BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity debate.

It's nice to see my opponent back. So, let's get to it. Before I get to my opponents arguments I should point out that the scientific community views flood geology as a pseudoscience. Anyhow, my opponent quotes a creation scientist and former weatherman, "The flood has left some startling traces on the surface of the earth in the form of erosional remnants, continental shelves, large-scale plantation surfaces, quartzite rocks rocks transported by water hundreds of miles from their nearest source, water gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons. All these geomorphic features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the "slow processes over millions of years" alternative model." My opponent hasn't addressed the inconstancies of the flood, which can be found in round 2 for all viewers of the debate, but he also needs to provide some specific examples to show his claims are true. I, for example, cited that the Sierra Nevadas weren't as eroded as they should be (as eroded as the Appalachian Mountains), given a worldwide flood. If my opponent could cite the mountains "erosional remnants," which could not exist without the flood that would be good. The same goes with all of his other claims. We need some examples. Then, afterwards we need an explanation for all the inconsistencies such as why traces of a flood weren't found on seafloors , for example, or how ice caps are even possible. With scientific claims, if there are problems with the claims, showing these claims unlikely to be true these claims are dropped and other claims are put forward, which are more consistent with what happened. I won't argue that there are probably things that science doesn't have an explanation for yet, but you can't just attribute that to the flood. We've seen that the flood theory has some incredibly serious problems, which must be addressed in order for the flood theory to be taken seriously. My second argument should seal the deal. My opponent is unable to counter my logical proof that an all knowing all powerful God could not exist. It was a fun debate, but Christian claims simply cannot stand against scientific and logical scrutiny. The resolution is negated.
Christianity debate.

In this round I will just cover the points that my friend, WARR10R_AN6EL, has posted and ask a few points for him to address. In the next rounds I plan on going into scientific, philosophical, logical and historical arguments conflicting with the teachings of Christianity showing it unlikely to be true. I will now briefly answer my opponents questions. 1. If Christianity is false, then why is it that it was translated over many languages and many times in about 2000 years. Something being translated to different languages over a period of time has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. Beowulf was translated multiple times, however, we don't generally believe this to be anything other than fiction. 2. If there is no God then how was everything created? This one is actually quite complicated for people who don't understand advanced physics. Let me try to explain in a way everyone can understand, and hopefully I don't mangle the science too badly haha. Here is the current theory: Basically, in a flat universe (the kind of universe we live in) a universe can self create due to quantum fluctuations. The total energy of the universe is 0 because we have matter and anti-matter, thus we are allowed to have something rather than nothing. Lawrence M. Krauss, American theoretical physicist and professor of physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and director of the Origins Project at the Arizona State University, said in a flat universe whenever you have nothing you will inevitably have something. It basically just deals with the kind of universe we're in. A flat universe is the only universe that can self-create. Yeah there's stuff we don't understand about the universe, but if the universe self-created as most highly regarded physicists and cosmologists agree it did then that means there was no room for God to create it and everything in it. I have a few questions for Pro as well: 1. Isn't God the most complex being in existence? So what caused him? How does he exist? Why does he exist? 2. Why is the Christian God true instead of other Gods? 3. Why does he have all the traits he does? Why is he is all loving instead of kind of loving? Why is he all powerful instead of kind of powerful? Why is he all knowing instead of kind of knowing? 4. Why is there evil? That's what I got for now, but there are five rounds here, which is plenty to discuss all of my arguments. Oh, and best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity debate.

