BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a lie

chipmonk Pro I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate. There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not. Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. Report this Argument
LD Sept/Oct

Comments: I'm assuming this doesn't follow traditional LD-style debate because there is no CX. My intention in a real-world debate would have been to use a different value criterion, like moral proportionality. Observation 1: The negative did not negate my definitions, so he implicitly accepted them. My opponents case: I accept his value but I negate the justification for his value criterion. Rights are universal, and everyone shares the right to life, therefore it is important to minimize violations of these rights. If we do not choose to kill one innocent person, we are choosing to infringe on the rights of more innocent people; killing the innocent person minimizes rights violations. Contention 1: When we kill the innocent person, their right to life is violated, but when we cause the death of more innocent people, we violate their individual rights. Choosing to kill the innocent person prevents violation of the rights of more people, therefore minimizing rights violations. Contention 2: Utilitarianism does not justify slavery; slavery does not produce the greatest good for the greatest number because the suffering among the slave population is greater than the utility of the white majority. The resolution does not state that it is selective in choosing the one person who has to die. My case: Contention 1: Utilitarianism ethics only violates minority rights when the utility caused towards the majority by the actions exceeds the pain brought upon the minority. Contention 2: Affirming the resolution does minimize rights violations; you do violate their rights by depriving them of their right to life, when you have a choice between either letting them die or killing an innocent person. Letting them die violates their right to life, while killing one person only violates one persons right to life. Violating the right to life of one person yields far less violations of rights than violating the rights of more people, therefore, this contention stands. Contention 3: Killing and letting die yield the same consequences, therefore killing and letting die are morally equivalent because they both bring equal suffering upon society. As for the example referencing starving children in Africa, you would not be responsible for their deaths because you are not proactively condemning them to death. The resolution provides a clear choice between action and inaction. Action better promoting moral permissibility because less harm is caused to society due to less deaths, than inaction, which brings more harm upon society by allowing more to die. Conclusion: Negating the resolution increases rights violations and causes more harm to be brought upon society; whereas affirming it minimizes rights violations and also minimizes harm brought upon society.
LD Sept/Oct

to LR4N6FTW4EVA: I accepted this debate challenge by accident so I'm not fully prepared; it's up to you whether or not you want to continue with this debate. I affirm: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. Value: Morality Criterion: Consequentialism Definitions- kill: to deprive of life moral permissibility: adheres to standards of right behavior Contentions- 1. Utilitarianism Letting the majority of people live maximizes utility. 2. Minimize rights violations Life is the most valuable human right because it serves as a pre-requisite to all other rights. 3. The Harm Principle According to John Locke, an action is morally permissible if it prevents greater harm to society. There is no moral difference between killing and allowing someone to die, because the consequences for both are the same. Preventing the deaths of more people by killing one better promotes morality when compared to condemning many to death.
Iceman would beat Spider-Man in combat!

"Dying" only occurs in specific, controlled situations when profits are down, and characters always return within a few years, at most. Ults!Spider-Man died because the Ultimates-verse is a universe essentially created to allow writers to do whatever they wanted. In the main 616 verse, Spider-Man would not be killed off right now, especially after the lower sales of SSM where they 'killed off' Peter in a sense by merging him with Ock [1]. Even putting that aside, Peter has previously won against a foe literally made out of fire- Firelord- who, is "the humanoid equivalent of a miniature sun." with nothing but his wits [2] [3]. If he can beat a foe who "can burn through any Earthly substance", a man who does the opposite would be a cinch. Firelord also happens to have power grid rankings much higher than that of Iceman [3]. Thus, in sum, for both meta and in-universe reasons, Peter would not lose against Bobby. [1]tinyurl.com/kybqz6w [2]tinyurl.com/ih10m [3]tinyurl.com/hi790
Iceman would beat Spider-Man in combat!

Just because a character is more popular does not mean they are more likely to survive. Wolverine, one of the most iconic Marvel characters, recently died in the Death of Wolverine #4. Captain America died in the Civil War story arc. Spider-Man himself has died in Universe-1610, showing that it would be possible for him to die in 616. It was confirmed that Bobby was suppressing his powers for a short period of time [1] and still has his powers. Although Spider-Man is very clever, his intellect cannot save him from being frozen in an instant. Iceman has the ability to transform himself into virtually indestructible ice, making it impossible for someone like Spider-Man to injure him. Iceman is also able to make his body temp 0 Kelvin, so if Spidey were to touch him, he'd freeze. The only thing stopping Iceman from killing Spider-Man is his morals. [1] http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com...
Iceman would beat Spider-Man in combat!

