BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prophecies in Religious Books do not prove Religions True

Hello, Nice to meet you! I am Christian and today I will prove that SOME prophecies in religious books do drastically help prove the validity of the religion. Take the bible as an example, Over thousands of years people have questioned if its teachings are true, And not long after stumble upon some evidence that completely disproves their argument. Take for example the dead sea scrolls, People were saying that over time the bible was tampered with (which is a reasonable assumption) but recently archeologists have discovered clay jars in the dead sea which contained nearly word for word the bible we have today, So now we have proved that the bible we have today is indeed accurate ancient text. Now using this, Take the prophecy of the birth of Jesus. In the old testament there are several times where the birth of christ is predicted to come. Using archeological data, It has been proven that a census was decreed through the entire Roman Empire at around 10-5 BC. This corroborates with the new testament exactly. The issue with this debate is no matter how much evidence I throw at an argument, Proving that prophecies did come true not only because people made them come true, Strong believers in a religion will still cling to it. There is no convincing people of a religion based on evidence. However the more factual evidence there is the harder it gets to argue with. Arguments like the cosmological argument proving that there is a God are some of the hardest arguments to disagree with. And when an argument is extremely hard to disagree with, The more valid it is made. Note: This is my first rodeo and the reason I joined this site was to get better at debating because ultimately the ability to respectfully disagree with someone is one of the best character traits there is. The issue with politics today is that there is almost no respectful disagreeing. I deeply respect your skill and ability to prove your point thoughtfully, Even though we have opposite political and ideologic beliefs.
Prophecies in Religious Books do not prove Religions True

Happy to think with you today. Many people on this site, And people in general, Give predictions made in religious books great credit when it comes to validating their personal religion. Each religion ignores predictions made in other books for reasons they don't deign to explain. 1. Predictions made in books are not prophecies. When they come true, They come true because people try to make them true. If someone writes predictions in a book and other person later reads it and tries to make as many predictions that it made happen as possible, The books did not predict what would happen. The person followed instructions from a book. I could just as easily say cook books are prophetic books as to what dishes will be made in the future. The motive people would have to try to fake prophecies is clear. Personal wealth and power. 2. People give great charity to vague predictions made in their holy books but no charity to predictions made in others. If I say the walls of a city will fall into the ocean and one day hundreds of years in the future the wall is broken and pieces of it fall into the ocean that surrounds it, This is not surprising. It was an inevitability. 3. 100 true predictions don't prove your religion true if your religion has made thousands of claims, Or if we can prove even 1 false. No religion contains 100% true predictions. None even come close. Please accept if you have confidence in your religion in part because of supposed prophecies in your books. It matters not what religion from which you stem. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

I verify what my opponent has stated. The new definition is: viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...... By this definition, the most viable option to end WWII was to surrender to the Japanese. It fits the definition of viable. In fact, it was certain to succeed. The Japanese wanted to rule Asia, so if Asia was what they got, the war would end. That's all for this round. I await my opponent's response.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

The burden of proof rests on my shoulders. I will have to prove a more viable option to end WWII. Viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding (http://www.merriamwebster.com......) Please only accept the definition in the first round. After the first round, the definitions are absolute. Comment (in the comments section, before you accept) if you do not agree with the definition.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

"1, 2, & 3. The Axis powers did indeed want to rule the world. If the allies (the rest of the world) surrendered to them, they would rule the world. " 1) You stated allies as "rest of the world. " This is not true. The rest of the world besides the Axis powers, were not all Allies. 2) You stated the U. S. would not have been involved in WWII at the time of surrender (1940), so the U. S. could not surrender, as they are not in the war. And since the U. S. can't surrender, that means that the Axis powers can not rule the world, thus making the plan not viable for the Axis. 3) Also, surrendering is not viable for the Allies. There is no benefit to them in surrendering, thus making the plan not viable for them either. "Resolution affirmed. " -Nope. Resolution is negated because I have proved that the plan of surrendering is not viable for the Allies or the Axis powers. I have also proved that the atomic bombings against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable way to end WWII, without my opponent attempting to refute this. "4. I concede this point. " -Good. .. another point for me. "I thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate. " -I thank you as well, it had indeed been enjoyable. "It behooves you to vote PRO. " -How is it to the voter's use, advantage, or benefit to vote for either of us?
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

