BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnostics are atheists

P2 is totally and utterly untrue.Agnostic Theism is a very real thing.[1]P4 is therefore also untrue.The existence of gnostic atheism[2] in addition to agnostic Theism (as was already mentioned) mean that not only are people who think God's existence cannot be known capable of being both Theistic and atheistic but furthermore people who either believe, or don't believe, in god are capable of admitting that their belief does not equate to knowledge and is an opinion they hold as opposed to an objective fact.Before I continue on that line of thinking, I want to point out that Pro completely ignored the existence of Deism.[3] Deism is the view that God exists as a creator of all things but not as a moral guide. Therefore, Deism is neither Theism nor atheism[4] and, just like Theism and atheism, has both gnostic and agnostic variants of it.I'm now going to display an image and then expand on what it conveys: This image explains the four ways that one can lean regarding belief in God (ignoring the Deistic god being a viable option as well).So, let's take atheism to be North, Gnosticism to be East, so on and so forth. What we find is that if you have a compass and it points North, it is not necessarily pointing East or West of North. While it isn't directly comparable to a compass (as we as dealing with digital variants as opposed to analogue ones), it certainly is a good analogy to take on the matter. Think of it as more of a Y-axis and X-axis, one does not have any impact on the other but both are necessary to pinpoint where one lies on the spectrum.I will now go into Dawkins' scale of belief[5][6]. On Dawkins' scales there are even variants in between the gnostic and agnostic variants of Theism and atheism. According to Dawkins there even exist a middle variant which one may call "pure agnosticism" that leans neither to Theism nor atheism (hence there being 7 possible results on his scale, as opposed to an even number which would be half Theism and half atheism).If we combine all this knowledge and reread Pro's debate what we find it this:P1: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known is an agnostic.P2: P2: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known does not believe in any god. can either believe in a god, not believe in a god or be totally impartial.C1: Agnostics do not believe in any god. P3: Only 3 out of 7 results on Dawkins' scale involve an agnostic not believing in any god.P3: Any person who does not believe in any god is an atheist. P4: A person who does not believe in any god is either an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist or a totally impartial agnostic.P4 / C1: Some gnostics and some agnostics do not believe in any god while others do.C2: Some agnostics happen to be atheists and some atheists happen to be agnostics but there are certainly exceptions to agnostic atheists (and they are in the majority).[1] http://atheism.about.com...[2] http://www.patheos.com... [3] http://www.gotquestions.org... [4] http://www.infoplease.com... [5] http://www.eoht.info... [6] https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...
Only the conduct point should be given for a forfiet on DDO

FrameworkMy opponent contends that we are discussing "a" forfeit (of a round) and not multiple forfeits in the same debate. She did not make this clear in Round 1, so I rightfully assumed that she was discussing "a forfeit" of an entire debate. She is introducing new rules in the final round, and this is unfair to me because she is doing so in order to make my entire case irrelevant. My opponent is essentially becoming a moving target. Please do not accept this; it is a violation of standard debate proceedings. Past RulesShe classifies this as any appeal to tradition fallacy. However, this is a strawman of my argument. I never said that we should do this beause we have always done it; I said that we should do it because these are standard debate rules that permit us to disincentive concessions. Extend the anlaysis that notes that forfeits, or drops, are the equivalent to failing to respond to arguments. It is unfair to win debates by ignoring the arguments of the opposition. P1: Better arguments in fewer roundsThe point is that they are failing to respond to opponent's arguments. Debates are distinct from regular discussions precisely because they have time constraints. If an individual does not have the time to not concede his opponents arguments, then he should lose the round. Her response is that her procedures would allow forfeiters to have a better chance to win. This is precisely why the current system is good. It punishes tardiness and disincentivizes concessions and thus promotes good debates. If forfeiters could win more easily, then fewer people would make a good effort to submit arguments in a timely fashion.P2: Some arguments are fatal. This is a nonissue. The system is designed to promote good debates and not good discussions. Debates have time limits in order to motivate people to respond properly. If you do not respond to your opponent's analysis, no matter how good your analysis is, you ought not win the round because you are not making an effort to seriously win the debate.She claims that we do not want to necessarily reward "long" work. The problem with this analysis is that this is actually hard work and not "long" work. The opponent is making an honest effort to respond to the analysis of the forfeiter, but the forfeiter is not making an effort to respond to the rebuttals. This should be rewarded in order to disincentivize laziness. This takes care of Premise 3 as well. P4: Internet errors. Yes, things happen, but the opponent should not be faulted for it. This is a debate, not a discussion. If you do not submit your schoolwork or vocation work on time, you face retributive action. It should be the same for debates.Conduct points are one point each. My opponent knows well enough that they are functionally meaningless; she even says this when she says that forfeiters should be able to have a better chance of winning.
Only the conduct point should be given for a forfiet on DDO

