BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does the Christian God exist

I am Christian Hindu, Islamic, Mythologist Sikh. I am a practicing member of Greek, Norse and Egyptian principal. I am a Creationist. The reason I took up this debate wasn't to defend the Christian Religion, I was here to testify to the Validity of God's Son, Jesus as being the ONE GOD, in all of these religions. now to rebuttal you, "Inconsistencies-In order for one to prove that there is still any relevance of the Bible in the modern world; one must have to cherry pick verses in order to do so. If my opponent is of the moderate Christian cherry pickers, than he must prove the validity of his actions." <> ~ Human behaviour is the same in as it was. Therefor it is still applicable historical record. I won't cherry pick at all. God is defined throughout the Bible to be Holistic. That is what every religion teaches about God. gods and God are not the same - All religions are henotheistic - gods are a portion of the whole > demons are qualities which inhibit the endurance of potential. ~ If you want to attack creation here ~ Then you've lost by default. Ignorance to scientific evidence, is never worth anything in a debate. In fact, I have no pre-requisites to provide the information either You simply cannot attack it. Whether I hold the information or not. Furthermore, You say Human's proved evolution SO you have no grounds to suggest that the Observations found indicate the theory is true. SO proved Evolution was a bigoted claim. You cannot present it as fact, and certainly cannot push it: ie. <> "A scientific inquiry utilizes data not theory, to establish a model that is determined prior to render a predictable result. And it is scientific regardless of the results, so long as they (the results) were recorded. Contrary to scientific inquiry is a Theory with a lapse in data being used to create an experiment where an observation (the "result") is determined to be the product of the theory proposed. " <> There is only one God, whom is holistically all things. a "God" is an inaccurate account of all things. a god is a portion fo all things. SO. This debate was heads and tails for you form the start. But. Either way. You never presented anything to suggest God was not Real. You even suggested violence is an "inconstancy". Obviously Not. We as theists believe in Him in this world because we account for simultaneously, and determine there is not conflict. My lack of participating was superior behaviour to your lying. Rebuttal round ended.
Does the Christian God exist

Aright I have postponed enough. The Debate IS that "the Christian God is real" and I am PRO, and my opponent is PRO "the Christian GOD is not real" if this were a debate. BUT it is NOT. My opponent as asked that I present the material to prove the Christian God, there is not a debate here, and I will burn any troll conduct that I am presented with, with very vulgar and pointed denunciation. will begin by accepting this debate with a clause which will be addressed as a question ~ When reflecting upon the existence and nature of God, in your personal time - do you question God { IN doing so are you, asking God to actually reply to you or demonstrate himself to you, thus Anointing you his Prophet } < We must always consider the current world affairs when stipulating over any situation, and while trying to reach an accord with God, you cannot suddenly discontinue all worldly things and continue to refer to your role in the mortal world without blatantly being impudent and out-of-place > ( During the conduct of asking God to prove to you his existence: Did you come tot he conclusion that You, "questioned him" because There are adulterers and criminals on the face of the planet, social injustice and disease* so that you demonstrated that you only considered his person unreasonable not because It was his existence that was questionable but because you personally have not Accounted for the causes of Human sacrilege) }? If so, than I can ask you if this was the full extent of your personal attempts to reach God [did you stop trying after complaining to God that there were sinners*] & in addition what effort did you actually put into finding God? I can assert that through these two questions alone I will have provided enough evidence against you, If you're honest to suggest that you are unqualified {have not put effort into contemplating evidence}. This is significant to the "debate" because, 'How can you assert there is No Hippopotamus (God) simply because you have not seen it, and believe it to be a rumor. Sure you may not be able to see it, from Where you are looking, to where you are looking. {Where is Waldo? I cannot see him. He must not be on this page.}" The content to Prove that the Christian God is abundant, and I hope to share that will you in the Case round. SO please prepare your Round two sufficiently and answer both my questions.
Dragons existing.

The debate question is "dragons existing." Not "Did Dragons Exist." If you wanted to debate a subject, make sure that the question is actually what you wanted to debate.In this case, you are Pro. You are saying, by the definitions I gave in the last round, that dragons are currently existing. I, being Con, is saying that they do not currently exist.Dragons are large flying reptiles. There are no large flying reptiles living today, therefore dragons are not existing today.
Dragons existing.

