BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

I accept. Nice. Let us not lose time. Pro states "Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example: I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins) I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins) In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality." Pro does not believe infinity existsts. Pro's definition of god: "A maximally great being." God is a maximally great being, he can be great in everything but he cannot be infinite since you stated in defense of P2, there can be no such thing as "infinity". Coming into conclusion that god cannot be infinite, we have to assume that he must have a period of existence, and his existence will have to end as we know he cannot be an infinite being. Taking into account that he has to stop existing, or in our terms "die", this can not make him "maximally great" as we may have other life forms in the universe as we know existed before a "god" and will continue to exist after a "god".
There is no legitimate evidence that the Bible is inspired by God.

Definition of EVIDENCE1a : an outward sign : indicationb : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices (1)I met my burden of proof of legitimate evidence, several examples, in fact, raising Pro's zero to at least 12. I didn't use an obscure definition of evidence, as Webster agrees that witness testimony is classified as evidence. Pro apparently didn't even bother to: A. look up the definition of "evidence," B. research who wrote the Bible: "(whoever they were)"C. compare Biblical events with sources contemporary to Biblical accounts: "by your quoting Story book events alleged to have taken place"D. or care to find out that places like Galilee, Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and the Roman Empire actually existed. "in your preferred Story book land" (2)Futhermore, Pro provides no backing to his claim that my evidence is illegitimate. HOWEVER, at the end of round 2, Pro finally makes a claim and attempts to back it up...with a domain name that is for sale. Vote Con.1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) http://www.robinurton.com..., http://maps.google.com...http://maps.google.com...http://maps.google.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is no legitimate evidence that the Bible is inspired by God.

1. Still waiting for you to actually address the Debate Topic by YOUR providing the evidence YOU ' claimed to have ' that the bible was inspired by a Literal Supernatural god?2. Your diversionary OFF DEBATE & NONE pertinent comments meanwhile (by your quoting Story book events alleged to have taken place in your preferred Story book land), is NO credible evidence even in the slightest for your cause, but rather testify only against it; including the fact that whatever claims were made in it, there is also NO legitimate evidence to substantiate the writers (whoever they were) are telling the Truth!Further more: - There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them. . . . . (Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)
There is no legitimate evidence that the Bible is inspired by God.

Witness testimony is legitimate evidence in court, and the authors of the books of the Bible have recorded what they witnessed with their own eyes and ears. 1 In the Gospel of John, the Apostle John witnessed the feeding of five-thousand people with five small barley loaves and two small fish, with enough left over to fill twelve baskets. (John 6) In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Moses records numerous non-random supernatural events that he and millions of others with him witnessed. 2 Ex: parting of the Red Sea, 3 the plagues against Egypt and it's gods, 4 the earth opening and swallowing specific people, 5 a pillar of fire by night, 6 being fed for forty years by a strange wafer that accumulated with the dew, 7 being audibly spoken to, 8 and seeing direct physical actions by God. Amongst other things. 9 In Daniel 4, we have a transcript of an open letter written by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar of a prophetic dream that he would lose his mind in a very specific way. His sanity was later restored at a set time, just as the dream had said. The apostle Matthew records 10 the death and resurrection of Christ in his gospel, 11 as well as the appearance of angels at the tomb. 12 In chapter 14 he records an identical account of the feeding of the 5000 that John witnessed. The first-hand witness accounts of the supernatural would be admissible evidence in any legitimate investigation into the existence of the supernatural.
There is no legitimate evidence that the Bible is inspired by God.

"The total combined legitimate evidence that ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' are the words of ANY literal Supernatural being, remains a constant zero and Posts like YOURS re-confirm that consistently!" This was my first encounter with Composer. Sounds like fun guy. How would I know? I'm boring. I guess "legitimate evidence" would be anything admissible in a court of law, BOP is on me to provide at least one piece of said evidence (not proof) that the Bible contains words inspired by God. Let's see if Composer wants to back his claim, and if I can increase that constant zero to a bigger real number.
Obama is the hottest president ever

