BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God doesn't exist

Well to begin with id like to say thanks for challenging me to such a debate. I would like to say my arguement is directed towards christianity. Ill begin with To prove the non-existence of god we first need to define the word "god". When christians talk about god they mean an almighty being. but god literaly means: "the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ***Sidenote(i think its important to think that if "god" existed it would at least be depicted as a women, naturally because women are the gender that give life. I believe that God is depicted as a man because back when religon was coming together, men were the dominant and were the leaders of society. ) After defining "god", its agreed that "god" must have the following qualities(please remember these as i will use them futher in the debate): 1*He must know everything. Everything that is, everything that has been and everything that will be. To be able to know everything that will be he must know every position and every momentum of every particle in cosmos. 2*He must be worth our worship. A being that is not worth worshipping is no god. 3*He must be able to do anything. If there are things that god can't do, he certainly is not omnipotent. 4*He must be above time. Something that even St. Augustine deduced. But not only that, god must stand above all possible dimensions. 5*He cannot be 'good' or 'evil' or, indeed, have any subjective characteristica. If god is all good, he cannot do evil things and cannot be almighty. Most people would object and say that good can do evil but chooses not to do it. Well, if god is all good he can't choose to do evil things, can he? ***The theodicï¿½ problem "We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not "Satan" created the universe? " There is a test that i believe will also prove to you whether "god" is exsistant, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.
should scool uniforms should be optinal

Humans have been through so much through out life. the Holocaust, Civil Rights, Gay rights, women rights. we have fought countless fights against nature, life, even other humans. so it is so wimpy for generation z (the recent generation) to be4 afraid of a little chafing. it seven hours humans can handle a little chafing for seven hours. African Americans had to go through with there torture for hundred of years.
Fundamental theory of existence.

Pro make a series of ten assertions, with no proof offered for assertions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Assertions 7 and 8 are definitely false, and I have provided the appropriate references. Assertion one had a formulation error, which I pointed out. Most of the rest of the assertions are contrary to current theories of physics, so while they are not provably false, they do not meet he burden of proof required to affirm any conceivable resolution depending upon them. Pro proposed a five round debate, then defaulted in every round after the first. That is bad conduct.
It is too hard for women to escape domestic violence.

Throughout multiple experiences discussing the issue of domestic violence, I have come to the conclusion that it is just too hard for women to escape. The ignorance that I have encountered so far is that everyone believes that women will magically become empowered by motivational sayings and speeches and just eventually leave but the fact remains that this is untrue. There are multiple thing that hold women in abusive relationships such as children, religious beliefs, and the biggest one of all fear. 1.Children - Children are a big factor in an abused women life. After being abused and isolated from non-immediate family such as parents or siblings, the women see their children as a refuge from feeling lonely. In some cases with older children their abused mother uses them as a shoulder to cry on. With younger children their abused mothers are afraid of the abuser turning to the children as a punching bag if they were to leave. In a sense they feel like they are being good mothers for protecting their children and taking the beating. The sad truth though is that a mother in this circumstance doesnt realize is that an abuser could potentially kill them and that would be even worse on the children. 2.Religious Beliefs - With religions that preach of tolerance and that divorce is bad in the eyes of god, some women believe that they have to stay with the abuser. 3.Fear - fear for their life and the lives of other people they know are prevelent in an abuse womans mind. To my opponent: I am looking for new veiwpoints for an oratory so I ask that you please keep it short and blunt as you can. THANX
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering

Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources(1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...
In CoD Objective game types, Slaying is as important as Objective running

