BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

"My argument is that anyone who rejects this claim or doesn't fear the Lord cannot know ANYTHING or account for anything he/she claims to know. "This is what my opponent stated in Round 1 and it is what he must prove in order to win this debate. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RefutationsMy opponent's argument is that atheists, or people without God, apparently do know things, but they don't know that they know things. "Is lance certain that he knows how to ride a bike? "Well, he races competetively, and has won many times, so I would say yes he does? "Is waterski certain that he can prove things? ". http://www.debate.org...Well waterskier beat you in a debate just like this one, so I think he and many voters are pretty certain that he can prove things. "How does an "atheist" know that 1 + 1= 2? "People don't need God to know that 1+1=2. .. . People know that 1+1=2 from the simple rules of addition. If you want complete in-depth proof of why 1+1=2, it stems from the Peano Postulates (. http://mathforum.org...)Atheists know that 1+1=2 because of the rules of math, not because of God. My opponent is saying that atheists know, but they don't know how they know. However, he has not yet given any significant support of his argument, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proof at this point of the debate.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

My opponent seems to be ignorant of scripture which is sad because he claims to be a Christian. Romans 1 says that everybody has general knowledge of God. "Atheist" do know things. However, since they reject or suppress the knowledge of God that's in them they cannot account for the things they know. I wonder if my opponent believes that "the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge"? Where do unbelievers get there certainty from? Is lance certain that he knows how to ride a bike? Is waterski certain that he can prove things? How does an "atheist" know that 1 + 1= 2? To shed more light on my claim what I am saying is that "atheist" know. However, they don't know how they know. They base knowledge on a false foundation that they cannot justify.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

I accept. know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)anything - a thing of any kind (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) My opponent's claim is that anyone without God (atheists basically) cannot know ANYTHING at all. Therefore the burden of proof lies upon Pro to basically prove that ALL atheists know absolutely nothing. I cannot refute this firsthand being that I myself am also a Christian, but even I find my opponent's claim to be absolutely preposterous. In order to refute my opponent's only claim, I shall point out many things various atheists do know even without God. Atheists on DDOI am somewhat new to this site, but I have been browsing through debates and the forums and I have to say that there are MANY intelligent people on this site. And a good number of these people are atheists. - Atheists know how to use technology. Well obviously atheists can use computers and other internet-powered devices - there are atheists on DDO! How do you think they log on to DDO and engage in debates and the forums? - Atheists know how to debate. That is, the proper format/proceedings of a debate. Take a look at this one(. http://www.debate.org...)This is a debate between imabench and RoyLatham, two of the best debaters on DDO (I saw that imabench is leaving, which is sad. I enjoyed reading his debates) Ima is Christian - Roy is Atheist. Both of the debaters are very knowledgable and have a great debate. As you can see terms are defined, then a case is made by both sides, and finally each debater refutes the other case. And as you can see, Roy is actually ahead in the votes right now. Against Ima, that's saying something. This definitely proves that atheists know how to debate, and they can debate well. I'll point out another debate(. http://www.debate.org...)This debate was actually between my own opponent and waterskier. waterskier is an atheist. waterskier pointed out that he is without God, and he can prove through the transitive property of equality that when X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z. This is further proof that people without God can know things. Famous Athiests Lance Armstrong - knows how to ride a bike Bruce Lee - knows martial arts Seth MacFarlane - knows how to write and produce shows Rafael Nadal - knows how to play tennis Mark Zuckerburg - knows how to write computer software These are just a few examples of famous athiests and just a very small amount of what they know. My opponent bears the impossible task of proving that atheists, or anyone without God knows absolutely nothing. This is simply not possible. People that are without God can know things. I have given a few examples, and all I must show in order to refute my opponent's claim is at least one thing that one person without God knows. I have shown many of these, therefore Pro's claim is effectively refuted.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

In the book of proverbs it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.My argument is that anyone who rejects this claim or doesn't fear the Lord cannot know ANYTHING or account for anything he/she claims to know. Since I believe that God is absolutely personal, rational and the source of existence/reality. My argument is that anybody that rejects him is reduced to impersonality, irrationaly, and nearly non existence. That is, the unbeliever cannot even know that he exists and that he is real. So, anybody that thinks otherwise is more than welcome to take on my challenge. That is, to show that without God he can know anything. All 4 rounds can be used for arguments/rebuttals.
Resolved: The US should end plan Plan Colombia

Your first piece of evidence is from 2001, that's 15 years ago, therefore, this piece of evidence should be dropped from the debate because this evidence is no longer true to the current year. In your second point, you stated that the FARC is working to sabotage the efforts of Plan Columbia, but due to Plan Columbia, the FARC isn't nearly as strong as it has been before. As i stated before, cocaine, and other drug production, has gone down more than 75% over just a few years. Which drops her whole point that Plan Columbia is a failure.
Resolved: The US should end plan Plan Colombia

