BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion Is Man-Made.

In summary I have rebutted and, I believe, refuted all of Pro's points. Of course, he made it easy. His two mains points are (1) that the only solution to a trilemma is that religion is man-made and (2) that history demonstrates that religion is man-made. Both points were founded upon fallacious reasoning. I refuted point one by simply demonstrating that there is a fourth option and that the trilemma is therefore false. (I also could have mentioned that "false" is not equivalent to "made up": people can be mistaken about information without fabricating it. But I digress.) Point two was more convoluted, but error by its own arms is best evinced. Many of the supporting points were asserted without supporting evidence, including logic. Those I dismissed because they violated the rules of the debate listed in round 1. Other supporting points were blatantly false; those were also dismissed. Thew one or two sounds points were rebutted. It is important to note that Pro completely ignored my strongest arguments, such as the second paragraph in my round 2 rebuttal and my rebuttal to point 7 (second 7, forgive the numbering error) in round 3. Finally, Pro accuses me of "not debating right." He thinks that, in a debate, it is necessary for both sides to present an argument. Well, he's right, actually. He simply fails to realize that everything I've said is an argument, an argument of refutation. (It's the purple section. http://en.wikipedia.org...) My implicit position is "It is unknown whether religion is man-made." In order to defend that claim, I simply needed to refute any claim to the contrary, which I did.
Religion Is Man-Made.

We have 20 different, major religions,and each religion has different sects built into it,each claiming it holds the absolute truth concerning life and it's meaning. All these religions share a lot of common ground, which is something very normal because the ideology of doing the right thing, has be proved to inspire and give people trust, so it is not a holly, or amazing thing if you see any religion calling for peace, and for doing what is right. Now Islam contradicts Christianity on it's most major event which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and vice versa. Now both Islam and Christianity contradict the whole concept of the Buddhist belief that there is no God, and so on the whole concepts contradicts each other even with smallest details .So to settle this whole thing up rationally, I only see these 3 solutions concerning religion: 1-All are true 2-Only one is true 3-No one is true 1-As said before these theories(religion) contradict each other so badly even with the smallest details, and these small details can be used as evidence, because scriptures claim that it is the word of God written in these books, and God can't be mistaken even with the smallest details,therefore we can definitely be sure to say that they are not all true. 2-Only one is true is not the case, because even if it turned out to be, that one specific religion is proved to be true, then the God this religion holds, will be considered a lame,unequal,not-fair God,because each person born with another religion will not be expected at all to switch religion, and what is considered right in a specific religion,may be wrong in the other,so God will be unfair,and I don't that the God concept will treat people unequally. 3-Well, all theories are logically not true, but this one,seem to fit to be the true one, or in other words religion is a man made phenomena in order to maintain some control over an uncontrollable society, with making them fear something that people cant find an answer to, or some other own self-advantages, or the person is psychologically ill. History holds the biggest evidence that religion is man made, because human beings holding our physical shape,and brain inhabited the planet for 200,000 years now,I don't think God now decided to intervene, and in such a way. When religions were created,we see that societies were full of chaos,so inventing a book that will control masses, with the ultimate force of the unseen God that is always watching,seemed a very smart idea to do the job, and the complexity of these book's literature doesn't hold any suspicious thought to me, especially when it was the golden age of literature and writing at their time. I bet that if Hamorabe who succeeded in building a code to control his society before religion,claimed that these codes are being sent from God to his society, through him,we would have a religion that is related to Hamorabe till our days, but he didn't, even though it was an easy task knowing that people were stupid 3,000 years ago.
Biblical Creation

There are a myriad of intersecting lines of evidence showing that the earth is much older then 6000 years old. The formation of the Earth is well established in theory and observations of other parts of the Universe give us a clear picture of how stars and planets form. I could write literally hundreds of pages on this, there is no end of evidence, but let's start here- There is recorded Human history greater than 6000years old- how could the entire earth be only 6000 years old?
Biblical Creation

I will be arguing that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago, in 6 literal days, by the God of the Bible, as it was accounted in Genesis. I will let you start our debate off, try and comment facts that prove that the universe was not created by an intellectual being, (God of the Bible) as it was accounted in the Bible. (Mainly in Genesis) I know this topic can get very heated, so please try and refrain from using aggressive fallacies like ad hominem. Thanks, and good luck!
Demolishing political parties

I'm glad I can debate this topic with you. Firstly, I would like to highlight the importance and functions of political parties. Parties represent the interests of the citizens. These interest often differs between each other. Thus several political parties are neccesary to satisfy every cititzen's interest. Furthermore, politicians are capable to debate based on facts and rational arguments. Citizens don't have neither the time or endurance nor the knowledge to decide about issues in the economy or foreign policy. Often fear, ignorance and even prejudices influence the Average Joe's opinion. Additionally, how do you organize a decision making in a country with several millions of inhabitants without having political parties? I assume you demand elements of direct democracy.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Steve Young is the better quarterback because he has a 96.8 QB Rating (1), whereas Joe Montana only has a 92.3 (2). Steve Young also has fewer career interceptions, more rushing touchdowns, and a higher passing completion rate than Joe Montana. ... Rushing is only one of many aspects of scoring in the NFL.Jul 7, 2015. that is why I think Steve Young is a better Quarterback than Joe Montana.
Only ONE Religion is faithful and true: Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation.

