BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does not exist

I will also be brief just for simplicity. I shall begin by saying that the best reason for me is that there is no good reasons for the existence of a creator, and I am interested what my opponent have to say about that so I can give a longer counter arguments in the next rounds. I think the deist God is the most difficult to reject, and one could make a reasonable case for his existence, not one that I accept. The absolute lack of evidence. The atheistic proposition may not be that there is no God, but the lack of evidence for the existence of one. All science is based on reason and not faith. There isn't a slightest piece evidence or reason that there is a supernatural being who created the universe, defined the laws of nature and beyond reasonable doubt created us in his image. Its the theistic position to claim such evidence exists. The Unnecessary explanationYou don't need a supernatural being to fill the gaps of science, in order to explain them. A creator does not make things easier, because of the complexity in explanation of the creator itself. For example you don't need god to explain the diversity and beauty of all living things, which Darwin explains by evolution by natural selection. One can use his personal incredulity and nonsense to suggest that they have been designed by a God. There is a perfectly good explanation on how thing evolved, and lack of explanation in the existence and origin of a God. Starting from something complex leads you nowhere in the first place. Its much more easier to suggest that the origin of the universe has a naturalistic solution and came by the laws of nature. Ocaam's razor deal with this problem very well.1. No evidence for the existence of a God.2. No need for a supernatural intervention.3. From 1 and 2, no reason to think there is a God.
Stress can have positive effects

Stress can have negative effects on the human body in mental, Physical, Emotional and behavioural ways. This is scene through many side effects that many people research about and find. Even though scientists have now discovered that stress can have positive effects on the human body there are more negative effects that are harmful and dangerous. Stress is key for survival, But too much stress can be detrimental. Indeed, Stress symptoms can affect your body, Your thoughts and feelings, And your behaviour.
The Democratic party is slowly being taken over by Socialist thinking types

Even if you don't like socialism or the democratic party, You might see it as a good thing, Finally the democratic party has come out of the closet. . Might that not help your side make your case better in a way. . My point is i am sick of the democratic party trying to be this wishy washy everything to everybody, I want the party to have definite positions i want it to stand for SOMETHING! You might actually benifit from that as people get to choose which side they are on. . It might let the Republican party become sane again as moderates flee to your party. . Or start an independent movment i see no down side for anyone
The Democratic party is slowly being taken over by Socialist thinking types

Socialism and democracy are incompatible. History is full of instances of socialist regimes that at one point were committed to the values of personal liberty, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and freedom of association, But then find themselves clamping down on such freedoms as they end up being viewed as inconvenient or contrary towards their political or economic goals. A society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, In the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom. Picking a side can be done without compromising your principles. You cannot be democratic and socialist at the same time.
Shut down Congress

There is a lot of talk about taking back America...but no ACTION!!! You noticed in history, Americans took action against the British. So, how do we take it back??...you revolt. Oh, you dont want to die for freedom/change/take back...sooner or later, you or your children will have to do something drastic to make/take back America. Here is my plan...PAY NO MORE TAXES....to: City, State, Federal entities. If only 25% of Americans/American Businesses took these steps....Congress would freeze/stop...Govenment Officials would be on their knees in seconds...asking the PEOPLE; "What do you want me to do?"""TODAY??? ...oh!...you dont want to go to jail...freedom is not free....so how many will they have to jail??? The key to successfully "not pay taxes"...is NOT PAY who?...not... the City/State/Federal entity....but keyhole it until we get America back....believe me, this will work, much better than TALK!
Is the Federal Government necessary to have a stable life here in the United States

Accepted. Definition 1: Stable=Not likely to change Argument: My opponent has essentially made my argument for me. By saying that "The government is trying to control every aspect of your lives", my opponent is indicating that the federal government impacts lives daily. This means that change would occur if the federal government was lost because without the cause causing an effect, the effect is gone too. Going back to stable's definition, in order to have a stable life, things would need to be not likely to change. However, not having the government would do the opposite of promoting a stable life as change would inevitably be included. Additionally, not having a federal government would make it impossible for stable life in the United States for another reason. This is that the federal government is what makes the states united. Without the federal government, there is no United States of America, just 50 random states. Summary: Not having a federal government would induce change that would promote anything but stability. Without the federal government, the U.S. doesn't exist, therefore stable life within can't exist either.
Is the Federal Government necessary to have a stable life here in the United States

