BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a God and there is nothing you can do about it.

Are you just making all of this up as you go along? Im wondering, Your every claim seems absurd. . Like its not like a cd has a mind, So no there is no information on it, Its about data, And its physical" To me these are just claims after claims of bullshitt suiting your bullshitt faith, Dosnt that just fit your little theist lying asss scheme. . You havnt even gotten to a specifik god yet, So you might as well be arguing for santa creating all life at this point. . Machines don't handle information, They process data, Like with a cd, It has data on it and its ingrained into it, Its got little holes in it that a device like a dvd can read, Its not non material, Try scratching a cd before your put it into your magical mom of a computer This is entirely uninteresting, "we conclude based on this", How do you even get there, This is a debate, Obviously i don't conclude this, I am on the opposing side of the debate, And i don't just kid around, Then i would open up fortnite and blast some little turds on legs Its not a presupposition there there is no god, That is the default, Until there is a god. . See how easy that was? What do you have besides your senses to conclude things about reality? Nothing. . if a god was walking around mountain high and giving commands in a roaring voice as it towers over the mountains, I would agree there is a god, Would you? Did your mom and dad tell you that its true there is a god? I wonder, Cuz then they are bad parents, Enemies can't be trusted you see, Cuz they don't tell you the truth, Even the bible does a good job here, Of telling you its all about faith Due to this debate we all conclude christians need medication, Fucktardd. . Lol
Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

I thank the instigator for issuing this challenge. I accept.Observations / Stipulations:#1. I reserve the right to discuss any and all issues relating to definitions within the comment section before the debate comences. Should consensus not be reached, they shall be included in the debate. I urge that consensus be reached as these kinds of arguments are never substantive to the actual matter at hand.#2. I reserve the right to discuss any and all issues relating to the burden of proof within the comment section before the debate commences. Should consensus not be reached, they shall be included in the debate. I urge that consensus be reached as these kinds of arguments are never substantive to the actual matter at hand.#3. Discussion regarding the legitimacy of these stipulations should be included in the comment secion before the actual debate commences.#4. Any other stipulations which the instigator may desire are open to discussion before the debate commences.
Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

Recently I challenged Logical-Master to a debate concerning whether or not medicinal marijuana should be legalized; however, he later communicated to me that he possessed little interest in debating such a topic. Therefore, as a compromise, I would like to instead challenge Logical-Master to debate the subject of capital punishment.Furthermore, as PRO, I will be defending the assertion that capital punishment should not be practiced as a form of legal discipline; as such, I accept the full burden of proof.I also extend my sincere appreciation in advance to Logical-Master for accepting this challenge; hopefully we can make this out to be an interesting and intellectually stimulating debate.Format:(1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statements(3) Counter-Arguments(4) RebuttalsRules:(1) No forfeiting(2) No plagiarism(3) No semantics(4) No arguing in the comment sectionA violation of any of the above mentioned rules shall result in an automatic loss of conduct points.
Abortion scooterswifty

The part about endangered species was simply an example of an organism which is protected. However they are only protected because if the species goes extinct, it may have negative affects on people. If you kill an endangered species, you are not charged with murder, you have to pay a fine and do some jail time. Next most of your argument revolves around the concept: They are alive, therefore it is wrong to kill them. This argument ignores the fact many living things including bacteria, fungi, and plants are living, however are not considered valuable at all. It is not considered wrong to take antibiotics or set up a few rat traps. Now why should it be considered wrong to abort a fetus that doesn't even have brain functions on par with a rat's. That ehealthforum source you cited only proves one thing, that the fetus is a living, which I have shown means nothing, considering our treatment of other living organisms. The last argument you bring up is the idea that it will become conscious at some point in time. For this it is important to remember that we treat things how they are, not based on what they will become. A presidential candidate is not the president until they are elected and a criminal is only a criminal until they are convicted. It is also important to remember that the potential for a baby exists the second a boy and girl enter the same room, yet they are not arrested for not having the sex which could conceive a baby. The potential may be there, but that is all it is, potential, and in no way trumps the bodily rights of a person.
Abortion scooterswifty