Justice 1. The main issue is that sometimes one person may have better argument in fewer rounds then somebody else has in all their rounds. 2. Secondly, we don’t want to be awarding people who don’t deserve it. Many people work hard to move up the ladder. This is not fair to other DDO members. Should others be ranked with the hard workers just because of forfeits? 3. It’s also possible that people may use another account and forfeit against themselves to move up. Again not fair to others. 4. There are legitimate internet errors and mistakes which people can’t account for. Sometimes it may not send when somebody thought it did. Some people work really hard and spent a lot of time. Only to have absolutely no chance because unpredictable happening, this will at least give them a small chance if they were in the lead. 5. It is very often that very good legitimate reasons do come up. Many people are in school, or taking care of others. And they just can’t make a round. 5. Keep in mind that their opponents will still have a whole round and conduct points from all the voters. 6. So over all there is only something to gain and nothing to lose, it will only really affect debates where the person with fewer rounds was obviously winning by a landslide all ready. 7. These small different will improve the overall systems representing better accuracy in DDO’s ladder. I leave it to you most Honourable Royalpaladin
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

The ability to comprehend science is not about education it is about intelligence, there is a difference between intelligence and education. Pro continues to dodge the issue of the poll being biased as it was created by an obvious Limbaugh hater. Could we possibly expect the results to be unbiased? If Rush Limbaugh made a poll, and it had bad for results for liberals would you trust the results as true? I believe if Rush took a poll of liberals then they would claim to be the most informed, objectively of course, and Rush would find they weren't, hardly an unexpected result. As far as the objectivity of information goes, it pretty much stops at the calculator, 1+1=2, objective fact, now you have been objectively informed. The health care debacle known as the ACA or Obamacare or whatever else it is called, is a politically motivated idea and depending on where the information comes from and who is hearing it, determines whether the information is objective or not.
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

ultimately i don't think con has given much except vague commentary on what the survey could have been based on. neither of us have gotten into the speciics of the survey, so neither of us are really that equipped to talk in depth abut it. but wit hthat said, we did see one speciic example of an objective fact that the limbaugh supporters got wrong. con did not really respond to that. if it's exemplative of the rest of the survey, it shows that something is awry with limbaugh listners the other stuff is a side line to the debate but will respond. most IQ tests put iberals slightly ahead of conservatives. but that is only slightly, and doesn't mean much. so your point about scientific understadning as an indicator of intlligence is an outlier. and, the abiity to interpret scientific data is influenced by your past education. again, the education points, and the older and wealthir points. it would be too much to htink just because they might slightly be able to interpret science better that we should listen to them more. mainly, it is only a slight difference. second, they are more extreme on the political spectrum and in my personal experience, which doen't mean much, neither side of a political ideology is really all that informed, it's more like they have a lot of stuff that backs them up, at best. i don't know what to say about who's more informed, but if the above study indactes anything, it's that limbaugh listeners are less informed. it's not even a liberal v conservative issue as con keeps making it. just limbaugh listeners. con hasn't done enough to specifically address that or the specific example above.
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

I believe most polling is slanted by whomever creates the poll, and to quote the results of a poll from a liberal institution that criticizes the level of knowledge of the people on the conservative side would lead any reasonable person to question the validity of the poll. The pollsters are biased, then most likely the poll is too. I have heard the term "less informed" used repeatedly by the intellectual crowd, and to me it only says they feel their information is the only information that is believable. Are people truly less informed only because they believe something different then the majority? Not in my eyes, I believe the majority is usually wrong, as it is an endless cycle in human time. The point of the Yale study was ability to comprehend science, a measure of intelligence. Information is only as good as the folks that give it to you, and with most academic institutions being controlled by liberals and borderline communists it is no surprise that the younger crowd that drinks the Kool aid they serve would believe that they are smarter, or "more informed" I guess would be the PC term. Too often people just blindly believe what they are told by "educators".
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

con merely speculates that the survey was too bias. but, this may not be true. and when we look at the example given, it is based on objective fact. facts do not have a liberal bias. how do you respond to that looking at it specifially instead of vague as you did? also, i'm not even making this a conservative versus liberal issue, so i'm not sure why you bring that into it. and, i'm not engaging in personal attacks, i just quoted another guy who did. and even if tea party folks are better educated in general, that doesn't mean they are more informed. we could take what you gave an what i gave, and reconcile them that way. it would not be surprising to me that people who tend to be older and wealthier tend to be more educated in general.
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