The parameters of the combat have not been established. From our sources, I conclude that we've both agreed that this is 616-verse. However, in that case, it is very possible that Iceman is weakened due to the events of M-Day [1], although it has been confirmed that he has not completely lost his powers [2]. As well, Spider-Man has won against foes much more powerful than him through clever planning numerous times before- coupled with his Plot Armour due to his real-life popularity, the probability of him winning grows exponentially [3]. Even if this battle is set to occur spontaneously, without any planning on either side, Spider-Man could likely escape long enough to whip something up, unless you insist that that would result in him forfeiting the fight. [1] tinyurl.com/lko7l27 [2] tinyurl.com/wq233f [3] tinyurl.com/1j029
Iceman would beat Spider-Man in combat!

Iceman has been stated to be an Omega-Level Mutant, or a mutant that has powers without foreseeable limits. Iceman has the ability to change any form of water into ice and can change his body temperature to Absolute Zero. Thus, Iceman would be able to freeze the water in Spider-Man's body, killing him immediately. Iceman also has the ability to create clones of himself out of ice. He can therefore be able to beat up Spidey from several different places as much, if he wills Spider-Man to live that long. http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616)
Iceman would beat Spider-Man in combat!

Let us first examine Iceman and Spider-Man's power grid ratings. Peter beats Bobby by 2 in intelligence and 1 in strength. Their speed and fighting skills are the same. Bobby beats Peter by 1 in durability, and by 4in energy projection. [1, 2] From their base stats alone, it's difficult to place a winner. Bobby, as a mutant, may beat Peter overwhelmingly in the energy projection category, but Peter's fought beings with energy projection powers before, and won. Peter's also got technological items he made due to his intelligence that level the playing field. It could be also argued that Peter's better strength is canceled out by Bobby's better durability. However, Peter has two damning advantages. First, he is much more intelligent. With everything else about the same, intelligence makes all the difference. Secondly, Peter is more popular. From that alone, the writers would be more likely to have him win. Thus, Spider-Man would win in a battle. [1] tinyurl.com/1j029 [2] tinyurl.com/wq
Everything at 18 (driving, drinking, voting, etc.)

I will take the same structure of response as my oppositon."If you want a system that's more simple, simply don't have a system at all." You say that this is not made to be simple but you are just making this debate easier by saying things I haven't said. I never said that I wanted to erase the system altogether. I said I wanted to make it simpler. You say that if this is what I want, well let's do away with the system all together! But I think you forgot that this system is made to be understood by people like you and me, of diverse intelligence and knowledge of American politics. So I believe making it more simple is not a bad thing at all."If puberty and whatnot all happened at once, and our brain completely changed its shape in a split second, becoming fully developed, I'm certain something undesirable would happen."Now, I know that when someone becomes an adult at 18. There are no drastic physical changes that happen to their body or brain. But what is the use of saying you become an adult at 18 if all you get for it is the possibility of voting? In most countries, where verything is at 18, you say that you become an adult because that means you get all of those new rights. But in the US? What is the use of 'becoming an adult'? "They research this sh*t. They don't just get up one day and go "LET'S MAKE THINGS CRAZIER!""Everyone know things like alcohol effects on the brain are researched, that's not the point. Although you may say that we should not allow drinking at 18 because it damages the brain MORE than at 21, we all know that this rule is almost in everyone's life broken at least once.ANd if it causes damage, why not make the age even more than 21? or even abolish the consumption of alcohol all together? Because poeple would still not respect the rule anyway."Yeah, I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of our government over here, Pro."It may be true I do not have as much understanding of it as you, CON, but I believe you shouldn't once again invent things I say. The dialogue you added before this line was completely made up, and nothing in it was something I said. You may think it is funny to make up things the opposition has said so you can feel better about yourself, but I do not. I know that the president does not make up the laws, and this has nothing to do with wether or not I paid attention in class. I would like you to give a bit more respect to me, as this is a legitimate debate.That's all for this round.
Everything at 18 (driving, drinking, voting, etc.)