Only one religion is faithful and true: Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. 1. Christianity is unfaithful as it has wavered by splitting into over 33,820 denominations. (1) Faithful: Remaining loyal and steadfast. (2) Steadfast: Resolutely and dutifully firm and unwavering. (3) 2. Christianity is untrue as it has no basis for truth but the Bible. The Bible can only be proven to potentially be authentically transcribed throughout the ages, not authentic in its content (4). 3. Christianity is the only basis for the belief that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. If Christianity is untrue, then it's claim that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation is untrue. 4. All of my opponent's arguments cite the Bible in a religious context, yet the Bible has not been proven to be completely true in a religious context. (1) http://www.philvaz.com... (2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (3) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (4) https://answersingenesis.org...
Only ONE Religion is faithful and true: Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation.

ADDRESSING YOUR ROUND 3 ARGUMENTS: 1. Christianity is faithful: Your response is flawed as you assume a religion is separate from its followers; that is not the case. The followers of a religion edit its holy book, interpret its teachings, and shape its message. Yes, the various denominations of Christianity may stray from what God intended it to be; yet the denominations are still Christian nonetheless unless they teach something that goes against fundamental Christian doctrine, which is rarely the case. To state that the various Christian denominations are not "truly" Christian is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Let's wax hypothetical and say that the previous statement was not a no true Scotsman fallacy. If original Christianity, the Christianity that God intended for His people to follow, is the only acceptable version of Christianity, what does this true version of Christianity consist of? Apparently there are 33,820 opinions on that; which one is right? Which one is the one true religion? Which one is correct and proves Christianity to be faithful in nature? I'd hazard to say none of them. Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion but to supplement Judaism. (1) Here we reach the crux of the issue whether we speak hypothetically or not: how can Christianity be the one true religion if God never intended for it to exist? 2. Christianity is the one true religion: Yes, the Bible has statements that can be proven to be true; but none of the statements you listed addressed key Christian doctrine but one; your statement about the Genesis creation story, which, may I add, is also believed by Jews. (2) Therefore, even if the Genesis creation story is true, Christanity will not be the one true religion; it will still compete with Judaism. The Islamic creation story has some slight but major differences that may or may not rule it out as true, therefore Christianity could potentially compete with Islam as well. (3) 3. As you can see, I have once again proven Christianity cannot be proven to be faithful nor the only true religion. If Christianity cannot be proven to be true, then Jesus Chris cannot be the only way to salvation. If Jesus Christ's existence as the Messiah is proven to be true, surely He will reject Christianity as He meant for His teachings to add to Judaism; a religion that claims God created it but in fact was not is neither faithful nor true. ADDRESSING YOUR ROUND FOUR ARGUMENTS: 4) Please do not quote the Bible if you have not proven it to be true. Otherwise, any Biblical quote you tout as "evidence" is completely discardable. 5) Secondly, in the part of your argument where you did not quote the Bible, you operated under the assumption God was real without any evidence of that fact that has come from a reliable source of theological knowledge; therefore, your arguments are pure conjecture. (1) http://www.chosenpeople.com... (2) http://www.jewfaq.org... (3) http://islaminfo.com...
true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous

perhaps it isn't so common sense that people without food stamps die. maybe i should have gave charity more due. i doubt it is fool proof and that some people would die though. i dont have much evidence other than my common sense ideas, but then again enither do you offer evidence that no one would die. healthcare. if you can't afford a prescrition, you dont take it, you die sooner. http://www.forbes.com...you have a heart attack and cant afford a bypass or a stent, you get aspirin. only because of laws do many doctors operate when the patient has no money. https://www.quora.com...FDA regs. con just says sometimes the FDA taeskes to long to approve medication. he also says if you are stupid enough to buy from a mom and pop you get what you deserve. that they take too long is just a trade off to ensuring healthy outcomes... if they were too fast, unsafe drugs and food would be allowed. also the problem, is even bigger companies will sell what they can make money on, even if people get sick or die. sure, people will stop buying from the biggest problematic companies, but there will be a lot of trial and error going on when it could just be left to the FDA and cut out the process of people dying.environment.con just goes on an unrelated rant about the tragedy of the commons. he must have just dropped his argument that more wealth and technology will somehow magically cause pollution and such to be fixed. he ignores that i stated that peopel are allowed to die with the current pollution allowed. if there were no standards, mroe pollution would occur, and more people would die. i dont need to cite anything as this is pretty common knowledge that the EPA and such works within the ocnfines of "how many people are permitted to die"
true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous

