BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Nazis could have won WWII if they didn't invade Russia

1. "They had too many enemies." [1] They had lots of enemies, of course, but they also had lots of allies. Japan, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Thailand, Bulgaria, Finland, Iraq (supplies), Albania, Slovakia, Croatia, and all of eastern Asia basically. Russia was the strongest ally force. They had about 2.9 million people in the Red Army. Maybe they could have attacked Germany, it is a possibility. But, is it also possible that Japan could have attacked Russia? 2. "All the Germans had were Austria, Japan, and Mussolini as allies." Wrong. They had more allies, look at the list I gave you. They had way more allies. "Their soldiers were VERY limited." The Nazi's were, but their allies were not. [2] Japan had a total of about 2 million ELITE soldiers. The US just kept throwing bodies at the Nazis, untrained bodies. If they hadn't attacked Russia, Japan would assist in the war on the US. Not to mention that Austria, Hungary, and Mussolini had a combined strength of 2 million as well. 3. "They are landlocked." They are not. They conquered Denmark, which has access to the North Sea. If they took over the UK too they would be free to invade the US. [3] Cites: [1]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]-http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]- http://i.infopls.com...
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

This is a policy debate with Inherency, Harms, Plan, Solvency, Disadvantages, Topicality's, Counter-Plans, and the works. Evidence is necessary to prove points that need it. Since I can't begin without an affirmative case, I will wait for my opponents case before beginning. The topic is the 2008-2009 NFL Policy debate topic: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Thanks and good luck to my challenger! ======================================================= On a side note, If anyone is interested in being in a policy (or LD) tournament (online) go to http://www.facebook.com... for details.
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

Nothing really to say here. It is truly unfortunate that this has turned into the way it has... ========================================================= On a side note, I just got back from the movie "The Dark Knight" and it was AMAZING! Heath Ledger's acting (in particular) was outstanding. He played the perfect Joker and it is TRULY unfortunate that talent such as he had was wasted in an unfortunate incident. His final movie, is one for the ages however and he will always be remembered as a great actor.
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

It seems my opponent hasn't ever done a Policy Round. He has no Inherency, Harms, Plan, or Solvency. He only argues that we should do it but offers no specific way TO do it. OFF CASE: I and II.--> If research is already happening, why should we INCREASE INCENTIVES? There is no reason if there is already a good enough effort. Cross apply his Contention I (and II) against IV and V where he says that they should because the U.S. has a good track record with it. He essentially argues that Status Quo is already good enough, but that is CON'S job. III.--> Just because we decrease our dependence on oil doesn't mean that we have to increase alternative energy incentives. Fine, decrease dependence on oil, but there is NO reason to increase other energy incentives and there is NO reason as to HOW to do it. IV and V.--> It's great that my opponent puts so much trust in the U.S., however, he MUST present a plan as to HOW the USFG will accomplish this. If it is so possible, PROVE that you can substantially increase alternative energy incentives. In the end- My opponent has offered NOTHING that a policy round needs, and in response, I am not able to run anything "policy"… The only thing I COULD run is topicality but that would just get old with how many that I would run. I COULD also run a counterplan, but there isn't even a plan in the first place. It's impossible for me to run a Disadvantage, but there is no plan OR solvency claim for me to attack. Finally I COULD run a Kritik, but by this point, he hasn't followed ANY policy format and it would just be repetitive. I understand that it is his first debate and I'm truly sorry that he doesn't know "policy" but it's just the way it is.
Lady Gaga

Hello and welcome to this debate which I have anticipated with much excitement. Since the topic isn't self explanatory, I will give the resolution of this debate and the burden me and the opponent will have. ~=~= Resolution ~=~=Lady Gaga music abilities are beyond all of her opponents within the music industry. As well Lady Gaga has accomplished more socially with her fame and talent, then her opponents within the music industry.~=~= Opponents ~=~=Pro - I have the burden of proving that the resolution I have stated is correct.Con - The opponent will have the burden of proving that the resolution which I have stated is incorrect. ~=~= Definitions ~=~=Lady Gaga - is an American songwriter, performance artist, and recording artist.Abilities - the capacity to do somethingOpponents - someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argumentAccomplished - achieve or complete successfullySocially - of or relating to society or its organizationSide note: The opponent may decline these definitions and put forward his/her own.~=~= Rules ~=~=1. Round 1 will be for acceptance we will have two round to fully debate this topic. 2. Please choose an opponent within Lady Gaga category. For example a bad opponent would be The Beatles. 3. Have fun and good luck.
god hides behind science

