BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The logical base for claims of religious superiority is inherently fallacious.

Let me explain the topic. Throughout history peoples have sought to impose their religion on other, claiming their beliefs to be superior to others. It is my argument that the idea of one religion being logically superior to another is fallacious. Thus no religious belief is anymore valid than any other. First of all, to clarify, I am not an Atheist. I am agnostic. I do not deny there is a god, nor do I believe there is one. I find Atheism to be hypocritical because Atheists accuse theists of having no proof, but they also cannot DISPROVE the existence of God. Rather I believe that humans cannot possibly ever know if there is a god or not and as such should not devote our live to worship of one. --- In order for a religion to be superior to another their must be some logical reason to prefer it to over others. As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He." While this claim seems narcissistic if we look at what Nietzsche means, we come to our logical flaw. If we can assign some super characteristic to an unknown entity what possible reason is there to exclude the possibility of infinite gods? it is impossible to find ONE reason why any belief in god is either more or less correct than any other belief. finding such a reason is impossible because someone will always have a counter claim to any religious puzzle that they will believe is most valid. Religion cannot be warranted without appeal to itself. It is a classical example of circular reasoning. In order for the conclusion to be true the premise must be true and in order for the premise to be true the conclusion must also be true. Thus the logical basis for religion requires fallacy. In order for a religion to be superior, tenants of that religion must be true as well. For example if religion A says there is an afterlife and religion B says we just go away, it could be argued that A is superior because of an afterlife. However this automatically presumes A to be right in the first place. But A has no more claims to validity than B or C so thus we cannot presume that religion A is superior. Religious belief is always going to require a leap of faith. And because such a leap of faith is dependent upon the individual making it, there is absolutely no way for any religion to be logically superior unless we either make another leap of faith or logical fallacy. Making a leap of faith automatically discounts any logical value since it would be equivalent to a syllogism that read: A=B B=C A=E Thus because any claims of religious superiority require fallacious reasoning there is no such thing as a logically superior religion.
Gun Control (For or Against)

There's more than one way to control guns. The right to keep and bear arms does not outweigh the right to life. Reasonable restrictions are allowed to exist. I would say that a ban on handguns, a device created only to kill humans, is within reason because it has proven effects to protect lives. However, rifles are a different matter. That type of gun control has different effects. Until you can provide evidence from both sides to compare and contrast. However, in certain situations, gun control is a justifiable restriction of liberty in order to preserve life.
Gun Control (For or Against)

Okay first off I'm just gonna say people have guns for different reasons:Gun control laws do not stop crime; gun ownership stops crime.Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. And as you know (or you should) alot of people like to shoot i you shouldn't keep people from doing so.
Gun Control (For or Against)

First off, let me define our terms. Gun Control - Bans or restrictions placed on a dangerous firearm or a firearm capable of killing another human being with one shot With that in mind, we have to look at the hard data. In the U.K., a ban on handguns directly correlates with a lower murder rate. (If you want the exact statistics, I can show them to you. I have them on file, just in paper form). This is also true for Australia. So, how can this be? If my opponent's untested assertion is correct, than why do these rates drop? These rates drop because the people who are law abiding citizens cease to sell their merchandise or sell their merchandise selectively. Therefore, the supply of guns decreases. The impulsive and criminally inclined people who would shoot somebody now don't have as much access to guns. Therefore, the only issue to be worried about is the black market. Fortunately, the black market isn't widely accessed. So, the supply of guns there will be largely untapped. Gun control is not a joke. It is an effective method of saving lives, which is the primary job of the government.
Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional

This is a devils advocate, it may melt my brain to do this debate :PMy opponents arguments:1. Guns are not evil This is irrelevant to the premise at steak, we are arguing the constitutionality of the handgun bans. But many international studies have shown that increased gun availability causes more violent crimes. [1] But once again this point is irrelevant. 2. Second amendment My opponents line of argumentation only works if the second amendment actually was pro gun. The debate over this amendment began in the 20th century when gun crimes became a rising issue in modern day life. People for and against guns began to read the amendment differently. The word militia is used as national guard in modern terms. "The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939])."[2] "The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army." [3] "For starters, Winkler told Jeserich, the noble founding fathers, those folks who put the right to keep and bear arms in the founding document of this great nation, were not at all opposed to gun control. They had all kinds of gun laws -- most notably laws barring black people from owning guns. They also required that all muskets be regularly inspected and registered."[4]Refuted [1] http://www.gun-control-network.org...[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...[3] http://www.vpc.org...[4] http://www.sfbg.com...
Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional

Definitions and premises may be challenged or agreed upon. Arguments should be in regard to morals as well as plausibility. Resolution- Increased Gun Control is Unconstitutional Definitions: Handgun- firearm designed to have the potential to be held and operated by one hand although not necessarily used that way. Unconstitutional- not in accordance with an applicable constitution of a nation. Constitution- The document referred to as the supreme law of the land adopted on September 17, 1787 at the U. S Constitutional Convention. Premises (Open to Challenge) 1) Guns are not inherently evil and fulfill functions that have been crucial and useful to human society. 2) The right to bear arms is stated explicitly in the US Constitution under the fundamental Bill of Rights
blackops 2 vs. Fifa

i agree, they are very similar. i think that black ops 2 may be hard to argue with fifa, but i think that black ops: ghosts has a better chance of winning! it has better everything. and i think that it is a better-all-around than black ops 2. but to continue our arguement. i would say that airsoft is like black ops 2, but it is diffrent too. there are less/worse guns to choose from. and have far less range. it may give more excitement and blood pumping action, but there are things that make airsoft worse than black ops 2. black ops 2, even when ghosts, and diffrent other games, black ops 2 is still played VERY much. i am not sure what to say about fifa. as in i think there are more than 1 fifa, but you have the argue ment as all of fifa versus just black ops 2...
blackops 2 vs. Fifa

great job using good arguments. but, apparently, you can do a lot of things in black ops that you can do in fifa, first of all, the graphics, it is amazing, and having played both games, I have to admit that black ops does have better graphics. You are also forgetting that I am nowhere as good as professional athletes, and there is a slim chance that I will ever be playing pro soccer. I understand that you can play soccer, but then again, you can play airsoft. Fifa is also one of the biggest games played online as well, with people who have spent countless amounts of money trading players and trying to beat other teams. so, to me, it looks like, technically, that they are quite similar. I also would like to say that it is a matter of what you are looking for, in my "OPINION" I perfer to play FIFA
blackops 2 vs. Fifa

ok. so i will be blackops 2. here is my argument.. 1- in fifa you get to play soccer.. well in a video game i want to do something that i dont get to do in real life. or have a chance to do. )no offence to the people without legs, so sorry) but in black ops, it is something totaly new and you wouldnt get to do in real life, it laso has great graphics and i like the way you get to see as if you were the guy. black ops 2 is a very big played game. it is massively online and also a offline game. there is as well as clans, in ghosts there are a lot better clans though. you can team with other players. i have to say that i would go with black ops.
blackops 2 vs. Fifa

alright , this is the last round, and this has been lots of fun (not, we got absolutely nowhere. ) but I think we covered some important issues for gaming people when deciding between the two. once again, I can say that there are some differences between playing soccer on a u-14 level, then playing in the big leuages. But, I think I have come to the conclusion that they are both very fun games that I take pleasure playing in. If I was going to choose what to play, it could go either way, thanks for your time and your thoughts.
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Americans have tried to reform the electoral college system for awhile, but nothing material has ever come from it. I will be arguing the pro side, that a popular vote system should replace the electoral college voting system in presidential elections. I would like to state that I live in a country (Canada) which uses a direct election method to select all its candidates. We use the first past the post system, but differ in the fact that we do not have presidents. I am familiar with the American system of election, however, and love to follow American politics (Hey, we gotta know what you guys down south are doing! ).
The age of marriage should be raised to 21 in Kazakhstan

After reading your answer I understand why women afraid marry early. It is like a phobia that they cannot create normal family, that they will not have time to themselves. You try to persuade people not to marry early but it is not normal to our society where women always marry earlier than 20. I know a lot of who have family but their age is only 19 or 20. And they are happy they are normal family. Wife is studying now and she has a lot of time to improve. Yes they do not have children because they decided to have them after 20 but it does not mean that they do not have normal relationships. In my point of view it is normal to have a wedding when you are 18 or elder. If you find your love, why you will lose her? Never forget this. You have one life to live and one love to give.
The age of marriage should be raised to 21 in Kazakhstan