As a video game fan, I look forward to our discussion. IntroductionsMy opponent and I will be discussing the first-person shooter franchise Call of Duty [1]. Recent installments of the series offer numerous multiplayer modes, each of which involves killing your opponents, meeting objectives, or some combination of both [2; see Game Modes]. This debate will focus on the second game type, in which players must complete a certain number of tasks within a time limit. My role here will be to demonstrate that during such objective-based matches, completing the team's task is of more value (i. e. relative worth, merit, or importance [3]) than strictly killing enemy players. My opponent will argue that these actions are of equal value. Opening ArgumentsOnly Way to WinPro uses the multiplayer mode Domination [4] to frame his case. In this mode, teams capture flags and receive 1 point for every 5 seconds a flag is held. The first team to reach 200 points wins. No other factors, including enemy kills, contribute points to the team's total. Where I'm going here is pretty straightforward. By definition, these matches can only be won by completing the objective. Killing alone will NEVER win a match because it earns no points. As the goal of the match is to win, completing objectives is necessarily more important than anything else. Killing enemies is helpful, but not necessary. When it Comes to Experience, Capture > KillWhile playing Domination, players are awarded experience points (or XP) for killing enemies, assisting team mates, and capturing flags [4; see Individual XP]. XP does not count toward the team total (and thus cannot win you the match) but is instead used to improve the player's character. In four of the most recent games in the franchise - Modern Warfare 1 and 2, World at War, and Black Ops - capturing flags awards a player the most possible XP (either 15 or 150, depending on the game). XP awarded for kills comes in second (5-10 or 50-100, depending on the game). In this sense, completing an objective is very literally more valuable than killing an enemy. Between 30-60% more valuable, in fact. We have 4 rounds, so I'll leave it at that. References1. . http://www.callofduty.com...2. . http://callofduty.wikia.com...;3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...4. . http://callofduty.wikia.com...
In CoD Objective game types, Slaying is as important as Objective running

Hi all, It has been a while since I was last on this sight. Last time I was here my faith in the community voting was shattered. But I am back now and wanting to give this site another go. The topic today is one that has been raging on the Call Of Duty forums for a long time. Okay first off I want to say here and now that I know my spelling and grammar suck. I would ask that you all exclude the typing errors you see here, unless what ever is written is above and beyond unreadable. The argument started when a player was bragging about getting a lot of kills in an Objective based game mode, such as Domination. Now the Dispute is that some players say that he was not helpful to his team at all (because he had 0 caps and 0 defends) and that he was kill "Whoring". I Disagree with that. I believe that he was a great help to his teams over all progress. I am of the opinion that slaying AND objective running are both equally important when dealing with experienced and good teams. The con of this argument will be arguing that Killing holds "less" value in Objective based matches when compared to the objective runners. The Pro, will be arguing that Slaying is just as important as Objective running. I will let the Con go first in this debate. I look forward to having fun with you all. rules: No new arguments in the last round. if you are unable to post anything within a reasonable amount of time thats fine just post a comment or message me letting me know OH and one last thing, here is some epic music to listen to while debating. 145 of the most epic songs you will ever hear, a total of six and a half hours. http://youtu.be...
In CoD Objective game types, Slaying is as important as Objective running

Thank you for your post. and I appreciate that you are taking the other participant into account (me) and posting sooner rather then later. Your first argument states that Killing alone will never allow you to win. But neither will solely going after objectives. In game modes Like Search and Destroy or Demolition, If my team keeps your team dead the entire game then we win. Against a team (For future reference to everyone reading this debate, when I refer to the other team, I am assuming that they are decently competent players at the game) of mostly slayers vs a team of players going solely for the objective, the Slayers have an overwhelming advantage. The only game type where they stand a slight chance is Domination. But even in that one the game can be forced to a tie at the very least, by keeping them off all flags all game long. Though admittedly that is rather difficult to do. As you said you have to at least some objective playing to win. But that does not make it more important then the Slayers (by slayer I mean someone who is killing rather then planting the bomb/capturing the flag) role. Some think that their only goal is to accumulate a higher Kill to death ratio. This is untrue. Their role is to keep the other team busy so that the objective player can complete the objective without being killed by a grenade, RPG, Semtex, or the other team. After all you cannot plant or defuse the bomb, finish capturing the domination point, or carry the flag back to the base and capture it, if you are dead and waiting for the next round/respawn. The slayers create a buffer zone for the objective players. This buffer zone allows them to complete their objective. Regarding your point about Experience (EXP), Its more of a invalid point (since we are discussing helping the team, and EXP only helps out the individual and not the team as a whole) but I will respond anyways, while it is true if you are looking for EXP, doing the objective does help you gain experience. So does killing, Yes one capture does give you more points then a single kill. however in any given game you are likely to have far more kills then objective points. If you decide to focus on killing then you can rank up just as much if not faster then the other way. Example: domination. Lets assume your team is playing this by the book, and they have captured 2 points and will not let the other team take them. Here the slayer has the advantage EXP wise, because the players who captured the flags only receive a one time EXP bump from each flag. Now because they have 2 flags and are holding them they will continue to gather EXP from kills as they prevent the opposing team from reaching the flags and taking them back.
Death Sentence Should be Banned

