BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whales should be the president

I shall counter your argument with a K. For those of you who don't know, a K stands for Kritik. K: Whales are not intelligent enough to rule the world. Whales as a matter of fact do NOT contain explosive puke, or at least, not explosive in the way you would blow up some TNT. Not THAT kind of explosive. Everything you state here is literally random pieces of false information that you have fabricated. This logic of yours is unsubstantiated. Where did you get all of this information from, if it was not from yourself? Are there scientific experiments that show that this is true? Are there any sources for this? You hold the BoP, and you must fulfill it. Subs is 4 letters and whales is 6 letters, or 5 with just "whale", how are they related? How does this mean that Whales are Subs? This is not enough. Rekt, Doritos, and Illuminati has to do with MLG (Major League Gaming), which is a detachment from reality. Nothing in MLG is realistic. MLG videos on YouTube include an some random things like an anthropomorphic hedgehog named Sanic, which is clearly a rip-off of Sonic, and he's able to weild guns, move faster than light, etc. Even if you provided a source for this, it would be indeniably unreliable. Meat doesn't automatically mean food until it's eaten. And if whales "can't possibly eat humans", how would they be able to rule the world. If they can NOT eat us, then we could easily over throw them. Of course they can, but they cannot use MLG or run 5,000 miles per second. Also, multiple whales can not be THE President. You can only have one, and whales aren't even smart enough to qualify for the Presidential Election anyway. You have the Burden of Proof, since you proposed this topic. I would like for you to use sources and logic on the next round. Remember that even though I am Pro, I don't have to come up with an argument for why whales SHOULD be president, since the BoP is on you. I need only to negate the resolution you proposed.Off to you, Con.
Whales should be the president

IT IS TIME! WHEN WHALES WANT TO BECOME PRESIDENT. PRESIDENTS IS SOON GOING TO STEP DOWN FOR A PRESIDENT. NOW WHALES WANT THE STAND OF PRESIDENT! I think that whales shouldn't become the president. Because they are cursed with magic and also they like evil. So whales will turn our state to evil, which is not cool at all, because it is not. Whales are planning World Domination as for today, which is very odd. Because whales are whales. Whales lives in the ocean, and they eat fish. They can't eat possibly humans, but anyways. I also belive Whales participate of the illuminati. Whales contain meat. Meat has four letters, and means food. Food means fewd. fewd is a another way of saying pewds. pewds stands for Pewdipie. He has alot of sub. Subs have 4 letters. Whales are subs. Are is three lettered. Triangles have 3 sides, Doritoes too. Doritioes are symbol of Rekt. Rekt is too kewl. Illuminati is not comfirmed. But still Whales contain explosive puke. And that puke is very very disgusting and ugly. Puke is also green. Which is not good! Whales can walk as fast as sanic. Sanic as in 5000 Miles every second. While puking with the speed of light, the world will be covered in Whale Puke. This means, whales are constant puking machines. That is why Captain Bark always sticks is middle finger on them, it is because it is very evil. Whales are runing out of existance. We need to eliminate them by sending in Peanut Butter Harpoons. These specialized harpoons can send in Peanuts inside the cells. Peanuts contain peanuts. Which means, it has no effect. The peanuts though, THEY KILL. It has super intense explosive lamb powering sheep horns. The harpoon peanuts has lamb horns sticking out, which cause whales to not puke. But it still take a dump constantly. WHICH IS EVEN MORE DISGUSTING. That is when the harpoons work. These harpoons contain these nuts to explode on whales, causing them to explode. But now, The animal shelter is against us. It protects the whales from being into whale meat. But WE CAN NOT LET WHALES BE PRESIDENT. NOT EVEN SHRIMPS. THE FISH IS PRESIDENT FOR NOW. Wait, that is not good. Then we have to destory them too, I guess. Fishes can not be the president. They sit there and lay eggs in our lawn, which is time wasting and pretty cool. This is why we can't have fishes as presidents or rulers of Earth. That is why Whales nor Fishes can become president. So, that means no marine animals that could become presidents, but wait. What about the crabs! SAVE YOURSELF. CRABS ARE TAKING OVER. We need to send in the crab control. They could become a little useful instead of me trying to solve it. I don't have a life. I AM A FISH TOO. I AM A MUTANT OF A FISH AND A WHALE OF A CRAB.
Gay is Right in Christianity

Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I love controversial debates! Okay, so I will start out with the pieces of evidence, and then I will provide summaries of each. Keep in mind that the versus that I will post will not directly translate to Gay rights. They will translate to the overall picture of equality, in which gay rights fall into. Example one: I'd like to start off by debunking the "Adam and Eve v. Adam and Steve" argument, which is oh so clever because it rhymes. Yes God provided man with woman and woman with man, but that does not necessarily mean that homosexual relationships are "unnatural". If that is what you will to call it, I guess since God did not provide up with glasses, we should ban the use of glasses, and persecute any one who uses them Example two: The ridiculousness of using Leviticus to condemn ANYTHING is simply in looking at what in the world the Book of Leviticus condemns. Rules in the Bible were always tied to some sort of reasoning. In the case of this gay sex prohibition, a consistent thread in early Judeo-Christian understanding was that semen alone was considered unclean, because sex was ONLY meant to be procreative. Check out what God does to Onan when he ejacuates outside of a woman in Genesis 38. In the same passages where gay sex is condemned and punished, so is eating shrimp, crop co-mingling, eating rabbit, wearing linen and wool at the same time, and eating raw meat. So if you"re gonna be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian. Example three: Now that we have gone through the old estimate, let me look for something that Jesus says about gays. Oh, that's right. He didn't talk about it. I believe this was not an issue he talked about, because he wanted us to use our knowledge of God, and form our own ideology. If Jesus said, "Gay is not okay", then I would be on board with that. But, the fact remains, instead of focusing on the hatred on one based on sexuality, he focused on loving all despite diversity. Thanks, I now stand open to Rebuttals.
Gay is Right in Christianity

Conditions should first be stated: I'll take burden of proof. This debate focuses on Christian views of the subject. Other philosophies and religions are not included in this argument. Many arguments have been made that Christianity does not condemn Gays. The bible clearly states that being gay is wrong: Leviticus 20:13 "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT) The confusion is that the bible loves sinners but not sin. Therefore, BEING gay is condemned but not the gay.
Jordan's are better than Vans

Just saying but I am a bit sick at the moment so I will be keeping this short. Vans are obviously far superior in every way to the other shoe known as Jordan as my opponent here will realise by the end of this debate. As we all know Vans are the one true shoe, the way Vans makes their shoes are exactly like how KFC makes their secret herbs and spices... in a factory. Vans were created for the sole purpose of people not having to walk around with nothing on their feet and Jordan's don't even compare to Vans shoes as if you are wearing Vans which everybody is there is not need to talk about any other brand, but obviously we have a non-believer here.
Austrian VS Keynesian.

I did in fact engage his arguments. I gave an example of inflation literally killing people. Also, subsidies and welfare merely increases debt. The economy is not a machine, the economy cannot be learned in just one semester. I say that the government cannot play with the hopes and dreams of many just to line the pockets of the wall street executives and bureaucrats. Keynesianism has lead us to where we are now. With tons of spending comes high taxes and tons of debt. The national debt eats 7 jobs each day. The national rescission will only be solved if we listen to the Austrians. When we listen to Keynes we get the housing bubble, and high unemployment. As for world war two that didn't end the depression. What ended the depression was free market capitalism. Sure unemployment fell but we rationed meat, eggs, butter. Is that his idea of a good economy? If everyone was in the military we would have full employment and nothing to eat. So vote PRO. And read Whatever Happened To Penny Candy, by Uncle Eric.
Austrian VS Keynesian.

To summarize my arguments: (1) PRO's account of the 1920s and the subsequent New Deal are inaccurate and ahistorical--his numbers are false, and he ignores the contractionary policy enacted in the late 1930s which was deleterious to growth, and would be advocated by the Austrian, but not the Keynesian, school. (2) PRO concedes that WWII spending ended the Great Depression. (3) The Austrian school disregards the importance of demand shocks, which are critically important because prices and wages are sticky, meaning that a negate demand shock results in self-reinforcing unemployment. (4) Effective monetary policy post-1980 has produced prices that are 23 times more stable than under a gold standard -- which destroys discretionary monetary policy, enslaves us to the speed at which we can mine gold (based largely on chance), and precludes stabilization policy. (5) Deflation, as we would have under a gold standard, is highly detrimental because it raises real interest rates, erodes collateral, threatens financial stability, reduces consumption, and leads to mass layoffs. (6) Regulatory policy, like Glassed-Steagall, is necessary to preventing crises like that of 2007-09. (7) His account of people being "hurt" by inflation is patently false. Higher inflation is associated with higher economic activity via the short-run Phillips Curve. It only becomes a problem if it becomes out of control, but a myriad of evidence finds that three decades of disciplined central bank has reduced inflation volatility and improved economic decision making.
Austrian VS Keynesian.

