BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God (Christian)

I should have said that there would be less of a reason for us to worship Him and we might try to rise against him. (Which some people are actually doing.)Bad burrito anologies, eh my opponent? I think that preventing us from eating a burrito would be like destroying free will, and without free will, we cannot pursue happiness, therefore it is moally correct to let us eat that stinkin' burrito. If your parents prevented you from eating a habenero, you ate it anyways, you would be better off because you learned a lesson and are not bitter with your parents.Bad habenero anologies.I am not giving up my point, I'm just ending my point. That was all my point was, so I didn't needlessly continue. Sorry, I apologize for not writing it out, I thought about it, but I guess in your eyes I choose poorly, huh?Good luck to you, and I will not say God bless because I know you won't appreciate it. The rest is up to the voters!
The Existence of God (Christian)

Thank you for that response Pro, it is now time for me to wrap up my side. Rebuttal: “Should he construct a good child? If he made humans equal to him in that way, what would the point of creating us be? He creates us for us to worship him, if we were inherently good we wouldn't have a good reason to worship him.” Constructing a child to be good does not make it equal to a god. I don’t understand why being a good person makes there no reason to worship God, this argument is very confusing. “Well, you will not beleive how many times this same argument is used. knowing it will happen isn't the same as us having no choice. wWe had the coice to eat the burrito, we ate the burrito, He knew it, he did not fix it, we did.” I’m not sure which argument you are referring to. This argument is also extremely confusing, I assume Moss is referring to the free-will argument. You say, “he did not fix it” assuming that choosing the burrito is a mistake. If it was, God could have fixed it with infinite easiness, but chose not to fix it, it is his fault. “All I can really say is that God can understand anything, which is probably beyond what you are willing to understand.” I am very willing to understand it, I have read the entire Bible, gone to Catholic churches, Episcopalian Churches, Mormon churches, Baptist churches, and Roman Catholic Churches to study religion. I have visited countless websites and read countless books on religion. I am entirely willing to understand religion. I know a lot about religion, and that is why I want no part of it. “Not necessarily. What if you never had known the menu before? (Same with life.)” You can never know with complete certainty that something will happen unless you are God. “You see, the latest scientists in the video's quotations are quit clear. Honestly, I'm just gonna let it lie with our voters to decide which source is correct, the one that seemingly is oblivious to their own colleuges (or are lying) about this supposed multiverse, or the one that says that it is increasigly likely that God exists beacause it is so unlikely for us to be an accident. You are debating me because I agree fully with Eric.” Moss gives up his point and leaves it to his voters to decide. It is also unfair to just post a link and say that is my argument. If you want to use an argument in a debate, you cannot just post links, you actually have to right it out. Conclusion: This debate is in the voter’s hands now. I have obviously won the spelling part of the vote, but the rest is up to interpretation. This is the end of my debate now, good luck Moss!!!
The Existence of God (Christian)

I think that when it says "image" it means looks. my example was meant to be a exemplary situation which is similar, not completely the same. Should he construct a good child? If he made humans equal to him in that way, what would the point of creating us be? He creates us for us to worship him, if we were inherently good we wouldn't have a good reason to worship him.Well, you will not beleive how many times this same argument is used. knowing it will happen isn't the same as us having no choice. wWe had the coice to eat the burrito, we ate the burrito, He knew it, he did not fix it, we did.See paragraph one.I was trying to say that we were the ones who chose the fruit, to put it simply.All I can really say is that God can understand anything, which is probably beyond what you are willing to understand. God maybe looks like a human, and also has free-will, but those are the main similarities, which is what I think the bible was reffering to in Genesis 1:26Not necessarily. What if you never had known the menu before? (Same with life.) You see, the latest scientists in the video's quotations are quit clear. Honestly, I'm just gonna let it lie with our voters to decide which source is correct, the one that seemingly is oblivious to their own colleuges (or are lying) about this supposed multiverse,or the one that says that it is increasigly likely that God exists beacause it is so unlikely for us to be an accident. You are debating me because I agree fully with Eric.Best of luck!P.S. I don't actually think that a lot of people who are already on one side are gonna change their minds based on our arguments.Studies show that most people, when exposed to such debates like this, are not likely to change sides. I'm mainly doing this for me to learn about the athiest viewpoint on things like this. By the way, I am a he. (Male)
The Existence of God (Christian)