Obama plays basketball...Herbert Hoover invented Hooverball. It was like volleyball but with a ten pound medicine ball with the net super high up. Ford swam, Bush Sr. played football, Teddy boxed. Plenty of people smoked and smoke now. I don't really find killing yourself slowly is that hot. Andrew Jackson let people just walk in and talk to him. So did Polk and Lincoln. JFK and JBL would do a lot more than read an e mail. They would sex you till it hurt. Obama is hot. No argument there. But the hottest? No way. What he did, others did better. His smile, his looks, his charisma,...all out done by others. I'd give him like 7th place.
Obama is the hottest president ever

The success of the presidency has nothing to do with hotness but to Obama's reelection, we see in modern times that incumbents have very high chances of being elected again even if they did a bad job. I think we can look at a long list of presidents that put Obama down the list. James K Polk rocked the mullet like no other man. He was stern and serious giving him a sexy vibe. Teddy Roosevelt really had it all. His determination is shown in his long list of accomplishments before becoming presidents. His personality oozes charisma. His smile is so lovable. His glasses give him a sense of ambition and intelligence which I find very attractive. Come on, the list goes on and on. Obama is good looking. But he isn't the full package and is simply not the best or hottest.
Obama is the hottest president ever

You need no 'smarts' to be hot. Do not get me started with Pierce. He has a ridiculi face...Obama does not. He did have some good hair though, I'll give him that. But if you wanna talk facts about their presidency, we shall. Franklin Pierce was all for slavery. That's the first red flag. Moving along, was Obama nominated for a second term? Yes of course but was Pierce...NO. Why? Because he wasn't the charmer you portray him to be.
Obama is the hottest president ever

Obama has charisma, smarts, and the looks. But the hottest ever? Not even close. My Hunk of History is Franklin Pierce. Look him up. His locks flowing to one side; the Piercing eyes; and a face molded by the gods. Pierce was known for his looks and had all the ladies at his feet. He was elected because he was the hottest man on the ballot. He got the looks and the mind too. He memorized his speeches with no notes or reference. He also had the bronze. He general in the Mexican-American war, winning battles left and right with his brilliance. There are plenty other presidents too that surpass Obama that I will mention next round.
Kid's should be able to vote!

I will deal with con's arguments in the order he has made them. 1) Apologizing for me to the gallery is not very fashionable, or of good manner. It is just plain rude, so please let us be more polite in the future. Thank You. 2) Your argument is that after kids get voting rights, beer cigarettes and pornography rights are next, am I correct? Well this is not very likely at all, because what kid wants to smoke and drink? And the ones that do will get their hands on it, one way or another, even if it is illegal. What you do not realize is that right now many kids are smoking and drinking, even though they are under the age limit. So even though it is not likely to happen, a law allowing kids to drink and smoke would change nothing. 3) Who says that children don't fend for themselves? They do, but just in a different way than adults. The average everyday child struggles with school, activities, and the need to fit in. The only difference between them and adults is that children are restricted in many areas, in this case voting, so it seems to the casual onlooker that they are fended for by their parents. 4) Con said "So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES. " In no way are adults slaves. You see, people over 18 get a SAY in the laws, and they have to obey them. Whereas, people under 18 DON'T GET A SAY, yet they still have to follow laws made by others. And isn't a person forced to do something against their will a slave? Now you might say, "I don't agree with this or that law so I'm a slave! " But the reality is, you are not because you had an OPPORTUNITY to influence the outcome of each law. 5) Now Con has said that government does not affect children. Now think, Who sets up schools and makes rules for them? Who goes to these schools? Who provides health care for those under the poverty line? Can't children and their families be under the poverty line? Who cannot legally make contracts? Children. Who denies the right for children to choose where they live? The government. Why, children don't even have the right to not be assaulted! There are many more examples, but I have only chosen to list a few. So as you see, the government has a huge impact on the lives of children. 6) Pro has twisted my words again, for I never said that kids shouldn't listen to their parents, I just said that they shouldn't have to agree with them. And I never said that children should hold seats in the government, I just said that it should be allowed. You forget that to hold a government seat, one must be elected. Now if a nine year old is very smart and savvy in politics, why shouldn't they hold a seat in the government? And also, in saying skill and expertise, do you really think that all of that depends on a college degree? I think not, but rather how smart one is. And if kids were allowed to vote, who said they would vote in a 9 year old that knew nothing? If the kid knew nothing, than I think that adults would all vote against him, and there would be no way he or she could hold a seat. So what is there to worry about?
Kid's should be able to vote!