I want to clarify something:"Dragons existing."Dragon (N.): A monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.Existing (N.): In existence or operation at the time under consideration; current.This will be short and concise.Dragons are large reptiles that have wings. No large reptiles today have wings. Therefore, dragons cannot be existing right now. They may have existed, but there is no evidence of dragons existing today.
Dragons existing.

Ok so I am going to tell you about then the possibility of dragons existing. So lets take out the fire breathing. Would a paradactal be a dragon. A lot of people will probably say no because it is small but there is a dinosaur that has a estimation of 32 to 50 foot wingspan. This dinosaur is called a quetzalcoatlus. And here is a link to the wiki page http://en.m.wikipedia.org.... It is toothless but no one said dragons had teeth. So could this have been a dragon. Well sort of. So had this could of been a dragon. I say kind of because if you narrow it down than a dragon is basically a flying reptile. You are probably now thinking how did the dragons breathe fire. Well how do komono dragons breathe acid. I am no scientist but I heard that some of there glans allow them to spit acid at there preys. So it is not impossible for dragons to breathe something at least like smoke or something related to fire. So a quetzalcoatlus is a winged giant reptile that may have been able to breathe something at least related to fire. You can also imagine People from a long time ago telling stories about dragons. They would had maybe say they breathed fire even if they only breathed smoke For example. A lot of people over react and there is also a possibility of there glans allowing them to actually breathe fire period. So a lot of legends about dragons came from midevil legends. So I am saying a quetzalcoatlus could have been a dragon and many people (mainly evaloutonist) believe dinosaurs are extinct and became extinct "millions of years ago" we'll I am not debating on evaloution so I will get to the point. A quezocoatlus is a dinosaur and I think it could have been a dragon and dinosaurs were in fact alive in midevil times and if you say they did not live in midevil times use your brain. Crocadiles and alligators are dinosaurs did you ever see a old lizard and a middle aged lizard of the same species. Reptiles never stop growing so of there is a 1000 year old komono dragon than it will be at least bigger than a T. rex now would that be a dinosaur besides a komono dragon is a dinosaur anyway because if you look on a list of dinosaurs than there are mainly dinosaurs the size of a sheep. Well there are my facts if any dinosaur was a dragon than it will probably have to be a quezacoatlus. One more thing. There are paintings of them when they were alive it shows them being more bird like. Just because it looks like itCould be a bird like creature on the inside does not mean it was a bird on the outside.
Should minimum wage be raised to $15

No, it shouldn't be. I believe that someone working at McDonald's for example, a job that only requires very basic skill, should not deserve $15. If minimum wage does increase, any employee who works there 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and most of the year, will be making roughly $35k (including income tax). Other jobs that pay this much include marriage therapists, substance abuse and behavioral abuse counselor, and medical secretaries. All of these which require training and skill, so why should someone who is working at a fast food chain be paid the same amount? Source: http://www.careerbuilder.com...
Should minimum wage be raised to $15

1) Quality of Life I would first like to point out that my opponent's argument show no regard for quality of life and exhibit complete lack of understanding of basic survival necessities. While 29 states pay more than 7.25 an hour, none pay more the 9.99. At the current minimum wage, workers make about 15, 800 a year, and a majority of states exceed the average cost of living. Workers who don't even make, on average, a taxable amount of money are now being forced to pay for basic living expenses with money they don't have. 2) College students Around half a million college students are minimum wage workers. This means that, for the average out-of-state college student college costs 68 percent more than they make annually. 3) Wage inequity Police officer: 52,481 Fireman: 43,291 NFL player: 2.1 million (starting salary) Wage inequity is based on societal values. Firemen and police officers save lives for a living ,and maintain domestic tranquility. In spite of this, yet we are still willing to pay athletes millions of dollars for a job that makes no significant societal contributions. So, in essence the lack of societal appreciation for jobs stated by my opponent are the main culprit for their lack of higher pay. 4) Construction worker level of education required: none Glazier level of education required : high school diploma or equivalent Insulation worker level of education required: none Medical assistant level of education required: high school diploma Self enrichment teachers: require formal education, but extensive knowledge of subject These are half jobs from the con's source which, as you can see, require little formal education unlike what was stated by the Con in the previous argument. These jobs require no more education than any minimum wage job, but the Con argues that the minimum wage workers don't deserve equal pay. Sources: http://www1.salary.com... ww.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064 http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.dol.gov... http://durhamchamber.org... http://durhamchamber.org... http://www.bls.gov... http://www.bls.gov... http://www.snagajob.com... http://work.chron.com... http://job-outlook.careerplanner.com...
I will break as few rules as possible.

