BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of God

First off, how would you now that the Bible could have contradictions and lies if you have never read it. Have you? The links you have posted for contradictions were from people who are atheists who will lie to people to get them join their cause. Atheists go by their conscience and tells them their is no God. The devil has control over them and they let the Devil take them over. The Bible is not filled with lies and God is not a lie, neither is the Devil, but he is full of lies. Proof that God does exist: God is not physical, but spiritual. He did leave physical evidence though. EVERYTHING!!! Someone or something have had to make the world. Most people like scientists would consider the bang theory. Even if the theory was true (which it is not) then someone must have had to make it and whatever made the big bang, and so on. Jesus` miracles left enough both physical and spiritually evidence for proof there is a God. The first proof of evidence is Easter. The death and resurrection of Christ. Everyone celebrates Easter and I think you did also at a time. I do not want to judge but, I think there is a little hypocrisy going on here. People also claim to have found the tomb of Jesus, the cloth wrapped around him when he died, and old books. God has spoken to man, through conscience. You can either choose the Devil as your conscience, or you can choose God`s conscience. It is kind of like having an angel and the Devil on your shoulders whispering in your ears. The resurrected Jesus shown himself to his apostles and they wrote a book about it (the BIBLE). Roman guards have seen Jesus, also possibly wrote and told about it. Roman historians pass their stories generation by generation. Worship is not to be played with and that is why the prayer results were negative. By doing so, you are toying with God and testing him, and you do not want to do that. Prayer not authorized by God himself did not work out for the people who were burnt to crisps by fire (Leviticus 10:1-7). It is only if you have a lot of faith God will prove himself. The holocaust and aids bring up a good question that can easily be answered. Why do bad things happen to good people, and vice-versa? It is consequences for our own actions. God is trying to teach us a lesson and we are responsible for what we have done. A perfect example is Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were the ones who welcomed the Devil into paradise; they were the ones who preferred SIN to holiness. We continue to prefer SIN and rebellion to obedience even today. Therefore, when we witness death and disease, or when disaster strikes, we must feel guilty for ourselves.
The existence of God

You are using the bible to prove that god is real? That is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. The bible is not credible as there are literally thousands of contradictions and errors in it (Links posted after this Paragraph). Also, the bible may just be millions of lies written down in a book. Can you prove the bible to be credible, no you cannot, so therefore it cannot be used to prove the existence of a god.http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...http://rationalwiki.org...http://www.freethoughtdebater.org...http://atheism.about.com...Proof that there is no god God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. http://godisimaginary.com...http://www.godlikeproductions.com...http://whynogod.wordpress.com...http://www.queen.clara.net...
The existence of God

Many people think there is no creator or a God out there because you cannot see him. The first man in space (not the moon) was the famous Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gungarin. After his 108 minute space flight in 1961, he commented, "I didn`t see God out there." The reason why is that God is a spirit that cannot be seen, but is with us at all times. Just because you cannot see him does not mean that he is not there. The proof that God exists is everywhere. The bible begins that God created the heavens and the earth. God does not have to prove himself to us, but we to him!
Brett Favre is the best quarterback of all time in the NFL.

I appreciate your timely response.While I may be an old fan, I am in no way "upset" with Favre. Favre's departure from the Packers was the best thing for the team (as evidenced by our recent Super Bowl victory). What I meant by my comment was that because I was such a huge Packer fan, I saw Favre through a veiled gaze. Now that the veil has been removed, I can see him completely and without my previous bias. Did I mention that I lost that debate?<<Favre ,without a doubt, has the most impressive achievements out of any other quarterback in history. He holds every single volume passing number in NFL history: completions, attempts, yards, TDs and even INTs.>>I know we've been over this, but volume does not equal quantity. If Favre throws 50 passes and Peyton Manning throws 10, I'd be willing to bet Favre would be able to get more completions than Manning. However, 11 out of 50 is in no way better than 10 out of 10. As I have already said, just because someone has played for a long time does not make them the best QB of all-time. To illustrate that quantity does not equal greatness:Quarterback A:-2509 yards-11 TD'sQuarterback B: -2478 yards-16 TD'sAt first glance, these QB's seem pretty equal. You may think B is a little better than A because of the extra TD passes. However, if you add in the fact that A also threw for 19 Int's and that A played 13 games while B only played 8, the decision gets a bit easier. Quarterback A is Brett Favre[1], Quarterback B is the first half of the season for Peyton Manning [2].<<You may say I'm forgetting some of those, but maybe you're forgetting some of these. Also Favre has been ranked #1 QB of all time on many sites including http://bleacherreport.com...;Using my opponent's own website, they have Peyton Manning ranked at #2 but with the qualitative "for now"[3].My opponent hasn't refuted any of my previous contentions and has simply restated the same statistics in a more elaborate form. In addition to my previous contentions, I would like to add one more.C4: QBR RatingThe Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) came out with great fanfare on ESPN just last Friday night. It is a more complete and comprehensive ranking system for QB's. This list here has the rankings of QB's for the last 3 years: http://espn.go.com.... Even Favre's 2009 season, what many called a career season for him, only has him ranked as 31st. That is behind the 3 Peyton Manning seasons, the 2 Tom Brady seasons (injured '08 season), and multiple other QB's such as Vince Young, Jay Cutler, and Chad Pennington. If you throw in Favre's last season, well, the only starting QB to rank worse was the Panther's Jimmy Clausen [4].My opponent has not brought up any new arguments nor attempted to refute any of mine, so there is nothing left to debate in this round. I hope that PRO will respond to my contentions in the next round.[1] http://www.nfl.com...[2] http://www.nfl.com...;[3] http://bleacherreport.com...;[4] http://jockpost.com...;
Brett Favre is the best quarterback of all time in the NFL.

