BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moose are stronger than elaphant

Hello, I am representing the con side of the debate for the motion that "Moose are not stronger than elephants. " I'll begin with my own points. 1. Ladies and gentlemen, if you type in "how many deaths do moose cause? " in the Google search bar, you will find reports of moose decreasing in population and only very few slaying humans. The only website even related to a moose killing says that only 2 people have died from a "moose attack" in the past 10 years near the Anchorage area, their primary home. This is definitely not extreme in any way, but the deaths caused by elephants are tremendous. If you tune into Animal Planet, you can see that elephants cause a mass amount of deaths in countries such as Africa. They trample and stampede when enraged, and with their massive, hulky bodies, they can crush and stomp anything with ease. An elephant in full charge can easily take out an infantry unit (CNN). That is why they were used by Hannibal during the Punic Wars vs. Rome. The elephants were so destructive that they were trained to become "war elephants. " Certainly, no one has ever tamed moose to be "war moose. " . http://www.himandus.net... This website also says that elephants have been known to shove trains off the railroad due to anger and rage. A moose has never been reported to due such a thing, making it weaker than the elephant. An elephant also topples trees in order to get the better leaves, but a moose would never and can't ever do such a thing because it has a weaker body than the elephant. 2. Moose are easily killed. Humans can easily kill moose with weapons and the moose are instantly killed. Elephants, on the other hand, can take several severe punishments before death because they are simply stronger and can endure more. . http://www.youtube.com... The video I posted shows that elephants can take punishment and are strong enough to drag cars and trains, something a frail moose cannot do. I will post new points in the next round.
problem of gratuitous evil

Defense: "When I say know, I don't mean as if they simply know he exists. The god of the Bible is interested in a loving relationship with the humans(Reflected in many of Jesus parables). It may very well be that people are put off by his ways of doing so, and would thus turn away from him. Again I would also like to stress that in the Biblical view, we're all sinners and criminals, thus god is not obliged to save us, we should view a relationship with him as a gift, not as something he owes us." counter - an omnibenevolent god is, in fact, obliged to save us. if he did not try, then he would not be all loving nor all good. of course, this specific god is also forbidden from altering our free will so there is a limit to how much he can help us, but if he is all loving (as the bible says he is) then he would be obliged by that trait to attempt to assist us.the only reason we are 'all sinners' is because god has made us that way. he has either made the moral law such that we all inevitably break it or has made us with a fallen nature. every action we humans make morally will not ever be fully informed. our limited knowledge leads us to make mistakes that given more knowledge many of us would not make. if god supplied us with the knowledge of what is morally wrong or morally right, then he would be doing something more good that he would otherwise. similarly, the immediate knowledge of god would make it easier for us to get into a relationship with god. god may not be able to force us into a relationship, but he can make it easier for us to enter one. if god is compelled to not inform us because of hell, then god should not have created hell in the first place as he is putting moral restrictions on himself, making it harder for him to make it easier for us to enter a relationship with him.closing:I would like to thank my opponent runezor for this enjoyable debate. his counters have been very compelling and have forced me to look at this argument from a different perspective. I look forward to any debates we may have in the future.
problem of gratuitous evil

Introduction: Let me start out by clarifying how one would make a successful argument against the God of the Bible. 1) God has some certain traits which should be reflected in the world somehow. 2) These traits are not reflected in the world. 3) Therefore this god does not exist. The trait in my opponents argument is that of omnibenevolence, which he does not feel reflected in our world. But remember, even if my opponent shows that such an evil likely exists, it's still not enough, as the god case would still survive: 1) There might exist gratuitous evil. 2) God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and would not allow for gratuitous evil. 3) Therefore gratuitous evil does not exist. The burden of proof is on him though, to show that gratuitous evil is existent in the world without a shadow of a doubt, but this seems an insurmountable task. If he does not show that there exists and evil that could not possibly, in a million years, lead to further knowledge of god, he will have failed to make an argument against the theistic case. -- Response: "there is no reason why the god of the bible couldn't make himself known to all people without taking away their free will. They could always choose not to care about him or ignore him or even hate him." When I say know, I don't mean as if they simply know he exists. The god of the Bible is interested in a loving relationship with the humans(Reflected in many of Jesus parables). It may very well be that people are put off by his ways of doing so, and would thus turn away from him. Again I would also like to stress that in the Biblical view, we're all sinners and criminals, thus god is not obliged to save us, we should view a relationship with him as a gift, not as something he owes us. "if this is the case, god could always have chosen to make a world without specific memory and learning disorders. This way, those individuals would be able to learn from their own experiences, and could also have the chance to learn of god, and the people watching them could still learn from their suffering. However, that is not the case. " I will refrain to address this point specifically in fear of having my point lost. The thing is, we simply cannot know the outcome if we remove certain disorders of diseases. The burden is on you to show that we can know without a shadow of a doubt that the world would have a better relationship with god if they did not exist. It's not enough to show that it's likely as you have here, you have to take every single little precaution into mind, which makes the problem of evil an nearly insurmountable if not impossible argument to prove.
problem of gratuitous evil