Life is one of Gods greatest gifts to us as mortals and should not be abused. In the bible murder is described as evil and is in the 10 commandments and by giving someone a death sentence you are disobeying God. where I live death sentences do not exist so I do not know why people have them, but I would expect for murder? What people must understand is there is a reason why somebody would murder and that they have problems. Of corse they must be sentenced to jail, but should not have the gift which is so very precious of life taken away from them. There are people dying of terminal diseases like cancer who really understand what the gift of life is and how lucky people are to have it, so I believe that no matter what death is not the answer and by giving them time to live on they may repent and they may not, but that is just the way that people think and whatever comes at the end of life will wait for them to teach them about what they have done.
Death Sentence Should be Banned

Should the death penalty be banned? I think so. The death penalty does much more harm than good.Argument One: High Cost [1]I'm going to start out this debate with something pretty straightforward: The high cost of the excecution. The death penalty has literally costed us MILLIONS of dollars, which could've gone to roads, schools, saftey, etc. In North Carolina, they have put down 43 people since 1976, and each has costed 2.16 million [2], making a total of over 90 million dollars spent on the death row. But that is a very mild example. In California, each excecution costs 250 MILLION [2], and 13 people have been put down since 1976. That's 4 billion dollars spent on excecutions. Considering we are chest-high in debt, the death row is doing nothing to help us. Just stick them in jail for life, they will feel the wrath.Argument Two: Innocence [3]1,264 people have been excecuted in America since 1976 [4]. Thats a thousand families casted into misery. But even worse, what if the culprit was proved innocent... after the excecution? My first prime example is Carlos DeLuna, who was excecuted in 1989. But in 2006, evedince arose that we excecuted an innocent man. Larry Griffin was excecuted in 1995, but evidence has come close to proving that he was innocent of his crime. There is no way to tell how many of the 1,200+ people that we convicted were innocent, but hopefully not more than ten of them.Argument Three: Death Row is Doing Nothing to Stop Crimes I looked all over the web and I could not find anything that proved the death row is good because it stops crimes. If it doesn't stop crimes, then why do we even do it? Just stick them in jail for life. That's a far worse punishment (I think anyway.)Good luck to anyone who accepts this debate![1] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[2] http://www.icomdp.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...
DNA profiling

well that question that you asked that is an obvious answer of course I would take like to use it but that does not mean anything because every parent will take that way. If we allow Dna profiling its an invasion of privacy and its not right to look at someone genetic material. we already know that Dna profiling is not always accurate and even though it might seem to always work a little piece of junk could could ruin the whole thing. If people in crimes have a bias opinion they could use it to get what they want so they could frame who every they wanted to. so that is why Dna profiling should not be allowed.
DNA profiling

first of all Jerry springer actually can proof who is the mother or father of a child. which can help find foster children's parents.licance plates can help track down criminals like if there's a kidnapping or a Amber alert they can find the criminal by his licence plate.i wanted to ask you if your child or parents got murdered would you let the criminal escape or would you let someone take his finger prints and find his information to find him and put him in jail. a problem is that criminals use gloves but we can still use DNA profiling to find there info from hair.
DNA profiling