In this debate i will be pro for that god uses science to cover religon's tracks. and i would like to thank any readers of this debate and anyone who wants to argue it. ====== pro (me) ====== Now a god is a supreme being and i will be using the christian's idea of god. and i believe something similar to the faith of desim but i do not believe that we can prove god but prove what he has done with reason and i believe this because how could we put faith in god made us evolve instead of create us and so i believe that god created us but made evolution say that we really evolved thus making us have to trust god or put faith in him ====== con ====== Con will try to say that god may not exist because of logic or say we should only put faith into god or make any other arguments aganist this.
god hides behind science

Thank you for addressing my counterarguments and reading those articles! Your reply was thorough and certainly not too long. Although, again, I find fault with many of my opponent's assertions, I will comment primarily on those that are relevant to the topic at hand**, that "god hides behind science." THE ARGUMENT My opponent has only established the POSSIBILITY that – IF the Christian God exists and IF he has such motivation – he COULD "cover his tracks" with the illusion of science. This is not enough. To win this debate, he will need to show with sufficient evidence that God DID, not just could have done, such a thing. "Now there are no theories supporting god because, well to explain god is impossible because it is based on faith … god cannot be explained or disproven." My opponent regards God as an "unexplainable" force while simultaneously making extraordinary claims of insight into God's actions and motives! Either God has a perceivable effect on the material world with discernable motivations (which you imply), OR he is unexplainable – it cannot go both ways. If it was God's intention to deceive humans as a test of their faith, why is there so much other purported "evidence" of God? Miracles, prophecies, and the like are experienced by some, but not others. Millions of people worldwide are never even introduced to the Bible and thus have no opportunity to have Christian faith – are they being given a test that they are doomed to fail? THE (LACK OF) EVIDENCE "If the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists." Here my opponent implies, through the Teapot analogy, that the Bible (the ancient books that support the existence of a God) is a credible source of information. It is AT BEST highly varying eye-witness testimony – a notoriously unreliable type of evidence – and at worst a collection of fables and archaic law, the modern version of which has been heavily edited over time. If the Bible is my opponent's main source, he has yet to show anywhere that it says "God uses Evolution to cover his tracks." **These are less relevant, but deserve correction. A) Your statement, "a theory is ‘contemplation or speculation' so it can be disproven," is misguided. A Scientific Theory is not a hypothesis, a thought, or a prediction. Please visit Source #1 and read the "Pedagogical definition." B) Problem of Evil – I apologize for not explaining this further. This is the argument I was referencing: If God CAN and IS WILLING to do Good, why does Evil exist? The creation of Evil is inherently contradictory to a Benevolent Creator. Sources: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you, I look forward to the next round.
god hides behind science

thank you for bring up some good points -now i will admit that i did not support my facts in round 1 but that is because i was only trying to say what i was trying to bring up in this debate, so i apologize for this -Also if there is a god(which i believe) or a supreme being couldn't it be smart enough to cover its tracks? -and i wonder how can a athesit sleep at night know that one day they will die and they will never again feel, hear, see or do anything just wipe from existance, now this says that i joined Christanty just because i was born into it or scared into it but i believe that -keep in mind a theory is "contemplation or speculation" so it can be disproven - i read all your sources in wikipedia and i have come up with the following: 1) in russell's teapot and the argument is based on the presumption that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false. 2) in "problem of evil" it says since we suffer and have pain then why does the all-loving god let this happen? well before we had orginal sin had the garden of adam and eve where there was no pain or suffering but we do have suffering and pain because we betrayed god and this is a test on how we live or lives and that pain will be gone after we die if we pass god's test for we had betrayed god 3) Now the theory of Evolution is widly unliked by many people who support god but i said that when god created us, he used evolution so that we can think that we evolved and the point of this is as you said "greater leap of faith." Now there are no theories supporting god because, well to explain god is impossible because it is based on faith but almost everything you just said can be disproven where as god cannot be explained or disproven now lets take it for somehow you knew what god was thinking, now you want people to join heaven because they are loyal to you, but if you showed them that you really did exist then everyone will join because of fact but you need people to believe you, and everyone will get to go to heaven but heaven is a reward for those who truly believe in god. So yes god needed to make a bigger leap of faith and so god should be smarter for god is the creater of the universe then anyone of us and cover his tracks. So i thank my opponent for this great points and i was very interested to see these theories that were brought up and i apologize again if my 1st round was explained badly. But i look foward to our rounds toward the future. And i apologize for such a long round
god hides behind science