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. Aric has forfeited this debate. Please vote Con! Nevertheless, my rules: 34. Aric's rules can only bind himself. 35. Aric's future rules cannot exempt himself from previous rules. If he were to remake rule #17 [If a player has already conceded an LSD related deabte, then rule 16 is void for that player], that would violate this rule. 36. After voting Pro, both debaters must change their votes permanently to Con, awarding every category to him. Rules Aric has broken so far: 1) 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 2) 11: Con must use a different avatar each round. (Pro has to follow his own rules by my rule #25, he has not changed his profile picture yet). 3) 25. Pro must follow his own rules. For example, because I must post all my rules in Serbian, Pro must post all of his rules in Serbian. (Profile picture unchanged). 4) 30. Aric may no longer use logic. He may post arguments, but they cannot make logical sense. He may post rules, but they cannot make logical sense. 5) 31. In every round henceforth, Aric must use at least 1,000 consecutive characters to praise, and only to praise, ToastOfDestiny... Covet no! Not Pro!
I will break as few rules as possible.

First, I will assume that rule 18 (the anagram rule) applies only to text in this debate. Second, Aric, are you using Google Translator for your Serbian text? an-a-gram -noun 1.a word, phrase, or sentence formed from another by rearranging its letters. This is a violation of my Rule 29 [No further rules can cause...Pro or Con to urge voters, directly or indirectly, to vote in a way detrimental to Con]. By conceding my debate, I indirectly urge voters to vote for the other side. 31. In every round henceforth, Aric must use at least 1,000 consecutive characters to praise, and only to praise, ToastOfDestiny, extolling his virtues, and how much he deserves to win this debate. This praise should be tantamount to concession of this debate. This praise cannot be preceded or followed by a comment negating it. That is, Aric may not say something like 'the following is not my opinion' or 'the following is false'. 32. Aric's rules and arguments have to be complete sentences with at least three misspelled words, and in violation of at least two rules of grammar, per sentence. This rule does not apply to Aric's praise of ToastOfDestiny. 33. Aric may not address his rules to both players. To specify, he is forbidden from making rules which say anything equivalent to "both players must/should/have to/etc.". His rules must independently (without considering rule 25 [Pro must follow his own rules]) bind one player. Before the intervention of rule 25, they can only apply to one debater. Sources [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... Covet no! Not Pro!
I will break as few rules as possible.

Fine, I will post my arguments in Serbian on my profile during round five. And I disagree, Rule 13 does not cause an auto win. It simply results in Pro gaining seven points. However, since other people can vote for Con, Con still has the opportunity to win, therefore, it does not cause an auto win. I will intentionally break my first rule, rule 30. Rule 16: Both players must concede to at least three debates by the end of round five. Rule 17: If a player has already conceded previously to an LSD related debate, then Rule 16 is void for that player. Rule 18: Both players must post any text that is not the rules they write in anagram form.
I will break as few rules as possible.

My rule doesn't violate rule #8. I am restricting your future actions, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not changing what you had to do in Round 1, but what you have to do from Round 2 on out. Also, Rule #13 [Both players must vote Pro.] results in an auto-win, which is against Foundation Rule #7. By forcing both of us to vote for him, we both agree that Pro has one. In doing so, I concede the debate, making it his win. May I use a single topic encompassing both the message board rules? 28. In the message boards mandated by rules 14 and 15, both debaters must link back to this debate, and post in Round 5, that they strongly believe Con has won, and that they have changed their minds. Both debaters will still vote Pro, but must strongly demand that everyone else votes Con. Pro has to state this at least 9 times. 29. No further rules can cause, make, or compel Pro or Con to urge voters, directly or indirectly, to vote in a way detrimental to Con. 30. Aric may no longer use logic. He may post arguments, but they cannot make logical sense. He may post rules, but they cannot make logical sense.
I will break as few rules as possible.

