BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should be banned

-->>Rebuttals: Pro states: 'Religion would be banned so that it would be illegal to practise religion. All churches would be demolished and the land would be put to more useful purposes.' Well, obviously a 'banning' of religion constitutes illegality of it--so that's a pointless comment from Pro. In addition, he/she still fails to outline how each country (and each government) approach demolishing all churches; as there would obviously significant contention to this. Not exclusively from 'religious' people, but also from those who wish to preserve historical monuments [1.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...'It should be banned because it causes violence and fanaticism amongst some individuals. It creates reasons to dislike other people because they don't believe in God. It causes and results in discrimination in government organisations. Religion is a ruling class deception that was instigated by the ruling classes for the purposes of furthering their goals of tyranny and oppression.' Many things in this world (technically) cause 'violence and fanaticism'--in fact, one can be violent and fanatic about virtually anything. This is largely because it's not necessarily a *belief system* that makes one this way, but the individual themselves. Due to his own bias, Pro overlooks the FACT that there exists many moderate religious people and religions that do not actually preach violence. Moreover, Pro has displayed no evidence to show that religion leads to 'discrimination' or anything alike. All claims are not supported, and therefore mere opinion. 'The history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception. Not to mention the Inquisition and many recent child molestation cases. The Bible is full of lies and is an old redundant document that needs to be banned also. All other religious documents should be banned also including the Quran etc.' Again, this is not a valid argument as Pro has *yawn* again not supported it or sourced it with any additional information. Thus, his assertion that the 'history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception' is pure heresy. In order for them to have any validity, Pro would have to prove the following: -That its history is predominantly violent-->>religion and its history has many different aspects so this one is especially difficult to verify. -That its history is somehow littered with destruction. -That its history has significant examples of ignorance. -That its history has significant (and numerous) examples of deception. Four things, in addition to his other assertions, that Pro has not adequately addressed or shown to be true. Thus, Pro has not supported his stance or affirmed the resolution--and I, as Con, should win.
Religion should be banned

1. Religion would be banned so that it would be illegal to practise religion. All churches would be demolished and the land would be put to more useful purposes. 2. It should be banned because it causes violence and fanaticism amongst some individuals. It creates reasons to dislike other people because they don't believe in God. It causes and results in discrimination in government organisations. Religion is a ruling class deception that was instigated by the ruling classes for the purposes of furthering their goals of tyranny and oppression. 3. The history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception. Not to mention the Inquisition and many recent child molestation cases. The Bible is full of lies and is an old redundant document that needs to be banned also. All other religious documents should be banned also including the Quran etc.
Religion should be banned

**Accepted** ->>Burden of Proof As the instigator of this debate and the one advocating for a complete reform of the status-quo [I.E the removal of religion], it is on Pro to fulfill the BoP and to successfully affirm their resolution. Questions they will have to answer: 1. How would religion actually be banned? 2. Why should it be banned? 3. What is the legal basis for this banning? As well as addressing these three key questions, Pro will also need to support their previous claims which are: 'Religion is a big lie and has corrupted society for thousands of years.' 'It is all just made up nonsense which creates excuses for irrational and stupid behaviour patterns.' --Therefore, five important points that Pro is obliged to answer to, in order to make any *valid* case.
Drones Should be Permitted in War

Apologies for not being clear, but I was talking about the moral choice of the drone operators. The desire to pull the trigger is stronger when you don't have to be there to kill a person or a group of people. The people being fired upon do still die, and it seems to be dehumanizing when they are reduced to a screen. The soldiers from our country may not die, and I'm not saying that the enemy wouldn't die either if we sent soldiers, but it's that dehumanizing factor that seems to be immoral.
Monoism vs Daosim (not Taoism)

First of all, thanks for accepting! I thought I might be wrong, and I also stated dualism in brackets in the end. But anyway, I have already started learning! ;) Now, lets get to the debate. Here goes my first argument Monism promotes harmony. By proposing the idea that all things are intrinsically the same, by being derived from the same one entity, it automatically nullifies most arguments for discord. A society, which believes in two forces such exist that are absolutely different, themselves obtain a reason for division. Maybe, in an ideal world, they would strive for balance, and even achieve it, but in reality, every chaotic individual is now granted an excuse by his very own religion to mislead and divide. A persons religion, in the strictest sense of the word, are the codes, the laws that a person sets for themselves. It is a path, which guides us all towards a higher calling, or, for the two in question,a higher understanding. Monism here offers one, unified path with freedom to decide many variables, and yet, ensures that everyone stays on the same path. Since there IS no alternative, a person cannot bias, cannot separate. Dualism, on the other hand, lets an individual visualize the concept of two separate paths, and when two distinct identities exist, there will always be the question of which one is better, and hence, the defending factions will lead to a split, and hence friction. I do not know whether that was intended or not (I somehow don't think so), but every religion is free to interpretation, and a religion that is more resistant to a negative interpretation is weaker, in my opinion. its... very short, I know. But I don't really know how to go on. Forgive me. I'd hoped you would present your case first. But, atleast this can help me know better! :)
Monoism vs Daosim (not Taoism)