First, allow my argument to derive from my opponent's a bit. As in, I'll rebut for my argument.A Lesson from Dredd: The Meaning of the Law"Everything at 18 is easier. Having different ages for each each thing where it is necessary to enforce a legal age limit on (driving at 16 and a half, voting at 18, drinking at 21) is a very complicated system."Unfortunately, notwithstanding what you may have believed hitherto: The law is not there as a means of having a simple system. If you want a system that's more simple, simply don't have a system at all. If there's no law system, then my side would still be correct, as the limit isn't 18. It's simply nonexistent.The law is there as a means of legislating what to enforce to enforce the security of our lives. If that means limiting different things at different ages, then so be it. We develop different abilities at different times. If puberty and whatnot all happened at once, and our brain completely changed its shape in a split second, becoming fully developed, I'm certain something undesirable would happen.Like Death.Why We Need Different AgesSo, we develop at different times for different things. It only makes sense to only give what's been developed at the age it's developed, instead of giving everything.I believe this is how you imagine it."Mr. President! Drinking age is 18. That's just like everything else!""What!? Man, we need to be more wonky and stuff. MAKE ALL THE AGES DIFFERENT! MAKE DRINKING AGE 21!"Here's the truth."Mr. President, studies show that the brain takes significantly more damage to inhibition at the age of 18 in opposition to 21.[1]""Very well. I don't know why you're telling me this, since only the States can decide that kinda stuff.""Just thought it was a fun fact. I released the study.""Great. Man, I sure am glad that whole Communism thing blew over."[All the States later changed the Drinking Age to 21.]They research this sh*t. They don't just get up one day and go "LET'S MAKE THINGS CRAZIER!"Also, if you're going to argue that we should make the age 21 for everything, that's still not your argument based on your thesis. It's also a pain in the a*s to wait until 21 for everything.Finally...OMFG EMOTIONS IM SO BORED SO CHANGE THE LAW"When you get all the things at once...you feel the country accepts you...In the Us, it's like, 'You are now responsible and mature, but let's not go to far, am I right?!'"Wow."Mr. President!""Wh-!? How did this kid-how the hell did you get into my House!?""I want you to change the law so I can feel accepted by the country!""Kid, you've got some serious problems.""LOVE ME.""I don't even...make the laws...do you pay attention in class?""Not really.""Yeah, me neither. Wanna go get a drink?""No, I can't.""OH! Yeah. Right. Haha! Ha. Loser."Yeah, I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of our government over here, Pro. http://report.nih.gov...
Everything at 18 (driving, drinking, voting, etc.)

I will start by saying that my opponent has understood the position he is taking in this debate. I have many reasons for being for this resolution: 1. Everything at 18 is easier. Having different ages for each each thing where it is necessary to enforce a legal age limit on (driving at 16 and a half, voting at 18, drinking at 21) is a very complicated system. It becomes very difficult to have different ages to remember, even considering these sometimes change as you change region. This is why I believe we should have only one age for all things needing a certain age limit. 2. Why 18? 18 is the age where we become an adult, where we are supposed to have our own responsibilities, etc. So why only give these eighteen-year-olds the right to vote. In my country, as I have already said, we have already adopted this idea, making becoming an adult a big thing. When you get all the things at once, you truly understand responsibility, as you feel the country accepts you as a responsible adult. In the Us, it's like, 'You are now responsible and mature, but let's not go to far, am I right?!' This is all I wish to say for this round.
Wingdinavia is REAL

Wingdinavia is a real country, for all of you who want to know. First off, let me give you some background information about Wingdinavia. Wingdinavia was founded 5 multieons ago by Master Han, who wanted to create peace and strength in the Choo-Choo galaxy. Master Han created a language called Wingdings 4, and he named his country after his newfound language. He wrote the Queesha, a sacred book about the information about Wingdinavia. This country divided into 32 provinces that is now known as the Wingdinavian Union. The capital of Wingdinavia is Wingdinavia City. It is currently ruled by Master Lee, the 10th master. The order of the masters are: Master Han, Master Hook, Master Pok, Master Chin, Master Gol, Master Udonk, Master Nupo, Master Lin, Master Choi, and now Master Lee. These masters have upheld the sacred culture of Wingdinavia and defending our country against the Ingdings. The Ingdings are the rival country of Wingdinavia. As you can obviously see, the Ingdings just took a "W" off of our name and called it their own. Ingdinavia is ruled by Master Akluki, a pedophile and a psychotic exiled from Wingdinavia for his gross behavior. He made Ingdinavia a rival country against Wingdinavia after the Ingdings lost the Great War of the Choo-Choo galaxy. For all of the people who say Wingdinavia isn't real, I would like to see evidence that disproves my points. The Choo-Choo galaxy is the seventh galaxy from the Milky Way, and no telescope or space craft can see that far. So therefore, there is no evidence that disproves the existence of Wingdinavia. Please challenge me so I can kick your motherfuckking asss because i have all of the cards, so suck my big Wingdinavian D!CKKK
Spanking

