BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

Now on with the debate! Intro I will be affirming the resolution that a almighty omnipotent deity does not exist. My arguments will be mostly from logic and common sense. There will be three of them, which in the end will show that god is only a myth , not a reality. C1: Problem of Evil My first argument the 'Problem of Evil', will be put forth in a syllogism that goes as follows: P1: If god exists, then evil would not. P2: There is evil in the world C: Therefore, god doesn't exist. If there were a god, there wouldn't be evil in the world. Yet, there is war, murder, death, greed, disease, famine, etc. If a god were to exist he would surely be good enough and powerful enough to get rid of all of these things that plague humanity. C2: The Paradox of the Stone In this next contention I will be arguing that the very existence of a perfect all powerful good god is a controdiction. This argument is based soully on one question, and that question is: Can a god create a stone that is so heavy he could not lift it? If a god does create the stone, then he will not be able to lift it, and if he can't he is not all-powerful. Therefore, it is impossible for a all-powerful god to exist. C3: Imperfection in 'Creation' In this argument I will expose imperfection in the socalled 'creation'. I will start with a syllogism. P1: If a perfect god exists, then his creation would also be perfect. P2: There are biological defects in certain species of animals (including humans). C: Therefore, a perfect god doesn't exist. If there is a perfect good god then there would be no imperfections/defects in his 'creation'. Yet, there are mental and physical defects in many people and animals. There are people who suffer permanent retardation, and all species of the earth are seseptable to diseases and viruses; even death is a imperfection. These imperfections exist and therefore, a perfect good all-powerful creator/god doesn't exist. I await my opponents responce to my arguments.
Gay marriage

"Do gays have the right to marry? Nope." Again. Yes they do. They don't however have the additional right to marry same sex. That would be an additional right as already stated. "If you consider allowing the opportunity of marriage between an african-american and white person do be a "stricter" regulation-then that's your business." No, I consider that clarification. The law never prevented inter-racial marriage. Ppl took the law into their own hands preventing it. "If you consider allowing african-americans to marry AT ALL to be a more strict definition-then so be it." Again I consider that clarification. There was a debate at the time of what level of humanity Blacks possessed. "If you can give me one good reason why we shouldn't allow for polygamy,...that need to be treated with respect as rational beings. Also, the only reason polygamy has such a negative connotation is because it used to be forced on women. Polygamy was bad for the same reason a ban on gay marriage is bad-it violated an individuals rights as a rational and free human being." I asked you were would u draw the line. Your unable to do so, that is why we do not continue down this slippery slope, as a society. "If you feel expanding he definition of marriage is wrong, maybe we should go back to the days when a african-american couldn't marry a white. How about we go back to when citizens weren't anything but white land owning males. I mean, where do we draw the line at citizenship-at monkeys?" Again I believe that was clarification not expansion (see above responses). Drawing the line at citizenship-at monkeys, would be were your logic leads not mine. Thank you for seeing were your silliness was heading. I also see a bit of hinting at racism in there...let me direct you to my picture before it goes further. I'm 1/2 black and white. I don't intend for that to support my argument just to stop you short at further accusations.
Gay marriage

"Not relevant to the point. Gays, have the right to all 3 as is. That was just an attempt to distort the argument to seem as if having no gay marriage some how is robbing ppl of those 3 basic rights. (Very dishonest.)" I only listed the rights as an elaboration of how I feel we need to see gays in our society. As individual with those three rights ought to be respected as such. They are consenting individuals with their own motivation and self interests-these are just some of the many things people within our society are considered as having. If the elaboration was somehow taken as dishonest, maybe you assume to much. "Gays have the same rights as everyone else. This issue is adding another right on top of the ones currently available." Do gays have the right to marry? Nope. And this is ought to change because gays, like heterosexuals, are consenting and rational human beings within our society and needed to be treated as such. "Marriage has been fluent and evolving, but becoming more strict in definition not broader like you would like." If you consider allowing the opportunity of marriage between an african-american and white person do be a "stricter" regulation-then that's your business. If you consider allowing african-americans to marry AT ALL to be a more strict definition-then so be it. If you consider allowing for divorce, completely throwing out the idea of eternal vows to be a stricter regulation on marriage-that's fine. If you feel that allowing for children to not have their marriages decided for them by their parents a stricter law-go for it. But you'd be wrong in each case. The reason all of these RESTRICTIONS were eliminated is because we realized that the individuals within marriage must be respected as rational and consenting human beings (with natural rights) and by enforcing these restriction we were violating this respect. "Additionally, were would you draw the line there after? Can a man or woman have 2,3, or 100 partners? Their all adults and "free individuals". That's the problem when you begin to expand the definition of marriage rather than clarify it." If you can give me one good reason why we shouldn't allow for polygamy, because as you said, "they are adults and free individuals" that need to be treated with respect as rational beings. Also, the only reason polygamy has such a negative connotation is because it used to be forced on women. Polygamy was bad for the same reason a ban on gay marriage is bad-it violated an individuals rights as a rational and free human being. If you feel expanding he definition of marriage is wrong, maybe we should go back to the days when a african-american couldn't marry a white. How about we go back to when citizens weren't anything but white land owning males. I mean, where do we draw the line at citizenship-at monkeys?
Gay marriage