My friend, as rude as this will sound: your entire title is wrong. What you meant to write was monism versus dualism and I am a dualist indeed. The definition of dualism is similar but slightly different to that of the Chinese philosophy of daoism, which refers to balance in your life but not in the universe. Dualism: the view that there are just two mutually irreducible substances, typically refered to as mind and matter. Daoism is totally different and monism has nothing to do with it. It says that the physical and mental wellbeing of a person are equally important and that the emotional well-being should be neglected for it will become a constant state f calmness if true daoism is achieved. Let's stick to monism versus dualism (neither monoism nor daoism). I accept and hope we can debate efficiently as to which one is true.
Monoism vs Daosim (not Taoism)

Very well, this is my first debate, so please excuse any inconsistencies or amateurishness. It is simply because I am a newcomer and don't have much of an idea. Since I am not well versed with the various styles of debating, I have proposed my own set of rules. So, here it goes: 1. Pro states rules, defines key terms. No case presentation. Con accepts/rejects the definitions, first case presentation. 2. Pro posts case and rebuttal. Con can continue post, and/or rebuttal. 3. Pro continues case/ offers rebuttal to Con. Con offers rebuttal. 4. Pro offers final rebuttal with conclusion. Con offers final rebuttal and conclusion. Hopefully, that is alright! :) Definitions: 1. Monoism: Monism is a point of view within metaphysics which argues that the variety of existing things in the universe are reducible to one substance or reality and therefore that the fundamental character of the universe is unity. (Wikipedia) 2. Daoism: Here, I simply offer what I can. Daoism refers to duality, of two such materials that are to exist in harmony with each other, and yet can never eliminate or replace the other. Mutually exclusive, if you prefer that. Consider it Yin and Yang, or matter and antimatter (not the physical implication). I am for Monoism, and Con will have to support Daoism (or, dualism). This is a purely philosophical debate, and while examples are appreciated, arguments are preferred. Hopefully, I'll learn debating now! :D
The Big Bang Theory Does Not Require A Singularity At T=0

There is a common mistake regarding the Big Bang Theory that all correct formulations of it require a singularity to occur at the very beginning of time. This is based on the flawed assumption that general relativity is applicable by itself during all periods of time going back to pre-Planck Time. This is simply not so: I seek to show that the need for quantum gravity arises before time zero occurs, and that recent findings in quantum gravity demonstrate that a singularity does not actually occur and that spacetime never attains infinitely small values of volume.
Atheism is the default position

I think my opponent is just bringing up a bunch of red herrings and irrelevant facts.The debate is "Atheism is the default position"I'll admit that atheism is not a lack of religion. So what? I don't see what that has to do with the default position.Whether the default position is unique or not is irrelevant.Buddhism, Scientology, Raelism, Pasatfarianism, Pantheism, etc., are all irrelevant.My opponent said, "So when the rubber band snaps back it could snap back to the religious end of atheism, not the non-religious end (default position)."I will argue that both "ends" of atheism (religious and non-religious) are BOTH atheistic, and both within the default position.Again the debate is "Atheism is the default position". Religion is irrelevant.Let's take the word "atheism". The suffix is "ism". Other words with that suffix include communism, socialism, Catholicism, etc. My opponent claims "the prefix is only supposed to modify the meaning of the root word"So, does that mean atheism is an "ism"? "Ism" is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.Atheism is NOT a philosophy, political view, religion or ideology.The "A" in atheism actually means atheism is a non-ism, no matter what root word you use.Basically, my opponent is grasping at straws, trying to throw in red herrings and other irrelevant things to see if anything sticks. Everything my opponent brought up is irrelevant to the fact that atheism is the default position.The perfect example of this is when my opponent said "If you’re wanting a better definition to what I think you’re after would be the “absence of belief in any god and goddess.” But that isn’t atheism (its closer to nontheism)"Why bother saying that? We both agreed that atheism was the lack of the belief in a god.I don't care about other definitions. We are not talking about nontheism. It's just saying something for the sake of saying it. I will not let it confuse the matter. My opponent failed to provide any evidence that atheism is anything other than the default position when it comes to beliefs in gods.Thank you for the debate.
Atheism is the default position

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it.That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default positionof being an Atheist.It's that simple.
Dinosaurs can be brought back...

