BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The christian god exists and rules over the universe.

The christian god exists and rules over the universe.PrefaceThis debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.TermsAll terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the Oxford Dictionary. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both SummarizePrefaceThis debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.Full TopicGod probably exists. TermsAll terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary. God - the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universeprobably - 'is likely to happen or be true'Exist - 'have objective reality or being' Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Summarize
The christian god exists and rules over the universe.

Here is my summary: 1. My opponent gave an opening argument that addressed all religions and did not really focus on the Christian God. He did not even try to disprove the existence of God. He merely made assumptions and his reasons for doubting in God. Most people try to use the argument of suffering to disprove God but my opponent only expressed his doubts instead of arguing against the existence of God. The whole argument about people "believing in God because their is no other explanation" is completely false. Theists base their faith on all kinds of evidence including the evidence I provided. The only type of faith that requires no evidence is "blind faith." But that is another matter. 2. Then my opponent goes on to claim more things without any evidence such as "Evolution is one of those things that is not disputed anymore." Then to support this claim, he cites the same link five times which leads the reader to a website that has 29 evidences for evolution. But the site also includes 29 possible falsifications along with the evidence. Nothing about macroevolution is a fact. 3. Then we get to several more claims which state things such as "Christianity comes from paganism" or "the Bible is full of hypocrisy." None of these claims were well supported and I explained why they were incorrect. More claims that were made later were even more incorrect and my opponent kept giving me links that lead to matters that had nothing to do with the topic. 4. The main problem with my opponent is that he does not understand what constitutes as evidence and he doesn't understand that Jesus was a real person. A person coming into a debate about the Christian God should have done some research before having a debate like this. False links that lead to bizarre content do not count as evidence and 99% of scholars agree that Jesus was a real person. My opponent absolutely has no reason to disbelieve in the existence of Jesus when I gave evidence to show him the truth. 5. My opponent also claims to have read the Bible. I find this hard to believe when he misrepresented it twice. But I hope he will go ahead and read it again because there is a lot of truth in it. There is a reason why people have so much faith in that book. 6. Many of the responses I got to the thirteen arguments were not really rebuttals but emotional responses... b. "This is crazy. I am glad I left this response to last, once again, sorry if I sound mad, this argument gets me frustrated. You make the claim "God is the best explanation for why truth exists" then the closest thing I can find to evidence is "But the fact is, if truth were to objectively exist " it had to come from a being that is objectively true.". Why? What created god? What is the evidence that that is the case? Not only were some questions asked that were already answered (God exists necessarily), but this was an emotional response and it did not refute the truth argument I gave. It seemed like my opponent didn't even understand what was said. But nevertheless I had fun debating this topic and I hope my opponent learned something (like I have) during this discussion.
Weapons of Mass Destruction have done more good for society than bad.

Premise: Weapons of Mass Destruction, both by their usage in the past, and their mere existence in the present, have dealt more damage to society than they have prevented.My first argument that I will present in this block is the overall doomsday presence of nuclear weaponry.Nuclear weaponry was first beginning to take its shape during WW2 into the Cold War. The catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare was more than apparent with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wherein 200,000 casualties were suffered. This was merely with two nuclear bombs on two population dense areas. With modern nuclear technology such as MIRVs and ICBMs being at the disposal of all world powers, the fact of nuclear annihilation in the event of warfare is more than apparent.The trend of nuclear holocaust continued into the Cold War, where the standoff reached a halting point between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. At this time, enough bombs existed to annihilate every city and military base of each of the participating countries, and many more. Even with the key signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, enough bombs still exist between all nuclear armed countries to annihilate eachother and the planet.Now, there is a simple response to these contentions, and that is the concept of mutually assured destruction. This is the idea that, if two countries possess a weapon powerful enough to destroy the other (i.e. nuclear missiles), a counterattack would occur equal to or exceeding that of the other country. Simply put, it's the tactical idea: "If you hit me, I'll hit you."Except it's with warheads with the explosive equivalent of several million tons of TNT.Now, my counter to this argument would be that, with both the failings and advancement of technology in the past and present, nuclear missiles are more than prone to bringing the end.There have been many "nuclear close calls". Ranging from when a radar malfunctioned and read several tens of nuclear weapons heading towards the US, to when a nuclear war simulation accidentally plays over official monitoring terminals, in the past, and possibly present, there have been many times where WW3, and subsequently, the apocalypse, almost started.It gets worse, in fact.With the computer age advancing past infancy to transcendency, it is no surprise that hacking methods have become many times over more efficient and elaborate than they were in the past. If push comes to shove, or the final door is lockpicked in a security system, it's possible that countries or the world can be ended without any pre-knowledge.http://mentalfloss.com...http://fpif.org...;http://www.popularmechanics.com...;
Weapons of Mass Destruction have done more good for society than bad.

