BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God

In this debate, I intend to discuss and debate the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist, and Pro, my opponent, will be arguing that God does exist. Definitions: God: A supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being, that is thought to have created and rules the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round: acceptance only. Second round: arguments only. Third round: rebuttals only. Fourth round: Counter-rebuttals. Forfeiture is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. E.g. Only proving that there is a possibility that God exists. Breaking any rules will result in an automatic loss. Citations: Merriam Webster
President Obama is not a Socialist

Resolved: President Obama is not a Socialist. Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of a Socialist.Definition of terms:Socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Socialist: "A person who believes in socialism"(1)Format: 6,000 characters/4 rounds/72hrs. Round 1: Acceptance and definitions Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals and new arguments Round 4: closing statements, No new arguments. Comment if interested.Sources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
humans are fundamentally different from animals

First of all, while Pro has defined the term "Fundamental", the term "Animal" remains undefined for this debate, therefore I am under the impression that Pro will allow me to define "Animal" for this debate. Animal (noun): Any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicelluar organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. [1]Argument:According to the above definition, in order from something to be classified as an animal, it must have 5 certain fundamental traits:1. It must be a multicellular organism.2. It must have a well-defined shape.3. It must be able to move voluntarily.4. It must be able to actively acquire food and digest it internally.5. It must have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. Every animal is based on these central or primary rules. Therefore, my burden of proof for this debate is to show that humans also have these traits. Trait 1-Humans are definitely multicellular organisms. Humans are comprised of trillions of cells, which means humans are multicellular. [2]If human blood is looked at under a microscope, you will see many red blood cells. This clearly proves that humans are multicellular organisms. Trait 2-While humans do have small variations in sizes, the shape of human bodies are generally well defined. Our skeletal structure and organs are all relatively the same shape, and can be easily distinguished when compared to other species. Trait 3-Humans certainly have the ability to move voluntarily. Humans are able to move their arms, legs, etc, at will. If a human wishes to run, he will run. If a human wishes to jump, he will jump. Trait 4-Humans have been known to actively acquire food since prehistoric times. Years ago, humans were hunter gatherers, which meant they actively hunted or gathered food. [3]-As far as digestion goes, humans have a digestive system in their bodies that digest food. Trait 5-Humans have a sensory system in the form of eyes to see, ears to hear, noses to smell, tongues to taste, nerves to feel, etc. -Humans also have a nervous system. [5]-Humans definitely have the ability to respond fast to stimuli. If a human touches something hot with his or her hand, the human will feel pain and most likely stop touching the object. I have proven that humans certainly adhere to these 5 traits that every animal also fundamentally have, therefore humans are not fundamentally different from animals. RebuttalIn Pro's contentions, Pro states several examples of how humans are different from certain animals. However, this does not show that they are fundamentally different from animals. I rest my case. Sources:[1] . http://www.dictionary.com... [2] . http://www.passmyexams.co.uk...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...
humans are fundamentally different from animals

I affirm the following resolution in which states humans are fundamentally different than animals, before I get into my contentions I would like the offer the following definition. Fundamental: A central or primary rule or principle on which something is based upon What are the physical differences that distinguish us from our closest animal relatives? There are some notable ways in which our bodies differ from those of apes and old-world monkeys. We can lock our knees straight, have longer legs than arms, and habitually walk upright, freeing our hands to do things other than carry our weight. We have a chin. Our body surface is covered in sweat glands that provide a more effective cooling system than those of other primates. We have lost our canines and much of our protective fur -- leaving males with the apparently pointless, but persistent, growth of beards. The iris of our eyes is relatively small and surrounded by white rather than dark sclera, making it easy for us to identify the direction of another's gaze. Humans have large brains, weighing between about 1.25 and 1.45 kilograms, but elephant brains can weigh more than 4 kilograms, and whale brains as much as 9 kilograms. Elephants and whales also have the biggest bodies in general, so it may be considered fairer to compare our relative brain sizes. Our brains represent about 2% of our overall body mass (though they consume some 25% of our energy), whereas the brains of elephants and whales constitute less than 1% of their bodies. Nevertheless, the outcomes of relative size comparisons have also not been supportive of humans' sense of superiority. Some shrews and mice, it turns out, have brains that are up to five times larger than ours relative to body size. Since we get beaten by large mammals in terms of absolute brain size and small mammals in terms of relative brain size, another type of comparison has been proposed that takes into account that as mammals get larger, brains get absolutely larger but relatively smaller.
Politicians FAIL!!!

