BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There must be a school/education reform

Here is why it must be changed: The typical school system teaches subjects such as math, science, history and english possibly depending on where you are. The reason I say must is because when looking at the necessities academically needed for life, one would not find those things taught in the school system. It must be changed because it does not properly prepare people for life. The system we are using currently is outdated because with our modern technology we can simply google these things. The system we use now is outdated. One will not use certain levels of math taught in school on a day to day basis, nor will one need to know what is an adjective in a sentence in relations to the noun or the subject. A change in system is strictly necessary. The school system we have now ill prepares us for life which is why it must be changed. http://plpnetwork.com... http://www.suunews.com...
There must be a school/education reform

My opponent starts off by saying that most likely won"t need math and sciences for depending on the job you have, but that"s essentially my point. Someone doesn"t know for certain what job they are going to have, so schools make it so you have a different taste of each. And then if you go study in college something regarding math or sciences, you already know the basics. That is what schools is suppose to provide you with, and it does. And I would even argue English is important no matter what job you have. Pro then says that : If schools are not needed to live and we only need sustenance to live, then it is as though schools are wasting time." Which is basically saying, if you aren"t doing something you need to do, then you"re wasting your time. This is an absurd point, since my opponent is still proposing that we change the school system, to where we still have school. Therefore it is also being a waste of time. Secondly, my opponent states :"Think of all the possibilities if students studied applicable things that they wanted to learn", but my opponent doesn"t provide specific things to change. Someone can"t just say, think about what would happen if we changed this system for the better, without saying what is the better. Not only that, but my opponent assumes that there is a system where everyone would like the classes and not one person would dislike the classes available. But there will be people who hate the system no matter what classes. And my opponent can"t practically have a system where every topic created is able to be teached. Pro states, "Would you not agree with me that if one realize or understands fully that a field is not for him/her", but I"m making the point that not only does not everybody know, but no one can be 100% certain about anything. I thought I was 100% certain that I wanted to do something with computers, but then I didn"t feel like studying computers after taking some classes which gave me insight into better fields I want to study in.
Resolved: The Christian God, as depicted in the Bible, does not exist.

EDIT: Well nobody else has responded for a few hours so I'll issue this to my new friend dswd. Although he hasn't completed any debates or done much of anything, we've talked via PM and I'm certain he'll provide a decent argument, and I hope he can completely refute my argument. Reminder, round one for you is acceptance only. I'll present my argument, then you can form your rebuttals against it. I know, I know, you guys see this all the time. I've just come up with an argument all by myself (yay me) regarding the existence (or lack of) of the Christian God. My argument can refer to any God pertaining to any religious book, but I'll stick with the Christian Bible to keep it easy and straight forward.All I want out of this debate is to see if someone can dispute my argument. If you can, fantastic, if not, well rats.The burden of proof is 100% on me to prove that the Christian God does not exist. I'm not saying he "most likely" doesn't exist, I'm not saying he "probably" doesn't exist, I'm not even saying he doesn't exist "so far." I am asserting that there is a zero percent chance the Christian God did, does, or will exist. Literally all I want you to do is dispute my idea/argument, which I will present when someone accepts. You don't need to be religious or a Christian to accept, if you think you'll be able dispute my argument, please feel free to post in the comments and let me know if you wish to give it a shot.I'm also not trying to offend anyone by making this claim, I know this topic can get heated. I'm simply looking to see if anyone thinks they're able to argue against what I'm about to say.I'll give you 10,000 characters to do so, but only a day so you can't spend three days doing research, however anything you find online can be used as sources, arguments, etc. as long as you put it in your own words here.This debate should be impossible to accept. If you accept it without my approval, you'll forfeit a full 7 points. Just comment on the debate and tell me why you believe you'll be able to dispute what I'm about to say. I don't care about completed debates or ELO or anything.You'll also forfeit a full 7 points if you attempt to change any definition or use semantics or troll around.We will use BibleGateway for reference to verses.https://www.biblegateway.com...God (in general) is the omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient creator of everything. We are not talking about Jesus Christ.The Christian God is defined as the same thing. Creator of everything.I will not be asking you to prove that the creator of everything exists. I will be asking you to argue against my argument for the non-existence of specifically the Christian God.Keep that in mind.I have no idea what else to say here. Feel free to ask questions in the comments. I won't present my argument until someone accepts though.Anyway, let's try this. Keep in mind you've only got a day to form your argument after I post mine. Good luck! :)
Over half of all reported rapes are likely false

