BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If there is a "creator", he does not exist in any form detailed in religious books.

==--Opening Comments For the sake of this debate, it must be assumed that a creator does in fact exist; and this debate is therefore a debate of form rather than existence. ==--Rebuttals "It is my personal belief that there is no book, word-of-mouth of art in the vast plane of existence we live in that truly encapsules the concept of an actual 'creator' of the universe that we live in. Rather than being a simple statement of "this is what [I believe] the creator is," they turn out as various sets of rules and punishments for not following these rules, that just so happen to coincide with the wants and needs of the various kingly types that were around at the time. " My opponent opens with his position in this debate, which is the norm in a debate, then switches to a different topic altogether. He claims that religions do not state what they believe the creator to be but rather setup a body of rules. All major religious books have passages regarding the form or status of the creator. The rest of this statement about rules and punishments is simply non-topical. "The fact of the matter is, even if, say, The Bible was once the word of God, it has been manipulated and altered over time to fit the needs and taboos of the time - along with the interpretations (Adam and Eve was once a very literally interpreted story - now, though Christians remain a majority, people that take it literally are declared a seperate group from the average Christian. ). Even die-hard Christians seem to have trouble stating we should stone homosexuals or cheaters to death (other than those that think homosexuals are a disease and need to be eliminated, but that's a whole different category of crazy we will not cover in this topic due to irrelevancy. )" My opponent then offers his analysis that one of the many religious books (though presumably his argument can be made against any of the religious tomes in existence) has been altered through time to suit modern interpretations; thus making the descriptions of the creator unreliable. There are two problems with this analysis. First, it implies that at one point, the descriptions were accurate, meaning that my opponent would have accidentally surrendered this debate; Second, according to the very text that he is describing, the creator watches over human kind and prevents them from perverting the meanings. To that end, modern interpretations of the Bible, or any other religious book, are still conveying their original intent. ==--Arguments My opponent has brought forth his belief, that the creator does not exist as has been described in any of the current tomes of religion. What my opponent has yet to do is bring forth any proof to qualify his position. My opponent, in order to truly prove his position, must be able to demonstrate that the creator does not exist in any of the forms described throughout the various religious histories. Until he can do so, his arguments lack substance and are thus irrelevant.
If there is a "creator", he does not exist in any form detailed in religious books.

First off, I would like to begin by stating this is not an open invitation to argue the actual existence of a god or creator, for the purpose of this debate, rather, is to determine not the status of the existence of a divine being, but rather the status of existence of a divine being, as detailed in any of the many religious books that populate the Earth, and all nations and countries implied by that terminology. It is my personal belief that there is no book, word-of-mouth of art in the vast plane of existence we live in that truly encapsules the concept of an actual 'creator' of the universe that we live in. Rather than being a simple statement of "this is what [I believe] the creator is," they turn out as various sets of rules and punishments for not following these rules, that just so happen to coincide with the wants and needs of the various kingly types that were around at the time. The fact of the matter is, even if, say, The Bible was once the word of God, it has been manipulated and altered over time to fit the needs and taboos of the time - along with the interpretations (Adam and Eve was once a very literally interpreted story - now, though Christians remain a majority, people that take it literally are declared a seperate group from the average Christian. ). Even die-hard Christians seem to have trouble stating we should stone homosexuals or cheaters to death (other than those that think homosexuals are a disease and need to be eliminated, but that's a whole different category of crazy we will not cover in this topic due to irrelevancy. ) By the vast number of religions and various things they attempt to get us to do, along with the lack of evidence towards any more than another, it is clear to me, at least, that no particular god, should one exist, is one we have found the truth or interpreted as of yet, but rather the current "gods" we suggest exist are simply tools to keep people in their perceived place in society.
Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

Ok. All you have done is say where Ron Paul is doing badly, most of the places you mention, you have no proof or backup showing where these liberally-minded high schoolers are proven to be the only ones voting for him. The hilarious thing is, I'll lose this debate! There are so many people which I have made depise me. Theoru or whatever his name is, dorky, abney1226, policydebategod, etc. They all will vote against me because I killed them all in debates, so they vote for each other, and well-a! I lose. Where can you prove that other candidates are doing good? I see no links, no solid proof. Obviously I can't just take your word for it! And don't post a comment crying about how it isn't fair that I posted these questions now, when you have no chance to answer them because this is the last round. You chose 2 rounds, not me. There, a killer argument that any unbias person would obviously agree with. If I lose this debate badly, it'll prove how innaccurate and bias the results are.
Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