"Gay marriages ought to be allowed because we need to respect them at rational and consenting human beings with the right to life liberty and property." Not relevant to the point. Gays, have the right to all 3 as is. That was just an attempt to distort the argument to seem as if having no gay marriage some how is robbing ppl of those 3 basic rights. (Very dishonest.) "Moreover, the right to marry does not impede our rights in any way and therefore it is not the governments place to prevent equal treatment." Agreed, it does not impede our rights, however it is not an issue of equal treatment. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. This issue is adding another right on top of the ones currently available. "Furthermore, the tradition of marriage has been a fluent and evolving beast that will not be deteriorated by the allowance of free individuals to commit to each other in the name of love and commitment." Marriage has been fluent and evolving, but becoming more strict in definition not broader like you would like. In fact the change you propose would "deteriorate" marriage as an institution. It would be the first time that marriage would become broader in definition. Additionally, were would you draw the line there after? Can a man or woman have 2,3, or 100 partners? Their all adults and "free individuals". That's the problem when you begin to expand the definition of marriage rather than clarify it.
Life was created

Once more, you completely ignore the three points I made in Round 1. Allow me to take down your final point, leaving you at a three point disadvantage. Despite your poor grammar and spelling, I have managed to glean this of your point: You claim that in my worldview, humans evolved from monkeys (false: humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor). But you also say that, and I quote: "One reason might be that the were some pre historic organism that might have some common features to us but they we're never our ancestors." You assert that we do not have a common ancestor further down the line, but you refuse to prove your assertion. Your final point is nothing but assertion, which directly violates the rule earlier agreed upon that we are to use evidence or reason to back up our points. SarcasticMethod 3 - 0 dane111222333 Good luck.
Life was created

As this is the third round I would like to ask a few questions. According to science humans evolved from monkey's over a course of millions of years we did not become what we are now with a day or two. Before coming to the form we are today we went through many changes (different species like a home erecteus,homo habilus etc...). So monkey's are our only closest living relatives,so what happened to the other creatures that are called as our ancestors??? One reason might be that the were some pre historic organism that might have some common features to us but they we're never our ancestors. The theory of evolution can say how life was created. With this points I expect to win this debate good luck to you!!!!
Life was created

First off, I would like to mention that you have not even tried to shoot down my proofs. This means that you have not completely fulfilled your burden. Second, to address your point: There exist many intermediate fossils. An important example would be the many fossils we have found of early members of the genus Homo, e. g. the Homo erectus fossils we have found are intermediate between Homo habilis and modern-day Homo sapiens sapiens. Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Life was created

Thanks for taking part in this debate. Now let me get going with my points. Similar to the theory of Evolution, the theory of creation also has evidence. One substantial piece of evidence for creation is that there are no intermediate fossils. The absence of intermediate fossiles indicate that organism did not envolve into other organisms. The fossile records also provide people with another piece of evidence for creation. It is an absolute fact that life appears in complex forms and that gaps appear systematically between various living kinds in the fossil. This suggest that life was obviously created, not coming through evolution
Life was created