In this debate, I am looking for an opponent to debate against me who is will to try to prove Christianity wrong or just willing to debate the subject. I am a believer of Christianity but am willing to test my knowledge and ability to try to defend the matter there of, this debate is me defending Christianity whilst my opponent attempts to prove it false. Points I prefer and for my opponent to consider: 1. If Christianity is false, then why is it that it was translated over many languages and many times in about 2000 years. 2. If there is no God then how was everything created. All mature opponents are welcome, mature as in no offensive language, religious slurs such as "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" any comments such as will be reported.
There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

i can copy and paste as much as i want in the opening statement, for i am simply trying to prove a point that i agree with these statements. dear audience, look how my opponent makes excuses to not re-fute my arguments. This shows that he himself, does not know what to say, or else he would have argued them back, no matter the source. GIven that my opponents has not given any evidence back, and i have given a sufficient amount, no matter the source, This shows my opponent is at loss of words. Thankyou -foshizzle
There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

And so quickly too, I must add. I enjoy putting to rest the fallacies anti-evolutionists present. But I am not about to debate someone that doesn't use his own arguments. A simple Google search reveals that your argument is word for word from this website - . http://www.topix.com... A simple citation would have been acceptable. I do not mind your using the argument, but plagiarism I will not abide by.
There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

"again my opponent makes no response to any of my arguments." They aren't your arguments. "let me point out to you that this is a lack of unwillingness, and laziness, to not want to reply." Huh? Let me point out to you that that sentence makes absolutely NO sense. I would have loved to reply - to an honest debater. Not a cheater. "I see no determination with my opponent. He chooses to start a debate, and then not even debate it. His excuse is because i used another source. I fail to see this as meaning my arguments as invalid. plus, only actually a segment of my argument was from another source. Seeing this shows me my opponent has no valid argument against anything i have said, meaning he basically forfeits." Please examine the source - it is ALL from there, well, EXCEPT FOR YOUR NAME AT THE END. And quit calling it YOUR argument. It isn't. "dear audience, please look at the logic here. " I start a debate, My opponent rips off another source word for word. I protest. My opponent defends the indefensible. He continues to appeal for you to ignore his blatant plagiarism. Shameful. "Above i have listed a plentiful amount of good arguments, none which my opponent chooses to re-fute." If they were your arguments, I'd be happy to refute. But they aren't, and I am not debating the author of that forum entry. I am debating you. "this just shows, that pride and ignorance is often taken into account withh these types of debates." Boy oh boy - Pride (I am not wrong, I can steal and post anything I want.) Ignorance (Plagiarism is OK!) "with this said, acknowledge that this has not been a debate because my opponent refuses to answer where as i have given plenty of evidence." No - it has not been a debate due to your blatant dishonesty. That's why. thankyou You're very welcome.
There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

again my opponent makes no response to any of my arguments. let me point out to you that this is a lack of unwillingness, and laziness, to not want to reply. I see no determination with my opponent. He chooses to start a debate, and then not even debate it. His excuse is because i used another source. I fail to see this as meaning my arguments as invalid. plus, only actually a segment of my argument was from another source. Seeing this shows me my opponent has no valid argument against anything i have said, meaning he basically forfeits. dear audience, please look at the logic here. Above i have listed a plentiful amount of good arguments, none which my opponent chooses to re-fute. this just shows, that pride and ignorance is often taken into account withh these types of debates. with this said, acknowledge that this has not been a debate because my opponent refuses to answer where as i have given plenty of evidence. thankyou -foshizzle
Cannibis is the DEVIL WEED and all users should be shot on sight !

Well that was hard. It would be nice to debate someone who actually thinks that marijuana should remain illegal who actually has a good reason for why they think so, if such a person even exists. From what I understand, the initial laws against marijuana, such as the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, was passed based on propoganda, which was essentially spread and/or funded by rich men who stood to lose a lot of money from a re-emerging hemp industry. Hemp had been the main or one of the main sources for paper, textiles, oil, and even bio-composites for thousands of years before it was replaced by cotton for cloth after the invention of the cotton gin, paper from timber and oil from petroleum. Up until the 20th century, all hemp processing was done by hand. By the time a machine was invented that could process the tough hemp fibers, the public had a very negative opinion about cannabis. Than WWII happened, and the government showed pro-hemp propoganda films(like my avy) to farmers to encourage them to grow hemp for the war effort. Ten years later, it became a crime to grow any kind of cannabis, for whatever purpose. And now, farmers from all over the midwest are petitioning the government to be able to grow hemp. Just recently, two farmers from Nebraska sued the government for their right to grow hemp, and the DEA holds firm on their position that it is illegal to grow, despite the fact that industrial hemp has no psychoactive effects due to its inappreciable levels of THC. Now I don't want to say that the reason marijuana is illegal is to suppress the hemp industry, but it certainly does seem that way.
Cannibis is the DEVIL WEED and all users should be shot on sight !

