BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God's existence

Of course religion is a constant virtuality in human civilization! But so is agriculture, clothing, sports, currency, war, and a form of government. My point? My point is that even though religion may have occurred in different isolated areas in the world, it does not mean that religion is special. I think religion is so commonplace nowadays because in ancient times people had so many unanswered questions. What are stars? Many religions have to do with complex things which are inexplainable without certain scientific instruments. Vulcan, the Greek god of the forge, hammered at his volcano, and sent sparks flying into the air from his mountain. Chac, the Aztec rain god, would cry to make it rain. Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was the sun. In Native American tradition, spirits poked holes in a giant blanket in the sky to make stars. All these religions answered seemingly unanswerable questions at the time. A coincidence, or did it just seem like the only answer existence at the time? And we can see this pattern in our civilization, with the creation of the universe and the creation of life. All the facts point towards religion being created simply to answer questions. Who says we won't find answers to the questions it "answers" now? Also, if I tell you that you're head is on fire, and I fully believe that your head is on fire, you would probably check. When you find that you are not in any way on fire, does the fact that I fully believe you are on fire make you on fire? No! And the fact that people believe in god that does not make him real! If we didn't have the right stuff inside our bodies, of course we would die! And that's why we have evolved these organs! There is no "reason" they were out there. Now can I hear your rebuttal to my arguments, or do you not have one?
God's existence

People all over the world believe in God. They believe that a higher power watches over them and guides them, and that they will be rewarded when they die for living good lives on Earth 1. Religion of some kind is a constant in virtually every culture, and there is evidence of religious practice almost as far back as we have evidence for humanity. Faith is its own proof, and the willingness of people to make tremendous sacrifices for their beliefs, even dying for them, demonstrates that they must believe in something that is real. Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of God 1. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of such an organism, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed 2. Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible, since in human experience nothing complex can come about without agency.
God's existence

Statement #1: We must recognize first that the observable universe is a very complex yet very simple thing. It is a massive amount of matter and energy. That's really all it is. However, complexity starts to develop when this matter starts to form into complex structures, such as human beings, stars, and infinite other things. But, at its beginning, the universe was nothing but a big large bit of matter and energy. Now let us compare the universe's simplicity or any monotheistic god's simplicity. God is seen in general as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being which created the universe and human life. (If this is not your perspective on what a god is then please inform me. ) Would not a being which knows everything, is everywhere, and can do anything be considered as more complex than a random assortment of matter and energy? If a very complex god could be formed from nothing, then wouldn't a random assortment of matter and energy be possible, if not more likely, to develop rather than a sophisticated being which is literally so complex that it is beyond human comprehension? This may not be 100% proof against a god, but it does show that the likelihood that the observable universe came into being on it's own is higher than a god coming into being on his/her own. Statement #2: Even if a god was existing, how would he know to create the universe, when there is literally nothing to know. There is nothing in existence at the time other than god himself, so this means that there are no facts in existence. If there are no facts, then even an omniscient being would be without knowledge, because there is nothing to know. So, how would a god have the knowledge to create a universe which there is no knowledge about? The answer is that he would not. I don't want to be rambling on, so I'll save my other points and conclusions for later points in this debate.
God's existence

My starting argument is to simply state that we may not know all of the information in the universe, but this doesn't mean a god may exist within the information that we don't know. We can see this because of the fact that the god of the bible induces certain paradoxes and unanswered questions which I believe to be unexplainable. I would like to hear an explanation for these impossibilities, and an argument about the impossibility of a godless universe.
War Scenario: United States vs Any Country