This debate is about whether or not over half of all rape reports are likely false. Only in the last 2 paragraphs of his round 4 response does my opponent discuss the relevant evidence. The prior paragraphs are not relevant. I generally challenge as unsubstantiated each and every fact asserted by Pro in the last 2 paragraphs of his round 4 response. As my opponent cites no sources, my opponent's factual assertions and corresponding conclusions should be disregarded unless and until my opponent substantiates them. The burden of proof is on Pro, as Pro is the one making the claim here. Unsubstantiated factual allegations should not be taken seriously.
Over half of all reported rapes are likely false

Voters can of course right it off on my conduct. For starters, yes, the way I phrased resolution can be misleading as my opponent pointed out. If a rape reported to the police is false then obviously the purported rape is negated, so to that effect they're both wrong. However, my intention with the wording of the motion is to argue that rapes as they are purported to have happened by the accuser when filing a report to police can be false either due to malevolent purposes, i. e. for some type of gain, but can also include women regretting an intercourse and later feeling guilty or as if they have been raped. The definition of forcible rape is pretty straightforward and if a woman believes that consent can be revoked in that type of sense, then whether it's because she's an buffoon or a c*nt doesn't really matter, it's a false accusation nonetheless. Police finding that women using regret as a basis for filing a false report is a common occurrence. Again, because of the lack of proper research we can only speculate at this point how common these are and to what degree they contribute to the reporting of false rape. I've tried to show that there is a biological basis for casual regrets. There is also a yearning for many women, as I've shown, to fantasize about rough sex or "simulated rape" as I call it. The effect these two factors have on incidences of false allegations is of course not firmly established as of yet. As for the different issues I raised, there is of course a very serious accusation by academia to blame police officers for "victim blaming" or being too harsh on accusers of rape when there has been no concerted effort by academia to properly investigate the occurrence of false rape and the different factors that might play into it. As for what sexual harassment is concerned, I tried to find some studies that highlight the false rate and many studies point to there being between 30-60%. As for the studies my opponent has presented, most of these don't hold any water simply because, as the authors note in their paper, there is just too little information on the methodologies used in the majority of these studies. The fact that there is a huge grey-area in which crimes are "no-crime" labelled when the evidence is unsubstantiated, the complainant withdraws her allegation and evidence don't match up, the police will drop the investigation. Unfounded rape, otherwise known as false rape, is only labelled so by the police when the complainant admit so herself (note that it's overwhelmingly a "her" because of the vanishingly small number of men that report rape, hence the absence of proper data). The only paper whose methodology is sound is that of Kanin and the author of that said paper admits to that. I also highlighted other studies in my previous round that are more credible.
Over half of all reported rapes are likely false

Re: Wording of the resolution The resolution is worded like this - "Over half of all reported rapes are likely false" Technically, the way this is phrased indicates that Pro's claim is that the rapes themselves are false, as opposed to the reports. What is a false rape? I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to argue something cheesy along those lines, and I'm going to interpret the resolution to mean the following - "Over half of all rape reports are likely false" This, I believe, best reflects Pro's intended claim, but Pro did not clearly communicate his intended claim for whatever reason. Re: Distractions Pro discusses many topics while making his case, including feminism, alleged bias in favor of rape accusers, bogus statistics, flawed methodologies, male anxiety regarding potential allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace, psychiatric disorders, rape fantasies, and evolutionary reasons explaining why some women regret casual encounters. This debate is not about those issues. Those issues are distractions. This debate is about one issue and one issue only: Whether or not over half of all rape reports are likely false. Re: Studies indicating that over half of all rape reports are likely false My opponent presents two studies in his favor. My opponent cites, indirectly through an article, the McGowen and Kanin studies. Without getting in to study methodologies and the like, I argue that my opponent is cherry picking - "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." ( https://goo.gl... ) It is more reasonable to look at the totality of the evidence on the subject, and the evidence in this case is conclusions from studies. Fortunately, this was already done by Philip Rumney in 2006 in an article of the Cambridge Law Journal. Pertinently, Rumney made the following table: http://goo.gl... (Pages 10 & 11) As can seen from the table, the totality of the studies presented in this debate, even when considering my opponent's cited studies, strongly suggest that it is unlikely that over half of all rape reports are false. I suggest using the number of cases in each individual study as a relevant factor when weighing the significance of each study, all other things being equal. I do not find it necessary to critique the methodologies of the McGowen and Kanin studies at this point, but if it becomes necessary I will.
Over half of all reported rapes are likely false

