BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The notion that Al Qaeda is responsible for the fires in california.

Let me start off by saying that we live in dangerous times. Not only by the natural, but also by the unnatural hatred that mankind has produced for one another. Wars and attacks are epidemic, and the world is because more and more dangerous. It is not the most fun thing to think about, but it needs to be addressed. 9/11 was a sad day for all of us. The callous terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda, massacred three thousand Americans in a single day. These murderers are ruthless, cruel, coldblooded, and hate your freedom. They hate us irrationally, and would do anything to strike us down. They detest you, and they attempted to burn down part of Southern California. What my opponent is trying to make you believe does make a lot of sense. However, you'll notice that he never provides ANY evidence to support his cause. Sure. I'll have to admit that a four-year-old memo is not much, but how does it fair against… well… nothing! I also find it quite suspicious that a memo would say that al-Qaeda would start fires, and just four years later, more than five different fires spontaneously appear, ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND AROUND THE SAME GENERAL AREA, burning more than a quarter million acres, and displacing more than a million people. Is that not quite odd? Here is what you, the audience, must decide: ï¿½ Vote for Harlen and believe someone providing no evidence, or… ï¿½ Vote for me, and know that you're voting for either what's true, or EXCEPTIONALLY coincidental.
The notion that Al Qaeda is responsible for the fires in california.

Yes, a big part of current new is the fires now in California. All the news reporters went there and explained the situation quite truthfully. A fire started by heat and high winds. Except, of course, Fox news…who insisted on giving Americans irrational terror…by saying that these forest fires were a secret evil plot held by terrorists. They have no evidence to back up this laughable conspiracy theory…except one FOUR YEAR OLD FBI memo. The memo has not been proven accurate…and did not even mention California. Let's compare the two theories: Theory 1: It was a regular forest fire just like all forest fires. It was caused naturally. Heat and high winds caused it. It is probably partially contributed to climate change…considering that on the other side of the world (Greece) there is a similar occurrence. Theory 2, or "the theory that only Fox news would take seriously": A bunch of evil terrorist bad guys that wore turbans were in their underground lair plotting how to destroy freedom. At the end of the table was Osama Bin Laden. Along the long table were his hideous Barbarian minions. Osama said: "And now, my minions…you shall finally taste American blood again" (his evil minions hooted loudly and shook their AK-47's over their heads) He continued: "We have set are orbiting death ray to ‘forest fire' and aimed it towards California…we attack tomorrow! Moo-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!" He ended the meeting by saying: "ah yes…and in New York we will make heavy snow, and light showers in London!" His minions flew off into the night sky (they have wings). OK, fine…not exactly. They actually said that they used electronic, remote detonators for the fires and that the terrorists did not leave any finger prints. But it is almost as far-fetched. Using the principle of Occam's razor, we can determine that the first theory (compared to the real 2nd theory…not my version) is more logical. It is silly to make wild assumptions based on 4 year old memos…assumptions that have to do with strange, unclear conspiracies of terrorists using remote explosive devices. The guy on Fox and Friends says "I don't know if whoever did this was checking the weather channel because they picked, unfortunately, the perfect time to set these fires because the weather there is so dry" Hmmmmm…Dry weather,…forest fire….dry weather,…forest fire…there MUST be some connection…There is dry weather…there is a forest fire…What is the connection? Well, the connection is that DRY WEATHER CAUSES FOREST FIRES. Seriously, though…according to Occam's razor…we must assume the simplest answer. The simplest answer is that it is a forest fire. The answer that needlessly factors in to many entities is the theory that it was an extremely intricate plot by terrorists.
There is no reason to believe in God

< > Who said that disbelief in god wasn't also rational? I believe that both are(somewhat, in your case) < > Well, there are many reasons for this. The first is that 95% percent of people in the UK and USA (its about the same in most countries) said they believe in god, whereas well under 1% said they believed in unicrons. If this many more people believe something, there is certainly a greater chance of it being true or real . Also, many people actually claime god has spoken to them. How many claim they have seen a unicron? Surely not many over one. This also points in the direction of the existence of god. Another point I will make is when living things are so perfectly designed how can you doubt god? There is a use for everything; eyelashes to stop dust getting in your eyes, needles on cacti to stop animals eating them for their water. Do you believe something can be so perfect just by coincidence? You have given reasons for not having to believe in god, but can you prove he doesn't exist? I await your response with a hint of excitement.
There is no reason to believe in God

