BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A creator exists

I propose a challenge consisting of continuous 5 round debates until we reach an impass. Or until one of us concede. Nothing will be deemed as fact unless both parties agree. If Con wishes to alter anything it must be done in comments, prior to accepting. I wish my opponent good luck and see no need to waste time. Lets begin. Science has concluded that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang, and in that moment, time and matter came into being. Before that, nothing existed and as nothing comes from nothing, I believe it was created. Creation implies intent. Such a being would also have to be uncaused as well as allknowing and allpowerful. Therefore I believe an eternal, sentient, omnipotent, omniscient being exists and I respectfully ask that this being be referred to as TRUTH. For convenience the letter T may be used as he or it is inappropriate.
The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

Deceptive rhetoric? Wow you think highly of me. I'm going to ignore your two questions because I'm sick of repeating myself. Believe me I was hoping we would have gotten to those topics as well. I love talking about how the New Testament doesn't replace the Old only completes it. In light of how this debate has shifted from being about the Bible and the morals contained inside to the issue of Genocide. (You dropped all my other points btw). I leave you with this: The Bible is a place full of good morals. Bad or misguided men take a few passages and ignore author intent and twist them to suit their desires. Using this I could twist the meaning of any book into something evil. Ultimately it is up to the voters. I look forward to the end result. To my opponent. I want you to know that this has been fun, and enlightening, I also want you to know that I have a great deal of respect for you and you abilities. Good luck my friend. May God bless you and your family.
The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

I'm not so much tired of the debate as bemused by your seemingly confused position and deceptive rhetoric. Apart from anything else, you appear not to understand the word "genocide": http://www.ushmm.org... You will find that the biblical account is not only genocidal but also that it is approved of by no lesser characters than Moses and God. I would have loved to have a more complete debate, looking at the good and the bad in the bible and seeing how the new testament does not replace the old, how even if it did the new testament endorses slavery (people seen as inheritable property who can be beaten half to death). I would have loved to debate how people on opposite sides of conflicts such as the American civil war used the bible to justify their opposite positions on the morality of slavery (showing just how unclear and inconsistent it really is). Instead, we seem to have stumbled at the first hurdle. If the biblical account is accurate, Moses would be convicted of the crime of genocide by any modern war crime tribunal. I realize, of course, that it's ludicrous to apply modern moral thinking to 3,500 year old events... But in EXACTLY the same way, it is ludicrous to derive our modern moral thinking from 3,500 year old events! The bible DOES condone (or even prescribe) slavery, genocide, misogyny and many other nasty things. This cannot be said to be good moral instruction. Okay, so you could argue that because those things were commonplace in the protagonists' enemies at the time, the protagonists were justified in doing those things... But you'd be hard pushed to argue that we should today derive our morality from these stories! Unless you really think that all good Christian nations should rise up in crusade and commit genocide, of course. Please, Con, answer these two simple questions: 1. Is genocide morally reprehensible? 2. Does the bible condone and prescribe genocide?
The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

Fine I can see your tired of this debate tell you what I'm going to make my final argument. For the next round say you extend your argument, and I'll do the same. I'm finished too because you obviously don't care to refute my arguments in a proper way. Understand what genocide actually is. Genocide is the intentional eradication of an entire ethnic group. Because what God instructed the Israelites to do was eradicate all the inhabitants of Canaan. For example, we see in these verses that God specifically mentions the Hittites. Now, scholars know that the Hittites had a fairly impressive empire centered in Turkey. Notice: God did not instruct the Israelites, "and when you're done with Canaan, kill all of the other Hittites in the world, too." God instructed the Israelites to eradicate the people of a certain region, NOT any particular ethnic group. If someone decided to eradicate everyone in New York City, that would not be genocide. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be considered genocide. In fact, what we would term "race" is not even mentioned in the bible.
The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

Well, this goes from the sublime to the ridiculous! A quick reminder: 1. I start with the contention that the bible promotes genocide and that's immoral. 2. Con rebuts that I must consider context and offers some: - a) Genocide, yes; but to be fair, genocide of infidels 3. I come back and suggest that this is still not moral 4. Con accuses me of blatantly refusing to see context, offers a silly example of reading single sentences from the bible and then adds a second context: - b) Genocide, yes; but to be fair, genocide 3,500 years ago I'll leave it for the reader to decide but, for me, this debate has become farcical. Genocide is genocide. Genocide of a people who believe in a different God is still genocide. Genocide 3,500 years ago was still genocide. If nothing else, you'd have to admit that you'd need a doctorate in Context to get good morals with no bad morals from the bible. If you take the book literally, there is a whole lot of pernicious and outright nasty stuff in there... sure, you can play your "context" games if you like... but surely a book that doesn't require you to turn logical pirouettes with what it says would be a better place to look for moral inspiration? I offer, gentle reader, my greatest argument that the bible is a terrible place to get your morals from: Con! Con, would you please make it clear what your moral position is on genocide? When is genocide acceptable? Is it to do with the context of killing unbelievers? Is it to do with the context of killing 3,500 years ago? Or, perhaps, is it to do with the context of being instructed to slaughter by a deity (don't want to put words in your mouth)? I have no issue coming out and saying clearly: "genocide is immoral". I imagine (I sincerely hope!) that most human beings on the planet would agree with me. Since Con is so invested in the bible, it seems to me, he seems to have an issue accepting that. That, if nothing else, seems to confirm my proposition.
The bible is a terrible place to get your morals from