First off, I would like to point out that my opponent commented in the comments section, "Many years ago, before the dark times (Favre's disgraceful discharge from the Packers), I debated this same topic as PRO. I can't wait to do this debate on this opposite side. " Favre is the same QB that he was before his "Disgraceful discharge from the Packers" so clearly you are just an upset, old fan. Favre ,without a doubt, has the most impressive achievements out of any other quarterback in history. He holds every single volume passing number in NFL history: completions, attempts, yards, TDs and even INTs. Just a mere few of those achievements are: ^ "Favre throws TD No. 500 / Favre hits 70,000 yards". NFL. com. October 11, 2010. Retrieved ^ "Most Pro Bowls, By Position". Packers. com. December 20, 2006. Archived from the original on June 25, 2007. Retrieved December 20, 2006. ^ "All-Time Leaders QB Pass Yards". Pro Football Reference. Retrieved September 30, 2010. ^ "All-Time Leaders QB Pass Touchdowns". Pro Football Reference. Retrieved September 30, 2010. . http://en.wikipedia.org... You may say I'm forgetting some of those, but maybe you're forgetting some of these. Also Favre has been ranked #1 QB of all time on many sites including . http://bleacherreport.com...
Capitolism is much better than Communism

Thanks for starting this debate, I accept. With acceptance I'm going to define some terms that we need to know in order to debate the topic at hand, "capitolism [sic] is much better than communism" Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. "much better" - is obviously and absolutely, truly better Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. This means that in order for you to fulfill your Burden of Proof, you must show that Capitalism is truly, obviously, and absolutely better than communism. Good luck
Compared to most birds, owls are smart.

My opponent provides a definition of 'smart' as 'showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness' which I'm fine with using, but she never really shows how owls meet this definition. My opponent contradicts herself, saying that being nocturnal is smart, bu that owls aren't necessarily nocturnal. It matters not anyway, because (just like her point about owls' eyes) this is simply an adaption of animals, not anything that shows mental alertness. Insects have some of the most unique and resourceful adaptations, for example, yet are also among the stupidest of animals. She then provides a list. 1. Owls don't 'make a parliament,' humans named a group of owls a parliament. Even if we were to assume that owls made a parliament on their own, what does it matter? They don't make laws or pass bills in it, the use of the parliaments that PRO considers smart. 2. Yes, the older one is the wiser one is. The saying is not 'the older your ancestors are, the wiser you are.' A baby with ancient ancestors is not wise. 3. Yes they do. 4. Owls are smart because they have useful feathers? I'll refer PRO to her own definition of MENTAL alertness. Her only source for anything anyway is a single Wikipedia article. ---- Unfortunately for PRO all of the actual evidence stacks up against her. For birds, owls are quite dumb.[1][2][3] [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com... [3] http://www.birdnature.com...
Compared to most birds, owls are smart.

As i've not been provided a definition for the word smart i have provided my own. smart: showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness source: http://www.google.co.uk... Not all owls are actually nocturnal for e.g the burrowing owl.Owls are nocturnal because they hunt for their prey under the cover of darkness,showing understanding how to hunt productively and thus prolong their existence. showing their smartness in the way of calculation. However, not all owls are nocturnal some are crepuscular active during dawn and dusk for e.g the pygmy owl. Even though few owls are active during the day it's not unheard of, such as the short eared owl. An owls eyes are fixed in their sockets, so the owl has adapted to turn it's head to change their line of vision, showing that they are resourceful. Also it is known for some owls to eat fish, however the ones that do prey on "nasty rodents" are extremely helpful to humans because they provide us with a natural form of pest control, which while keeping the food chain balanced helps control rodent populations. Compared to most birds owls are smart because: 1.The collective name for a group of owls is called a parliament. Generally any species in the world other than humans that can make a parliament is obviously of similar intelligence to that of humans. 2.My source quotes " The Paleocene genera Berruornis and Ogygoptynx show that owls were already present as a distinct lineage some 60 - 57 mya (million years ago), and presumably also some 5 million years earlier, at the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. This makes them one of the oldest known groups of non-Galloanserae landbirds." showing that Owls are extremely ancient and generally speaking the older you are the more experience you have and so the wiser you are. 3. Owls can live in most parts of the world except antartica, some of green land and remote islands. 4. Astheticly owls are also smart because their feathers have cleverly adapted to help with catching food. Their feathers are dull and can "render them almost invisible". And the serration on the edge of the owls wings reduce noise during flight making their method of catching food more reliable and resourceful. my source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The hottest topic around... Immigration