Oh dear... http://en.wikipedia.org... I find it almost impossible to reply to my opponent's opening statement, because neither has she herself written ANYTHING original, nor does she in fact argue for her position. If this behavior reoccurs, then I will be forced to simply answer the most popular arguments for the existence of God in my last post. For now, however, I will simply reaffirm my position and sum up my opening argument. For the purposes of this debate, I am arguing from a weak atheistic position, that there is no reason to believe in the existence of God. If belief in God without evidence is rational, then why isn't disbelief in God without evidence for such a position also rational, or even belief in such things as unicorns or the FSM? It is my opponent's burden to put forth any arguments that make the existence of God more probable than its negation, and thus make theism a reasonable position to hold. *Throws gauntlet to Jziggy*
There is no reason to believe in God

My argument is basically this: 1) There is no evidence for the existence of God. (Assumed premiss to be argued about during the debate) 2) If there is no evidence for the existence of x, then there is no reason to believe in the existence of x. (I will put an argument forth in the next paragraph) C) There is no reason to believe in God. (From 1 and 2) God is here defined as a personal, supernatural creator of the universe. When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, I mean that there are neither any experiences or logical arguments that make the existence of God likely or probable. Experience is any information from the outside world that comes to us through our senses, and logical argumentation is anything that can be deduced from this experience or tautologies, statements that must be true even if we don't have any experience in relation to them. Thus, experiential evidence is of the kind: - I am looking at a tree. And tautologies are of the kind: - 2+2=4 or - Something exists or nothing exists. Since "God exists" isn't a tautology, and assuming God's existence can't be deduced through experiential evidence or other tautological statements, then there is no reason to believe in God, thus entailing weak atheism: the position that belief in God's existence has not yet been shown to be reasonable. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then there is no reason to believe in God. This is because, if there is no evidence for a proposition, then there is at least as much evidence for the proposition's negation. So, if there is no evidence for leprechauns, (And don't fool yourself by thinking that no-one's looking: http://www.irelandseye.com...), and someone believes in them nonetheless, then it would be reasonable to ask why they don't disbelieve in leprechauns without evidence. Surely it is more rational to believe only in things that have evidence, in which case we would be able to supply a reason for not believing in the nonexistence of such entities. Furthermore, surely there are a set of beliefs, all of them without evidence, which are contradictory. For instance, we have no evidence for either the belief that all leprechauns that exist have beards, or the belief that all leprechauns that exist are clean-shaven. Nonetheless, we cannot believe both of these propositions at once. Thus, given that there is no evidence that God is likely to exist, there is no reason to believe in God. I'll leave the matter of evidence to the con, allowing them to supply anything they would grant as evidential support.
Celebrating Christmas is against the Bible

Please take note my opponent has surrendered the Christmas tree portion of his debate. As it is not in his rebuttal or summary. My opponent also said if 2 of 3 are not defended by him it is a loss, and he has already conceded one. My opponent claims calling it a yule log makes it a yule log. What else in life works that way? Is my ford suddenly a Ferrari? Is my shoebox suddenly an Xbox1? Is the color blue suddenly red? No. A yule log is not suddenly a yule log because someone says it is one. Using his logic, a bible in the mail box is a yule log if you say so because you can claim the bible is a log, and that log is a yule log, and the mailbox is a fireplace. My friend, that is not how the world work " and that is surely NOT how an intellectually honest debate works. You cannot decide what something is unilaterally and define it for the world. If it is pagan, then a ritual belongs to it. He has done nothing to explain what makes a log in a fireplace in December pagan ie yule. This is important, the entire debate he makes hangs on one thing: He claims it is pagan because one says it is a yule log. However he fails to back up this very important claim with a single fact that the creation of a yule log only requires such a statement to be made. As for mistletoe, my opponent has shown a lot of intellectually dishonesty. According to the Christ the King Church: Mistletoe does give us some insight into God"s most important gift to the world, his Son, our Savior, Jesus. http://www.ctklchurch.org... The point lost on my opponent was at some point mistletoe may have been used in pagan rituals. However, just because mistletoe is used today does not make it pagan. For it to be pagan it must have the same ritualistic purpose. The ritual came to be because it flourished in life in winter when other plants died. It is not used for good health. It is not hung over a baby"s crib as it was in the past. It is not hung to ward of spirits. It is hung today as a holiday gag, or a way to spread love. Claiming mistletoe was once used in pagan rituals does not exclude it from use in non-pagan traditions. Did pagans light candles? Did pagans wear leather hide? Did pagans party and get drunk? Just because these historical events happened does not mean any future time the use is pagan. In closing, pagans do not have a monopoly on evergreen decorated trees, December fires, or mistletoe. Their use is not automatically pagan and against the bible even if the ingredient was used in pagan rituals. My opponent has not shown anything of any significance. He has conceded 1 argument already, was intellectually dishonest on another, and thinks anything ever used in pagan rituals must forever be pagan on the last. All are wrong. If you agree with me, that my opponent did not do what he set out to prove then please vote for me. Thank you!
Celebrating Christmas is against the Bible