1. Politicians Never Get Anything Done. This is not true. Politicians are responsible for passing legislation. The fact that we have laws not only in the U.S. but around the world completely discredits Pro's false premise. Not to mention that politicians are also responsible for establishing (or working towards) peace relations and other goals. In the past few months alone, various leaders from several countries met and made decisions and declarations about where various nations stood on certain issues. Even if this is not directly enacting legislation, this is taking steps toward legislation and other relations which is in fact a form of accomplishment. 2. Taxation Is Theft. Again, not true. Taxation is a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services. Additionally, citizens agree to be taxed. This is because they not only elect their representatives who enact these taxes, but also have a say (especially in local government) about what they would and would not like their taxes to be spent on. If they disagree with the appropriation of their taxes, the citizens have the ability to exercise their democratic rights and seek to establish a more improved economy and political atmosphere suitable to their wants and needs. 3. The State Does Not Govern Society. If the State refers to the government, then this statement is absolutely false. If Pro disagrees, I challenge him to provide an explanation or example of what he means. 4. Politicians Never Fix Any Problems. Tell that to Abraham Lincoln.
In all cases, insulting or mocking a person is not morally justifiable

In all cases, insults mean nothing when they aren't true. People react when they contain tones of truth. What I'm doing is not insulting people - I am reflecting on the result of them insulting themselves. Many people do not like to admit to the possibility that some people on this planet can read people based on what they wear, what they want in life and what they do to get it. I am a very crafty man that does things to prove more of the fact that people are caught up in their own smoke and mirrors than strictly to bombard them like a street thug in 95% profanity. I'd much rather prefer to sophisticate my bluntness by resorting to deep levels of analysis instead. It's that simple: People make it too easy to get under their skin - I'm just toughening them up in a way that's not the same as a bully's way of doing it. What I do is on a much higher level that can read people like books. A lot of people do not like me, because I tend to bring out the worst in them within seconds.
In all cases, insulting or mocking a person is not morally justifiable

Con has again dropped my arguments. I want to ask what's wrong with you Aerogant, you seem to be having a breakdown. Are you alright?In all cases my opponent was not able to uphold his BOP. This I understand is because he feels this debate is targeted to him when it's not. It's just a debate that has nothing to do with Aerogant personally. I did not mean it when i said to Aerogant that he was insecure. I meant it as an example. It seems he took it seriously. So to break down what seems to be my opponent's arguments he says;1) In this world, people insult you.2) Racism isn't allowed. I haven't used a racist term, I'm not rude. I am bending the rules by calling you idiot and that word isn't banned. I can call you an idiot. get over it, you'e heard it in television. And retard isn't a banned word too you know? Go complain about it to to the people who preach hell.So just because society doesn't punish those who say idiot and that a lot of people use the word 'idiot', it somehow justifies the moral use of the word idiot? I do not see how. It doesn't justify it morally at all. People still get hurt by you intentionally using it on them. You know it hurts them and they get hurt. In some cases it doesn't, but in those cases, the word doesn't become an insult. Insult meaning that which hurts the feelings of others. You cannot justify the action of intentionally hurting another personAnd also how does complaining have to do with anything? 3) I am a genius.4) You have failed the debate.\You didn't prove your stance. You didn't uphold your BOP. You didn't refute my arguments. You didn't say much except make this debate something personal. 5) Please leave me alone.What? You were the one who wanted to debate this. I made it open to anyone.6) Silence is the worst punishment. You are a coward to think idiot is a problem. I've gone though so many more things than you have. You guys are dumb, it's disgusting. I don't see an argument here. Also I know what silence and loneliness feels like you know. If you need to confide in someone for an issue like that, try the forums.7)You guys are so bloody intellectually challenged, that you have to make mountain out of a mole hill out of something that I have went through years of pain because of. Leave me alone."I don't care what you personally think about the idea of insults and how people address it. You took on this debate and you barely argued. And that's your loss.Bro, dude, buddy, if you're feeling emotional about something just talk to Zarroette about it. No one will understand your pain more than she does. She can help you get on the right path. Or talk about this in the comments instead on the debate or go to the forums. You have so many options.Vote for Pro of course.Thanks.Adam_Godzilla.
In all cases, insulting or mocking a person is not morally justifiable