food. it's common sense. some people can't afford to buy food, so they die. or they are so malnourished they die or live in a disease ridden state. health care. it's common sense. you can't afford prescriptions, you die. you can't afford to have your diabetes taken care of, you die. you have no money, have a heart attack, there's no reason for anyone to do surgery, you die. these are just examples. i dont want to get bogged down with the studies, which by the way i did cite in the debate con cited, when really it's common sense.food regulations. it's common sense. con just cites an example where the FDA must have made a mistake.... they allowed a drug and people died. how much more would people die if everyone and their mom was allowed to sell whatever drugs they concoct? pollution. it's common sense. without air standards, people die of pollution. there's actually an allowed amount of people who can die with the standards as it is,,,, it's known that people will die as is. without standards more would die. con cites that decreased pollution came about by incrased wealth and technoogy.... the problem is they had no reason to use their wealth or technology unless the government told them to. con just made a whole lotta bluster for a whole lotta things lacking in common sense.
the government should intervene more in transition to alternative fuels

con says with profits potentially existing, the government doesn't need to get involved. obviously it does, though, because it can cause change to happen faster which con even acknowledges would happen. if change happens faster, say a change occurs at 3 dollars gasoline instead of 5, the invester wouldn't see enough reason to change until five when we could get it down to three. also, when the private sector is researching this stuff, they could find a magic bullet. it's unheard of how many times government involvement in pharmaceuticals, for example, or space flight, or watever, has cause change to occur sooner than later, or perhaps cause change where none would have occurred. i conceded that perhaps the private sector can't make fuel at a dollar a gallon, otehrwise investors would be taking it, but that doesn't mean alternative fuels couldn't save people money. if change happens sooner than later, or at all, they save money, leading to all around betterment. risks. the private sector takes a risk it wouldnt have taken without the government. instead of a 30 percent chance of success, with the government involvement lowering costs, it could be a 70 percent chance of success. "This contention is simply false. All change must undergo the test of profit. As I've described above, profit is a sign of efficiency and consumer satisfaction." this is simply false. increased economic change yields increased economic profits and increased wealth for all, for those at the reaping end of change. the government can help the market along. the only reason con doesnt see this is because he thinks there's nothign the goverment can do to help it along. but as ive shown many times, this is simply not true. the government can help along the free market to reach its goals.
The death penalty must be abolished.

The study about criminologists is false. If you read the original study you can see that 100% of criminologists think that the DP deters *some*. Plus, it is economists, not criminologists, who have done the majority of modern research on the DP. And 17 studies find an effect, only 5 dissent. (http://tinyurl.com...) So we can conclude that the DP is a deterrent. Cost argument is flawed. All those studies fail to take into account plea bargians, which reduce DP costs significantly. (http://tinyurl.com...) Those studies often fail to take into account medical care etc. Other research says the DP actually costs less (http://tinyurl.com...). Plus each murder costs society 24 million. If the DP deters only one murder each time, it reduces societal costs by 24 million and thus costs A LOT less. ZERO cost studies take this into account. (http://tinyurl.com...) - DP costs less when deterrence and plea bargians are taken into account - DP saves lives
The death penalty must be abolished.

Is the death penalty a truly reliable deterrent? 88.2% of polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent at all(1), therefore would it be more beneficial if we were to imprison convicts and spend the$1 million(2) we save on education and health care? If we save $1,000,000 per execution. and there have been 1,404 executions since 1976, therefore $1,000,000*1,404= $1,404,000,000 (please note that this is NOT including those who were residing on death row and never executed). Furthermore, authors of a recent study predict that the cost of the death penalty will reach $9 billion by 2030.(5) (1) http://deathpenalty.procon.org... (2) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (3) http://health.howstuffworks.com... (4) http://www.kevinmd.com... (5) http://deathpenalty.org...
The death penalty must be abolished.