Rubuttal I: Extracting DNAAs great as that article was, the odds of the DNA being Dinosaur in origin is highly unlikely. As the article made clear, it can not be Dinosaur DNA unless Dinosaurs went extinct within the last 10,000 years. While that's wondrous news for a Creationist, it doesn't stand to merit in the scientific community."If it is dinosaur DNA, then it cannot be millions of years old because of the results of a separate study. Scientists examined 158 ancient leg bones from the extinct giant moa bird that lived on New Zealand’s South Island. The study authors generated a DNA decay rate with unprecedented rigor." -Pro's Source.We have drawings because we have complete bone structures, but we still aren't sure if we have them right. For all we know, a T-Rex might have massive arms, and we've been using the wrong bones. Technology, of any level, cannot magically bring back DNA that no longer exists.Conclusion: Dinosaur's cannot be brought back to live.
Dinosaurs can be brought back...

Before I begin I would like to point out (2) spelling mistake ember&Requardless - "DNA is no longer here?" This is possible okay! https://www.icr.org... DNA could not last half a million years yes, but paleontologists describe DNA in samples designated millions of years old. Ditching the millions-of-years dogma would resolve this dilemma. The clearly detected dinosaur proteins and what looks like dinosaur DNA make sense if the earth layers that contain them were deposited by Noah's Flood only thousands of years ago. Technology is going to keep going, further and further. We already have very accurate drawings of Dinosaurs and there bones, when technology reaches its best point then we will be able to maybe make DNA through something else. CONCLUSION: DNA yes is not available at the moment but we will keep going in science and will find it. i refer to my previous argument, to where we go next! END
Dinosaurs can be brought back...

Rebuttal I: DNA ExractionAn extinxt bee =/= 65 million year old Dinosaur. Even in ember and ice, DNA decays. Prehaps at a slower rate, but none-the-less it does. DNA from 65 million+ years ago doesn't exist, in any condition, anywhere in the world. A Half-Life isn't based off preservation from bacteria, but off natural decay that simply happens. Whether there are outside factors or not doesn't stop that.We were able to perform all the experiments with the Trout DNA because we have it's DNA. Dinosaur DNA would have disappeared completely 10's of millions of years ago, requardless of if it's incased in ember. Conclusion: DNA doesn't last long enough for us to have any of it today.
Dinosaurs can be brought back...

DNA found in Amber or calcium? There have been thousands of bones dug up by paleontologists and of them there has been no calcium or cells found alive but, if that bone was preserved lets say in ice cold Antarctica or maybe in Amber. The idea of extracting DNA from amber isn't confined to the movies. The first reported success in the real world came in 1992, when scientists reported finding DNA from an extinct bee encased in Dominican amber. Other reports of successful extraction followed... What next? So, if the DNA was found (which is possible) then what next, well research has shown an experiment with Salmon eggs and then DNA of a trout, which was then inserted in the Salmon eggs and a healthy trout was hatched. We can expand this then lets say the Trout DNA is the Dinosaur DNA and the Salmon egg is an ostrich egg (it has the largest egg in the world, which is why its my choice) then it can be incubated and well then we have ourself (if it works) a healthy dinosaur egg (maybe).
Dinosaurs can be brought back...

Argument I: Lifespan of DNADNA has a half life of only 521 years (1). This is bad for cloning Dinosaurs, since cloning requires a good enough amount of DNA to make a complete replica of the creature. While this might be possible for an animal who went extinct a few centuries back, like the Dodo, the half life makes cloning Dinosaurs impossible. At only 521 years, Dinosaur DNA is about as extinct as they are. Dinosaurs have been extinct since 65 million years ago (2), their DNA can't be used or mixed with another creatures because it's been entirely eroded away.1) http://www.nature.com...2) http://pubs.usgs.gov...Conclusion: Sadly, Dinosaur DNA doesn't exist anymore. There is no way to clone Dinosaurs.
Campaigns to end the use of the word "retard" are misguided and illogical

