BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

I know I am going to lose this debate. Its not hard to see that. But I can back up part of what I have said. And I understand a lot of what you're saying. Not that you're going to change my opinion on this matter because I mean, there really is no true way of proving his existence. I should have been more careful in the point I was arguing. More like Is it probable that God exists? lolYou're right. Belief is not a choice without some form of evidence. But the fact the God does have evidence is enough to believe in Him.You argued that a person cannot believe in Bigfoot without good evidence. But, a person can believe in Bigfoot because they have seen Bigfoot. It doesn't have to be enough evidence to show that it actually exists. Same goes with God. A person can believe in God because they have read the Bible, which is evidence. Evidence does not have to completely prove somethings existence to be called evidence. And that fact that there is evidence shows that you can believe in it.But I think you were talking about how you felt about God. You were not able to believe in him because you felt that the Bible was not enough evidence. That's understandable. I hold nothing against you for any of this. Its just your beliefs. About Other Religions. The only way into Heaven is through God. But, humans can make their own choices (kind of, because if God if omniscient then there is no free will) but you do have choices you can make. God creates life to test each person equally. Since everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, everyone's hardships throughout life are different. People born into, or people who have chosen other religions have just as much capability of believing in God as any other person. It might be harder, yes, but they are still capable. Its not the same as being born black and wanting to be white. That cant really happen (except for Michael) but religion is just a belief. God says "He who seeks, will find." So if a person wanted to get into heave, they have every right to seek it. And yes, how do we know which one is the right one? Well, if one studies other religions, one will find which one sounds the most morally right. But God gives us all a chance to find him. The Bible explains life as a test. If one were really interested in wanting salvation, one would study all religions and find which is right for them. Credibility of the Bible. There are many things that have been found true in the Bible. Its not completely story tale. We have found evidence of Noah's Arc. We have found Sodom and Gomorrah, Mt. Sinai. We have even found where Moses parted the Red Sea. We have found a lot of evidence that supports Bible stories. I will leave a link at the bottom to show some of the discoveries. In my opinion, I believe the Bible is very credible evidence of God's existence. Citations. http://www.6000years.org...
i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

Thank you for being patient with my newbness. :)The Bible can be used as evidence. I did state that it was written by man, therefore it has some flaws. But doesn't everything made by man have the capability of having flaws? You say because it was written by man, it cannot be trusted as evidence. But, you have to realize, who came up with the scientific theories for the creation of the world? People. And there are very many contradictions and flawed information in the Big Bang theory as well. http://www.odec.ca...http://rense.com...(You may look at those if you want. Its just showing how the Big Bang has contradictions and too many theories to be seen as fact.)And you also say that because Christianity cannot be proven, athiesm is the most logical belief. I would like to ask you a question. Does being an athiest automatically say that you believe in science? Ive always asumed so because i find it hard to believe in nothing whatsoever. I ask that because, much of science cannot be proven. And its concepts are created by man. Doesnt this make science just as illogical? Also you say that believing in religion is illogical. But, if religion were true, (and im not directing this at you, i dont want you to think im using a scary idea to support my religion...even though i am sort of, haha.) But, if religion were true, wouldnt that mean an athiest would go to hell when they died. A belief in nothing is not always the most logical. In this case, believing in God would be the most logical, if you want to stay on the safe side. And yes, I understand what you are saying about my evolution concept with the bible. It doesnt necessarily say that God exists. The only real "full proof" would be the bible. This concept merely supports the idea that a God could exist. And yes, it is religion supporting science. My apologies. And yes, i have read about how this study had some flaws in it. Because i cannot show a concept that fully proves God's existence, but rather supports its probability, i will just leave them out of the debate. I will stick to the idea that the Bible can be seen as evidence. By the way, this has been a good learning experience on debating. I thank you for that.
i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

I believe your definition of Christianity is accurate. I will start off by saying i understand the flaws in the Bible and in Christianity. The fact that it was written by man is the cause for these flaws. Let me also say that science has its contradictions as well. Our accepted scientific beliefs have a good amount of flaws as well. But let me explain my major view points on why i believe in Christianity. 1. We do not know enough about our universe to exclude God from the equation. 2. Science can never disprove God's existence. 3. Many scientific facts support religion. 4. Christianity can only benefit you as a person. 5. (My opinion) I would much rather believe there is more than just this life. Your turn. :)
i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

I accept.I offer the following definitions for this debate:Atheism - a lack of belief in a higher powerChristianity - the belief in the following:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.2) This God created the universe and everything in it3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live again(Feel free to make changes to my definition of Christianity)Since there is no clearly defined resolution, I propose that the topic be:"Christianity is an accurate representation of reality".The Pro will affirm that Christianity is an accurate worldview, the Con will negate.I will wait until the Pro posts their argument before I post mine.
Third Wave Feminism Isn't Needed

