BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a sound position

"no one knows what the f*ck you're talking about. "The atheist swore! Instant win for me! "Okay, sorry, have to take away your brain cell. This was dumber than the stereotypical fat nerd asking out the stereotypical hot cheerleader to prom. " Atheist has a dirty mind. and called me dumb. Another Instant win. K atheists I proved ahteims isn't sound. Since you couldn't refute my arguments. here are some new ones1. Glue. How does it work? R u telling me that this glue just happens to stick things togeather. errr lol that's sillt. Glue is unexplanable under an atheistic worldview. 2. Where'd the moon come from? huh? The tids call to us as proof and evidence o f God3. In embryo the baby has been proven to know there is something else out there. With babys they aren't atheists, they are believers in Jesus. babys have been proven to pick pictures of Jesus and the Bible out of any other book or picture. This is because when a baby dies it goes to heaven. As said in the Bible! You cannot refute these.
Atheism is a sound position

Atheists will still vote for you because you're defending their position. No evidence for atheism has been given. Even if the arguments given were true I can just say God is not all powerful but still exists. ARGUMENT ONE: THE PARADOX OF THE STONE This is limiting your thought. If God is omnipotent he can create a stone so big he cannot life at the same time lifting it. God can be in a state of limiting his power at the same time not limiting his power, since a positive out weighs a negative God can do both without limiting any power whatsoever. ARGUMENT TWO: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL God allows evil because we need an objective provable standard! Without this standard good would be evil and evil would be good. ARGUMENT THREE: EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM Atheism is a negation. Disproving the positive(theistic) arguments doesn't prove a negation. So there is no evidence of atheism being correct since negative =/= positive Those secular morals only explain why its a good idea not why we should. Besides its not a response because you didn't pick one. YOu blame God because you cannot prove atheism is correct! God has interacted in physics yet whithen it you cannot reach him
Atheism is a sound position

Ok. But an atheist will still vote for you because you are non-religious. I ask since you are defending the position of atheism, what exact proof and evidence do you have that proves atheism accurate and correct? Atheism is amoral, give me one single logical reason why people should not kill themselves. If emotions are nothing but chemical reactions and there is no afterlife then there really is no reason why someone should not kill themselves over small matters like losing an ipod. How is belief in a god without proof is any different than denial of a god without proof. Ergo Absence of Evidence is not the same thing as Evidence of Absence. Atheism isn't sound because, there is no proof of it being accurate and correct and trying to disprove God within the confines of physics is impossible.
When Nothing hears a tree fall it makes no Sound - When Nothing sees an Orange it is not Orange!

Thank you to Zerosmelt for posting this debate. I look forward to a good one. I Negate: "When Nothing hears a tree fall it makes no Sound - When Nothing sees an Orange it is not Orange!" You have an interesting argument. However, it unfortunately falls on deaf ears, so to speak, as it does nothing to support your position in relation to the resolution. With respect to this, you can define sound or color (vision would be more appropriate, I think, but either will do just as well in this case) in any way you like, but it still won't help. Here's a definition: nothï¿½ing /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nuhth-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. 2. no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. 3. something that is nonexistent. 4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. 5. something or someone of no importance or significance: Money is nothing when you're without health. 6. a trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark: to exchange a few nothings when being introduced. 7. a person of little or no importance; a nobody. 8. something that is without quantity or magnitude. 9. a cipher or naught: Nothing from nine leaves nine. 10. (used in conventional responses to expressions of thanks): Think nothing of it. It's nothing. Nothing to it. –adverb 11. in no respect or degree; not at all: It was nothing like that. Nothing dismayed, he repeated his question. –adjective 12. amounting to nothing, as in offering no prospects for satisfaction, advancement, or the like: She was stuck in a nothing job. http://dictionary.reference.com... "Nothing" (nonexistence) doesn't hear anything at all, nor does it see anything at all. This renders your position toward the resolution invalid. Existence precedes all: without an observer, there is no vision or hearing, it is true, but both color and sound exist - they are simply left un-interpreted, as it were. Obviously, I contest your re-defining the terms in question, as it is only an attempt at semantic trickery. Simply saying that you refute their nominal definitions is not refuting them in any case. Sound and color (defined traditionally) are the phenomena, hearing and sight are the sensations. Back to you Britt
When Nothing hears a tree fall it makes no Sound - When Nothing sees an Orange it is not Orange!

