BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnostic Atheism is more rational than an Agnostic Monotheist

I am very intrigued to hear some rational arguments for God as I am very familiar with most of them. Definitions: (1) Agnostic theism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or non-existence of such is unknown or cannot be known. (2) Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one God, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or the gods he or she believes in (3) Knowledge, according to Epistemology, is a system of justified true propositions or a system of justified true sentences. A belief acquired through rational means. According to merriam-webster.com, it is defined as: : information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education : awareness of something : the state of being aware of something (4) universe = our universe and Universe = multiverse (everything) Rounds: R1: Acceptance/ quibbling over definitions only R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con) R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments R4: Defense of your original arguments (No new arguments may be introduced. If any new arguments are introduced in the final round, that debater shall lose conduct and source points) Challenge: To prove the irrationality of the following arguments for a personal God. "Anthropic "Cosmological (KCA) "Transcendental "Teleological "Ontological "Testimonial "Christological "Scriptural "Morality Rules: No semantics or trolling allowed. No forfeits. No insults. All logical fallacies are discouraged on both sides (exceptions are made for appealing to authority fallacies). All references and sources for information should be reliable and viewable by all readers (with the exception of Wikipedia) and provided with hyper-links. I look forward to an exciting debate..
It is in America's best interest,to support Israel

1.DEMOCRACY- Israel is one of the only Democracies in the Middle East. It is naturally best for America to promote Democracy, and to have Democratic allies. By this, I do mean best in ways both pragmatic and moral. The very idea of President Woodrow Wilson's league of nations, was to " have allies who aren't autocratic, but democratic. The best way for America to promote Democracy, is to support Democratic countries, especially if they are the only ones in a particular region. 2. FIGHTING TERRORISM- Israel is also just as commuted as the United States if not more, in the fight against terrorism. Israel has more experience, as a nation dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. Not to mention that it is better for America's fight against terrorism to support Israel than, say, Hummus, the terrorist organization in control of Palestine. 3. TECHNOLOGY- Israel is a leading nation in technology. Israel invented several things, ranging from chat rooms, to solar panels. -Many break through in Medicine have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in alternative energy have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in water conservation, have taken place in Israel. -Many break through in Military technology have taken place in Israel. We could use innovation in all of these areas. When the U.S. needs help with a weapon, we ask scientists in Israel to fix it. If we stop supporting Israel, our Military wont have the advantage of fixing weapons. We are currently in an energy crisis. We could use more help from Israel, on energy. Many are worrying that water could become as scarce as oil. We could use more Israeli technology for conserving water. And yes it never hurts to improve medicine and save lives. In fact, the Israelis medicine can help our military. If we stop supporting Israel, monetarily and militarily, 1. We'll lose a vital ally in the Middle East. 2. Israel, a country surrounded by many countries that still don't even believe in it's right to exist, might cease to exist. I stand by for the next round.
Dwyane Wade is better than LeBron James

LeBron James is the best player in the game today. He is the reigning NBA MVP and his statistics throughout his career are majority of them higher than Dwayne Wade's. Dwayne Wade has had 2 seasons (2006-2008) where he missed almost half the season due to injuries, which shows he is also injury prone. LeBron James career point average, Assist Average, Rebound Average, lower turnover average LeBron James does lose to Dwayne Wade in steals and blocks, but it is only by literally .1. Dwayne Wade's 2 injury seasons have inflated his stats to what it should actually be. LeBron James is bigger, faster, and can literally play every position on the court, which he did in Cleveland. LeBron has never missed more than 10 games in any of his NBA seasons. Check any player rankings from the 2k games to the yahoo fantasy list, LeBron James is always higher rated. http://sports.yahoo.com... http://www.nba.com... http://www.nba.com...
Dwyane Wade is better than LeBron James

Introduction: I decided to start a debate on something different then what I would usually do. I've started a topic up for debate stating that Dwyane Wade is better than LeBron James. i will take affirmative position while anybody willing to take this challenge will be on the negative. Definitions: Dwyane Wade - Dwyane Wade is an nba (National Basketball Association) player and plays for the Miami Heat and has played for the Miami Heat his whole career. Better - This is the first definition on thefreedictionary: 1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality. [1] LeBron James - LeBron James is an nba (National Basketball Association) player who played his first seven years in the nba with the Cleveland Cavaliers and starting in the 2010-2011 season, began to play with the Miami Heat alongside Dwyane Wade. References: [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Should everyone geta trophy???? :)

