BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.In a last ditch attempt at winning this debate, Con gives what he calls an argument from argument. This argument is incredibly sophomoric and fails to recognize a vital distinction. Primarily, the distinction between epistemology and ontology. Epistemology is how you come to know something is true, and ontology is what there is to know. Stating 'for all we know, X may be wrong' is an epistemological statement. It does not mean 'X may be wrong' in the ontological sense. Con's argument fails.Con gives me even less substance to respond to than the last round. He has dropped every single point made in the debate so far. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence massively favors Pro, leading to a vote for me.Vale.
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

My goal today is to educate my opponent. The typical theistic argument goes like this: 1) Began Everything that BEGAN to exist had a cause As you see, there is a word in there that changes the definition: began. While you are asserting that god had a beginning, this is simply not so. God is infinite in time. God created time, and has no beginning or end. It is a being of such power that can not be passed by our own conception, the ultimate being, a timeless spaceless being. He creates all, destroys all, survives all. There is nothing greater than him. [1] 2) The universe The universe has no conceivable cause? Really? So it just came out of nothing? Wouldn't it need materials to even be here? If so, tell me where the materials came from. And more importantly, tell me how the universe could come of nothing. You see, it is impossible for the universe to come out of nothing. It must have had a cause. And that cause must be something beyond the limits of conceivable existence, otherwise it would not be able to come before time. [2] 3) God could have set the initial state in motion Now that I have shown how the universe could not have come of nothing, I must show that god could create the state. God could, as always, create things of nothing, being the unlimited being that he is. As he made materials of nothing, made life of nothing, he could also make the universe of nothing. As shown earlier, the word began is crucial. As god is eternal, he never began. 1) Everything that BEGAN to exist had a cause. 2) The universe began to exist 3) The universe has a cause References: [1] http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.gotquestions.org... Funny Story by an atheist http://www.flemminghansen.com...
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.Topic: Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.Position: Pro/ForCategory: ScienceRounds: 4Voting Period: 1 WeekTime to Argue: 72 HoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism. It is the burden of Con to prove that Big Bang cosmology supports theism over atheism. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.The voting period will be one week. Each side will have seventy-two hours to post each round.The maximum number of characters is eight thousand. Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed.I will be taking my argument from a debate I instigated with a different account. Please do not accuse me of plagiarism. It is my own work.God is defined as the personal being which causes the initial state of the universe.Vale.
Wii game systems

may I ask...would you stand in the rain, or play inside. The Wii also enforces or in your vision"imitating" boxing, the boxing is terrific, and you dont have to get hurt. Personally, since I'm female and dainty, would not like to be pounced on by a 100 kg man. The wii enables you to have fun, not a fitness club!!! But I cant exactly say "make me a mario to race with. Can I? I take all offers!! but the fact is that I'm not into running, but running with my arms still gives me excercise, because I tend to run with my feet to make it easier. Generally, you dont actually have to have feet to play the Wii anyway, so it's great if you are disabled ie. no feet or legs.Lol :P
Wii game systems

well, it is better if you got a Wii and lived in a flat...you dont own the garden or whatever. It makes you lose little weight, but it still does, especially if you dont own a garden. It is an alternative if it is raining also... When you said that you only have to move your arm, and it doesnt give fresh air, open the doors and windows, clear the place of furniture and voila, you have fresh air and can move your feet. There's not a problem with clearing the place of furniture and moving your legs unless... you dont have any!!
Wii game systems

Well, who said you HAD to buy a Wii? It's optional right? unless your work or whatever forced you to. Your point is weak. If you want to play soccer, play it outside, if you want to play racing a different way with Mario, do it on the Wii... It's simple. I cant play soccer anyway, so it lets me play soccer wihtout the skill provided. I'm a person that heads to the ballet hall anyway, not the soccer pitch. I'm also not a muddy person. It's horrible mud, so if you hate dirt, the Wii is ultimatly for you. Anyway. The back of the Wii sports game box doesn't say "This game gives you fresh air and will make you fit within a week of playing!Try it out today and you'll lose pounds! We'll refund your money if you dont lose weight by moving around your legs and get that body running around the room like a football pitch!" does it??!! No. The Wii is built for F-U-N!!!!!!!!!
Wii game systems

