BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Is Not Real

Thank you mattwalsh for starting this debate, I hope the readers find the arguments we each present to be constructive.You did not provide a definition for what God is, so I propose the following definitions:Theistic God: A supreme being and Grand Creator who is:1. All Good2. All Knowing3. All PowerfulDeistic God: A supreme being and Grand Creator who is:1. All Knowing2. All PowerfulA deistic god may still be all moral, but this cannot be asserted. The theistic God refers to the God that is believed to exist by most Churches, such as the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc. My Arguments:Now I will actually be arguing from the position of the agnostic. I believe it is just as fallacious to assert that God is Not Real as it is to assert that God is most certainly Real. I ask you, what evidence do you possess that makes it scientifically impossible for God to exist? Do you possess any evidence that makes it logically impossible for God to exist? If you cannot provide evidence that it is impossible for God to exist, you cannot rationally claim God does not exist. The advent of science and the immoral acts of previous churches may or may not give you justification to begin disbelieving in the possible existence of a God, but I argue there is no evidence that disproves his existence. Rather, if we argue that it is unlikely we could randomly come to exist, then it is likely a God exists. This does not prove God's existence, it simply makes it more likely.Problem of Defining Existence Additionally, what it means for something to exist could also play a potentially large role in this debate. If our thoughts possess certain amounts of existence, then God will exist in many people and it will not exist in others. If need be, I could get into how Rene Descartes proved God's existence because he exists in our thoughts. All this depends upon our definition of what it means to exist, which can get extremely tricky to define.
The Standards of The Pornographic Industry Are Immoral

In this debate I will be arguing that the porn industry has inferior standards when it comes to health, safety, morals, and ethical practice. I will post my opening arguments below. I hope somebody will challenge my views and accept the debate. Let me start off by saying that I'm not anti-pornography; that is to say I don't think pornography is inherently immoral and I believe it is protected by constitutional rights and freedoms. I simply believe that the way that pornography is produced and sold is not ideal, and that the consumers of pornography are commonly negatively affected by it. Porn -- even mainstream porn -- is not a neutral depiction of human sexuality. It very commonly caters to perverse tastes and is made to be of an extreme or violent nature in order to be sensationalistic and attract viewers with material that is shocking and therefore more stimulating and therefore more profitable. I believe this is bad because it can pervert one's ideas and expectations about sex and even about the roles of people in society and in relationships. Porn also has poor values, or a complete lack of values. What I mean by this is that its only focus is using people's bodies for immediate physiological gratification. I argue that porn is a form of communication, and therefore its contents communicate certain notions and information to the public and to individuals. Porn uses human bodies and human sexuality as a crude commodity, as if they were food or some other inanimate object used only for physical satisfaction and with no human dimension. Therefore pornography communicates the idea that people are only objects to be used for one's selfish physical satisfaction. One can easily see, I think, why this could be a problem. The industry is a sex-based business, and businesses are profit-motivated. The health and safety of the actors in porn is always secondary, or even the last thing that the producers care about. Internet pornography is highly accessible to people who are too young and therefore not mature enough to view and properly understand such content. There are currently age verification systems on many commercial porn sites, but this is basically pointless, as there is still so much free pornography of almost every niche that is easily accessible to minors. Summary:1. Porn is a form of communication, and should be responsible about what it communicatesPornography is more than just images; it has dimensions that contain certain ideas, attitudes, and values. It has the power to convey these things, which can have negative effects.2. Porn is for-profit, and this undermines consideration for societal morals, as well as the health and safety of the performers, and the better interests of the consumers3. Internet pornography makes pornography easily accessible to people who can't legally view it *** Those are my opening points.
Early Childhood Education

