BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

Let's get this party started then. 1) Definitions Possible: "that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc."[1] Human race: "all of the living human inhabitants of the earth"[2] Extinct: "no longer in existence; that has ended or died out"[3] After: "later in time than"[4] Nuclear war: "A war in which nuclear weapons are used by both sides"[5] These definitions help by stating that the resolution means, all living humans can not die out following a war with nuclear weapons. 2) Main points A) Not enough nuclear weapons in the world Here are some numbers for you. Biggest nuclear bomb that we know of is the Tsar Bomba[6], which has a blast radius of 35km.[7] So now lets find the area which can be found by A=(pi)*R^2[8] and we find that the area is 3,848.451km^2. Now lets take the surface area of the earth which is 510,072,000 km^2[9], now lets find out how many it takes by dividing the surface area of the earth by the area of the bomb which is 132,539.5594 nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth in one attack. But does the world have enough well according to FAS.org or Federation of American Scientists, they say that there are only 19,000 roughly[10] Well you can do the math here and say that we don't have 132,539.5594 Tsar Bombas in the world. By this it is possible to survive a nuclear war due to not enough nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth all in one attack to guarantee extinction. B) Space provides shelters human race chance to survive Now, I can just throw old policy cards at you of people saying things about surviving in space, or I can just say common sense which is a lot easier, but if you argue no sources then I will bring them out for round 2. When Europeans discovered America they provided more room for humans to grow, space has a lot of room for colonization. Although Americas space program is not growing other corporations are developing their space programs, such as Space X. Humans can start to colonize space and reduce the chance of extinction. 3) Conclusion Because there are not enough nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth there is still a chance for humans to survive a nuclear war, sure it will be bad but there will still be humans alive. If something bad does happen then humans can always go out into space. For these reasons I ask you to vote for Pro. Thank you for reading and good luck to my opponent. Sites: [1] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] = http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [6] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] = http://www.mathgoodies.com... [9] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] = http://www.fas.org...
It is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

The reasoning I used the entire earth surface area, is because humans can be in a plane or on a boat out in the ocean. To prove total extinction the entire earth must be covered with nuclear weapons. If all the nuclear bombs hit land then humans can be out in the ocean and still survive and prove that the human race can not become extinct. Just to help everyone, I will do the same math but with the surface area of the land for earth which is 148,940,000km^2 so now we divide it by 3,848.451 and I get about 38,705 tsar bombas which is still more nuclear bombs that the world has according to the federation of American scientists. The number of nuclear bombs a country has is kept secret, but you also have to keep in mind that not every country is making tsar bombas, a lot of them are much smaller so if there is more than 19,000 than the majority of those bombs are much smaller than the Tsar Bomba. Although this if your first argument on this website, the voting for the winner is split into different categories each worth an amount of points and one is for having facts or so, which is why I cited so many things. I shall withdraw my space argument because I agree with my opponent that I contradicted myself with the definition of human race. There is no need to beat a dead horse. By me saying there is a chance for the human race to live after a nuclear war is saying that it is not possible. For it to be possible is for nuclear weapons to cover the entire earth and to make a yes, the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war. But I am saying that no, because there are not enough nuclear bombs in the world the human race can survive by going somewhere that is not being hit by a nuclear bomb. So I still prove that the human race can not go extinct after a nuclear war. My opponent has not stated that the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war. My opponent did not state any facts to say, "yes the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war." Because I have defended my biggest argument which was that there is not enough nuclear bombs to assure total human extinction therefore it is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war. I ask you to vote Pro. Try looking up some other debates to understand how things work, it might help.
It is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

No. Your first argument is silly. You calculate how many Tsar Bombas would need to be detonated in order to cover the Earth. You are using the total surface area of the Earth, which includes oceans, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water in which human life does not exist. Therefore, your calculations are about 70% too high. Furthermore, the knowledge many nations have concerning nuclear weapons is speculative and not concrete; I feel there is no need to cite anything here... You define the human race as "all of the living human inhabitants of the earth". If humans were to be sent into space, (you do not say where in space humans will be sent; taking into account your argument regarding colonization, I will assume that you mean human life will continue on another planet), they would no longer be considered a part of the "human race", as they will no longer be living on Earth. Lastly, your argument is that it is impossible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war. From my discernment, you are arguing that it is improbable for human life to continue it's existence after a nuclear war, and personally, I agree with you; you fail, however, to argue why it is totally impossible. This is my first post on this cite, so please forgive me if I improperly followed appropriate formatting of any kind. Thank you.
America should declare Pakistan a terrorist state