1) My opponent says his 'idea' is for the Allied powers to surrender to the Axis powers in 1940. 2) This plan would not work because the Axis powers would not accept surrender. Their goal was to basically, rule the world. And if the Allied powers surrendered, they would not be able to accomplish this goal. Thus, making the plan not viable. 3) Since the plan of surrendering is not viable, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable option to ending WWII. Resolution negated. ---Also, a rebuttal.--- ""I will only respond to the passage "Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." I think 23,100,000 deaths is participation." -The Russians did not participate in the war against the Japanese. They fought in Europe and in their own country, but they did not fight against Japan. This is what Truman is talking about when he says the Russians had not participated.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

I will refute my opponent's arguments one by one, beginning at the top. 1. Where is it written that victory is the only way to end a war? Surrendering ends a war! In addition, nobody ever said anything about "why". The definition of viable warrants nothing about why. By the way, no time nor country was stated. The time for my surrender is in 1940, before the US even enters the war. No country was specified, so the viewpoint naturally tends toward that of the axis' enemy, the allies as a whole. The passage would read "Why would the allies...". 2. Once again, nobody said anything about our viewpoint. See earlier passage. If the allies as a whole surrendered (see earlier), the Russians would be included in this surrender. The rest of this passage is redundant, as the definition of viable only pertains toward whether or not something can be done. I will only respond to the passage "Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." I think 23,100,000 deaths is participation. (1) 3. If the ALLIES surrendered to the axis powers, less allied lives would be lost (the surrender in effect as of the day after the war), and ending the war was even simpler and quicker. 4. A simple recap: the definition of viable only pertains to whether or not a plan is executable. The objective is to end the war, not to win it. Thus, surrender ends WWII more viably than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

"By this definition, the most viable option to end WWII was to surrender to the Japanese. It fits the definition of viable. In fact, it was certain to succeed. The Japanese wanted to rule Asia, so if Asia was what they got, the war would end." -This is not a viable option. This option is not "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are." To end the War, the U.S. had to win the war. Why would the U.S. spend all the time, men, money, and resources fighting Japan only to call to say the Japanese had won? This is not a practical, viable option. -The Japanese would have no chance at all of taking Asia. If the US had just surrendered to Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have became much more involved in the war. They already had conquered Manchuria. And if the Soviet Union had joined in on the war against Japan, they would have won the war, and had a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." (1) The use of the atomic bomb against Japan also showed the strength of the U.S. to the world, and especially the Soviet Union. (2) My argument is quite simple. The atomic bombings against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable way to end WWII in Japan because of the quick surrender and the fact that no American lives were lost. To my opponent--- remember the definition of viable: -viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are It was not viable for the U.S. to surrender to Japan. ---Sources--- (1) http://www.trumanlibrary.org... (2) http://worldwariihistory.info...
Debate.org é um Site Melhor para Debater Idéias do que o Createdebate.com

Vamos experimentar este site aqui para decidirmos.coloquei 3 rounds de 72hrs de limite para resposta... se fosse pra valer, poderiamos ditar as regras pros 3 rounds, por exemplo:1 intros2 arguments3 rebuttals fucei e fucei e não descobri como colocar imagens aqui!mas video é fácil de colocar, por exemplo, se eu quiser desmerecer meu oponente [video 1]http://www.youtube.com...bwa hahahahae links tmbm podem ser postados facilmente, como o do site onde posto meus desenhos:http://mattoid-26.deviantart.com...postem respostas, por favor, para testarmos as funcionalidades deste site.
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

The argument that one player makes a huge difference is totally relevant. Your offense would have been stagnant if Victor Cruise was hobbled by an injury. Also if Eli Manning goes down the giants are a losing team. When Tom Brady tore his acl the patriots implanted a quarterback who hadnt started a football game since highschool and still went on to an 11-5 record somehow missing the playoffs proving that their organization is still capable of winning without arguabley the best player in the league. Several years ago while the giants fans were calling for Tom Coughlin and Eli Mannings heads the patriots were winning division titles. Also using things like the draft is also totally relevant. We are talking about who is the better overall team and that includes the front office. The patriots are the class of the nfl when it comes to drafting and building a roster, while other teams are reaching for players the patriots make smart decisions based on value often times trading down and creating a wealth of picks in upcoming drafts. The organization is also so strong with a well cemented locker room that adding wild headstrong players to our team doesnt affect it negatively, see Corey Dillion, Randy Moss and Ochocinco for examples. Ochocinco wasnt affective but there is a reason he took a 2.5 million dollar pay cut to continue playing under Bill Bellechek. Anyone who leaves the patriots organization are immediate targets for teams looking to turn their organization around. Scott Pioli has turned around a hopless chiefs franchise in 3 seasons by creating depth on the roster. Eric Mangini is responsible for the bench mark of the jets in drafting Revis, Mangold and Dbrickishaw. Since Rex took over for them the personel decisions are horrendous. bill bellechek is the best in the bizz at replacing injured players or players who want out. We release players like Brandon Merriwether after his probowl season because the patriots are smart enough to attest value. The patriots created a dynasty in the early 2000's and with the new roster theres no reason to think they cant do it again. Its the patriots way or the highway.
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

