BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is real

This opening statement will be short, as my position (atheism) does not require any proof or evidence. Being opposed to the motion 'God is real', my duty in this debate will simply be to debunk my opponent's arguments in favour of the motion. In other words, the burden of proof is on him. Let me clarify a few things before we start the actual debate: Atheism: The rejection of God claims. Atheism is 'not being convinced that a God exists'. It is not 'being convinced that a God doesn’t exist'. Real: 'Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed' (Oxford dictionary) God: For this particular term, I'm going to need my opponent's definition. I want to know which God he is referring to and I want to know the characteristics of the God he claims is real. I would like him to start his next round by providing me with these informations.I hope for a stimulating debate. Good luck. P.S. My opponent seems to have skipped his opening statement. According to his rules, his next round will be facts/arguments and his definition of God.
God is real

I will again address your arguments one by one.As I said earlier, there are no extra-biblical account for the resurrection of Jesus. Although this may seem like a 'my word against yours' type of situation, it isn't. On one side there is you claiming that Jesus did rise from the dead and saying that there are accounts of this outside of the Bible, but you seem unwilling (or unable) to present them to me or even tell me what they are. On the other side there is me, saying that there are no such documents. I may be wrong, and I would gladly admit that I'm wrong, if you would but present me with said documents (or provide a reference so that I can confirm).Scientists indeed do say that the Universe is expanding, but asking 'who is doing this' is fallacious since it assumes that someone is the cause of the expansion of the Universe, instead of something (such as natural forces). Since my opponent as failed to provide any convincing argument for the existence of God, I encourage the audience to vote for me.
God is real

Your first argument is somewhat contradictory: You start by saying that you don't believe the Big Bang theory (at least that is what I understood when you compared it to a fairy tale), but then you say that it must have been caused by God. On a side note, you seem to be confusing the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, which are three totally separate things.Your question 'How we could come from primates or organisms' is flawed: we are still primates and organisms (in fact every living thing is considered an organism). But to answer your broader question, we evolved (and are technically still evolving) through natural selection and genetic mutations which are passed down through generations. I am not quite sure what you mean by 'we have to originate from something else'.The thing is, both arguments you just presented are absolutely irrelevant to the topic; even if the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory were proved false tomorrow, you would still need to present actual EVIDENCE for the existence of God.Again, you failed to present me with the characteristics of your God, making it impossible for me to attack its existence.
mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway the supreme court said that closely held corporations do not have to cover abortifacients and contraceptives. http://www.nationalreview.com... it seems that most of the hype against it is put on. people are acting the way they are cause they are 'suppose' to to be 'good liberals'. they argue things like 'so hobby lobby buys from china, who has woman who are forced to have abortions?'. this points out their hypocrisy. some might just be trying to point out their hyposrisy, but most seem to act as if it shows that the ruling was wrong or something. they don't get much into substance. when we look at substance, why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can' tforce their employers to do so? i can undersatnd that it's not always easy to make ends meet and such, but in the bigger picture, buying contraceptives is de minimis. why would someone want to force someone to violate their well gounded traditionally, religious beliefs fo somthing as trivial as that? and maybe there are public health concerns, as people wont buy birth control if it isn't free, and it cause sincreases in pegnancies and abortions. but this is a part of life. we shouldn't ask someone to have to violate their first amendment right even if there are bad social side effects that occur. it's as basic a right as it gets. the most somone could argue, is it opens a slippery slope. but the thing is, we can always limit the decision to contraceptives and abortifacients. est way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it. this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, both for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. and, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. but we continue to respect genuine, sincere, at least traditional, religious beliefs.
You pick, we debate. You get to be Pro.

CON's forfeit is disappointing. This is a topic I'm extremely interested in, but it's extremely complex and it would take time to compile a case. I'm not going to do that at this juncture if my adversary is going to simply forfeit every round. At this point, I'm doing to extend the favor to him in the hope that he replies in the next round. If not, you're obviously voting PRO by default.
You pick, we debate. You get to be Pro.

