BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lasris Argument

I disagree completely. Ignoring the fact that most people on this site consider Wikipedia to be a reasonable source, I will give a different definition; one that you likely will accept: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." (I"m referring to the first given definition; the second one is a secondly used definition by people, which is not what I am referring to.) [1] I at no point claimed that agnosticism was a middle position. In fact, my entire point hinges on the fact that it is not. It can be a type of theism. It states that one cannot know, or one does not know, whether or not a deity exists. As they do not know, they cannot be within the MB section as my opponent states. As they do not claim to know, they cannot be in the REAL category either. Therefore, the argument does not apply to agnostic theists. I am on topic. Now, please refute my point instead of refusing to accept a source that most everybody else on the site does accept. [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
The Lasris Argument

Okay, as my opponent wants to use a site that the creator even states is not a valid source for using in debates as it is flawed through editting by anyone, I will ask that that source be strikin and not used as a valid source of information.Asfar as my opponent trying to discredit my argument with classifications, their are only 2 true classifications. Theist and Atheist! Anything in between is an undecided notion. As there is no evidence on the Theist side for claiming the existence of God, They either believe their God is REAL or Make Believe and still believe!This is not an argument for agnosticism and the debate should be about the issue not indecision!Please get back on topic!
The Lasris Argument

My primary problem with this argument is that it is a false dichomy: that is to say, not all theistic beliefs are either MB or REAL. The crux of my opponent"s argument is that these two beliefs are the only options available. This is not true. He attempts to dismiss arguments for agnosticism by claiming that it belongs under the category of MB. I find this argument pitiful, at best. My opponent states: "With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics." I can accept this statement. The problem with it, however, is that this does not apply to agnostic theists; in fact, it is the exact opposite of agnostic theism. Let me bring up my first source in order to prove this: "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." [1] The belief, by its very definition, regards the truth of its claim to be unknown or unknowable. If this is the case, then they cannot be MB, because they do not, by their very definition, know the deity or deities are MB. By proving the fact that there is more than just a REAL or MB option for theists, I have fulfilled my burden of proof, as the argument only works if these are the only options. I eagerly await my opponent's reply. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Lasris Argument

The Lasris Argument has never been defeated by any Theist and never will be. The argument is for the Existence of God. Theists only have 2 options: MB or REAL MB is Make Believe, meaning someone came up with a fictitious story of an invisible being(s) in the sky who looks after us and does magical things. This category also includes any made up stories on the existence of a God(s). REAL is REAL, meaning you believe God(s) are real. With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics. With REAL, you claim to know that God(s) are REAL without any evidence to support the claim. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something does not exist, the Burden of Proof will always be on the Theist. This claim is also Irrational and Illogical and has no evidence to back it up.If you try to defend it, make sure you understand a few things. It is considered Circular reasoning to say the Bible is proof by quoting scripture from it. As the Bible is written by man and not God, it is not a valid argument. Nor is Jesus a valid argument for this defense as he also has no evidence to support his existence or the supernatural claims that go along with him. Philosophy is NOT needed here, nor is Quantum Theory, Creationism or Evolutionism. These do NOT pertain to the argument. Any thing you make up as a defense that has no evidence will fall under the MB Option. If you have evidence, you must present it for all to see. As no one has been able to give true scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and documented, this will be very hard for you to do.The conclusion to my argument is that God does not exist! The only difference between this argument and others out there is that you do not have any other options. If you can present one with evidence that cannot be disputed, you have won this argument!
China is stronger than the US.

Manpower does not mean anything if china ca not reach us. They have a larger army but we have a better navy and air force. Inflated population just means that when we block all trade from having a better air force and navy they will lose. Harsh government does not mean jack diddly crap. The harsh Germany was stopped in WW1 and WW2. The were harsh and America was still the same and the people with freedom won. My opponent did not prove that China is stronger than the United States.
China is stronger than the US.