Well, I have to say that I'm looking forward to this too; bring on the spirited debate! For just one example of thousands of immoral ideas in the bible, please consider Numbers 31:7-18 In it we hear the story of a bloody, vicious war. We learn that Moses was directly commanded by God that this should happen... and when the commanders returned with all the captives and spoils of war (having killed all the men and burned any remaining property), they come before Moses and Eleazar the Priest. What was the verdict? Take no prisoners... murder (for that is what it is) each and every one of them (the women and children)... except... (can this get any worse?)... except... save the virgin girls (presumably to be your slaves/wives)! To say that this is a terrible place to get your morals from is an understatement; it would be hard to imagine a better job of creating a text that was less suitable for moral instruction! Don't think, gentle reader, that this passage is a one-off... it is reinforced throughout the the Old Testament; consider Deuteronomy 20:10-14. Here we find that there is a very correct procedure for warfare: 1. First you must offer a town "peace"; the terms of that "peace" are that they will serve you in forced labour. 2. If they do not accept this "peace", you MUST attack the town 3. The Lord God will give you victory 4. Kill all the men 5. Keep all the women, children, cattle and other plunder So, now we know how we should behave in wartime, how should we behave in peacetime? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 tell us what we should do in the case of rape: If a man rapes a married woman then they are both to be taken outside the city and stoned to death. If a man rapes an unmarried woman then must be married and never allowed to part. I could go on and on and on... I could find *thousands* of disgusting examples of corrupt ideas being either allowed, condoned or specifically ordered by God. I suggest that there are far more such foul teachings than there are good moral teachings... but what of the good in the bible? Well, certainly there ARE good things in the bible... for instance, there are instructions not to kill (far less than instructions TO kill, btw)... but... surely we don't really need to be told stuff like that... could we not figure that out internally? But I'd like to hear Con's rebuttal first before I go into any more profoundly sick and disturbed parts of the bible.
Border Fence

Pfft. I spy another person who wants a border fence. I challenge you to debate this as I believe we don't need a border fence. Round 1 Acceptance Round 2-4 Arguments and rebuttals Round 5 Final rebuttals and closing statements Rules 1. If Pro/Con changes the other person's opinion on the border fence, arguments section is automatically won. 2. Maintain appropriate conduct. 3. Forfeiting doesn't mean you lose. It just hurts your chances. 4. Should you be a plagiarist, you lose automatically.
Border Fence

Sorry to forfeit I was busy with finals in school so continuing this I will answer my opponents questions now 1. Well India has a different currency different jobs so it had a different economy Asia is very different then North America. 2. Then they will have to take the trip by air so we can be safer on who comes in our country. 3. Then there is a alternative airplane we will have to find a way to expand our business to Mexico. 4. Well no but everything has to come to a end sometime or later. 5. Steel a fence that no can climb over from. Final statement: I wanna thank my opponent for a great debate. We need to keep our country safe from drugges,terrorist and other harmful people.
Border Fence

Let me answer those question before I ask my own. 1. What if ISIS migrates to Mexico?- They'll blow up the fence if there is one there and kill some Mexicans. 2. What about American jobs?- Look at India, 1/3 the size of the US with 3 times the population and they seem to be in pretty good shape for jobs. Also as I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop all illegals from coming, it's like remove all the mines in western Sahara, there are just so many that you will miss a few even with today's technology. 3. What about all the marijuana and cocaine they bring into our country?-Mexico's president is trying to resolve those drugs while he is in office now. As for those still in America, that's the governments job from stopping what is already in America. 4.What about the children's safety living by the border with gangs coming in?-Get a more competent and a larger police department for any American border towns. Until then have a few soldiers or the national guard there making sure the towns are safe. 5. Do you realize if we send troops to the border without a fence they could be killed?- Let me answer that question with a question. How exactly will a fence will stop soldiers from dying? No matter where a soldier or person is, they always have a chance at dying. If ISIS comes they will still kill soldiers with or without the fence. Now my questions. 1. If the illegals are taking American's jobs, how come India is doing so well with much more of a population and being much smaller than both America, Mexico, and probably the rest of North America COMBINED? 2. What if an American wants to take a trip to Mexico by land and there is a massive fence in the way when he is pretty close to the border by land? 3. What if American businesses want to expand to Mexico like they did with India? What if land is most cost effective and now there is a huge fence in the way? 4. Do you really want the Rio Grande turn into the Rio Pequeno because either the river is going to shrink with a border fence or going make the fence useless with a big hole in there? 5. What sturdy material do you propose the fence should be?
Border Fence