In response toward you first evidence, I looked at the website and there is a map of where they are at and where they like control and Colombia wasn't one of those places yes the US was there but not Colombia. Knowing that Colombia is not one of the 50 states I don't see how that evidence could possibly be true. Now on to you second argument, there is no qualifications stated in your argument there for I have to believe that all that argument is untrue there for I win this argument atomaticly.
Resolved: The US should end plan Plan Colombia

Stop the Zika Virus The US GLobal Leadership Coalition explain in 2016 that Zika poses a serious health threat to the world. Columbia was one of the hardest-hit countries by the Zika virus. Due to Plan Columbia, there were already monitoring systems in place before any infections were confirmed. Through Peace Columbia, Columbia and the U.S. are working together to find better ways to address infectious diseases. Together, they came up with the Zika surveillance system, which allows them to watch the spread of disease, as well as the impact the disease had on pregnant women and children. This system helped the health officials know more about what they were up against. Decreased Cocaine Production According to The White House, the US and Colombia have been working together for the past decade to decrease drug production. From 2001-2010 the potential production capacity was reduced from 700 metric tons to 270 metric tons. With a 61% decrease in the potential production, the United States has also lowered the amount of people using cocaine in adults and children.
Gender Dominance

My opponent states that boys are dominant to girls "because without boy there is no girl". This view is extremely biased, unsupported, and sexist. 1. Just as females cannot reproduce without a male, males cannot reproduce without a female. In fact, Females of other species have learned to clone themselves, without the help of the male half of the species, so in many non human cases, the opposite is true. I am not claiming however, that women are better than men, only that they are equal. in no way, do women need men more than men need women. http://www.examiner.com... 2. My opponent is essentially saying that women, as the "lesser" half of the human species, should not have as many rights as men, and are not as good as men. This view has been entirely proven to be false by today's society, and saying this basically shows that my opponents views have not evolved with society. How can any one say that men are better than women when every piece of legitimate evidence has proven otherwise? My opponent has not produced a shred of evidence to prove his point, and has just made a statement that insults and puts down every successful women that has ever proved through hard work that assumptions like this are wrong. 3. Often times the reason for assumptions like this is that women are not given equal opportunity to men, which makes it impossible by circumstance for them to be as well educated as men. Now, however, modern society has changed that, and using IQ tests, it has been proven that many women are scoring equal to, if not higher then men. This proves that women are men's intellectual equals. http://abcnews.go.com... You cannot look to my opponents argument because he makes illogical, insulting arguments, with no proof to back them up whatsoever. All evidence points to the fact that women are equal to men in today's society, and any attempt to say other wise, if not backed up by legitimate evidence, is simply a sexist attempt to put down women yet again.
The crysis series is better than the halo series.

I personally prefer crysis over most videogame series out there honestly first person shooters are a little bit boring but crysis always has something new and better graphics than any other game. The cryengine 4 system that crysis 2 for xbox and ps3 runs on is the most advanced graphcs and gameplay available. From a multitude of different weapons with the same diversity as halo but with the attachment value of Call of Duty games the customization values never end. With that being said halo is very basic. It has been nearly the same since halo 2. All recent halo games such as : Halo Reach or Halo 3 have been all too similar to halo 2's multiplayer. They even run on the same server. Crysis, however, is run on a P to P server. This enables a player to find a game no matter their nat type but on halo the dedicated servers will pause and search a selected number of games in your community. Crysis is also a series that was started on the pc and moved to console games when they were offered a contract with microsoft for 22 million dollars this is only from one system and the ps3 contract results have not yet been released. Halo which has a system specific contract has only recievedi in total roughly 30 million dollars where crysis has built a lkjsignificant financial foundation on every system. Second the story line of crysis gives you multiple replays from complete stealth and to power where as halo will only ever have master chief or another large bulky genetically altered human that will kill hundreds of people and never take a scratch or needing to adapt. If you have played halo reach you will know that it was a strongly overated dissapointment. Plus everyone has had a complaint about the dissapointingly bad driving and over all capability of the halo marine but in crysis marines actually do more than point a gun at a target and miss every shot or drive the vehicle you are opperating into a fire zone. Then when you take into fact that the crysis environment is almost completely destructable where halo sappling trees can stop a warthog at full force. We the pro firmly believe that the crysis series (crysis - pc, crysis wars - pc, crysis warhead - pc, and crysis 2 - all systems) if by far superior to the halo series.
Questions

