BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God most likely does exist.

With that said I will now proceed to counter each of my opponents points. " If you would like to challenge me to debate this issue again, you can challenge me. :) "1. Who says the universe is perfect. .. .. It seems rather random to me, lots of starts and stellar bodies. " I never stated that the universe is prefect. It just seems and is way too complex and intelligently designed to happen by chance. I did state though that the Earth was perfect for life. It is just the right distance from the Sun, contains the right weather and climate, has the right atmosphere containing all the right gases, and water. It seems way too extraordinary to have happened by chance as well. " Even if the universe was perfect why does it need to be created by a god. In my last round I demonstrated that there are millions of alternatives for how the universe was created all lacking just as much evidence as the god alternative. This means that if the Universe was indeed created by some outside force the chances of it being a god are figuratively speaking, 1 in a million. " Everything that is designed intelligently needs a designer. This designer would be God, whether the Abrahamic God, or another type of intelligent creator. I believe in the Abrahamic God. But, this is a debate on the likelihood of a god. The definition of a god is: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Source: dictionary. com Therefore, the chances of there being a divine creator is very likely. "I'm sure at some point we will be able to create artificial life. " To disprove this, I will bring up the cell theory. All living things are composed of cells. Cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living things. All cells are produced from other cells. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Where did the first cells come from? "Next my opponent argues that Jesus did show up in the historical records. She argues this under the premise that Jesus showed up in the bible. Thus I have my points. .. " I did use the Bible as an example of historical text. I also included many others. Did you just skip over this link? . http://www.newadvent.org... "My point is rather simple, Jesus is a plagerization of other religions god's. Though I suppose this is the least important of my points. Anyways, I now stand open for my opponents final rebuttal. " This may be what you believe, but this debate was on the likelihood if a god. I would like to close this debate by stating that if life did arise from nonliving things, why hasn't life evolved on the moon to fit the conditions on the moon? You could argue by stating the moon does not contain the things needed for life. I can argue this by saying, things supposedly evolve to fit the conditions of where they live. Therefore, life should be able to evolve in many places which it hasn't. I found that my opponent could not prove the non-existence of a God. Not God, but any divine creator in general. He provided no facts to disprove a god. Thank-you for this debate and I urge voters to vote on who made the better argument and provided more facts rather than on whose side you agree with. :)
God most likely does exist.

:) "I do not believe god exists. " Why? There is no proof against God. It is your job to prove that God does not exist. I will now state why I believe God exists. Things are so beautifully designed, a complex to just happen by chance. Just think about it. How could existence happen by chance? Everything has a creator. If you are about to reply saying, "Well then where did God come from if everything has a creator? " God is The Creator. He is the beginning and the end. The human brain cannot imagine or comprehend this. You may state that the idea of God is illogical. In fact, it is not. The idea of a supreme creator is just as logical as the idea of an atom existing forever and exploding for no apparent reason and then creating life. Who/What set the certain combination of proteins that just happened to fit together and life formed? Scratch that. The idea of God is so much more e logical. This is a piece of physiological proof for God. "First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable. " Source: . http://www.allaboutcreation.org... •" •Both direct and indirect evidence for God's existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person. Jesus' miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God. " Source: . http://www.allaboutcreation.org... Everything in this world is diverse and is just way to beautiful and complex to just have happened by accident. P. S. Please capitalize God's name. Thanks. :)
Movies are better than books