This argument is based upon the premise that the number of deaths in wars that are convened between two nations has been decreasing on average since the end of World War 2. http://www.smithsonianmag.com... People are the building blocks of society and ever since the creation of Nuclear weapons, the most powerful weapons of mass destruction there are, fewer of them have been getting killed in wars. Here is a link that proves the statistics are related. http://www.politifact.com... The knowledge that a war will not lead to good on any side leads to there being fewer wars. When there is no war, there are fewer deaths. Not only have there been fewer deaths, but the lack of state on state wars causes the prolonging of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org... As can be seen from this source, most nations that have been lost to time were either lost before the end of World War 2, or when the Soviet Union collapsed. The cultures of areas around the world tend to last longer when the nations that contain the culture maintain their sovereignty. So, the two reasons why Weapons of Mass Destruction have been good for society are that they prevent war between powerful nations saving lives, and the lack of war allows the survival of cultures.
Weapons of Mass Destruction have done more good for society than bad.

.. Weapon of Mass Destruction: a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. Society: Every person in the world, as well as the cultures those people maintain. This isn't a debate about what would happen to society if such weapons would be used, it is a debate about how the existence of those weapons has shaped society in regards to warfare, ethics, etc. . Please keep profanity out of this debate. I do not require some weird form of logic or verbatim sources for every argument, pure logic is fine by my standards although if a source would help your argument you are welcome to post it. If necessary, comment with questions before accepting the debate. I would be more than happy to answer.
the hunger games series is better than the harry potter series

just because harry potter is longer doesnt mean it isnt thrilling or exiting. it depends on what you are able to read. harry potter is one of the biggest franchises ever. its all depends on what you are able to read. good books arent mearsured on how long or short they are. besides, usually if the book is longer its detailed and its bettre quality. and the hunger games length nor length of harry potter lesens the quality.
The Pope is the Antichrist.

Many people have believed the Antichrist to be openly against God and his peopleA. My opponent is incorrect here as Priest receive the commission through God that they are able to do so. Let me give you a Bible verse here. "Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38–39) Here we can see that God has given Priest the ability to perform the rite as they are a tool for which God may forgive his people. B. I agree one mustn't change God's law. The three anti-Christ's have done so by destroying those who teach the Gospel while the Papacy is only teaching the Gospel. C. I will want to see some evidence for this point. We have seen the 4 people I have mention last round attack and destroy the church and get tons of public support as they claimed that they are fighting for God. My opponent has also conceded that there multiple anti Christ's which feeds my argument of there being three anti-Christ's. Drops by ProMy opponent has dropped the fallowing Phrocacies that do not fit in the Papacy. -Diverse from Other Kingdoms-War with the Saints-World Power-Rule the People-Great Blaspheme against God-It would change times and lawsNow you may ask yourself why is this important that I bring these to your attention. Pro states that the Anti-Christ can only be found by these 10 marks that he brought up. I have proved that 6 Don't even protruded to the Papacy while the rest pertain to the 3 Anti-Christ's predicted by Nastrodamus. With that I thank you.
The Pope is the Antichrist.

