BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is dead

God lives on and no, Nitsche did not kill God. Man has grown from infancy and yes man has slipped away from God. But by saying that God is dead, you argue also that there never was a God. I ask you, where did the world come from? If you respond by saying a massive bang, then where did the atoms come from needed to create the bang? Did it spontaneously happen? How? Science has not been able to go to the foundations of history and prove that this world happened by mere accident. Things are proportionally set up too well for that to happen. Next, I would like to ask. What church supports the big bang theory? Mine sure doesn't! And, I would like to point out the logical fallacies that exist from the standpoint of an evolutionist. I believe that the 'species' that we have been able to find in history that are supposedly our ancestors are species that did not even have affiliation with us, but rather a species of their own. Second, we have no links in the chain of evolution from one of our first prehistoric ancestors to now. Third, why don't we see monkeys or apes giving birth to human baby children? Fourth, I believe in natural selection and I believe in some forms of adaptation. If you are going to bring up Darwin's Finches, I would like to point out that all creatures change to some extent to accommodate their environment, that is how creation was designed. And, DNA is too complex for it to just happen at random. There was purpose in the way that we were designed. Just to briefly touch on the argument about the religious war. Foreign Policy, the magazine put out an article that provides in depth analysis about religious war. It indicates that without Islam, wars would still happen. I refuse to debate on the second part of your argumentation because I am simply advocating that God exists. I am not here to tell people which God is better or that one God doesn't exist. But I will make it clear now that from my personal belief, Christianity is the one and only passage way to heaven and eternal life. That is my own bias and that is the point of view that I shall debate from. It is better to live believing that God exists and die to find out you are wrong than to live your life not believing God exists, dying, and being disappointed. I believe that faith in that which we cannot see is just as reasonable as believing that we all evolved from monkeys because we felt like it. One of the main parts to the monkey theory is that species evolve to survive. Newsflash, monkeys are still alive as the species they are so they would never have needed to evolve into humans to stay alive! God exists, has existed, and always will exist. I pray that someday you will also see the reasoning behind faith. It is the only thing left that keeps our world together.
God is dead

God is dead. Mankind has emerged from its infancy, and no longer needs to use superstition to explain natural phenomena. If an earthquake hits your town, your not going to run around to try and find a human sacrifice to sate your deity. Science has continually proven any and all religions wrong time and time again, and the only hope religion has is to reformulate its doctrine to agree with science. Do you know that the church now embraces the big bang theory? What a far cry from the days of ptolemy when the church used to lay down the law on science whenever it wanted to and would put people to death for heresy! This trend, where religion continues to lose power and become more and more meaningless, will and should continue until it doesn't exist at all. There are a lot of Christians on this site and I have to say that you guys remind me a lot of the Islamists that people are always complaining about. Why, exactly, is your god more authentic than allah? Doesn't it make sense that *maybe* religious terrorism, which is the biggest problem our country is dealing with at the moment (you remember that war we are in that is the longest war in history and fast becoming the second most expensive, right?), might not be such a big issue if we could rise above the ignorance and arrogance of believing that WE (the american christian god-loving people) are more pious and true than THEM (the Islamic brown skinned lunatics)?
Any topic

Hello today we have 4 rounds.1. Acceptance only2. Arguments3. Rebuttal4. Conlusion/ why you wonLuckily the Contender is supposed to choose what debate we should do.These are the choices1.We should ban space exploration 2. Smoking should be illegal3. This house will ban video games4. We should not teach religion in a public school(If I were the Contender I will choose to make smoking illegal, but it is the contender's choice.)Thank you
Any topic

I am very annoyed that Con forfeited so I should win.My rebuttal is...1. Con forfeited so Conduct should come to me Arguments1. We didn't even explore all of Earth We didn't even explore all of Antartica or some other places. We didn't even explore our planet, but why do we need to explore others?2. We can instead use battery-powered then solar energy. Many people think we need space exploration for their discoveries such as solar energy. However we could use batteried powered things that solar energy. Solar energy is much more expensive so batteried powered cars are better. Also many people don't use solar energy so it is just a waste of money and those discoveries.Now I will invite Con to the podium.
Any topic