Defense:" Since god cannot rule over the human mind, and only attempt to convince it, a world without suffering may not be the most effective way of convincing the most amount of humans."counter -there is no reason why the god of the bible couldn't make himself known to all people without taking away their free will. they could always choose not to care about him or ignore him or even hate him."If a person has a memory or learning disorder, he/her may not get to know god themselves, but for example the family of the person may feel so much compassion that they see the light, or the suffering will simply prove to be non-gratuitous a thousand years later. While this may sound far fetched " remember, my opponent will have to show that it is logically impossible for such a thing to happen in order to have a successful argument."counter - if this is the case, god could always have chosen to make a world without specific memory and learning disorders. this way, those individuals would be able to learn from their own experiences, and could also have the chance to learn of god, and the people watching them could still learn from their suffering. however, that is not the case.
problem of gratuitous evil

Introduction: I would like to start out by clarifying the difference between a proving a contraction within a proposition A and providing evidence against proposition A. A contradiction(Such as those used to prove some theorems in mathematics) shows that a proposition is undoubtedly false, while evidence against a proposition merely reduces the probability that it's true, while having no effect on a logical argument for the proposition. Premise: P1:"if suffering (not resulting from free will) exists then an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity does not exist". Counterargument: I'll start out by clarifying that the Bible does not say that humans were put here as animals in a zoo, only for god to take care of us and keep our happiness and wellbeing at a maximum value. It says we were put here to spend our mortal lives getting to know god. In a world where everything was taken care of by god, where there was no suffering, it's very possible that less people would get to know god. One can compare the lives of two persons. An African villager who has to fight every day to feed his family, while simultaneously combating illness and poverty, may very well relate to the suffering Christ and from that come to know him, while a person who lives in a three story mansion, and has all his needs and wishes given to him by butlers and waitresses, may not see the need to find god. My opponent may argue that having to suffer in order to know god is an unfair proposition, but once one gets to know god, he is awarded with eternal happiness in paradise, and with every day the suffering of his mortal life will seem less important compared to the eternal award. So god permits certain kinds of sufferings: Those caused by free will(which my opponent addressed), and those caused that will further knowledge of god. My opponent rightly pointed out that god is described as good, but like the dentist drilling a persons teeth is acting in a morally correct way: God allowing some suffering to pave the way for greater wellbeing is not doing wrong either. What my opponent would have to show in order to have a successful argument is that there exists suffering which does not fit into either of the two categories. Counterargument: p1)if suffering (not resulting from free will or of a gratuitous nature) exists then an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity does not exist p2)suffering not resulting from free will or non-gratuitous is not proven. c1)an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity is not disproven. (p1 and p2 modus ponens) p3)the god of the bible is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity c2)the god of the bible is not disproven.
problem of gratuitous evil

I apologize for not posting my version of the argument in the opening, how I forgot that is beyond me.argument:p1)if suffering (not resulting from free will) exists then an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity does not existp2)suffering not resulting from free will exists (cancer, birth defects, natural disasters)c1)an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity does not exist. (p1 and p2 modus ponens)p3)the god of the bible is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entityc2)the god of the bible does not exitvalidity:c1 is reached via modus ponens, c2 is reached via symmetry on c1 via p3.defense of premise 1:an omnibenevolent (in this case, both all good and all loving) entity would prevent suffering to occur if they could, an omniscient entity knows where suffering is occurring and an omnipotent entity has the power to prevent that suffering. thus an entity who has those three properties could not exist if suffering occurs because if they did, suffering would not occur.defense of premise 2:cancer, birth defects, natural disasters, harm caused by non moral agents (animals, plant toxins, bacteria, viruses, different kinds of parasites), damage caused by interactions with chemicals we do not know are dangerous (acids, bases, poisons) etc. all produce suffering that is not caused by other agents with free will. defense of premise 3:it is safe to say via the KJV that everything god does is good (psalm 107:1, psalm 145:17, James 1:17, etc)it is also safe to say that he loves man (john 3:16) and he is not morally flawed like man (psalm 18:30, numbers 23:19)there should also be no problem saying god is sufficiently powerful (Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27)and no problem saying he knows everything (1 john 3:20, psalms 147:5)from the provided verses, it should not be hard to say that the god of the bible is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
problem of gratuitous evil