Round 1. Acceptance Round 2-4. Arguments and rebuttals. Round 5. Closing argument with no rebuttals. I believe that there is now mounting evidence which suggest that false reporting of rape is indeed very high. The lack of thorough studies and societal will to explore the real extent of false rape reports notwithstanding, there are already many in-depth studies by independent judges and prosecutors which conclusively show that reported rapes to the police are fraught with false claims, very much more so than reports of other crimes. There are many police testimonies from experts working with sex-crimes willing to vouch for the appalling number of such cases. The studies and compelling police testimonies I'll provide will count for the "empirical" arguments in this debate. I will also go through some cultural, legal, sociological and demographic arguments. As a caveat, these arguments should not be viewed as hard proof evidence from which you can extrapolate any figure, which is more of what the empirical data is for. They do however provide an explanation - much of which are simply discounted by academia - that could help explain and put the empirical data in perspective. Thus, the empirical data will be used to prove the proposition while the non-empirical arguments are used to verify the validity of the empirical data. For example, if police records say women make false rape charges because of let's say attention, then the "non-empirical" will show that there are good evidence suggesting that there are behavioural tendencies displayed among certain segments of the female population of attention-seeking or borderline behaviour. There is no casual relationship between attention-seeking behaviour and "half of all allegations are false" and hence this is no supporting argument. Rather in this hypothetical example this piece of "evidence" is an attempt to prove that there is some truth to the documented records in this case. I just want to make that very clear so as to not cause any further misunderstandings over the course of this debate. I expect my opponent not to use any shaming tactics or ad-hominem attacks in which case I will urge voters to take this into consideration when casting your vote.
Reason alone cannot make us live a moral life

I argue that reason alone cannot make us moral. Here are my terms: Morals - Right and wrong can be defined by any society, beliefs, or religion of your choice. Reason - Application of facts and logic to consciously make an informed decision Reward - Arriving at the desired results by applying reason, physical, mental, or verbal action Negative consequence - The opposite of a reward, only that regardless of whether or not the applications were made, the desired results were not achieved Emotion - The state of experiencing happiness, sadness, anger, etc. distinctive from reason Experience - process of undergoing something Natural - The material world Judges shall judge the debate strictly on the following criteria and explain why: 1) Strong definitions " If any ambiguity is found within each debators terms, count it against them 2) Arguments " The effectiveness of the arguments presented based on the premises and how well either side presents them with clarity (examples, thought experiments, analogies, etc. ) 3) Counter-arguments " Their effectiveness in how well they defend their argument or/and weaken their opponent's argument 4) Logical fallacies " Pointing out logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments demonstrates how well the debators understand logic. If an opponent uses personal attacks, etc. That is counted against them. Judges must name a specific fallacy and quote con or pro's exact words in context. 5) Unaddressed points " If an opponent fails to respond to a point, you are to count that against them. If they agree, that boosts their opponent's side. 6) Burden of proof " Was the burden of proof fulfilled by either side? If not, count that against the debator(s) Whoever uses the most qualitive/quantative arguments/counters and least fallacies wins. You are not here to simply vote, you are here to be a critical thinker.
Jesus Christ doesn't exist