Definition Declare- to announce officially . http://dictionary.reference.com...+ Terrorist- a person who terrorizes . http://dictionary.reference.com...+ State- the condition of a person or thing . http://dictionary.reference.com... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C. I. A and Indian intelligence wing R. A. W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state. " Can you give me a source to this statement? "Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban. " Can you provide any proof of this statement? "It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist. .. " How do you know if they did help shelter Osama? Maybe Osama sneaked in to Pakistan to one of his many hide outs which are located throughout the Middle Eastern countries. Why Pakistan isn't a terrorist state. 1) Pakistan is helpful to U. S. "Pakistan plays a vital role in keeping supply lines open for U. S. and Western troops battling Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. About 40% of NATO's non-weapons supplies move by truck from the Pakistani port city of Karachi to two crossings along the Afghan border. " This quote tells the importance of Pakistan to the U. S. If America declares Pakistan a terrorist state what would happen to the friendship between America and Pakistan. Without Pakistan's help with keeping the supply lines open for America, the Western troops fighting Taliban in Afghanistan would suffer of lack of supplies. . http://www.latimes.com... 2) What about country like Afghanistan? ". .. nearly 10-year-old conflict in Afghanistan: a weak, corrupt and deeply unpopular central government. .. " This statement tells that country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Afghanistan was also attacked by many Taliban fighters in Kandahar. . http://www.latimes.com... . http://www.latimes.com... 3) Pakistan alliance is needed to the U. S. "Pakistan is a steady partner when it counts. It stood by the United States when India, America’s current darling, danced body-rubbing close with the Soviet Union—to America’s detriment. " "Pakistan made it possible for the United States to reap the benefit of the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. The Mujahedeen—more armed poppy growers than religious zealots—fought, died and defeated America’s rival superpower in a key strategic part of the world. " Pakistan stood by U. S. when U. S. needed them to. Pakistan is a helpful ally who helped America with the war on terror. . http://gazettextra.com... Conclusion Pakistan is a helpful country in the war on terror. Without Pakistan's help supplies wouldn't be delivered to the Western forces fighting insurgents. Country like Afghanistan is more of a terrorist state then Pakistan. Pakistan has helped America when Soviet Union came to the Middle East. Bottom line is that Pakistan is a helpful ally that shouldn't be called a terrorist state.
America should declare Pakistan a terrorist state

After getting all the proves of terrorist camps and activities in Pakistan by C.I.A and Indian intelligence wing R.A.W America should waste no time in declaring Pakistan a Terrorist state. Pakistan has two faces one where it shakes hand with America and other where it back-stabs it by funding Taliban. It gave shelter to Osama and other Most wanted terrorist and actually misused American aid against Indian and planned 26/11 attack and series of bomb blasts killing thousands of innocent people. Now even after so many direct links and proves world still spares Pakistan then million Osama's will be born on its soil. Get ready for another 9 or 26/11
Christian Faith Against Islam