This is my first debate and I sincerely thank all who participate. My opponent makes the following claims, but provides neither evidence nor rational deduction for any of them: 1)The Christian God created "us." 2)The scientifically established, near-universally recognized fact of Evolution is a faï¿½ade created by God. 3)The purpose of this faï¿½ade was to deceive humans of the truth (Claim 1), thereby requiring theists to take a greater leap of faith. The baseless presumptions here are countless, but I will focus on a few. This argument is premised on the existence of the Christian God, which is in itself an extraordinary claim and should not be overlooked or automatically granted as true. If my opponent defines God as Benevolent and Omnipotent in a universe where Evil exists, then it would fairly be regarded as false due to logical fallacy. Even if the possibility of the Christian God is granted, my opponent still fails to provide any proof for any of his other claims. My opponent also falsely presupposes that the Theory of Evolution makes any assertions about the origins of life. It does not. Rather, Evolution is an explanation of the origins of species – that is, the formation of different species over time. Biogenesis is a separate matter entirely. The conclusion of my opponent's argument is essentially a modified version of Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof lies on my opponent to prove these unfalsifiable claims about religion and the universe. The maxim, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here. Before advancing to Round 2, I strongly urge my opponent to search Wikipedia for "Russell's Teapot," "Problem of Evil," and "Theory of Evolution."
Does God exist

There are also other historical records of Israel and the bible events in other nations. There is also proof of the people in the Bible. People have found proof of King Solomon's reign as a rock in northern Israel stating the king of Israel. Ever king mentioned in the bible was proven true and was correctly chronologically ordered. The bible is so accurate National Geographic and the Smithsonian branch of anthropology stars that the Bible is not just some make-believe fairy tale. SOME theologists believe that the energy that started the world was God. The bible does predict the rise and falls of the empires in Daniel 2 verse 24 - 49.
Does God exist

Argument one of your I was talking about outside the bible I don't count that because again that's using the bible to prove the bible. Next you say the Quran predicts the future but you say your a christian so that's weird. You say it predicts we will be able to fly. That's meaningless we would do that anyway how about this. I predict one day we will have flying cars. If we do does that make me god? Where did the energy that created the universe come from. Well the simple answer is we don't know? we have many ideas but we don't know. However for you to say we don't know so it must be god is a god of the gaps argument. I bet you will do that. Maybe the energy always existed. You say god always existed so why could energy have always existed. Then you say the bible predicts the rise and fall of several empires. I have read the bible back to front it doesn't. If it does site passages don't just say it does.
Does God exist

1. That is where you are wrong, the new testament was written during his time. His family, disciples and historians recorded what he did during his life. All these writings and teachings were then spread through the roman empire. 2. I am a Christian so I used the bible more than the Qur'an but, if you really want proof....... The Qur'an also hints about the future. 3:112 in the Qur'an hints at the holocaust as it states a great punishment for the Jews. It predicted humans would one day fly ( airplanes) Finally where did the energy that created the world come from? What future or things said and explained in batman was never proven correct and is generally known as fiction. The bible has predicted so many historical moments and it is not using luck. The bible predicted the rise and fall of Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. It does not seem like a simple work of fictional literature. How can you explain such a phenomenon?
Does God exist

The first thing you say is nothing can't create something. Well there are ideas about how it could but the big bang doesn't argue that. It says there was most likely a very small particle of energy that exploded and expanded that over time through natural laws created planets and stars and everything else. Then you said either god or matter had to always exist but it couldn't be matter because otherwise the second law of thermodynamics says that all stars would be burned out so god must exist. Really they all would have burned out? You don't know that your just guessing. Also the second law of thermodynamics is under serious question as to if it's even true. There for it must be god. Again where did god come from. If something had to always exist doesn't it seem more likely to be a tiny particle then a complex being more complex then the entire universe. Also if everything that exists must have a designer and god exists then god must have a designer so who is that? and who designed him? and so on. Then the rest of your argument is "the bible said it so it must be true" which I already pointed out is intellectually dishonest. Again that's like saying Batman books say batman is really so batman must be real. However I have two questions for you. 1. If jesus did all these impressive things and claimed to be the son of god. Why was he never written about in his time. There where historians who kept track of everyone who claimed to be prophet in the place and time jesus supposedly lived and then never mentioned him. Why is that exactly 2. If you think you can use the bible to prove the bible why not use the Quran to prove the Quran is true. Why is every other religion silly and not true but yours it totally factual please explain that.
Does God exist