i will be arguing and defending my version of the problem of gratouitous evil.rules: 1)first round for acceptence only. from then on we will debate back and forth until we run out of rounds. 2)only the bible or the quran may be used as reference (if you use one, you are forbiden from useing the other) 3)in acceptence you will state which book you intend to use. (and what translation you will be using) - special exception: if you are of a certain religion that has extrenious books, like catholicism and its Chatecism, you may use those as well, but you must explain what religion you are and what extrenious texts you will be using (and what translations you will be using) as well as give an internet link to those books in acceptence. failure to meet these rules is an immediate loss
Atheists are less moral then Christians.

look, all of your arguments are fine and good. This is a distinct difference between an atheist and a secular humanist. You definitely can be both. I would say that a secular humanist is just as moral as a Christain. All of you statistics just prove that the people who pretend to be true believers or dont even so commit crime and do bad things. The fact is that atheists have no moral basis. Secular humanists do. The golden rule,which you so believe in has its base in religion all around the world.. including Christianity. you are proving my point. the teachings of Christianity including the old testament, are moral stories and oral traditions handed down teaching how to act. Yes, they have changed slightly. Yes, some of the bible tells people to do terrible things. But, real christains know that some of the bible is just old, conservative traditions of the past that are not moral. The bible is a tool to help individuals learn how not to make the same mistakes as the past. Atheists are just people who deny the existence of god. Secular humanists take the moral grounding of the bible/ the way the bible has developed into a moral code in western nations, and use that as a foundation for good behavior. Plus, I dont buy your argument that athiests have faith that god doesn't exist. and therefore, faith. Thats bunk, and you know it. I have faith that chocolate tastes good, that doesn't maen its a religion. Remember the family guy episode where peter sets up the church of the Fonz. Faith in something random doesn't make it a religion to me or most of the world. I truly believe that if we take the definition of the round which is, "atheists are less moral than Christians" instead of the revised one my opponent presents "Atheists/secular humanists/people who dont really know what to say, then we are degrading the integrity of the website. I will not argue that secular humanists are less moral. Athiests are less moral. Any atheist who claims to have a moral foundation is usually just westernized/judeo-christianized. my only real argument is that there is a much higher chance of a christian being moral than an atheist because the learn more about the bible, trust in it more, believe they have a reason to act good, and are more forgiving. Atheists can be good people. It is just a better chance that a christian will have a better moral foundation that that of an atheist. I'm not gonna throw statistics in your face to seem good. I know there are a lot of bloggers and debaters who are athiests. Just listen to logic, and you will see the answer.
Atheists are less moral then Christians.

Atheists are less moral than Christians First of all, I am jewish, but I will still take you on. If you are an Atheist that claims to be moral, you should consider yourself a secular humanist, not an atheist. The only reason that Atheists have some of the same moral foundations as Christians is because they grew up in the same society as Christians, and therefore, the morals of America are similar to Christians. However, they are not as moral. Simply, as an observer, everyone knows that incentives and punishments, heaven and hell, are better ways to instill morality. NOW, I MUST SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CHRISTIANS. Just like not all atheists have the same dedication to atheism. So, don't pull some argument like Christians commit more crimes or something. They probably aren't true believers. I agree that Atheists shouldn't be the most distrusted minority in America. It should be the cult of Mormonism. HOWEVER, religious tolerance doesn't extend to people who aren't religious. Religious implies believing in god. SIMPLE. Now, there should be tolerance towards Atheists. Just not religious. How can you consider yourself part of religious diversity if your not a religion. Become part of the secular humanists if you want me to consider you religious. You can have a belief system, but that doesn't make you a religion. I get it. Maybe god doesn't exist. You might be right. I know no one can prove god or not. WHATEVER. But just because you can [prove] god doesn't exist doesn't mean you are a religion, I trust many atheists, and some of my best friends are. But we aren't debating whether its alright to be Atheist. Only, that Atheists are less moral than Christians. People of true belief are more likely to act morally. Not only because of incentives and punishments. But also by a general reflection that Christians take part of every Sunday at church where they are constantly told to act good. This makes them better, and less likely to act incorrectly. Christians are more forgiving. Christians are more generous. Christians are less angry. These are all generalizations. But, come on. Real Christians are very nice and kind people. Atheists have less to prove [to god], so usually are less likely to care about acting correctly. I admit there are some nice Atheists, but they generally have a lower code of morality.
Atheists are less moral then Christians.

