BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

I will go with James Randi Foundation on this one, his foundation is on the search to provide evidence whenever supernatural claims are real, testable, falsifiable, and thus can be concluded whether such a phenomena exist. With science, we can only test what's available in the natural world, to test something claimed to be of supernatural origin can not be tested, and I will admit to this. Science will never be able to disprove god in that way, where they can test and falsify supernatural things (god being a supernatural thing in this case). Virtually everything can't be disproved or proved at a 100% certainty, because as history has shown when one hypothesis was shown to be true, down the line it's usually altered when new information is found regarding it. Neil Degrausse Tyson mentioned in one lecture an interesting point, and I've heard it been repeated by other physicists like Lawrence Krauss, in that we can not disprove god seeing that he supposedly resides in the supernatural realm, to which as I've mentioned before. With that in mind, (understand this isn't your position, but for the sake of my argument) if god of the bible for instance exist, this will mean that every time he performed supernatural things in our physical realm, there should have been evidence left behind showing he had manipulated the physical laws. (to which we have none to test) My point on this is that, yes we can't ever disprove god at the 100th degree, but as you've agreed, eventually science will find explanations regarding important questions concerning our universe, and the idea of god will begin to fade away from our conscious thought. If this being(s) exist, we may never know, especially if this being(s) resides in some other realm, universe, dimension, etc. it will never be known, we can only understand what we have available in this physical universe. Now in conclusion not that god will ever be disproved by science but rather as more information comes along, god (whoever it or they are) will be, not disproved, but rather covered over by a wealth of information that will be available down the line regarding our universe. Just like string theory, since its a fairly new theory, it isn't fully understood, eventually though in my opinion, it will be understood fully but never 100% seeing that with science everything isn't absolute, there is always room for change when new information arises.
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

Agreed, science doesn't have the complete answers for now regarding the origin of the universe, as an example that my opponent chosen, but I will have to disagree that science will never be able to prove that god doesn't exist, it's not that science will have an experiment proving god is no longer part of our equation of explaining the unexplainable but rather the more we find out about our universe the more "god of the gaps" will close. In 1769, was the first automobile to be invented, it was called the Cugnot Steam Trolley, invented by Jonathan Holguinisburg. It wasn't until Right Brothers invented the air plane where technology took off quickly, before you know it by 1969 we had a human being on the surface of the moon looking at earth, once believed only achievable by the gods. We've been able to achieve a wealth of advance technology not to mention understanding of our world in a short period of time. In the other hand, before all this achievement, people were living in the 'dark ages' not achieving anything close to what we've been able to achieve and discover thus far. What is the purpose of me highlighting this? The purpose is that if we've been able to achieve these fetes in the short amount of time so far, can it really be said that it will be 1000 x 1000 x Infinite before we can ever have sufficient information that concludes that supernatural forces are nothing more than fables, rooted from human imagination? I will hold the position that sometime in the foreseeable future, likely way after I've passed away, and possibly any of whom reading this today, will come a time where we've been able to scientifically provide sufficient information that doesn't require the need to attribute any it, if not all of it, to any deity of any kind. Scientists of Newton's day thought that it will be impossible to ever know the questions that we today know. The German scientist that argued against Albert regarding his theory of relativity fought foot and nail that his theory is incorrect, yet we have conclusive information proving it to be true. Not to mention before the Right Brothers, skeptics believed that it would be impossible for massive objects to be able to defy earth's gravity and fly across the sky without falling directly down. Yet, they are proved wrong everyday with air planes taking passengers across the globe. In time science will be able to give a natural explanation for virtually every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked, just because we don't have sufficient understanding of them now, doesn't mean it won't be achievable later down the road, as our history has shown thus far.
Sitting down too much is unhealthy