Sorry... I just wanted a more sophisticated, intellectual opposing argument. I'm not on this site for wins; I'm here for insightful discussions about important topics. Also, this is the opponent's first debate, so there was a good chance that I would post a giant argument only to see a long chain of forfeits from the opponent... And that would have sucked, to say the least. "The Word Retard is just as bad as the word Nigger in my book[.] i find it ridiculous that people would still want to use this word"This really says nothing. The level of "badness" of the word "nigger" has yet to be established, and, hence, this comparison does not support any argument. Furthermore, what the opponent finds "ridiculous" isn't even remotely germane to the matter at hand. "[B]ecause[,] while the majority of people are not mentally retarded[,] there are mentally retarded people who take serious offense to that word." I absolutely concur. There are mentally ill people and non-mentally ill people alike who are offended by the word "retard." Also, there may be a minority of people who are offended by the "cockroach" and "poop." Should a word be erased from a language's lexicon just because certain people react to it the way they do? The reason why the word "retard" exists in our language is because of its value in our cultural context, something which is determined by the speakers of the language. Artificial removal of a word does not work, because a word exists due to relevance within a culture; until a cultural shift occurs, no language change would end up arising. And then the opponent ends with "these campaigns are the only thing trying to stop people from using such a bad word." This leads directly into my main point: The basis for campaigns like the R-word campaign is that certain words are "offensive." People need to realize that words cannot be inherently offensive; rather, the offensiveness comes from the meaning that people attribute to them. The sole purpose of these words, by their given definitions, is to offend (e.g., "chink: (n) a disparaging term for person of Chinese birth or descent.") Hence, acting deeply offended by them only gives these words more meaning and allows them to serve their purpose. The ultimate solution is to not make such a big deal about it.
Campaigns to end the use of the word "retard" are misguided and illogical

The Word Retard is just as bad as the word Nigger in my book, i find it ridiculous that people would still want to use this word. because while the majority of people are not mentally retarded. there are mentally retarded people who take serious offense to that word. and it is the same thing as a white person calling black person nigger pre 2000's. these campaigns are the only thing trying to stop people from using such a bad word. should mentally retarded people supposed to be exposed to a word that attacks a predisposition that they cannot control?
Campaigns to end the use of the word "retard" are misguided and illogical

Resolution: Campaigns (e.g., [1]) to end the use of the word "retard" (in noun form, of course) are misguided and illogical. Misguided: (adj) Based or acting on error; misledIllogical: (adj) Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning[1] http://www.r-word.org...---I will attempt to affirm the resolution; my opponent will attempt to nullify it. The first round will strictly be for acceptance and discussion of definitions and the terms of debate.Thank you.
Prostitution ought to be Legalized

I'll be arguing that prostitution should be legalized. R1-Acceptance R2-Opening Statement R3-New Arguments, Rebuttal R4-New Arguments, Rebuttal R5-No New Arguments, Conclusion Don't accept this debate if you have no desire to finish this up to the end. Idiotic brain-dead neanderthals are prohibited in taking up this generic debate. Go eat some rocks or whatever it is stupid people like to chomp on.
Women should not allowed to hold offices of power due to PMS

Stay with me on this for a minute! I have met very few women that do not use their female cycle to blame their negative actions on. Mood swings, crazy thoughts, and behaviour that is detrimental to their own personal lives or relationships? my entire point is 2 fold. either women are unfit for a few days a month to make decisions or they are not? why should I be tried by a woman judge who suffers from sever pmdd and is hating men the day of my trial? women in office making decisions for the people of the country having a mood swing ... so either pms and pmdd is real or women just use it as an excuse to be crazy for a few days? cannot be both... I think most men, if really honest would tell you that "most " women that they know or have been in a relationship with will tell you that for a few days " she is crazy" why should we allow people who go crazy for a few days have any power at all? then again maybe women are just using this as an excuse to behave negatively without consequences
Ban islam

Accepted. Resolution: 'Ban Islam' ========================================================== Pro has to present sound arguments with citations, that show us why it would be preferable to ban Islam than allow it to remain in practice as a religion. Pro has yet to define what he means by 'ban Islam', and tell us where/how he would like it to be banned. 1.] Would he like it to be banned only in the U.S? 2.] How would he suggest such a ban is enforced? I.e, how could a government which has it in its constitution to protect freedom of religion, possibly approach banning one? So far, Pro has only vaguely linked a YouTube video - without indicating what the content of the video is or supporting it with an argument. Thus, he has failed to show us why Islam should be banned.
Atheism is a lie

Just because you throw a bunch of words together it doesn't mean you right or anything of the sort. You literally said nothing meaningfull in that whole argument. You're speaking all opnion now. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. That is completely different to anything we're talking about. I literally have no idea why you bought that up lmao Using your logic, theism is a lie. You're simply wrong. You made one point which was false in round three.
Atheism is a lie

Jfc. You said: "Atheism is a lie by definition and logic." The definition of Atheism is: "disbelief or LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of God or gods."-g Your conclusion of Construct three states: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Atheism is not "belief there is no God" but merely "no belief in a God." Atheism is defined in this context as a "lack of belief" in God. Belief definition: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof You stated that Atheists claim to "know" if god exists, which isn't true. We instead have a lack of acceptance that 'God' exists. I have no idea where you got the idea that Atheists claim to know if "God" exists or not. Which means all of your constructs are flawed but your first one lmao.