be able to address any points my opponent brings up in the next round, but I request that people please double check sources, as we saw last round, a disposal price he gave was for something entirely different from CFLs.
CFLs are superior to Incandescent light bulbs

My opponent questions how many people are buying light bulbs online. While it is true that very few are actually doing that, it does not change the fact that these light bulbs are available for sale online and that if you wanted them, you can get them there. Just because people choose a more expensive route does not mean that the objects in question have to be more expensive. But, I can still make a easy proof going off of only Home Depot [1], ACE hardware [2], and Lowes Home Improvement [3]. Looking at these, we can see that Lowes has CFLs as low as $4.98 for a two pack ($2.49 each). Ace has them as low as $3.49 each (in a single pack), and Home Depot has them as low as $3.97 each. The nearly $8 CFL my opponent selected is one of the more expansive ones (which I showed in my last round that the more expensive are still more expensive in the long run). It should also be important to note, that even in my opponent's examples, his Incandescent bulb has only an estimated 750 life hours, meaning that it will likely need to be replaced 10 times over the life of a single CFL (which average about 8,000 life hours). As seeing as it is only half the cost of a CFL, needs to be replaced 10 times as often, and uses about 400% more energy (which is where the real cost of lighting comes from, as shown in my last round and not disputed), it can hardly, under any line of logic be viewed as cheaper. Regarding my opponent's claim that CFL's cost $3.50 to discard, it should be noted from his source, "The information in this document is believed to be correct as of March 1995. " It should also be noted that the cost $3.50 is for the disposal of PCB Ballasts, which are not in CFLs anymore, since they became illegal in 1978 [4]. As such, my opponent's claim on the cost of disposal of CFL bulbs is effectively negated. Since my opponent only addressed costs this round that is all I could negate. Efficiency and Aesthetics were not addressed and so dropped. I look forward to my opponent's next round. Thank you, [1] . http://www.homedepot.com... [2] . http://www.acehardware.com... [3] . http://www.lowes.com... [4] . http://easternenvironmental.com...
The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

"Con cited Aish saying, "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE." However, there is no qualification for this statement by either Con or Aish."This is not true. There is qualification for this sentence that hasn't been touched as far as a rebuttal is concerned the point still stands. The following prophecy should clear things up.Isaiah 43: 5-6Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; "If this statement were to be taken as fact, than we would need to remove books from the Bible. The Bible was written by a lot of different authors across many different time periods it's contradictions don't surprise me nor do anything to help your case. "However, I looked up every single one of those references. I agree that they support the idea that Messiah should come from King David, but there is no requirement that it be on his father's side as Con incorrectly claims." Joseph's lineage doesn't matter, because he isn't the father of Jesus. Mary's lineage doesn't count, because she is a woman. That's just how the bible works like it or not. Throughout the bible the lineage of everybody from Adam and Even to King David is traced only using males and their male offspring. Not any other example of a woman begatting something exists until Jesus arrives on the scene. Jesus is a false messiah. The real Messiah needs to be descended from King David through the males and on his father's side. It's Jewish tradition to trace genealogy from the father's side. If Jesus is claiming to be the Jewish messiah he need's to meet this obligation. "I am perplexed by Con's statement, "The messiah is also supposed to be a normal human born of human parents and not with magical abilities. (Numbers 23:19...)." For the benefit of the voters, I shall quote the verse here. "G-d is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" NLT" The point of the verse is to show that God is not man or like man. John 1:1 explains that Jesus is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I ran out of room to discuss Daniel 9 in the previous round, but I'll briefly bring it up here. Jesus doesn't fit the qualifications of God so this Daniel 9 isn't really important but; Biblical Scholars are confused about what Daniel 9 means, but all Christians seem to agreement over the meaning (conveniently enough). I interpret it to mean that after the destruction of the 2nd temple, this would begin the process of purifying Israel to get it ready for the messiah. I realize this is the most literal interpretation but fail to see why it shouldn't be taken literal.
The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

I accept and plan to use plain english as much as possible so as not to come off pompous an to make the debate more readable. I also apologize profusely for not being Jewish. I know my opponent preferred to debate a Jewish person. All joking aside I wanted to take a moment to highlight what my opponent has to do to win this debate. His burden of proof is actually incredibly large, probably a lot larger than he considered before making this debate. The New Testament even if taken as fact does't show Jesus fulfilling every single messianic prophecy. Even if every prophecy is fulfilled there are also a few other qualifications that Jesus falls short of meeting. As my opponent has stated we will be treating the NewTestament as a historical document, and like any historical document we'll likely have to use common sense as well as some other tricks that historians commonly use to seperate fact from fiction. I don't think we'll spend too much time on that though, since even if it's taken as 100% true Jesus still falls short of being the messiah. Good luck to my pro.