I think that Wii's are great. Why not just take your Wii outside anyway?? It's also not all about excersice. If you think that the Wii is pretty much useless, what do you think of the XBox, PSP, DS Lite and all the other things. Thee Wii isn't meant to be for excersice, its meant to be a games console. Even though I dont have a Wii, I am addicted to my friends Wii, and I simply realise that the Wii is something where you dont have to keep clicking buttons, you act as if you were in the real situation.
Wii game systems

People say Wii systems are better because you can get more exercise. Sure, I could agree with this if the controller weighed a ton. But it does not. All you do on the Wii is move your arm. You only get exercise if you feel like running outside while playing. Other game systems are better because you have to use your head. You don't just have to sit there. I mean, on a Wii, you could be sitting there playing an imitation of bowling. You don't have to think for that. But for other games you have to actually think because they have information you need to find out to get farther in the game.
Society should not regulate carbon or CO2 output.

Without an appropriate or sound methodology, some might say that it would be prudent to withhold making a decision until such a methodology presents itself. However, there are some issues whose very nature, or through social and political pressure, demand a decision. In such a case, it is not possible to simply remain neutral. Since a decision must be made, we can either behave randomly, or choose among the available methodologies. If we agree that random behavior is unacceptable, then we should also agree that we must choose a methodology and, therefore, should choose the best. We should note that "best" does not mean "perfect." Any methodology necessarily must have been created, and necessarily must be carried out, by humans, who we can agree are inherently flawed. To require perfection is unreasonable. Furthermore, to simply note any number of flaws in a given methodology is also insufficient. To choose a "best" methodology we must compare. It doesn't matter if a given methodology has *x* number of flaws if every other methodologies has more than *x* number of flaws. I contend that: not only is science the best available methodology, it is the *only* available methodology. In my opponent's criticism of science, note that there has been no presentation of any alternate methodology. It is simply that "science ... is unsuitable..." I am not aware of any other formal methodology and my opponent has not presented one with which we can make a comparison. At this point, the only methodology on the table to choose from is: science. As the sole member of its class, it is automatically the best choice, so we must use it. So what does science say about the situation? While I could reference dozens of articles or web pages citing the scientific consensus that: A) global warming exists; B) CO2 is a major component; and C) man is a significant contributed to CO2 and, hence, global warming; this is a point that is implicitly acknowledged by my opponent. The argument presented is not that there is no basis at all for regulating CO2, but that there is no acceptable basis. The attacks upon science, then, implicitly acknowledge that science provides a basis for global warming; my opponent simply considers science to be unacceptable. In conclusion, given that science provides a basis for regulation CO2, that being forced to make a decision we must choose some methodology with which to make a choose, that science is the only available methodology, then we should, therefore, regulate CO2 emissions.
Society should not regulate carbon or CO2 output.

The argument "Science, as presently practiced, is unsuitable as a sole basis for carbon and climate based policy" is precisely what I have been addressing. To restate: science is all we have, therefore we have no choice but to use science. Con did not refute this. At no point have I suggested that we "ignore" the limitations of science. I merely noted that, since science is all we have, the flaws of science are irrelevant with regards to choosing a methodology; the choice is made by default. Regarding the "soothsayer" refutation. It isn't an issue of trustworthiness. It is an issue of what we have available. I didn't address it because it is a trap. From a logical standpoint, if a soothsayer was all we had, then we would have to use it. But many people would reject this because we can only consider this situation in light of the facts of the present where we do have things in addition to, and better than, a soothsayer (namely: science). Indeed, this is how humanity has progressed. We use what methods are available, improve them over time, and use the new, better, methods that we come up with. The idea that we shouldn't use a method because it isn't perfect is nonsensical. In conclusion, there is a question to be answered: the question Con presented as a topic for a debate. This provides the basis for my argument, an argument that Con has not adequately refuted. He simply dismisses science, but refuses to come up with an alternative. I have limited myself to the scope of this debate (CO2 regulation) but it doesn't take much thought to see how eliminating science from all decision-making (as Con suggests) would be disastrous. Yes, Con recommends improvements upon science, and I agree that science can always improve. In fact, the self-improving nature of science is a fundamental component. But Con is not arguing that we should improve science, and use it while it is being improved. Con is arguing that science should be completely exorcised from being used in any decision-making capacity until it meets his demands. I note that he also argues this using a computer, on the Internet.
Society should not regulate carbon or CO2 output.