Many people have believed the Antichrist to be openly against God and His people; We usually consider the word "anti" to mean "against". But in "Antichrist" it means "in the place of" or "instead of". Antichrist is guilty of assuming the prerogatives of God. It claims:A. Its priests can forgive sins which only God can do (Luke 5:21). B. To have changed God's law by dropping out the second commandment (on worshiping images) and splitting the tenth into two parts. God's law cannot be changed (Matthew 5:18). C. That the pope is God on earth. Satan's Original PlanSatan's original plan (in heaven) was to assume God's position and authority. His aim was to oust God and rule in His place. When Satan was ejected from heaven, his aim did not change, but rather intensified. Through the centuries he has endeavored (using various human agencies) to discredit God and take over His position. Antichrist Appears to Be SpiritualSatan aims to replace God in these last days by deceiving people into following Antichrist, who appears spiritual and holy. The main purpose of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is to expose Satan's traps and strategies and lead people to anchor in Jesus and His Word for safety. Antichrist Will Deceive ManyMost people will follow the Antichrist (Revelation 13:3), thinking they are following Christ. Only the very elect will be safe (Matthew 24:23, 24). They will be safe because they test every spiritual teaching and leader by Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Religious deception is everywhere today. We cannot be too careful. Does the Bible say in 1 John 2:18-22 that there are many antichrists? Yes, there have been many antichrists down through history who have worked against the kingdom of God. However, there is only one entity that specifically fulfills all the prophesied characteristics of the Antichrist. In Daniel chapters 7 and 8 and in Revelation chapter 13, you will find at least 10 identifying traits of the Antichrist. These 10 identifying marks can be fulfilled in only one entity, the papacy.
The islam religion is misogynist.

This is going to be my last argument. And im glad to do this debate. First I'll answer this little thing then continue part of my second round. My opponent said; " Jailed for life? Simply for being unveiled! This is outrageous! This insults all woman kind. This is a travesty of justice. Such injustices cannot be left unanswered. Such open double standards and discrimination again women invites prejudice against other minorities. " I would kindly like to tell my opponent that that is not an Islamic law but merely words of an man named'Sheik Taj Din'. His statement is in no way representing Islam. The purpose of putting his words here was to show you the opinion that men have against uncovered women. Moreover my opponent ignored and didnt comment on the rest of my argument. Which could mean he agrees with me. my opponent hasn't as of yet provided any real evidence to prove his point so, I should defiantly win. He just stated two verses in the first round. He has and has no argument. But i will fulfil my duty and answer his questions from round 1. THIS IS THE LAST BLAME FROM MY OPPONENT; DOUBLE STANDARD AGAINST WOMEN:- The part of men having multiple wives and women not having multiple husbands has already been discuss in the second round. Hence, I stand with my debate having nullified all of my opponents points whereas he couldn't do the same. VOTE CON!!
The islam religion is misogynist.

I could make an argument for round three, but my opponent provided additional evidence that the Islamic faith is misogynist. In fact I find my opponent's round two argument incredibly misogynist. Although my adversary states she didn't agree with me, her evidence suggests otherwise. "It is necessary for a woman to cover herself so she doesn't look sexually inviting as every other woman nowadays does.Proof; words of men1)Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have said that unveiled victims of public rape invited their attackers: "If I came across a rape crime " kidnap and violation of honour " I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."" MuslimdebaterMy opponent provides evidence for my side of the debate. I find this statement to be a quintessential example of misogynism. Jailed for life? Simply for being unveiled! This is outrageous! This insults all woman kind. This is a travesty of justice. Such injustices cannot be left unanswered. Such open double standards and discrimination again women invites prejudice against other minorities. Your position was uphill, yet you still struggled anyhow, I see a certain valiance in this. Good luck in further debates.
The islam religion is misogynist.