My definition of this debate is that. .. Exploration: the act of exploring somethingBan: to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of somethingSpace: Universe1. So my first argument is that it just takes a lot of time. For example lets see how far mars is. You have to go there in about 260 days! !! also this is just a lot of time and also there isn't many things to look at for astronauts. Only the rovers are doing this, so people aren't doing this. Also why do we need to know about other planets. We should just take care of OUR planet earth and should just make global warming exist. This is what Professor Crain Patten says, "How long does it take? It takes the Earth one year to orbit the Sun and it takes Mars about 1.9 years ( say 2 years for easy calculation ) to orbit the Sun. The elliptical orbit which carries you from Earth to Mars is longer than Earth's orbit, but shorter than Mars' orbit. Accordingly, we can estimate the time it would take to complete this orbit by averaging the lengths of Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit. Therefore, it would take about one and a half years to complete the elliptical orbit above ( solid and dashed parts! ). Since it would be nice to spend some time at Mars, we are only interested in the one way trip ( solid line ) which is half of the orbit, and would take half the time of the full orbit, or about nine months. So it takes nine months to get to Mars. It is possible to get to Mars in less time, but this would require you to burn your rocket engines longer, using more fuel. With current rocket technology, this isn't really feasible. "Also it takes about 9.5 years to go to Pluto. I think the earth and the economy will just find information and help Earth then just going to these discoveries of other Planets. For example when New Horizon it says that they went to Pluto at 2006 and came at 2015! Also with those information it will take 16 months to even send all the information back. So basically it is 10.4 months because 9.6 months and 16 months equal to 10.4 months. 2. My second argument is that It just takes a lot of money for these space discoveries. It says that the trip it self takes $25000 dollars and the space shuttle is about 450 million dollars. Also a space suit is 12 million dollars. All together it is about 462,025,000 dollars. That is a lot of money. And also we do not get 462,025,000 points of information from these missions. ( This is the average of the space shuttle, suit, and whole trip. )Sources Used . http://pluto.jhuapl.edu...http://www.space.com...https://www.nasa.gov...http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...Now I would like to invite CON to the podium.
The KCA is a Sound Argument

Achtung! Thanks to Janet Sanders for challenging me to this debate so quickly after I requested. I look forward to a civil and intellectually interesting debate with a new, up-and-coming theist like JS. Before I accept this debate and turn the next round over to JS, I'm going to define a few key terms in this debate.Logical soundness-all of the premises in the argument are true and the argument is logically validLogical validity--the truth of the premises necessarily entails the truth of the conclusion God--the uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.Necessary condition--refers to the necessary conditions for something to take place. It is necessary to be in the United States in order to visit Kansas. Sufficient causation--refers to conditions that will necessarily lead to something else, once those conditions happen. In Newtonian physics, given the conditions of X at T1, you can determine the conditions of X at T2.Efficient cause--that which brings something into being. A chef is the efficient cause of the food he makes.Begins to exist--e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.With that, let's begin!
South Park is a better show than Family Guy

My opponent has forfeit without making an argument. Family guy is fantastic because it's a comedy show first, it doesn't sacrifice comedy in order to make a point or for the plot, it still has a plot but the plot can be bad and the show is still funny. Southpark commits to it's plot and if the plot isn't funny, neither is the episode. Family guy like southpark, is great because it can appeal both to people of higher intellect and lower intellect, both make jokes that are witty and clever yet not impossible to get(although some family guy references are really out there). Southpark isn't better than family guy.
The United Nations Should Prioritize Global Poverty Reduction Over All Other Issues

Due to matt's forfeit of this 3 round debate i see no reason to cover old ground, merely state that due to the fact he has presented no counterarguments to anything within my case, as the old debate adage goes, "Silence breeds agreement", he therefore agree's with my entire case, or at least did not have any new points to add to the debate. Due to the nature of the debate round, R1 speeches to establish positions, R2 speeches to reaffirm ones own case, and attack one's opponent, and R3 as a Rebuttal, due to my opponents forfeit he is dropping his opportunity to both reaffirm his own case, as well as attacking my own. Thanks you all once again for taking the time to read this debate round, and please cast and affirmative Ballot.
Trolls are generally bad evil creatures.

My opponent failed to challenge my Kritik of the resolution.My opponent's comment that the sources are "100% meaningless to [him]" and that "they are purely propoganda" is a bare assertion and has absolutely no basis. My opponent failed to present how and why my sources are meaningless. He didn't demonstrate that my source (for example) were unrelated, unreliable, fabricated, biased...etc. He didn't even present other sources that contradict my claims. I will also add that my Kritik is logically coherent, and these sources are only there to support my claims.Therefore, I extend all arguments. I reiterate to the judges the importance of awarding me all 7 points as I've shown that the resolution is inherently unacceptable, and that this type of "cheap tactics" in a debate ought not to be promoted and encouraged within DDO.
Trolls are generally bad evil creatures.