"No allies (NATO, UN, Muslim Brotherhood etc.) under ANY circumstances. You CAN have military or diplomatic agreements and/or treaties with other nations." Direct military interference is not allowed. Therefore, the 53 commonwealth nations cannot act against the United States. The only diplomatic and military agreements allowed are allowing passage et cetera. Supplying personnel is NOT ALLOWED, because then it is an alliance. SUCH alliances are not allowed under ANY circumstances. Treaties such as disallowance of American passage in certain areas et cetera are allowed. I have provided a warning. If you do not heed this warning, then you are immediately granted a 7-point loss. "THE UNITED STATES ATTACKS THE UNITED KINGDOM WITH AN UNSPECIFIED PROVOCATION. (Not mentioned, nor relevant)" This clearly states there was a provocation. The only realistic reason the US will attack the UK is a serious provocation. UN has declared neutrality in this conflict. Yes, there will be a global economic crisis. The US consents to a ceasefire only if:The United Kingdom consents to release Northern Ireland to the United States administration; then the US will consent to the reformation of NATO to counter Sino-Russian aggression. WARNING: Do not continue forming a British Empire, because it breaks the rules COMPLETELY. I will take no military action in this round.
War Scenario: United States vs Any Country

I applaud PRO's revised arguments. Much more concurrent with forms of recognized military analysis. Well done. Much better than what I could have done at PRO's age. I unfortunately do not have the time to post a well thought out argument today and will have to largely concede this round. For now, I'll just say that the RN and RAF have begun area-denial operations over the Atlantic and Great Britain. Also in the meantime, I will mention that the UK has launched several ballistic missiles at American GPS & ISR satellites - effectively shooting them down. The UK partially recovers from its cyber attack through back up generators, quarantining effected servers, and by accessing backup cloud hubs located in different European countries. France, while not recognized as an ally in this scenario, agrees to lease 1 active FREMM multipurpose frigate and several Rafael fighters in exchange for UK cash and lower trade barriers. The UK will hope to win this war by making it too costly for the US military to continue armed hostilities. As can be expected with a war of this caliber, both national economies are beginning to crumble and US diplomatic relations with Europe and NATO are severely strained over the aggressive policies taken against a fellow European country. Sensing NATO/Europe weakness, it is likely then that Russia may try advancing into Eastern Europe while the UK & US are busy fighting with each other. It is unknown yet how this may effect US or UK interests or what might happen to the EU & Europe now that NATO is formally dissolved. Both sides may be forced to find a quicker solution (or victory) to this war than previously anticipated.
War Scenario: United States vs Any Country

Alright, for this incredibly uncanny war scenario, my country of choice will be the United Kingdom. However, I refuse to instigate hostilities with the United States. For a little country like me to declare war on the world's sole remaining superpower would be completely unrealistic. The UK could never hope to occupy a country of 310,000,000 people. Therefore, I have decided that PRO may deploy forces first. I also refuse to describe moves using the date & time play by play narrative. PRO may choose to play that way if he wants, but for my side I will simply give an analysis of the events unfolding and describe my moves and responses accordingly. PRO will have to refute them. That said this side is all set and ready to go. Good Luck! -- Total Population: 63,742,977 Available Manpower: 29,164,233 Fit for Service: 24,035,131 Reaching Military Age Annually: 749,480] Active Frontline Personnel: 146,980 Active Reserve Personnel: 182,000 Tanks: 407 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 5,948 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 89 Towed-Artillery: 138 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 42 Total Aircraft: 936 Fighters/Interceptors: 89 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 160 Transport Aircraft: 365 Trainer Aircraft: 343 Helicopters: 402 Attack Helicopters: 65 Total Naval Strength: 66 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 13 Destroyers: 6 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 10 Coastal Defense Craft: 28 Mine Warfare: 15 Oil Production: 1,100,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 1,217,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 3,122,000,000 bbl/day Labor Force: 30,150,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 504] Major Ports and Terminals: 14 Roadway Coverage: 394,428 Railway Coverage: 16,454 Serviceable Airports: 460 Defense Budget: $51,500,000,000 External Debt: $9,577,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $87,480,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $2,387,000,000,000
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

