BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A debate is won by using facts, analysis, and refutations, not by insulting ideas

"your last argument is nonsensical" Please elaborate. "and does not adress my previous points" Your rhetoric, you mean? I disregarded your points because I said that the debate should be restricted to me as the "typical liberal" and you as the "typical conservative". Americans have done and said a lot of dumb things. I am not here to defend generalizations because there are far too many of them that cannot be covered in even 10 rounds of debate. Anyways, when do you ever address my points? That's not your style. "Evil", "ignorant kid", and "wrong" don't count as refutations, although they are entertaining. Start a blog, solarman1969. At least there your points will be valid because there is no one to argue with you. "If you look at all of my statements which you post OUT OF CONTEXT, nonetheless they are ACCURATE ,albeit passionate and decisive" You say they are accurate, I say they are inaccurate. Nothing is accomplished. The point is that you are in no position to judge in that manner. Neither am I. If I use sources and facts to back up my statements, then I can judge it. Your arguments don't carry in a flow. Try the "debating tips" link above. "I consistetly use science, facts and data to back up my points so your pathetic attempt to paint me or conservaties as other than armed with facts and data is faulty at best" How many did you use in the debate with me about sex education? None. "This is actaully quite boring so I am going on to some real topic rather than this juvenile rant of yours" Once again, your opinion. I say it isn't. Nothing is accomplished. Why is it boring? Give justification, at least. "I could CARE LESS what the votes on this juvenile web site is- most folks on here are immature and incapable of handling real facts, or science or history" Right back at you. I agree that most "folks" here are incapable of handling real facts, science, or history. Solarman1969 tops the list. I'm not defending ignorant liberals just because I accuse you of being an unaware conservative. You have to admit, though, that you don't know how to properly use the term "Marxism". Read some history. Thanks, The (one and only) Colonel
A debate is won by using facts, analysis, and refutations, not by insulting ideas

your last argument is nonsensical and does not adress my previous points If you look at all of my statements which you post OUT OF CONTEXT, nonetheless they are ACCURATE ,albeit passionate and decisive I consistetly use science, facts and data to back up my points so your pathetic attempt to paint me or conservaties as other than armed with facts and data is faulty at best This is actaully quite boring so I am going on to some real topic rather than this juvenile rant of yours I could CARE LESS what the votes on this juvenile web site is- most folks on here are immature and incapable of handling real facts, or science or history therefore this is mostly a waste of time Cheers Solarman
A debate is won by using facts, analysis, and refutations, not by insulting ideas

Ha ha this is hillarious so we CONSERVATIVES use AD Hominem attack, innuendo , lies , distortion and what not and LIBERALS are as clean as the wind driven snow? that is completely laughable Democrats/ liberals typically have NO IDEAS , and simply accuse republicans of doing everything WRONG and have MAL INTENT to boot Look at how they have DEMONIZED a good man, George W Bush. Simply watch the elections and you will see case in point what I mean the democrats will simply give platitudes, divide among class, race, ethnicity, sexuality and whatever else they can come up with they say things like "republicans want to starve old people and end school lunches" and other such lies They NEVER have real ideas, but fortunately for them, there are enough dumb TV watchers that buy their BS Now, on this site, which is populated primariy by know it all kids with no clue, the best argument in my case never wins Mostly, I know becuase I use hard hitting tactics and direct, tough language Well, good- maybe I will prevent some of you kids from being turned into foolish liberals who are willing to buy the lies of the democraps. Bottom line: a TRUE debate is WON by FACTS, not feelings cheers SOLARMAN
A debate is won by using facts, analysis, and refutations, not by insulting ideas

The main argumentative strategy of a polarized, conservative or neo-conservative Republican is to attack their opponent by avoiding the issue at hand and attempting to criticize their arguments by stereotyping them, most of the time incorrectly. A debate should be and is won on the basis of comparing facts and ideas, and using them to refute one's opponent. It does not matter which side is "correct" or "incorrect", however it should be judged by deciding which debater successfully constructed a case and was able to make their case hold up better than their opponent's.
The God of classical theism is real.