The Federal Government is not necessary to have a stable life here in the U.S. Here are some reasons why: The State Government has the ability to over-ride the Federal Government, so let the States decide their own laws. The Government is trying to control every aspect of your lives but you do not see the State Government doing that. The Federal Government acts like a "figurehead" if you will. There is no use for a "Government" that is controlling, can be over-ridden, and acts as a threat to the Constitution. Leave the Governing to the States, and stay out of Americans lives
I will not contradict myself!

Thanks for a timely response. =====Contradictions===== As I have stated, I may be insane but I do not know. So this is not a contradiction as I am possibly insane. =====Answers===== 1. I have lied before in my life. 2. I am a muslim. 3. I have sung in the past year. 4. I may enjoy math under certain circumstances, but i generally do not enjoy math. 5. I do enjoy listening to music, some songs more than others. 6. I will not forfeit this debate. 7. I do not enjoy ad hominens. 8. That statement is incorrect considering the fact that my opponent put "is" instead of "equals". 1^2 is not 2 as it has a 1^ in the beginning of the statement. 9. I do enjoy using debate.org. 10. I do enjoy debating. 11. That is a contradictory statement. It is neither true nor false as it cannot be answered. Please note that you cannot say that what I said is a contradiction unless you provide a correct answer to your question proving that I was wrong. Thank you again. Please note that your last round will be only pointing out contradictions and promoting your case. It should not have any questions since this is the last round and I will not be able to answer your questions.
I will not contradict myself!

CONTRADICTIONS My opponent states that he does not know if he is insane. However, then he said people who are insane do not know they're insane. How does he know the latter unless he is insane himself? Vote con! QUESTIONS 1. Have you ever lied? 2. Are you a Muslim? 3. Have you sung in the past year? 4. Do you like Math? 5. Do you like Music? 6. Are you going to forfeit this debate? 7. Do you like ad hominens? 8. 1^2 is 2. Is that statement correct? 9. Do you like debate.org? 10. Do you like debating? 11. Is this statement false?
I will not contradict myself!

Thanks for a timely response. 1. I do not always enjoy singing. 2. I could enjoy mooting depending on the topic. 3. I have mooted in my life. 4. Anybody can betray their friend, no matter what kind of person they are. They could be forced to do it. So I am not necessarily the type of person who would betray his friend. 5. I have betrayed somebody in my life. 6. This question is a contradiction. I believe that is a valid answer to that question but if you don't view it to be so, feel free to post 11 questions next round. 7.I could be insane but I do not know because insane people don't actually know if they are insane or not. I do not BELIEVE that I am insane. 8. Insane people are not knowingly insane. 9. I have sung before in my life. 10. I do believe in god. Thank You again for accepting this debate. Good Luck.
I will not contradict myself!

This will be fun. Good luck! (You're going to need it). 1. Do you like to sing? 2. Do you like mooting? 3. Have you ever mooted? 4. Are you the kind of person to betray your friend? 5. Have you ever betrayed someone? 6. Will you answer this question by saying, "No"? 7. Are you insane? 8. Are insane people knowingly insane? 9. Have you ever sung? 10. Do you believe in god? Thank you.
I will not contradict myself!

Rules: 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. 6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself. Good luck to whoever my opponent may be.
I will not contradict myself!

Thank you for this debate. "As I have stated, I may be insane but I do not know. So this is not a contradiction as I am possibly insane." Yes, this is a contradiction. You KNOW for sure people who are insane are not knowingly insane, yet you are not 100% sure that you are insane. Therefore, you either know you are insane or you do not. Here are some of the rules: "5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. 6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself." There seems to be only 3 rounds to this debate instead of 5 ad the terms suggest! VOTE CON!!!! My opponent contradicted himself 2 times!!!!
wind turbines are a godd source of energy