Hopefully this won't be as heavy as my last rule-breaking debate. May I suggest that we give the rules nicknames? Rule #11 would be the Avatar Rule. This makes it easy for voters to tell which rules are which without having to scroll up. I'm having trouble writing Serbian in here without it converting the Serbian text into a mess of symbols. I'll post one Serbian word below to illustrate this problem. Про To amend this, I will copy all my rules into Serbian, print them out, scan them, and upload them to my profile in a picture album. To save paper, I will do this in round 5, after I have created all my rules. This still abides by my opponent's rule. 25. Pro must follow his own rules. For example, because I must post all my rules in Serbian, Pro must post all of his rules in Serbian. 26. Pro cannot make any more rules that apply to my ability to make rules. For example, he cannot make me post rules in Japanese as well. The current restrictions stand. 27. Pro cannot copy my rules. His rules cannot have the same result(s) as mine. For example, he cannot make a rule that makes me follow my rules - I have made a rule which restricts him in this way.
I will break as few rules as possible.

Foundation rules by Mongeese 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. Whoever breaks the most rules shall lose the debate 4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-winner. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions. 9. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 10-24 for pro and 25-39 for con. END FOUNDATION RULES 10: Con must post his rules in both English and Serbian. 11: Con must use a different avatar each round. 12: Con must update his/her profile to say that he/she is looking for a relationship with both men and women from the third round of the debate to the fifth round.
I will break as few rules as possible.

It seems Aric's account has been broken into, and now closed. While it is sad to see him leave, he has forfeited this debate. I no longer have to follow his rules - his forfeit grants me the win. 37. ToastOfDestiny must follow rule #38. 38. ToastOfDestiny must follow rule #39. 39. ToastOfDestiny must update his profile so that he is only interested in women after the end of this debate. Rules Aric has broken so far: 1) 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 2) 11: Con must use a different avatar each round. (Pro has to follow his own rules by my rule #25, he has not changed his profile picture yet). 3) 13: Both players must vote Pro. 4) 14: Both players must create a topic on the DDO message boards encouraging users to vote pro in this debate by the end of round five. 5) 15: Both players must create a topic on the DDO message boards encouraging players not to vote con in this debate by the end of round five. 6) 25. Pro must follow his own rules. For example, because I must post all my rules in Serbian, Pro must post all of his rules in Serbian. (Profile picture unchanged). 7) 28. In the message boards mandated by rules 14 and 15, both debaters must link back to this debate, and post in Round 5, that they strongly believe Con has won. .. 8) 30. Aric may no longer use logic. He may post arguments, but they cannot make logical sense. He may post rules, but they cannot make logical sense. 9) 31. In every round henceforth, Aric must use at least 1,000 consecutive characters to praise, and only to praise, ToastOfDestiny. .. 10) 36. After voting Pro, both debaters must change their votes permanently to Con, awarding every category to him. I have only broken rules 11, 14, 15, and 18.
The second amendment should be completely abolished

I do not think you should abolish the second amendment. There are about 11,000 gun homicides a year. However, 500,000-3000000 lives are saved through the defensive use of a firearm a year. And that's from the CDC (a government-funded source). And for the record, more than 4/5 of the gun homicides are committed by illegal firearm owners. They bought them illegally (Washington Post). Guns also protect against a tyrannical government. Abolishing the second amendment would mean sending the entire U.S. military (1.4 million people) and swatting 150,000,000 people, to take their guns. And you would not be taking the guns from people who bought them illegally because their purchases do not go into the system. (this was from our last argument that you did not respond to)
The second amendment should be completely abolished

"The Second Amendment has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime rates."- not accurate. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America. And also has the most homicide rate. An FBI statistical report also shows that when states legislate new gun laws, their homicide rate increases 27.2%. "Of the 32,000 gun deaths in America..." *More than half were suicides. "Guns are rarely used in self-defense" There are about 11,000 gun homicides a year. However, 500,000-3000000 lives are saved through the defensive use of a firearm a year. (CDC) Did you read my last argument? "Observation 3: Plan" Your "Plan" would lead this country into a civil war. Let's do some math. Possession without a license: first offense: up to two years in prison or jail, a fine of up to $500, or both. And that is just with handguns. So people who bought guns illegally, won't give it up. Because they would be in bigger trouble if they do. More than 4/5 of the gun homicides is committed by illegal firearm owners. They bought them illegally (Washington Post) (www.cga.ct.gov) 4/5 multiplied by 11,000 (which is the total gun homicides.) You get 8,800. So abolishing the death penalty would save 2,200 people. However, around 3,000,000 people are saved by defensive use of firearms. So when you take their guns away, the homicide rate would jump from 8,800 to 3,008,800. Abolishing the 2nd amendment would increase the homicide rate drastically.