I honestly didn't expect my opponent to insult me like that. Anyways, I will defend my case as needed. Defense: Josephus; "No I can not show you James and have him say that he is Jesus's brother, because James is dead, nor would it even be useful to do so, because the debate isn't about whether he is actually his brother, but about the existence of Jesus." But if James did exist, and was Jesus's brother, that would mean Jesus had to exist. Tacticus; "Anything is possible, try applying Occam's Razor and recognize the importance of multiple witnesses." True, we have witnesses, but I question their reliability. I hope my opponent doesn't expect me to just concede, because I don't go down easy. "Also recognize the fact that Tacitus wrote about numerous historical events and is a reliable contemporary historian." The source you linked was deleted, so I can't trust the reliability of this particular one. I want real proof. Sure, Tacticus is reliable, but Jesus is famous for Christians, so he could have made it up for the sake of the religion. [And I know the sources are in the debate you linked. I didn't list ALL sources, just the ones which don't lead to a website.] Q and Mark; Con just avoids my point. There isn't solid proof of Jesus existing. Q and Mark being no different. Upon researching the quotes Cons using, it came from the bible. [http://atheism.about.com...] Yes, Jesus had flaws, but did he exist? The bible is for religious purposes, and does little to provide solid evidence of Jesus's existence, even if he "had flaws". Paul's Epistles; "I guess it's possible that he lied, like it's possible my mom is lying about actually being my mom, but it's a stupid thing to believe and not the product of using Occam's Razor." That doesn't change the fact that Paul could have been lying instead of James (a bit too late, though). I hand the debate to Con. (Yeah, I don't have evidence against Jesus.)
Jesus Christ doesn't exist

I thank Wylted for his argument. I will now begin my rebuttal. Rebuttal: Josephus; "Josephus died a traditional Jew and was never converted to Christianity we know that a lot of this verse is just forged." So does this mean Josephus didn't actually see Jesus? If he didn't witness Jesus Christ, then he can't be used as evidence proving Jesus does exist. "This verse also helps the later verse I'm about to mention make sense where it probably wouldn't of without a reference to it." Okay... and that verse is...? "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" So Jesus had a brother. Can you show me James, and have him say "Yes, I am Jesus's brother". And if that was the verse you were talking about, how does that even link to the first quote? Tacitus; "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty" He suffered a penalty? Where's your source? If he did exist, then he could be penalized. But as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist, and cannot get penalized. "Historians consider this source to be completely reliable and excellent in the fact that it is an outside source as well." Can I see the source, as well as explained to me how it is reliable? Again, a non-existent person cannot be punished. You can pretend a non-existent person has been punished, however. I need to know if Jesus truly was punished, and it's not being made up. Q and Mark; "If this document was a work of fiction, this god man wouldn't have these personal flaws." Is there evidence of Jesus having impacts, though? A non-existent man can't have flaws, but you can pretend a non-existent man has flaws, and I think that's what the gospel is doing; pretending Jesus exists, and having flaws. Paul's Epistles; Hmmm... It is true someone would catch James on lying, however, what is James never existed in the first place? Assuming James isn't real, someone else made him up; perhaps a group of Christians. If James is to be evidence, Con needs to show he does in fact exist! Yeah, those people may get caught lying, but it's religion! Sources; Sources 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 aren't linked. It would be helpful if they were, though. And with that, I hand this over to Wylted. Good luck!
Jesus Christ doesn't exist

And no, I wasn't going to suggest a solipsism argument. Argument: P1: In order to prove Jesus's existence, we need proof. P2: The Bible is said to be the word of God/Christ. C1: Therefore, I need to disprove that the Bible is God's word. We're not sure if the Christian God does exist, but the following can be used to cast doubt: 1; Many people are Christian, so why aren't their prayers to God answered? 2; What ways can we use to reach out to God, and does it require belief? 3; Is there even proof of the Christian God existing? Con must show reason to believe in Christ, or the Christian God. With that, what is Con's argument?
National Sales Tax

I already mentioned how the states would make money. The poor would get richer if they didn't have an income tax on them in the first place. And no, businesses would not have to face financial hardships, if this were the only tax in place. We need to take steps in implementing the NRST, such as elimination of all the services the government does that the private sector can do better, and not to mention stopping corruption and cutting pork. States would not lose money with the use of the system I have proposed. So, it's a win-win situation: The government gets more revenue and the populace gets wealthier.