"Do you really think that I purposely forfeited a round"I haven't the slightest idea, nor do I care, nor are you justifying in forfeiting even if it was accidental, especially because you were willing and able to partake in other debates, as you have done." Honestly I think your debate topic should have been did Con forfeit round two on purpose, in which I would have won because I am the only one in this argument who knows the exact reason that I wasn't able to complete round 2"This is a truly irrelevant statement, as this was not our resolution, nor do I care why CON forfeited, nor did I even postulate as to why he had forfeited. It doesn't matter, and his reasoning, or lack thereof, for doing so have no bearing on this debate save for the fact that he ought to be lose merely for the fact that he forfeited *and* failed to post a case after three consecutive rounds--which is something he *is* able to control."And by this point I don't think anyone is going to vote either side because neither of us has made a reasonable argument."This is positively absurd because you, not I, forfeited--so it is you who is responsible for wasting my time, and thus who will lose conduct. Second, I can post a single argument now which will go unrefuted and establish my side of the resolution.Contention 1: Inflation is too low Headline PCE, year over year, is running far below target, and on average has been below 2 percent for over 6 years [http://blogs.wsj.com...]. In January, it was only 2 tenths of 1 percent. There is no inflationary threat, and thus no reason to raise short-term interest rates. Contention 2: Labor Market Slack Persists We don't know where the natural rate of unemployment is. It could be below 5 percent or even below 4 percent, as it was in the 1990s. Broader measures of unemployment are well over 11 percent, the number of people who are involuntarily part-time employed or marginally attached and discouraged remains elevated, and wages have been stagnant. Therefore, further accommodation is needed.
You pick, we debate. You get to be Pro.

Do you really think that I purposely forfeited a round. Honestly I think your debate topic should have been did Con forfeit round two on purpose, in which I would have won because I am the only one in this argument who knows the exact reason that I wasn't able to complete round 2. And by this point I don't think anyone is going to vote either side because neither of us has made a reasonable argument.
You pick, we debate. You get to be Pro.

CON falsely interprets this as a debate over politics and politcal parties, but it is not. In fact, the Federal Reserve is independent of politics precisely because political pressures could lead to suboptimal policy. Whether or not CON was interested in this topic is, frankly, beside the point, because by forfeiting, he's wasted my time and our judge's time, and he has yet to proivde an argument.
The Earth is Flat

Con claimed: : The book of Isaiah describes a circular or spherical earth. (Isaiah 40:21) Rebuttal: ....crap.....I have changed my mind. The bible is part of the conspiracy now to. Con claimed: The shape of the earth has been proven by several repeatable tests. I have included NASA footage of our planet in rotation. Rebuttal: All a government conspiracy because that is what they want you to think. My next argument: The con man is now part of the conspiracy and cannot be trusted. Voters, please disregard everything he has said.
The Earth is Flat

Pro claimed:" Bible says so."Rebuttal: The book of Isaiah describes a circular or spherical earth. (Isaiah 40:21)Pro claimed: "I look at the earth and it is obviously so."Rebuttal: Stereo-blindness is a medical condition where the patient is unable to perceive depth, or visually render their environment in 3D. I supsect Pro is stunted visually. [1]Additionally, thousands of years of maritime history will proove that the horizon is rounded. After several miles, only the sails of a ship can be seen, the rest is obstructed by the curvature of the earth. [2]Pro claimed: "People are crazy and gullible and believe everything they hear, hence the conspiracy of the round earth."Rebuttal: The shape of the earth has been proven by several repeatable tests. I have included NASA footage of our planet in rotation. [3]http://www.mediacollege.com...; [1]http://www.dummies.com...; [2]http://www.youtube.com...
The Earth is Flat

Pro conceded that he sees a Doctor for Schizophrenia. - All his arguments lack credibility. Pro believes Aliens are harvesting our souls, yet he failed to link this phenomenon to the round earth conspiracy. Pro asserted that I cannot prove that the government is not hiding the truth from us. I agree. Yet my opponent has failed to prove that the flat earth model is truth. Since my opponent cannot prove what the truth is, he also cannot prove what the truth is not. Therefore, my opponent has forfeited his burden to absolute ignorance of the truth and non-truth. My opponent cannot even prove that the Government is hiding anything, much less the truth. Pro asserted that people who can not be trusted would admit to being dishonest. This is paradox. If I claim the earth is a cube and then follow the assertion by an open admission of my lie, did I not just expose the truth that the earth is in fact NOT a cube? Pro asserted that religion = gullibility. Yet Pro failed to provide a single example to prove his case. This, of all points, could have been easily proved. Pro's rebuttal of "Again, aliens", is irrelevant, since he failed to link aliens to the round earth conspiracy. Pro established this from my last footage:"You are obviously misinterpreting this video. It is obviously a flat, circular earth that has clouds moving over it. "Pro clearly lacks the understanding to identify the effect light has on a sphere. The shape of the shadow alone eliminates the possibility of a flat earth. Conclusion:This debate was obviously created by Pro to "race" toward the ability to vote. I highly encourage a vote for CON, followed by an immediate campaign of "cut and paste" scripture bombardment on the opponent's twitter account, which can be found here: . https://twitter.com...Then again, that might not be him. .. but whatever. Bombard his a** too.
The Earth is Flat