"I agree that feminism is needed in some countries." I'd like to say, "I rest my case." This line right here is a blatant admission that feminism's role has yet to be completed. However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll continue onwards with your intent, not your written word because, honestly, it'd be rude to say you've forfeited when I know full well you did not mean this in this way. "But fighting for equal rights is actually second wave feminism," While it is true second-wave feminism in the US (and probably Canada) fought for equal rights, it's unreasonable to say that every feminist that did this in the world was a second-wave feminist. So far, no wave of feminism has really concerned itself beyond the level of its own nation's borders in terms of action, albeit some feminists may have claimed it within their ideals... but ideals don't equate to practice. (Just look at Communism of an example of political ideology not matching the actual effects.) "Third wave feminism in the United States if you do any research" I used to be a third-waver, so please do not assume I am ignorant. If you paid attention to my last argument, I acknowledged blatantly that the actual third-wave has a turned a blind eye towards actual problems in the world. You telling me this once again, using my own example of Mauritania at that, is just downright insulting. Your argument is that third wave is not needed. I turned the argument back on you and said "It is needed, just not in the form we actually have it in." "Fat acceptance and body positivity are two different things." I don't care about off-topic tangents. This has nothing to do as a response to anything I replied with and only served as filler and a way of distracting from the fact you were unsure of how to respond to somebody who was highly critical of third-wave feminism's shortcomings. "My stance on abortion is that people should have the choice." Just as off-topic and tangential as your rant on fat acceptance. "There are two genders. Male and Female." Even more off-topic and tangential than the previous two "points". That said, while I largely agree with you, I do think you ignore certain anthropological aspects to the 3+ gender argument... but 99% of the time, your enby assessment is pretty much spot on. But this would be a whole different debate if you cared enough to host it and if I cared enough to respond. As a debate, it doesn't really belong here. In short, your Round 2 argument is as follows: 1) Agree with the content of my Round 1 argument, 2) Act as though I am ignorant of third-wave feminism, and 3) Rant about things third-wave feminism does which my Round 1 argument has already acknowledged as being a waste. In Round 1, I agreed that the Third Wave Feminism we have isn't needed, but that a third wave, in a different more egalitarian form, most certainly is. Do you contest what I said? If so, tell me why. If not, concede. It is unfair to your opponent to drag things on in such a way.
Third Wave Feminism Isn't Needed

I agree that feminism is needed in some countries. But fighting for equal rights is actually second wave feminism, and it is very much needed in third world african and asian countries. Third wave feminism in the United States if you do any research has to do with fat acceptance, abortion (which is already legal) and extending the gender spectrum, and no feminists I have met or researched are devoted to helping women in Mauritania or other such countries. Fat acceptance and body positivity are two different things. Body positivity is when a person is proud of their bodies, and dont want to change regardless of the health risks obesity can cause. Fat acceptance is when obese people complain about how they arent welcome into society and teach children being fat is a good thing. Being fat is not a good thing. It's unhealthy. My stance on abortion is that people should have the choice. If you dont want to get an abortion, dont get one. If you do, get one. I really couldnt care less. However, abortion is already legalized, and any further protests are unneccesary. There are two genders. Male and Female. There are rare exceptions of which people are born in the wrong body and transition to the other gender, or are born with neither, or male and female genitals. These again are RARE exceptions. There is no such thing as any other gender. Any other gender is simply a way of making yourself feel special, and get the attention you so desperately crave.
Third Wave Feminism Isn't Needed

"Nowadays that women have equal rights, there is no need for feminism anymore" Women have equal rights, do they? How about in the Middle East where women are forced to stay concealed and quiet? In Mauritania, women are not paid equally for equal work. Egypt does not have laws banning non-discrimination nor does it have laws mandating pay equality. Granted, these are not countries modern third and fourth wave feminism seem to be concerned with; however, the state of many countries does give support that a third wave was/is needed, even if the effective wave did not do what it should have. While the third wave as we have it isn't needed, a third wave was and is needed.
Rap Battle Ocho!

You know what makes me cringe? Your jokes about my mom. Please man, shut the f*ck up and go swallow priest c*m. Your raps are s*it, you can't go up against a boss. Go back to your church so you can get your salad tossed. And now about the k*ke. What's the matter there buddy? Are you offended by my words? Better stop mocking left cu*ks, you rightatds are f*cking worse. You protect free speech, unless free speech gets you triggered, Man you are just as butt-hurt as a f*ucking sand n****r. You're dropping atomic bombs? More like firecrackers. Stop trying man, you're not a f*cking rapper. You're a whack hack, I'm the master hacker. I'ma eat you up Jim like a f*cking Graham cracker. There's no hope for you, I hope you know I'll hang you by your n*ts as I sip my Bordeaux. There's no point trying, I murdered you son I got 99 problems but this c*nt ain't one.
Rap Battle Ocho!