Now sir, when referring to kids I didn't mean kids that do not have a developed mind yet. I was mainly referring to those who can think for themselves, and that age is about 9. Well you brought up the fact that why should we let kids without an education vote; then why should we let adults without an education vote? We let these people vote because America is a Republic, and everyone UNDER the government should have a SAY in the government. Do kids have to abide by laws? Yes. Do they have any way of influencing these laws? No. So I could go as far as saying that by not letting kids vote, they are slaves under the law, with no option to change their state of living. You have also brought up that most kids would just follow what their parents say. But is it not true that as adults almost most all of us share the opinion of our parents? I think a kid would more likely follow their own personal opinion then their parents. And why shouldn't kids be able to hold seats in the government? Eligibility should be based on skill and expertise, not age and a college degree. Women were not allowed to vote; now they are. African Americans were not allowed to vote; now they are. I think it is only a matter of time before kids can vote.
Kid's should be able to vote!

So since Jdizzle hasn't defined what Voting should mean, i'll define it in my own ways, so Voting means to "make your choice" And Kid means a person under the age of 18. So people of the gallery, seeing these definition let's take into account what Pro has said so far, he has said that there is no good reason why kids should not vote, seeing how he says "kid's" we are going to say that all "kids" under the age of 18 will vote, this includes 5 year olds, 10 year olds, even 2 year olds. Are we really going to allow young children who most likely still live with their parents vote? Not only do they have most of their decisions made for them they are also not responsible enough to choose who should lead a country. So exactly what is the fundamental question in this debate? It is, "Is allowing Children to vote going to benefit or harm our society? " Pro said that "alot of kids are smarter and brighter than adults" So what kids are we talking about here? how many under 18 year olds do you know that have completed education? Most people who vote have completed high school thus having a good degree of education, under 18 year olds most likely have not completed high school, and therefore they are probably not "smarter" or "brighter". I wil now continue towards my constructive case. Okay so seeing how the people under 18 do not a high school graduated degree, cannot support themselves, and most of the important decisions are not made by these "kids". Are we seriously going to allow these people to vote? Most likely these kids will fall into what other people think rather then themselves, children like to play games, why must they also listen to the problems in the government? Most likely these kids will not know who to vote for, and would listen to their parents, or friends for who to vote for. Not only has Pro neglected what adults really do, he believes that children should have the responsibility of who should run the goverment. What's next? Are we going to start allowing the children to have seats in the Government? Making decisions for us because they are apparently" Smarter and Brighter? People of the Gallery. I think not.
PURPLE is the best color in the world!

The first two websites merely talk about how to use purple, they don't represent any public polling regarding the popularity of purple. The facebook page does boast 110 friends, but those are most likely one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eaters and therefore biased. And though purple maybe the favorite color of girls (you provided no documentation to prove this), blue is their favorite color when they grow up to be women. http://www.science20.com...
PURPLE is the best color in the world!

http://webdesignledger.com... http://www.colorcombos.com... http://www.facebook.com... These are three websites that show that purple is infact the best color in the world. Yellow can make someone puke their brains out, it made me puke and little nib lets came out! People who are blonde's this is the reason they are stupid because the color (yellow) of there hair has made them puke their brains out! Another fact to be considered when thinking purple is the best color in the would, which it is, is to think about all the young girls in America and other countries rooms. Most of them are some shade of purple because face it purple rules!!!
PURPLE is the best color in the world!

I don't know of any cases where the color made someone sick, especially a case where the vomitting was so extreme that it contained brain matter. I would seek out medical attention immediately. Before you forget how. With regards to our debate, what proof do you have that purple is the best color in the world? Do you have any documentation or expert opinion to support your assertion? I can provide evidence purple is NOT the best color in the world. In a recent HGTV poll, purple did not even make the top five. (http://www.hgtv.com...). Purple didn't make the top ten list for colors to wear in 2012 for Glamour magazine. (http://www.glamour.com...). Didn't make the top ten car colors (http://www.cars.com...), didn't make the top ten most popular color for a house (http://channels.isp.netscape.com...), and and 40% of people worldwide chose BLUE as their favorite color. (http://channels.isp.netscape.com...). I hope all this evidence isn't making you feel... blue.
PURPLE is the best color in the world!