Sure, why not. I have just one question. You know question 3 from the very last questions you asked me ... 3. There was is a circle house which suddenly got burned and the wife got killed but the man knew that with his servants, one of them killed the wife. As the man asked questions to find out who did it these were the awnsers: a. servant one, i was eating fish. b. servant two i was taking out the mail. c. servant three i was cutting fish. d. servant four i was cleaning fish bowls. e. servant five i was cleaning the windows There was no option saying servant, I was sweeping the corners (Number 3; was the servant sweeping the corners because there are no corners in a round house because a round house is a circle which has no corners) so I thought it was different. That is all. I will send you a request to a debate on this topic of Questions Thanks
Questions

Congrats you got one right: Which you got right was number 1.. Yeah :D. Number two: was c because none on the world can draw an equilateral triangle zoo it is impossible to find an equilateral triangle unless they say its an equilateral triangle. Number 3; was the servant sweeping the corners because there are no corners in a round house because a round house is a circle which has no corners, Number 4: Ver creative i guess so ill have to give you .25 for that but the right awnser would be that the police didn't tell him where the crime scene was and he went there how would he know where to go? Thanks for have this debate which me: You got: 3.25/10 Thats great.. But still... Anyways great job now do you want to ask me some questions in another debate?
Questions

1. make one 5 into an 8. Since a 5 is like this, put a line connecting the tips of 5 together to form the number 8. Therefore 5x5x8 = 200 2. b ( I give up; I guessed this one) 3. e (the house was a circle not a sphere so it is 2D. So therefore there are no windows... I am sorry if I messed this one up) 4. Since there was a call from the police to come to the crime scene, and he went there... the police arrested him because his shadow was seen by the spotlight used by the police. (Hope I was right or I am creative :D)
Questions

Sorry, for number 1 i accidentally forgot to add the additional questions. But your awnser is half correct it. The awnser could with go both ways so you get .5 points on that. overal you got you got 2 right congrats! 3's awnser would be Hell. Sorry but you got it .5 right so totally you got 2/10 right! youv'e awsnered 6 questions and got 2 right and two wrong but there was a unfortunate thing that happened with your answers were half right. Great job no you got 3 wrong but if you get another wrong now going not to the last questions 1. 5x5x5=200. Add a line to make it true but do not touch the equal sign. 2. Mutiple choice: If i saw a real triangle on google and it looked like a straight triangle (This question is for real) then pick one: a. It would be equilateral b. it would be and isosolas c. It is never be an equilateral or anything. d. None of the above 3. There was is a circle house which suddenly got burned and the wife got killed but the man knew that with his servants, one of them killed the wife. As the man asked questions to find out who did it these were the awnsers: a. servant one, i was eating fish. b. servant two i was taking out the mail. c. servant three i was cutting fish. d. servant four i was cleaning fish bowls. e. servant five i was cleaning the windows who did it? 4. As there was a man who killed his wife then know one saw him, nothing saw him in the world but when he went home, there was a call front he police to come to the crime scene and when he went there, he got arrested why?
Questions

First, I would like to say great riddles. I am proud to get one of the last three right. I am so dumb not get the first and third question ; P Here goes nothing.... 1. He should go to the left passage. ( I am sorry if I got this wrong but I heard something similar to this before) 2. The boy should go to the right tunnel (Since the voice said right tunnel, I would assume the boy should go to the right tunnel) 3. End of life tunnel ( I really don't know. Just a guess)
Questions

Well good job... You got one right which the right one would be 3. Congrats. But first i'll tell you the right answers to the questions and why.. 1. The awnser is that since the guy is dead, how can he stop the tape? So that is why the police was no convinced. 2. The awnser was that since police man heard Sarah that means that the person who shot the person would be a girl and a priestess is a girl priest which is most likely the right awnser but overall good job. Now the other three questions. 1. There are two passage ways. One to the left and one to the right. The left village tells lies while the right tells truths. While the boy wants to get to the truth village, the boy asks two people. the first person says that he came from the left. The other person said that he came from the right which way should the boy go? 2. When the boy was coming throughout he tunnel, a voice says pick the right tunnel. There are 3 tunnels in total. but the voice says" if you choose the wrong one you shall die", " But if you pick the right one you shall live" one of the tunnels face the left, the other the middle and the other the right which tunnel should the boy go to? 3. When the boy reached the end of life he fell down a tunnel.What was the tunnel?
Questions