In this world, people can say you will burn in hell. In this world, people can say you're a homeless scum. In this world, people can say you're nothing. In this world, people can say you're a tool. In this world, people can say you nothing you say matters. In this world, people can imply that you're stupid, worth nothing, going nowhere, scum, POS, BS, etc. In this world, racism and other terms that are tied to serious hatred are not allowed - in my entire history on this site, I have not once used racism or terms tied to hatred, therefore I am not "rude" - I am simply "bending the rules", without bending them because I can't say "idiot", while people can say and imply other words; and guess what? "retard" is still not a banned word in this society. Therefore I rest my case. If you're going to complain about "idiot", a word found in the dictionary - that is heard in children's cartoons, you need to grow up - there's nothing "rude" about "idiot". Want to complain about that? Go harp on the people who threaten people with an everlasting hell for eternity. I am not the bad guy. Just because I call someone an idiot is not the issue - it's my ability to use idiot in a way that truly gets under people's skin that gets people are worked up. I see people call people an idiot all the time, but it doesn't do much. Why? The person saying it is an idiot themselves. Me, however, I am beyond idiocy - I am a genius; people know this, but will do anything to ignore me like they ignore their everyday responsiibilities, their fears and the love and watery feelings that make them human. You cannot retort any of this without demonstrating devil's advocate, double standards and denial. You have failed this debate - I have sealed this debate to a T because this is a serious issue I am dealing with. I have been suppressed, oppressed, silenced and attacked for no reason based on the same nonsense you worry about over real issues in this world that are a thousand times worse than "idiot". Please, leave me alone if you aren't going to learn the difference between what's really "rude" and how there are people in this world that "imply" very vile inferences in people's lives that hurt us more than the term "idiot" ever could. Silence is worse than being yelled at and scolded hands down. As someone who has been alone for a very long time in their life, I can tell you that you are a coward to even think that "idiot" is a problem. I have went through so much, you don't even know. It disgusts me that you guys are so bloody intellectually challenged, that you have to make mountain out of a mole hill out of something that I have went through years of pain because of. Leave me alone.
In all cases, insulting or mocking a person is not morally justifiable

Con drops many of my points and has failed to refute them. Instead he decides to defend himself (or herself) to my 'insults' which were actually just examples to show how no one has any inherent right to judge a person based off a few observations. It is a presumptious and farcical way to derive facts from people.Con tries to defend his stance that insults are justifiable by saying that people deserve to be insulted and goes on to say that insulting and mocking someone is just beng truthful and facing reality as it is. But what con doesn't understand is thatInsults =/= truthful judgementAnd that it fails to justify why insulting or mocking someone is morally right. Con does not uphold his BOP. He has not provided one case where insutling or mocking a person is completely justifiable and right but instead talks about how he himself is 'always right' and that everything he does is 'justifiable'. There is simply no evidence of this and is Con's own opinion of himself which does not help his case.Con has one final round to prove that in some cases, insulting or mocking a person can be morally justifiable. Con seems to have missed the point of the debate in which he gives a speech about peoplebeing hypocrits and liers which frankly is irrelevant to this debate and does not help his BOP at all.
In all cases, insulting or mocking a person is not morally justifiable

