BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Labour is better than Conservative (UK Politics)

I personally believe Labour is better than Conservative as I believe if we are more equal we can live happier and have less poverty in our lives. Here's a great example, Dharavi slums (Obviously I don't want our country to look like Dharavi slums) crime rate is so low, You ever wonder why and how a square mile of a million people can have such a low crime rate? Because everyone there has a very similar life, Similar housing materials and accessories and clothing. There's nothing to get jealous of or angry over because everyone there has around the same amount of money in their pocket. Now compare this to the big gap between the rich and the poor. People rob and steal because they need to be richer, They want to be as rich as somebody. People kill over jealousy etc. Labour would enforce laws such as reducing the gap between the rich and the poor by raising tax on someone who has over "100, 000 in their bank account and always lowering taxes on the poor but Conservative do the opposite and disagree with this. They think we should earn as much money as possible etc. Anyone could agree with that but it's wrong. All jobs are as important as each other. For example, A janitor day and night shift sweeping the warehouse and sweating non-stop constantly cleaning getting paid minimum wage, Then you have a CEO of course making big decisions that would affect the company but is also sitting at his desk writing and making phone calls. Why should the janitor be paid so much less for such hard work and labour he/she has to do? Also, Look at the state we are in right now because of how Theresa May is handling Brexit. God save us all if Conservatives keep running our country like this.
God Exists

The argument they present is much better organized than most theists I have debated on this issue previously. My opponent begins with a discussion of DNA, which I enjoyed reading, and asserts that DNA contains information. Since DNA contains information, and information requires the intervention of an intelligent agent, DNA must have been created by an intelligent agent. The conclusion that allegedly follows from this is that there is a God with the following properties: they "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure. " First of all, I think the conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises offered. For example, there could have been an intelligent alien with an advanced knowledge of science who came to earth at the dawn of life and engineered DNA. DNA could have been the result of a team of scientists from another planet; it's a bit of a far fetched scenario, but it's worth considering before appealing to God. Another possibility is that a human scientist with a time machine went back in time and planted organisms with DNA in the primordial soup. The conclusion that the argument warrants, even if all of the premises are granted, is only that an intelligent being created DNA. Clearly, this being does not have to "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure. " The being could be physical, or possess the intelligence of an ingenious human scientist, or consist of a group of creators rather than being singular, or have some measurable degree of power. None of the attributes my opponent ascribes to God follow from this argument. In addition, my opponent's argument misunderstands how we arrive at the conclusion that a given object was designed. In every uncontroversial case in which we attribute design to an object, we base that attribution on its similarity to objects that we know from experience have been designed by humans, and we attribute a human designer to them. DNA has no real similarity to objects designed by humans, so we cannot draw the conclusion that DNA was designed. Maybe in most cases information is the product of an intelligent agent, but to assume that it was the product of an intelligent agent in the case of DNA is question begging, since the very existence of a creator is what is in question. I conclude that my opponent has not met their burden of proof. Thank you.
Nihilism

I accept this challenge. I shall be arguing that science is objectively the strongest idealogical position. In particular I will argue that science is objectively superior to Nihilism Definition: Science:"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" -Oxford Dictionaries [1] Thanks to Beginner for not only giving me the opportunity to debate such an interesting philosophical concept, but giving me the opportunity to have my first debate against an expierenced member of ddo. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing matters and that all life is meaninglessI have always held nihilism to be the objectively strongest ideological position, and would very much like to hear an opposing viewpoint.My task would be to establish that nihilism is indeed the objectively strongest philosophical position. My opponent's job is to show that it is not (I heavily suggest finding 1 or more philosophical systems and show the chosen system(s) to be superior to nihilism. Trolling is to be frowned upon. :(Semantics are allowed, but should only be used moderately as a tool of clarification; your entire argument should not hinge on semantics.Definitions:Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering or representing facts[1]Nihilism - a system of belief whose core tenet is that nothing has objective purpose, meaning or intrinsic valueRound 1 is acceptance.Round 2/3 are for arguments and rebuttalsRound 4 is for rebuttals and conclusions. No new arguments are permitted.Burden of proof is shared.Thanks to that1User for agreeing to take up this debate. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
MS Paint Battle