Does the DP save or kill more innocents? The majority of evidence suggests the DP prevents 3-18 murders per execution. . http://www.heritage.org... There have been 1404 executions since 1976 when the death penalty was legalized after the temporary ban. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Let's take the 4% innocent executed number. 4% of 1404 is about 56 people wrongly executed. Take the low estimate for deterrence, 3*1404 = 4212 lives saved. Using the high number of 18, 18*1404 = 25272 lives saved. DP saves more lives than it takes away by a long shot. The 4% number is also an exaggeration. The sample is of those who are exonerated, so they actually were NOT executed. The study concedes, "a substantial proportion of innocent defendants who are sentenced to death are ultimately exonerated, perhaps a majority". Even if it is true, deterrence outweighs the harms.
The death penalty must be abolished.

There is no justification for allowing the death penalty to continue if innocent lives are being lost. According to a recent study, if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated(1). As a result, we must pause to consider how many innocent lives have been mercilessly taken by the death penalty and those who instigate it. How can we justify such senseless killing and mask it as some twisted form of justice? With all the technology we have in our possession in this day in age, you would be forgiven for thinking such mistakes would not be possible. And yet as early as 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham(2) was executed only to be found not guilty in 2006. (1) http://www.pnas.org... (2) http://camerontoddwillingham.com...
Socialism is the Better State of Government then is Capitalism

My opponent's last round was fundimentally flawed and must be thrown out of the debate. In the comments section he permitted me to use Anarcho-Capitalism, but then my opponent, in his last round, argued for Democratic Socialism, not Socialism. What's the difference you may ask? Socialism is equality in Society while Democratic Socialism is that of equality in Society under a democratic system of which shall move to a Communist government in 15 years. [1] We can see that not only all of my opponent's examples refer to Democratic Socialism and not Socialism which is what the resolution shows he is defending. Meaning that my opponent has made an argument for the wrong type of Socialism and all arguments that he has made must be thrown out of the debate. Not to mention that since the next round is indeed the final round my opponent, via debate ethics, is not permitted to bring up new arguments outside of refutations. With that said Socialism is still distributes the benefits and burdens of soceity whether my opponent wants to accept that or not. It's in the very own definition even if we move to Socialist Distributive Justice. When it comes to Finland, they're not a Socialist country that we make them out to be. They have overly high taxes, but that's because of their low income. They also have high public debate and the US has higher tax rates on the rich than Finland does. [2] Finland tried this "Socialist" expirement and they fell hard in economic standing in the world and ditched that system. If you classify Finland as a Socialist Country then the US is a dead red Commie. My opponent dropps my John Rawls argument here.My opponent is highly mistaken here as even Bernie Sanders has pushed for a 90% tax on the rich and doing such a thing would collapse the US economy. Such a purposal is purposterous and we'll see a collapse of the US like of that in Atlas Shrugged.I have already disproved my opponent's argument here.I extend all arguments across the board.Sources1. (http://www.differencebetween.net...) 2. (http://thefederalist.com...)
Black Lives Matter Should Rename It's self

To start things off ,Yes Black lives Matter Needs a name change, Simply because the term black is outdated.My argument is that the term "black" has no purpose in classifying an organic entity. This method of classification was used by early social darwinists, for racial division and disunity between all people of color. When classifying the pigmented section of Homo-Sapien Sapien, We must instead use the biological term of identifying Africans in America, Melanated Lives Matter. Make sure you can provide valid and scholastic evidence to support your argument.
Black Lives Matter Should Rename It's self

The Black Lives Matter movement needs to rename it's title. The term black in regards to biological entities has no place in classifying a species variation. The correct term it should be changed to is Melanated Lives Matter, as it is the scientific standard to classify an indigenous species various. I'm willing to debate anyone on this matter but I only ask for you to have your argument supported with scientific or anthropological references regarding however your view is. Thanks, Cant Wait ! :)
Black Lives Matter Should Rename It's self

Okay, so first, melanated can refer to Mexican's, Middle Eastern, or even Asian. For a movement that is promoting rights for Black people, it needs to be specific, we have to know that they are talking about black people. Melanated Lives Matter is too generic of a title. Black is the term that has always been used to refer to those of a darker skin tone. It might not be the best term but it's the term that has been used over generations just as white is used to allude to those of a lighter skin tone. These are the terms that have been used and will most likely not stop being used. Melanated has not been used and will probably never be used because, as I said, it could pertain to someone from Mexico, the Middle East, and even Asia. The terms that have always been used are white and black. You can learn more about Black Lives Matter here: http://blacklivesmatter.com... Another thing is they are using the term that everybody uses for them. Everybody uses this term and they are using this term to tell everyone, "Well, we, the black people, are not going to stand for this" Using Melanated will not do this or have the same effect that Black Lives Matter does. Here's another part of the same website that explains why Black Lives Matter: http://blacklivesmatter.com... Here's another article explaining how BLM uses in your face tactics: http://www.nj.com...