Thank you, dane111222333. I'd like to establish a few things before we begin: Burden of Proof is shared. We must both support our sides because we are both making claims. Creation/the creation hypothesis: that living beings were created in present form by an intelligent creator. Darwinian evolution/the theory of evolution: that living beings attained their present day forms through a process of natural selection. Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. All claims must be backed up by evidence and/or reason. I'd like to begin with a few proofs. The various bacteria and virii that cause illness in human beings can be combatted by creating vaccines that use dead or weak copies of those bacteria and virii to train the immune system to recognize the actual pathogen. However, a new influenza vaccine is needed every year. Why is that? The virus responsible for influenza evolves quickly enough that it can go unrecognized in a previously vaccinated body. For this reason, a new vaccine is needed every year. Source: http://www.cdc.gov... Lactose intolerance is normal for mammals, as the ability to process lactose drops off sharply after childhood (when the animal is drinking its mother's milk). However, in many populations of humans, the ability to process lactose seems to have developed to adapt to the pastoral lifestyles many early humans lived. Source: http://www.dailymotion.com... The peppered moth was once a light, speckled moth that used its camouflage to blend into tree bark. When the Industrial Revolution occurred in England, the air became sooty and trees were coated in black. As a result, many peppered moths were killed off due to them being easy to spot. The predominant kind of peppered moth was a mutated kind that was much darker and could blend in. Pollution eventually went down, and for the same reasons, the original peppered moth returned. Source: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... With these simple proofs of evolution in action, I hope to win this debate. Good day to you, dane111222333!
Video games(Pro) vs books (con)

I accept. Observation A: When we talk about books, we refer to all books that contain words only; NO PICTURES! Observation B: All video games are acceptable EXCEPT for video games that have an open "forge" where one can create things on their own. These games are a bit unfair as they were made for imagination. Contention 1: Books allow for one to visualize scenarios and idea It is evident that with books creating visualizations with words, one's brain becomes better adapted to analyze and visualize unreal situations and places. The ability of getting concepts out of words is an amazing capability of the human mind. Reading more books generates more creativity as one becomes able to visualize concepts and pictures more easily, allowing them to be more creative. Contention 2: Video Games do not Generate Creativity Video games are often the classic tale of following an adventure and finished levels and missions. Thus, video games would not create any creativity as they are simply a sequence of events that other people have arranged for the creator. There is no creativity since you don't really use any analytical and perceptual parts of your brain. Rather, you use your brain's motor reflexes and decision-making parts. Therefore, video games do not generate creativity.
Star Trek: Get rid of holodecks.

I will begin by establishing why holodecks have been included, and should continue to be included:1) Holodecks provide rest and relaxation for the crewBy having a holodeck available to starship crews, starfleet officiers can have longer tours of duty, less frequent shore leave, and still avoid homesickness and other morale problems.2) Problem solving simulationsThere are several cases where the holodeck has proven to be instrumental in saving a starship. We'll explore these throughout the debate.3) Training simulatorSwordfighting skills, piloting skills, bostaff skills, whatever. .. they can all be honed in the holodeck. This is an invaluable tool to have a top notch and well trained crew. There are three main objections which I predict my opponent may be likely to use to justify the idea that holodecks should not be installed on Federation ships. I will pre-emptively disarm each one.1) The problem of holodeck addiction among the crew:Commander Barclay is one of the most obvious example of an officer who struggled with addiction. . http://en.memory-alpha.org...It could be argued that the holodeck was an impediment to his social development, but I take a different view. It was an escape, yes, but it was one that allowed him to explore possibilities in a semi-realistic environment. Therefore, the holodeck may in fact have contributed to giving him the confidence that he needed to confront the challenges of the real world. It wasn't only fantasy, it was also a kind of practice simulation for the social situations he found himself in; one where the stakes were low enough that he could explore different possibilities. It was a sandbox not unlike this one, in fact! Our reputations as authors, politicians, and so on is not really at stake. If we lose a debate, we learn from it, but it won't permanantly cost us. Couldn't the same logic be applied for Barclay and those like him?2a) Safety protocols disabled/malfunctioning:Risk is a part of any system on a starship. Should there be no warp drive because it can also put the ship or crew in danger?2b) AI arising and competing for control of the shipThere is an ethical side to this argument in addition to the more practical aspects, but for now I'll leave that alone. The issue of holographic sentient life spontaneously forming is another aspect of the risk of using a holodeck. This phenomenon is so rare as to be almost not worth considering, and now that safety guidelines are in place the problem is highly unlikely to re-occur.3) Power expenditure/storage space useWhile the holodeck does require a large use of power, the ship is equipped to handle it, and in the event of an emergency, power to the holodeck can be shut off. This means the power expenditure argument is not a strong one. In a small ship like a shuttle craft, or a bare bones combat ship like Defiant, holodecks would be out of place. But for large exploration ships, they are extremely worth the space for reasons stated above. I think I've presented a strong argument that the benefits of having holodecks, at least for large vessels, clearly outweighs their drawbacks. Over to you, pro.
Star Trek: Get rid of holodecks.