Yes, I agree that we are not immortal and it would be nice if grandparents see their grandchildren. However, it does not mean that a child must be born at the age of 30 or later. As I am concerned the age of 21 or 22 is normal. Moreover, a lot of families have a big difference in ages of their children. So, you can give birth to one child at 18 and to second at 30. Or you can bear one child at 22 and second at 26. So, what difference does it make? In my opinion, anyway, a child will be an obstacle for education. If you do not get Higher Education or if you have bad marks in university, it will be very difficult to find a well-paid job. Girls will have to sit with their children at their ages and boys will have to work and study at the same moment. So, you will not be able to study properly. Also I think we must live only for ourselves at the time when we are young because in the future this opportunity will not exist. We will have to be with our family all the time and we will devote all our live to children. So, for what we are hurry to make a family then?
The age of marriage should be raised to 21 in Kazakhstan

Of course marriage is a very important thing in our life. But why people should do this later than it was written in law? Nowadays we have a law that people can marry after 18 but in my opiion men should not hurry with this thing and women can marry at 18. My first reason against law of marrge at 21 is old parents. some of them will not be able see their grandchildren. All of us know that we are not immortal and it means that parents will not see them or for a very short time. Grandchildren for our parents are pieces of their happiness. we can not derive eir rights. My second reason women will have shorter reproductiity period and it can cause demographic problems to the country.it means number of yog people will decrease and country will loose its futurebecause children are our future and in my point of view number of children should should be bigger than adults. My third reason is not stopping studing after early marriage. it does not mean that you should give up everything if you are married. it maeans that new doors to your improvement were opened. you have family but you have a work. nowadays women who have a family have a good work and they are happy. Marriage is not obstacle in your life. It is only way to become a cell of society.
The age of marriage should be raised to 21 in Kazakhstan

Marriage is the most important thing in our life. In the age of 18 teens are very ambitious and think that they can do everything. Maybe in most cases teenagers marry because they are pressured by their parents and they just want to show that they are already independent. In this case marriage will not be very deliberate decision. So, it means that the threat of divorce will be very big. Most couples who get married at a young age are more prone to divorce. The National Statistics (in the USA) show that out of 10.5 people, a thousand of married couples have filed for a divorce in the recent year. However, in my opinion the main argument against early marriage is that because of pregnancy girls must forget about their Higher education. However, it also means that boys must work because they have to earn money for their families. At the age of 18, for instance, it is difficult to earn money for your own living, so how can you earn money for the whole family? Moreover, they will not have an opportunity to study properly. Education means a lot today and it is very important for our career and for our future life. Certainly, they can ask their parents for help, but it will not be so good decision to bother parents. Moreover, at the age of 18 not every person can understand all responsibility of his life. Also at this age most people do not pay a lot of attention to their future. One more example: our government rose the age of driving lessons to 21. Also some years ago the new law was accepted and today only people who reached 21 can buy alcohol drink. In my opinion, the government did it with aim. Maybe it means that before the age of 21 our organism is not formed enough. For girls, it means that early pregnancy has bad influence on their organism and early pregnancy can cause health problems.
Individual social responsibility

Here's some definition for the topic. individual "obsolete : inseparable" [1] Social "involving allies or confederates "[2] responsibility "the state of being the person who caused something to happen" [3] I'm against the resolution. Here's why "Laws vary by state, but across the board, no one under the age of 15 may enter into a contract for goods or services." Terri Lynn Coop [4] Some people are just too young for individual social responsibility. People tend to follow trends. We need group social responsibility as oppose to individual. For example, with vegan-ism, it should be a group choice. Not just an individual choice. Its not fair to the person on a diet to have watch somebody next to him/her choke down a bacon cheeseburger, HFCS soda, and greasy fries. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Read more : http://www.ehow.com...
Hatake Kakashi should be the 5th Hokage and not Tsunade