First, That CNN poll is not a poll about who is winning. It is talking about who won the YouTube/CNN debates. Candidates like Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani are winning in the actual voting poles. Look at the chart, the percentages in favor of Ron Paul are votes from CNN/YouTube viewers. Think about that, YouTube viewers. Not to mention that this is probably mainly liberally-minded high school and college students, Ron Paul's limited support is mainly through his YouTube followers. So, those percentages don't mean much. Furthermore on that CNN link - look at the "conservative analyst" collumn: this only helps me! The conservatives all reject Ron Paul because they don't see him as a real Republican. When asked: Who had the most disappointing performance at the debate? The conservative Bill Bennet said: "Paul just does not come off convincing or presidential." Think about what I said earlier - the GOP knows it faces a tough battle against the Democrats, so they are going to want to nominate a candidate who has the best chance at beating the Democrats. A libertarian-seeming, "revolution"-starting candidate that CANNOT secure the GOP base is extremely unlikely to achieve the party's nomination. Next, this ABC News article. What does this prove? I don't get it. This article is from August - it's almost 2008 now, things are different, and there have been countless numbers of more polls - Paul isn't leading in any real polls. This talks about how the changes don't reflect everything - but that doesn't mean Paul is winning. It's not like someone else is winning on the Democratic side. Lastly, the "ronpaulfan.com" article. (Hmm, ronpaulfan.com) This is another example of an internet poll - so it again doesn't reflect who is really winning. Also, the original site, it doesn't restrict people from voting more than once. And, how do they know all the people who hit "none" meant to vote for Ron Paul? Hmm. Overall, none of your "evidence" says anything about Ron Paul winning the race anywhere - they are votes about who won debates and small internet polls not reaching a large populus. Remember what I said at the beginning of the debate. The GOP is looking to nominate someone who can beat the Democrats. Ron Paul does not have the base support necessary to get the backing of the GOP.
Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

Hello, thank you for taking up my challenge from my profile. It still stands for anyone that wants to battle me about Ron Paul. Well here are some links from CNN, NBC, etc proving that Ron Paul is winning. Ron Paul didn't make any of these websites. http://www.cnn.com... Then Ron Paul is winning the ABC election, so they have a writer go out and tell people that Ron Paul cheated using hackers to vote for him thousands of times. They had no proof, they had no evidence to hint anything had happened, and they're making fools of themselves accusing him- http://blogs.abcnews.com... Did you happen to hear about the Straw Poll where they took Ron Paul's name off of the ballot and replaced it with none, and in first place, you guessed it, None! So GOP wants to remove that soon too! - http://www.ronpaulfan.com...
Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican nomination. Overall, his views do not get him votes from the traditional GOP base votes - those votes are going to Huckabee and Romney, etc. Ron Paul is getting support, yes. However, this support is limited to a small group of people within the Republican party that disagree with a large portion of the rest of the party. This is why his support is not enough. Furthermore, taking this into consideration, the GOP will nominate a candidate that it thinks can beat the Democrats. The Republicans know that they face an uphill battle agains the Dems, because the GOP is getting blamed along with Bush's decisions in office. The Republicans will look for whoever has the most WIDESPREAD support, so that the candidate elected will have a chance against the Democrats. Because conservatives know this, Paul, who cannot even solidify the base, will not be able to win the Republican nomination.
Evolution is false

This argument, despite what Chuck Missler seems to think, has nothing to do with evolution, but rather abiogenesis. The two are completely different. I get the distinct feeling you have no idea what you're actually talking about.Despite this having absolutely no bearing on our debate, I will still refute it, because the 'Peanut Butter Argument' is so painfully easy to refute.The 'Peanut Butter Argument' (which I will hereafter refer to as PBA) is based on the idea that a jar of peanut butter contains the same conditions as primordial Earth, which is simply not true. As the RationalWiki article on the PBA puts it: "sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, multimillion-year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays"Another mistake made in the PBA is the assumption that even if life WERE to arise, it would be a fully formed, highly evolved creature, rather than the simple single celled organisms that would ACTUALLY arise through abiogenesis.The main reason that the spontaneous appearance of life in a peanut butter jar is unlikely (not impossible, as Chuck Missler claims) isn't that spontaneous appearance of life is unlikely, but rather that they put preservatives in commercial peanut butter to keep mould/bacteria from developing. In many ways, the reason life probably won't appear in a peanut butter jar is because the companies that make the peanut butter have made sure it probably won't.I suggest you actually address evolution in your next argument.
Evolution is false