Rules 1. Each of us will issue the other a challenge to draw in the next round. 2. Challenges will be 5 words or less. 3. Pro's round 1 and Con's round 3 will have no pictures. Pro's round 1 will contain a challenge, Con's round 3 won't contain anything. 4. Pictures will be hosted on DDO on the debaters' profiles so that they may be accessed easily. Links will be provided in the round. My opponent's challenge is "dinosaurs harvesting pizza from trees".
NSA Surveillance

I believe I have made a good case proving the inefficiency and great cost to society from the mass surveillance by intelligence agencies on US soil. Having a huge amount of resources blocked in data collection and data mining that does not bring comparative results is wrong. So is the gross limitation of civil liberties practiced on a grand scale, sometimes in ways that are not even apparent to the general public. We also have bsh1's contentions based on analysis that is misused or sources that are biased by having a political involvement. Not to mention a non specific feeling of mistrust that he would like voters to have of my principal source, mister Schneier, who is actually an expert in security matters and therefore has the ability to understand the issues at hand when dealing with IT systems, people involved in secret information handling and so on. Therefore I would like voters that have read the arguments in this debate to vote for con's case in the matter. Thank you and may the more sensible arguments win!
abortion, responsibilities, and analogies

abortion is murder. If you think that abortion is right, then you must think that murder is okay. As soon as that egg is fertilized there is a child in your body. a living breathing human. You wouldn't kill a litter of puppies inside the mother dog would you? No, not unless your a sick person. So why would u kill a actual human growing inside of you? If your going to have sex, wear a condom, or go on birth control or give the baby up for adoption. You have options, you don't have to kill a a baby, yes its the mothers choice but the mother also has hundreds of other options and abortion should not be one of them. There are people who want a baby more than anything, people who can't have babies and then there are others who don't. yea, i understand if your raped you can't really help getting pregnant or not an u don't want to have a rapists child but no one ever said you had to keep the baby. Give it to someone who want a child more than anything. In conclusion, abortion is murder you can say all you want that its not, but you are killing a child plain and simple.
abortion, responsibilities, and analogies

this debate focuses on analogies to getting pregnant, and abortion. the analogies should involve whether the woman assumed the risk of pregnancy by having sex, or whether the conceived is uninvited and has no rights to the mother's body. i will be arguing analogies against abortion. you must do opposite. there are some beginning anaologies for foundation by Thomson involving burglars and violinists. a lot of that stuff gets pretty bizarre and beyond reality, but they make points and give fodder for thought. the responsibilties in getting pregnant are like causing an accident, and rupturing someone's kidneys and causing them to lose blood. couldn't it be said that the wrong doer should be forced to give that person blood, and maybe even a kidney, at least as long as the wrong doer would not die? many insist on absolute bodily autonomy, even in an accident situation, and so would reject that. but i would argue the moral obligation is there. and what makes birth the magic point that changes the parents responsibitlies? a person could argue... the child was a burlar in my house. i let the burglar stay until he was ready to leave. then i let him leave. why am i obligated to take care of them... they were burglars to begin with and i was going a nice thing for them letting them stay. society might have laws that frown on this thinking, but if you take the burglar analogy to its consequence, it was still a burglar at birth too. you just happened to let him live awhile instead of legally killing him. why should mother's liberty continue to be hindered due to someone who came as a burglar to begin with? someone causes an accident in while planes are in mid air. the planes crash on the island of the person who caused the crash. the person who caused the crash should not be able to evict the victim, by tossing them to sea, or killing them. you could replace planes and islands, with cars and the wrong doers home. it is also like. and this is bizarre but it is not much more bizarre that that 'well respected' (really a joke of a publication) violinist debate. you cause a car accident. the victim is caused to be attached to you kidneys. they are sustained by your kidneys and need them for awihle to live. hardly no one would say the person who caused the accident should be able to kill the victim.
pokemon

but it is for all ages anybody can play it they just don't have to play it like 24/7 i play it on my free time you may say that people spend to much time on it but they play it so they wont be lonely plus the 3D you can change back to a normal setting im 17 and still play it and my brouther plays it still and he is 10 years older than me you may say that pokemon is bad for people but it gives them a second life. when i am feeling ticked of i play it it is a stress re leaver to me
The following argument for the existence of God is logically valid.