Thanks for debating with me. First of all the Austrian school of economic thought believes that the less government intervention the better. Inflation, welfare programs, and the subsidies all do more harm than good. For example while a boom follows inflation a bust follows the boom. This can be seen in the 1920s and 30s. A boom and the roaring twenties were quickly followed by the great depression, which was made worse by the New Deal. The New Deal closely follows the Keynesian school of economic thought. The Keynesians believe that government intervention and spending are necessary for a strong economy. Yet the New Deal failed and in fact worsened the depression. In 1931 unemployment was 16.3%. While in 1939 after two New Deals unemployment was 19.0%. What finally ended the Great Depression was WWII, and the accompanying inflation. This lead to a boom that ended in 1945, as soon as the government stopped counterfeiting. The Austrians also say that Inflation leads to an unfair advantage. Innocent, hard working, Americans are hurt by the pits and cones that results from inflation. For example the gold rush of the 1850s lead to an immense amount of gold on the west coast, while the east coast was in a depression. The clipper ships became a sort of a pipeline and purchased goods in the cheap east and sold them in the inflated west. Unfortunately, prices began to rise in the east before the economy fully recovered. All who benefited were the clipper captains, not hard working Americans. In conclusion, the Austrian school of economics is backed up by history. Therefore, vote for me please.
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

R3 Rebuttals"Believe what you want just don't go telling people they are wrong for what they believe." Doxy234My opponent has trolled the debate. Voters please give me all points due to my opponent's trolling. " As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed. Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain. Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis. Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468] Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468] Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469] According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..." In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights. In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466] The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415. [DO19-25]" [12]"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. "Richard Dawkins [13]Religion is not harmless. I have the right to tell you that. Sources12. http://www.truthbeknown.com...13. https://www.brainyquote.com...
why 17 year olds should vote and why not

I argue that 17 year olds are still too young to vote [1] A) They are not old enough to make good decisions B) They are not old enough to join the military and therefor too young to vote C) They are still too immature to vote since they are still into porn and video games D) They are not ready for such responsibility E) 17 year olds don't understand politics yet F) 17 year olds are still not adults and therefore, should not vote Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Christianity

Con believes that his following statements do not contradict each other. "The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not." "It will basically be about anything under Christianity."If Con cannot admit there that is an inconsistency here, then we cannot have an intelligent discussion.It's not just me who thinks this way. Read the comments section of this debate. Every single commenter agrees with me. You've structured the debate in a way that limits it to only whether Christianity is possible. And, this is a very low bar for me to prove.
Christianity

Thank you for that good response, and I again thank you for taking on this debate. Rebuttal: My opponent’s only argument was again on the topic of the debate. My opponent continues to attempt to show that my arguments are invalid and therefore show that my opponent somehow wins. My opponent gives textual evidence from what I stated earlier to try to show that my arguments are irrelevant. My opponent try’s to make these two statements contradict themselves, “In this debate, I intend to debate whether what Christians believe is true or not. This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity. The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not. It will basically be about anything under Christianity." "I never said we were only going to debate God's existence". I do not see how these contradict each other. I did indeed say, “The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not.” But I also say, “This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity” and, “It will basically be about anything under Christianity.” My opponent tries to find one sentence that I said, to show that everything is wrong. I clearly said in my responses that this was going to be about anything under the topic Christianity. I do not understand why my opponent continues to question this. The topic of the debate is literally Christianity, not, “God’s existence” or something like that. I also said multiple times that it was all topics under Christianity, not just God. The sentence that you were attacking does not even imply the topic of God’s existence. Please actually debate something in your next response. “So, I agree that Con can bring up topics such as morality, effect on society, and the Bible but since they are irrelevant, he's not going to win this debate.” These topics are very relevant. The topic of the debate is: ‘Christianity’ and these arguments are all about Christianity. If my opponent continues to evade this truth he will obviously lose. My opponent has never defeated any of my arguments while I have defeated all of his/hers. I hope my opponent will actually respond to my arguments in his/her reply. “I would expect my opponent to attempt to defeat these arguments using proof or evidence and to state his own arguments.” My opponent has continued to evade this. This is the third time I’ve asked and my opponent has not supplied it. Even if this debate was somehow only about god’s existence, my opponent has provided no evidence at all to support their side. Conclusion: As my opponent only had one invalid response and has never replied to any of my arguments. This makes me upset since I wanted to have an interesting debate and actually have someone try defeat my arguments, but my opponent has failed this over and over. Thank you.
Christianity