Movies at library's If library's have such a wide range of movies like you stated, then why are there so many movie rental companies out there that are doing so well? For example there is Red box, Netflix, blockbusters and Hollywood Video. Yes, libraries have movies and it's a great place to rent a few olds ones, but in this generation people want a wide range to pick from. In reality people are willing to pay for their rentals from Netflix and Hollywood videos because of the selections they get to pick from therefore, they end up spending money. With books no matter what when you rent a book at a library it doesn't cost anything. Economically, renting books are better for your wallet. You say that movies can be paused in someone's home for any amount of time and can be easy to get back into, but how does that make movies better? I feel like that is an irrelevant sentence and doesn't prove to me that movies are better because you can pause them. Even though Books can be paused too and set aside for a while doesn't make them any better, it's just something that we can do with them. Book Club Okay so not every book club reads aloud and has people read at home so when there is the next meeting they all can talk about the book together. Sure, some people read slow and some read fast but I don't think half of the book will be assigned to be read in a short period of time. If that much is assigned then the slow reads just need to find a book club that is at their same reading level and paste. You then stated that when watching movies in groups everyone views the movies at the same rate, but isn't that just obvious fact and how movies are made to be? I'm not sure how that supports your argument. Education I never said all documentaries are boring, I said they usually are boring that does not imply every documentary. I'm stating my own opinion on the matter and you can take it how you like. Sure people can find them interesting, that's great. Movies I am well aware that not every movie is based off of a book that is a quite obvious fact that I didn't think I needed to elaborate on. When I said movies are made from books, I was implying that books get turned into movies way more than movies getting turned into book. Sure there is some books based off movies, but just how often does that happen? Therefore, I believe books are better because they give so much more information and detail, which help the reader, understand what is being implied in the text. Books also expressed what the character says, thinks, feels, and acts in situations you won't understand in movies because you are in the characters head. Books are also better because they are cheaper and don't cost anything to read and you aren't limited to a certain amount you can rent at one time unlike with movie rentals. The more you read the more you'll improve with your reading, grammar, punctuation and increase your reading speed. All these things that you can learn from books will be more helpful to you throughout your life than a few moral lessons you pick up from a movie.
Movies are better than books

Movies at Libraries: Although some libraries may not have the newest movies, they still do, in fact, have a pretty wide range of movies. Also many people enjoy classic movies that have been out on DVD for a while. Also, it is not always true that movies do not have the newest movies. For example, the movie in my town has many new releases. Also, that library advertises when the movies are in the library. Talking during movies: I never stated that movies should be paused every time someone has a question. There are some questions that only need a one word answer. Also, if it is really a huge problem for people to answer questions during the movie, they can politely ask the other person to be quiet. Then at the end of the movie, the person can ask all the questions they want. All I am saying is that movies can be paused in someone's home for any amount of time and it is very easy to get back into the movie after someone presses play again. Book Clubs: Most book clubs are not set up where people sit around in a circle and read together. Many book clubs are set up where people go home, read the section for the next meeting and then go to the meeting and discuss what was read. The only book clubs that I know where people sit around and read together are children's book clubs. Also, with book clubs, people have to accommodate for everyone's reading level. Some people read faster or slower than others so people may have trouble keeping up with the amount of pages per meeting. But, when watching movies as a group, people can view the movie at the same pace because they are all in the same room and it is playing same rate for everyone. Education: Not all documentaries are boring, many can be interesting. Different people believe that different things are interesting. It just depends on the person. Also, when I read Hamlet alone, I had no idea what Shakespeare was talking about, and so did many other classmates. The teacher had to explain many scenes in the book. And even after he explained some of the scenes I and others had trouble understanding Shakespeare's Hamlet. But after the class watched and discussed the movie version of Hamlet, all of us were able to understand the play. Movies are inspiring: Movies inspire people to do many things. For example, after many people watched The Bucket List, they were so inspired, that they created their own bucket list. There are some movies that were made before the books. For example, the Star Wars movies were shown prior to when the books were written. Also, there are many movies that were not based off of books. On this website, http://answers.yahoo.com..., there are many movies named that were not based off of any books. Movies also inspire people to do good things for others. In conclusion, movies are better because many people are drawn to watching movies. In most movies there is a lot of clarity in what is being portrayed. Also movies are very enjoyable. Honestly, I do not know anyone who does not like being able to view movies.
Movies are better than books

