BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is God real

Let me begin by siting several sites that give archaeological evidence that God exists: 1. www.theguardian.com 2. www.biblicalarchaeology.com 3. www.lifescience.com 4. www.bethinking.org 5. www.namb.net 6. www.beliefnet.com 7. www.carm.com If you take the time to read over all of these websites, they each describe whether it is historical evidence that proves Jesus exists, archaeological evidence that shows Jesus exists, or historical documents and manuscripts that prove Jesus exists. The first thing you will probably say is that this is about God not Jesus. The thing is Jesus was sent by God. All of the miracles that Jesus did came from God. God is the reason that Jesus was on the earth. I hope that clears up any proof issues for God but let me move on to my opponents other arguments. My opponent is saying that God faces an existential crisis. It is simple, the chief end of God is to bring glory to himself and enjoy himself forever. I don't have the full answer to this question, only God does. But this is the best answer I can give. Now to the point about the universe always existing. For the universe to have somehow always existed and all of the complex things in to have always existed there is so many probabilities you have to believe. The way every living thing comes together you have to believe in millions of miracles for the earth to have existed for an eternity back into time and to have sustained itself for that long and how it still exists today. If the universe had always existed, why is the energy now starting to run out if it had sustained itself for so long? Why are scientists discovering that the sun is going to explode eventually? Why will the earth eventually overheat itself? Why did these events not happen hundreds of years ago? It just doesn't make sense. Now to intelligent design. My opponent said that 99.9999% of the universe is uninhabited. First off, there is no possible way that this can be proved unless we explored every inch of this universe which of course we haven't. Even if this were true, I don't know how it supports his side of the argument. All it proves is that the little bit we know about the universe cannot even compare to 99% we haven't explored. This argument can only prove just how much more complex this universe is than we thought. Now to the problem of evil. The reason evil is going to be destroyed later is that it shows that good ultimately wins. He shows us how amazing he is by showing what he can do throughout our existence. God did not create us just to be self reliant on him. The chief end of man is to glorify and enjoy God forever. Being self reliant on God is another way to show us that he is the ultimate provider even in the hardest situations. The evil my opponent mentioned is just part of the fallen world that we live in. It is here for a good reason and that it to teach us that we need him and that he provides for us. In this case, evil can be used for a good thing. In summary, God is real. Even though this debate is strictly on whether or not God is real, I am interested, if God is not the reason the world exists, then what is?
Firearm Laws Reduce Firearm Deaths

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I never once said that in my argument. You keep throwing out statistics about machine guns however I said nothing about them. A survey in 1982 of male felons in 1982 showed that: 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" 40% had decided they wouldn't commit a crime because they knew or thought the victim had a gun 69% knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" "1. Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths" It is true there might be less unintentional deaths however if you will look at this chart, it will show that firearms account for maybe 1% of unintentional deaths. http://www.justfacts.com... In 1996 Texas's right to carry law came into effect, which allowed concealed carry of firearms, however if you look at this chart it shows that after it was passed the murder rate in Texas was significantly reduced. http://www.justfacts.com... Resources http://www.justfacts.com...#[21]
Firearm Laws Reduce Firearm Deaths

Actually that was not misstated that was actually my own source. "Do you have any evidence that firearm laws do not reduce firearm deaths?" Yes I do, I found that in Russia (Where there are stricter gun laws) there are 4,000 guns per 100,000 people. The murder rate in 2002 was about 20.52 per 100,000 people. However the same year Finland had 39,000 guns per person, but the murder rate was only at 1.98 per 100,000. Norway has the highest amount of civilian guns in Western Europe at about 31.3 percent, but also has the least amount of gun deaths, at about 1.78 deaths in 100,000. The reason for this is simple, gun laws do not reduce crime because they take guns away that could have been used for protection by well intentioned civilians. http://www.breitbart.com... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Firearm Laws Reduce Firearm Deaths

I accept, and look forward to a lively debate. "1) Gun ownership and availability are things that reduce firearm deaths. 2) Firearm laws are things that decrease gun ownership and availability. Conclusion: Then firearm laws are things that reduce firearm deaths." In this statement you say that with less firearms that would mean there are less firearm related deaths. However I looked at the same source that you used and I have reached a far different conclusion. In the United States there is an estimated 270,000,000 civilian owned firearms, with 9,146 firearm deaths . However in Brazil there is much less civilian owned guns, around 14,840,000. Despite having less guns Brazil clocks in at a whopping 34,678 deaths by firearm. Norway has a measly 1,400,000 civilian owned guns and is the site of the worst mass shooting in modern history, about 80 casualties. This just goes to show that fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths. Also I would like to request in the future that you add a link to your references, so that either myself or someone voting on the debate doesn't need to search for them. http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
Firearm Laws Reduce Firearm Deaths