One i am not saying that it would not help to find the criminal but you went from finding the guy to tracking him down by a licens plate and a rondom cop would not just remember a licens plate from some random mugger. How would you know that the Dna is not contaminated because like I said a little genetic junk and it would be useless. any way if the dna was not contaminated people could still have the same sequence of dna but that is really rare.
DNA profiling

Dna profiling might help people from being wrongly convicted or help identify someone but the thing is that Dna profiling is not always accurate because a little piece of genetic junk can ruin it causing them to be useless. Although DNA fingerprinting requires a good sample to work with, this problem can be solved by using the newer technique called PCR. PCR can use extremely small samples of DNA and produce a much faster result. But this also means the DNA samples that PCR uses are even more likely to be contaminated because of their size, as it is harder to find a small sample with hardly any contamination. Another limitation of fingerprinting is that the procedure is so complex and hard to read the DNA patterns, that sometimes the juror finds the evidence almost. So Dna profiling might not always tell the truth
DNA profiling

DNA profiling could also help inoccent people who are in jail be proved innocent. there is a man who got saved from being put in the death penalty. he was in the death trail which is where you have to wait till he get put down. DNA profiling helped solve big crimes like the assassination of president kennedy.DNA profiling could also find if someone is the real father of a child. DNA profiling has been used in big shows like murry or Jerry springer.if a person dies and they leave a will and they leave 2 children with the will but then someone says that they should be in the will because there the dead persons child they could use DNA profiling to see if the DNA is identical
DNA profiling

Police officers and detectives believe that DNA profiling is a great idea to use to catch criminals. In June of 2008 a 19 year old careless driver was arrested and taken to a police station there a police officer took his finger prints and instead a swab in his mouth for DNA. they found out that he might of been involved in the kidnapping,rape and murder of Colette Arm she used to work as a hairdresser before the murder. the killer had a message that said he would never get caught or arrested the DNA was positive to the one of the killer. He said that he went to great Britain and lived there. That is proof that DNA profiling should be used to catch and chase criminals down.
Israel should never have been founded.

I accept. I do believe Israel should have been formed. Let's begin the debate.Since I do not know if this is just an acceptance round or apart of the debate, I will only do a simple Cross Exam.I argue that it was a mistake to found Israel in the aftermath of the Second World War,I'd say WWII was a good point in history to realize the Jews needed a place of their own.and it is a mistake to send them military and economic aid now. We send aid to Syria, Libya, and numerous other nations in time of need. Why not Israel? Many of the places we send aid to have committed far worse sins.Their egregious trespasses on its neighbours, combined with the abuse of those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are made all the more acute by the attitudes of Israel's 'friends', who are at best apathetic, at worst supportive of its expansionist, racist policies towards the Islamic population there.Through out history (since WWII), Israel has been the target of numerous attacks. To claim Israel is the one performing trespasses is narrow-minded of the situation at best. While Gaza and the West Bank may not be in top condition, you must understand that Israeli power over those places are limited.You seem to be targeting Israel as the racist population that needs to be gone, when they are barely on the charts. You understand if this were the case, then the Islamic population there would also have to go?I welcome someone who would change my mind on the subject, or at least try to.I hope I can do so. Lets begin.
Israel should never have been founded.

Ever since its founding in 1948, Israel has inflicted horrific violations of the human rights of the people of Palestine and Lebanon, and continues to do so, all with the support of the western world. I argue that it was a mistake to found Israel in the aftermath of the Second World War, and it is a mistake to send them military and economic aid now. Their egregious trespasses on its neighbours, combined with the abuse of those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are made all the more acute by the attitudes of Israel's 'friends', who are at best apathetic, at worst supportive of its expansionist, racist policies towards the Islamic population there. I welcome someone who would change my mind on the subject, or at least try to. Behatslacha, or perhaps bit-tawfiq!