These are the questions: 1. As police men enter an apartment they see a man dead with a gun next to him. But there was a tape on the counter and it played: " Now i am going to shoot this gun at my head. I will sucide because my wife left me. Now let my suffering be gone" The tape ended but the police men was not satisfied and said that the man did not sucide why? 2. As the police man was walking down the street he heard " Sarah please don't shoot me" Then BOOM. As the policeman entered the place he say a dead body with a gun next to him but there were five people there. Who was the most likely to kill the dead man? a. constuction builder b. real estate agent c. priestess d. monk e. governemnt offical. 3. There was this couple with a round house. The house contained 4 servants but one day the wife was killed. The husband came up and say this. He knew that one of his servants killed her. who did it? a. servant one said " i was cutting the fish" b. secant two said" I was sweeping the corners" c. servant three said " I was taking out the mail" d. servant four said " I was taking a nap" Who did it? Only three have been chosen. If you get one correct the other questions will be asked.
Regionalism

As a disclaimer, I should note that I do not myself necessarily endorse the argument I provide, only that I find it compelling for the purposes of this debate. I will make the following core claim: CLAIM: “regionalism is, on balance, an inadvisable mechanism for securing greater international stability and peace than what is already afforded by our current internationalist system. ” I will make this argument drawing from evolutionary psychology, game theory, and sociobiology as applied to international relations. Each number is a premise to my conclusion, above.1. Regionalism is a byword for group association drawn around common cultural and ethnic phenotype. ("A tribe that looks and thinks like me").2. Explicit group association sharpens in-group/out-group divides3. Sharp in-group/out-group divides increases the likelihood of struggle between groups (in comparison with inter-constituent disputes).4. Group-competition gravitates towards a power hierarchy wherein one group is subordinated to another.5. The perceived costs of even appearing to lose this conflict and becoming subordinated will fuel an aggrieved group to partake in particularly aggressive, seemingly irrational behavior, contributing to instability.6. We do not live in a world whose stability could long survive this move to groups and the competition inherent within reaching this new equilibrium. By default, I guess I am also arguing that in absence of regionalism being a realistic choice, we must default to true internationalism—whether it be truly that or simple chimera. To support my argument I will reference the following examples of groups today, and show how they have heightened proportionately smaller disputes into full-blown phenotypic conflicts: 2011-2017 Sunni-Shia conflict WWII Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere Shanghai Cooperation Council International Criminal Justice Court v. African Union
Abuses of Abu Ghraib prisoners by Americans can be blamed on the Left

I commend you for that, sir. But I digress. The Liberal movement is more responsible for Abu Ghraib than the conservative Bush Administration. Conventional views of pornography:Conservatives: “Conservatives therefore think that it is entirely legitimate for the state to prohibit consenting adults from publishing and viewing pornography, even in private, in order to protect the moral health of would-be consumers and of society as a whole. ” Liberals: While degrading pornography is “low value” speech, it must still be protected under principal of free speech, and therefore be allowed to exist, whether approved of or not by the liberal defender. [1]The George W. Bush administration actively opposed pornography. [2]The degrading treatment that prisoners underwent, specifically the sexually abusive and suggestive photos, are not in line with official guidelines, nor is it clear that the White House knew anything nor ordered this treatment. It seems apparent that approval of the abuse came to an end at most the level of Gen. Paul J. Kern. While the White House may be responsible for not providing clear direction to interrogators, [3] this in no way allows or directs an interrogator to humiliate a prisoner in a sexual way, which you can see did happen in the photos. So I have made a case that the President may not have been all that responsible for the abuses, how can I blame the left for it? This behavior is not viewed by the Left as acceptable for soldiers, so why should it be acceptable to defend the portrayal of these acts for profit and dissemination among civilians, who are the hiring pool for the military? Viewing pornography degrades sexuality, and can lead to actions like what happened at Abu Ghraib. [5] -The Right and the Bush Administration disapproved and condemned the actions at Abu Ghraib. -Some soldiers directly responsible for pornographic abuses of prisoners were involved in viewing and making pornography. [4]-Pornography can lead to sexually degrading behavior towards others. -The Right and the Bush Administration disapproved of, and actively attacked pornography. -The Left generally defends pornography. -The Left does not deal with the end results of their view on freedom of speech, and so encouraged (or at least defended the “right” of) civilians and military personnel to be entertained by sexually violent behavior. But when guards and interrogators carry out similar actions that are encouraged by such entertainment, it is condemned. -The Bush Administration condemned not only the activity at the prison, but the pornography that encourages it. -The Left is more responsible for the prisoner abuses than the White House.1 . http://plato.stanford.edu...2 . http://thinkprogress.org...3 . http://www.nytimes.com...4 . http://prospect.org...5 . http://www.thelantern.com...(Because of their graphic nature, I decided not to post a link to the pictures in question here, but if you really want to find them, it's not hard at all to find them. )