Full Resolution:Star Trek: Starfleet ships should not be standardly equipped with recreational holodecks.Definitions (please request any changes or additions, before we begin):From the Memory-alpha.org... Holodeck is "A Holographic Environment Simulator, or holodeck for short, is a form of holotechnology designed and used by Starfleet. They are installed aboard starships, space stations, and at Starfleet institutions for entertainment, training, and investigative purposes. A typical holodeck consists of a room equipped with a hologrid containing omnidirectional holographic diodes, enabling holographic projections through the manipulation of photons contained within force fields." [1]. Starfleet is "the deep-space exploratory and defense service maintained by the United Federation of Planets. Its principal functions included the advancement of Federation knowledge about the galaxy and its inhabitants, the advancement of Federation science and technology, the military defense of the Federation, and the practice of Federation diplomacy." [2]. Structure:Con may begin in round 1. No new arguments past round 3 (giving a round to refute round 3, and a final round to defend those refuted points).Sources:[1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...[2] http://en.memory-alpha.org...
The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War

The topic my opponent and I have been discussing is the following: "The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War." These are the main points to be taken from this debate: The invasion of Iraq was not a war. Congress never declared war, only funded a police action. The invasion of Iraq was not an act of war, it was a defensive measure taken by the United States and coalition forces to neutralize a globally recognized threat. Because it was defensive by nature in response to a threat, by my opponent's logic it was justified. The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. My opponent has used a metric of legality that the United States neither submits to nor is subject to consequence of. Even if the US were subject to the charter my opponent has offered, the authority is meaningless because the United States has veto power over all UN decisions because of its status as a permanent member on the UN Security Council. Furthermore, that other nations joined the United States in their efforts in Iraq signifies a consensus among other nations that a threat existed that required pacification -and that the ensuing action of those nations was a defensive act rather than an illegal act of preemptive war. Because I have proven that the invasion of Iraq was not an illegal act of war, victory for this debate must be afforded to CON.
The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War

Laws that cannot be enforced are meaningless; as to wether or not the law should have existed or not is beyond the scope of our inquiry. Because the United States is not subject to the law in question, it could not be in violation of it. The UN does not have jurisdictional enforcement, much less enforcement power itself. My opponent simply contends that the US is in violation of this UN protocol. Because I have demonstrated that the UN has neither the authority or the means to enforce that protocol, the US is not subject to it and therefore cannot be in violation of it. I take no issue with my opponent's recognition that this is an international affair. What I take issue with is his argument that has the effect of eroding the sovereignty of the United States and the constitution as supreme law of our land, and the only law to which we are subjected. The United States answers to no higher power. While completely independent of the aforementioned UN protocol, my opponent argues that nations only have a right to engage other nations defensively. By his reasoning, defensive action is just. That which is just is not illegal, and if it is, then it ought not to be (even if we assume, for the sake of clash) that the US is subject to the "law" in question. The assistance of coalition forces only further demonstrates a globally recognized need to suppress what was then understood to be a threat to global security. The act of threat neutralization is defensive in nature, and by my opponent's own logic -the US (and coalition forces) not only had a right but an obligation to defend themselves. As such, because the US is not subject to UN law the US cannot be in violation of the law in question. Even if the US were subject to such law, it acted defensively and therefore was justified. In view that the US action was justified (and determinatively so by the logic of my opponent) the law, wether the US is subject to it or not, is unjust because of its effect and therefore invalid. As such, the actions of the US and coalition nations are comprehensively sound.