Really? I did not know Wikipedia was unacceptable as an implicit statement of proof on this website. Please do not penalize me since I am a noob. Yes I did refute your claim that we have a larger military ("...because, since China has a larger population, in a logistical sense, they have a larger military as well.) with factual evidence to support my claim that China has a larger military and therefore they can incite wars with us just like we can incite wars with any inhabitant of the Middle East if we very well wanted to. Harsh governments mean everything. It is what dictates the mortality rates of ones country; it is what dictates the country's overall immortality. Why didn't you cite a source to support your opinion that "harsh governments do not mean anything?" In what way would they lose if they attacked us? They have a larger military, harsher government, and inflated population.
China is stronger than the US.

My points do not need to be backed up. China is a communistic nation; therefore, as I have said, "they have a harsher government" than us, and can incite wars with us whenever they please. If I needed to provide proof, however, I would, but I do not need to. It only takes common sense to examine the "proof." We have a smaller population, and we wouldn't be able to handle ourselves in a war, even if we do have gun rights, because, since China has a larger population, in a logistical sense, they have a larger military as well. Therefore I have reached a point. Need citations? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
China is stronger than the US.

First of all as pro and the starter of this debate you have burden of proof. I could sit and say nothing and win because you have not backed up your points up at all. http://shareranks.com... (best navy) http://thediplomat.com... (air force) China has no way to attack the United states. You say that they could beat us in war and I have rebut it. As these were your points and they have been rebut you have not met the BOP. I would write longer speeches but meh, BLEEP it.
The gender wage gap is a concern

Okay! the gender pay gap (also known as gender wage gap, male"female income difference, gender gap in earnings, gender earnings gap, gender income difference) is the difference between male and female earnings expressed as a percentage of male earnings, according to the OECD. Still in 2013, it's frustrating to note that the workplace has not yet followed suit. Gender discrimination tarnishes us all. If you're a woman, whether in the public or private sector, you are likely to be paid less than your male counterpart. Women's access to higher education has eased this pay disparity somewhat, but the Center for American Progress insists that women would need a doctoral degree to earn the same as men with a bachelor's degree. Aside from fairness issues, gender pay discrimination is not economically healthy because companies are better off when they have more women in management roles. CNBC quotes a 2011 survey by Catalyst showing that company boards made up of 19 to 44 percent women achieved 26 percent more return on invested capital than those firms with no women board members. It also makes it difficult to recruit women to these high responsibility positions when they know they'll be paid less than their male counterparts. This data supports the Daily Mail's view that "The economy is losing billions of pounds because of gender segregation," compounded by the dishonorable fact that "high-flying women in Britain are paid nearly 10 percent less than men doing exactly the same job." The figures speak for themselves. Daily Kos reports that college-educated women are on average making $7,600 less a year than their male counterparts. Not because they choose fields that are less lucrative, or have family commitments, but simply because they are female. After removing all other biases, neither education, nor occupational prestige, nor career success seems to protect women from the gender wage gap. Decades after the 1963 Equal Pay Act was passed, it's shameful to read headlines in Forbes that say "there is no denying that women get paid less for doing the same jobs as men." Here are some facts : Women earn less when they get the same education. Women earn less in virtually every job. Women earn less thanks to discrimination. Women earn less when they balance children and careers.
The gender wage gap is a concern

Alright! First, I believe that the gender wage gap is a myth that comes from statistical illusion. The "a woman makes 77 cents for every dollar a man makes" line is a myth. According to this (http://www.thedailybeast.com...), a woman actually makes 91 cents for every dollar a man makes. This myth is a result of poor statistics and unscientific methods Second, any "wage gap" is most likely a result of poor choice of careers. According to my earlier source, many women choose "soft" careers. Women are far more likely to *choose* a career in something like education, which doesn't pay as well as jobs that men *choose*, such as engineering. Third, even if a "wage gap" was an actual issue, government should not be in the business of legislating it. In Norway (Source: Reuters: http://www.reuters.com...), all public companies' board of directors must be 40% female. Isn't that outrageous? This is why *government should not legislate a wage gap.* And, as a corollary of my definition of "Concern," which you submitted too, if government should not legislate the wage gap, than the wage gap is not an issue. To you, pro.
'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