In this argument, the conclusion (God must exist) precedes the premises, which make claims of the existence of God. This argument is not valid. A valid argument has a form like if you put together a and b, you have the result of ab. This argument has a form like because of a, if you put together b and c, you have a, and because of a, if you put together b and c, you have a, and because of a, if you put together b and c...
The following argument for the existence of God is logically valid.

My opponent fundamentally misunderstands my argument. I am not saying that my argument is sound: "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. " I am only saying that it is valid. My opponent's refutations only apply to the soundness of my argument, and I agree that it is unsound. However, since the conclusion directly follows from the premises, the argument is valid.
The following argument for the existence of God is logically valid.

Fine, I guess you are serious about this debate. Your argument makes a baseless assumption that anything inspired by God is truth, and that the bible is truth. You do not back up this statement, so how can it be held true? What I was arguing is that you are saying that anything inspired by God is truth in the second point of your argument. I point out God-inspired claims to be false. Therefore what God has inspired is not truth. This refutes the second and fourth point, or premises as you like to call them. Your conclusion - "God must exist" - is based on false premises, therefore your argument is invalid. Your argument makes a baseless assumption that anything inspired by God is truth. You do not back up this statement, so how can it be held true? Also, this is a circle argument. Your premises follow from your conclusion , and vice versa. Your conclusion must be held true in order for its premises to be true. For your arguments to prove your conclusion, your conclusion must be held true, before it is prove right by your arguments. In order for the bible to be inspired by God (one of your arguments) God must exist (your conclusion).
The following argument for the existence of God is logically valid.

My opponent does not seem to have made any real arguments. His only objection is to my second premise: "2. There is nothing to support this statement." However, his objection does not affect my position. "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false." [1] In other words, an argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. My opponent has not provided any proof that my conclusion does not follow from my premises. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
The following argument for the existence of God is logically valid.

1. Yes, it does. 2. There is nothing to support this statement. The book of Genesis "Now the earth was [a] formless* and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.** 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningï¿½€"the first day." *In order for a 3 dimensional object to exist, it has to have a shape and cannot be "formless". **God putting light upon the earth, implies that before he did, there was darkness and thus no sun. The sun was formed 4.57 billion years ago from a cloud of hydrogen, the earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago from matter orbiting the sun. Light from the sun existed before the earth did, and before the sun, there was light from neighbouring stars 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.*" And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then I looked at your profile, and looked under religious views.
Common descent has occurred on Earth.

Common descent is the theory that all organisms on Earth are genealogically related: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]In this debate, I will be advocating the position that every living thing on Earth today, including humans, are descended from a common ancestor. Con's position is that common descent (and by extension macroevolution) has not occurred. Rules:1. No semantics or lawyering.2. Round 1 is acceptance. Con may ask for a rule or definition clarification.3. No brand new arguments in the last round.4. All source material must be easily accessable.Good luck to my opponent.
Best and most useful life hacks!

(I hope what you said about the banana peels is true) Let's finish this!!!! (Video game hack) 1.Invincibility Hack. Having your butt kicked? Now you can't die!!! (Not the same thing) (Real life) 2.Invisibility Hack. Got grounded? Now you can just walk out the door. (Just be quiet and don't let them just see the door open) (Video game hack) 3.Insta Kill Hack. Almost dead? Just touch your foe softly and DEAD!!!!! (Video game hack and real life) 4.Characters Hack. Don't like who you are? Just turn into who you want. (Video game hack) 5.Get powers from other games Hack.(<---lol) Powers suck? Get different ones! (Real life hack) 6.Become a game Hack. Want to be in a video game? Just jump right in your favorite game.
Best and most useful life hacks!