Con Said: Paranoid Schizophrenia Rebuttal: The doctor who said I have schizophrenia is part of the conspiracy. Con said: The Bible is part of a round earth conspiracy. Rebuttal: The Government is obviously in cahoots with aliens who want to use our souls as live stock and this is how they keep us from rebelling and to move "toward the light" aka, their soul collecting machine. Con said: The Government wants to hide the flatness of the earth. Rebuttal: You cannot prove that the government is not hiding the truth from us. Con said: That I cannot be trusted. Rebuttal: Only people who cannot be trusted would say that. Con said: Pro said "People are crazy and gullible and believe everything they hear" Rebuttal: Think of religion! Con said: ...which logically would result in ..."the conspiracy of the round earth." Rebuttal: Again, aliens. Con said: Please view the footage by the Dish Network satellite. Rebuttal: You are obviously misinterpreting this video. It is obviously a flat, circular earth that has clouds moving over it.
The Earth is Flat

Paranoid Schizophrenia - Symptoms as listed by the Mayo Clinic. Auditory hallucinations, such as hearing voices Delusions, such as believing a co-worker wants to poison you (Or a round earth conspiracy) Anxiety (About a round earth conspiracy) Anger (About a round earth conspiracy) Emotional distance (With people who believe in a round earth) Violence (Against people who believe in a round earth) Argumentativeness (With people who believe in a round earth) Self-important or condescending manner ("People are crazy and gullible and believe everything they hear, hence the conspiracy of the round earth.") I believe Pro is a paranoid schizophrenic. Pro must furnish evidence that he is not paranoid schizophrenic. Additionally Pro must furnish evidence that: The Bible is part of a round earth conspiracy. The Government wants to hide the flatness of the earth. That I cannot be trusted. "People are crazy and gullible and believe everything they hear" ...which logically would result in ..."the conspiracy of the round earth." To further my case against Pro, I have provided footage from an independent, non-government organization which clearly shows a round Earth. Please view the footage by the Dish Network satellite. http://www.youtube.com...
Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society.

By "homosexuality" I am referring to both "being homosexual" and "homosexual acts". I will be arguing that a) homosexuality is natural and b) that homosexuality is not significantly harmful to society. For the sake of specificity, the scope of "society" should not go beyond first world countries.Rules:1. BoP is shared. The winner will be whichever debater presents the most compelling arguments. 2. A minimum ELO of 2,001 is required in order to accept. 3. Arguments based in semantics or kritiks of the resolution will not be considered. (I feel that they rarely positively impact a debate.)4. Voting is "select winner". Despite this, conduct should remain decorous. Make sure to note rule 2. It is impossible to accept this debate if you've had less than 5 debates, but I cannot set a lower bound on ELO. The "initial" ELO of a person is 2,000, so all people with 5+ debates will need to have won more than they've lost in order to have a 2001+ ELO. This requirement is in place to increase the quality of the debate, especially given the controversial nature of the topic. Round Structure:No new arguments in the final two rounds. The opponent can use round 1 as either acceptance or to present an opening case. I leave that decision in their hands. A Note on BoP:While the BoP is shared, I will only win if I present more compelling arguments for both considerations. (Homosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not harmful to society.) The opponent will win if their arguments are more compelling for either consideration. I look forward to this debate.
Anti-Vaxxers are actually beneficial to the whole human race.

Ah-HA, sir. This whole thing has been a devious experiment, and you reacted- just as I thought you would. This is, in actuality, a trick debate. You might notice that I never said anti-vaxxers were correct, or that vaccines were bad. I don't believe either one of those stupid myths. Here's how anti-vaxxers can benefit the whole human race: Anti-vaxxers don't get vaccines, so they get a disease and die, so there aren't any more anti-vaxxers left! Isn't that beneficial to the whole human race? You can't say it isn't. I do believe I've won, sir.
Anti-Vaxxers are actually beneficial to the whole human race.

The effects of anti vaxxers on society is a beacon for infections and illnesses, it is not only dangerous for them to not immunise or prepare their body for a viral infection but it can have consequences on people in their entourage might catch a virus, even if they are vaccinated. The effect of the infection would be somewhat stopped by the vaccine. The concern here is not for the vaccinated person it is for the person who has not recieved the vaccine, because vaccinated people can still carry the virus and infect those who are not. Anti-vaxxers believe in negative effects of vaccines, there are however none, to a certain extent, except pain from the needle and tiredness as a result of your bodies immunitary reaction.
Bashar Al-Assad is better than the Syrian Rebels.

Wow, how easy is it for my opponent to forfeit. And I have more to say.Why did the Nazis lose?Well obviously they made the same mistake as Napoleon.But there are way more good guys than bad guys as I said, and the Nazis are the bad guys."Assad may be a terrible leader, but at least he his tolerant of Christians in Syria. I guarantee you if the rebels win the war, Syria will be run by radical Muslims and there will be a war with Israel and many Christians and Jews will die."President Obama's plans are probably to create a democracy, not another dictatorship.Does the dictator tolerate other religons?
Bashar Al-Assad is better than the Syrian Rebels.