If you have an inherently bad child (which all are) does that make you at fault? God made us with a choice, follow My ways or don't. It wasn't His fault that Adam and Eve sinned, it was our poor use of free will, It wasn't His fault. Genesis 1:18 b says that "God saw that it was good" Clearly we were the ones at wrong when we ate the forbidden fruit. He didn't make the world worse in virtue of His moral perfection, we did. You said that the world is supposedly perfect before the universe's creation. Say again? The world is obviously part of the universe, therefore the world wasn't existent before the universe's creation.God knows how we feel when we sin without experiencing it (as in any sin you can dream up) without doing it. We've done it plenty of times for Him to observe how we feel in those situations.Your last argument was a tough one for me to process, I am not familiar with the Christian definition of personal being. (I'm a relatively new Christian.) I finally came to the conclusion that you are making assumptions that God is somewhat human-like. If you know what the future holds, you can decide what you will do later, just like if you are in a fast food line, you can look at the menu before your turn to order is up.The planet earth is an extreme anomaly. The latest science clearly states that the chance for a earth like planet is actually negative. There goes the multiverse. Instead of explaining this myself, I will let you see this explained by noted writer, Eric Metaxas.http://prageruniversity.com...Best of luck to you, my mortal enemy!
The Existence of God (Christian)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
English is more useful in life than math.

Good day, Connoisseur. Where would we be without the English language? In America, the English language is citizens' primary form of communication. It gets things done. Say you are on the brink of death from malnourishment. Because we have the English language, you can go to the grocery store and tell an employee working there, "I want to buy [insert food of choice here]." You know that you want something to eat, but you need to know how much it costs in order to pay for it. The cashier scans the item and tells you, "that's going to be one dollar." Yes, there is a number in that sentence, and that's math, but if you didn't understand the word "dollar", you wouldn't understand that they wanted one dollar bill instead of one penny or one quarter. Plus, you couldn't understand the sentence the cashier spoke if you didn't comprehend English. In my high school English class, no one ever asks the teacher, "when are we going to use this in life?" Almost everyone can see when and how knowledge of the English language is valuable to life after school. But it's different with math. In math class, the question "when are we going to use this in life?" comes up on almost a daily basis. That's because math isn't used in many aspects of life. For example, nobody express emotions with numbers. No one says, "I'm feeling the square root of x today." Here's another example. You can ask someone handing out $100 bills, "may I have some money please?" Because of the wonders of the English language, they'll know you want money, and presumably will give you some. But if you walk up to them with "45 x 2 = 90" written on a napkin (remember, no spoken communication) and show them that equation, then they'll only know that you want them to understand that 45 x 2 = 90. What would you rather have: at least $100, or a napkin with the product of 45 and 2 written on it? Math might be the universal language, but English as a language gets more done for the people who use it. Thanks.
English is more useful in life than math.

I think English as a subject in school is more useful in life than math. By English, I mean reading and literacy skills, writing prose, writing poetry, grammatical concepts, classical literature study, and general literacy. By math, I mean basic numbers computation, algebra, geometry, and calculus. "Life" refers to the period of time spent after your education is complete. Abuse, ranting/tirades, and anything deemed to be disparaging or disrespectful will result in automatic forfeiture.
Batman is the Best superhero ever!!

Spiderman is an average person who faces the same trials as Batman. The difference is a metric f*ckton of cash, which eases the issue. Peter made the same decision, only Bruce could have just provided more jobs to the economy, which would have reduced crime levels. Batman fights crime because he wants to punch people at night. Peter is a mutant, who faces the same issues as the X-Men, but receives no help. Spiderman's story is that of doing the right thing in our position. Go Spidey!
Batman is the Best superhero ever!!

The comfortable life Bruce leads takes away from the character. If he wanted to stop crime, he would just create jobs. Peter was given his powers, yes, but he made the choice to become a hero too. Remember that Peter is an orphan too. Peter had to overcome the same losses, and resist the urge to use his powers for his own desires. In Ultimate Spiderman, he even mentions he lets himself be bullied to avoid suspicion. He is more human than Batman as a character. (even though he is a mutant)
Batman is the Best superhero ever!!