it is not always completely uncertain about someone's guilt. if the person who sees him at the park saw him kill before, in video or perhaps in person to make the point, then it is not necessary to say 'till proven guilty' cause he is guilty. we could have said the person in the park happened to be the brother of some of the victims, and he saw it happen. anda neighbor to another victim, and saw that happen. and saw plenty of others on tape. your point about verifying the innocence does carry some weight, in that often it is preferred. but it's not always necessary is my point, and my main point, is that it is not inherently necessarily wrong to do vigilante justice. "too much room for error" that may be the case, it'd have to be a case by case bassis on how much the eye witness knows. you go on a lot alot about the constitution and right to trial by jury. this would only prevent the government from enacting arbitrary justice, like your example of police taking people away without a trial etc. but we aren't talking about the government, we're talking about vigilantiism. it seems like con is trying to make the debate about 'absolutely verifying' everything, which i undertsand. but my point isn't so much to find 'loophole examples' so much as to show that it's not inherently impermissible to kill him. in fact, one might suspect con would be open to the idea, if there were no questions invovled. cause all con offers is practical points about uncertainty, nothing in the way of it being inherently wrong to kill him if the practical uncertainties weren't there.
'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

jury might be understandable if there's a question of whether he's guilty. if there's no question, why does there need to be a jury? how is it permissible to just let him get away if that's the probably consequence of not shooting him? it's okay for more people to be killed so bob can have some probably ill advised trial by jury? based on some man made notion of what 'justiice' should constitute, based on some man made notion of what 'imminent' death should involve? if these are man made notions, why not expand 'justice' to include not always trial by jury? to not always have to have 'imminent' mean 'about to occur' but rather 'will occur soon enough'? stealing skittes is in no way comparable or analogous to killing. we don't kill in defesnse of skilltes, we kill in defense of self, or others. the only questions are those of 'justice' and 'imminence', and how those should be viewed.
'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

I disagree that said gun owner would have the right to kill Bob. It should not be up to just any old gun owner as to whether or not Bob's life should be taken. Bob has the right to a trial by jury, as everyone does. Vigilante justice is not acceptable nor moral. This is not The Dark Knight. Where do you draw the line for this? If you see your friend steals some skittles is it O.K. to murder him? If Bob is coming at you with a chainsaw, that's another story, it's your life or his, but in the hypothetical you state that if you call the authorities Bob will get away, so it doesn't seem like he's really out to harm you. In this situation the appropriate action would be to notify the authorities and hope their methods are good enough to catch Bob. Let me know what you think of these arguments, they were quite short but I'm more throwing out ideas to get more information on your view of this.
'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypothetical bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorties he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him? remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'. here we are talking just about morality.
'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

Instead of refuting Pro claim by claim I'll do it as a general rebuttal because most of his (her?) major points are connected.A perfect situation such as the one you are describing is unreasonable.Yes, there will always be that little bit of room for doubt, because as I said earlier, the person you see may not be the same person who committed the crime. They could just be wearing the same clothes or a variety of other scenarios.You use the claim of verifiable innocence to justify vigilante justice, but that is not my main contention with it. My problem is that unjust punishments may be given to people who are not deserving of said punishments, which brings me back to my "where do you draw the line" point.Yes we are talking about the government, because everyone deserves a fair trial in a court of law which is held by the government, and you also said "if these are man made notions, why not expand 'justice' to include not always trial by jury?" Also government is the alternative to vigilante justice so it is tied into it.My examples weren't "loopholes", I'm proposing things that could actually happen and do happen (the butcher's knife example was a little out there but I was trying to make a point about how you don't know someone's intent). Many killings have happened in which the victim was mistaken for another person. I believe I have stated that it is wrong to practice vigilante justice and that killing someone without a fair trial is wrong several times. I nor you (I would hope) would pull the trigger in this situation.
Being gay is ungodly.

