BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

Our opponent wishes to cloud your judgement by falsely quoting William James [Q]. Again, we will take a quote from James' "The Will to Believe," and explain why our opponent has falsely represented him [Q]. James says "Does it not seem preposterous on the very face of it to talk of our opinions being modifiable at will? Can our will either help or hinder our intellect in its percepts of truth? Can we, by just willing it, believe that Abraham Lincoln's existence is a myth and that the portraits of him in McClure's Magazine are all of some one else? Can we, by any effort of our will, or by any strength of wish that it were true, believe ourselves well and when we are roaring with rheumatism in bed, or feel certain that the sum of the two one-dollar bills in out pocket must be a hundred dollars? We can say any of these things, but we are absolutely impotent to believe them; and of just such things in the whole fabric of the truths that we do believe in made up,- matters of fact, immediate or remote, as Hume said, and relations between ideas, which are either there or not there for us if we see them so, and which if not there cannot be put there by any action of our own." [S] What his argument boils down to, as our opponent fails to see, is that you may hold any belief that you wish, but if they are not based in reality, no one will hold the same beliefs, and therefore yours become inane [Ri]. To quell our opponents inept attempt to make our entire argument false by claiming that we hold evidence to believe such things, I say this; all the beliefs we hold are beliefs bred of testimony [C]. We have reason to believe that the author we are citing is reliable and trustworthy, and so we hold that his words are true [S]. Because we deem him reliable and trustworthy, we accept his testimony as something that we should believe [S].
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

My opponent would like to believe that the ship captain argument is a valid argument for allowing him to sail across the sea without a valid inspection being done[RI]. But keep in mind that the example was not about the captains belief if the ship could make it across, but based on the fact that he was not responsible in fulfilling his duties as a captain to ensure a ship safe for voyage[S]. The argument was mainly about risking the lives of the people on board. And to address the other argument about the one in a thousand in reference to seeking another opinion from a second or third doctor, we are not speaking about a one in thousand situation[Q]. For a man does not get sick over a thousand times a week. We are speaking of a person unsure due to lack of evidence shown about the Doctors character[Q]. Also, I would like to point out that our opponent has not even addressed that they have continued to provide evidence for an argument that they are stating that sufficient evidence is needed. Now they may say that at times no evidence is needed, so can you say like William James that "....two one-dollar bills in our pocket must be a hundred dollars?"[I] Because by not seeing the bills directly, you can assume the value but without evidence be completely wrong. Or perhaps they want to go on a simple hope of being correct. Like Allen Woods said, "...such as wishful thinking, self-complacency, prejudice, partisanship or social conformity....determine what we believe."[I] Basically saying you have no evidence to prove your point, like my opponent, so you allow others to influence your ideas and beliefs, also showing a lack of self control[RE].
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

To directly address our opponents concerns with gathering sufficient data to indeed prove that they are ill by going to more than one doctor, we would simply say in order to go get a second or third opinion, one would need to believe, and not know for certain, that the first doctor's diagnosis was inaccurate [Q]. But we would like to raise a more important point [Q]. William K. Clifford, from his essay "The Ethics of Belief," claims that "In the supposed cases which have been considered, it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation. The reason of this judgement is not far to seek: it is that the belief held by one man was of great importance to other men" [S]. I will quickly summarize his example; A ship captain, who is in charge of the welfare of his crew, opts not to inspect the ship, and because of his neglect, the ship wrecks and his crew dies [Q]. Certainly this is a compelling enough argument for us to investigate all of our beliefs [Q]. But William James' argument from his essay "The Will to Believe" is a more compelling argument [Q]. He says that "Our reason is quite satisfied, in nine-hundred and ninety-nine cases out of every thousand of us, if it can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by some one else. Our faith is faith in some one else's faith, and in the greatest matter this is most the case" [S]. What James is saying is that nearly all of what we know to be true, including the idea that there are molecules holding us all together, stems from a knowledge gained either second or third hand, and in having multiple people confirm that our beliefs are true, we claim them to be facts [Ri]. Let us refer once more to our opponent's example of gaining a second or third opinion from multiple doctors; In their argument, they claim that by gaining the opinion of more than one doctor, they gain the true knowledge of their illness [S]. Thus, they have already stated what James claims [Q]. So, we will propose the idea that since we cannot have the time to investigate all of our beliefs as Clifford claims we should, and accepting James' theory that most of what we know is gained through the collaboration of testimony, that you always hold some onto something that you claim to be true, without having done the sufficient research into that belief [Ri]. Therefore, it is necessary to hold some beliefs on insufficient evidence [C].
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