the reason why I say Evolution is false is because Evolution say's a fish can turn into a monkey but a fish dose not have the voice of a monkey and Evolution says a monkey can turn into a fish but why don't we see sea monkeys under water evolution says a rock Turned into a Fish witch has sex with a Monkey in a Mud Pool that was struck by lighting and then the fish grew legs and walked and gave birth to a Human so the big question is what was the fish shoe size before it grew feet lol ahhahahahahah Evolution is false checkmate
Evolution is false

This debate was a farce. My opponent left the site halfway through after quite an amusing disagreement with the site owner over whether or not his 0% win rate was fair or not.He then returned, and his profile showed he was online within the past 36 hours. I challenged him to continue the debate but he refused by remaining silent. His profile has now been closed again (I assume permanently this time).My opponent posted two arguments, the first was a ridiculous and incomprehensible ramble which I felt I shot down adequately, and the second was little more than the presentation of Chuck Missler's 'Peanut Butter Argument' which has been debunked numrous times since it was established.
Cannabis should be legalised across the globe.

Sorry, I do not agree with legalizing it. What are the effects of second-hand marijuana smoke? Contact high? Come on, go to high school. You can esily distinguish the pot smokers from the non-pot smokers. Marijuana kills brain cells. Maybe not all at once, but they do die. People who smoke it tend to be slower and not do as well academically. I have never met a valedictorian who smoked pot/weed. I really don't see what it could possibly do medically, really. Some doctors have actually said the same thing. Sometimes, they prescribe it just to get rid of the patient because it's what they want. Dentists, doctors, other MD's do this with "normal" meds as well. Would there be a separate section in restaurants as well? "Smoker or non smoker? Weed or tobacco?" There's enough wrong in the US; teenage pregnancy, obesity, diabetes, cancer. Let's fix what's wrong before making new problems! If marijuana were to be legalized, consumption of it would likely increase. Along with that would likely come health and community costs: increase in accidents due to motor impairment, increase in associated illnesses such as cancer, as is the case with cigarette smoking, as well as the multiple hospitalizations and surgeries often accompanying those addicted to nicotine. Marijuana is not harmless; it is addictive, and it does affect the brain. Do you want to be on the road with a bunch of stoned drivers? Think about it....
Cannabis should be legalised across the globe.

Cannabis should be legalised across the globe. I am not saying it is harmless, I am saying that a government who bans it's citizens from using it has become over controlling. This debate is about freedom and democracy, more than the health risks of cannabis. Also, this debate is set in the context of the current world affairs. One must accept that they think alcohol, coke, cigarettes e.t.c should all be illegal, if they think cannabis should be illegal as well, based on its health risks. Impossible to accept, only wise debaters please. No 'smart/dumb' debaters please who are ready to just drown the readers in statistics and half-proofs. This is a philosophical discussion centred around the extent to which rulers can control ones life.
Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

I would like to extend my gratitude to my opponent for this enjoyable and refreshing experience - gun tends to be a red hot and personal issue, and making this debate such a fruitful discussion was no small feat. I cannot express this enough; every single time I tried to reason with someone on other forum ended up in shouting matches, needless to say that I was completely outclassed.I do sincerely hope that my opponent stay on DDO, and I too look forward to any discussion with ufcryan in the future, especially when both of us have gained valuable debating experiences. And last but not least, I am glad that this debate finally confirmed my belief that one can make friend, not enemy, after a debate.
Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

When I originally started this debate, it was not to win but it was to see if there was any merit to the defense against tyranny argument. Whether or not the US government is or will become tyrannical is still an open debate. From this discussion, given the arms and level of training of the average American citizen, it does not appear that US citizens would be remotely capable of fending off the American military unless they were supported by factions of our professional military. In order to become capable, citizens would need access to, at the very least, RPG's, explosives, and sophisticated military training. Since US citizens cannot currently combat the professional military, I've already lost this debate. Whether or not citizens having guns would be beneficial or even detrimental I'm now uncertain of, although we cannot prove or disprove this claim until the time comes. Given my inability to prove that guns would be beneficial in fighting tyranny and the fact that citizens currently cannot fight tyrannical governments, I forfeit this debate. Thank you hereiam2005 for this enlightening debate, and I look forward to any discussions with you in the future. P.S. I can still argue that the private ownership of guns is more beneficial from a social standpoint, and if anyone wishes to debate this with me send me the challenge.
Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