Firstly I assume you mean wind turbine and a whole lot of space. I would like to address three issues made in tsmit611's argument. A wind TURBINE may be tall but the width is about the size of a semi mature tree. As with no wind these giants are strategically placed where the wind always lows. now to my argument. Wind turbines are Eco friendly and can reduce the amount of coal used if wind turbines go more strain would be put on solar and kinetic energy
should junior high and high school students have to take random drug testes

As I looked at some of your sources I notice that the 31,000 dollars spent on drug tests was over a period of 5 years which is only 6,200 dollars a year which I think is very reasonable. Also as a member of my schools basketball team I would hate to have the player above me in the lineup be taking steroids and be stronger than me because of it. Also you are arguing for schools to tolerate drug use even if they know it is happening you think they should take no actions to prove that accusation and not help that student with their life threatening problem. Letting this student do this puts everyone around him or her at risk of drug use as well. If you think drug use is ok for young Americans of this generation that is your opinion but I will not tolerate drug use of my peers and I will push for random drug tests. :)
should junior high and high school students have to take random drug testes

My opponent argues that drug tests are not a violation of privacy because they are beneficial to students. First of all, even if they are beneficial, they are still a violation of privacy. An act done with good intentions does not make the act itself good. Secondly, what about all the students who don't benefit from their privacy being violated? My sources have shown, and Pro has failed to counter them, that it is a tiny percentage of students who have been caught because of drug tests. The vast majority were either clean or not caught, and all they received was a violation of their right to privacy. Next, Pro argues that a price can't be placed on life itself. This is a nice sentiment. However, I have shown the exorbitant amounts of money sucked into the drain of random drug testing with very little success. Surely there are better ways this money could be used to combating illegal drug usage. Educational programs, counselors, and the like reach all of the students at a lower cost, compared to random drug tests, which reach a fraction of the students at a high cost. Pro invokes an emotional fallacy in claiming that "you can't put a price on life itself." Not every drug taken leads to death, nor does someone necessarily die with repeated infractions. Pro has raised the stakes to life and death when this is inaccurate. Additionally, when schools implement random drug tests, this may actually discourage parents and counselors from warning kids about the dangers of drugs, as both will see the school as having taken on the responsibility. And the school, as I have shown, is ineffective in doing so. Pro believes that classes and the like "may not be enough" (spelling corrected), but he provides no evidence to support this whereas I have clearly given many reasons why implementing random drug tests might actually be worse. I shall reiterate them here: that students feel more like criminals in an environment of suspicion and scrutiny, which may be a motivating factor to doing drugs, that it violates the students' privacy, that it punishes them rather than educates them, and that it may discourage parents and other officials from educating them. For instance, in 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that drug testing in schools had produced "no evidence that drug-testing policies led male students to avoid drug use or engage in less drug use" and only a "slight impact on influencing female students" [1]. However. this slight impact appeared only when the schools reinforced a positive and safe environment - something that, in most cases, students will not feel when they are subjected to random drug tests. Again, I would like to thank Pro for his argument. He is welcome for his assistance with his school project. I look forward to seeing my opponent in the final round, and I urge you to vote Con! [1] http://articles.latimes.com...
should junior high and high school students have to take random drug testes

The drug tests are not a violation of privacy especially if it could kill or seriously affect the student immediately or in the future the schools money spent on drug tests is well spent towards a good cause even if only 2 people come back positive that is 2 peoples lives that could be saved and you cant put a price on life it self. The schools job is to teach the students in every way possible even if it means to find out if the student is using drugs they teach them to not use drugs and the affect it has. I believe that classes on the affects and consequences of using drugs may not be enuff for students who are already on drugs. I thank you for helping me decide and finish my school project
should junior high and high school students have to take random drug testes