This guy's acting like he's the one and only 2Pac I call your rhythm amateur, you cry out "It's not!" Tragic rhymes of yours got people screamin' "Bjtch, STOP." Faggot, your raps aren't even equivalent to Kidz Bop! Pick-pocket kikiki's pride and purpose in this life He'll have to coincide with a porpoise as his wife... ...with his mom in bed I lie, this wh0re is mighty fine Although she's tries to fight, on her pvssy I politely dine Come fight me, dyke, come throw your frag grenades I'll lob a nuke at you, your doom is due, this @ss's afraid Fvckin' Nazi, this Jew you knew can now lacerate Holocaust reversed, Shady with MP-44, I'm bout to castigate Just masturbate, No women for you, only Mrs. Hand Your wrist will be so strong they will call "Fitness Man" Either that or you can do Sodomy, although this is banned Do it in secret, else you might end up in prison, man Fvcker so dumb and clueless, askin' what day is this? Bjtch you shoulda knew this, the day JimShady beat the atheist.
Rap Battle Ocho!

Really? What is this? Your raps are child-like, Bars so weak, like you pulled them out of Iggy's d*ke. No rhythm, no class. You're as green as f*cking grass. Better f*ck off with your sass 'fore I shove my foot up in your a*s. Going up against me? I feel sorry for you kid, Cause I'll rape your a*s harder than your f*cking priest did. How many years have you spent praying on your knees Whilst your priests were teaching you about the birds and the bees. You cannot defeat this renegade Who's dropping rhymes like they're frag grenades And as you hang your head down shame You realize the mistake you made. And you know, I gotta say I feel sorry for you tyke, That you feel you're hip 'cause your have a profile pic of a k*ke.
Rap Battle Ocho!

I wrote a lot the last time, and I don't want it to go to waste, so I'll just repost that. I'll right something new for Round 2. So typical, an Atheist on Debate.org It's critical that I make sure and slay this whore Get physical and invade his dorm You're pitiful, I advise that you hit the escape door This day you're gonna die, I aint afraid of kikiki Disdain this guy, it's gonna be hard defeating me In vain you'll try, I'll lock you up and won't be keeping keys Even in rain you'll dry, You aint nothin' but TP, G ill-Legally is how I'll kick your @ss, you political undecided Even we conservatives hate you more than liberals, open wide bjtch Evenly is not an option, you know the right is best, don't deny it see, you'll pee when you battle me, "Oh, don't cry, prjck!" so, you're mine, bjtch, don't think you're even a ninja You'll just die quick, no recon, this role just don't fit ya You're no surprise, it's easy to spot you, I'll take a pictcha You shouldn't even fight it, you know I'm gonna win, duh I'll put you in a head lock, you're no smarter than a dead cop I'll bury you down to the bed rock, You're rhymes are wet slop You keep goin' but instead stop, or I'll call police, the feds knock "We're lookin' for kikiki let us on," "He's with his sister in wedlock!" You'll be just a red dot when I'm finished with you, animal abuser pay for those dead dogs, I'll abuse you with lyrics that confuse you But I'll give some cred...NOT, everything you do is weaker than voodoo Still you need magic, get job, I hear your mom wants a blow from you, too But screw you, and everything you stand for Just two is few? mom and sister are not the only answer? Include who? You're dad? That's a weird foursome, hope yall get cancer I'll feud you any day, you're a slave deer like Prancer Your aunt's a whore, she's in the bedroom waiting Your got rants galore, but I got chants of the Lord saying: "Your pants are torn because of the savage you're debating." Your plan is forlorn, because you went up against Jim Shady P.s. you're mom's a big lady.
Pets

I am assuming that you are taking the side of pets being just simply property due to being in the 'con' position. The resolution of this debate seems to lie explicitly in the morals and views of the pet owner. Whilst the owners of orang-utan's in Indonesian countries may see their 'pets' as commodities, the dogs and cats of first world countries are most definitely parts of the family if the family tends to them on a daily basis. How do you wish to further scope this debate?
Students should be legally held for the bullying in schools