I initally misread the intent of the resolution and the intent of the debate. In support of my opponent's argument, I offer the following and concede this point to the CON. Scripture clearly indicates that not everyone will accept God. Failing to accept God is the same as rejecting Him. Thus I stipulate that not everyone will accept that God exists. This admission, for all intents and purposes, most likely concedes the win to my opponent in the eys of secular voters. Fortunately, this debate has no affect on my salvation. I will, however, continue the discussion. Opponent's C-1: I nonconcur that billions of species have suffered for hundreds of millions of years on the basis that science cannot prove the that the earth is that old. It is taken from an assumed hypothesis of "all things constant". Further, where did life originate if not from God? Science relies on testing and inference from imperfect human beings whereas, according to Scripture, God is omniscient. Opponent's C-2: According to Scripture, God gave human beings a free will to choose. God, being omnipotent, has the ability to force belief, but rather allows human beings the oppotunity to believe or disbelieve. 1a. Concur, God would like everyone to believe before they die. 1b. Concur, God can, but doesn't force cooperation. 1c. Concur 1d. split. God wants our devotion by willingness 2. Nonconcur. According to Scripture, God does exist. According to Scripture, humans have the free will to choose. 3. Concur. According to Scripture, not all humans will believe that God exists before they die. .: Nonconcur. According to Scripture, God exists. Opponent's C-3: I dropped this argument because I found it to be without merit. I do not value the opinion of Richard Dawkins because he is not omniscient. No human being can say with any certainty that evolution is accurate. I do, hoever, value the opinion of God. According to Scripture, God is omniscient, and therefore is the only credible source. This begs the next question, who will you entrust your soul to? An imperfect human being such as Richard Dawkins? Or the God of the Bible who offers the gift of salvation to all who will choose to accept it? I will not attempt to defend the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. I merely wanted to mention their existence as beloved "scientific" explanations that sometimes accepted. Rather, I base all of my faith in the watershed doctrine of the Holy Bible. My single contention is thus: I accept that the Bible is absolute truth. The Bible verifies God's existence. If the Bible is rejected by any human being, then that human being is also rejecting the existence of God. While I apologize to the commenters and my opponent for the lack of a "quality" argument in secular terms, I trust I have provided a Biblical argument that is.
The God of classical theism is real.

Deuteronomy 29:29 tells us that the secret things belong to God. In essence, human beings are not entitled to know everything God knows. Isaiah 55:8 tells us that the ways & thoughts of God are not the same ways & thoughts of human beings. God may allow things to happen, including evil things, that we may never truly understand, nor are we meant to understand. Suffering comes from sin. Sin is disobedience to God. I accept offsetting arguments of a priori. Evolution and Creation are models that cannot be repeated in a test, therefore people are free to choose which they will accept. How can one person define reasonable belief? Clearly, there are millions of people who do accept the God of the Bible. What criteria did they use? Clearly there are millions of people who do not accept the God of the Bible. What would it take to make them believe? What type of instrument could one use to measure reasonbility? Theologists will offer arguments such as Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, as well as General and Special Revelation. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus clearly explained that many people would not accept the truth. This has proven timeless to date. Many people whave chosen not to believe. God allowed human beings to have a free will. In the Bible, God indicated that he was not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. He also indicates that He knows many will reject the Bible. From Drange, I would disagree with point #3. Simply because people refuse to believe that God exists, does not mean the He doesn't. It merely means they refused to accept that God existed. I have never been to Eritrea, does that mean I could refuse to believe that such a place existed? Even if I refused to believe Eritrea existed, does that make it any more or any less real? Another point of argument that is difficult to accept is that of God's omniscience. The arguments posed by secularists are lacking the insight of God. Secularists only choose to see things through human cognition. They sell themselves far short because they are arguing from 2 levels below God's intelligence. According to scripture, the earth continues by providence & preservation which was at the discretion and design of God. Just because human beings choose to reject signs and revelations of God does not mean that God has not revealed Himself. How many times have people ignored even common traffic warning signs? I submit to you that through the Bible, general revelation, special revelation, providence, preservation, and the not so scientific arguments of cosmological, teleological, and ontological that God does indeed exist. Human beings, debaters notwithstanding, rely upon human postulated science and the opinion of dead philosophers far more than is "reasonable". It should be noted that the same dead scientists and philosophers know whether or not they were correct. Some day, the readers of this debate will know for sure as well.
Abortion

Women may have the right to chose wither to abort a child or not, but it is inhumane to do such a thing. Abortion promotes the idea that human life is disposable. The child that the women is trying to abort is a human and should be given the opportunity to live the life they were given. And even if she didn't want the child she should have still gave it up for adoption, I'm sure there are couple who want to adopt the child. Over all abortion is a in humane thing to do.
Abortion

