BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

If you, readers, are smart enough to look through this debate, you will see that I have not said what Pro claims I have said. When I have, it is out of context. For example, when I said "Atheism has no proof and evidence", it was in reference to the resolution. At no point have I said "so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right", nor have either of us said "atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right", nor have I said " that is right Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct". Nobody here has said "how can u be a Atheist if you cannot provide for me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct that is complete madness if u cannot provide for me e proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then I can so Atheism is not real why because people who try to say they are atheist they cannot defend their so called atheism checkmate". All of the quotes I have mentioned above are quotes nobody here has said (apart from me referencing the resolution or his other quotes). Essentially, Pro is giving false quotes to make it seem like I agree with him. If you cared to look through this debate, you would see that neither of us have said his quotes before he said them, meaning he has not actually quoted anything. Pro still has not addressed any of my points in R2, and has pretty much screwed himself over with the fact that this is R4, and he hasn't addressed any of my points.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Luggs you said this to me atheism has no proof and evidence / Me Quote that is right Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct I have already won this debate so Atheism doesn't need to be correct in order to be thought. so that means atheism is madness I cannot see how anyone can be a atheist luggs what u said dose not give any reason why someone can be a atheist this is what u said Atheism is real, because people are atheists. / Me Quote how can u be a Atheist if you cannot provide for me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct that is complete madness if u cannot provide for me e proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then I can so Atheism is not real why because people who try to say they are atheist they cannot defend their so called atheism checkmate
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Several things to say. 1. Neither of us said either of those things. Nobody here said "so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right", nor did either of us say " atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right". 2. I never said that "atheism has no proof and evidence". I was restating the resolution, and as I am Con, I deny the resolution. 3. Atheism is about what you believe, not about if you're right. Even if atheism had no proof or evidence (which I have clearly given, negating the resolution), that doesn't automatically mean someone can't be an atheist. 4. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. It doesn't need to be correct in order to be thought. Atheism is real, because people are atheists. 5. Pro completely ignored my first round, and did not address anything I said (he quoted me out of context). He pretty much conceded all of this debate to me. Your move, Pro.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Luggs you said this to me atheism has no proof and evidence / Me Quote so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right So if Atheism cannot be proven and has no evidence then Luggs you cannot be a atheist you need prove to be a atheist and Luggs you have just proven your not a atheist this is what you said atheism has no proof and evidence / Me Quote atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Let us begin. Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? In probability, yes [1]. An unsubstantiated claim has no basis with which to be believed, and therefore is more unlikely to be true. When evidence is presented, probability increases. Let me give you a rational basis for being an atheist, which is information that supports my definition, therefore evidence. As soon as irrefutable evidence is given, the resolution is immediately negated because the resolution is that atheism has no proof and evidence (meaning it has neither). You are on trial for murder, but you didn't do it. The prosecution fails to make any arguments that haven't been refuted, and you have absolutely no way of proving your innocence. After all, the jury may be thinking that you are just playing dumb. By the end of the trial, neither the prosecution, nor the defendant have either supported their side of the argument. So, what does the jury do? Here are two answers, both end up denying the claim. 1. Innocent until proven guilty In most legal systems, the defendant is held to be found innocent until proven guilty [2]. In this case, you (the defendant) have had no evidence put against yourself, so the jury, if not biased, should vote "not guilty". 2. Not proven "Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty")" [3]. When the jury has decided that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof, this verdict will be reached by the jury. In both cases, you, the defendant, are safe from being seen as guilty. Now, let's just substitute a few parts of this example so that it becomes relevant to this debate: "God" is on trial for the arbitrary crime of existence. The theists have failed to make any arguments that haven't been refuted, and the atheists have absolutely no way of proving his innocence of this arbitrary crime. After all, the jury may be thinking that the atheists are simply hiding information. By the end of the trial, neither the theists, nor the atheists have either supported their side of the argument. So, what does the jury do? Now, instead of using "Innocent until proven guilty", we substitute for "the burden of proof", where the prosecution (claimant) still has to prove their point, but the opposition does not, until after the prosecution does. The concept is the exact same, so why is belief in gods an exception to this? That is a question I leave for my opponent. -=Sources=- [1] . http://lesswrong.com... [2] . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