"He quotes passages that claim something was once a ritual of another cannot be used. Yet pagans celebrate with candles, drink blood, eat humans. This religion based on a person who said, eat, this is my flesh Drink this, it is my blood" got a problem with mistletoe?" Comparing mistletoe to drinking symbolic blood does not change the fact that since they originated as pagan rituals, it is against the bible. " He brings up the "LEGEND", NOT pagan. " Pagan definition: "one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion" http://dictionary.reference.com... The legend references a lowercase 'g' god referring to one of many gods, therefore polytheistic therefore pagan. There is also the definition from the same source "a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim" which would also make it pagan. "If my opponent is going to make the claim that the Yule log is a pagan as practiced on Christmas, then he should also explain what makes it pagan." What makes a Yule log pagan is referring to the log as a Yule log. By referring to the log as a Yule log, you are alluding to its pagan origins, which makes the act of burning it a ritual that was taken from the pagans which is against the Bible "Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak;" This is not calling the Christmas tree a scarecrow; it is saying the Christmas tree idol can't speak the same way a scarecrow can't speak. All my original arguments still stand.
Celebrating Christmas is against the Bible

My opponent fails to accept the that Christmas trees are not shaped with a chisel by craftsmen.He assumes this decoration is about a Christmas tree but do not require a craftsman? This is about carving a false idol like a todem pole. He is distorting the real meaning. Did not compelte verse. Gives you the first part and not the ending, implying Christmas tree are pagan. Would one believe a scarecrow pagan? That very fact was excluded by my opponent. Why would one leave out a part about a scarecrow when discussing a false idol he is attempting to manipulate into a Christmas tree? Even if this chiseled, wood scarecrow was actually a Christmas tree" the whole passage" Do not fear them, they can do no harm nor can they do any good." Hardly a condemnation as he claimed to support beyond doubt. https://www.biblegateway.com... "Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good." He quotes passages that claim something was once a ritual of another cannot be used. Yet pagans celebrate with candles, drink blood, eat humans. This religion based on a person who said, eat, this is my flesh Drink this, it is my blood" got a problem with mistletoe? No mention of mistletoe in the bible, he must fabricate claims. No supportive data that mistletoe is pagan. He brings up the "LEGEND", NOT pagan. What does this mean for Jack and the Beanstalk and those with a bean garden? Did not prove mistletoe is pagan and against the bible. https://www.biblegateway.com... Lastly, the Yule log is just wrong. What is a yule log? Is it some specially treated wood? Is the wood blessed in some way? Is the wood taken from sacred ground? The answer to all of those questions is, no. So what is a yule log? According to Miriam Dictionary: a large log formerly put on the hearth on Christmas Eve as the foundation of the fire. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Claims that this is a pagan tradition. Keeping one warm in December is NOT pagan. His passage makes claims that the yule log is of pagan, but does not discern what a yule log is and what makes this wood pagan. Is a fireplace lit on Christmas pagan? Are large logs pagan? why is one fire on Christmas Pagan and another is not? If my opponent is going to make the claim that the yule log is a pagan as practiced on Christmas, then he should also explain what makes it pagan. Again he proved nothing. zero for three. Proved nothing.
Celebrating Christmas is against the Bible