My opponent seems to say that accepting testimonial claims based on insufficient evidence is okay due to having faith in the testimony giver's education. Now when you base something on faith you are saying that you believe something without evidence[EC]. In the case of the doctor, my opponent could argue that the simple fact that the doctor is in the office is evidence enough[S]. By that logic it can be said that any person in a doctors office with a lab coat on becomes a doctor due to the environment. "To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.[I]" by William James "The Will to Believe." In this quote by James I would like to point out that you may think you know the person treating you is a doctor, but you would not know for certain even if they have certificates and diplomas[S]. I say this because all they are in base form is a print out that anyone can do. In this sense it would be wise to seek a second opinion or even a third to verify what the first doctor has said. Because it may be the case that the initial doctor was not truly certified[Q]. But by verifying his conclusions true based of evidence you can argue that it could be the case that if the second or even third doctor agrees with the initial diagnosis was indeed correct and it seems to be that the initial doctor was right and true, but this is done by gathering trace data for yourself and using it to connect the similarities with the different professionals to form your own conclusion[Q]. As you clearly see you have confirmed the diagnosis through what could be seen as an initial I.Q, is the original doctor a true doctor. But my opponent would like to say that you can simply have faith, and this is belief with no evidence. The correct route would be to take the argument Plato created, I only know that I know nothing, stating that you do not have all the knowledge in the world, and can't assume based on faith that others do have that knowledge[S[. Also note that my opponent will also be using some evidence based arguments by using references from books read in class. If no evidence is needed, then why does he feel the need to provide some?[I]
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

Our opponent makes our argument for us [I]. The idea that one should never believe based on insufficient evidence is grounded in the theory that you can only know something if you have seen factual evidence in support of your belief [S]. But our opponent goes on to say that to assess the testimony of a doctor, you must know his character and emotional state [S]. We have learned that character and emotion are factors in deciding how much you trust the testimony of someone [Q]. So we humbly submit that the acceptance of a diagnosis is based on faith that the doctor is capable of making a well reasoned diagnosis because he is moral and just, therefore you cannot have complete evidence that the doctor is right [Ri]. You can only believe that he knows what is best because he has training, and trust his judgement [C].
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

My opponent may say that sufficient evidence is not required to have a proper belief[EC]. He may say that testimony is a reliable source due to the knowledge of the authority figure giving the testimony[S]. Like a Doctor giving a diagnosis based on the schooling they have received. But in order to be able to accept the "professional's" testimony you must also be able to analyze the source's character, emotion and reasoning at the time of the testimony[Q]. For example a doctor having a bad day may be quick to diagnose a patient with a very common virus or illness to simply get his day over with, and due to this is not truly sincere about the diagnosis[S]. My opponent may say that the professional has the knowledge of years of medical school but if one can't analyze the "professional's" character you have no way of knowing that this individual barely made it out of medical school, or if they are a true expert in the field of study[Q]. Keep in mind, attending medical school doesn't make you a good doctor just like attending church doesn't make you a saint.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

"Do you REALLY think from your groin pull that you have anything to say? " I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU. AFTER SAYING ALL THAT YOU ARE STILL, SO BLIND TO YOUR IGNORANCE. Everything you just said, Proves it. As I've said before why can we not have a civilized debate without you criticizing me for my age! You no NOTHING of me. What makes you think your so much better than me? YOU'RE NOT. And obviously your "studies" can be proven wrong. Yes, Buddhism IS a religion. You don't know what I look like, Where I live, And I'm not envious. Especially since there is nothing to be envious about, Unless it's your funny "facts and studies" joke. Yes I do have something to say, And if you have a problem deal with it. (Also I am a girl. Hope you weren't to blind to see that. )
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Since you called me "ignorant" and since you are a teeny bopper, And since I happen to be 3x your age and am a lot more intelligent and educated and will ---always--- know a lot more about religion by at least 10, 000x, And am a lot more experienced at life and what life has to offer than a snot nosed zit faced yodeling grunge country opera cowbore who lives in a shoe and recites poems from his painful rectal itch that he is green with envy (don't worry I didn't read anything beyond your word of ignorant) at a concrete parachuting class to excite his battery operated easy bake oven so he can learn how to both bake and fry water from his cabbage batbrain so his jellyfish doesn't get cold at a nun's pep rally so they can cheer for your noodle to have a sleep-in during a nuclear fallout demonstration, Do you REALLY think from your groin pull that you have anything to say?
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Wow. You are so ignorant. I'm simply trying to have a civilized debate! You shouldn't criticize me for my age but for my wits. You don't do that very well. I NEVER said I was smarter than you, I simply said I can know just as much as you no matter what my age is. Yes, I googled Buddhism, Wanna know what I found? Let's see "Buddhism is the world's fourth leading RELIGION. " You do not know who I am and therefore cannot make stupid assumptions, Which only proves that you are just as immature as you say I am. "Has religion OF ANY KIND especially christianity EVER brought long lasting peace in comparison to war, Hate and evil? " No matter how much you've studied you have not experienced the whole of world history, So you wouldn't know! Nobody has! Again, I don't think I'm so much better than you. And btw, You have not proved ANY of your claims so it is extremely hypocritical for you to tell me to prove mine. You've obviously only studied what you wanted to study, Because you are completely biased. All you are telling me, Is that you are an ignorant man. (Excuse your foul language, ) "Religion is the #1 cause of hate, Death, Greed, Violence, War, Etc "More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason. " AGAIN 1. All your opinions, 2. YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED THE WHOLE OF WORLD HISTORY. If it's okay for a "dumb teen" like me to say YOU sir need to top acting like you're better than me.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