When everyone gets a trophy they don't mean as much if few kids get a trophy. If few kids gets trophies. Then the kids who did not will work hard to get a trophy too. For one I'm actually 12 but my account says twenty three (it's under my moms name) and everyone in my class(we're doing a report on this topic) says no. So that's how kids feel about it. Kids like to have competition kids enjoy only few people getting trophies. Are we not fighting for kids to Play sports. Shouldn't the kids get a say in this policy. Trophies were made for the winners not the losers trophies are supposed to be a one in a lifetime thing not every game thing it's not fair to the people who deserve them that anyone gets them. Some people don't work hard at sports or try their best maybe their mom made them do sports so they rather not really practice and strive to do well. Some kids are like that but when they don't try or work hard for their trophies why do they deserve something. Some might say trophies make kids feel happy about themselves but because everyone gets a trophy they don't even care anymore. When you walk in to a 12 year old kids room you see about 30 trophies and medals everywhere it probaly looks like you walked into a hall of fame but did you read why he got the trophies? On the trophies read: 26 place, hit the ball, threw the ball, made a basket, they might as well say you put on your clothes here's a trophy. Just remember this is the trophies for all policy that's making this happen.
Should everyone geta trophy???? :)

But at such a young age, we should all be seeing ourselves as winners. All participants tried their best, which is what is required. They worked hard, giving them the A they deserve. They went to work, which gives them the money they deserve. Same instance here. Just because they didn't win doesn't mean they don't deserve a trophy. All children should get trophies for self esteem and self confidence, as I have already explained. Not giving out trophies would have disappointed children who worked so hard and earned nothing. It will teach kids hard work will get you nowhere.
Should everyone geta trophy???? :)

I think everyone should. It gives children a boost in self-esteem. " All kids have self-esteem, and having healthy or positive self-esteem is really important. It can help you hold your head high and feel proud of yourself and what you can do, even when things don't seem to be going so well." [1] Self-esteem is important in kids, and gives them hope and pride for future situations. Giving everyone trophies helps with their self-esteem, makes them happy and helps with future challenges, which is why everyone should get a trophy. Source: 1.http://kidshealth.org...#
Water Is Wet

Also, Nice source. "Water can not be wet, Because it can not contain, Be covered by, Or soaked with water that is not itself. " -- I will reuse my previous point. Water is wet because of tetra-hydro hydrogen bonding. <--Water does stick to itself in the same way that it sticks to other molecules. Water is water molecules stuck onto other water molecules, In other words, Not only does water make objects wet, But water itself makes water wet. Water wouldn't be present without it's trillions of molecules. Furthermore, An ocean, Puddle, Lake, Or any body of water is wet. <--In closing: This was a good debate. Again, You have my thanks. I noticed you just joined this website, The same as I. May we have a great experience on debate. OrgRound 3 response submitted.
Water Is Wet

I would agree that water makes things wet :). For your argument:A. This is legitC. See part 2 of my rebuttal. Part 1:Water: a singular noun specifying a group of H2O moleculesWet: (Like you said, Consisting of; containing; covered with; or soaked with liquid. )Water can not be wet, Because it can not contain, Be covered by, Or soaked with water that is not itself. Part 2:If you would prefer a more scientific way to say this:According to UCSB Science Line:"Whether an object is wet or dry depends on a balance between cohesive and adhesive forces. ""how wet a surface is depends on the balance between these two forces. If the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are bigger than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid)"For something to be wet, The adhesive forces have to greater than the cohesive forces. (1)Let's scale this down a huge amount and say we have two H2O molecules connected to a third via hydrogen bonds. You would say that since there are two water molecules covering the third molecule, It is wet. The water is not wet though, Because there is not a adhesive force that is greater than the cohesive forces. Sources:1. http://scienceline. Ucsb. Edu/getkey. Php? Key=6097
Water Is Wet

Before we begin, I must add that I'm sure that we both agree that yes, Water does make other things wet. The definition of wetness as told by Google is as follows: Wetness is the state or condition of being covered or saturated with water or another liquid. (1) Water makes other things wet, And actually not all things become wet from water. Things become wet when they interact with water. "You can't pour water on water and make it wet" A. Therefore many are arguing, That under that stance, Water can't be wet. "Water makes things wet. But is it wet when it's alone? " A. Water makes things wet because it clings. B. Wetness has to do with surface tension and that means there needs to be an interaction between two substances. C. According to chemist, Richard Saykally, Water is wet because of tetra-hydro hydrogen bonding. (2)On to my argument. Now that I have discussed how water does make other things wet, I will explain how water itself is wet:A. According to the Miriam-Webster dictionary, Wet is defined by consisting of; containing; covered with; or soaked with liquid. (3) B. As we all know, Water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, Otherwise known as H2O which makes a water molecule. H2O does consist of H2O, So by that definition, Water is indeed wet. C. Backtracking to "Is water wet when it's alone? " Water does stick to itself in the same way that it sticks to other molecules. Water is water molecules stuck onto other water molecules, In other words, Not only does water make objects wet, But water itself makes water wet. Water wouldn't be present without it's trillions of molecules. Furthermore, An ocean, Puddle, Lake, Or any body of water is wet. Regardless of the contrasting definitions provided by both Google and Miriam Webster -- according to scientists, Water is most definitely wet. Sources:Unfortunately sources 1-3 aren't going through. Sorry for the inconvenience. I don't think the website will let me post any links. But I provided explanations and definitions in my argument, So nonetheless. Round 2 response submitted.
Water Is Wet

