BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hockey is a better sport than football.

football is a rich game and is one of the most, if not, the most popular sport there is to play. Given this fact, the atheltism that is used in hockey and football are two completely different skill sets and have nothing to do with eachother. Also, you have to have a fire inside your stomach and the desire to want to be a good football player and be fearless because once an opposing playe senses fear in your eyes thats when you have lost the batte on the field. Thats why not many people are lucky enough to play the game of football because they dont have those traits. Also, you have to be able to react on your feet in a matter of seconds. One false step can be the difference between a good play or a bad one, or a win or a loss for your team.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

**Closed Debate - comment to acceptFull Premise: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. "Sound" is defined as "a logically valid argument that withstands all scrutiny." Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins. Format: Round 1 - Pro: Intro/present argument Con: 1st Rebuttal Round 2 - Pro: Response Con: Rebuttals Round 3 - Pro: Final response Con: Only write "remarks complete."Con may begin their rebuttal immediately of the following argument by showing that either the argument's form is invalid, the premises are incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect, or the conclusion does not follow from the premises. == Kalam Cosmological Argument == P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily transcendent of space/time. [1] [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org......
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

My statements stand on their own merits, and I will not belabor my arguments further. I defer the rules to the OP and stand by them.Regardless of votes or opinions, I urge those interested in the debate to read further about Hilbert (vector) spaces and to get at least a basic knowledge of set theory. It is the study of logic, and the principle on which even our own brains operate. Through learning this, one will find many subjects concerning philosophy are merely dancing around the same concepts using alegory and metaphore in language rather than the precision of clear definition.It can also help with understanding the universe. The study of basic building blocks, termed 'quanta', of the universe is a fascinating exploration of the potential energy of boundaries between differences. These can take the form of before and after, left and right, inside and outside, but in the end differences are the one thing that all arguments have in common.
Iran is being criticized.

That may be right, and i understand that your uncle nearly died serving there. But if you think of it logically; more Iranian people die than people who serve there. Iranian citizens are stoned, killed, jailed for life, everyday because of stupid reasons such as women exposing their hair or body; I am sure dying is worse than nearly dying. I have experienced someone in my family dying in the hands of the government. Not that you would understand but i still believe that the people of Iran are not to blame. Blaming the government fair enough, i agree with that; blaming the people, different story. What most people want is freedom of coarse all of the people don't but still. people will not get their freedom by just standing there listening to every word the government says, so they rebel. That is when civil war breaks out. Losing someone precious to you is very, very hard to get over. When they are gone, they are gone. For some people this has become a frequent thing for them. People like you and me have to go through things like these every year, month, week maybe, maybe even days. Treasures the people you love before they are gone. I want people to open their eyes and see whats going on in this world of our. I can see that Iran needs help. That is what i see when i look at Iran. A country with a some what unfair, untrustworthy leader who uses the power for his/her own good, but i also see innocent people who are afraid or unsure, trapped in their own country. You know, it it says you are born in Iran on you pass port there is a 75% chance that they will call security and the manager on you. (depends what you travel with) This has happened to me and my family EVERY TIME we go on holiday, why? Because my parents are born in Iran, not even grown up there just born there and they have a god damn English pass, but guess what. The world does not work like that. I don't know about you, but i wouldn't like being accused for being a terrorist mostly everywhere i go. It is true that they do not tell me this but their actions do. People might not know this but the only country that easily gives visa to a person with an Iranian pass is turkey. That is it. However if you had escaped Iran before or during the revolution, you would now have more freedom. I want Iran to change. i am sure others do as well. Because of that, i need to win this no matter what. I want to change people ways of thinking for the better, not only for Iran but maybe even for the world. Thank for reading - Pro
Iran is being criticized.