Last round is the bestestest...GAME/ELECTRONIC HACKS and LIFE HACKS! :P 1. http://www.mpgh.net... http://www.cracked.com... http://lifehacker.com... 2. Fix scratches on CD or DVDs by rubbing banana peels on it, starting with the inside of peel and finishing with the outside. Should work, or at least it will help! 3. Netflix Hack: netflix stream quality on your computer subpar? Press Control + Alt (Opt) + Shift + S in order to change the buffering rates. Changing to 3000 forces HD video. 4. If some little twerp pushed all the buttons on an elevator, avoid stopping at each floor by pressing all the buttons again twice. 5. Run out of charging space? Most TVs will have a USB slot. 6. To make a bottled drink ice cold in less than half an hour, wrap with a wet paper towel and place in Freezer. In 10 min it will be ready. Hope Y'ALL ENJOYED reading this. Vote if it was useful!!!
Best and most useful life hacks!

Sorry i was at home. Back to the debate. 1.Big Head Hack. Getting bullied? Use the big head hack to scare them away. 2.Switch Bodies Hack. Get Revenge on your rival after he made fun of you by making him do dumb stuff. To make sure he dosent do anything stupid with your body just lock the door and hide the key. 3.Teleporting Hack. Late for something? Just teleport there! 4.Infinite Money Hack. Can't buy what you want? Now you can buy the world! 5.Smart Hack. Suck at Debates? Now you can become THE ULTIMATE NERD!!!!!!!!! 6.Time Travel Hack. Wana know history or visit your ancisters? Travel in time!
Best and most useful life hacks!

Alrighty. Let the fun begin! 1. To make kids behave on long road-trips, bring a bag of candy. Every time they fight/argue/complain throw a piec of candy out the window. 2. Want someone's number at a party? Take a picture with them and ask them to send it to you. 3. Here's a ghetto, homemade air-conditioner in times of "need." Freeze a few water bottles. When frozen add 2-3 pinches of salt to each bottle. Point of fan at the frozen bottles and voila. 4. Never forget to bring your lunch to work again by placing your keys next to it (in the fridge or where-ever it's at). 5. Stuck in snow? Put your car's floor mats right under your tires to create better traction. 6. To get rid of scratched wooden surfaces, rub walnuts on that part and it will look good as new! BONUS: TO (easily) peel bumper stickers, blow a hair dryer at it for about 3 minutes.
Jesus solidified concept of hell, initiated that hell involved fire and torture, and was eternal

MAYBE Hell doesn't exist hm? maybe it's this advanced technology that we do not know of and, If someone/something was monitering us the whole time in our lives and if we were crime makers and murderers, it would make the worst hallucinations ever existing. maybe that's true... but how can "hell" be in the center of the planet? it's molten metal swirling around and around and "makes" the gravity that keeps us from floating in space and dying of cold. I am not religious at all, and if you have noticed every time a new king/queen was on the throne where they make bibles, all the verses change! By the time at maybe 3012 everything in it won't make sense at all and then we would have this probe thingabob and send it in the center of the planet and then we notice that, oh my! there's no hell, so therefore there cannot be a heaven
Jesus solidified concept of hell, initiated that hell involved fire and torture, and was eternal

Jesus solidified concept of hell, initiated that hell involved fire and torture, and was eternal if you ask most jewish people, they have no real concept of hell. in OTestament teachings, there was a worst a temporary depressive state in the afterlife. when jesus came along, he started teaching about it being eternal, and involves hellfire, and other torture. Matthew 25 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink Matthew 13 24Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26"But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, "Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?" 28"And he said to them, "An enemy has done this!" The slaves said to him, "Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?" 29"But he said, "No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30"Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.""" 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." The Book of Revelation took this a step further by saying those evil folks would be "thrown into a lake of fire." "Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." "where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" "you will not be released until you have paid the last penny"