My opponent noticed that $31,000 applied to a period of 5 years. I did state this - "In the last five years, it spent $31,000 on drug testing. .. " My opponent simplified this to $6,200 a year and claims this is a reasonable price. However, the school found a total of 4 students in all five years. If we extend my opponent's logic, this is less than one student a year found using random drug testing. This means that, in at least one year, $6,200 went down the drain, as not a single student was found using a random drug test. Now we don't know how many students were found each year - it could have been three in one year or they could have been spread out, etc. We do know that four were found total. This means that the cost amounted to $7,750 per student. I retain my argument that a better use of this money would go to educational programs, counseling services, and other alternatives to random drug testing. My opponent falsely accuses me of arguing that schools should "take no actions to prove that [students are using illegal drugs]". I never said that the school shouldn't take action. If a student is found using drugs, of course he or she should be disciplined. My opponent committed a straw man fallacy and argued against a point I never made. It is still possible to catch students using drugs without a random drug test and, if this happens, of course they should be punished. What I argued was that people do not die every time they take drugs. My opponent also makes up an accusation by arguing that I think it might be okay for young Americans to do drugs. I never said anything of the sort. I simply argued for alternative methods of preventing drugs rather than random drug tests, which I have proven to be ineffective. That my opponent is on the basketball team and would hate to see another player do better because of steroids is irrelevant to the debate. However, if this scenario were to occur, the player on steroids would likely arouse suspicion with his playing. Any drug test on him would not be random - it is important to note this - because his usage of drugs was already suspect. I am arguing against random drug testing. My opponent dropped my arguments about random drug testing discouraging parents and counselors from warning students. From this, it can only be concluded that he concedes these points. Please extend them. My opponent likewise dropped my argument that students in an environment with random drug testing feel more untrusted and stressed, which may actually cause drug usage. Please extend this argument as well.
abortion

Abortion is murder. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The fact that a fetus is a human being is undeniable. It isn't a different species or an alien race. It is a human being. If you plan to get an abortion, which is premeditated, then you are by definition committing murder. It is by no reason just a "women's right to choose." Society thinks that abortion is only a women's right. That is false. The baby isn't just created in a woman's womb out of nothing. It is made from a father's sperm. He should have a say in whether or not his wife wants to murder their child. This child is given no rights despite the fact that it is a human. If it was the woman's choice, she would be the one dying and not the innocent child.
It is reasonable to not believe in God

Oh I'm sorry I dint mean to go in this debate because I thought that you were Pro/with the fact that it's unreasonable to belive into a god. But here's my message anyway: For all you Christians out there, religion was invented because there was no scientific explanations for things such has how humans came to be, creation of the universe, and a multitude of other things. But now that we have scientific explanations, like the Big Bang and Evolution, religion is bassicly obsolete. Plus, nobody knows who wrote the bible. And if nobody knows who wrote the bible, no one knows if it was intended as a work of fiction or not. And plus, there is no physical evidence that God, Heaven or hell exists. I know, I know, but Colton Burpo (Heaven is for real) probably picked up most of these things from his parents. Plus, it took like 10 years to "verify" it, and they probably took those 10 years exatturating everything. Plus, you have to be dead to get into heaven.
Are speeding fines nothing more than a thought crime ie. George Orwell 1984

Based on your reply, it seems like you did not read my argument or chose to selectively ignore parts like the study showing that increased speed limits leads to increased accidents. You also misunderstood my point about drunk drivers. Speeding is a sign that someone is intoxicated therefore the legal option to pull someone over for speeding assists in weeding out drunk drivers. Please provide sources for the following statements. I provided sources demonstrating my claims. You did not. 1) As for speed causing accidents, that is a common logical fault. Most accidents happen at low speed, in car parks etc, the fact that some happen at higher speeds is pretty much just a statistical certainty. 2) German autobahns and Some Australian roads have unlimited speed limits and yet have no higher a rate of accidents. 3) Most drink drivers actually drive what they believe is slow to avoid trying to be caught 4) And a car travelling 5 km faster does not increase that risk half as much as someone who has bad driving habits. I stand by my assertions that speeding unnecessarily increases the dangers involved in driving because the evidence backs that up. I refuse to get into a lexical argument with you about the definition of speeding. We both understand the concept as driving faster than is legally permissible. Additionally, the way you are trying to call speeding a thought crime would seem to include all crimes as thought crimes since you claim it is only a crime because we think it is illegal. I have demonstrated that speeding leads to increased fatalities and making it a crime has the additional benefit of catching more drunk drivers before they hurt someone. Ignoring the evidence I presented does not help your case and making claims without evidence does not help your case. Right now you have no case at all.