You mention that was the best the leaf had to offer? No it was not. Tsunade could have easily pulled some chunin or even a jonin who were doing reconstruction missions to take on the mission instead. She could have even sent her own personal ANBU black ops to retrieve Sasuke since it was an A-rank mission. The protection of one of the leaf's greatest Kekkei Genkai's should have took high priority over anything else. She was the Hokage she could have made it happen. Those missions were not that important, you could see that Kakashi easily blew off one of the missions like it was nothing to see if the Genin's mission was doing okay. Just because Tsunade is related to the First and Second hokage does not mean she was qualified for the job. When was the last time she was even performed a mission when they found her? Asuma Sarutobi was the son of the 3rd Hokage is he a automatic candidate as well? Tsunade is a top medical ninja but her fighting ability is not very high. Her temper clouds her ability to think rationally. Remember when Pein invaded the village and after he used "Almighty Push" and obliterated most of the village? Tsunade in her beat up condition almost threw her life away to fight Pein when in her condition drained of all chakra she could have easily just died there for no reason, and left the village without a Hokage again just because she couldn't think clearly. Tsunade's gambler mentality and short temper is not a good leadership quality. Kakashi has great leadership and fighting ability that is better suited for the position of Hokage. As I have said before Tsunade has only shown one offensive ability which is her super strengh, even her best summoning is no good in battle. The Hokage's before her were all gifted offensively, Kakashi better fits the mold that the previous Hokage's created a shinobi with impeccable offensive ninjutsu capabilities.
Hatake Kakashi should be the 5th Hokage and not Tsunade

Tsunade is a very skilled medical ninja but that should not have been enough to make her the Hokage. Aside from her medical abilities and strength she was not better candidate to become the 5th hokage than Hatake Kakashi. Kakashi has been able to use Lightning, Fire, Water, and even Earth element techniques. Kakashi is widely known for being "the man who has copied over a thousand jutsu," with his sharingan. Tsunade has not shown that she can use any element. Kakashi is a rational thinker, a excellent strategist, a excellent tracker ninja, he has compiled years of leadership experience as a squad leader, a ANBU back ops member, and fighting in the war. Why Tsunade was not qualified to become the 5th hokage. When the 3rd Hokage died, Tsunade had already left and turned her back on the village. When Jiraiya and Naruto found Tsunade she had already developed a fear of blood and her battle capabilities were weak as she was seen losing to Kabuto in a fight. Tsunade is not a good decision maker, when she was found, she was running away from debt collectors, she has a gambling problem as well as a mild drinking problem. Tsunade has made a lot of questionable decision making for example she sent 3 Genin and a newly appointed chunin to go after Sasuke who was kidnapped by the hidden sound. The kidnappers were shown to have beaten a squad of Jonin before the Genin got to them. To send a group on inexperienced ninja with very little intel on the opposing opponent is almost like a suicide mission the end result was 2 of the genin (Neji and Choji) were put into extreme life threatening condition, not to mention they failed the mission in the process. Tsunade takes too many risks which would make sense with her gambler mentality and with an entire village resting on her shoulders, she should not be taking risks so easily. Kakashi has a naturally calm attitude and will think about the various options before rushing into a situation. http://naruto.wikia.com... http://naruto.wikia.com...
Hatake Kakashi should be the 5th Hokage and not Tsunade

I am going to argue that Tsunade, not Kakashi should (and was) the best candidate for Hokage. If my opponent agree's we will use Third databook for our statistic's. I will allow my opponent to make his opening statement's, since really the burden of proof lies with him. If there is any particular format my opponent wishes to use, I will more than gladly accept the term's, providing they do not disturb the equilibrium of the debate. Good luck, and all the best.
Sharia Law is immoral.

You ask me if I would kill you under Sharia. Know that people have a different understanding of what is right and wrong. Have an open mind to another person's religion. It governs how they live. Who are you to deny that? I do not command. I am not a theocrat. I am commanded by my Holy Book. Have an open mind to my way of life. Under Sharia, a Muslim is prescribed to fighting. "Fight the idolators utterly' (Koran 9: 36), as you've pointed out. "I am not asking that he reject his religion or his own morals, only that he argue in this debate with an open mind, and not only argue from authority." I'm happy you pointed that out. You continuously raise points from the book that tells me how I ought to live. You tell me not to argue from authority. Aren't you doing the same thing? Reverse the roles if you will. Say there is a book, a written creed that says all the opposites of my book. You live under that law, and argue from that authority and accuse me of not having an open mind. A man practicing the opposite of Sharia says, "I am moral." A different man under Sharia says, "You are not." They are both wrong in the other person's eyes. The "other" guy will always be the bad guy- immoral. Therefore, it is left up to one's discretion. You have not convinced me that Sharia Law is immoral. We've both come to a conclusion based on our own evidence and reasoning. Sharia Law is moral.