I believe Iran is being criticized because of the nuclear power thing going on and because of its government and president. As far as i am concerned, i am sure that Iran have not don anything to harm other countries even tough they have said some bad things. In my opinion the people of Iran are the ones suffering and dying and why other countries do not help Iran, I do not know. Does anyone actually know how many people die in the hands of the government? I also believe that this nuclear problem everyone has would be solved if countries helped Iran instead of mostly looking at the bad things. Also, i do not get what America is going on about. It was them that dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in WW2 was it not? ! Do you know how many people, adults, children, babies who had not even learnt to speak died? And you (not you in specific but the people who say this) claim Iranians are terrorists? I do not have any sources but i am sure if people searched into Iran they would find out many god things they have done, their cultures, food, clothes. It is interesting what new things you can find out, why not try?
Gingers are normal human beings

I accept.Shared BOP. I will be debating that gingers are not normal human beings. Considering you did not post any definitions, I will do so. This was the first definition of normal that popped up so we will be using it for this debate.Normal - conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. (1)My argument is quite simple. Gingers are not normal because they are not usual, are abnormal, are not regular, and do not conform with the standard type of human beings.According to three sources, only 1-2% of the world population is made up of gingers (2)(3)(4) and that brown haired people are dominant at 38% of the world's population. (5)In order to be normal gingers must be in the highest percentile of their hair color, but they are not. Therefore, gingers are not normal human beings.Thank you! Pleasure debating you............................Plus gingers have no soul.Sources(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.chacha.com...(4) http://www.garreau.com...(5) http://www.chacha.com...
Gingers are normal human beings

2,000 character limit. Gingers are regular human being but with different colored hair. What is the big deal, this sistuation is almost like a whole other era of racism. Very immature people. Thanks go out to those who dont bully gingers. My friend is a ginger and because of the relatively nice school that we go to, she doesn't really get noticed because of her hair color, but because of who she is. Fact: Gingers are one of the most bullied people in the world. There is even such a thing as "kick a ginger" day in Canada. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://articles.latimes.com...
The universe is made of one particle

Whoever wins, This is sure to be interesting. I'll just mention that if you see words after commas capitalised, It's automatic and unresolvable, So don't award grammar points to either of us on that basis only. Because Pro has the burden of proof, I'll let them them put forward the first argument. For now, I'll assume that Pro means 'The universe is made of one kind of particle', Unless they state otherwise. But first, We should note that this view goes against all scientific models, Which are backed by thousands, If not millions, Of experiments. Pro will need to supply experimental evidence which disproves the Standard Model of particle physics (which I assume Pro is referring to in their second sentence, Even though it only posits less than a hundred particles), Before proving that the universe is only made from one particle kind. Pro will also need to show that the three states they claim to exist are different states of the same fundamental particle, Rather than merely three different particles.
The universe is made of one particle

1. Occam's razor My theory has far less assumptions than the standard model. You have made a fundamental and misleading statement here. The standard model is really just guess work at best. Nobody has seen an atom and nobody really knows how and atom functions. Thus, It is all conjecture, Guess work and hypothesis. In other words it is just a game of smoke and mirrors played by stage magicians called scientists. 2. The burden of proof Your example of an invisible tea cup orbiting Alpha Centuri is extremism gone berserk. The things that I am talking about are just everyday objects which are clues to how the universe works. For example - An electric plug has 3 points; the human eye sees things in 3 parts; computer language and binary code has zeros; ones and spaces, There are 3 primary colours; Chemicals have acid, Alkaline and neutral; and electrity can be positive, Negative or neutral. 3. Macroscopic and microscopic Sorry, There is no mistake in seeing a parallel between fractal related objects. The universe is full of fractal relationships. You just have to be observant to see it. Note - Movie animators use fractal mathematics to create fake mountains and scenery. Note - An atom is a smaller fractal of a galaxy. Note - Spin rate of a galaxy and an atom vary considerably. Thus, The larger the fractal the slower the spin or rotation rate and the smaller the fractal the faster the spin rate. A solar system is in the middle between an atom and a galaxy. A solar system is growing and will turn into a galaxy. A planet and its moons will turn into an independent solar system with time. Thus, The universe is both expanding and contracting at the same time. The black hole in the centre of a galaxy will return matter to aether and shoot it out as jets at 90 degrees to the galactic rotation. It has been found that galaxies form into crystalline structures due to this process. www. Fractal. Org/Bewustzijns-Besturings-Model/Chris-King-fractal-universe. Pdf 4. Spherical particles The sphere is the basic shape of the universe. This is because the no spin particle creates a hole in space which the spin particles rotate around in a descending spiral. This is the basic shape of a galaxy and of an atom. The no spin particle or state is the key to understanding how gravity works. The aether particles are falling into the dimensional gateway or hole in space. (don't ask me where they go to after they fall in) This falling action creates gravity. The Earth is expanding and growing because of this growing accumulation of aether particles and matter. See The Expanding Earth Video. www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oJfBSc6e7QQ 5. Bosons Quote - "This is false. The standard model includes 4 gauge bosons, And 1 scalar boson, " Reply - There may be a sixth tensor boson spin = -2 en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Boson Thus, My theory still stands. Note - In case you didn't know, 6 is divisible by 3. Lol Finally - The twelve fundamental particles www. Hep. Ucl. Ac. Uk/undergrad-projects/3rdyear/PPguide/12. Htm
The universe is made of one particle