In the last round, Con states, "I never said we were only going to debate God's existence".Actually, Con did. Con stated in the first round, "In this debate, I intend to debate whether what Christians believe is true or not. This encompasses God, the Bible, and any other subject under Christianity. The debate will be whether Christianity is possible or not. It will basically be about anything under Christianity."So, I agree that Con can bring up topics such as morality, effect on society, and the Bible but since they are irrelevant, he's not going to win this debate.
Christianity

I will address the shortcomings to Pro's arguments.God's morality is irrelevant to whether he exists.Pro makes an elaborate response that Christianity is not moral but it's pointless. Just because God is immoral, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This is a red herring. God's morality is irrelevant to establishing God's existence.Let me give you an example. Satan is the epitome of evil. But, the fact that he's immoral doesn't make him less possible. Similarly, God can be the most evil being in the entire universe, it doesn't make him less real.Inconsistencies in the bible is also irrelevant to whether God exists.Pro's 2nd argument is the bible is inconsistent and inaccurate so God cannot exist. This is another red herring. Just because the bible is inconsistent, it doesn't mean God cannot exist. Why? Because the bible might have been inspired by God but it was written by man who is inherently fallible. It's no surprise that there are mistakes. Such mistakes don't disprove the existence of God. It simply proves that man (or God) isn't perfect.Let me give you an example. Many North Koreans believe their leader (Kim Jong-Un) is perfect and is a God. Well, this obviously isn't true but it doesn't mean that Kim Jong-Un is unreal. Science can coexist with religion.Pro's 3rd and final argument is that science has abundant proof and religion does not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive.Imagine you lived 500 years ago. And, I told you that I can fly in the air. I can make an image of someone thousands of miles away to appear magically in front of me. I can make mechanical devices which can talk to each other on invisible waves in the air. And, I can make machines that look like people who can think and act like humans. Would seem ludicrous, no? You would say I'm crazy. Well, today, they are called: TV, bluetooth, and robots. Similarly, God may be a highly advanced being whose power might seem like magic but is really just advanced science. Is it likely? I don't know. But, is it possible? Yes.
It is stupid to be an atheist.

Atheism is a stupid belief and I will explain why. A lot of people claim that god is unscientific and is definitely fake. However, isn't that kind of mindset a little against science? Isn't the whole point of science to research all kinds of new things and to test and discover new things? Isn't that how we create all kinds of new technology because someone strives to do something different? I think it is pretty shallow to tell someone that god definitely can't exist without any back up. Ironically atheists are basically worse because they provide nothing that substantially goes against gods at least religion provides something to the table. I am not telling people to become religious at all. I myself am agnostic myself. I think agnostic is really where you guys should be at. We neither deny nor believe in god. We just don't know the answer, but we also don't ridicule people for believing in god.
It is stupid to be an atheist.

My definition of "God" seems to be undisputed so I will stick to it. I am going to respond to my opponents remarks on the scientific method backwards so I can deal with the points that don't need much explanation first.5.Here my opponent defends the "God hypothesis" on the basis that other theories like the BB Theory cannot be tested either, but this is false. Simply put, the BBT states that that our universe is expanding, we can observe this by looking at the red shift of other galaxies. [1]4."if god is real then Atheism must be false" This is not a testable prediction, this is an analytic truth. Atheism being the belief that there are no Gods, therefore "if "God exists" is true then "God does not exist" is false" (p > ~~p)3-1 Pro's main argument is that because there are so many people worshipping God, there must be something to it.Consider Cargo cults[2]. They are a prime example of literally man made religions. 1.All around those islands people belong to these cults2.They formed independently3.There is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for themwhy should there not be one for other religions?Opposing hypotheses:T:God existsN:A naturalistic, psychological reason...is the best explanation for why there are believers all around the world.Hypotheses and Assumptions:God did it:(1)There is a God who has attributes that has(2)attributes (omniX) no other object/being we know has, who is a(3)disembodied,(4)atemporal mind.Naturalistic reason:(1)Psychology works.Occam's Razor:The hypothesis with (a) the least assumptions and (b) highest explanatory power is to be preferred.(a)Naturalism definitely wins(b)There is no reason at all why an all-powerful being should create something this way and not that way, as such it is not falsifiable and has no predictive powerTherefore N is to be preferred as the best hypothesis.I conclude that one is justified in claiming that God is unscientific.Sources in Comments