your argument is invalid bringing up events that have not even past. A draft is merely a lottery and the choices made may or may not benefit the team in the long run. As for the superbowl, gronkwski did play, not at full strength but he was on the field and was still a threat. Hernandez is just as much a threat on the field as Gronk. So the giants defensive strategy still pulled in more than one direction. its a shame to say that one of the Patriots weapons goes down and they lose a superbowl. Not nearly enough of a reason, perhaps brady going down, then yes i would agree with you, but when you have two almost pro bowl tight ends with record season, i dont want to hear that just one person going down is the main cause. Tom Brady has plenty of other weapons. The Giants however operate as a unit; pick up the pieces when one falls someone else picks it up. 5 Giants D-players were out consistently since the start of the season, and still during the playoffs, multiple injuries and they still operated as a unit, so your mere argument about one player is irrelevant. the whole draft choices, the Giants have been doing this for years. Losing Jacobs not a huge loss because he didnt benefit the Giants much, hes only a third down back, meanwhile Bradshaw carried the load. Losing Manningham, wasnt a huge loss because he was the third wide receiver, behind Cruz and Hicks. Although manningham came up with a GIGANTIC catch during the Superbowl, he was let go for reasons that the Giants have something else planned
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

First off you can not make the claim that the Giants are better because they have more passion when at first glance their quarterback is as unemotional as they come, often times not even flinching after throwing an interception and just walking to the sidelines. Also in your own argument you state that the giants were not at full strength until the playoffs. Unfortunately the patriots were not, rob gronkowski was injured for the superbowl and any dismissal of this being a factor in the patriots lose should be thrown out immediately due to the fact that not only does gronkowski propose a matchup nightmare for any defensive cooridantor in the league because of his skill set, he also plays nearly 100% of offensive snaps during the course of a game. Now with the draft having just passed and free agency well underway the patriots have already made strong improvements to their offense but may have made the draft decisions to turn the defense around. All the while the giants have merely stood Pat and even lost some players who have yet to have been found legitmate replacements. Healthy Gronk and the suberbowl ring would have been a much different shade of blue...new season the patriots will again demonstrate why they are the class of the nfl
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

lets not forget which team "supposedly cheated a few times during this glorified couple of years under Belicheck" and that is a proven fact. I will not doubt that the Patriots are, without a doubt a top 5 team. However when the NY Giants beat them THREE times in a row, and two of them being oh wait, the biggest stage in sports history, one team take all, oh yea the SUPER BOWL, now tell me who really is the best team around. The Giants had more injuries than the Patriots this entire season, the giants defense was never at full strength until the last three weeks of the season and throughout the playoffs. There is a reason why the Giants won. They have more heart, and passion. Never quit mentality, it was clear that the Giants D-line was too much to handle for the PAtriots O-line during the past THREE GAMES, by the way, did I mention, THREE GAMES IN A ROW they beat them. It is called strategy and the Giants have the Patriots and Brady's number on Speed dial. Best believe they can and will do it again. When a team knows how to shut down the others weapons the game is well, Over.
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

proven the giants players were injured for a good part of the season, the offense for the NY giants were healthy for the season, hence the offense setting records and scoring countless number of points the whole season, Eli Manning was "captain clutch" in the last two minutes. Back to the defense, countless number of defensive players were injured the whole season starting with one of the Giants main DE's osi umenyiora, who more than 75% of the time was a huge double team threat, and the starting corner backs were going in and out of injuries, making that position to cover a lot harder. Although Brady performed well during the Super Bowl, he was still not performing like he normally shouldve bc of the added pressure that the Giants Defense was adding. Not only Brady but the likes of Wes Welker, who normally is clutch, felt the pressure and wilted in the end and lost them the game
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