Hello all and greetings to my opponent, thank you for engaging me on this issue. Premises: 1) Gun ownership and availability are things that reduce firearm deaths. 2) Firearm laws are things that decrease gun ownership and availability. Conclusion: Then firearm laws are things that reduce firearm deaths. FIREARM OWNERSHIP CORRELATES TO MASS SHOOTINGS The New York Times and Associated Press compiled a list of the worst mass shootings since 1966 in western democratic countries and America occupies 14 of the 32 slots of the list with a combined 241 lives wasted. The U.S. holds the third through sixth largest body count incidences, and 76% of mass shooting deaths have occurred since 1990, and eight of the fourteen shootings occurred from 1999 to the present. Other multiply qualified members of the NY Times/AP list include Germany, France and Finland, all with two shootings on the list. The Guardian used data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime as well as the 2007 Small Arms Survey to rank 178 countries in terms of gun ownership and gun homicide. The U.S. is ranked first in ownership rate with 88.8 guns per 100 people and 60% of US homicides are caused by firearms. Finland ranks fourth with 45.3 guns per 100 people and 19.8% gun caused homicides. France ranks 12th with 31.2 guns/100 people and 9.6% gun homicides. The last list-companion, Germany, ranks 15th with 30.3 guns/100 people and 26.3% gun homicides. The correlation between rank and gun caused homicides is hardly remarkable, especially when looking at Central American nations which have exceedingly high homicide by gun rates for their relatively low gun ownership rates. However the fact that several higher ranking countries share the majority of the list of worst mass shootings cannot be ignored.
Vaccines have been a benefit to mankind

'I believe that everybody here knows that asthma is better than deadly diseases." That is not correct, asthma is also a deadly disease if not taken care of. Asthma if not taken care of at the time when a rash/attack appears can be deadly. The incident happened with the individual who was assaulted by the police. They placed him on the ground and he yelled at them that he has asthma and can't breathe. A few minutes later he died. [1] ) (It's a video) So as you can see everything is deadly, just because you have a medication or treatments to suppress or pr-elongate your life it does not mean that it is "better"... "I might as well say that this quote does not indicate that vaccines cause autism, ear infections, ADHD, asthma, and allergies." You have failed to identify with the content label of your reference. I mentioned that % decreases does not tell you it is because of vaccines. Does it? Here are some other vaccines: 1. Adenovirus vaccine side-effects: Severe Side effects can be: -blood in the urine or stool -pneumonia -inflammation of the stomach or intestines [2] 2. DTaP vaccine side-effects (used to combat Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis) -Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness -Permanent brain damage. [2] 3. Influenza vaccine side-effects -Young children who get inactivated flu vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13) at the same time may be at increased risk for seizures caused by fever. [2] [1] http://www.nydailynews.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov...
Vaccines have been a benefit to mankind

I believe that everybody here knows that asthma is better than deadly diseases. So, even if vaccines cause asthma, it is still better off having a vaccine. "This percentage/value does not indicate that those numbers have been in fact reduced by that value due to the effects of vaccines (ie. some people built their own immunity) just because the reported cases have decreased it does not mean that it is due to the vaccines." I might as well say that this quote does not indicate that vaccines cause autism, ear infections, ADHD, asthma, and allergies: "Children who from an early age have had been injected/vaccinated for every disease (as perceived by their parents) have had a drastic increase in the rates for autism, ear infections, ADHD, asthma and allergies as much as 30% higher than unvaxed children." But here. If you want a link, I'll give you one. http://www.who.int... "...some drugs cannot be swallowed, so they have to be injected directly into the blood stream vs others can." This says that some injections can be mistrusted. Please stay on the topic. "This proves to be that for example I, as a sick individual, who is required to take a certain medication/vaccine have to comply to the exceptions/rules that are associated with that drug (side effects) just so I will no get sicker or to conquer/overcome my disease." People are indeed given exemptions for vaccines if they have an adverse reactions to them. Herd immunity protects them against diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org... Hib Vaccine From your link: No serious side effects have been related to the Hib vaccine. I will talk about the other vaccines next round.
Vaccines have been a benefit to mankind