<< (1) It is a gateway drug (2) It causes people to be lazy and unproductive (3) It causes acute paranoia in some people (4) It is bad for the lungs>>> Those are all very common arguments against marijuana legalization, but all of them are weak arguments that can easily be shot down. 1) The only reason that marijuana is a gateway drug is because it is illegal, if it were to be legalized it would no longer encourage the use of other drugs. The only reason why marijuana may potentially lead users onto other drugs is because the people who sell it often deal with other drugs and may try to push them on marijuana users. If it were legalized and sold in special stores, there would be no pressure to try other drugs and it would no longer be a gateway drug. 2) In order to make that kind of statement, it would have to be true that all or at least a majority of pot smokers are lazy and unproductive. However, that is not the case. There are many people who enjoy smoking marijuana that hold steady jobs and/or get good grades in school. While it may be true that a high percentage of unproductive people smoke marijuana, that is simply indicative of the mindset that corresponds to that lifestyle. I would contend that marijuana does not make people lazy, but rather that lazy people are drawn to marijuana. 3) And some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, shall those be made illegal as well? Not everybody has to smoke it, but the people that want to should be allowed to. 4) In that regard, cigarettes are much, much worse than marijuana. It may be true that one joint introduces more carcinogens than one cigarette, because cigarettes are normally filtered, but the fact remains that most marijuana users will smoke an average of one joint per day or less. Cigarette smokers will smoke between 15 and 20 cigarettes every day on average. As a result of this high rate of tobacco smoking, there are over 400,000 cases of lung cancer related to cigarettes. To my knowledge, there is not a single case of lung cancer where the victim smoked marijuana and nothing else.
Cannibis is the DEVIL WEED and all users should be shot on sight !

Hello Solarman. Before we begin, I think you've made a few mistakes in naming the debate and your opening argument. First of all, it's cannabis, not cannibis. More importantly, cannabis is a broad term that includes marijuana as well as industrial hemp. Since devil weed had at one time referred to marijuana, but never industrial hemp, I'll assume for now that you do not consider a person wearing a pair of hemp jeans to be a cannabis user. In your opening argument you say that you think we are both on the pro side of this debate. I can assure you that I am definitely against shooting cannabis users on sight. Since you claim to be acting as the devils advocate, I will also assume that you meant to say con....that we are both on the con side of the debate. Assuming that you do not think that cannabis users should be shot on sight, your position on the question of its legality is still unknown. I believe that marijuana, and all forms of cannabis, should be made fully legal and available to the public for adults of a reasonable age. Since the legal age for drinking is 21, this would be a suitable age for being able to purchase marijuana. Now I will briefly introduce a few reasons why marijuana should be legal. 1) It is less dangerous in the short term compared to other legal substances. (i.e. alcohol and numerous over-the-counter and prescription medications.) There has not been a single case of a person overdosing from smoking marijuana. 2) It has less severe long term health effects compared to other legal substances. (i.e. tobacco) 3) It's psychoactive effects are less severe than other legal substances.(i.e. alcohol) 4) It has several known medical benefits. 5) There are potentially many undiscovered medical benefits associated with the plant as the functions of the numerous cannabinoid receptors throughout the body are still unknown. Further research will not commence, or will at least be hindered without legalization. 6) The trade of marijuana would result in an increased GDP and increased tax collection, as opposed to currently being a drain on our economy and pulling money into the black market.
Cannibis is the DEVIL WEED and all users should be shot on sight !