Research has linked sitting for long periods of time with a number of health concerns, including obesity and metabolic syndrome " a cluster of conditions that includes increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels. Too much sitting also seems to increase the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer. One study compared adults who spent less than two hours a day in front of the TV or other screen-based entertainment with those who logged more than four hours a day of recreational screen time. Those with greater screen time had: A nearly 50 percent increased risk of death from any cause About a 125 percent increased risk of events associated with cardiovascular disease, such as chest pain (angina) or heart attack The increased risk was separate from other traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as smoking or high blood pressure. Sitting in front of the TV isn't the only concern. Any extended sitting " such as behind a desk at work or behind the wheel " can be harmful. What's more, spending a few hours a week at the gym or otherwise engaged in moderate or vigorous activity doesn't seem to significantly offset the risk. The solution seems to be less sitting and more moving overall. You might start by simply standing rather than sitting whenever you have the chance or think about ways to walk while you work. For example: Stand while talking on the phone or eating lunch. If you work at a desk for long periods of time, try a standing desk " or improvise with a high table or counter. Walk laps with your colleagues rather than gathering in a conference room for meetings. Position your work surface above a treadmill " with a computer screen and keyboard on a stand or a specialized treadmill-ready vertical desk " so that you can be in motion throughout the day. The impact of movement " even leisurely movement " can be profound. For starters, you'll burn more calories. This might lead to weight loss and increased energy. Even better, the muscle activity needed for standing and other movement seems to trigger important processes related to the breakdown of fats and sugars within the body. When you sit, these processes stall " and your health risks increase. When you're standing or actively moving, you kick the processes back into action.
Passing a kidney stone is more painful than giving birth.

"Personal Experience as to the frequency from professionals (while not verified – I would hope my opponent will consider these as true – for the sake of the debate. Granted that in none of the statements indicate that one is more or less painful, it does demonstrate that it is comparable.)" Actually I won't, I'm sorry. It isn't proper debate conduct to simply take someone's word for something. I will need references to reliable sources. "Conclusion to Point one: Many have heard the painful comparison. While a common comparison does not constitute verification as to which has higher pain level, the mere fact that it has not been a refuted comparison, would indicated that there is a reasonable high level of probability that the pain is similar. The common reference (and frequency in which I have experienced) would reasonably conclude that they are of similar pain. For it would not be logical for the comparison to be made in the first place, if it were not." This is not substantial enough evidence to make a justifiable case for kidney stones being more painful than giving birth. Whether something is debated or discussed frequently enough says nothing for it's possibility of legitimacy. There are many who make the case that their religion is true; this makes it no more likely of being true. It all comes down to the actual case they make. "While point one and point two don't conclusively indicate which is MORE painful, they do show that it is common and similarities between the two pains. The only way to conclude this debate is to look at statistical polling results. The following poll resulted in: 57.8% thought Kidney Pain was worse and only 18.4% said Labor was worse." I submit that this is a good argument. I would like my opponent to expand on the legitimacy and context of his source. Until then, I will not refute it. _____ I would give a more lengthy reply but unfortunately I postponed my post too long and only have a a few more minutes to submit it. I apologize.
Passing a kidney stone is more painful than giving birth.