Women are given the freedom of choice,thus they choose if they would like to abort a child or not. Although the U.S Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, A fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is fully dependent on its mother,unlike born human beings.Even if a fetus was alive the "right to life" does not imply the right to use another persons body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs,even if doing so would save someone else's life. Also, the "right to life" does not imply a right to live by threatening another persons life. Child birth is always a threat to the mother, she can die from child birth. Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu... Abortions are one of the safest procedures done in medicine, when preformed by trained professionals of course. According to the NCBI "The risk of death by child birth is 14 times higher than that of abortion". Humans are given the freedom of choice. Abortion is also legal, so women should be allowed to have an abortion if they would like. If the child is born with a disability and will live a short,painful death, then the mother should be able to make the choice if they want to keep the child. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

Half the debates are about the so-called 'god' because you wrote them. Atheism is the absence of religion, saying there is no deity, no supreme being, governing our lives You can argue all you want, but arguing on an idea, with no concrete proof, is a failure waiting to happen. Science has proved that there is no supreme being, because all that has a beginning has an end. And do you understand that every other debate topic is taken, to do a debate, I have to do this subject, the most repulsive ever. And no one thinks about it constantly, otherwise they would get nothing done. I have never seen someone, but a priest, carry a bible around. I just look to see if they have books I am only thinking about it now because you brought it up. Please argue about something else. And by the way, humans are not insignificant. Please give proof
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

My opponent wrote: "Half the debates are about the so-called 'god' because you wrote them." LOL -- I have already admitted that I am obsessed with God. My position is that all human beings are obsessed with God, so your above statement is evidence in favor of my position, not yours. The fact that you noticed and it bothered you so much is evidence for the fact that you are also obsessed with God "Atheism is the absence of religion" Your religion is the belief in atheist Dogma. Also, I have no religion, but I certainly do not adhere to so-called "atheism" or to the belief in atheist Dogma. Also, the very word "atheism," which you yourself chose to write, is ultimately a reference to God, which proves that you are obsessed with God (Theos is the Greek name for God). , "saying there is no deity, no supreme being, governing our lives" Whenever anyone makes that claim, he or she is thinking about God, just as you are thinking about God right now. This is clear evidence that you and everyone else who makes such claims are obsessed with God. "supreme being, because all that has a beginning has an end." You were thinking about God when you wrote that. "I have to do this subject, the most repulsive ever." The fact that you are specifically repulsed by the subject of God as opposed to some other subject is a clear indication that you are negatively obsessed with God -- you are constantly providing clear evidence in favor of my position in this debate, and for that, I thank you. =) "And no one thinks about it constantly," Actually, everyone thinks about God constantly. In fact, you were thinking about God when you wrote that. "I have never seen someone, but a priest, carry a bible around." The fact that you were looking specifically to see if someone other than a Priest carries a Holy Bible around, as opposed to looking for something unrelated to God, is evidence that you are personally obsessed with God. "I am only thinking about it now because you brought it up" Actually, you were thinking about God long before you even knew I existed, and you will continue to think about God long after you forget about me. That is because you, just like all other human beings, are obsessed with God. " Please argue about something else." The only reason why it bothers you that I choose to argue about God is that you are also personally obsessed with God yourself: If you weren't personally obsessed with God, then my choice to argue about God would not bother you, or even interest you, in the least. Actually, you are very interested in the subject of God, and your constant blabbering about God during this debate is sufficient proof of that fact. Also, the only reason why you freely chose to engage in this particular debate, which is all about God, is that you are personally obsessed with God.
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

Half the debates are about the so-called 'god' because you wrote them. Atheism is the absence of religion, saying there is no deity, no supreme being, governing our lives You can argue all you want, but arguing on an idea, with no concrete proof, is a failure waiting to happen. Science has proved that there is no supreme being, because all that has a beginning has an end. And do you understand that every other debate topic is taken, to do a debate, I have to do this subject, the most repulsive ever. And no one thinks about it constantly, otherwise they would get nothing done. I have never seen someone, but a priest, carry a bible around. I am only thinking about it now because you brought it up. Please argue about something else. And by the way, humans are not insignificant.
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