I accept the challenge. The Syrian government will get spanked by the US for terrorizing it's "own people". The US is going to send a thousand cruise (I may be exaggerating) missiles to Syrian targets, including but not limited to chemical warfare labs, Assad's executive mansion, supply depots, missile silos and armories. The United Nations said to Syria that this action of gassing civilians is unacceptable. The United States is on the rebels' side to overthrowing Assad. I heard what's going on in the attack few weeks ago, and the President says that the United States will "have a response". Assad's a bad guy, and good guys always win, bad guys always lose. Why? Because the good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys. Russia will understand.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

I sincerely believe experience is key, especially when running for the highest office in the land. McKinney has stunning congressional records and experience in community leadership like no other, not to mention her piercing and powerful charisma. Brian Moore is also highly experienced in both domestic, humanitarian, and international policy. While Nader would most likely be the best choice I do disagree with him on his weak affirmative action positions and immigration, although he truly is the most experienced of them all (with the name recognition). Yea, Elaine Brown might be an inspiring speaker and activist, but how does that qualify her to be president? Her platform is extremely vague. If she fully explained all her positions on the major issues, I might consider her, but as of now, she is yet to define her positions.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

Elaine Brown is a single issue candidate- racial discrimination. I truly believe the Green Party needs a candidate who can answer to ALL issues. Just go to her website, all I see is universal healthcare, repeal of three strikes laws, and racial discrimination. Someone like Cynthia McKinney, or Kent Mesplay would both be great GP presidential nominees. Personally, I think the GP should endorse either Dennis Kucinich (if he gets the Democratic nomination), or Brian Moore of the Socialist Party. The Greens have endorsed Brian Moore in a Senatorial race. I don't see why they can't do so now.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

Please only take this debate if you are a member of the Green Party or identify with Green Values. This is intended as a debate about strategy and not about principles. That said, I feel that Elaine Brown is the best candidate for the Green Party, and that her platform (http://wilderside.wordpress.com...) represents the most strategically beneficial approach for the party to take. I chose four rounds, because I plan on writing more, after I understand what type of position my opponent is articulating. I think that a strategy that focuses primarily on currently disenfranchised voters and other traditionally marginalized groups will be the most effective way for the Green Party to effect true progressive change.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

I still don't see why Brown is the best. She is not the only candidate that is able to appeal to the oppressed. McKinney could do that just as well. I agree the GP must get the votes of marginalized peoples, but I don't believe Elaine Brown is the one to do so. As I stated earlier, McKinney has the name recognition and experience needed for a presidential candidate, green or not, experience and name recognition are necessary qualities in a presidential candidate. I see McKinney as a candidate who can get the votes of progressive democrats, greens, reforms, and socialists as well as the peace and freedom party, in fact, she is already on the Peace and Freedom ballot in California.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

Our arguments have unfortunately continued talking past each other. I have repeatedly conceded that in traditional campaigning Cynthia McKinney is a far superior candidate. I don't disagree with McKinney on a single issue. This debate was framed as a discussion about the strategic viability of Brown's approach vs. all the other candidate's approaches. McKinney has always run traditional campaigns, which makes sense for her in that circumstance, but the GP nationally need a refocusing and a new strategy. Brown, in my opinion, is the way to do this. This was supposed to be a debate about the strategic benefits of Brown's strategy. I feel that her strategy is the best short term and long term strategy for the party.
Elaine Brown is the best Green Party candidate for President

I just don't see how you believe Elaine Browne will bring more support to the Green Party. She really doesn't have the broad appeal, nor the name recognition McKinney does. I hate generalizing groups of people, but I really think McKinney could mobilize the black vote, even more so than Brown. McKinney was highly popular among her black constituency AND has been a long time supporter of reparations of slavery. Just look at McKinney's congressional record: -Voted AGAINST the 2003 Invasion of Iraq -Introduced Articles of Impeachment for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice -Introduced, championed, and passed in the U.S. House the Arms Trade Code of Conduct, prohibiting the sale of arms to known human rights abusers -Challenged Pentagon Secretary Rumsfeld and Chairman Myers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the $2.3 trillion missing Pentagon money and on U.S.-sponsored war games taking place on September 11, 2001 McKinney was a spectacular congresswoman who wasn't afraid to stand up. As a democratic congresswoman, she basically started a huge grassroots movement behind the impeachment of members of the executive office. McKinney is popular among Democrats, Greens, and Independents. She truly has the power to mobilize progressive, moderate, and truth-seeking independent Americans.