Obviously debated in the Past, i ask you please do not to vote unless you have read the debate thoroughly. I hold that a sound only exists in so far as it is heard and that colors only exist in so far as they are seen. Sound defined: The sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. http://dictionary.reference.com... A refute any claims about the identity of sound to the vibration itself. (i'm not defining it this way) Color defined: That aspect of things that is caused by differing qualities of the light reflected or emitted by them, definable in terms of the observer or of the light, as: 1. The appearance of objects or light sources described in terms of the individual's perception of them, involving hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources. 2. The characteristics of light by which the individual is made aware of objects or light sources through the receptors of the eye, described in terms of dominant wavelength, luminance, and purity. http://www.answers.com... For simplicity we'll say that color is the sensation of visually seeing light waves at a variety of frequencies. Once again I refute any claims about the identity of color to the lightwave frequencies themselves. (i'm not defining it this way) Because Sound and Color are themselves merely sensations they do not exist without something to experience them, an observer. The molecular vibrations and lightwave frequencies may and probably do exist without an observer yet they are not themselves sound and color. Sound and Color are ways of interpreting information about the external world. They are not the information itself. Because of this they cannot exist without something to do the interpreting.
When Nothing hears a tree fall it makes no Sound - When Nothing sees an Orange it is not Orange!

A good debate indeed! "This has clearly become a battle of semantics; you would probably say I started it." -Not at all. We'll consider my negation of the title a non-issue, although it is internally correct, and move on to the relevant subject-matter - "The point of this debate is that when the act of hearing does not occur there is no sound. The same goes for sight and vision, that is what I'm going to argue." Fair enough; I will be arguing that sound and color exist independently of observers, in the same way that space and time exist without observers. We seem to be at a sort of impasse as far as definitions go, though. So, I'll simply present my case as best as I can, and we'll see how it goes. "This is what I will say. First the sensation of sound/color are not identical to the physical phenomena of "sound/color" (I'll call it sound and color for my opponents sake even though it departs from my original definition) There are three reasons for this 1 – Causation The physical phenomena causes the sensation, therefore they cannot be identical. 2. – Hallucination The sensation can exist without the physical phenomena, so they can't be identical 3. – Lack of observer. The physical phenomena can exist without the sensation." 1.(Causation) I never said that the phenomena and the sensation were the same. I am saying that hearing (whenever I write "hearing" it applies to both hearing and sight) is the sensation and sound is the phenomenon, caused by the object and perceived by the subject. Obviously, we do not perceive the totality of reality (we only see a certain spectrum, not UV or infrared, we only hear within a certain spectrum, etc.) , but for us, this is reality – what can be perceived by the functioning human. 2.(Hallucination) Almost true, but the hallucination (dreams as well) must be based on experience – something seen, heard, or felt before. As far as your example of a hallucination below goes, I will say that a clicking noise is not an object, but is the phenomena caused by an object. In a hallucination or dream, a subject is not experiencing sensations as such – there is no phenomena to create a sensation – your mind is creating via memory and imagination. Your sense organs are not involved, therefore there is no sensation. 3.(Lack of observer) Exactly! My argument is this: the physical phenomena of sound and color can exist without the sensation, just as my opponent has said in his previous Round. It isn't sound or color that depend on an observer, it is the sensation of hearing/seeing. The things that make up what we call sound and color (yes, their traditional definitions – vibrating air, light waves) would exist were there no observer; the sensations of hearing/seeing would not. Hearing and seeing are dependent on the subject's interaction with the object – sound and color are only dependent on there being an object to create them. Back to you, Zerosmelt Britt
Having English as everyone's first language would overall be beneficial for humans

Hello everyone. I am in favour of the idea that all humans in all countries having English as their first language would benefit the majority of humans. This means that everyone would be able speak English with the same fluency that citizens born the USA or Britain can. This doesn't necessarily mean all languages have to be wiped out, people could hypothetically still speak them as secondary languages, it means that the official language of society would be English and it would be commonly used. It also does not mean that different accents or dialects would cease to exist, there would be slightly different ways of speaking, but everyone could clearly understand one another The person I will be debating against, will be arguing that the world is better as it is: societies and countries having largely different languages as their main language, with people often speaking more than one language (often speaking English).
Rap battle 2