It doesn't matter if purple isn't a primary color! That is not even part of this debate! Purple was not created because of a terrible lab accident! It was created by an amazing color mixologist who decided to make a new color that his daughter would love! Blue and Red maybe primary colors but that is only because they wanted to give them a cooler name because they weren't as awesome as purple! Yellow still makes me want to puke my brains out by the way!
Aerogant is rude to his apponents

As if rude is a bad thing? I am brutally honest with my words and my wisdom. I live in a world filled with conformists and psychopaths. I don't wear a smile, a suit or a smooth hair cut. I tell you the truth - I let you know the pain within that truth, as I do not hold back on telling it. I do not care to make it easier for you, when it's your fault for not self-disciplining yourself and wondering why this man's passion cooks your existential withering. I can only imagine a world wherein our emotions become realistic traits which physically affect us, as per our anger causing our houses to set on fire; our depression causing us to drown in water; our ways of eating away at ourselves causing acid to rain from the heavens, eating holes through our flesh. A world where stupidity causes many pain; intelligence causing many happiness. A world where the wise lead the people - the unwise are kicked down until they treated their brain, like they would treat their loved one. A world where people would take a glass of water and drink it in sips, rather than take it all in at once, causing the experience to become watered down - realizing that they are nothing without this water. A world where people stopped playing god, to finally play human. A world where judgment ceased to exist, as this world of people would recognize that judgment is paradoxical as it can judge even death. A world where people would accept their emotions and release them, rather than bottle them up and fear those that let them go. A world where people do not pick and choose what they want in their life, as everything in life is a part, not a side. A world where a child would walk into a museum and say, I do not feel anything in this picture, but I do understand that the artist did a lot to make it so. A world where the brain and the heart can live together, where the brain deals with the objective; the heart deals with the subjective; the brain dealing with the Universe; the heart dealing with the "You need verse". A world where art, music and feeling trumps the argument, the abusive and the yielding. A world where people are free to flaunt their intelligence, their potential and their ability like those that can flaunt their ignorance, stupidity and negligence. A world where the wise weren't in pain, but were in paradise - and those that cause others pain, were restrained by a world that welcomed intelligence, knowledge and brain over nonsense. I see pain in everyone - I may inflict a type of pain, but the reason why it does not go further than a prick, is because the truth is like a rose; beautiful, yet can cause some pain. You don't even remotely know my intentions to base my character off of your own weak ability to sustain yourself through my words that do not take a second to allow you to hide in your comfort zone.
Does the Christian God Exist

To define the parameters of this debate: God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in Christianity. The burden of proof is on the Pro side - however truisms from the con side will not be accepted as legitimate arguments in the context of the debate. Anecdotal evidence, or any personal experience are not considered legitimate arguments. No further arguments will be presented in the final round - that is to say only counter arguments are acceptable. To open my case; Verses of the bible clearly refer to Gods omnipotence. Psalm 147:5 " "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Psalm 135:6 " "The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths." The omnipotence paradox definitively and concretely disproves the concept of complete power; If God is all powerful, can He create an object so heavy He cannot lift it? If so, he is not all powerful, as he cannot lift the object, if not then he is not all powerful as he cannot complete the task. Secondly, evolution vs creation. Darwinism can be proven to a greater extent than creation; if God did not create humans, it challenges the key principles of the christian faith, and therefore suggests that He does not exist. On this, the burden of proof sits on the shoulders of the Pro, as Evolution is the accepted scientific explanation for the creation of humans. Thirdly, existence of freewill; Why would God give humans freewill, and sit idle while we abused it if he existed? Regarding ascension to heaven/free will being used as a tool to separate the faithful and the sinners, why go to the trouble of giving people free will, only to promote narrow mindedness with regards to gender, sexual, and racial equality. Why would a God permit the existence of homosexuals if by their very nature they were sinners? Why would God promote sexual discrimination if He is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. Why would God condone a church which has committed atrocities in His name, from the crusades (directly contradicting the "love thy neighbors" bit), to the hoarding of wealth by the church and refusal to aid those in need beyond token gestures designed to appease the world. I look forward to hearing your opening arguments.