For those few that have passed a kidney stone, we frequently hear statements that compare the pain to giving birth, such as "I have heard that is more painful than giving birth." Surprisingly, I have heard these statements from nurses and doctors, not just friends and family. I contend that the pain is as great if not more severe for passing a kidney stone vs. giving birth. Note: This is strictly a fun debate. I currently have and trying to pass my 3rd Kidney Stone (unfortunately this one is over 10mm and I will not be able to pass it – meaning they are going to have to break it up and take it out.) When I heard the giving birth comparison – no less than 3 times while in the emergency room – I thought it might be a fun debate on debate.org – if not to just keep my mind off the pain. Note: the narcotics are NOT working – they just numb the senses – the pain is still there - -- - - Ahhh ah ahs - ah hhh hahhhhhdhsfffffffj ffffffffuuuuuuudge....
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Thank You for a timely response,I will first go over my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own. First, my opponent talked about how many countries are in debt, and are not in the position to mitigate climate change. However, Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U. N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report. - USA today. Judge, 20 trillion dollars is the biggest number in this debate, and you have to look to our side for this argument. Not only that, but my second argument clearly talks about how mitigating the effects of climate change can increase jobs in the renewable energy field. Obsviously, since the benefits outweigh the harms, developed countries should have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Their second argument was that developing countries are the countries who wil suffer the worst and the have a huge incentive. However, my opponent is misunderstanding that point. This is about whether these countries should have a MORAL obligation, and as the pollution of CO2 emmissions from these developing countries are going to be pushed to the devloped countries, we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives by 2020. Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed countries don't have a moral obligation to save so many lives, and if he can show the justification of the deaths of so many people because of climate change, then they should win. If he cannot, you have to vote for the pro. My opponents last argument was essentially that developing countries are the ones with the better ideas. However, my opponent gives not evidence or examples backing this claim up, so it should be disregared. Now, to my side. First, I want to go over that adaptation is still an option. Adapting is always an idea. Vaccines which can save 9 million lives is a significant way to adapt, which will lessen the impacts of climate change, therefore mitigating the effects of climate change. Second, global warming can cause harms to the economy, such as a price tag of 1.9 trillion dollars each year by 2100. Mitigating the effects will enable us to avoid this number, and create more money and jobs. Third, my switching to renewable energy, we can stop sending money to terrorist groups, greatly decreasing their proft. Fourth, the enviornment can be greatly saved, saving millions of human lives as well as near extinct species.
Sources, &ct for Debate

This "debate" will seek as an occasional refuge for the both of us to share our sources and brief notes. A restriction is, however, that the note needed cannot surpass more than 3000 characters.:)Not to be voted on but to be referred to when voting on the corresponding debate.First: Justification for a spiritual conformity with God.A brief note on spiritual conformity between man and god can be relegated; spiritual conformity can be witnessed by the very transposed image, and likeness (Genesis, 1: 26) be transposed, in a substantive interpretation, to that of essence, of general quality and resemblance [3, 4], of the selfsame.One such spiritual conformity can be seen in the manifestation of the powers of thought, willpower, reasoning, and so forth that can be witnessed within the acts of the Spirit of God (Genesis, 1: 1-24)--the judgement reserved over the creations of the agency, the power invoked to do so, the perception that is intrinsic to reasoning; such basic traits, in particularly, can be witnessed in the form of man who is able to utilize such powers of reasoning and stretch it to levels of thinking of abtruse truths, realizations, evocations of power and willpower in their own society, and, perhaps most interestingly--and in a mirror of the creative impulses of god--enact and manipulate the rest of creation with a mirror of such impulses [7].Second: Sources1 (General). http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.biblegateway.com... 3. http://books.google.com... Pages 68-704. http://dictionary.reference.com... __Definition of "Association"______5. http://books.google.com.au... Pages 3-4, 6, 76. http://books.google.com.au... Page 987. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control in America would help problems with mass shootings immensely

It is an obvious fact that the United States has a problem with mass shooting, and the root problem of this is the loopholes that are in the systems to buy a firearm. It is too easy for people to pass a background check, and even at certain gun shows you would not even need to go through a background check. One things that would help this problem would better background checks. Even though that would help, people who want to cause a mass shooting will still be able to acquire a firearm (ex. taking a firearm from a family member or a friend). A clear solution to this problem is to ban certain kinds of guns. This does work, and a clear example of this is how much it worked when Australia did it in 1996. They did a buy back system where the government would pay you to give your guns in. After doing this the homicide rate dropped by about 42%, and its firearm suicide rates dropped by 57%. I am not stating that this would solve all of the problems surrounding guns, but it would help it immensely. I think that if America followed in Australia's footsteps than student won't have to fear going into the school without being shot to death. Source for information: https://www.vox.com...
dictatorship is the better form of government

I frankly don't know what happened with Pro, however, he hasn't been online in a week, and has shown no other signs of activity than this debate. Therefore, I feel it prudent to just let the debate die. If Pro comes back before it's over, I apologize, and maybe we could try again. However, I think the lack of activity from Pro shows a lack of interest in debating this topic. Sorry if anyone was interested in seeing how this turned out.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