This is obviously tongue in cheek- look at my political party- I just like good headlines I saw your tag and thought we could start a thread about Pot legalization versus the current drug war and the nonsense going on here in CA with medical marijuana and what a joke the fed policy is I think were both on the same side- pro- but I can take the devils advocate cheers Solarman
Work Unions are good

Honorable opponent, for the last round of this debate I would like to start with my points, the argument that unionized workers raise their own wages above their natural rate at the expense of their businesses or other workers assumes that unions never raise productivity to compensate for higher wages. Unions are capable of raising productivity by reducing turnover, by increasing coordination between workers and management, and by increasing workers' motivation. Many unions raise the productivity of their workers, and some even raise it enough to make up for wage increases. Another argument raised by union supporters is that unionized workers will spend their higher wages, driving economic growth and creating new jobs. Union opponents respond that this is an example of the broken window fallacy; union supporters assume that money is more valuable in the hands of unionized workers than in the hands of whoever else would obtain it in the union's absence. There is some evidence that this is not a fallacy, as greater wealth equality seems to be correlated with greater economic growth. Union supporters counter that unions, if organized without violence or government help, are part of the free market; if unions can win higher wages for their workers without coercion, those wages are legitimate.Union violence is violence committed by unions or union members during labor disputes. When union violence has occurred, it has frequently been in the context of industrial unrest. Violence has ranged from isolated acts by individuals to wider campaigns of organised violence aimed at furthering union goals within an industrial dispute. Advocates of unions claim that the higher wages that unions demand can be paid for through company profits. However, as Milton Friedman pointed out, profits are only very rarely high enough. 80% of national income is wages, and only about 6% is profits after tax, providing very little room for higher wages, even if profits could be totally used up. Moreover, profits are invested leading to an increase in capital: which raises the value of labor, increasing wages. If profits were totally removed, this source of wage increase would be removed.According to The New York Times, wages in 2012 fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. I would not like to engage in any further rebuttal because my points are too strong for the opposition to win this debate. I would like to thank the opposition and I am looking forward to seeing the vote. Honorable judges I hope you see clearly who was won this debate.
Work Unions are good

I have more points here on why a Union is beneficial to a work place COLLECTIVE BARGANING is the heart and soul of the labor union. A single worker might feel that a certain new safety measure should be implemented in his factory, but he might have limited power to get the company to install the new measure. If the entire workforce is made aware of the need for the new measure and bands together to pressure the company to install it, there is a much greater chance that the company will comply. Labor unions join workers together, allowing the voices of individual workers to be heard and made into a goal of the whole union. WORKERS SAFETY when employees are considered disposable, businesses can become less interested in protecting them. Employees also may lack someone to intervene on their behalf with management on safety issues when there is no union representation. When workplaces become organized, the need for cooperation becomes more obvious. Companies recognize that they can take steps to make a stable workforce more safe, productive and effective, through training, better equipment, and making better use of their knowledge. HIGHER WAGES One of the top benefits of being a union worker is that you enjoy a better wage as compared to your non-union counterparts. Union workers get about 20 percent more in terms of wages compared to others in similar jobs that aren"t supported by a union. Union workers are also more likely to enjoy consistent pay raises on a regular basis. This is due to collective bargaining between the union and the employer that results in an agreement setting out clear terms regarding pay and wages. With a non-union job, the employer can set the wage without any formal bargaining process or input from the employee BETTER BENEFITS One other key benefit of working as a union employee is that union representatives work on your behalf if you have a personal issue with the employer. Non-union employees have to contact the company"s human resources department for assistance, but it"s important to keep in mind that the department is part of the company, not a representative of the workers. Meeting with a boss and the employer"s HR representative can make an employee with feel outnumbered and vulnerable. Having a union representative evens out that balance of power. All these key points show why it's better to have a Union as a worker. Employers will never like an union because they want to be the BOSS, they want to make all the decisions, but unfortunately they all take it too far and employees become just numbers or slaves to be exploited for their labor. Unions fight for the people for equality and for a fair wage to survive in this competitive power hungry, money profiting world where profit is more important then an employees well being or compensation. Without employees the bosses, the corporations would not have anything done, accomplished or made, Unions make sure those employees are protected from mistreatment (mic drop)