Points 1. Diseases Vaccines have been able to reduce cases of infectious diseases like measles, mumps, and smallpox by between 90 and 100%. These diseases used to kill millions, but now with vaccines, they are almost eradicated. (1) Rebuttals 1. Distrust in the Pharmaceutical Industries While there can be distrust, this doesn't change the fact that vaccines have been useful. Medications like Vioxx aren't vaccines, so they aren't related to the debate. 2. Vaccination leads to a weaker more dependent immune system a. Autism There have been numerous tests containing thousands and even as high as 1.2 million children that keep saying this: There isn't a link between vaccines and autism. (2) (3) b. Ear infections Wow. You're listing side effects of vaccines, and say ear infections? 1. Most ear infections are solved by vaccines! The most common ear infection, known as otitis media can be vaccinated against. (4) 2. See Point 1 at the top. What is worse, an ear infection, or deadly diseases? c. ADHD Wrong. Vaccines do not cause ADHD. Genetics might. (5) (6) d. Asthma and Allergies 1. Vaccines don't have a link to asthma, and rarely cause allergic reactions. (7) 2. See Point 1. Would you prefer a deadly disease, or asthma? Sources: 1. http://www.niaid.nih.gov... 2. http://jama.jamanetwork.com... 3. https://www.autismspeaks.org... 4. http://www.entnet.org... 5. http://www.additudemag.com... 6. http://www.babycenter.com... 7. http://www.worldallergy.org...
Vaccines have been a benefit to mankind

Thank you to the instigator for this debate. I see this debate as a challenge for the CON so that is the reason why I have accepted it. Let's get started shall we? 1 Distrust in the Pharmaceutical Industries [1] Surely the title of this statement is a bit odd, but I will develop on it. Hormone Replacement Treatment which in essence is a care for menopausal women in treatment with estrogen's with the aim of alleviating menopausal symptoms or osteoporosis. Now this somewhat new (only been around for 40 years) medication has given indication in an increase of breast cancer, 41% increase in heart stroke and 29% increase in heart attack. [1] Another drug called Vioxx used mostly for arthritis and menstrual-related symptoms, now discontinued, resulted in numerous associated deaths due to heart attacks or strokes. [2] 2. Vaccination leads to a weaker more dependent immune system Children who from an early age have had been injected/vaccinated for every disease (as perceived by their parents) have had a drastic increase in the rates for autism, ear infections, ADHD, asthma and allergies as much as 30% higher than unvaxed children. [3] I will develop more in the rounds to come [1] http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com... [2] http://www.drugs.com... [3] http://www.naturalnews.com...
The Big Issues

Yes, I can see how this might be misconstruded. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. Rather than arguing on whether I support the US, could we possibly switch the argument and debate on whether it is a good or bad thing? Bringing the 'self' factor brings up an annoying argument "How can we prove you actually DO support the US? Maybe your lying". The point being we cannot prove a persons own intent. Therefore the premise for Pro would be: The United States of America is more Good than Bad thus the polar opposite for Con being: The United States of America is more Bad than Good. Bad meaning: having undesirable or negative qualities, characterized by wickedness or immorality, that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency and Good meaning: having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified, beneficial, promoting or enhancing well-being, of moral excellence [All definitions from princeton.edu] Or something of the like. Now we would be arguing on actual qualities of the States rather than personal belief. Do you find this agreeable?
The Big Issues