Thanks for the opportunity to debate whether conservatives are less informed. By less informed I am inclined to believe you mean that they are not as entrenched with beliefs associated with the liberal education system and the media. I did research Kathleen Hall Jamieson and found that she is definitely very far to the left in her opinions and associations so for her to say something about Rush Limbaugh holds no more truth then Rush commenting on her would. I would also highly question the validity of her poll, and what criteria they used when selecting the participants. Who actually takes a poll like this seriously? By Rush Limbaugh listeners I assume you would include Tea Party folks in your criticism so I will provide a link to a study that found Tea Party types to have better cognitive skills then their idealistic liberal counterparts. http://www.ijreview.com... I will not resort to name calling, as you have, unless further provoked by the insulting nature of your far left assesment. By the way the study was conducted at Yale, where Kathleen Hall Jamieson would never get a job I bet.
Cats secretly rule the world

"How could cats ever take rule the world when we are in control of them."Firstly, are we in control of them? We give them free food, we clean their toilets and we give them a place to live. However this is not of our free will. Cats use subliminal messaging to control our minds and make us help them.Secondly, I will excuse the fact that my opponent did not remember that a question requires a question mark."the cat is not the one in charge, it is in fact the human."Then why was the cat not excused from jury duty?Also your link does not work, it gives a 404 error, check you links next time.
Cats secretly rule the world

My opponent has stated that cat's have been summoned to jury duty. How would a cat going to jury duty effect whether or not cat's in general rule the world. The fact that one cat was summoned by idiotic people does not prove that a species or whatever word you wish to use are in total control of the world. Secondly, How could cats ever take rule the world when we are in control of them. Have you ever seen a cat with a laser pointer, or a cat with yarn, they get hypnotised by simple things. "This is against common sense" well, i just read your article and in it the cat could not communicate and simply its owner said " He'll probably do a meow for the answer" which shows the cat is not the one in charge, it is in fact the human.http://m.nydailynews.com...;
Cats secretly rule the world

Cats have secretly been training as ninjas in order to quickly and quietly take down an average sized person. Here is some pictures of a ninja cats training. http://www.sparklecat.com... Cats have not just taken over the martial art industry but also the law courts. http://m.nydailynews.com... this article shows that a cat has been summoned for jury duty. This is against common sense, let alone the law so the only assumption we can make is the cat is blackmailing/bribing someone to get them to vote against a court case."cool beans bro."This is a false statement, I am not in fact your brother.
Macro evolution doesn't happen

Again, I have to correct you. Your premise is false. Macro-evolution is not taught in schools. It's not a valid scientific term. Evolutionary theory is taught in schools, Along with its two methods; natural and artificial selection. (Note: 'theory' means 'scientific theory', I. E. There's substantial supporting empirical evidence) You are correct in saying that homogenous structures prove nothing, And that we have no way of knowing if the owner of many skeletons (what I assume you mean when you say 'fossil') had children. That's about where your correctness finishes. As to the former, There's no such thing as 'proof' in anything except mathematics. Homogenous structures in many and most animals SUGGEST a common ancestor (please note that the example I provided is not the only example). In terms of the latter, Some fossils are found with offspring (eggs or juveniles). Some have signs of birth. Some are juvenile. We 'know' that there's a species, When we find multiple skeletons and other fossils with matching characteristics (coprolites as well). Imagine, If you will, A colour wheel, Or gradient. If I were to provide you with an individual pixel or selection, You'd most likely know undoubtedly which colour it is. But in the middle, It gets murky. You can't really tell which colour is which. The same with evolution. I'm undeniably a human. But go back far enough, One of my ancestors will undeniably be the common ancestor we share with apes. And then other mammals. Then on and on and on, Until you get to monocellular organisms. It is undeniable that my children, And their children, Will be homo sapiens. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But eventually, In hundreds of thousands or millions of years, The gradual changes will become significant, And my descendants won't be homo sapiens.
Macro evolution doesn't happen

For starters I would like to say that I mean that macro evolution doesn't occur and it's not a word created by creationist it's part of the school curriculum Yes we do have similar bone structures in that regard but I don't think that it proves anything only a common designer and about the the fossil finding, When you find a fossil the only thing you can prove is that it died you can't prove if it had any children let alone any children different to what it is eg the offspring of Apes will be Apes, The offspring of humans will be humans there are no exceptions.
Macro evolution doesn't happen

