BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing is certain

My response was an attempt to introduce the intricacies of language and to point out the extremely fragile link that words themselves (specifically of abstract concepts such as 'existence) have to actuality. As to my confusion over the various definitions, I was unsure of your own meaning. Thus, I was running through the various possiblities and chose the strongest concievable definition you might have. However, your definition, you now say, is "having objective reality or being", which is considerably different from what I defined. This makes matters somewhat simpler. Here I will try to show that the definition that the opponent is using cannot be certainly verified. When we say certain knowledge, we mean that this thing is entirely undoubtable; not a shred of doubt can be formed. What does existence entail, then? According to the opponent, it is having objective reality or being. In that case, let us assume that tomorrow the opponent woke up to find that his entire life had been a dream. He wakes up on another planet, with differently concieved forms of sciences, matters, etc. This entire dimension is vastly different and he is concieved as a different form of energy and matter. Does that mean that he, the person he currently is, ever 'existed' according to that definition? Surely, a dream cannot be 'objective reality', but whatever it is, it is where he had existence. But let us go even farther and assume that the dreamer had absolutely no connection to the opponent, but instead was just dreaming of this individual's life randomly, as it may happen, and with absolutely 0 link to the other world other than that they were the ones dreaming of it. Thus the property of identity is cancelled out. Let me stress that I am contradicting existence by your definition specifically. Taking this line of argument further, let us also postulate that the entire world was the dream of some god (as some religions do advocate). Therefore, no objective reality would exist, and you would not exist, and you would be as far from the dreamer as a gnat would be to you.
There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

hmm, looks like someone forfeited. also, some things left out from my last rebuttal : The first part of your rebuttal makes me wonder if u really believe what you are saying. You seem to have a fixation with not interrupting any program of the state and not challenging it, as if might makes right. FINALLY : Your rights are inherent, and like matter, they can neither be destroyed nor created, and you cannot acquire them from a government.
There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

1: all "small arms", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....
There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

We need to come to an agreement on a few key points. 1. Guns - are we referencing all guns or just hand guns, and all ammunition or just basic. 2. "as long as they don't interfere in other peoples business" - what does this imply? No one would be against guns if individuals never used them to "interfere" as in killings,shootings, intimidation, war, or ect that involves others. 3. human right - we all know it to be an implied constitutional right but is pro going to defend self defense as inherent or univesal? or is he going to defend guns as a right? 4. power structure - please define, some hold corporations and institutions to be power structures, Finally, please state if the people you are referencing are All U. S. citizens, or an outside nation, or just adults in the U. S. If Pro can clear all these things up in round 2. I will simply state my agreement and we can start core arguments and the refutation in round 3
There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.
Resolved: God doesn't exist.

RebuttalsI would first like to start out by saying that even though that my opponent has conseded that there is no afterlife (which poses a problem for his case that I will point out later on in the debate), he has dropped my contention on the impossiblity of omnipotence, and also hasn't addressed the problem of imperfection that I countered his argument from design with. And unless he can refute these, then I will win no matter how many Bibe verses he posts.R1: The problem with my opponent's rebuttal is that it does explain the problem. God is all-powerful, but he has created beings that are not perfect, and betray him. If he were all-knowing then he would have known the horrible consequences of this action. Because he did this he condems trillions of innocent people to suffering and death. Furthermore, he doesn't do anything about it and therefore, can not possibly be all-loving. Therefore, God's actions and charcteristics as layed out by the Bible contradict. This is a huge blow to my opponent's case.R2: My opponent also denies the Christian Doctrine of the afterlife. However, even the mainstreem of Christianity (even the Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in an afterlife. My opponent's sect believes that 144,000 people will go to heaven [1]. However, this is impossible for reasons that I have alread stated and that have gone unrefuted. So my opponent hurts himself with his concession.R3: Then my opponent's only defense against my attack on his argument from design is that he gives a Bible verse (even though this is not evidence at all) that says that God has no beginning nor end. however, this is logically impossible. He said that because the universe is too complex that it has to have a designer, but the designer while even more complex does not have a cause. This is contradictory with in my opponent's logic, and is logically impossible because to everything there must be a cause. Son my opponent fails here.ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has fail in proving that his god exists. I have refutted all of hsi points, and I have countered them with evidence that proves that the Christian god could not have created it. I have proven that afterlives are impossible, and my contention on the impossibility of omnipotence has been totally drropped. And my opponent hasn't refuted my argument from evil. So, I find no reason to accept his claims, and I hind every reason to reject them and his religion. Thank You for reading, I will now await my opponent's last response.Sources[1]http://www.religionfacts.com...
Resolved: God doesn't exist.