American's increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to those who don't believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota's department of sociology. As a matter of fact, this study revealed that Atheists/Agnostics are the most distrusted minority in America! I find the suggestion that atheists are somehow "less moral" then religious people to be insulting. There is no empirical evidence to support this claim and I think religious tolerance should extend to atheists too. Let's not forget that atheism is a disbelief in God but a belief system nonetheless (since God can't be disproved by the same logic that his existence can't be proven) and a belief system that doesn't deserve the sort of condemnation and overt hostility that it has been receiving recently. We atheists compose 10% of the American population and even though we might not believe in God, it doesn't mean we don't have governing principles that we adhere too. Morality and religion might be commonly associated with each other but is certainly not a cause and effect relationship. Keep in mind, that morality and written moral philosophies have existed long before the Bible!
Ice-skating should be illegal in the United States.

My opponents "arguments" 1. I did not know that until you told me. For your information, I have a sister who has skated for 5 years. I skated for 5 years at one point. At no point did someone come up to me and ask me for meth. At no point did anyone offer me meth. And just because a name is slang for a drug, does not directly relate to it being subliminal messaging. Coca-Cola is not subliminally telling people to take cocaine. 2. Ok, perhaps I took this argument in the wrong way. Here's a better response: Something being cold has no reason to be outlawed. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Ice is cold. Should we outlaw water since ice is frozen water? According to you, we should. 3. My opponent still has provided no evidence. My opponent merely says: Watch the tapes. However, I do not have access to those tapes. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the judges judge on their own preferences, and how they think it should be awarded. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are idiots. My argument: Banning ice-skating would be detrimental to society. Here's my back up argumentation. 1. Ice skating is a huge industry. It not only encompasses figure skating, but it also includes hockey. Both sports are huge industries. If we were to ban ice skating, we would lose a huge portion of the sports industry. There is money in ice skating. There is money in hockey. Banning ice skating would create a loss of all those opportunities to make money, and for an industry to flourish. Therefore since less money would be flowing, the economy would be harmed. Therefore, society is harmed, since if the economy is doing worse, then society is directly hurt. 2. Many people look up to athletes, including ice skaters. If ice skating is banned, then these children who look up to people like Michelle Kwan will be hurt. Therefore, it is detrimental to society, because if the kids are hurt, the population is hurt. I am equally excited to see my opponent prove that society will be fine without ice-skating.
Ice-skating should be illegal in the United States.

Okay, I will prove it. 1. Ice is slang for methamphetamine. It's subliminal messaging. Enough said. 2. There is an obvious difference in temperature between swimming and ice-skating. When you are swimming, you are moving through water. Ice-skating is done on frozen water. Typically, frozen things are colder than other cold things. They are usually freezing. As for the hot argument, that is irrelevant. We are not talking about hot things. We are talking about cold things. Freezing things. 3. Although investigations have not proved anything with the Olympics, common sense tells us that something was wrong with the proceedings. Watch the tapes. My opponent also gives their "arguments" that banning ice-skating would be "detrimental to society." You will of course notice that this is one argument. Not arguments. I am extremely excited for my opponent to elaborate on this. I will say now, however, that society will be fine if ice-skating is illegal. In fact, society would be better if this would happen.
George Zimmerman is not guilty of racism.

I am not debating whether or not George Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I am arguing that George Zimmerman was not racist. The media, the NAACP, and numerous others are pulling the Racist Card on Zimmerman, but I feel there is no evidence that he is Racist. If you are unbiased in your views, and can hold a source-based discussion, feel free to accept. * Round 1 is for acceptance. ** Round 2 - 3 is establishing a case with evidence and sources. *** Round 4 is a conclusion. Using only prior mentioned evidence from rounds 2-3, you conclude your case. The RESOLUTION is simple... George Zimmerman is not racist. Because the Con must prove Zimmerman guilty of racism, and I must prove him not Racist, both sides bare the responsibility of providing evidence. With this, both sides hold the BOP, and must prove their case.