Counter Arguments: Firstly life is not inherently valuable, we can see this in the wide availability of antibiotics, and animal experimentation. It is clear that only certain life forms are actually valuable to us. These include endangered species, and ones which have traits worthy of personhood (consciousness, emotional complexity). Next the whole, "if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have had sex" applies to a great many other situations. For example "if you didn't want a fungal infection, you should have looked after your health". There will always be consequences to your actions, but that does not mean you lose your bodily rights especially for an organism which isn't even conscious. Lastly, the Bible is not a valid source. Now for my arguments: Firstly we can all agree that the pregnant women is a person as she possesses emotional complexity, self-awareness, ect. Now lets take a look at the fetus: From the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: "The fact that the cortex can receive and process sensory inputs from 24 weeks is only the beginning of the story and does not necessarily mean that the fetus is aware of pain or knows that it is in pain. It is only after birth, when the development, organisation and reorganisation of the cortex occurs in relation to the action and reaction of the neonate and infant to a world of meaning and symbols, that the cortex can be assumed to have mature features." -https://www.rcog.org.uk... This source shows that the bare minimum of features needed for fetal awareness does not develop until around 24 weeks, which is after the vast majority of abortions occur. It is clear that the fetus simply does not have the traits necessary for even consciousness, meaning that it does not have the right to force the women to carry it. Next our current laws do not force people to do things with their body that they don't want to. For example you can't force somebody to give blood, even if it is needed to save the life of somebody next door. We certainly wouldn't force someone to give up their bodily rights for a rodent or some other lower animal, so why should we force a women to give up their bodily rights for and organism that hasn't even developed a mature brain?
Geocentricism

Saying the stars move but not the Earth is equivalent of saying the Earth moves but the stars are fixed. It’s just a frame of reference.As an analogy, when I go to buy groceries I could say the supermarket is moving towards me and I’m not moving. It’s just a frame of reference.So if your argument is that everything moves in the heavens except the Earth, you are effectively saying the Earth is a better frame of reference. I could say it’s weird, but it’s definitely just a matter of preferences (good luck making astronomical calculations though).If, on the other hand, you are saying all planets and heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth, and that the Earth is the center of the universe... then we have a problem.
Should homework be banned

Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores. If anything, countries with more homework got worse results next Homework is almost always done when a child is already tired from a long day at school. As a result few students are at their best when they sit down in the evening to yet more work. Homework ends up being done in a hurry, by students fighting fatigue, and poor quality work is produced. Worse still, students who have been up late trying to finish off their homework, then come tired into school the next day, and so are less ready to learn. Really, what is the point? Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning.
Should homework be banned

However, all of his arguments are plagiarized. Thus in this round I will only present a brief case. See . http://www.idebate.org... for where he got his arguments from. *Full Resolution*: Resolved: Homework should be banned. CaseC1: Homework enhances the knowledge of students. Homework enhances the intellectual ability of students not only by allowing their mind to absorb knowledge but by teaching them responsibility and skills that help later in their lives. Roch Chouinard, vice-dean of the Université de Montréal's Faculty of Education says "Homework gives kids a sense of responsibility and teaches them to plan their work, which in turn helps develop their autonomy and organizational skills. ” [1] Also, according to Cooper's much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who receive homework with students given no homework. Of these, 14 showed a benefit from doing homework, and six didn't. [2] Students benefit from homework greatly. While at times it can cause stress and seem hard, in the long run it has more benefits. One must also consider that each student does not spend that much time in class. Most classes tend to be around an hour. One hour is not enough to fully enhance and cover everything that is necessary, so some homework is required. I am not advocating for tons and loads of homework, but I think it should not be "banned". C2: Homework increases exam scores. One of the main purposes of homework is to practice for exams. Test material is often covered in homework. Thus homework can enhance test scores. According to Science Daily, a study of global homework patterns suggests that the benefits of more homework assignments to boost student test scores may vary widely according to the grade level, the quality of a nation's schools and the perceived value of homework. [3] According to a recent study performed the typical U. S. high school student, 14 to 16 years of age, in a class doing homework would outperform 69 percent of the students in a no-homework class, as measured by standardized tests or grades. [4] Thus homework can enhance test scores which can lead to an overall better grade in the class. Good grades lead to a good degree which enhances job opportunity which can put food on the table. So technically homework can help students put food on the table in fifteen or so years. Conclusion: Homework has multiple benefits for students and can ultimately help students more than harm. Homework enhances the knowledge, responsibility, and organization of students. Homework also helps increase test scores and ultimately higher grades can be achieved. Thus, because of its intrinsic benefits, homework should not be banned. Resolution negated, vote CON. Sources:1. . http://www.physorg.com... 2. . http://www.memory-key.com... 3. . http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4. Anderson, B. , et al. 1986. Homework: What do National Assessment Results Tell Us? Princeton, N. J. : Educational Testing Service.
The Bible Is True