God never cursed black people. Putin is your 'God' anyway, isn't he? So that doesn't count because the president of Russia is NOT God. If you're talking about the Christian God, I don't believe in the Bible anyway. But this leads to another argument and is not a justification. Black skin is not ugly, It is beautiful, just like every other skin colour. And I repeat: nobody should be judged on their appearance because it has nothing at all to do with how they are inside. An innocent black person should not be represented by black criminals who have nothing to do with the individual. It's not their fault they look how they are, it's nobodies fault. Pro, God could have made you a black person. It still wouldn't have been your fault. No-one chooses their race. 'And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded.' I just wanted to reply to this. The world will probably never be as crowded we think it would be. Right now, if we got every single person on earth, the whole population, we could fit them all into the state of Texas, based on fact. Leaving the rest of the world empty. This is just an example. People say overpopulation is destroying the earth, I disagree; greed and selfishness are destroying the earth, not children of any particular race. Closing statement: Pro has failed to show any valid reason why there should be only 1 black family per neighbourhood, and why we should throw innocent people into prison because of other people's actions. He has said unfair things, and he has not justified them at all. I want to end this debate with a quote: "No human race is superior; No religious faith is inferior. All collective judgements are wrong. Only racists make them." -Elie Wiesel
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

Imagine this. Just imagine it. All of a sudden, loads of Russians like you start committing crimes, and you stay innocent. Then, experts start warning that 1 in every 3 Russian men will end up in jail. So then you are forced to move out of your home, and into a neighbourhood full of black people, because of OTHER people's actions. Just because they have the same ethnicity as you, they are completely different people and they are criminals and you are innocent. Does that sound very fair, not racist and just? The government in the US does NOT need to say all black people are bad, dangerous and probably will commit a crime, therefore, segregating them because people with the same skin colour are frequently committing crimes. Everyone has the right not to be grouped together and judged because of others actions. The government needs to support black people more, not throw them all into prison. Also, you should stop using that fake fact that black people absorb much sunlight. Yes, they do absorb more sunlight than us, by about 0.0001%, but it is absolutely ridiculous to say that crops will die, and white people won't be able to harvest. Black people have been around for very long. Don't worry, they won't suck up the whole sun.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society.Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world.Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider:1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison.Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law.Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students.Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people.If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood.Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it.Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here?Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on.No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, but we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, the best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, we are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth.Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

Okay, accepted. I just really hope you debate properly this time. If you don't attack, I'll try not too. Okay, so you will not come out as racist. But I'll tell you that what your doing is very racist. You're judging a person by skin colour, saying blacks cause violence. You cannot say that all black people cause violence because they don't. It has nothing what so ever to do with skin colour or race, and people should not be judged on ethnicity, as it scientifically does not have an effect on how the person is. Also, if you want to kill all the Indians and Jews, isn't that racist?
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

I believe there should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood. That way, blacks will cause less violence collectively. Don't you think so?But if we throw all black people into prison, that would be racist.We need the One Black Family per Neighborhood Policy in every non-African country.Here are the rules:1. Burden of proof is on both side (pro AND con).2. Children and teens can comment and judge in this debate.3. The n- word is absolutely not allowed.4. Blacks, Asians, Indians, and Mexicans are allowed in this debate.5. Your max is 4000 characters per argument.6. Jews can enter unfortunately.7. No ad hominem attacks.
Gun safety in school