From the first paragraph, you have failed to psychically analyze me, even though I show no signs of insecurity, hence I lead the reader towards things that matter, rather than continue on bluffing about my talent. I say things strictly out of the sole fact that it's too amusing that when I say "I am genius", that people react to it more than I do. It just shows that people deserve to be ridiculed because they are pretending every day everything is okay, when they are the epitome of regression. What I say would mean nothing if they were actually worth something. Will you look at that? I can argue your "insults" because they mean nothing to me, hence I do not have an insecurity. I am a diamond that cannot be scratched via years of self-discipline and taking away the spoils of life so I can live a constructive lifestyle that can live beyond my own desires and limited senses. People judge themselves by becoming the very things I call them based entirely on the definition of the word of which I am using justifiably, hence it's in the dictionary and also featured in cartoons for kids. Therefore calling someone an idiot does not make me anything except a guy calling someone an idiot, while those who are "offended" by something like the word "idiot" over the word "retard" are truly revealing the sole idiocy I saw in them before they even had to reveal their true nature. I mean, it's disgusting that people attack people in the way they speak and what words they use over actual issues like drug cartels, government corruptions that do not involve whimsical conspiracy theories and the like. People are hypocrites and hungry monsters that pretend to be human and polite, when the only reason why people do this is because they do not want to deal with the heat, so you have this entire system of Bull shite where people only do things that are a lie just because it's easier, not because it's wise. I can read people and know their true nature just by analyzing traits of their behavioral patterns. Everything I do is justified. I am not the enemy here. It is the people that live their lives in lies and wonder why there is no vigor left in the - no fight left in them - no sight left in them, living life through the lies of every single person who has already died on the inside for they have yet to descry the things of which we all deny and that is my poem I wish to cry this time for this moment aside.
Modern science is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

This debate is about whether or not science is too primitive to explain supernatural phenomenon. Science is the opposite of primitive. We have lots of technology and experts in many different fields of science, exploring hundreds of different things in the world. My opponent said, "If modern science could explain where gravity comes from, it would have." This is completely untrue. We have been researching diseases and sicknesses for hundreds of years, yet we still discover new things about the topic each year. The same goes for gravity. The length of time that it's been around does not affect if it will ever be answered, and doesn't mean that something that has been studied for years will never be answered. About sleep, the example given is an anomaly. Nobody who's reading this, and certainly not my opponent, can go for 11 days without sleep. Though some people may be different, the majority of the population needs sleep to regenerate energy and continue to live.
Modern science is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

I would like to address a couple of those things to give proof that modern science is not too primitive to explain them. First, #6, gravity. Modern science is completely capable of explaining gravity. A small object in space, or on the Earth for that matter, is drawn into the gravitational field of a larger object. This is why the moon orbits the Earth, and why the Earth orbits the sun. True, we do not know where it directly comes from, but that is not due to the current science, just the lack of time and energy that has already been put into it. Another thing mentioned was why humans need sleep. Unlike gravity, there are almost no questions here. Humans need sleep to refresh the mind, and to build up energy. We need to sleep to give our bodies the chance to rest and refill its energy stores so we can be active and awake the next day. I will address many of the other points later, but I will close by addressing #5, miracles. Miracles are a term for an event that is defined by religion. Therefore I don't count them as supernatural, and they should not be defined by science. If you are religious, then a miracle is proof of God's existence and of His power on Earth. If you are not religious, then miracles don't exist to you. For these reasons, miracles will never be defined by science, and do not apply to this debate topic.
Modern science is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

The assertion states that modern science (accepted science to date) is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena. Will science one day 'evolve' to a point that it can explain what is now deemed unexplained or supernatural? Perhaps. A few things modern science has yet to explain:1. Yawning2. Dreams3. The placebo effect4. Why birds migrate5. Why humans need sleep6. Gravity7. Genetic memory of the monarch butterfly [1]A few things considered to be supernatural:1. telekinesis2. telepathy3. ESP4. ghosts5. miracles. http://www.cracked.com... [1]
Modern science is too primitive to validly discount unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

Modern science has been able to answer many questions about the world that were previously explained by religion and superstition, such as the revolution of the Earth around the sun, the stars in the sky, the moon, waves, and many other natural occurrences. I think this debate will be very interesting, but before continuing I would like some examples of what my opponent thinks science is too primitive to explain. I am of the position that science can answer anything, whether the technology is available yet or not. Still, to prove this I would need to know exactly what my opponent thinks cannot be explained and what supernatural things cannot be discounted validly.