In my last contribution, I will not introduce new evidence but simply reiterate what has been stated and refute the logic of my opponent. I regret to see that Con refuses to address principle components to my argument. I stated, "Science, as presently practiced, is unsuitable as a sole basis for carbon and climate based policy." This debate is clearly centralized around scientific methodology, it's merits and lack thereof. This is not off track, this is the track. This is not a veiled attempt to "bash science", but a frank, eyes wide open, discussion into the scope of what the current scientific process cannot do with reliability. We need more discussions about the limitations in the process rather than just ignoring them as Con seeks to do. This is an important part of the debate that is seldom discussed openly. As to Con's specifics. His steps 1-6 can only come after we have established that there is a question in the first place. Which depends on an adequate response to my initial argument. Otherwise it is fundamentally circular logic, the need for a decision comes from science, yet he uses that to justify the selection of science. My initial refutation to his logic has also gone unacknowledged. My statement "If the only method around was a soothsayer who read chicken bones, it wouldn't make him trustworthy" is a clear refutation of the logical basis he is using, unless you trust bone readers. "Best available" does not make a process suitable. We still need an understanding of the pros and cons of the process to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source. This is not a sound logical basis in favor of science as the foundation for CO2 regulation. I would like to thank the readers for taking the time to read this far. If you are confused, or would like to point out my errors in my debate style, logic, wording, clarity, declaration of scope, etc. I would love to hear from you in the comments so I may improve my methods. Please be specific if you can. Honest votes about your thoughts on this topic are also welcome. Again, thank you.
Society should not regulate carbon or CO2 output.

However, there are some things that I would like to make clear. It is an oversimplification to simply say that my argument is that science is all there is, and therefore we must use it. Certainly that is the conclusion, but not the entirety of the argument. This point is important because Con has addressed only the conclusion, but not the argument that results in it. Anyone can simply reject a conclusion and deny it, but the point here is to demonstrate why the conclusion should be rejected. To present a more streamlined version of my argument: 1. In making a decision you can behave randomly or rely on a methodology. 2. Behaving randomly is not acceptable. 3. Therefore we must rely on a methodology. 4. In choosing a methodology, we should choose the best methodology available. 5. Science is the only methodology available, therefore it is automatically the best. 6. Therefore we must rely on science. The only actual point of my argument that Pro has addressed is #5. Pro references other general methodologies such as ISO, CMMI, and the uncountable number of informal methodologies people and organizations come up with to do a great deal of things. Yes, I did not acknowledge these methodologies because I was responding in the scope of this argument. CMMI, as I understand it, is a meta-methodology, and says nothing about CO2 regulation. ISO might, but I am not familiar with it to say one way or the other. The point is, in the scope of the argument (which I assumed naturally limits our discussion), science is the only methodology which provides information with which we can make a decision about CO2 regulation. As far as I can tell, Pro has yet to provide a better methodology. Other than that, no other points of my argument have been addressed. #1, #2, #4 & #5 are the premises of the argument. The argument is valid, so to effectively refute it requires showing how at least one of those premises are false. I will admit that I am purposefully ignoring any specific points regarding scientific flaws. The reason is two-fold. First, I wish to keep this debate on track. This is not a debate about the merits of science. I will not participate in a veiled attempt to bash science. This is a debate about whether or not we should regulate CO2 emissions. Science enters the picture as the methodology which leads us to the conclusion that, yes, we should. Refuting this requires the presentation of some other methodology which is better than science that results in a contrary conclusion. Two, it is not necessary for my argument to address these specific flaws. It doesn't matter how many flaws can be identified in science if it is the best thing we have. Certainly we can lament those flaws and wish for something better, but if something better doesn't exist, then we are simply wasting time.
is guarding the border the best way to control illegal immigration