the problems are that fingers are being pointed at the wrong direction!!!! I actually go as far as comparing this to Nazi Germany!!! Nazi's blamed Jews for their economic troubles. Now we have people blaming illegal immigrants, the majority hispanics for our economic troubles. I do agree illgal immigration is a problem but there has to be a simpler solution. Our government needs to act instead of pointing fingers. Our economic problem is not immigration's fault. It is ours. We have not done enough for country. So everyone nheeds a scapegoat for this and that would be illgals.. before 2005 there was no problems right???? if anything, illegals cant claim any paid taxes... Trust me they have no tax rights and most of them overpay taxes
The hottest topic around... Immigration

I concur the general welfare of all mankind should be taken into serious consideration. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are a vital part of the social tread that creates our societies. Latinos have become the largest minority in America. Unfortunately America is not very liked through out the world and many people want to destroy what we take for granted everyday. Many people want to take away from us the very reason Mexicans are crossing our borders...our freedom. (I use the term freedom loosely, but that is another debate.)It is important for all America no matter what your heritage, race, or country of origin, to be aware of ways that terrorist can get into our country undetected.The border is one huge red flag when it comes to security.
Lee Everett is a better protagonist than Rick Grimes

It appears my opponent has not made a closing argument. I will make mine short in that case. Rick Grimes has taken care of his family in the midst of the apocalypse. Grimes has not die protecting them either. That is why Rick Grimes is better than Lee Everett. Lee Everett is dead while Clementine roams the apocalypse by herself. Rick Grimes has made sure to stay alive to protect his family.
Lee Everett is a better protagonist than Rick Grimes

I don't quite understand what is being asked of in this round. I will say that Rick is overprotective of Carl so he might try to attack Lee. Lee on the other hand tends to worry about Clem constantly rather than be overprotective. I am sure that Lee will try to reason with Rick to find Clem. I don't think Rick will be interested in negotiating with his son missing. As shown in the first season, Rick Grimes will do anything to find and protect his family(1). He would attempt to eliminate lee or anyone else to protect Carl. Source -The Walking Dead (TV Series)
Lee Everett is a better protagonist than Rick Grimes

***SPOILER ALERT**** The Pro side forgot to add that this debate will be full of spoilers. Rick Grimes Pro: - Searched for his family and found them after he was in a coma. That requires strength. -Was more than strong enough to continue surviving after his wife died. - He defeated the Governor and his thugs. -Rescued the survivors of Woodbury. - He has been a leader of a diverse group of survivors. Grimes has had to make the hard decisions. -He has asked people to leave the group and killed those who were a threat to it(Shane). - Grimes picks sides to preserve the group. For example when he told Carol she had to leave the group. She could of caused infighting in the group when she killed the two infected survivors. - He is skilled with melee weapons and firearms. He is more skilled then Lee because he was a police officer. This is why Grimes has not been bitten. - Rick wanted Carl to maintain his childhood innocence by preventing him from killing the zombies. - Grimes found several havens for his group to hide in. Grimes found the prison. -Grimes had a colony of survivors in the prison. - Grimes has had many trustworthy allies that have come and gone ranging from Hershel, to Shane, and Carol to some extent. - Grimes doesn't get bitten like Lee Everett. Cons: - Rick Grimes is too overprotective of Carl which leads to Carl learning how to kill by himself. - Grimes would be hesitant at times for being a group leader. Like his failure to stop Shane sooner. But he made up for this later by telling Carol to leave the group before she instigated more trouble. - Grimes has allowed some of his group members to die. -Grimes has had to kill other survivors to survive. - Grimes can be emotional at times. Grimes was in a state of depression when his wife was killed. - He was a poor negotiator with the Governor.
Lee Everett is a better protagonist than Rick Grimes