Your Question: Where did God come from? My Answer: There is nothing in the Bible that says God the Father is a created Being or that he made Jesus Christ. If something or someone created God then not only does it mean he is NOT deity (by most people's definition), but it also begs still more questions like who or what created our Creator? Something has always had to exist, whether it is matter or spirit, intelligent or inanimate. This is because (in a principle going back to ancient Greek philosophy) SOMETHING can never come from or out of NOTHING. A vacuum or void can never produce matter. The universal law of cause and effect states the principle that what a thing DOES is based on what it IS. Because a void, by its very definition, contains nothing and therefore has nothing as a CAUSE, it cannot produce anything (e.g. matter) as an EFFECT. Either God, as an intelligent Being, has always existed or matter has. It is either one or the other. Matter could not have always existed since, based on the second law of thermodynamics, if it did all the stars would have all burned out by now. Therefore, the existence of an eternal, all-powerful God is required as the 'first cause' of everything that exists. The 'Big Bang,' of itself, was not the first or initial cause of the material universe we see today. Rather, God's choice (as the first true 'cause') brought everything into existence using the Big Bang. Concerning Jesus, the Bible boldly states that he was "with God in the beginning" (John 1:1 - 3, 14). Paul wrote to the church in Philippi concerning the nature of Jesus that our Savior was God and therefore was not claiming something that was not his when he lived on the earth (Philippians 2:6 - 7).Among the more powerful statements made by Jesus declaring who he was and where he had come from came when he was speaking to some Jews who believed in him. He told them "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58). These Jews KNEW Jesus was claiming to be deity! The fact that they knew this was that, after Christ spoke these words, they immediately began to pick up stones to KILL HIM right then and there for the crime (in their minds) of blasphemy (see verse 59)! The law required a blasphemer to be stoned. They fully understood Christ was making the claim that He was the GOD who spoke to Moses through the miracle of the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). By the use of the name "I AM," God is making the statement that He is ETERNAL. There never was a time when he did not exist and there never will be a time when He will not exist. In fact, TIME itself is a human concept and bears no relationship to his existence in the spirit realm. The concept of an eternal Being is beyond normal human comprehension. The world's wisest man, Solomon, wrote that man cannot ultimately fathom all the things about God and what he has accomplished (Ecclesiastes 3:10 - 11). God IS, WAS and WILL BE. He did not come from anywhere since he is eternal. Rather than being created, he is the CREATOR and the One who sustains everything that we see in this physical universe and that we do not see in the spiritual realm.
Does God exist

So first you gave a summary of what scientist think happened the big bang. Then after that summary your arguments was The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. In Genesis 1:3, God said"Let there be light". This is a logical explanation for the Big Bang. Two things. One god of the gaps arguments which is just saying I don't know therefore god. Which is funny because that means scientists are saying "we don't know but we think this is how it happened" verses you saying "I don't know Therefore I somehow do know" Also you said the universe didn't always exist it had to have a beginning. So if the universe couldn't always exist and have to have a creator then where did god come from? If the universe couldn't always exist then god couldn't he's far more complex then the universe so he must have had a creator so who created god. Also who created whatever created god and so on. If you're going to say god always existed then why couldn't the universe have always existed.
Does God exist

Many scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light known as the Big Bang. This was the start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen." Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. In Genesis 1:3, God said"Let there be light". This is a logical explanation for the Big Bang. Sources- Me and the Bible
Hillary clinton is the best option

Thanks to Pro for making this debate. Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted because she is a liar (. http://hotair.com...). Pro only makes ad hominems towards Donald Trump, her biggest opponent. The rest of the argument by my opponent doesn't have any sources and he doesn't explain why his promises are "false". The entire debate of my opponent was only criticisms of Donald Trump, Pro failed to show any real support for his side.