I accept. For those who do not know, this was a debate challenge from Dale. G to me. I will have to make the best of the difficult hand I have been dealt. As no rules have been put forth, I will do such. Breaking a rule results in conduct point going to opponent. No semantics. All sources should be cited, use quotations if quoting. Arguments begin in R2, no new arguments in R5, only refutations and closing statements. Definitions Atheism - lack of belief in gods. Proof - evidence that is conclusive Evidence - information that supports one's position Burden of Proof BoP is on me, and Pro must refute my arguments. Let the debate begin.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Thanks, AOG. I will be presenting a brief constructive case this round. But before I begin, I would like to note that when the resolution refers to "the United States", it is naturally referring specifically to the national government of the United States, seeing that a state itself is an abstract concept which cannot act on its own, and that a population of people cannot feasibly act in unison without some form of central organization (i.e. the government). Thus, the resolution can be reworded as "The government of the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts". With that established, it then becomes necessary to look at exactly what the purpose of a government is. Why do people have governments? I argue that the only plausible justification for a government's existence is the one proposed by social contract theory-- the people allow the government to have a limited degree of control over their liberties (i.e. the ability to enforce laws, levy taxes, etc.) in exchange for the government promising them protection. In other words, the government is an entity which exists for only one purpose: to ensure the security of its people. This model explains many aspects of real world governance, such as why we look down upon governments which harm their citizens and engage in acts of coercive tyranny, but look to emulate those which uphold democratic values and are able to best promote their citizens' general welfare. It explains why laws which do not serve the people's best interests are quickly rejected, and why corrupt politicians who use their power for self-interests are often thrown out of office. Governments exist only to protect their citizens, both theoretically and empirically. The implications of this on the resolution are obvious-- a government only exists to serve its own citizens, so it cannot reasonably be said that they also have an obligation to interact with external entities which they have no link to whatsoever. In fact, for a government to use the resources provided to it by its citizens for the purposes of unrelated foreign affairs would be unethical, as the only reason the citizens sacrifice their property to the government in the first place is for the further protection of their own welfare; it would be a violation of consent to use those resources for anything else. Thus, it is simply unfeasible for an entity such as the government to have an obligation to aid anyone outside of its specific bounds; Pro may be able to argue that individuals have a moral obligation to help those in need, but that simply does not apply to the government.Obviously, since the United States government is a government, all of the above applies to it, and the resolution is negated. I rest my case.
DC is better than Marvel

I do understand your opinion on Batman being a more dark hero. That is his specialty. Maybe not everyone experiences being an orphan or leaving their family behind but they do relate to the aspect of revenge. Batman's whole reign is to rid the city of evil to avenge his parent's death. Batman's whole purpose is to get revenge and find closure. I'm not stating that a lot of people experience their parent's death but people have experienced revenge and closure as a whole. Marvel has a handful of non-relatable heroes as well. Such as Ghost Rider. Not everyone experiences becoming a stunt-racer and sacrificing their soul. Not one can relate to Blade who's mother was bitten by a vampire. Spider-man is a great superhero but I disagree with Deadpool. He is a rip-off of DC's character Deathstroke. I understand why people like him, mainly because he's funny and unique but people cannot relate to that as well. DC heroes often argue because that's what people do. They argue about their believes and moral reasoning's. Considering they have a lot of power and can simply destroy the Earth, I find it realistic that they would argue about things. I wouldn't agree that they feel more dominant. Only Superman believes that and that's why Batman attempts to take him down. Character's such as The Flash, Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Green Arrow, Black Canary, John Constantine and much more just want to do what's right. Marvel doesn't even fit on the realism scale. Let's look at the movies released recently. Deadpool- No-one can relate to that. Funny but no-one has ever really experienced something like this before. The Avengers- Green Monster, God with Hammer, Mr. Patriotic, Millionaire in a suit.... I have never known anyone who as found relations with any of these things. Guardians of the Galaxy- I've never been a raccoon. Not relatable for me. X-Men- The whole X-Men franchise is rich but if were talking about characters relatable this does not fit. I also would like to bring up films in the discussion as well. Such as box-office success, movies coming out or have been released. Fan feedback, etc... Because I also believe that one day DC will also dominate in the box-office.
DC is better than Marvel