My opponent wrote: "First off, it bothers me because" It bothers you because you are obsessed with God: If you weren't, then debates about God wouldn't bother you, or even interest you, in the least bit. Actually, you are very, very attracted to debates about God because you love talking about God. You love talking about God because you are personally obsessed with God. " half the debates on debate.org are on this topic." Half the debates on this website are on the topic of God because all human beings are obsessed with God -- and that includes you. Thank you for providing more evidence for my side of this debate. " Second off, I have almost never thought of him " You were thinking about God when you wrote that, actually. You were thinking about God long before you ever even heard of me, you have been thinking about God throughout this entire debate, and you will still be thinking about God long after you have forgotten about me. "a religion," The belief in atheist Dogma is your religion, actually. " it is the absence of religion." I have no religion, but you do -- your religion is the belief in atheist Dogma. "You might be so obsessed with 'god'" Yes, I am, and so are you, obviously -- you keep blabbering on about God. Actually, all human beings are obsessed with God, and this clearly includes you. "proof that God is real." You were thinking about God when you wrote that, and you were thinking about God before you even knew I existed. Also, without God, there could be no proof for anything. "If I was obsessed, I would set up debates about this, not agree to one of the only debates that actually apply." Your deliberate acceptance of this debate is clear evidence that you yourself are definitely obsessed with God, actually: If you were not obsessed with God, then you would be debating some other subject instead of God, but you freely chose to debate about God. I didn't force you to accept this particular debate -- that was 100% your choice, and you freely and deliberately chose this particular debate, which is all about God, because you are personally obsessed with God. "And in comments, you noted that the word atheist is related to it. Of course it is, to be the opposite, you say I am not it. Hence the prefix -a. Not theist is the closest definition. What would you like us to call ourselves?" I am very happy that you deliberately choose to call yourself a name that includes one of God's holy names, as opposed to choosing a name that does not mention God. (Theos is the Greek name for God). Your deliberate choice in that regard is further proof that you are indeed obsessed with God.
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

First off, it bothers me because half the debates on debate.org are on this topic. Second off, I have almost never thought of him till I saw you fill debate.org with your nonsense. And atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. "There is no such thing as an atheist" That is a matter of belief. You might be so obsessed with 'god', you see the least mention of it as someone being obsessed. I just want to pop your bubble. And give proof that God is real. I noted that you said something like 'without god, there would be no moral law" Incorrect, humans set up a moral law and use it and heaven to enforce it. If I was obsessed, I would set up debates about this, not agree to one of the only debates that actually apply. And in comments, you noted that the word atheist is related to it. Of course it is, to be the opposite, you say I am not it. Hence the prefix -a. Not theist is the closest definition. What would you like us to call ourselves?
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

My opponent (who is so obsessed with God that he freely chose to engage in a debate about God) wrote: "I am tired of you blabbering on about 'God'. " Your very tiredness about that specific thing as opposed to some other thing is evidence that you yourself are also obsessed with God: I am positively obsessed with God, and you are negatively obsessed with God, but make no mistake -- you and I are both obsessed with God. If you weren't also obsessed with God, then my so-called "blabbering" about God wouldn't bother you in the least bit. " when I say religions, I mean as a whole, its believers." You are a believer in the religion known as atheist Dogma. " because they are uncomfortable" The only reason you are "uncomfortable" with people talking about God is that you are negatively obsessed with God. Also, the fact that there are so many people "blabbering on," as you say, about God, is more evidence for my point that all human beings are obsessed with God. "not everyone is obsessed with God.' The fact that you yourself keep blabbering on about God (as in your above statement) is proof positive that you are indeed obsessed with God, just as I said you are. " I barely think about it." You were thinking about God when you wrote that statement, actually. " I know most atheists don't think about it. " There is no such thing as an atheist, actually, but you were thinking about God when you wrote that statement anyway, so it proves my point. "How many atheists do you actually know however?" Zero -- there is no such thing as an atheist. " You seem very religious, I doubt you would have us nearby you." I have no religion, but you are correct -- there are no atheists anywhere, so there are obviously none near me. "Besides, what is your definition of 'god'?" "My" definition of God??? I am not the owner of a dictionary-printing company. Also, you were thinking about God when you wrote that. Actually, you were thinking about God before you ever heard about me, you have been thinking about God throughout this entire debate, and you will still be thinking about God long after you have forgotten about me: You are clearly obsessed with God, just as I said you are. "If everyone was obsessed with him" You were thinking about God when you wrote that. ", why are there so little churches? " Because all people (including you) think about God constantly, whether they are in Church or not. I won this debate, thanks to you proving how personally obsessed you are with God -- thanks for your assistance! =)
All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God

You make some good points, but I engaged in this debate because I am tired of you blabbering on about 'God'. And yes, religions can't give a thought, but, when I say religions, I mean as a whole, its believers. Most people have some deity, but many people only think about it because they are uncomfortable with people such as you blabbering on. You made some good points, but, not everyone is obsessed with God. I barely think about it. I know most atheists don't think about it. How many atheists do you actually know however? You seem very religious, I doubt you would have us nearby you. You said that the Pledge and Oath prove it. They just prove that the people who are religious wrote that. Besides, what is your definition of 'god'? If everyone was obsessed with him, why are there so little churches? There would have to be enough for everyone. If you are going to say anything, at least make sense when you say it. Unlike now.