To start my debate I would live to agree with Pro to say that there is no afterlife. In my last argument "I stated For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten." However God has many other qualkities such as : wisdom, justice, power. To apply justice Satan basically told Jehovah " I can be a better ruler that you" so Jehovahs responce is "I will give you the world and we will see if it is true". And during Jesus time on Earth Satan tempted Jesus. Matthew 4:1-11 "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2 After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3 Also, the Tempter came and said to him: "If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread." 4 But in reply he said: "It is written, "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah"s mouth."" 5 Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: "If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, "He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone."" 7 Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, "You must not put Jehovah your God to the test."" 8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." 10 Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."" 11 Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him." If you noticed Jesus didnt deny that Satan could give him the world. But he realized that Satan was trying to prove Jehovah wrong. But it failed. Psalms 90:2 "Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. So God had no beginning and no end.
The Bible is not the source of morality

You say "If a person does not want to be punched, in the view of some people, it is still moral to punch him" Yes, but the person who thinks it's moral to punch people lacks empathy. I said morality comes from empathy. I claim that "You can only determine something moral by comparing it t something immoral." That's how we determine all things, by comparing them to something else. We know something is designed by comparing it to something that's not designed. We know something is bright by comparing not to something that's not bright. We know something is moral by comparing it to something that is not moral. You asked, "How do we define the morality of the immoral thing?" Once again, the answer is with empathy. You don't get the concept of using empathy. You state, "The only reason you state that rape is bad is because the popular mentality dictates so" Most people have empathy. That is why empathy is the "popular mentality". You don't determine morality with popular views. You determine them with empathy. It just so happens that most people have empathy. The popular view in the Bible is that rape is OK. That's because back in the time the Bible was written, women were not viewed as equal to men, hence the lack of empathy for them. The same can be said about the Biblical view on slavery. Slaves were also viewed as less than full human back then, hence the lack of empathy for them and the reason slavery is condoned in the Bible. We now understand that women and slaves are, indeed, fully human and deserve equal rights. Using empathy, we can look at the Bible and say it is immoral, because it condones rape and slavery.
The Bible is not the source of morality

Morality is subjective. What might be moral to one may not be moral to another. Some say eating meat is immoral, for example. Other say it is moral. The way people determine morality is with empathy. If a person doesn't want to be punched, it would not be moral for that person to punch someone else. However, if 2 consenting adults go int a boxing ring, and expect to punch each other, there is nothing immoral about that. Since morality is subjective, it would make no sense for a book to dictate objective morality for everyone. In order for a reader of the Bible to agree with an objective moral concept from the Bible, they would have to compare it to their own subjective morality. You can only determine something moral by comparing it t something immoral. The Bible condones slavery, which is now considered immoral. If we use the Bible for our source of morality, we would have to set our own personal subjective morality aside and accept the objective morality that slavery is right, according to the Bible. Exodus 21:20-21 Leviticus 25:44-45 The Bible also condones things like rape and killing, which most of us would now agree is immoral. "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29
convicts facing a possible death sentence should be able to kill themselves

Criminal punishment is a huge source of controversy in the United States. Opponents often argue that innocent people are sometimes executed and that the main motive is revenge, not true justice. Those who support the death penalty debate that the punishment offers retribution for victims of murder and is more cost efficient than offering life sentences in prison. Whether or not the death penalty will remain legal in the United States has yet to be seen. And so why should they be given the choice on how o kill themselves?
convicts facing a possible death sentence should be able to kill themselves

My opponent failed to make an argument about why prisoners on death row should not be able to expedite the process. The only viable position put forward by my opponent is that it prevents some vague sense of retribution but that is not a sufficient reason. As I’ve already stated, provided death row inmates found to commit the most egregious crimes should be allowed to commit suicide, since the state is already going to execute them. Con has not provided a reason against this argument. Pro should at the very least get conduct points for not skipping a round.
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

Beauty is not only skin deep, as it serves as a foundation of one's behavior in society. However this is not the argument Con acknowledges that people in the olden days used lead coated makeup, as the intelligence of the time led them to the belief that this would help make them look better and more fashionable. However Con disputes Pro's unfounded assumption that in the pursuit of beauty people starve themselves to the point that they have disorders such as anorexia. Such disorders are a result of an underlying psychological problem such as a tendency of depression and/or depression and excessive worrying and feeling scared or doubtful about the future http://www.nhs.uk... Pro mentions Chinese binding of feet, although this began as an act in the pursuit of beauty (this is also disputable as there is a view that this originated as a method of stopping the wives of the upper class from escaping a beating) it became more of a tradition and as such can no longer in the modern day be associated with beauty or the pursuit of it http://www.pattayadailynews.com... The alleged danger Pro associates with cosmetic surgery can be countered by the positives, for example a higher sense of self confidence. Without confidence, intelligence which is according to Pro's assertion superior to beauty, would not amount to much, because you would not be able to assert the ideas With regards to the arguments on the negatives of music, Con argues that only susceptible people who have a predisposition of being easily influenced can be influenced by music. If music did influence sex, drugs and violence where the order of the day before music got as vulgar as it supposedly is. Pro shows no evidence to support his claim, therefore a presumption must be drawn from Pro's failure that there is no evidence supporting his claim. "Experts argue" which experts? Furthermore the fact that Pro quoted that 30% of teens questioned knew the lyrics of their favorite songs kills Pro's argument. If most do not listen or know the lyrics of the song, how can you then say that when a child hears derogatory lyrics this influences his behavior, how does it influence his behavior when s/he's listening to the lyrics. Pro has failed to show the negatives associated with music and with beauty in its entirety. Furthermore Pro failed to counter the argument regarding the Halo effect reiterated in Con's second argument, failure to address this issue, should be seen as a concession on that point
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