So its a little bit different with only one exception, I won't be using scientific terms. I expect you to debate and argue under this context: I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable. Lastly, the burden of proof is mainly on me since I am doing a scientific approach for the most part so it needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under. However, you will naturally have to provide an alternative explanation to rival against the God Hypothesis or else my explanation would have to stand by default. That's how it works. Also, to the audience, I have gotten some complaints before about not using scientific terms. I don't want to do that here because most people reading this debate may not understand it and I don't know the range of scientific terms I should or would use to qualify it. Lastly, if five rounds is too long for you, then I will change it. However, if this is the case, You need to be the instigator while I become the contender. Since I have the burden of proof, I need to have the last word.
Service Learning hours are a from of slavery.

Since I believe my point can be stated and affirmed with brevity, I will attempt to keep this last round relatively short. Is It Force? "when I used the word I meant it as meaning 'to make someone do something'. Not through only physical aggression, but to make the person perform an act they do not want to perform in order to gain something like a diploma. "Granting my opponent's use of the word force, what and how does someone make someone do something they wish not to do? So far as I can see, such a definition of force has not escaped the arguments of my previous round. In order to make another person do something they desire not to do, you must employ physical force or coercion. Since schools are not employing physical force or coercion, it necessarily follows that they are not forcing kids to participate in service learning hours. Moreover, the latter part of the above cited quote renders virtually all human transactions as force. For instance, I do not WANT to pay my mortgage, but, unfortunately, it is a necessary thing that I must do in order to gain something, namely, my home. According to my opponent's logic, it necessarily follows that I am forced to pay my mortgage. Even worse, my mortgage would be considered a form of slavery. The underlining problem is that choice remains rendering the notion of force impotent (pun intended). So long as any person - child or otherwise - has an alternative choice, like, say, to willingly NOT fulfill the graduation requirements by opting out of student learning hours, then the notion of force is illusory. All my other points remain unshaken by my opponent's last round. Thank you. InquireTruth
Service Learning hours are a from of slavery.

I must admit that I was unaware of the literal definition of the word "force", when I used the word I meant it as meaning "to make someone do something". Not through only physical aggression, but to make the person perform an act they do not want to perform in order to gain something like a diploma. My opponent said: "My opponent states that students are required to use their free time to complete the imposed student learning requirements. But how is this relevantly different than homework" This is different than homework because you do not need to actually do your homework in order to graduate, you could still pass without doing any homework what so ever. Service learning is an actual requirement for graduation, without it it is not actually possible to get the HS diploma. My opponent also talked about slaves, this is not so different, although the slaves weren't working to get a prize or any such thing, they were working in order to stay alive, if they did not work they would be beaten or killed. If a student does not perform service learning the student will ultimately fail. My opponent also talked about other forms of diplomas, such as the GED, that would be a way of getting past service learning but a GED isn't the same as an actual high school diploma. A diploma is more prestigious and better opportunities are opened up for the person with it. I am not aware of any other forms of getting a high school diploma other than going through school. So in order to get the best opportunities service learning is needed. Although abandoning the goal of the diploma is an option, for those that are driven enough not to quit, service learning is absolutely needed. Thanks to my opponent, InquireTruth, for his argument.
Service Learning hours are a from of slavery.

In my high school and I am sure others, service learning hours are something forced upon us students. Unlike homework however, service learning is a requirement to graduate, we need around 200 hours of community service, services are presented to us in and out of school. In school we are given homework projects such as finding out how many hazardous materials are in our house. Out of school a "Teen Court" is provided and we are to sit as the jury. Granted they give us ways to get these hours, it is not enough, homework projects are worth a measly 5 hours and are only given twice a year, the teen court is worth about 10-15 hours a visit but some students simply cannot make the trip to the court, they dont have the time or way to get there. This forces students to use their free time to "help out". It's wrong to force students to perform community service, some students simply do not have the time to get these hours because they are bogged down enough as is with school work. Students fail to graduate not based on poor academics but simply because they didn't have the needed number of hours. Service learning is not a legitamate academic program and should not be included as a requirment for graduation.