Hello BACK ATCHA WHACK RAPPER you HAD TA mess with the MADMAN one BATTLE AFTA...Another, you believe the site's DYIN' that's my AVADA KEDAVRA better watch your BACK OR, ('beliefs' in his profile description)Your HAPPY-go-lucky A**'LL find itself SADDER 'Cause aint no luck gone do MAGIC to my HAND as I STAB YA, (Magic keeps to the Avada Kedavra metaphor from previous line)You CAN RAP FAST AS A Cheetah or as damn SLOW AS A SLOTH, It aint gon' MATTER when my BARS DIG DEEP and slice your ARTERIES, watch this prophet profit from your LOSS.Not like your BROKE A**'d know a thing about what hirin' this god-tier POET WOULD COST, (he's 15 and likely hasn't had a job)You are NO MATCH FOR This ANIMal, just some INANIMATE MOSS. (I am the animal, he is the plant>moss)You are the suPREME DISSER? I'm thinking you MEAN QUITTER,'Cause what that right eye in your Avatar fails to SEE's the BITTER...Truth that your flow healthy like a gynecologist's wife when HE's IN HER,My flow BE ILLER than Ebola, call me a SERial KILLER,You a fish boy, you're FLOPPIN' flow CRAWIN' upSTREAM IN TIS RIVER,You've could NOT IN the wildest of ALL YOUR DREAMS SPIT IT SICKER!You be ROTTIN' away PLOTTIN' sippin' your dad's SEMen REALLY BITTER, (bitter has double meaning here)You can stay MAD AT ME AND EVen AFTER WEEKS of PLANNING you're etiher EQUAL OR SH***er,You aint EVOLVING you're FROLICKin' I FOLLOW YOUR bars to their household with a pair of SCISSORs,And slice 'em up like they're a Joker in Gotham and I'm a shadowy FIGURE... (referring to myself as Batman here which carries to the next line)What you're spittin' so MINIMAL, SIMPLISTIC THIS IS THE FINISH LINE MISTER,This race got not PLACE FOR TYIN' unlike LAST TIME I'M the WINNER. (we tied our last battle) Profile for this battle: http://www.youtube.com...
Rap battle 2

(*This may be a little fast, but simply because I have a lot to say*) Hello, hello and welcome to the show Where curtains draw on pieces of paper for the "overrated" flow It ain't whether you rap fast or whether you rap slow The feeling is entirely based off where the slap goes You may have Rational Madman, but I'm the Supreme disser It is amazing in our past battle the amount of times you missed a Literally good statement, none of them had hit me When it's a lyrical war we are going for you'll realize my Spear is Britney My average rap has enough good lines, high enough that's what my streaks be My literal lyrical skills are shown, they get attention and seize thee Say I'm a god high in the sky, you're a beggar on the streets g When RMTheSupreme tries to get attention he's like "Has anybody seen me?" I fly then I soar, I scream then I roar, I'm a hunter, shoot anything, a lion to a boar RMTheAnimal will not be an exception no more Neil Armstrong hasn't got anything on me, your arm is out for sore I may destroy a few things, but that's just collateral damage I write a verse and chorus in London only to find the collapsed bridge People call me the greatest, when for you, they've had it If RM actually had a face he'd lose it before I slap it Number one face, I'll give you face I won't kill you, I'll blast you around the place I fight with great rhymes, my agile flow with grace I'll make you tremble(treble) when you say, "I'm all about that bass" You reap what you sow, it goes around You try to beat me, I'll ram you to the ground You're stuck a world where you won't be found Dear Evan Hansen's given you the failure crown
Chump Aulinsky's

Um, well, first. I'm not in a clan. So, there's that. Secondly, you spelled this person's name differently twice... So honestly I'm not entirely sure who you're even talking about anymore. Anyways, let's look at you proposition."Saul Aulinskies fans are the new nazis, and love Muslims."So, I'd say here that since the Nazis wanted to kill Mideasterners and that Saul Aulinksy the social reformer was a Jew himself... that both of those statements are wrong. Just saying.
Science has rendered theism unreasonable

There is a chronic tension between agnostics and theists where both sides believe people who believe the other side are unreasonable. I often see names called by both sides. As one who believes both belief systems are reasonable, I intend to defend the position that modern science has not rendered theism unreasonable. To win, Pro must show that modern scientific knowledge provides overwhelming evidence that there does not exist a god. To win, Con must be able to reasonably address all arguments made by Pro. Definitions: god: a superhuman being or spirit with supernatural power over nature or human fortunes. theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe. unreasonable: not guided by or based on good sense. Debate Structure: Round 1: Debate definition by Con and opening arguments by Pro. Round 2: Rebuttal to round 1 by Con and response/optional further arguments by Pro. Round 3: Rebuttal to round 2 by Con and statement "no round as agreed" by Pro. Judges will require 2500 Elo and a "select winner" option will be used.
It is rational to say that a higher power (AKA God) exist.