Water: an area of H20 (Sorry, The subscript 2 does not work) Wet: covered in water or another liquid When we use the word water, We are talking about any of the water molecules in the area. Lets call our area of water, The Puddle. When we say The Puddle is wet, That is not possible, Because any water that would make the puddle wet is included in The Puddle. Therefore, Water can not be wet.
Pit Bulls are Not Significantly More Dangerous than Other Dogs

Pit Bull used to be good but his sound just hasn't evolved with the times. He is good at making 2000's sounding Miami Party music, but lacks a greater range of musical and artistic talent compared to other major artists of the genre. Pit bull is dangerous and all fathers should not let their daughters around him. He prowls the neon dance clubs of Miami and seeks female companionship at any price. Woman are known to go disappearing for days at a time only to come back with tossled hair and a missing high heel. They tell of the crazy weekend they spent on a yacht with Pitbull and the mischief he caused. This is dangerous because women can lose their jobs for being gone from work and it is widely known Pitbull is the carrier of an arsenal of STD's. If you happen to engage Pitbull in sexual relations and he is not sober enough to use a contraceptive you too can wake up the next day with a burning sensation. Basically, bad music and creepy behavior sum up why this species of Bull should not be legalized.
Pit Bulls are Not Significantly More Dangerous than Other Dogs

I would like to begin by clarifying my stance on the subject. I agree that Pit Bulls have the physical capability to inflict more damage to a person or another dog, than other dog breeds do. My stance is that while they are large muscular dogs, they are not inherently viscous animals. For example, in early 1900s, pit bulls were considered to be the best "Nanny Dog" because they are so good with children. In the television show Our Gang in the 1920s which about the adventures of a group of little kids, they used a pit bull as a companion for the kids because of the dog's reputation at the time. In recent history that reputation has changed drastically, and a big reason for that is the rise in dog fighting. The main breeds that are used in dog fighting are bully breeds. Dogs are raised in inappropriate environments where they are treated inhumanely and forced to fight other dogs. They are trained to be aggressive. They are picked for dog fighting because of their massive size and strong jaws. A majority of pit bulls in shelters are those that have been rescued from bad situations. While it is always a good idea to monitor any type of dog especially around children, it is also important to know as much as you can about your dog's history if possible, and train accordingly, but safely socializing them with people and other dogs. Sadly some dogs taken out of dog fighting are not able to be rehabilitated. This is where the idea that pit bulls are deadly comes from.
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

The following are my closing statements. Look back at the definition for Deceit. The one agreement between my opponet and myself is that deceit means dishonest. Using this, I have established that Fox News tells veiwers that the network does indeed have a hard right-wing bias. Now, telling people they are getting the fair story and yet providing biased "news" than that is lieing, deceitful. "There is absolutely no way to provide unbiased commentary. Unbiased commentary is an oxy moron." I agree with you. So would it be honest for liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller to tell her listeners that she is fair and balanced? I would say no. That my friend would be a lie. Again I agree with you: "The reason the word count favors Hannity is because Colmes has nothing intelligent to say." My point was that Alan Colmes is weak. Any smart liberal would be outraged when their co-host says something like (And I quote Sean) "They(liberals) tell us not to drive fuel burning SUVs, but flag burning SOBs are fine..." I would like to say now, that if Alan was a smart liberal he would punce on that statement and say liberals don't think flag burning is right, but that slips by. Alan seems to know his place on Fox... Well, it does matter that Sean gets more tv and radio time, because he is the main conservative on Fox, the talking head of the Network. He represents only a one sided veiwpoint and he gets more media than Alan. If Fox was really balanced why not give Alan the same treatment? (Now would be a good time to use the word "deceitful...) Again, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced", not "Fair and Unbiased." Unbiased means balanced. Thats why it is deceitful. People feel like they are getting the whole story, but there is a clear bias! LIES! DECEIT!! And my closing. You said: "But the bottom line is that Fox News is not claiming to be unbiased." Here are some slogans for Fox, tell me that they are not telling their veiwers that they are unbiased: "Fair & Balanced" "The No Spin Zone" "We Report You Decide" (I choose this one, becuase this again tells veiwers that the story is being reported truthfully and all that is left is for the veiwers to make your own opinion. Hard to do when you are being told a biased story) The REAL bottom line. I would have no problem if Fox News "came out of the closet" and admitted they were bias. That would not botther me. However, it is deceitful to profess to be Fair and yet be bias. Balanced and biased doesn't work either. Thank you, and good luck. Pleasure debating you again shwayze.
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