When you say the Giants "got healthy towards the end of the season" they didn't. They gained knowledge about there opponents and skills they should have already had throughout the entire season. A good team is one that has strengths that shine throughout the season which is undoubtedly the Patriots. You point out that Tom Brady couldn't handle the pressure, but clearly if you watched the game Tom Brady performed during that game his team fell short, which by chance led the NY Giants to a lucky win. That' right a lucky win because by far they couldn't have won the game another way.
New York Giants are better than NE Patriots

NY Giants are a better football team than the NE Patriots for reasons of a better defense. As the saying goes, defense wins championships. When the Giants got healthy towards the end of the season, they showed why they are the super bowl champs. With a stacked defense starting with Justin Tuck and Jason Pierre Paul leading the defense to an onslaught for the opponent. As seen in the Super Bowl, Tom Brady and his offensive line could not handle the pressure.
The concept of a omnipotent being or god is impossible/contradictory

The simply answer is that being omnipotent doesn't require the ability to do the logically impossible, but at first glance this may just seem like arguing over the definition. Even with the definition my opponent posted, however, omnipotence is not contradictory. I can not lift a 500 pound stone, solve the economic crisis, or beat Battletoads without cheating. This is because my abilities are not up to the required level. If I were stronger, understood economics more, or had quicker reflexes, those three challenges would become less and less unsolvable. There are other things I can't do: I can't make a four sided triangle, divide by zero, or solve the Halting Problem. For these problems, it is not that my ability is not high enough, but the fact that the solution to these problems simply does not exist. No amount of extra skill will change this. What about the omnipotent God who can't create the stone, or can but can't lift it? Here, there is no solution to the problem, therefore it does not reflect on God's ability at all. He can't solve any of the problems in the previous paragraph either. His power is still unlimited, however, because these problems have nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of the agent trying to solve it.
The concept of a omnipotent being or god is impossible/contradictory

Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. (this was taken from http://dictionary.reference.com...) The very idea of a all-powerful being is flawed. As an example, Q: Can an omnipotent being create a stone it can't lift? A1: Yes it can. If it can't lift the stone therefore it is not omnipotent. A2: No it can't. By definition it is then not omnipotent. Also, this is my first debate online so tell me if I do something wrong.
The Earth is round

"Let's go fool." I like that XD. I'm going to start off my argument with a picture of Earth taken from outer space by NASA. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... One can observe from the picture of Earth above that the Earth is round. Many travelers and athletes have traveled across the world in a single direction and has successfully returned to the same exact spot. Some examples of these travelers: http://www.buzzfeed.com... and here's a view of Earth taken by the airplane ARES http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov... All these sources would suggest that the Earth is a sphere and round in nature.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot

I note by the wording of the resolution that Pro has the burden of proof. If Pro has not fulfilled his burden, then Con wins by default. (If the opponent, however, wishes to argue otherwise, it is no matter, seeing as that I will offer my own arguments as well. ) Since the opponent wants to emphasize the semantic of what constitutes a "crackpot", I demand that the definition be changed to a conjunctive statement, rather than a disjunctive one, seeing as that in the case above, it would suffice for Pro to prove just one part of the definition (e. g. , she is eccentric) and say that he has proved that Rand is a crackpot. Nevertheless, our commonsense intuition of a crackpot is necessary and sufficient of all these parts: "eccentric, unrealistic, AND fanatical".
Ayn Rand was a crackpot

Resolved: Ayn Rand was a crackpot.If you can prove that Ayn Rand was a logical/rational, clearminded and relatively balanced person, you can win this debate. (Hint: She isn't!)Round 1 accept, 2 arguments, 3 rebuttal, 4 conclusion (sum up your facts, no new evidence)Definitions:Crackpot: A person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical.Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot

First, I don’t know why it autoposted to round #3, and I am sorry if that was my fault. We can continue this debate if you wish in a second debate. The characters for this argument were not enough, and it would be unfair to you to have to censor your speech, so I have posted the argument onto the following link: http://www.scribd.com...Please leave a message in the comments if you can't access it so I can help you read it. Thank you. I'm sorry if this breaks the rules, but I'm not sure how else to go about this.