I said that guarding the border is the best and most practical way to control illegal immigration and I listed different was to guard the border. The question of debate is "is guarding the border the best way to control illegal immigration?". The question of the debate is not "is a fence the best way to guard the border?". That is the question that you answer in the first round of the argument. I list ways to guard the border other than a fence. And I do agree with you that stricter checkpoints are needed to guard the border. You should not have put that in your argument since you are supposed to be arguing that guarding the border is not the best way to control illegal immigration. You are the one that is contradicting yourself since you are saying things that could support my side.
is guarding the border the best way to control illegal immigration

first off, you said at the beginning that the border is the best and most practical way to guard the border, and that if there was a motion sensor you could alert a nearby guard, but part of the issue is that the fence from mexico travels hundreds of miles with stretches of several miles with no guards in the area to respond. you also list other ways to guard the border that may be better, but at the top you said it is the only and most practical way to guard the border so you are contradicting yourself and agreeing with my side. farther down you also say stricter checkpoints is a good idea so that vehicles are searched, that is also something I said so once again you are agreeing with me. and with the fact that that is better than a fence! you also say that guards should be placed along the length of the border, which is another issue that we don't have the current manpower to cover all of that because the fence covers hundreds of miles, plus it would be too expensive to hire that many people, and also extremely expensive to upgrade all the border security equipment and the money could be better spent elsewhere, and the determined people (which if your trying to get across the border in the first place you probably are determined) would also find more ways to get around it, because when there is a will (which there is) there is a way (which there always will be)
is guarding the border the best way to control illegal immigration

Guarding the border is the best way to control illegal immigration. It is also the only practical way to control illegal immigration. You say that a fence is not very effective at preventing illegal immigration and that is true but there are other ways to guard the border. There are also ways to make a fence more effective. You could make a fence more effective by making it electric or equipping it with motion sensors that could alert a nearby guard. Another possibility is some sort of waterway. It could be made to be very deep with a dangerous current or filled with wildlife that would make crossing it very dangerous. Another way to guard the border would be stricter checkpoints. Make sure the vehicle is thoroughly searched so no one can be smuggled in through vehicles. A surveillance system can also be set up along the entire length of the border. The surveillance system should be constantly monitored so that guards can be sent to wherever people are trying to sneak in. Guards or groups of guards should also be placed along the entire length of the border. They should be placed far enough apart so that too many guards are not used but close enough that they can get to any area quickly.
is guarding the border the best way to control illegal immigration

as has been shown greatly over the years, a border fence has not been able to stop many people from crossing the border. there are always ways for determined people to get around it, if you build a 15 foot wall to try to stop people from getting through, someone can always bring a 16 foot ladder. fences can also be cut through, demolished, penetrated, and even tunneled under as has been proven by many drug cartels. fences would only be able to truly stop immigration if every foot was manned by law enforcement 24/7, 365 days a year. i think a fence is definitely not the best answer to try and stop it because most people come to america to get a job, so the best answer would be harsher laws of those who hire illegals and that illegals shouldn't get benefits like social security which they can currently receive if they pay into it so even if they get caught they can still get monetary benefits. Not only do fences have little practicality, it can also produce tension between mexico and other countries south of the united states. the wall also costs a lot of money to upkeep and keep people stationed there. it is a total waste of money and effort for an empty symbol of security. if the Berlin didn't work long term, why should this? also the border shouldn't be our main worry to try to stop immigration because the largest percentage of illegals don't border hop but are smuggled in by vehicle so our resources would be more effective to be routed to that end of business. so over all i think that, No, a fence is not the best way to control immigration.
More Tax money should be spent on the quality of school lunches in the United States.

A few of your points are true, some aspects of school lunches are not the best I have ever seen, but to tell you the truth, school lunches are actually very good. First, you addressed obesity levels in the United States. School lunches have nothing to do with obesity levels. The children that are obese are getting fat at home, not school. Your school lunch system, which is probably run by Sodexo (the biggest hot lunch service in the entire world), actually make it their goal to give attiquate serving sizes, and healthy meals for their clients (you). Second, the school district is not trying to get you the cheapest food possible, they don't decide the quality of the food. The only goal of the school is to break even and maintain their morals as a Non-profit organization (has no income). Finally, as rude as this sound, since you get your lunch for free, that means you cannot afford to pay the taxes and costs of going to school. Therefore why should somebody who doesn't pay taxes have any right to say how much more taxes everyone else pays. NO HIGHER TAXES! P.S. JUST BRING A LUNCH TO SCHOOL!