But, Batman could have also lead a comfortable life like Bruce Wayne alone.He has no need to work or sacrifice his life, unlike Spiderman who is poor. Notice how Spiderman is just thrust with greatness, the spider just happens to bite him and he is tempted all the time, but Batman made a conscious decision to become who he is.Batman overcame immense personal losses(the woman he loved, a good friend, all his money) but still overcame it and is a symbol of hope for those who fall.
Batman is the Best superhero ever!!

Spiderman. He shares the textbook hero origin, like Batman, Orphan raised by an elderly foster parent, but he is the most normal hero aside from his power. He works a day job. He goes to college. But the best part is the now cliched "with great power" lesson he must learn. Peter is always tempted to abuse his powers, but learns selflessness. Bruce never considers just retiring and being a rich guy. It's never even offered. There you go. Increase the damn word limit.
Gay Marriage

Pro is new to the site, but as a reminder for future reference, you should make the title of the debate a statement and your opening post should add details for clarifying your position. For example, instead of stating: "Gay marriage" you should instead state "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Gays have the right to get married". I will also assume that we are talking about gay marriage in the United States, however you were unclear where (in which country/countries) gay marriage should be legal. 1) Marriage is a religious ceremony People get married in churches. People get married by priests or ministers. Sounds a lot like marriage has something to do with religion then. To say that marriage is not religious is absurd. Pro seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of seperation of church and state. This does not mean that the government cannot pass a law that has any religious aspects to it. Instead seperation of church and state is best defined by the "lemon test" [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. For example, the government can constitutionally give funding to religious schools. The purpose of separation of church and state is that individuals are not required to join or take part in a specific religion or any religion at all. The same applies to marriage. It is a religious ceremony, but one is not required to become married. While it is true that marriage allows some benefits, one can circumvent that by allowing gays to take part in a 'civil union' which has the same benefits as a marriage. 2) The majority of people in the United States do not want gays to get married. . http://www.gallup.com... One of the foundations of the United States is that it is "by the people, for the people". The United States is a democracy, and as a democracy the laws should reflect the majorities preference. And now, Americans state that they do not want gays to get married. While there might be a few for legalization of gay marriage, one should respect the opinion of the majority. If we were to make laws the people did not want, then this country would no longer be a democracy but a totalitarianism.
Gay Marriage

It seems that many people use the bible as a reason as to why Gay Marriage should be illegal. With the separation of church and state, all the bible's texts (or any other religious writing's for that matter) are rendered useless. One can also argue by saying that because gay people cannot reproduce, they should not be together since the point of life is to reproduce. One can counter by saying that life isn't about reproducing, and even if it was, many straight people fail to reproduce as well, but are allowed to marry. A very popular argument seems to be that by allowing gay marriage, gays would influence the young people today. However, there would be the same amount of gay people "influencing" the young people as if gay marriage were allowed. Further, the "influence" among the younger generation is not ethically wrong, to my knowledge. Others argue that the constitution says something along the lines of, "...marriage between a man and a woman..." therefore marriage between two individuals of the same sex is out of the question. One can counter by saying that the constitution never said you can't have marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Even if you can prove the constitution is against gay marriage, the constitution can be wrong and has been amended a countless amount of times. /discuss
Gay Marriage

Pro has forfeited the debate. The problem arises that everyone thinks that marriage is a right to everyone. It is not. Marriage is an institution created by humans, and what the definition of marriage is should be defined by these majority. If marriage is an institution created by humans, we have the right to include who can and cannot be a part of marriage. Marriage is defined as a "man and a women". Same sex couples can have their own institution but they should not try to try to change the institution of another.
Gay Marriage