Michael Jago Mrs. Hogan English 2 December 2014 Teaching Kids Gun Safety How would you feel if a loved one of yours was involved in a gun incident and ended fataly? Hopefully by teaching kids about gun safety this would lower the reat of deaths from firearms. Schools should teach children about gun safety to keep themselves and others safe. Children should be taught how to handle firearms and be informed about them. There has been many fatal accidents from firearms. According to CBS New york that "A child or teen is killed once every seven and a half hours with a gun, either by accident or by suicide" (Whelan.) Imagine how many of these incidents could have been avoided if they knew how to handle the firearm safely. Parents may think this would not be smart because they could use a firearm to hurt someone but this would lower accidents and also if they were to know how to use a firearm they would be able to use it in an emergency. Children need to learn what to do when around guns. There may be times you are in a household with firearms in the house. "In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent" (Tavernise.) If you ever are aorund firearms in a house do not touch the gun, leave the area and also let a trusted adult know. In addition when handling firearms keep it pointed in a safe direction, keep unloaded when not in use, wear eye protection and do not rely on the "safety." People may think it would be worse if they knew how to use a firearm but if they were properly informed they would know not to use the firearm. Keep firearms locked up away from children. Many times in households the firearms are not locked up. In a study it was said that "99 percent of the households reported having at least one smoke detector, while only 57 percent said they locked away guns in a place where kids could not get access them." That means 43 percent of people did not have there firearms locked up. No wonder how many incidents happen with children and teens. Parents and adults think that it would be fine to not have it locked up because they would not expect them to find or know how to use it. Accidents do happen though sometimes so it would just be safer to keep them locked up. School should teach students about gun safety for many reasons such as teaching them how to handle firearms, what to when around firearms, and to teach them to lock up their firearms when they are older. Do you believe this should be taught to save lives of others, maybe even your loved ones?
Gun safety in school

Many thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. Pro argues that firearm handling should be taught in school because there have been accidents while mishandling firearms. By that logic, increasing the use of firearms is likely to result in more accidents, thus making Pro's argument counter effective. Innumerable studies prove the presence of guns make children less safe. Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education and urbanization [1]. American children are 9x more likely to die by a gun accident than those in the rest of the developed world. Children living in states with higher levels of firearm availability also suffer from significantly higher rates of unintentional gun deaths [2]. Ergo, my opponent's proposition would make children less safe, not more safe. The rest of Pro's argument contradicts itself. First Pro argues that children need to learn what to do while around guns, and then he concludes with "Keep firearms locked up away from children." Assuming he is reiterating the importance of keeping guns in the home locked up while not being used for instruction, I would agree but that is irrelevant to the resolution. It would also be unnecessary if children knew how to handle firearms from learning in school, thus I do not understand my opponent's point. While I do believe gun safety is important and that children should have the option of learning how to use guns, I disagree with firearm handling being taught in school, especially public school. First, our schools can barely afford the programs we currently have and consistently cut important educational tools for lack of funding. It would be nonsensical to spend money we cannot afford on guns, which are completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the intellectual process. Moreover, the likelihood of a gun accident increasing while guns are consistently handled by young people is significant. Most likely the tax payers would have to foot the insurance, bills, lawsuits and other headaches that arise from government sanctioned gun lessons. Not many people in America are comfortable with children handling guns. In fact many people are not comfortable with other adults handling guns. In the instance a parent felt strongly about gun safety, they can and should enroll their child in courses outside of school to avoid the problematic reperussions. Given less maturity and motor skills, it would make sense to avoid having young children have access to deadly weapons. Further it would be dangerous to have children handle weapons in school where emotions, tension and stress can run high. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://books.google.com...
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

I will agree and will not say that outliers or symptoms, conditions like autism, or even diseases (such as Cushing syndrome) are a choice. However, understand that those are the shrill minority. When people decide to consume more calories than they burn they gain excess weight and choose to be part of the overweight community. I agree, most people don't just wake up and say, "today I will become unhealthy." Rather, these choices are comprised of years and even decades of choices. These repercussions are the result of time. Children, even the youngest of children, have a basic understanding of action and result. One cannot say they have no control over their choices. From the time we can walk we have autonomy. Unless there is a cognitive disconnect, one cannot say they don't have control over their weight. My original thought was that weight is acceptable to a point. Anything beyond the BMI is harmful. Harm is not beauty, it is the opposite. You haven't addressed my question: if beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I say that abuse is beautiful, is it?