Firstly - The law of parsimony - Occam's razor - is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, One should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Yes, I have the burden of proof and you have the burden of disproof. Lol The universe is made of only one particle in 3 states. Positive, Negative and neutral. This can be further simplified to left spin, Right spin and no spin. I came to this conclusion by studying nature and observing that everything is divided into 3 groups. This particle would be spherical in shape. Acid / alkaline / neutral - Positive / negative / neutral. The universe is very simple place. Only humans are complicated. Lol Electricity is aether flow. The electric plug has 3 connection points. Positive, Negative and neutral. Electricity is spin energy. If you want to collect electrical power you must spin something (turbine) and rub against it in order to harness the spin energy. This spin energy will be transferred through aether flow channels of least resistance (wires). The sun is the key to understanding how the universe works. Space is made of aether which contains positive and negative aether particles. These particles are invisible to us because they are inter-dimensional. They spin at the speed of light which is a dimensional barrier so we can't see them. We can only see no spin particles which have spin particles rotating around them, Commonly known as atoms. When no spin aether particles approach the sun they are squeezed together and stop spinning giving off E = MC squared energy. That is 2 particles of aether which are spinning at light speed will stop spinning and give off C squared energy. Thus, Matter is created from aether at the sun's surface. Note - Hydrogen is the most abundant element. This is because it is the first element which the sun produces. Hydrogen is a hybrid particle somewhere between matter and aether. The standard model has many sub-atomic particles which can all be catalogued into groups of 3, 6 or 9. Thus, 3 quarks which are positive, Negative and neutral. Therefore, The standard model particle groupings complies with and compliments my theory. Note - The science world tends to favour complication over simplicity because there is more prestige, Money and recognition in complicated theories. Also, A simple theory like mine would put a lot of important people out of a job and would cause a lot of red faces. Therefore, They would do better to ignore it and pretend that it never existed. Lol
God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.

I think Nails for accepting my challenge in this debate. Con's syllogism fails for two reasons: 1) As Con rightly explains (in item I of his syllogism,) wants/needs are what God *seeks to obtain*, not what he *has already obtained*. The current state of the universe tells us nothing of what God desires, only what he has fulfilled. For example, if I am in a maze, according to Con's syllogism I can surmise that God might have placed me in the maze, but I cannot use that fact to determine if God currently wants me to turn left or right. 2) Even given the above, not everything in the current state of the universe necessarily defines what God wanted. For example, a bird starts from a tree limb. If a down feather drops from the bird at that moment, the dropping feather is not necessarily what God wanted, it may simply be a random event that God cared nothing about. In summation, Con is incorrect. The current state of the universe does not allow us to know God's wants/needs, nor even necessarily what he wanted or needed. Thus my position still stands, God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.
God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.

Want: to have strong desire for/to wish or demand the presence of [1] Need: a condition requiring supply or relief [2] A simple syllogism will suffice to sum up my position. I. Wants and needs, by definition, are things we seek to obtain for ourselves. II. God is omniscient and omnipotent, having the power and knowledge to obtain anything at will. III. From I & II, God obtains all of his wants and needs. IV. God has control over the universe. V. From III & IV, we only need to observe the universe around us to see Gods wants and needs manifested. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com...
God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.