I do agree that not all DC stories are overly dark, however a majority of the more mainstream and popular franchises among them tend to take on a darker tone.(i.e. Batman and most of his "family", certain Justice League lines, and the Man of Steel movie) I will admit outlandish in my argument is not the best choice of words. What I mean in Batman's case is that he is orphaned, this happens to many people, however most people do not just leave their life behind at that point and change themselves to "The Batman", he seems less relatable in this aspect, I understand that he is written as someone who broke with his parent's death, however i believe the loss of a guardian is done better in Spider-man. While Spider-man doesn't remember his parents in most lines he does lose them, and later on Uncle Ben, his response isn't that he breaks down, he grows stronger, smarter, and more responsible to prevent anymore deaths that occur from his negligence. Characters like Deadpool and Spider-man are great because these over-the-top, amazing heroes(Deadpool may not fit that word) are presented as very human. Deadpool may not be the first person to come to mind for many, but underneath his charming wit, hyper-violence, and overall insanity, he still remains very human he helps others and he has human desires, DC heroes are mostly shown argueing with their strict personal moral code and it feels like they ignore the human element of the characters, they feel like they are above their humanity, which just doesn't sit well with many consumers. People want to escape from their own lives and put themselves into situations that they can relate to and feel the emotions that come from the characters and DC just doesn't deliver that as well as Marvel.
DC is better than Marvel

We are not limited to the cinematic universe. Not all DC comics have a dark environment. Justice League Dark, Batman, even Watchmen can have a darker nature but heroes such as The Flash, Superman, Cyborg have more of an open and happy story to some extent. I wouldn't say that all characters in the universe are outlandish. Batman for example is your average millionaire. He doesn't turn into a raging beast or turn into a human torch. You could consider Superman outlandish considering he's an alien but that just make's the story so much more interesting having superheroes trying to fit into a society. I also want to touch on DC's impact on television. The Flash and Arrow have been a great success in the TV world, while Gotham has been getting more publicity as time goes on. Daredevil seems to be the only successful grossing show as of now for Marvel considering Agents of Shield being a bust for some consumers. Consumers have learned to love how DC heroes are so much different to stubborn, depressing society and how they try to fit in with the community. DC has been expanding the viewpoint of having heroes as almost outsiders and it is one of DC's strong suits.
DC is better than Marvel

I accepted this debate because I believe Marvel comics to be superior to DC comics. Over most mediums Marvel puts out a better product that readers and watchers can connect to with their over-the-top yet somehow down to earth characters. I am under the assumption that we are not limited to just the cinematic universe, if this assumption is incorrect please correct me. I believe that an overly dark environment will cause the consumer to feel empathetic instead of sympathetic, which I believe to be the stronger of the two emotions. It is hard to be immersed in a world that is so different from our own in so many ways.(i.e. overly dark, widespread depression and despair in the first-world, and characters with very outlandish origins.) While you can portray many marvel characters as getting their powers in outlandish ways I would say that the random "it can happen to anyone" way these origins are expressed helps relate the characters more efficiently to the consumer.
DC is better than Marvel

I believe DC is better than Marvel comics. Marvel has been up in the clouds these past few years with their newer title movies but the only reason they win the box office is because they make so many movies in so few time. It seems like Marvel releases at least 2 movie titles a year. Of course they would win the box-office when they're producing more! DC only makes a movie about once a year, and it usually is a success for profit. Marvel also has made idiotic superheroes, while DC has more superior and dominant villains and backstories. For example, I believe Hulk is an idiotic superhero. Just an angry, big green monster that just smashes things again and again. Nothing really interesting with his fighting technique. His villains are always similar and they commit to the same methods. I get a lot of hate for having this opinion but I believe Thor is a bit boring. Many people thought the movie was too exhausting, since his character is bland. I also don't like the fact he's a god. I don't relate heroes with gods. Both of his movies were a success in the box-office but got average reviews. (Nothing too exciting.) He's just too average. DC always has a polished story arch with better visual design. Justice League Dark for example has shown what power DC can have with their dark imagination and imagery. DC has many different and unique heroes and some of the best are hardly noticeable. DC is much more superior than Marvel on every occasion.
DC is better than Marvel