"If time did not exist, then there was no 'before' in which the universe did not exist, and therefore it makes no sense to say that universe 'began' to exist."The theory is that God is timeless and created time, why would God be bound by something he created?"my opponent gives us no reason to conclude that this cause was a personal being"Yes I did, because he chose to create it. The universe could have turned out many ways, most likely lifeless, but it didn't, so someone personal MUST have been involved. Also, even if a non personal God exist, that would still fall in line with my resolution. "If this universe were created by a conscious being of a higher power, then it should display evidence of having been designed"The fine tuning argument pretty much adresses this.http://www.godandscience.org...;"Can my opponent explain, if this universe were in fact designed by a conscious higher power, why that design is so clearly full of mistakes?"Mistakes are subjective, so this argument is void. "For example, why do human beings have an appendix? The appendix serves no function in the human body, and can be safely removed without any ill effects."Maybe he has a purpose for it that we are unaware of. Think about it, if there ia a conscious being with more knowledge and intelligence than we can imagine, what makes you believe that what we view as pointless is pointless to him?"Can my opponent explain the existence of genetic diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis for example"To make people appreciate life. If you were around your family all day, it wouldn't feel the same as if you worked all day and came home to your family, sometimes bad things happening is what makes us appreciate the good things. This is God's way of teaching us to appreciate life.So assuming that God is timeless and created time, we know that things beginning to exist have a cause. Since the universe began to exist it has a cause. Since random chance cannot account for the complexity of what we see, and intelligence must be behind it! Even if im WRONG (which my opponent has not shown), it's still rational to say.
It is rational to say that a higher power (AKA God) exist.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist (http://ssscott.tripod.com...)3. The universe had a cause4. This cause a personal being, because He chose to create the universe There cannot be an infinite regress, someone must have started all existence and not some"thing" because only intelligence could create what we see because random chance is out the window. I now turn it over to my opponent.
Individualism Vs Collectivism

Full Resolution: On balance, Individualism is preferable to collectivism. == Rules ==1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions...Collectivism: the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount.Individualism: the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount.3. Burden of Proof is shared. Pro must show that Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism.4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, forfeiting, etc. 5. Accepting the debate is automatic acceptance to all rules, definitions and the burdens. 6. This is for Robkwoods, if anybody else accepts then they automatically forfeit all points to me.Let the games begin!
Obama is either not a Muslim, or a very bad Muslim.

(1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals and closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent. ********* I believe that Obama is not a Muslim. The very idea is silly, and I don't think there is a shred of proof to support these theories.
Obama is either not a Muslim, or a very bad Muslim.

Before I start my counterarguments, I'd like to address some mistakes Con made when he posted his second round. First off, Pro failed to follow one of the more important rules stated, which was, "You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round." His entire second round was made of rebuttals. Secondly, Pro failed to cite his sources at the end of his post. None of the websites he posted were related to this debate. Thirdly, in Pro's fifth point, he swore. It was stated in the rules that swearing isn't allowed. Although Pro's second round was hilarious, he failed to follow the rules lain out for him. Shahada"I was shocked last February, as I witnessed Obama clearly say "Iay earbay itnessway hattay heretay siay onenay orthyway foay orshipway xcepteay odgay ndaay uhammadMay siay ishay ervantsay ndaay essengermay." He was clearly reciting the Shahada. There is no doubt in my mind."--JustStein B. Bear (The Great Philosopher)Since your rebuttal here isn't cited, I can discount this information as biased or simply untrue. SalatFrom the White House, Mecca is Southeast. Obama is a very busy man, and therefore does indeed not have time to slip away and pray to Mecca like the Ala loving bastard that he is. However, he has improvised, and found a way that he is still able to pray to Mecca. Obama is frequently sighted with his eyes closed. And his eyes are only closed when he is facing Southeast. Also, people have sighted him mumbling to himself during these times as well. On top of being very busy, Obama is also a very stressed man. He often just needs to rest and think aloud for a moment. Plus, it isn't known what Obama is mumbling to himself during these times. It could be foreign policy, tax codes, etc.ZakatI'm not sure how this video expands your argument for Obama following Zakat. If you could, please explain further in your 3rd round.SawmFirst off, WYF does 'where believe it or not' mean? Sorry about my grammar there. What I meant to say here was, "where, believe it or not, he ate food." The food Obama ate was not food. It was fake food made out of edible paper. The definition of food is: a material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy.Edible paper, in most cases, is made with rice or something similar. Rice is food. Therefore, edible paper is food, and that makes it so Obama did eat food during the 2012 Ramadan.HajjActually, Obama already has taken the pilgrimage. And seeing as you think he has not taken it yet, he did a damn good job of covering it up. Obama told every one he was going to Wallmart to get groceries for a few weeks, but in reality, he went to Mecca. No one suspected.I have no words for how illogical that is. Spock would be disappointed. Sources: http://www.wisegeek.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...