Defending my arguments 1. You said average. There could easily be a ladder a few feet higher. Plus I did what MOST people think the fence would be ten feet high. 2. So does everyone have poor balance? If they planned it they would get two-four strong people. Plus barbed wire can be cut. 3. Once again barbed wire can be cut. There's already enough illegals in America for communication to be done to have one person on both sides. 4. Oh great. Tack on 10 billion. I'm pretty sure Mexicans are smart enough to bring a few oxygen tanks down each time. 5. They aren't THAT poor. A well constructed rowboat could get 1-10 illegals across. With Cubans are getting to Florida in trucks modified to be boats, I'm pretty sure Mexicans could do something similar. New argument: What if a Mexican(s) smuggle dynamite to blow a hole in the wall and go through it for an hour until America rushed soldiers to guard it while being repaired? Another 50 million down the drain. With what your adding which is not what most agree for what the fence should be, would add it to 20-25 billion dollars.
Border Fence

We need to stop immigrants from entering the country somehow. It seems to be getting worse and worse these days. Immigrants are coming into our country and taking advantage of our welfare and government assistance programs. I'm all for immigrants to come and better themselves in the U.S. I know we have a lot more to offer than most countries. Just come here legally.Rebuttals1. Using a ladder-Well ladders can be useful to get over the fence but if we build a 20 foot fence then they won't get over that easily because the average height of a ladder is 10-12 feet so lets just say no they can't.2. Give a person a leg up-Well generally you can hold so much weight so even if they tried that they would lose balance.3. Using a rope-Well to use a rope you would have to put 1 person on one side and 1 on another so a person would have to climb over the fence to use the rope and with bob wire it would be almost impossible to do because it would cut you.4. A tunnel-We could build the fence underground to about 20 feet so it would almost be impossible to get through 1. Because it would take many years to build a tunnel 2. While building the tunnel they would suffercate because its to far down.5. A boat-Since Mexico is a poor country there boats will not make it around the fence unless its a cruise ship and no illegal immigrant wouldn't beable to get a hold of one.My opponent is talking about pricing well of course its gonna cost alot but its the duty of the president 'To do whatever he/she can to protect the citizens of the United States' so this would be a special curcimstance
Border Fence

OK now that you accepted prepare yourself! I will go by what MOST people believe should be the border fence. A ten foot tall, 700 mile long fence going along the U.S. Mexican border. First of let me state something. How is a fence going to stop illegal immigrants? That is the problem, no matter what, illegals will keep coming. I can think of 5 ways immediately an illegal can cross the border with a fence. 1. Use a ladder. 2. Give a person a leg-up and have them pull you up. 3. Use rope. 4. Tunnel underneath 5. Take a boat around it Let us also not forget the MASSIVE price tag of all this. As one of my sources says, it would cost an average of 3.9 million for 1 mile of fencing. Do the math. 3,900,000*700=2,730,000,000! 2.73 billion is not cheap in the slightest bit. It could even be more because building a steel fence on poor soil isn't easy. I just don't see why taxpayer's money should be spent on this when it could be used more effectively. On top of all that it hurts the environment. At the point of the Rio Grande that begins to shape the Texan border there are two choice for the wall there. 1. Put the wall there which ends up making the Rio Grande the Rio Pequeno by cutting of the flow of water. 2. Don't put a wall there which is basically the same as having a flashing neon orange sign saying go this way illegal immigrants. Animals also have a bit of a problem crossing over a ten foot fence if they can't fly. Plus if a tunnel is dug underneath the fence, that could cause a cave-in causing a few more million dollars of taxpayer's money down the drain. The fence would also cut right through the Tohono O"odham Native American reservation. Indian land are pretty free from the US and now with a giant fence going through their land will involve in a couple of cases suing the federal government from the natives. Now my solution. Have about 3,000 armed soldiers guard the border with transport vehicles including tanks. Meaning over 1 guard per 1/4 mile. They show that if you try to come you will be deported or shot. A few helicopters and transport helicopters patrolling might also be good to paratroop guards to deport them if they happen to see illegals with no guard in that area. They show illegals won't be tolerated. http://www.csmonitor.com... http://usnews.nbcnews.com... http://www.thenativepress.com...
Libertarianism