Availability at Libraries You said that the library doesn't have every book, but you go on to state that if a movie isn't at the library you can ask a librarian to order it from another library; you can do the same thing with a book if your library doesn't have it. Nevertheless libraries are usually very good at having popular books that most people will be interested in reading. Even though you can order movies from other libraries new releases are harder to get at libraries because the libraries don't buy them right away. With books when a new release is out libraries are pretty good with having them on the shelf pretty fast. Usually when you first walk into a library in the front they have a display of newly released books. Movies When your home watching a movie with people you stated that they can stop it every time someone has a question or wants to say something, which can also be very annoying. Pausing a movie over and over again makes the whole watching experience of the movie unpleasant. But pausing while reading a book is not a problem and you don't have to worry about upsetting other people while you're taking breaks. Book Clubs When I said earlier that people can read at a book club meeting I was implying that they would read out loud together. It doesn't make sense to read silently when you're with a group of people and you're all reading the same book. Reading out loud is better so everyone can be at the someplace in the book throughout the reading. Therefore after each person is done reading if anyone has any questions they can all discuss it together as a group. Talking in Libraries Yes talking in libraries isn't always okay because people may be studying or reading but there are sections in libraries where people can go to talk and sit with friends if they like. But I did mention in the previous round that people can also go to books store to hang out with friends and talk as loudly as they want. Education You stated that movies teach people what is right and wrong and moral lesson but so do books, but books do it in a more in depth way because books have more room to expand on things. The movies that are shown in class rooms are either documentaries or movies that are based off books that they have read already in class. The documentary's that teachers show are usually boring and not exciting to watch at all. When you stated that your teacher had you read Hamlet than showed you the movie people where able to understand it better when they watched the movie that is because they read the book first and where able to understand the concept of the movie because they had background information already from reading the book. Books are Inspiring Books are an inspiration to everybody and to even the movie industry. Yes you'll probably say that movies can be inspiring too but movies get made based off books, books aren't written based off movies. Books come first and many books inspire directors and film makers so much that they want to show the world how they interpreted the book through their films. Books can also inspire people by motivating people to become better individuals.
Movies are better than books

You say that there are more details in books. That is true, but sometimes the details do become boring. With boring detail, it makes people stop reading books. Movies get to the pint very quickly and do not dread on tiny details. Movies also can show the details in a couple seconds, while a book may take a page or two to describe what is going on. For example, in the movie Twilight, It took about a page to describe that Edward sparkled in the sunlight. In the movie, however, it took about two minutes to show that he sparkled. Also in many books, there are more questions than answers. For example, in the book Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher, he leaves a cliff hanger with the main guy character and a girl he has known for many years. I do agree that in some, and only some, cases that people do become upset with the movie version because it does not portray the book in the way that a person wanted. The writer of the movie cannot please everyone; someone is always going to be a critic. Writing a movie that came from a book is a great honor to the book writer. It shows that people believe their writing is good enough for people to view. If the writers did not want their books to be turned into movies, they can say no because it is their book. By popular opinion, the movie Jaws was a lot better of a movie than a book. There are also many other movies that were better than their books on http://listverse.com.... Books do expand the imagination, but so do movies. Movies also make you think. As you said before, sometimes movies leave out certain things that a person has to picture by themselves. Movies just help people view the characters in certain situations better. With movies, people can view things in a different way than they did in the book. Once a person views that scene in a movie, they could try to reenact the scene, which can expand the imagination. Also, movies can also make you feel more emotions than books. For example, I know in my experience, I was reading The Notebook, and it was hard to understand what a flashback was and what wasn't. But, in the movie, I was able to understand it better. I was also showing so many emotions during the movie, but I did not show any during the book. Also, when someone is in a movie theater, there are many people around that feel the same emotion with that one person. The person can seek comfort in others who are feeling the same way as them, or even someone who is not. Also, a person can get another person's perspective on the movie to get a better understanding of the movie. My last point is that, movies only take about two hours to watch, while books take at least one day to finish. With the little amount of time it takes to watch a movie, there are still so many more things a person can do in a day. When reading a book, there are many reasons to stop reading. For example, people take breaks to eat, sleep (if the books takes longer than a day to read), and do some chores (in some cases). With a movie, a person can just sit down, watch the movie, and then get back to what they were doing, or what they are going to be doing for the rest of the day.
Movies are better than books