I have to start off by saying that your belief is absolutely correct. There is no such thing as 'macro evolution'. It, Along with micro evolution and evolutionist, Is a meaningless word invented by Creationists. There is, However, Plenty of evidence for long term and short term evolution. I would like to first start by defining evolution. Evolution is the change of heritable characteristics in a population over time. Basically, Over time, A species' phenotypes (alleles), And by extension genotypes (expression of alleles), Will change to suit its environment over time. This is an incredibly gradual process. Over many, Many generations, Various members will be born. Some may have better suited genes. Some may have less suited genes. This occurs as a rough bell curve. The most suitable members are more likely to survive long enough to procreate, And pass on those favourable genes. Gradually, The less favourable genes will reduce in expression, Become recessive, And even die out or become dormant. As I said, There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Take our fingers and arms. We see a similar structure in such animals as birds, Other mammals, Reptiles, Etc. This is known as homogenous structures, And suggests a common ancestor. We've found fossils that suggest hominids and apes diverged a few million years ago, And that those hominids themselves diverged into various species, Including modern humans. On a smaller scale, Take insects. In the 20th century, Equipped with a far better understanding of chemistry, We started employing pesticides, To increase crop output. Generally, This worked. But after a few insect generations, The pesticides started losing effectiveness. The more resistant insects were surviving longer, And producing more resistant offspring. We kept stepping up our pesticides, And insects kept getting more resistant. Need I go on?
Macro evolution doesn't happen

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, Although I will offer a revision. The terms were not invented by creationists, But are so commonly seized upon by them that many people dismiss them. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. I really am. One less educated person. There is most certainly evidence for long term and short term evolution. That you refuse to accept it is indicative of nothing. This is all I have to say on the matter.
Macro evolution doesn't happen

Well you could say that I was taught that in school and that was the term they used macro evolution is just a branch of evolution its more specific. So then you have no ground to even argue if there's nothing to support it it almost doesn't make any sense to me, It's like saying the color of the sky changes every 100, 000 years in the short term there's nothing that suggests that even happens so how could it happen in the long term also in my opinion no much changes with every offspring except for appearance the child will inherit the parents facial and ethic features as well as height. This is all I have to say on the matter
dress codes for schools

PRO Greetings, worthy opponent. Thank you for offering this challenge. In this round, I would like to state my views on the resolution 'resolved: Should there be dress codes for schools". I strong support the idea: Dress codes is absolutely essential for schools and should be implemented in all school systems. Before I move on to my three main contentions, I would like to clarify the key term: Dress codes: A set of rules regard on how a student should dress up in school Now I shall expand on my three contentions: Contention1: Students are irrepressible with their clothing A school without dress codes is like a city without laws. Students can be very irresponsible when it comes to dressing up. Often times students will dress up in a way that either it can be inappropriate for school or distracting for other students" learning. In school, it is really important to avoid clothing that shows too much skin, expresses explicit information, or is offensive in any form. Dress codes has alway been keeping the schools student-friendly, learning-friendly environments. Contention2: Absence of dress codes can lead to bullying School is all about learning, but many students may worry about their appearance more than learning when dress codes is not applied. Students can wear those fancy "cool" clothing for showing off and some students can get left out. People will be judged on what they wear then bullying will start happening. It is crucial to have dress codes to keep the students respectful to their peers and teachers. Contention3: Dress codes keeps the students safe Imagine doing a 400m run on jeans, and slippers. You might look great, but it is a disadvantage to your pe class. It is very easy to get hurt in jeans and slippers and when you do, the school is going to take responsibilities. The lack of dress codes is a detriment to both you and the school, and with it, students will not be hurt because of their terrible choice of clothing. After all, dress codes is very critical in schools. Without it, students may get bullied, hurt, or distracted from learning. Thank you
dress codes for schools

i dont agree with dress code it takes away from students including my self, even though i dont listen to the dress code i dont agree with it. The freedom of expression is something that is taken from us in school becuase someone thinks for us and others and people listen to that, no i dont listen to this because collared shirts bugs me and it wastes so much money. Every year you have to go and buy new shirts cuz the others dont fit or the dress code has changed again and you cant wear this color now, students individuality gets taken away from them, and no it doesnt prepare us for a work environment. Everybody was a kid or teenager at one point and they want to be comfortable and themselves. the schools go and tell us what we can and cant wear but who is to enforce this when parents get involved and go against the dress code what do they do now. they make more rules and now you cant wear these shoes anymore or you cant wear those pants anymore who do they think