In face of Con's assertions, it would be important to note that the Quran is not a fully consistent narrative, but it gives credence to the Christian view on Jesus in some places and oppose it in others. For example, Surah 2:62, 3:45, 3:55*, 4:171*, 5:117* and 19:30-34 make statements that seem to affirm the Christian view on Jesus (although the verses with a star are very often edited by translators trying to change their meaning), while Surah 3:47, 3:59, 4:157, 9:30, 19:35 seemingly contradict these claims (Surah 3:47, 3:59, 9:30 and 19:35 being in all likelihood not attributable to Muhammad, while Surah 4:157 has an ambiguous meaning that was further distorted by translators). 2:62 states that Jews and Christians will be saved by their Lord, but anyone familiar with Christianity knows that the Lord of a Christian is none other than Jesus Christ himself. And the Jews themselves recognize that the Messiah is or will be their Lord (see Matthew 22:42-45). At least one translation tried to "correct" the meaning of the surah, but most would agree with it. Surah 3:45, 4:171 and 19:34 all identify Jesus as the Word of God (19:34 says the Word of Truth, but this is in accordance with John's view on the Logos) ; Surah 3:45 even makes clear that the Word is named Jesus, not that Jesus is born "from" the Word (as in Surah 3:59) ; 4:171 adds that Jesus is the Spirit of God (translators have tried to change it to Spirit from God, Spirit created by God, or to change Spirit for Soul in the text, but the Arabic text does not suggest it is created, and Spirit and Soul are different (see Genesis 2:7)). The end of 4:171 is strickingly similar to 19:35 and can thereby be discounted. 3:55 and 5:117 put the death of Jesus in the past (this is suppressed in many translations), while 4:157 does not actually deny it. The exact Surah is as follow : " They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus). " The rebuked statement is that the Jews murdered Jesus, not that Jesus died. From Luke 23:46 we can conclude that it was Jesus who decided the moment of his death - not the Jews. There is reason to believe the Quran was opposing Jews who would boast "we killed Jesus" as a way to deny his Messianism and Lordship, not those who would merely make the statement "Jesus died", because he decided when to die. The Quran even make indirect statements about the divinity of Jesus : Surah 3:50 says Jesus ordered the submission of people to himself, but 3:79 states that no human prophet would order obedience to himself rather than God. This is, of course, because Jesus is God. I don't have the space to analyze 19:30-33, but I did in comments.
Christian Faith Against Islam

My main objective for this debate is to demonstrate that Islam is fake. It is logic, that if a religion is but deception, its founder should be false too. So let's examine Muhammad as prophet to see if there is credibility in his teachings:The basic averment of Islam about the prophet Muhammad is: "We have a superior revelation, redemption and Salvation than that from Prophet Jesus-Christ", which is obscene for Christians but also nonsense for muslims if they are to seek the truth honestly. There is no superior revelation of God than God himself incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, this is a Central point in Christian apologetics. Paul, foreseeing the danger of blasphemers wrote full stop to the Revelation in his letter to Galatians:But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9The Quran says:Sura 10:94-95 So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. And never be of those who deny the signs [revelations] of Allah and [thus] be among the losers.This referred to ancient prophets of the OT (The Jewish Tanaj) and apostles of the NT (The Gospel). Apparently Muhammad did not follow the commandment nor he did understand the Revelation, because for some reason he denies the Death and Resurrection, foretold in the Tanaj (Isaiah 53:3-6; Zech 12:10; Psalm 16:8-11; Is 25:8) and declared in the whole NT: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS FROM THE DEAD, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1Pe 1:3-4Nonetheless, Islam asserts that Jesus did not die on the cross as it was preached for centuries in the testimony:Sura 4:157-158 And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.This is a contradiction to the Scriptures given by God (Tanaj and Gospel) -according to the Quran- and to the Quran itself since purportedly Allah warned the prophet to be a believer -not a doubter- of the Scriptures. Therefore, the Quran is a fake revelation or nothing more than the artifice of a man. Hence, the founder of Islam, Muhammad is NOT a prophet from G-d.
Christian Faith Against Islam