Into What all three of the three Christmas rituals have in common are that they all originated as pagan rituals, and the Bible forbids the practice of pagan rituals. Bible forbids pagan rituals Deuteronomy 12:29-32 (King James Version): https://www.biblegateway.com... "12:29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." So the bible states that you should not practice the rituals that were used to worship other gods even if the ritual was added to or diminished from. Mistletoe http://wonderopolis.org... "Norse legends tell the tale of Balder, son of the goddess Frigg. As one lighter version of the legend goes, Balder was killed by an enemy's arrow that was made of mistletoe. Saddened by her son's death, Frigg wept tears onto the arrow, which turned into white berries. Balder was brought back to life by the gods and Frigg was so overjoyed that she blessed the plant and promised a kiss to all who passed beneath it." So kissing under the mistletoe originated as a pagan ritual, and is therefore against the bible Yule Log https://wicca.com... "The ceremonial Yule log was the highlight of the Solstice festival." "The Yule log, (usually made from a piece of wood saved from the previous year) is burned in the fire to symbolize the Newborn Sun/Son" (sun referring to the sun god; "Sun god" was changed to "son of God" when the Christians Christianized the tradition) So the burning of the Yule log was also a pagan ritual, and therefore is against the bible to practice. Christmas Tree For the Christmas tree, the Bible forbids it explicitly. Jeremiah 10: https://www.biblegateway.com... "Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. 3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter." Conclusion Participating in the traditions of Christmas trees, Mistletoe, and burning the Yule log on Christmas, are all forbidden by the Bible.
I Don't Exist

Pro says "would destroy any of Con's assertions that Pro is the same person throughout the whole debate. " This is a strawman, I never claimed that past Pro and present Pro are the same. Lets look at the same claim in 2 different context. .. .. .. Claim 1) I claim that I am in France (making this claim when I am in France) Claim 2) I claim that I am in France (making this claim when I am in Australia) Both make the same claim (I am in France) yet 1 is true and 2 if false. How can the same claim be both true and false ? That's because the claim is not really the same, a claim applies to the context it was given in. Pro says "False. It's the other way around. When "I" made this debate they were referring to themselves as Pro" 1) The entity known as "I" referred to themselves as Pro 2) Only something that exists can refer to their themselves as a Pro 3) Therefore "I" exists This proves that the claim "I" don't exist as false within the same context as "I" existing. This proves the claim "I" Don't exist as false. I would remind Pro and readers that the self refutation of "'I" don't exist" ONLY applies to the same context that which the claim of "I" don't exist is made. Now Pro objects, on the basis, sure in the past Pro made this false claim, but maybe the future Pro is different from past Pro. So what ? This doesn't refute my logical proofs, it only refutes the claim that "identity" is the same over time and or in different contexts. I never made such claims. In conclusion, as soon as something claims it doesn't exist, its self refuting, due to having to exist in order to deny its existence. This shows the claim "I" don't exist as false.
I Don't Exist

It is now regrettable leaving my debate open for it appears that an imbecile has accepted my debate. I clearly laid out how this debate was to work and Con did not follow my guidelines. For this, Con should be marked with misconduct. Since the debate has changed, the plan must be changed. Things will be made more simple for my simple-minded competitor. Con's burden shall be shifted to prove certainty rather than prove probability and the rest of the debate shall be back and forth with rebuttal arguments on the same isse rather than have two parts. === Arguments === 1. Con claims that "Only something that exists can make a claim about existence" This is correct. 2. Then Con claims "Pro is making a claim about existence" and thus concludes "Therefore Pro exists". This is...also correct. That's right--I don't challenge these statements. However, here is my argument: These statements in no way help Con's case. For it is not Con's job to prove that Pro exists but to prove that "I" exists. After-all, the definition of I is "The entity who started this debate.". In-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate. The same applies to Con's second argument. Good-luck.
I Don't Exist

By Pro claiming that they do not exist, this only proves the existence of Pro, for if Pro did not exist, then Pro would not be able to make claims about Pros non existence and/or any claims about existence is general. My 1st argument 1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence 2) Pro is making a claim about existence 3) Therefore Pro exists Moving on. .. .. .. .. .. Now its interesting that pro has indeed created this debate. As pro has defined "I" in the I don't exist claim to be defined as "The entity who started this debate". Pro admits they have created this debate, but only something has causation power. If Pro did not exist, then Pro could not be the casual agent of this debate. Seeing Pro does agree that they are the casual agent of this debate my 2nd argument is as follows My 2nd argument 1) Non existence has no causal power only something existent has casual power 2) Pro has created this debate 3) Therefore Pro exists I look forwards to Pros reply.