Despite heavy encouragement from a friend of mine, I will be slightly more gracious and allow my opponent some breathing room. You say in your stance you are against the United States of America. Because I prefer to be thorough with my debates, I will not begin the debate here due to the fact that I would be forced to assume something. Let me explain. One can read many things into the phrase, "I support the United States of America." This is precisely why I didn't answer the question on my profile. My personal position is that I support the ideals upon which America was originally founded, however I do not support our government. I believe it is the people and the ideals which make the country, not who rules it. (Yes, I believe the government is more of a dictatorship than a democracy.) Anyway, when attempting to interpret 'I support the USA', I find myself confused. One could say they support the states themselves, thinking how wonderful it is they can work together so well yet still be individual. You could also read it as supporting the government, the president, senators... basically the whole system. Then there's the original ideals upon which America was founded, the people of America, America's actions in war, etc... My point? Before we can debate this subject, we need to clarify what it means to support the United States of America. Originally, I was going to start my debate here, under the assumption that you meant the government, but when I started thinking I figured I could do one of three things. 1) I could argue under the assumption that you meant the government in place of USA, 2) I could mess with you by saying something along the lines of supporting the country itself, with all of it's people and ideals, or 3) I could do what I'm doing now, and clarify the topic before beginning. So, once again delaying the start of the debate, I would like to understand what it is we're debating here. Why don't we do that in the following rounds, and then abandon any leftovers and start a fresh debate with a clearer understanding of the topic. If you simply want to abandon this debate and all of the complications, I don't blame you. I just hope no one votes on this, because it'll screw with our win percentages. Thank you again for accepting this debate in the first place, and I appreciate your gesture by allowing me to start it in this round, even though I never actually got that far. Many would jump on the opportunity to have the first and last word. Much obliged. ~Undeniable-Love
The Big Issues

I will use this first round only to state my stance, so we may treat this as a three round debate, with you beginning the argumentation. We do not disagree on much, but what I've chosen seems to be on open ground. I will be debating that I do not support the United States of America (as my profile states), thus, you will debate that you are for it. I know it is not to your exact specifications, but I think it will suffice. If you disagree then either begin round 2 arguing for a different topic, or we can drop the debate entirely.
Education in the United States.

No, my opponent is correct. I am arguing that all public education in the United States SHOULD be privatized, and taken out of the public sector. I thought all definitions would be pretty straightforward, but, for my opponents benefit, here they are, as needed: Education: the action or process of educating or of being educated; also : a stage of such a process Privatize: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership United States of America: country North America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic ∗ Resolved: All education in the United States should be privatized. Opening statement: Public education in the united states is, quite frankly, a joke. Students in schools outside of the governments reach do far better, consistently. Other countries are trashing us in every single subject area, and we've lost a grip on the certainty that used to lie ahead for individuals passing through our educational system. And so, for the following reasons, the public education system should be dissipated and transitioned into the private sector. Contentions are as follows: 1.) Public schools, as a whole, are failing. Students left and right, evidenced by our drop in rankings in just about every educational field. [1] 2.) Students at private schools nationally show steady increases in test scores every year [2]. 3.) There is a direct link between resources, such as family income and education level, and intellect of budding children. Both of these are much more abundant in Private schools. [3] 4.) Private schools are the ultimate combination of the virtues of government and business. The government's oversight function and its responsiveness to the needs of citizens can be retained while taking advantage of private enterprise's ability to be more efficient, reduce costs, and maximize production—in this case, student achievement. Thus, education in the United States should be privatized, and I encourage you to vote in the Pro. Sources: 1.) http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2.)http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com... 3.) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
Education in the United States.

As the con in the argument "Resolved:All education in the United States should be privatized. " I shall be arguing that all schools should not be privatized, plain and simple. As my opponent is the Pro, he is not negating the resolution and is rather affirming it, and the BoP also lies on him to show why this should happen. Sorry for the jerk move, but I meant to post a comment on how your statement was wrong, and instead accidentally accepted. I realized that wasn't what I meant to do right after I hit the button :P However, as I've accepted the debate, I'll do my best regardless!
The Bible is not inerrant

The Number Of Fighting Mem In IsraelAs far as God speaking to the authors and them being inspired to write the Bible, I have no argument. I stand by my opinion that I still see no error in this as I have provided possible solutions and do not see the big deal in the two accounts having different numbers because of this possibility. It may be that I am not understanding you correctly or I am not presenting myself correctly, but this makes sense in my mind. I will agree with you that valiant men could very well not mean veteran. I won't pretend that it absolutely does, especially since I have no evidence to back up my claim, what I have presented on that is just a suggestion or an opinion. The Place Of Josiah's DeathI cannot argue this any further as I see my opponent's side of the argument and, at this time, I have no counter argument. Though I still stand by the fact that either way the Pharaoh did indeed kill Josiah. (Though this may not matter to the debate or argument)The Angelic Appearance Before The WomenI still stand by that there were 3 angels in total. One outside the tomb and two inside the tomb. But as far as any elaboration on the event, I have no more to give. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate this topic.