"So if the majority of the people want something, they get it? " Yes, that's how a democracy works. That's how many of our laws are created. We vote for senators and congressmen that represent our best interests. Most states have referendums. If laws are not around to do good to the most people, then what purpose are there. There are many laws out there that not everyone wants. Some people want weed to be legal. Some would not like school at the age of 16 to be mandatory. Some wouldn't like to pay taxes. Some would even like to kill others. But we still have laws anyways. "Further, I can see no "loser", or so to speak, when a homosexual couple is married. No one suffers. " If I drive your car when your not using it and do not tell you, its considered a form of grand theft auto. If I go on your property, it might not harm you, but your still trespassing. Allowing homosexual couples to get married is like going to a party your not invited to. It might not harm you directly, but its not something you want. Its intrusive on those who want marriage, who consider it to mean between a "man and a women", who considered it to be an important moment in their life, to have the definition be changed to between a "man and a man". A good example of this is the Nobel Prize is not awarded in mathematics because Alfred Nobel did not want there to be a nobel prize in mathematics, so we respect his wish. However,mathematicians have there own prize, the fields prize. Gays can have their own ceremony for a lifelong commitment between the same sex, but it does not have to be marriage. "It only contradicts their theological teachings, but really does not harm them. " This is everything, considering marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY! It is something holy and sacred. It is a bond between a man and a women that exists forever. It is of high value to these people. "And getting married, religious or not, is a right. Therefore, we should not deprive someone of that right if it causes virtually no harm. " How is it a right? I can not go up to any person, say "I want to get married, it's my right! ". No its something more than that. It is a privilege to get married. It's not a right in the bill of rights, its not a right in the constitution. It's not in the declaration of independence. It's not in "The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right ". No major branch of philosophy considers it a right. How is it it a right?
Gay Marriage

So if the majority of the people want something, they get it? This cannot apply in all situations. Further, I can see no "loser", or so to speak, when a homosexual couple is married. No one suffers. The majority of the US do not want it to be allowed, but I cannot see why it is so. It only contradicts their theological teachings, but really does not harm them. The reason why the majority of the American people are against it is not a good enough reason in my opinion. And getting married, religious or not, is a right. Therefore, we should not deprive someone of that right if it causes virtually no harm.
Most Important Battles Challenge (5)

Hello, this is 1Historygenius, the Master Historian of this website, and YOU have been challenged to my fifth most important battles challenge! Rules: We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each person. The voters will decide who has the more important battle for that round. Who ever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles. No semantics or trolling! Round 1 is for acceptance! No refutations! The Winner of the debate will simply be decided by the voters! Too avoid any further confusion, here is a previous debate I did that people can use as a guideline: http://debate.org...... Report this Argument
My hands are better then yours (Pro) Mine are better (Con) Yours are better

Despite you not using your round to prove your hand is better im going to continue this ultra serious debate.I don't think this photo accurately displays the greates my hand holds ;) It is so big... I love it to the moon and back and if you don't give me a reason not to I think this debate is mine for the taking!! s://www.debate.org...; alt="its my hand bro" />My Hand - 2014
My hands are better then yours (Pro) Mine are better (Con) Yours are better

I would firstly like to state that I love my hands, they are seriously beyond amazing... I will present photos of my perfect hands later on in the argument. But what makes my hands more special is that I can make my thum and my pink equal a 180 degree angle... like that is beyond insane... I would like to see somebody else try Plus they are the perfect colour and I don't believe anyone can deny that
My hands are better then yours (Pro) Mine are better (Con) Yours are better

I am proposing the point that my hands are better then yours, I love my hands, they are beyond amazing and during this argument I will display reasons as to why. My opposition will be trying to prove that his/her hands are greater then mind P.S I'm not high, I just seriously love my hands. Nobody elses hands, just my own. They. Are. Fabulous. Goodluck :)
We live in a nonrandom dehumanistic world bent on squaring us

I liked you better as “Come at me”. Am I not supposed to make an argument counter to your position? . Am I not supposed to present that argument using logos, pathos, and ethos? Am I not supposed to match or eceed your symbolism and allusion? Did you not expect you opponent to bandy words and expand our readers perspectives? Do I even expect you to agree? You had two days to turn a phrase, build a case, deconstruct my example. You folded like the cardboard box I broke down and recycled. Why? Because I presented something that opposed you. Constraints are a matter of perception; you only see what your mind can handle. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the "world is out to repress me" paradigm. You want out of your box? Perhaps you should wait for the crank to turn and the music to stop, Jack.