The problem with this is that there's no actual enforcability. The definition of bullying is so varied that you could ask five different people what constitutes bullying and get five different answers. It's insanely hard to verify if bullying has actually transpired because most of this is personal and being dealt with inside of the person. If I say that you're bullying me, there's not much you can do except for turn it into a "your word against mine" debate, and I'm going to win that if I'm accusing you of bullying. And what's the punishment for bullying? A fine? Jail time? Lethal injection? There's no good way to actually punish it. There's no good way to hold someone legally accountable for bullying, like the way my opponent is suggesting. We do need to do something, I agree. But let's not be totally dumb and just jump on the first bad idea that pops up.
Students should be legally held for the bullying in schools

In a recent study that Dr. Mackrintzo did, proved that 1 out of 4 kids are bullied, 77% of students are bullied verbally, physically and mentally, 43% are experiencing cyber bullying and 3 in 5 students are said to be a bully 160,000 kids skip school because of the fear that they will be bullied. Should we just focus on prevention and the protection of victims, or should the bullies themselves face the force of the law if their actions lead to loss of life? Bullying has always existed in schools and will most likely continue to exist unless something is done. It can lead to serious psychological problems, like depression and even suicide. I am 100% behind the fact that anyone who bullies, intimidates, or abuses another person should be punished. If someone commits suicide and they were bullied, the bully is definitely the one guilty, they should be punished. Bullying needs to be taken very seriously as it can DESTROY someone's life! So I say: REAL ACTIONS, REAL CONSEQUENCES!!
Resolved: President Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline was a favorable decision.

If I could vote for you I would... Also for anyone still reading dont drink and take sleeping pills like I do... you will wake up and not remember a thing.... also, hi... how are you.. I know this has nothing to do with the debate but it seems like a pitty to let these rounds go to waste so without further ado I will make a bet with you Ill bet I can guess your eye color!!!!
2 + 2 does not equal 4

To begin, if you follow the link, you can clearly see that Pro plagiarized his whole argument. That being said, let's continue the the rebuttal. Rebuttal:Let me remind you of the resolution: "2 + 2 does not equal 4. " However, Pro states: "Only in the last two categories does 2 + 2 = 4. " It seems Pro is contradicting himself with the resolution. He admits that 2 + 2 can equal 4. However, in the resolution, Pro agrees with the statement: "2 + 2 does not equal 4. " Pro is trying to manipulate his original stance on the argument. Pro also states: "Since 2 + 2 sometimes does not = 4, then it would be wrong to say that you are against the notion that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. " Pro's logic is flawed. Once again, he is trying to manipulate his stance on the resolution. However, his manipulation works against him as well. I may very well say: since 2 + 2 sometimes equals 4, the it would be wrong to say that you are for the notion 2 + 2 does not equal 4. Therefore, Pro's argument is invalid. Argument:I will prove that 2 + 2 = 4. IIf you have 2 apples, and I have 2 apples, and I give you my 2 apples, you then have 4 apples. There is a physical example. Now let's give you a mathematical example:1 + 1 = 21 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4(2) + (2) = 42 + 2 = 4Therefore, 2 + 2 equals 4.
2 + 2 does not equal 4

'Believe it or not, sometimes 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It depends on what type of measurement scale you are using. There are four types of measurement scales– nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. Only in the last two categories does 2 + 2 = 4. Let me explain. All the nominal scale does is name or classify. Each number merely represents a category or individual. For example, numbers on baseball or football uniforms are only nominal. Having the number "1" on your uniform does not necessarily mean you are "numero uno" (the best) in your sport. Social security numbers are also nominal. All they do is name or classify the individual. The ordinal scale has all the qualities of the nominal scale plus the ability to rank objects according to some attribute. If you ranked all the members of a group according to height, "1" would be the tallest, "2" the second tallest and so on. However, the intervals between these rankings are not necessarily equal.If the tallest people were 5'11", 5'8" and 5'7", respectively, the interval between the first two ranks would be 3 inches, while the interval between the last two is only 1 inch. Ranking in various sports and beauty contests are also only ordinal scales. An interval scale combines the qualities of the previous scales with equal intervals. The best example would be a centigrade (Celcius) thermometer. The change in heat between 0oC and 10oC is the same as between 10oC and 20oC. But watch out! 20oC is not twice as hot as 10oC! Why? Interval scales havearbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero), rather than absolute (true) zeros. At 0oC water freezes, but that does not mean that there is no heat. In contrast, the ratio scale has all the qualities of the previous scales plus an absolute (true) zero, as with a Kelvin thermometer. At 0oK, theoretically there isno heat. You have nothing of what you are measuring, therefore the zero is true or absolute.'SOURCE: http://virgil.azwestern.edu...;Since 2 + 2 sometimes does not = 4, then it would be wrong to say that you are against the notion that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.