The fact that there are terrorists claiming to be muslims doesn't change anything on the prophethood of Muhammad, Islam's funder. If Islam is true, banning it is a sin. Now since the question is directed towards Christians, we will have to examine the Muslim faith : is it of God, or was Muhammad a false prophet? Since the question concerns Christians and Muslims, the debate can only be done on the assumption that God exists, so we may reject this third option. We are left with a dichotomy. The Apostle John gives clear directives as to how to recognize false prophets: 1 John 4:1-3: " Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. " From this we can verify the authenticity of prophets. Those that attest that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh attest that he is the Word of God. The question, then, is whether Muhammad attested it, or not? There are three sources from which we can know the teachings of Muhammad: the Quran, the Hadiths, and his letters. Muslims only recognize the first two, but the letters of Muhammad to kings appear to be authentic (and many Hadiths attest to their early existence, if not authenticity). Due to the nature of the Hadiths, and the assumption held by many (even among some Muslim scholars) that the Quran has been edited (The Apology of Al-Kindy is an early assertion of this belief), the most trustworthy source of knowledge on Islam has to be the letters, so what do they say on Jesus? Here is Muhammad's letter to the King of Ethiopia: " In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, [out of which there is no god], the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit (ruh) of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure and believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his Spirit (ruh) just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way. " Not only does Muhammad recognizes Jesus as the Word of God, but he makes it clear that Jesus's birth is unlike that of Adam. God made Jesus from his Spirit, which means that Jesus was begotten from the Holy Spirit. Unlike Adam, who was a body of clay filled with the breath of life (Genesis 2:7), Jesus was a spiritual entity (1 Corinthians 15:46). By the criteria of John, the author of the letter has to be a person of God. If Muhamma wrote the letter as supposed, this must mean he was a prophet.
Christian Faith Against Islam

Islam has so many historical and doctrinal mistakes that it should be considered as a fake religion. The world just cannot afford to live with a hostile neighbor which is persistently trying to force everyone else to believe in his credo with acts like assassinations, rape, sexual slavery, kidnapping and terror. We as Christians should preach our faith to every creature, but the decision of becoming a believer in Jesus comes to everyone before G-d. For us Christians, there is no reason to judge a person for his faith but rather than that we show love, care and the power of the Holy Spirit in order to make them really believers.
Christian Faith Against Islam

Con assumes that Islam was violent from the beginning, but this is contestable. The Muslim calendar began when Muhammad and his followers were expelled from Mecca and took refuge in the city of Medina. From there, the early Mulims were under constant siege from Middle Eastern armies. The Muslim army spared still living enemies at the end of battles, which was very different from what other armies used to do at that time period. Some of those who were spared joined the followers of Muhammad, and it is this mercy that led to the rapid rise of Islam. Muhammad and his army later signed a peace treaty with pagans and returned to Mecca. The short battle that took place here was defensive, because Muslims had the right to come to Mecca. Those that surrendered were spared, while those that did not attack Muslims in the first place were left alone. Under Muslim occupation, those of other faiths were well treated. There was no compulsion in religion (Surah 2:256), and people of any faith were welcome to live among the Muslims as long as they paid their taxes (the Zakat for the Muslims, and the Jizya for people of other faiths) and followed other basic rules. Muhammad and his successors were in the right to ask these things because they were civil authorities as well as religious (unity of civil and religious authority is seen everywhere. Even France has some control over what the Catholic Church do despite its supposed laicity. And civil authorities have the right to ask taxs, said Hobbes). In fact, throughout the Middle Age, Jews were better treated by Muslims than by Catholics. At least they weren't accused of eating babies. It is only in the last century that the major churches stopped being so antisemitic (Protestant Churches as much as the others. Martin Luther was a major antisemite even during his time). Even Christians with beliefs such as Monophysitism or Nestorianism (both of which were condemned by the Catholic Church as heresies) were possibly better in the lands of Muslims than in the lands of Catholics, because Catholics were quick to persecute heretics. Waraka ibn Nawfal is reportedly an unconverted Nestorian Christian who was counted amongst Muhammad's followers (he also allegedly attested to Muhammad's orthodoxy on matter of faith, but this rumor could be based on false Hadiths. If true, this would give support to my conjecture that Muhammad himself agreed with the Gospels). There is evidence that Muslims persecuted Christians for no apparent reason, but I didn't find record of it until the 11th century, long after Muhammad's death. Even then, not all Muslims would agree with it. Ibadi (members of the 3rd most important school of Islam) are said to have been open to Christians and Jews in all time periods, and still are today, while the current terrorist attack made by Muslims do not have the approval of the Muslim community - even the attack on Charlie Hebdo was criticized by (visibly Muslim) caricaturists in Muslim countries.