Dc's movies in the future are looking like they are trying to use the darker style made popular by the Dark Knight films and for characters other than Batman it turns people off from the films. I know that Aquaman is a powerful character but he does have a reputation of being the punching bag of the Justice League and that may be a barrier for the audience they are trying to gather. The Flash and Green Arrow may turn off people who watch the shows if they don't use the same people from the show, like they seem to be planning on. Deadpool was a parody of Deathstroke, but i don't think that should discredit his comics or his movie. Dc and Marvel have a tendency to use each others ideas to make new characters. Marvel has had more success with their parodies than DC has, however they do both do it. I do not believe that this is really a point against either DC or Marvel It really only shows that Marvel is good at adapting ideas to fit something that wasn't intended. DC having growth doesn't exactly make up for lost time. They have movies planned, but so does Marvel. It just so happens that DC is bringing out their main line and making a Justice League Movie, most likely to rival the Avengers films. If given a choice between seeing a Captain America Movie or a Blue Beetle movie most people are going to choose Captain America just because they know who he is. It isn't a matter of right or wrong it just makes sense. The same principle applies between a choice of Batman or Black Panther movie. DC very well could do better than Marvel in the box office in coming years however that would likely be because they are introducing better known characters while Marvel is introducing the rest of their universe. It really is not a sound argument for whether or not Marvel or DC is better.
DC is better than Marvel

Every hero can be in a certain situation that everyone has experienced, but with backstory, and features, Marvel isn't much more relatable than DC. You stated, "As I said in Spider-man's case it is that Uncle Ben's death made him grow." I could easily say that Superman's father (adopted father on earth) death made him grow as well. I do agree that Deadpool is a excellent character and has grown but as you said, " Deadpool was a parody of Deathstroke in his original form, however he has evolved and is now very much his own character." Deadpool has evolved but was created by being a parody of DC antagonist, Deathstroke. So if DC never made Deathstroke, Marvel may of never developed Deadool. DC has growth in the box office as they are planning many titles such as Suicide Squad, Aquaman, The Flash, A Shazam Film, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Cyborg and have just developed Batman v Superman. Wow, that's a lot to take in but Batman v Superman just broke a world record with the amount of money they made on their opening weekend. DC could easily dominate since Marvel has already shown so much of the avengers. How many more movies could they possibly make about the avengers? There are already 3 Iron Man films.. 2 Thor films that no one cares about, 3 avenger films, etc. People are already getting exhausted with the X-Men franchise. They already have around 10 movies half of them are bad or mediocre. Eventually people will start turning their heads to DC since it's different and many more characters have yet to be on the big screen. (The Flash, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Cyborg, Aquaman, Death Stroke, Blue Beetle, Zatanna, Deadman, Kate Spencer, Black Canary, Thom Kallor and much more.
DC is better than Marvel

I feel that there is a misunderstanding when I say that Marvel characters are more relateable. It is NOT that they are in situations that everyone expieriences,(although they sometimes do, such as the loss of a loved one, however most superheros lose a loved one at some point) but how they respond to the action. As I said in Spider-man's case it is that Uncle Ben's death made him grow. On Deadpool Vs. Deathstroke. Deadpool was a parody of Deathstroke in his original form, however he has evovled and is now very much his own character. Deadpool's similarities seem to start and end with design. Deadpool, while most cannot conect to going crazy or his zany actions, can relate to the human side he shows in many Deadpool comics. They can relate to cancer focused story of his origins and the film. I don't know anybody whose family has not been affected by cancer in some way, it is in this way that he is relateable. Even though Deadpool does drift into these realms of relatability he is for the most part a goofball, so i digress. I never said that the characters powers or appearances were realistic. the characters personality and reactions are however what most of us might find ourselves doing if we were put into these situations. For the box office I was unsure of what was coming out because I haven't heard any hype for the films. Looking at DC and Marvel's realease schedule I believe that DC has growth potential because they are bringing their main heroes out and the Justice League, but Marvel has already brough some of their more obscure heros to the big screen with The Guardians and they are only trying to bring more with the Black Panther movie and Doctor Strange. (not that obscure but enough to the point that only comic book fans know about them is what I should say) . In short I think Marvel may be too far ahead for DC to "Dominate" at this point.( I really can't bring up Spider-man enough can I? I really should mention that he is the most profitable superhero worldwide)