So, uh, I am supposed to dispose of common sense and devote myself to understanding the term Kritik, whatever. You have been spoon fed Ivory Tower nonsense IMHO. I will not debate your fantasy of the importance of the kritik. Wanna talk about the importance of learning what people that do dirty work feel like. No, you will run to your high priest ans spout nonsense, such as, "I should win because I know what a KRITIK is!" You need to get some common sense, as less then 1% of the population knows what you are talking about.
The Qur'an is not the word of God

I wish to debate an esteemed and well informed opponent, Rasheed. I know that this debate will be extremely challenging and very informative. it will be an honor to debate him again if he accepts this challenge. RULES : 1- All sources must be referenced and currently functional. 2- Respect must be upheld at ALL times. 3- Plagiarism will result In automatic defeat. 4- Round 1 is acceptance, amendments to rules and opening statements only. 5- Rounds 2-4 will be rebuttal rounds. OPENING STATEMENT : The Quran is not the word of God as muslims claim. The Quran contains numerous errors across several fields study. It also contains a number of irreconcilable contradictions within itself.
Animals should no longer be killed

Animals do not have rights. They do not have the same level of sentience (consciousness, awareness and reasoning capacity) as humans, so cannot be expected to be held to the same legal standards [1]. They therefore do not experience the same legal privileges. Since animals do not have rights, they can be owned (bought and sold). They can be kept as pets and belong to their owner for the owner to do what they please; the animals are considered property [2]. Some owners prefer to breed animals or kill them for food and profit. Only 3.2% of the global population does not eat meat [3]. Therefore we can see that eating meat (which requires killing) is accepted in virtually every culture around the world. Eating meat is healthy and alleviates hunger [4]. If we were to stop killing animals for food, world hunger would skyrocket even worse than it is now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.animallaw.info... [3] http://www.raw-food-health.net... [4] http://breakingmuscle.com...
Animals should no longer be killed

Animals are being abused all over the world. A few days ago, a gorilla got shot for "attacking" a child. But when we eat a cow, you don't see anyone killing us. We have an unfair advantage. If one person becomes vegetarian, that wont help. Many people should become vegetarian. There is an animal called the amur leopard. It is the most endangered animal ever with less than 60 individuals left. This problem conspicuous yet noone does something about it.
The Federal U.S. Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment

I believe that the U.S. Government should not declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space. Each prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.
Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

Thank you for responding. 1. Why force the sloths to adapt to wearing shoes when they can just adapt to living in trees even better? Shoes would only force them to have to adapt to the ground, when the trees are better for sloths, even if they adapt to the ground. 2. Sloths should not be forced to use their claws to fight any more than need be. Camouflage with algae is only useful in trees, and moving slowly on the ground makes sloths sitting ducks. This still does not justify forcing sloths to wear shoes. 3. If the sloths can't take off their shoes, their liberty is being horribly obstructed. 4. People who fund zoos and shelters do it in the name of animal freedom [1]. They would not agree to spend their money to restrict the freedom of sloths. There is no way they'd consent to having their money wasted in such a way. My opponent that sloths could not be hunted while they wear shoes (unfounded). However, this would only result in an entire section of the economy (sloth hunting) collapsing, and this money would not just go to the sloths, as the would-be hunters would rather kill the sloths than give them sloths, and the forced redirection of a man's wealth is tyranny. 5. My opponent calls the idea that a picture can change a fact "debatable." However, this means that he should actually put forth an argument for debate. I have refuted all of my opponent's answers. I look forward to my opponent's responses. 1. http://www.animalshelter.org...
Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

1,My opponent has stated "Natural selection has already determined how much time sloth's should spend in trees, and sloth's follow those rules instinctively". --To this I would have to argue that the sloth's would adapt to having the shoes on them. . It may take time but eventually they would adapt. 2, "However, that would merely make them easy targets for predators, as sloth's are not designed to wear shoes". --Sloth's (If faced with opposition) have claws as a natural defense to hold off predators. Also [1]"A sloth's main forms of protection are its camouflage (greatly increased by the coating of algae growing on its fur) and its very slow movement. " This being said sloth's can learn and adapt to their new lifestyle on the ground. We could even make it so that the front shoes have spaces for their claws to get through for self defense. 3,"My opponent claims that sloth's can be taught how to use shoes. However, this would be an extreme waste of manpower, and it's quite likely that sloth's cannot put on shoes, tie said shoes, or take off shoes". --This point I can agree with you on. . but in replacement of shoes that require the sloth's to have matanence over, we could use shoes that only require being put on once and stay on them. Thus saving "manpower" and time. 4,"Finally, I'd like to know who's going to fund shoes for the sloth's. This would be rather expensive, and would return no profit at all, so nobody would possibly invest". -- The same people who fund for keeping them in zoos and shelters. As for it being expensive. . they don't need to have high end shoes that could normally be sold for possibly 100$, we could keep it simple. Return no profit you say? If we had to give them shoes then maybe they would be unable to be hunted because of the investment put into putting shoes on them, Thus people will stop buying the tools neccecery to hunt them. This would result in companies no longer producing the tools for hunting them, resulting in no money spent on making said tools. (it would pay for itself) 5, "A sloth wearing sunglasses cannot change that fact". .. . Debatable. .. . I have brought forth and gave valid reason/answer to each and every point my opponent had stated. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. [1]. http://www.animalcorner.co.uk...
Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