"Beauty is only skin deep" For some people, the need to be beautiful is so strong that they are willing to put their lives at risk. Some are starving themselves which can lead to disorders like anorexia nervosa, which has killed many women, including the Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston and Karen Carpenter, a singer in the 70s. Throughout the ages, people have used various methods to make themselves look more beautiful. In China, people used to follow a tradition of binding girls' feet to make their feet smaller because women with small feet were thought to be more beautiful. Foot binding was torture for these girls; nevertheless, if it could make them look more beautiful, they were willing to live with the pain. In the 1500s, European women thought that it was beautiful to have very white skin. To make their faces whiter, they wore make-up that contained lead. They didn't suspect that they were putting poison on their skin for the sake of beauty. For many years, women of the Padaung tribe added rings to gradually lengthen their necks. In this culture, a long neck signifies great beauty. The more rings they can fit on their necks, the more beautiful they are considered to be. Unfortunately, this makes the bones in their necks move apart, which means that their necks could be easily broken. Cosmetic surgeries like breast implants, facelifts, and even liposuction have caused many deaths. People who have these proceduresdone don't want to admit that they are taking tremendous risks, nor do they understand how easily these operations can go wrong. Olivia Goldsmith, a best-selling novelist, died after she had a facelift in Miami, Florida With reference to atomic bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, i have would like to say that these are two sides of the same coin. Where there is good there is evil. So it is with Beauty too. Con does not show the negative effects of music. During the last decade we have seen music lyrics become more and more violent and sexually explicit in genres like Heavy metal, rap, gansta rap, industrial, hardcore, and alternative music. Experts argue that this can cause problems in children and adolescents. One is to assume that somewhere in the mix a child is going to hear something derogatory or objectionable, as it has become the norm in today’s society. In most music today especially rap and heavy metal most of the lyrics contain references to violence, sex, and/or drugs. We must ask ourselves whether the child fully understands and comprehends what the artist is saying. Teenagers often do not understand what is being said, in fact in one study only 30% of those questioned knew the lyrics to their favorite songs and they all had varied comprehension as to what the message was. Some lyrics are indeed harsh such as this Nine Inch Nails lyric: " Held against your forehead I'll make you suck You know, just for the *censored* of it. ” Obviously we cannot interpret this as a positive meaning.Vote for Pro. Thank You.
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

"Let us take a moment and think what is the most important invention, beneficial to mankind. Electricity? Light Bulb? Steam Engine?" Here we have 2 important innovations, one being electricity, which on its own cannot be regarded as an invention since it existed in the form of lightning. Harnessing electricity, which would be the most appropriate term is truly an important event in our history, that Con concedes is exceptional intelligence. Whereas exceptional beauty lies in the form of a single thing, as Pro points "portrait". Pro does not dispute that art is culture therefore con will proceed under the assumption that pro agrees with this Here we have two conflicting "innovations" technology, in the form of electricity and culture in the form of art. Con argues that a lot more bad has resulted from innovations with regards to technology (which stands for intelligence) as opposed to culture . Intelligence resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb, which resulted in casualties of up to 135000 and 64000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively http://www.atomicarchive.com... Intelligence resulted in war formations, war strategies, wars and weapons that have killed millions of people the world over. Intelligence is a weapon used in white collar crimes, corruption scandals and other morally wrongful acts. Exploitation of cheap labor in Chinese sweat shops can be regarded as a result of Companies such as Motorola, using their "intelligence" to exploit a cheap labor force and be able to produce their goods at lower prices. Beauty on the other hand, does nothing but inspire. Great poets such as William Shakespeare where inspired by beauty and love (which can be associated with beauty). Music emanates from poetry and as coined in the Mourning Bride by William Congreve "Music has charms to soothe a savage beast". The difference between man and beast is not intelligence, it is culture, particularly the appreciation of beauty (be it artistically or in the form of the female). If human standards for intelligence are applied to non-human animals, dolphins come close to our own brain aptitude levels (http://news.discovery.com...). According to Pro's argument a dolphin should be equal to a human, because it is not essentially a beast, by virtue of its intelligence The cosmetic industry is a result of intellectual thought, however the driving force inspiring that intelligence still remains the same; to make a person more beautiful, essentially that intellect is driven by something more supreme; beauty Halo Effect "a first glance at a person's face often leaves a lasting impression.... Facial features are more often remembered following initial interactions" (http://www.psychologytoday.com...), the more beautiful a person the more inclined we are to favor that person.