External Threat ResponseIf there is such a military threat that a citizen militia is needed to combat it, an armed populace, even if disorganized, could only assist our main military in combating the External Threat. An organized militia would most certainly be more effective, but a disorganized resistance can still drain an invading armies resources and give the regular army a greater chance to succeed in the long run. As for training to use special equipment such as RPG's and explosives, and unregulated population could learn pretty quickly how to (somewhat) safely handle them. Unless I'm mistaken, most terrorists in the middle east have learned how to operate RPG's and make IED's without too much training. This would suggest that the training required is minimal, and although they're not the safest or most effective with these weapons they can still harass US troops with them. There is also the remote possibility that given enough time and the right circumstances an unorganized citizen militia may overthrow the invading army and (hopefully) re-establish a Democratic Government. This possibility is extremely remote, but not necessarily impossible. Internal ThreatThere's a couple of things to consider here. The leader of a RSTG is obviously after power, and would want as much of it as he or she can get without risking its loss. When I refer to the cost of obtaining power, I'm not referring to the cost of human life lost. I'm referring to the risk they they may lose their position of power. If the US government suddenly became tyrannical then in order to do so it would most certainly need a militant campaign to rule over its citizens. If the armed populace can cost the RSTG enough resources either economically or militarily, then there is a chance that it might fall apart itself from internal fighting (other potential leaders seeking power). Whether or not Democracy would arise from this scenario is uncertain, but it has a greater chance of re-emerging when a tyrannical government is plagued by internal strife rather than if the tyrannical ruler had unchallenged power. Internal Threats relation to External ThreatsOne mistake I'm curious if we're making is if we're accepting that Internal Threats and External Threats are mutually exclusive. I'm actually more inclined to believe that Internal Threats become a bigger and bigger problem when External Threats become more serious. This is how the US government was able to justify the Patriot Act after 9/11 or the Japanese Interment Camps during WW2. Both the Interment Camps and the Patriot Act arose during a perceived external threat, so it may be that we only have to worry about internal threats when external threats become more dire.
Ron Weasly is better than Hermione Granger

I don't even know about the times of crisis bit. I mean, they've both saved Harry on numerous occasions. I suppose I would agree that Hermione is the best at taking charge and attacking a time of crisis i.e. preparing for the trip to find horcruxes. Basically every time they had to prepare for something, it was all Hermione's idea. In the way of straight up, soldier like, in the moment, athletic heroism, I would say that Ron will certainly step up and act on instinct as well as anyone in the stories if not better. I could also argue that it is the Weasley passion he displays. I'll call it a draw though if you don't feel like going deeper. I would agree with one of the comments that said that they are extremely different characters. Hard to compare, they tend to balance eachother out in the trio of heroes.
Ron Weasly is better than Hermione Granger

What about the fact that Hermione basically figures everything out for Ron and Harry from day 1? Ron and Harry are both smart and talented in their own right, but to say they are on the same encyclopedic like knowledge of magic that Hermione has is downright ridiculous. She was the reason they found all of the horcruxes, she is the reason they find out about and make the polyjuice potion, she is the reason that Sirius was saved the first time. She was so brilliant a student that she was given special permission to use a time travelling device to attend conflicting timed classes. Ron finds himself in the later books but his struggle is much more family based and overcoming shadows he is stuck in and finding comfort in himself. He is brave, no denying that, especially in the books. The movie Ron is a joke because he was written like an idiot. He is a strong willed, brave guy, with brains to boot. To say that he is as brilliant and sharp as Hermione is a stretch, though...
Ron Weasly is better than Hermione Granger

Ron Weasly is better than Hermione GrangerRon Weasly is better that Hermione because, he is much braver and entertaing for the whole family. We all know he isnt as smart as her but in times of crisis he is the best for example, take the first book Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone when Ron sacrifice himself in the mansized wizard chess so Harry could go to the next task. Although Hermione did pounch Malfoy, (which is an amazing thing to do dont get me worng) Ron faced his real fear with the spiders in book two and (SPOILER ALERT) When Hermione was doing her OWL's she didnt face the boggart. Therefor I see no other reason why Ron isnt better than Hermione.