Well since we are talking about Libertarianism in general the definition provided by Webster is " a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government" no when we look at this the party that you are representing are asking for complete freedom to say or do anything with so much as a smack on the wrist from the government Correct? Now how does the ideology of Libertarianism fit in the political setting ? it doesn't, that's the issue why it will never be adopted by the United States as a party you would see in Congress. I will elaborate because any functioning country needs oversight from some sort of government. To take some words from the writings of Friedrich Hayek "Leave people alone, and a coherent civil order will spontaneously emerge and perpetuate itself" now this sentence has been in my opinion one of the bases for Libertarianism . Now this is a misconception because the word is not perfect our world is too complex to be left in a state of freedom from rule this would cause chaos itself. My final point would be the point of a president that is of the Libertarianism party isn't that a bit ironic ? a leader that represents people that "should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government" who can he lead ? because that is what this country needs is leadership.
Libertarianism

Definition:The definition that is to be used is the one on wikipedia in the first 3 paragraphs of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org...I would type it up here, but that would take up too much of my debate space.Rules:1) no ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) My opponent should either just rebut my arguments or offer arguments of their own for their ideology. Don't do both, as this puts me at a disadvantage since I would be unable to do both. However, if I pose a question to my opponent, they may answer the question as well as offer their own arguments(if they chose to offer their arguments)Note: I'm not arguing for right-wing or left-wing libertarianism, just libertarianism in general, so it could include either one. For the record, I am in favor of a left-wing libertarianism though.Main Argument:Libertarianism is about liberty, so I have to ask my opponent: why is liberty a bad thing? Again, if they choose to offer just main arguments, they may do that plus answer this question. Just don't rebut the rest of my arguments. Now, I would argue that libertarianism is a better ideology because it doesn't force things on other people. The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism. Under authoritarianism, you have a government that forces ideas on other people. What if you, as an authoritarian rightist, lived in an authoritarian left-wing regime? You would not be happy. I contend that it is inconsistent to want to force your opinion on others, but be opposed to it when others do it to you. Libertarianism doesn't force opinions on other people, and it's generally a belief in society to believe in the golden rule. Authoritarianism goes against the golden rule, because you're doing something to other people that you would not be happy about if they did it to you. While I am leaving this short, I believe the few arguments I did bring up are compelling. I turn this over to my opponent, whoever he or she may be.
Umbrellas Are Overall Better Than Raincoats

I will be touching on three key areas in this debate to bring my main argument to bear: affordability, dryness and ease of use to show that umbrellas are better than raincoats. Affordability First off, umbrellas are on average much cheaper than raincoats. A solid umbrella will run you $20-30 while a good quality raincoat will run you $75-100. [1] [2] This is completely unnecessary, especially since umbrellas keep you more dry than raincoats (as I will demonstrate). Why pay so much money for something just to keep you dry from the rain? Umbrellas are much more cheap and therefore more desirable when looking at it from a financial standpoint.Point One for umbrellas.Dryness Umbrellas keep you more dry than raincoats. An umbrella with a good diameter will have the rain run around you in a good sized sphere of dryness that keeps the rain out completely. The umbrella moves with you and no water gets through or around it. A raincoat has water merely run off of you and straight onto your pants. If you're wearing jeans or a long shirt, the water will run off of your sleeves and the bottom of the coat and straight onto your unprotected clothing. Instead of running around you like an umbrella, the water runs down you and into your shoes. It's really quite miserable.Point Two for umbrellas. Ease of Use Umbrellas are easy, you put them up when its raining, you take them down when its not. You can slide them easily into a backpack, bag or purse with little hassle. You can carry them inside and put them under your desk at school or work. They store easily in your car. Raincoats are not so easy. You have to put them on, sometimes over cumbersome clothes or bags. You also have to take them off and hang them up. You can't easily carry a raincoat around with you in a mall or school or anything. There's no easy way to store a big wet plastic coat. Point Three for umbrellas. As we can see, short simple and to the point, umbrellas are much better than raincoats overall.Thank you. [1] https://www.google.com...[2] https://www.google.com...
I win every debate because people forfeit

From your own OP you said "So pick a topic and let's go," and so I did. In changing the debate topic you have not followed the very rules you put forward. Thus you have disqualified yourself from the debate. In addition since you have failed to respond to my debate you have lost against my argument, which per your OP set up the debate topic. Finally, since I have continued to debate and not given up as you predicted, I have won. Thanks for playing but I have won in at least three different ways per your own rules!