No. What you said was not true. There can be no worldwide peace with religion in it. If you don't know that, Then you don't know a single thing about religion and you are blowing bubbles from your maw. See, I've studied this subject in depth. And if in any possible way you say its not true, Then you have not studied religion with except maybe a for sentences and that's it. Also, Tell yah what? Since you think you are so gargantuan smort, Sorry smart, Why don't you google something like "Is Buddhism a religion? " and see where it takes yah. I really hate it when those who are still stuck in high school think that they are smorter, Oh sorry again, Smarter than those who are 3x their age and especially hasn't demonstrated it in any way because they, Like you, Doesn't have any experience in the field which is the truth of it. Now here's the truth of it. . . Has religion OF ANY KIND especially christianity EVER brought long lasting peace in comparison to war, Hate and evil? Why if you've answered "yes" then you don't know your over 25, 000 denominations of christianity according to its god which in its bible, If you were to have read the damn thing, Is known for its horrific suffering and pain. Religion is the #1 cause of hate, Death, Greed, Violence, War, Etc "More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason. " George Carlin and he's right.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

First of all, Yes, Buhdism IS a religion. And I did not understand why you insulted my age. Criticizing me for how old I am is just pure ignorance. I can know just as much as you, If not more, No matter how old. Yes, I did read your article and what I said was true. You are generalizing the whole of religion without taking into consideration anything at all. Clearly you are contradicting yourself by saying, "illusion of love" because without love there would be more abuse and rape instead of a person naturally having a child. I'm sorry if we can't have a civilized debate without you criticizing me by my age.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Did you even read the article before rambling on and on? Clearly not. Did you read what I stated? Clearly not. All you read what the headliner and you totally forgot to add in your brain "the illusion of love" part. That's why you are 16 and did not think things through before opening your maw. Btw, Buddhism is not a religion. Bye.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I do not believe in god, But religion is not destroying humanity. People who misinterpret the claims of the bible do wrong things, But it's wrong to generalize the whole of religion. Consider this, Christianity is not the only religion in the world, You seem to think it is. There is also Buddhism, Hinduism, And MANY others. You also use the word "your's" very loosely. You seem to make the assumption that everyone believes in god. If you can find any way to actually prove that it is destroying humanity, (besides your opinion), I'm happy to debate!
Schools are responsible for student health!

Below I will provide a few reasons as to why I disagree. The education system is responsible for the students safety, education, and providing an atmosphere to both cater to those two factors sufficiently. It is compulsory for schools to have a health center, but not be responsible for the students health. Safety and health are mutually exclusive. Albeit, I will concede that courses such as Physical education and health, should be responsible for teaching students proper health, the classes should not be held responsible for the overall health of the students. A individuals responsibility for their health should be, especially students ages 7-15, monitored by their respective guardians, parents, family, adoption centers etc. , and not elusively the school system. Students from the ages of 16- 18, should be responsible for their own health because, given their age, the knowledge accumulated from their parents, varying resources such as libraries, parents, and practitioners such as doctors and health practitioners.
Space Colonization, entirely stupid.