The Christian bible is undeniably true. First of all, we need to seriously think about how existence began, or could have began. This question, in of itself, is rather intuitive. How could something arise from nothing? Unless a creator existed, there's no reason to think that anything we see around us could actually exist! Further more, if one looks at all the order and precision in the universe, for anyone to think that is "just happened" is kinda ridiculous don't you think? I mean, just think about how precise the conditions have to be on earth in order to have life on earth. Mathematically, the chances of that happening are indescribably low. So it's obvious someone had to create the universe. That person would be the Christian god. Evidence: The flood is something which is scientifically plausible, and something for which there is strong evidence for. Consider, for instance, that across the globe, several cultures have stories of a great flood occurring. So many people talking about the calamity wouldn't just happen! They must be referencing a real event. Also, a lot of our plant life, and the earliest remnants of human civilization, can be traced back to only about 5,000 years ago, which supports the dating of the flood's occurance. There's also the account of Jesus's life, for which their are writings from other countries, which talk about him. so he must have been a real person. And we know his followers were real too. In fact, all of Jesus's disciples have records of their death, and they all died (aside from one) because they were preaching about Jesus being God. Why would a group of people go to their deaths, for a lie? It doesn't make any logical sense! There's a lot more I could say, but I'll leave my opponent with that, since it's a hefty burden for them to counter. http://unmaskingevolution.com...
Racial Profiling Should be Acceptable

When law enforcement use race as a key determiner in deciding who to stop, question, and search rather than truly suspicious behavior, it causes more problems than it solves. It is clear that my opponent was not comfortable with racial profiling in an instance where police stopped and questioned all white males during an investigation to find a serial killer, yet implied it is acceptable to stop all dark skinned individuals with poor English as a means to find and enforce illegal immigration. On one hand he argues that when other factors are mainly used it is acceptable to use race. I would like to remind all who are interested that the definition of racial profiling includes using race as a key determination, implying other factors may or may not be used. My opponent, however, fails to make a clear distinction on the exact level race plays in the determination of identifying suspects versus other factors in his arguments. Being color blind or race blind in police work would, of course, be silly. Race is a factor just like a tattoo or other attributes of an individual, which helps identify a suspect from innocent individuals. However there is a key distinction of using race to exclude possible suspects when law enforcement has a positive id of the race of the perpetrator. That ensures people that do not have the same identifying attribute are not subject to illegal and unethical search. Race as an exclusionary identifier is very different than using race to include people as suspects. Other key factors are absolutely necessary to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, which then implies race has become a minor factor and does not constitute as racial profiling. In addition to confusion around what constitutes racial profiling, my opponent completely dismisses an established body of work in group psychology that is critical to understanding how discrimination against groups of people begins. No evidence was brought forth questioning the validity of the theories and experiments that explain how easy it is to form an out group and how humans have a predisposition to discriminate in subtle to direct ways against the out group. I clearly understand the frustration of arguing and seemingly common sense thought that if someone of x race does something bad, lets more closely scrutinize all people of race x to find the trouble makers within them. It however unfairly groups innocent individuals in the group of suspects and exposed them to intrusive search and a violation of freedom. That infringement of freedom is clearly not worth any perceived benefit of racial profiling, especially when considering that it creates more risk, uses too many resources identifying false positives, and overall does not make us more secure. Thank you for reading this important topic and debate.
Racial Profiling Should be Acceptable