"Proves that the pro doesn't have one side. For debate you need to make one point clear. If I am to debate on this. Should i be like, " Islam isn't misogynist' and then be like, "maybe"." MuslimDebater I was trying to be objective and let the evidence speak for itself. Yes, I am 99.99% sure that Islam is misogynist. The Islam religion is misogynist.
The islam religion is misogynist.

The pro in the current situation hasn't taken a clear side. The statement ; "Overall, I come to the conclusion that the Islamic religion is misogynist, but not evenly. Not all branches of Islamic religion are equally misogynist" Proves that the pro doesn't have one side. For debate you need to make one point clear. If I am to debate on this. Should i be like, " Islam isn't misogynist' and then be like, "maybe". I ask my opponent to make his/her views clear before starting the debate. Do you or do you not think of Islam as misogynist?
I will win the below debate with ViceRegent(if they accept the debate)

Any quotes from my opponent or ViceRegentwill be italicized for this whole debate.Obviously my opponent suffers from some sort of mild autism. -farmerump1First, this is an ad hominem and has nothing to do with the debate. Secondly, I've never been diagnosd with autism, and it would be on con to prove that I have it. They are likely not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so they do not have the authority or knowledge to diagnose anyone with any psychiatric disorder. The reason why I believe I will win the debate with ViceRegent, is not so much because he has no means of knowing truth from fiction, but because he has no means of knowing truth from fiction that he hasn't already dismissed as irrational in previous debates.As you can see with this quote from ViceRegent, he does not believe senses and reason are a rational way of knowing truth from fiction: If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. -ViceRegent [1] And there is further evidence of this in their other debates and the remainder of that debate.I contend that there is no other way to know the difference between fact and fiction other than through senses and reason, and since ViceRegent dismisses them as an irrational way of knowing truth from fiction, they cannot win this debate I issued to them without being a hypocrite or having double standards. Unless con can show another rational way of knowing fact from fiction, there doesn't seem to be a way ViceRegent can win this debate. Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...;
I will win the below debate with ViceRegent(if they accept the debate)

This is the debate: . http://www.debate.org...I'm not sure if it is accessible to other people right now, as it's still in a phase where it needs to be accepted by ViceRegent. If you can't access it, this is what I wrote so far in the title and round 1 of the debate:Topic: "Does ViceRegent have a rational way of knowing truth from fiction? " "Burden of proof is with ViceRegent, as (s)he must prove (s)he has a way of knowing truth from fiction, otherwise it can be assumed that (s)he has no way of knowing. Thought I'd turn this around a little and challenge him/her in the same way he/she did to every atheist on this site. If you don't already know, ViceRegent has done the same debate 64 times(as of me writing this) on the topic of whether atheists know truth from fiction. You may view them here: . http://www.debate.org......Seriously folks, you can click on the seventh page of that and still see the same debate there from the first page. RulesViceRegent should immediately begin their arguments in round 1, since they have BoP. To keep the argument rounds even, ViceRegent should not use the last round for debate, but(as I suspect they will do) only insults or just stating that they are not doing any arguments. It will likely be insults the entire debate from ViceRegent, but maybe they will surprise everyone and actually be civil. If these rules are broken, ViceRegent should be penalized by the voters by voting for me for conduct. As established in their previous debates, science is not a reasonable method of knowing truth from fiction because it relies on senses self-validating senses which is circular reasoning. "Rules of this debate:1) Con may begin their argument in round 1, but if they choose to do so, they must not use the last round for argument in order to keep the rounds for argument used between us even. 2) Google Docs are permitted, but don't go over the 10,000 character limit. Character limits are necessary so that readers don't have to read an entire book, and it puts us as the debators on a more even playing field. 3) No insults4) The last round used for debate by either side should just be rebuttals/defense and no new arguments. If any of the above rules are violated, voters should vote for the one who did not violate any rules for conduct.