My opponents acceptance round included a fraudulent quote, he pulled out his arse to be spunky. Ironic, that his profile indicates he can't stand up in this debate at all, much less against a contributor. But as he accepted, he agreed that: He is PRO - Space Colonization, is NOT entirely stupid. and must defend that claim avidly, competently, coherently, logically, and formally regarding the context of the debate. Although personal contributions, are never contributions to a debate, they are soliloquies, I hope you can counter each portion of debate content I provide full heartedly. Remember, you can forfeit, By accepting defeat. - You are not obligated to defend a belief you do not have confidence in - and doing so is bigotry, if you do not feel you can competently contribute content to the debate. Unfeasible : with the expense, verses pay off. The resources are better spent elsewhere. Poverty, war, crime, impractical technologies, environmental issues. Unethical: the confined space would factually, according to research in human development and psycho analysis, trauma (sea sickness, senile old people, jealousy, Hope, dreams). The children raised there would have social injustice, and be subject to bigotry, dis-cultural lifestyles, pre-arrange marriage, and illogical lifestyles (slaves). unpractical: earth, even if desolate and sunless, is a much richer source of minerals, food, living space and security than any space craft we can make. It is also, unreasonable to spend our time given politics, resourcing space for what we have much easier to attain here (minerals and development). unreasonable: ^^^ Including what was stated. The technology we have now is so pure, compared tot he foreseeable future that, investing in space travel now would be entirely wasted, irrelevant progress. The entire expedition and effort would be made monotonous, scandalous embezzling in the proceeding decades. Waiting is the only logical answer to being curious in space exploration . Unattainable: there is nothing out there we've seen worth going for, and our technology is not sufficient, and There is no evidence we have Factually made any progress as of yet & that the space progress you imagine actually occurred at all. To prove you actually read this argument, You are required to summaries each of these points in your round two argument, or you forfeit. (demonstrate acknowledgement for the arguments put forth.)
Is it a good thing for same sex marriage to be legal in the US

I am arguing that continuing to allow people of the LGBT to get married is a good thing for the US to do. So now that we are on the same page let me give you some (but not all) of my reasons for having same sex marriage being legal, is a step in the right direction for the US. 1. By legalizing same sex marriage we are allowing people who are already in love and married even without the legal paper work, to finally be able to fill that paper work out, and have the same privileges that a married heterosexual couple can enjoy. 2. They can adopt: As a kid who was adopted I can tell you that the child care system is swamped with kids. Having more married couples that can have both members be legal guardians, can be a huge advantage for the kids that they could very well adopt or take care of by bringing in foster care kids. 3. By allowing same sex marriage you are allowing approximately 4 million people who classify as LGBT (according to the Huffington post) to get married to the person that they want to be with. That sounds like the kind of thing that a fair country would do. So now that I have given you 3 reasons why we should keep the law that allows same sex marriage I now will allow you to rebuttal.
Is it a good thing for same sex marriage to be legal in the US

Hello, By your arguing for the case of same sex marriage, I am going to assume that by "same sex marriage" you are implying that it is a faithful, monogamous marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume you also think homosexuality itself is "good" as opposed to "bad", at least in the objective sense. Firstly, allow me to appeal to your sense of "absolute truth". If same sex marriage is, in fact, "good" in the objective sense, then it must, in fact, be "good" for ALL people, in ALL places, at ALL times (even the time before the invention of In Vitro Fertilization, which I will explain soon). That is what would be called an "absolute truth" -- in the same way that loving your children or taking care of the environment is objectively "good" for ALL people, in ALL places, and at ALL times. Anyways, let's pretend for a moment that this was actually the case 1000 years ago, and every single human being on earth was homosexual and engaged in a faithful monogamous same sex marriage (which you affirm as a good thing). However, since there would be no IVF, and marriage was faithfully only between two people of the same sex, then I'm afraid that we wouldn't be having this debate right now because the entire human race would have gone extinct about 900 years ago". Congratulations everyone. In other words, if you still objectively believe same sex marriage to be "a good thing", then you must also logically believe human extinction to be "a good thing" as well. Thank you.
Resolved: Hitler vs Justin Bieber

After doing thorough research I have failed to find a single debate that addresses the issue of who is more evil, Hitler or Justin Bieber? This is an issue that millions of people ask themselves every day, and it is apalling that this topic has not been debated here on DDO. After making this discovery I realized that as the head troll of the site it is my sworn duty to bring this legendary debate ready to happen into fruition, and I will be arguing that Bieber is indeed worse then Hitler. This is a complete legit debate (that I intend to troll anyways) and I fully expect this to become the debate of the month here on DDO. 4 rounds 6000 charactersCon may give only an initial statement in his first round, meaning it doesnt have to be acceptance only and con may give a little background info of each person or lay out how he/she will make their case. Let the games begin >:)