Since, RogueScholar, has yet to post an actual argument, R1 essentially being a GRRRRR rant. I'll let RogueScholar actually make an argument so I have something to rebut. Should this rant behaviour continue, I will likewise postpone till the final round, introduce the same argument as can be found in this thread: http://www.debate.org... RogueScholar, now has the opportunity to provide sound evidence that corporal punishment is indeed effective and not a throwback to Catholicism inspired educational methods that rightfully belong in the past. :)
Spanking

Frankly speaking Puck, the other methods that I'm sure you would advocate has harmed many students over the years because their out of control peers (bullies) have physically harmed them and intimidated them. But it is an awful crime and "sin" if a principal were to spank one of these poor, misfortunate bullies. Let me ask you a question,when was the last time you were bullied at work? I'm sure never. But we let this happen to well-behaved kids everyday, who all they want to do is be in school and follow the rules. But I forgot, the "experts" like you have all the answers. Fill me in on your solutions, because I'm going to take them and make a lots of money writing a book and doing workshops across the country.
Gay Marriage

Your argument was some fantasy where allowing gay people to get married would some how lead to the extinction of man! Pretty laughable assertion! I made the joke that it would happen by everyone turning gay! That was me entertaining your childish notion! You have zero evidence for your claim and you laugh at my hypothesis that the "Gay Gene" could be natures way of saying slow down! Do you understand what exponential growth means? I'm sure you shrugged off them mention of poverty and orphaned children because you could care less of the very negative effects over population! Again you can shrug off my argument all you like because yours holds absolutely no weight... You are homophobic deal with it!
Gay Marriage

It is irrelevant whether our society actually needs to be populated or not. Fact is, the old will die out and we'll need people to replace them. Society needs human beings in order to thrive and continue. Besides my opponent's argument on population, he rants on about extremely irrelevant and actually rather laughable assertions such as homosexuality existing because of population control and that allowing gay marriage would make people gay. Both of these silly assertions are completely irrelevant to the debate. He then continues ranting about homophobia blah blah blah which I already explained that there is no homophobia; we just want to define marriage in a way that best benefits society. I also already expained that hatred towards homosexuals is unjust and should be stopped.ConclusionMy opponent does not even try to refute my opening argument and goes on with some irrelevant stuff and rants about homophobia. There wasn't much to respond to, so yeah. My arguments still stand.
Gay Marriage

So your going with the survival argument! I think that is rubbish! That has nothing to do with why the gays are not allowed to get married! You speculate that it will have some detrimental effect on our population grow! Am I the only one that think that the "mutation" that causes homo-sexuality might have something to do with population control? Unless your insinuating that if gay people got married some how that would make everyone gay! Our population is out of control including the homeless, poor, orphaned children. I'm sticking with the old statement that the anti gay marriage campaign is led by homophobia (Usually a fear that you could be gay)
Gay Marriage

My ArgumentThere is a reason the goverment regulates marriage. If marriage were strictly about the love between two consenting adults there would be no reason for the state to not only recognize the marriage, but to also give the couple marital rights.The reason the state recognizes marriage is because marriage, when used correctly, can benefit the society. Heterosexual marriages inhetertently benefit society because the relationship they pursue, when fulfilled at it's best naturally benefits society through procreation and the proper raising of children. It is obvious that only a society that has people in it will continue to thrive and if those people were raised properly we will have a well-run society. Homosexual relationships cannot procreate nor can they raise children properly for society; because this relationship does not benefit society in any way the state should not recognize it. Response to My Opponent's ArgumentMy opponent's main argument for gay marriage is that we should just stop being homophobic and allow them into the institution. While I do completely agree that any hatred against homosexuals is unjust and should be stopped, that really has nothing to do with the reasons homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry. I have shown why they shouldn't marry in my argument.
Gay Marriage

First I want to point out that I am heterosexual! Like most people I went to school with, I was brainwashed into homophobia! Being called a homo sexual was the ultimate insult, but that was 14 years ago! A lot has changed, but the word "Gay" has held its ground as an insult! My argument is that preventing Gay marriage is holding on to that phobia! It is inviting ignorance and hate as a "Moral Backbone"! I would like to think that we have moved past our junior high state of mind and have become more tolerant of differences throughout the years!