Rounds two, three, and four will be for rebuttals. The fifth round will be why you are winning. All types of arguments are fine. ----------- Case ----------- I believe that movies are better than books. The first reason I believe this is so is because movies are more visually appealing. Many people do not like books because there are too many words. More people would go to see a movie instead of reading the book. Also, some books are just harder to read for younger audiences, but if they see the movie they may be able to understand it better. An example of this is Harry Potter. The Harry Potter books are very long and sometimes hard to understand; the movies, on the other hand, are much easier to understand and a lot of fun to watch. Movies are also more appealing for the ears. There is a lot of music and speaking in a movie. Many people enjoy the sounds of another person's voice. Movies also create more job opportunities. There are many different aspects with creating a movie. There is a producer, a writer, a director, actors, makeup artists, etc. At this point in time, the world needs jobs. With more jobs, the world's economy becomes better. With books, there are only a small amount of jobs per book. Also in movies, there are a lot of special effects. Special effects can help the mind see something better than they imagined in the first place. For example, there could be a car crash in a book, and you could just see one car crashing into another one, but, in a movie you could see one car crash into another and blow up. This just looks and sounds more exciting. Special effects help the imagination grow. Going to the movies creates many social opportunities. People go on dates and friends have a lot of fun at the movies. Also you can watch movies at home and talk to your friends all you want about the movie, during said movie. Going to the movies gives people something to do while hanging out. In most cases it can spark a great conversation about the movie, which can lead to many other great conversations. When reading a book, many people can't talk to others because they will become distracted. There is not much of a social opportunity while reading a book. Also, in many cases it costs a lot less to go to the movies or rent or buy a movie than it does to buy a book. A book can cost up to 640 dollars. Movie tickets can cost up to 20 dollars. Also today, since technology is becoming such a huge deal, people can watch movies online for about 8 dollars a month. This is why I believe that movies are much better than movies.
The users known as Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r and s0m31john ought to play the next mafia game

Full resolution: The users known as Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r, s0m31john and leethal ought to play the next debate.com mafia game. Like my other debate topic, the first round will be the greeting round (unless I edit my first round and put in my argument). The second round will be where I start (my opponent is free to provide an argument beforehand if he/she wishes). Definitions: We're referring to the users who frequent this debate site and go by those names. The "next mafia game" is defined as the one I titled "Debate.com Murder Mansion" mafia in the miscellaneous forum.
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction

Fake personality? first of all, who said any of them had fake personalities. You don't know that. Then, you can't judge them by their personalities. Your first argument was that Harry was the best, but he's not. I'm not saying he's not good, but if he wasn't in the group, it would be a lot different. Same thing with Zayn, if he wasn't in 1D, it wouldn't be the same. So once again, your argument is invalid. Basically I win this debate, but then again, all the members are equally good and important. :)
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction

Ohmygosh ok this is really difficult to argue. I should have made it 3 rounds instead of 4. Harry's luscious locks aren't gross! messy is cute to alot of Americans! Anyways, ok, my last point to make is that Harry's vibe, the way his comes across, seems more genuine than Zayn's. Their personalities have probably been planned by people to make them more appealing than average boys, but Harry's fake personality is nicer than Zayn's. Say what you like. My opinion will not be swayed.
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction

First of all, you have to be kidding! How can you compare their hair? Hair isn't a reason of why Harry is the best member. That would go to something like if you were trying to prove that Harry is 1D's "best looking" member, and even then I would disagree. So since you started talking about heir, then I will talk about Harry's hair. His hair always looks messy, it maybe natural, but it looks gross. At least Zayn actually takes care of himself. I don't see how hair is a good reason to why Harry is the best member, so your argument is invalid :)
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction

well then. I cant believe I'm still arguing about this. Hopefully Harry never hears you talking like that, because he is genuinely sensitive about what people say about him. Another reason Harry is the best member is that he has really nice hair, that also looks effortless. Like, Zayn's hair looks like it has a crap-ton of product in it all the time, but Harry's looks more natural, which to me, is more attractive. (But I bet his hair has a bunch of product in it as well)
Harry Styles is the best member of One Direction

Dude ok, I agree, they all sing really well, but I guess we have to keep the argument going.. So actually, I dissagree with you, Harry is alot better than Zayn. Zayn's neck muscles bulge out when he sings, which means he is trying really hard to sound good, while Harry looks perfectly calm while singing. Therefore, Harry doesn't have to put so much effort into sounding good, which means that he is just naturally BETTER at singing!