Thanks, also I forgot to mention that Round 3 is Post-Hand Rick and Post-Arm Lee (assuming in this AU that Lee survived Savannah). Lee Everett Pros: - Dealt with the death of his family almost immediately after the breakout; hardening him much quicker than Rick - Incredible endurance: managed to kill tons of Walkers like a slasher villain with a cleaver when he only had one arm; also he cut off his own entire arm as opposed to Rick simply cutting off his hand - Selfless and Merciful: he would be willing to help people he doesn't know - Remains neutral: will attempt to not choose sides and attempt to keep everyone calm - He led a group of ingenuity and managed to keep most of his original group alive - Skill with both firearms and melee weapons: Like I said he cleaved his way through dozens of Walkers in episode 5 - Trained Clementine to fight and survive much quicker than Rick did with Carl - Intelligence: he was a much smarter man than Rick seeing as he was a University professor whereas Rick as was an officer - Leadership: managed to keep his entire group under control and keep anyone from rebelling; even with Larry he was able to keep in check as well - Good allies: prior to Savannah he had a great deal of allies that managed to survive for a long period of time - Fast and furious with a salt lick Cons: - Very over protective of Clementine and would be willing to do anything to keep her safe; got bitten by a Walker trying to look for her - Neutrality: many of his group members would argue and become angry with Lee because of neutrality and keeping them calm - Very small group: doesn't have a lot of members to his group by the end and loses almost everyone in Savannah - Rick is more adept with guns probably: sine he was a policeman, Rick is probably better with firearms than Lee. - Good nature can also lead to his downfall seeing as he is a little too trusting throughout the series until Savannah - Only has one arm
Evolution Vs Creationism People Who Believe in each

No you proved that you are not able to defend your argument, so you trick people into making you look smart. In reality you are not intelligent, you just pressed enter multiple times so I couldn't see your trap. I was looking forward to having a constructed debate with you, but you aren't able to act like a mature human being, proving that in fact you are wrong. Hopefully you will realize issues can't be resolved by fooling people. I am actually new to this site, and i was hoping idiots like yourself wouldn't ruin this academic center.
Evolution Vs Creationism People Who Believe in each

I believe that people who believe in evolution are smarter than those who believe in creationism. Terms: 1. These terms are here to prove that anyone who accepts this debate did not think before they accepted. 2. Accepting this debate is a 7-point Total forfeit for con 3. Whoever accepts this was not smart enough to scroll down to the bottom of my arguments 4. Contesting terms 1-5 is an automatic forfeit 5.
There is a creator from which we come

"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." - Quentin Smith Quentin Smith is a modern philosopher of time and cosmology. His opinion (while we're committing appeals to authority) is worth much more than the opinion of the brilliant but ancient Aristotle. Pro is mistaken: she instigated this debate, she is Pro for this debate. The burden of proof lies entirely on her to prove that every single event has a cause. All I have to do is show that her claims are unsupported. Furthermore, there are examples of points where the evidence for causality is essentially useless, since core factors are changed. For instance, there is a great deal of evidence that things changing state require a cause (i.e. water changing to ice), but no evidence that things coming from nothing require a cause (i.e. the universe). Furthermore, Pro criterion for proving that every event has a cause is flawed (apart from actually admitting that there are uncaused events in the sentence 'There are many more examples of cause and effect, than not'). Just because something holds most of the time does not mean it holds universally. Just because the we can see the sun come up almost every day at noon doesn't mean eclipses are impossible. Pro is wrong about my source (although I admit it wasn't very good: I just wanted both a scientific and philosophical approach). It doesn't say that there are hidden variables unaccounted for, it specifically says that they are accounted for, and a cause still hasn't been found. Here is a better source: Radioactive decay http://en.wikipedia.org... and the movement of particles http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof required to grant her claim, and there is evidence to the contrary. I assume, since she has taken this position, that what she meant by the resolution was that the universe and everything in it comes from a particular cause. I have shown this to be an untenable position. Thank you for reading the debate.
There is a creator from which we come

"Nothing can exist without its cause." Aristotle Kinesis, you are the one with the burden of proof. You need to prove an uncaused event, because I have more evidence. There are many more examples of cause and effect, than not. Your source referenced a very unspecific experiment, that claims that there is no hidden variable simply because they couldn't find one. CAUSE IS THE HIDDEN VARIABLE. Nothing comes from nothing.
There is a creator from which we come

Ah, it seems this is my first debate where I am the victim of semantics. Nonetheless, don't count me out yet, for Pro has made a stronger claim than she should have in her last round. She is defending the position that; 'Everything that exists come from a creator' In other words, that the principle of cause and effect (which is essentially what she is now upholding), holds for everything in the universe, and the universe itself. Since she is Pro, the instigator and has the burden of proof, she must demonstrate that every single thing that exists has a cause/creator. This is not only an impossible burden of proof, but there is evidence against it as well. Physics has provided evidence for uncaused events, and philosophers have generally admitted that there is nothing unsound about such an idea- http://www.philosophos.com...