The participants in this debate must accept the assertions that: * God exists and "is intelligent and free and distinct from the created universe." [1] (i.e., no Nature as God concepts.) * Knowledge requires "conformity of thought with reality." [2] There are many who claim to know God's desires (e.g., see [3],) but these claims exist as revelation [4] which is specifically defined as supernatural intercession by God and as such holds no means of independent or even subjective verification. In the special case of Biblical revelation, all such revelation is hearsay, and as such cannot be considered as knowledge of God's wants. Therefore, all claims to know God's wants, needs, or desires, are suspect whether they are positive or negative. For example, we cannot know what God thinks of homosexuality or the eating of shell fish, but rather only what the writers (including the various copyists) of Leviticus thought of those topics. We cannot know what God thinks of the world, despite the claim of John 3:16. [1] http://www.newadvent.org... [2] http://www.newadvent.org... [3] http://www.religion-online.org..., http://godwants.org..., http://www.godtalkstoyou.com..., and http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.newadvent.org...
God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.

======== Argument 1 ======== "Whether or not God obtains what he seeks is not at issue. " "But once I turn left or right, that is no longer what God is *seeking to obtain*" It seems to me that PRO's argument is based on 'want' and 'have' being mutually exclusive. They aren't. The point is that all God wants, God has. There is nothing he seeks to obtain but cannot obtain. He is not *seeking to obtain* anything that he does not already have. Wants/needs are not necessarily things that exist in the future. For example, I want to debate and I am debating right now. We often invision wants/needs as future events because we cannot currently obtain them, e. g. I want a Ferrari, but, as God can obtain anything and everything that he so desires, none of his wants/needs remain unfulfilled to later be granted in the future. All that God currently wants with the universe, is; all that he doesn't want, is not. ======== Argument 2 ======== A. "I don't care what the outcome of the police investigation is; I don't want him to be charged with careless driving" My opponent contradicts his original claim, in the same sentence no less. He has no opinion, but he doesn't want him to be charged with careless driving. This just exemplifies the point I originally made, that we have some opinion on everything. B. "Con seeks to limit God's omnipotence by making it impossible for Him to let something happen without his conscious effort. " I do not enjoy semantics, and that is all that this is, PRO playing off the definition of 'omnipotent. ' It's the same thing as "Well, I dare God to create a stone so large that he can't lift it! " Either way, his semantics game doesn't work. If God decides that he wants something to happen without his conscious effort, it still takes his conscious effort in making the decision.
God's wants/needs are unknown and unknowable.

Argument 1: "If we seek to obtain our wants/needs and God knows and has the power to obtain all of his wants/needs, then by definition, he obtains them." Whether or not God obtains what he seeks is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not we can *know* what He seeks to obtain. "As I stated, we can determine Gods wants/needs from the current state of affairs. In the given example, we can know that God wants PRO to be in a maze. Once PRO turns left or right, we then know that God wanted him to turn left or right." But once I turn left or right, that is no longer what God is *seeking to obtain*, thus it is not what he *wants*. As I showed and now Con has confirmed, we cannot determine what God wants or needs, what He is seeking to obtain, by the state of the universe, we can only determine what God has already obtained. Argument 2: A: "We have some opinion on everything we know." This is simply not true; humans are capable of not caring about the outcome of a particular event. For example, I know that Tiger Woods, the golf pro, had an accident over the weekend and he could be charged with careless driving. I don't care what the outcome of the police investigation is; I don't want him to be charged with careless driving, nor do I want him to escape such a charge. Even if I were to accept Con's assumption that humans must have an opinion on everything they know, God (by definition) cannot be held to such a limitation. B: "As per Premise IV, God controls the universe. Therefore, every action within said universe is necessarily dictated by God." Again, Con seeks to limit God's omnipotence by making it impossible for Him to let something happen without his conscious effort. This cannot be done by definition. Although I applaud Con's attempt, I'm sure you can see the flaws in Con's argument as easily as I have. The current state of the universe does not inform us of what God is seeking to obtain only what he has obtained.