You need to understand the point that everything is biased. Every single person in the world has convictions and beliefs that they strongly believe in. And their bias towards their opinion will be evident. This isnt a bad thing, it's just the way we were made. And I think it's healthy to have a plethora of opinion (aka bias) in the world. There is absolutely no way to provide unbiased commentary. Unbiased commentary is an oxy moron. Alan Colmes can say whatever position he wants to be, but he is a definitely left of center and a direct contrast to almost everything Sean Hannity believes in. The reason the word count favors Hannity is because Colmes has nothing intelligent to say. Liberal talking points only go so far. (By the way, I still think Colmes is an intelligent and somewhat rational person.) Sean Hannity doesnt have a mute button to silence the opposing voices on Hannity and Colmes. If they do get silenced or shut down by Sean, it's because he normally wins the arguments. I dont think it's reasonable to say that since Sean has more airtime and tv shows than Colmes that that is somehow unfair. It's called ratings, and Sean obviously gets more than Alan Colmes. I'm not sure where you were going with that link because it proves my point exactly and disproves your claim that CNN and MSNBC were ranked ahead of Fox News: "Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable's top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth. For the year in primetime, Fox News was the No. 6-ranked cable channel behind USA Network, TNT, ESPN, TBS and Lifetime Television. That's two notches higher than its ranking last year. CNN, its closest news competitor, was No. 26, down one." http://www.broadcastingcable.com... Since when did looks matter in political news? I care about the content and integrity of the news, not the physical appearance of the host who delivers it. Again, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced", not "Fair and Unbiased." Find me a quote from Fox News saying their coverage is unbiased and you have a legitimate gripe and I would in fact agree with you. But the bottom line is that Fox News is not claiming to be unbiased.
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

I just wrote an entire response and then somehow it deleted. So here we go again. Thank you for establishing the right-wing bias on Fox, but this is where we disagree. You just cannot say Fair and Balanced and then provide biased commentary. That is lieing. If somebody seeks the truth and some one tells you they got the fair side to the story, but provide a biased story, that my friend is deceitful. Thank you for bringing up Hannity and colmes. As a liberal, I feel that alan colmes is the worst representation of the left out there. In fcat Colmes even told a USA Today reporter (and I quote) "I am a moderate...". You want to do something fun? Watch Hannity and colmes and count how many words each host says. Heres my results :Hannity-2086 colmes-1261. Why is it that Sean is so good looking and well spoken and "smart" and Colmes seems to be the bad looking and "dumb witted"? Subliminal if you ask me....Could it be that Sean Hannity got to pick out his very own cohost all by himself? This show is anything but fair and balanced. Yes they do have some pretty decent left-wingers on their panel but since you watch the show you can confirm that they get silenced very quickly by Sean. I watch it too. One more thing about Hannity. This guy has a 3 hour radio show monday through friday on Fox Radio, an hour long show he cohosts mon.-fri., and a half hour show that runs on sunday (Hanntys America) which runs twice back to back. (so really it's like an hour.) Alan has a two hour show and "co-hosts" Hannity and Colmes. Not very fair... One thing about the ratings, since you brought them up. They actuaslly took a massive nose dive, and ended up being #6 in the networks behind CNN and MSNBC. http://www.broadcastingcable.com... Look at the prime time of Fox. Tell me that they are giving both sides to every story with Brit Hume, John Gibson, Shepard Smith, Bill O'Reilly, Hanntiy and that other guy on the show who no one really cares about becuase he isn't as good looking as Sean. Bill calls his show the NO SPIN ZONE! But using my opponets logic Bill is lying to his veiwers because not only is the network biased but everyone who says their opinion is biased, so it obviously has some spin. It is deceitful to call it the no-spin zone when all your show does is spread the right-wing agenda. Not even Keith Olbermann says his show is fair and balanced.