My opponent claims that sloths live in trees "too much for their own good. " However, sloths are actually very adapted to living in trees [1]. Natural selection has already determined how much time sloths should spend in trees, and sloths follow those rules instictively. My opponent wishes to force sloths to wear shoes to keep them on the ground. However, that would merely make them easy targets for predators, as sloths are not designed to wear shoes. My opponent claims that sloths can be taught how to use shoes. However, this would be an extreme waste of manpower, and it's quite likely that sloths cannot put on shoes, tie said shoes, or take off shoes. If they could take off their own shoes, then to force sloths to wear shoes, we'd have to have people watching the sloths, and punishing those that wear shoes. This would be an even larger waste of manpower. Finally, I'd like to know who's going to fund shoes for the sloths. This would be rather expenisve, and would return no profit at all, so nobody would possibly invest. In conclusion, my opponent wishes to force a species perfectly adapted to trees to live on the ground, with no real reason as to why they're better off on the ground, wasting significant manpower and resources that nobody would supply, altogether infringing upon the sloths' liberty and making them easier to kill. A sloth wearing sunglasses cannot change that fact. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

Sloths hang onto trees too much for there own good... if we had given them shoes they would have to stay on the floor for extended periodsa of time... A way to do this would be to teach every single sloth how to: 1, put on shoes 2, tie said shoes 3, take off their shoes This would therefore make the sloths have to stay on the floor... they need to wear shoes. Need proof? http://www.htzfm.com...
Twilight Sparkle is the best character out of the Mane 6 in MLP:FiM

I believe that Fluttershy is the best main pony because of three things= Cuteness, Peacefulness, and compassion for everything, including things that could easily kill her.Cuteness:Fluttershy is, by far, the cutest of the ponies. Watch the first two videos, and look at her eyes, personality, and her pose. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...Peacefulness:You can see from my third video that Fluttershy is in harmony with nature, and loves everything. http://www.youtube.com...Compassion for things that could easily kill her:This point ties in with Peacefulness, and the last three videos will show that fluttershy thinks that every animal should be dealt with with love and compassion.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...Also, Fluttershy also has the perfect balance of flaws. She is shy and not assertive, but is great with animals and is peaceful.
Twilight Sparkle is the best character out of the Mane 6 in MLP:FiM

Alright, now we each get to post our main argument. In round three we'll rebuttal each other's round 2 arguments. First off, Twilight is respectful. For example, in Green Isn't Your Color, she respects their right to privacy even though she knows that telling them would help them. In Luna Eclipsed, she helps out Luna even though everypony else was afraid of her. Second, Twilight is wise and intelligent. She is probably the most intelligent of the mane 6. She has saved Equestria many times with her ability to notice details and her critical thinking. For example, in the first episode, she predicted Nightmare Moon's return, and in A Canterlot Wedding, noticed that Cadance was acting different and discovered that she was imposter. Countless other times Twilight has shown her superior intelligence throughout the show. Third, throughout the show, Twilight has shown the most character development. In the first episode, Twilight learns that friends are more important than she thought. In Feeling Pinkie Keen, she learns that sometimes there are things she can't explain that just happen anyway. In fact, Twilight learns something new in almost every episdoe, and sends Celestia a letter about it. Lastly, Twilight has the right number of character flaws to balance her overall character. She has OCD tendencies, that have been shown in episodes like Lesson Zero. Also in that episode, her tendency to make a big deal over soomething little was shown, as well as in It's About Time. Lastly, her tendency to put study over friends, which she overcomes mostly in the first few episodes, but not completely. For example, in Griffin the Brush Off, she ignores Pinkie's rambling about Rainbow Dash and focusses on her books instead. This is why Twilight is best pony. Thank you for accepting my challenge, by the way. Sorry this took so long ._. Starting a debate right before finals was a bad idea, I thought I would have more time to work on this yesterday T_T