1. The Bible, the holy book of Christians, is old and new testament. 2. I have found that the old testament is more a book of philosophy while the New Testament shows letters and stories of Jesus. Both testaments have their own purpose in the Bible. To say that one is more applicable to Christians is false. 3. You mention loving your fellow man. Never have I said that society should ridicule them, at least in this debate, but I did say that it is ungodly. That means that God does not approve of gay ACTS, he still loves his children. I am going to stop while I am ahead.
Being gay is ungodly.

Leviticus is an often quoted example of why homosexuality is a sin, but what most Christians forget is that Leviticus is from the old testament. The old testament covers the struggle of the Hebrews, and the pact they made with God (the covenant). As Christians, we are bound by the new and everlasting covenant, detailed in the new testament. With the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the rules were changed. Some examples include a shift away from animal sacrifice in favor of prayer, and an end to strict prohibitions regarding the consumption of pork. The old testament is used by Christians as a foundation, a reminder of the stepping stone from which we lept from into the great unknown. If the topic of homosexuality were so important, why then is it completely absent from the new testament? Wouldn't Christ have taken the time to highlight such a heinous act? But he didn't, it didn't even earn a footnote in the gospels of the new testament. Instead, the only thing Christ advocated was love of god and respect for our fellow man.
Being gay is ungodly.

First, I think your story is amazing. Second, thank you for excepting my debate. Down to business. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This is proof that the Bible shows condemnation of gay behavior. There are many other examples I could find but this is just what I will use to prove my next point. Genesis says that God created all people. Leviticus says that homosexuality is an abomination. If people are born gay, then God would have made them gay. God would have made them to be an abomination. Thus, since being gay is a sin and sins are poor choices, being gay is a choice. Since I have now established that gay acts are a choice and sinful, I can now say that being gay is ungodly. I will rest my argument for now.
Messi Is better than Cristiano Ronaldo.

I disagree with my opponent. Chritiano ronaldo is better than messi. 1.finishing with head. Messi scores less goal compare to christiano ronaldo who score most of his goals with head even in a position that might hurt. 2.passes: messi is somehow selfish when it comes to passing ball, but ronaldo when he discovers he can't move, he passes the ball to his team mate who finishes. 3.reaction: ronaldo reacts more in the pitch more than messi 4.dribbling. When you watch best of messi and best of ronaldo, you will find out that ronaldo will dribble you, and you won't even know how to stand up. He dribbles more than messi. 5.penalty: in taking penalty, ronaldo is 10/10 compare to messi who has lost most of his penalty kicks. 6.team play: the problem with messi is this, when he gets the ball, he tries to move alone and score alone but ronaldo, plays with his team mate and finishes where necessary. No wounder he is the first footballer to win ballo d'or in the English premier league. 7.freekicks. Ronaldo is better than messi in terms of free kicks. Because when he shots, the goal keeper will be confused. With this, ronaldo is better than messi in all spheres even though the board hate him......about.com
Seal murder is beneficial.

I will give you the first part of that. I will give you most of the second as well. But the seal killing is widely unbrutal. As you said, people consume and wear seal based products. To get the most use out of the seal, 90% of seal hunters use firearms in place of the Hakapik.This allows for a clean kill. The Hakapik itself though can still be considered a clean means of death as compared to traditional spears. Wherein blood loss was the main cause of death. Danke for the debate. But I still maintain my view that the hunt is beneficial.
Seal murder is beneficial.

Thanks buddy. I don't have a problem with people killing animals for survival. If that's what they need to do to stay alive than that's perfectly fine. A human life is more important than the life of a seal. However even though a seals life isn't as important as a humans life a seals life is still important. No creature should be killed because some old lady wants a nice coat or because someone wants some exotic meat. It's cruel. It's wrong. It's immoral and it breaks my heart. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to kill animals for survival. But this is far from a perfect world and I accept that. I accept that a farmer might murderer an innocent chicken for food and money. I accept that people might kill innocent fish for food and income. I accept that people might have to kill innocent seals for their countries economy. I don't accept that people will simply kill an innocent animal for fun or pleasure. It really is sick and it's just wrong. It's not the seals fault that people can't find jobs. Leave the seals alone. Find another job. Just because there are lots of seal doesn't mean we should brutally kill them.