I profess that in many forums racial profiling is a reasonable tool of law enforcement and if done without the intention of abuse it should be acceptable. In this debate I am NOT arguing for 'abuse' of racial profiling or hateful bigotry. Definitions: 1.Racial profiling: Part of Speech: n Definition: the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminals. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) 2. Racial Profiling: Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement. The practice is controversial and is illegal in many jurisdictions. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Acceptable: acï¿½ceptï¿½aï¿½ble/akˈseptəbəl/Adjective: 1.Able to be agreed on; suitable. 2.Adequate; satisfactory (http://www.google.com...) Reasonable: reaï¿½sonï¿½aï¿½ble/ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/Adjective: 1.(of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible. 2.Based on good sense: "a reasonable request". Rules: 1. No begging the question. (Ie. Saying that racial profiling should be illegal because there are laws against racial profiling.) 2. Round 1 is for acceptance and introductions only. 3. No new arguments can be introduced in the final round. 4. Respect the intention of the debate. 5. Bop will start with Pro, but it can be shifted.
Christians are zombies!

demonstrate a logical fallacy then.. thats a verse from the bible.. im not saying Jesus was ever real.. the bible is written as if there was a Jesus though.. for obvious mind control reasons atheism speaks for itself, as the default true position.. believers admit that they dont know if there is a god or like that bible says its all about faith it adds up, and anyone can claim anything, backing it up is different.. as the bible is, its nothing but mythology or fiction, its up to christians to prove its not if they do claim there is a god, which is an absurd notion as things are dont know what monkeys have to do with this
Christians are zombies!

Logical fallacies towards all that you have put forward in your debate. Tell me where you there at the time he said this? Then tell me if the records within the Bible are correct and prove it? Are you a practicing any religion or do you preach Atheism? How is that your so sure of what you have put forward if no one here alive that is, can prove or disprove any sort of creations creator exists or not? Have you gone out on limb of the tree of monkeys that is about to snap?
Christians are zombies!

"Jesus said, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (Jn. 11:25)" Jesus represents what replaces or takes over the truth in you or somehting.. that is human, jesus reincarnated, created out of fiction, the son of god or the son of the fiction writer, to take a serisouly stupid persons body They are following their telepathic killer idol, and see it as healing.. but they dont heal the blind, they make the seeing go blind by belief, and pecieve it as healing Christ=see returning rise form.. christian=see returning rise form i unknown.. so jesus is a zombie virus, and christians are the infected.. they drink human blood and eat human flesh at the alters in their churches this is only somewhat accurate.. didnt really take the time to correct it
Orthodoxy and Islam are similar in many ways

Very good analysis! According to Muslims I have met, they attend Islamic Mosques and have explained to me that their Mosque does ceremonies for the death of Jesus. In their Mosque they recognise the death of Jesus. Back to the saints and prophets, both the religions have a respect for the saints and prophets mentioned in the Bible. In Europe there are Easterners and Westerners, basically most of the Easterners are Orthodox while the Westerners are Islamic but there isn't much difference at all. Orthodox Christians kiss Icons and the hands of Priests and Muslims kiss Icons and the beards of Priests, both shows respect and devotion.
Orthodoxy and Islam are similar in many ways

Now I will be explaining the things that are not similar.Muslims don't actually worship Jesus. They believe that Jesus was created (Surah 3:59), that he wasn't killed (Surah 4:157), is no more than a messenger of Allah & that the Trinity is false (4:171), that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus rather than it being written after he died (Surah 5:46), that he himself said not to worship him (5:116), and that he isn't the son of God (19:34-35). These things go against Christianity's fundamental beliefs, and for a Christian to reject the things that Islam says about Jesus would go against Islam's fundamental belief that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. This means that the fundamental beliefs of Islam and Christianity have a big contradiction, despite the similarities.
Orthodoxy and Islam are similar in many ways

Thank you for accepting! Now like it was explained in the comments of Orthodoxy, personally I see Islam as very similar. They both have respect for saints and prophets that spoke the word of God, they both worship God and they both worship Jesus! They both have similar ceremonies, for example on Orthodox Easter, we all hold candles and we walk around while we celebrate Jesus who died for us on the cross, Muslims do something very similar to that!