I understand that my opponent is advocating Early Childhood Education because: “While early childhood education is not mandatory, it is very beneficial to children”My con position is therefore to prove that early childhood education is not beneficial to children. I do not have to prove that it is harmful, just that it is not beneficial. My argument is based on both short and long term effects of early education. Her main arguments in favor or Early Education are: To correct bad behavior of small children To replace day care Early socialization Educational framework Detection of developmental issues Reduction of separation anxiety Learning a second language She presents as a main example the Head Start Program. My rebuttals are: To correct bad behavior of small children (short and long term effects): Small children’s behavior in early infancy respond to the education received at home. Children would benefit more from properly implemented parent/guardian training programs. To replace day care (short term): Preschools only partially replace day care for working parents. Preschools only serve children from 3 to 4 hours a day, while a parents requires day care for more hours a day. Early socialization (short term): can be achieved by day care, and by other group activities such as mother’s circles and church groups, without the expense. Educational framework (short and long term): studies have shown that small children benefit from child-initiated learning experience (non-formal environment), that is, self-initiated exploration and experimentation. Each child has its own early development calendar and forcing them into educational environments could cause children to become under achievers. For average and below average children, the benefits of early education mostly fade by 1st grade, for brighter children, by the time children reach first grade, they are bored with the academic setting because they were introduced too early into it. Detection of developmental issue (short and long term): going back to point one, well trained parents, together with the pediatrician should detect developmental issues to be corrected with early stimulation. This, however, does not negate the lack of benefits of early education for the majority of normal children. Reduction of separation anxiety (short term and long term): Separation anxiety will happen in a child whether he is a 2 year old or a 6 year old. What could happen is an increased risk of parental detachment. Learning a second language (short term): Again, this is not a benefit applicable to children in general, but only to a minority of children, for whom targeted resources could be invested. One harmful side effect of early education that is never discussed is the fact that small children in pre-schools get sick more often because they can be in contact with sick children, they put in their mouth toys from sick children in the class, or play or sit too close to them. . http://blog.heritage.org...http://www.hslda.org...
zoos

hello :) we are going to be arguing about zoos. (If they do harm on the animals, if it's a waste of money, whether or not we should have them, etc.) ----- 1. --Does it do harm to the animals?-- Animals in zoos are actually well fed and well taken care of. Zoo animals tend to live longer lives, (because there is no risk for prey), they get fed better, and they suffer from fewer parasites or disease. http://www.goodzoos.com... 2. --It provides good entertainment for the family.--- Let's face it, when you were a young kid, you loved going to the zoo right? Well most people do like to see animals that they cannot see normally where they live. And who doesn't like to watch a monkey throw poop at another monkey? ;) 3. --It provides jobs to many people.---If zoos were to be closed, think of how many jobs would be lost. ----these are some of my arguments. Thanks you and I look forward to debating with you :)
homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

Once again, my opponent does not even address the issue at hand. .. Responses: >> "Earlier my opponent said that he is not opposing gay marriage(you can check it's written in the first round). so, that means he is not opposing the topic but simply arguing. " My personal beliefs have no bearing on the argument at hand. I can present an argument without believing it. >> "It shows his opinion differ from the facts. My opponent is in favour of the topic. so, what's the point to debate? " Again, my personal beliefs are immaterial. >> "my opponent had mentioned about the "supreme court case Lawrence v Texas". There he had written that it's not a protected class, I would like to say that here we are not talking about any special rights" This argument inherently involves special rights. The fact that homosexuals are not a protected class indicates that there is no requirement that the state consider the legislation already passed as an affront to a group meriting special considerations. For non-suspect classes, the legislature is allowed and encouraged to take into considerations the desires of the majority. They have done so. >> "we are talking about homosexual marriages should be legalised and it doesn't required to be in protected class for that. " This is simply incorrect. My opponent must show that homosexuals are a protected class or that marriage is a fundamental right in order to apply a level of strict scrutiny to the case at hand. He has not done so. Otherwise, the level of review is merely rational relation, and I have clearly shown that the legislation forbidding individuals from marrying others of the same sex passes the rational relation standard. >> "so, at last I just want to say that my opponent had not given any relevant point to debate on. " Clearly false. ************************************************ Since my opponent seems to have missed the relative arguments, I shall repost them for our readers: On the Status of Homosexuality as a Protected Class. There is no immutable characteristic about homosexuals that separates them as a protected political class in the same way that people can be separated on basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. Furthermore, the supreme court case Lawrence v Texas did not establish homosexuals as a protected class when considering a specific challenge to a law regarding homosexual sodomy. Had the court seen a need to establish a protected class, it certainly could have. On the Right to Marry. Homosexuals already have a right to marry. It simply happens that the state has placed a restriction on who they can marry. This is the same as the restrictions the state places on the ability of fertile first cousins or twelve-year-olds to marry. Furthermore, legislative restrictions do no apply to only homosexuals - the same legislation prevents a straight person from entering into a marital relationship with another straight person of the same sex. Thus, the legislation does not even infringe upon the rights of only a protected class. ************************************* Readers, PRO has put forth no actual argument.
homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

Here my opponent is simply revolving around the talks which he had earlier mentioned. my opponent said that most of the persons are against them. so, I would like to tell him that here we are asking about the reasons why they are against them. why they are not favouring them. Here we are looking for the reasons not for data that who is in favour and who is against. Earlier my opponent said that he is not opposing gay marriage(you can check it's written in the first round). so, that means he is not opposing the topic but simply arguing. It shows his opinion differ from the facts. My opponent is in favour of the topic. so, what's the point to debate? my opponent is talking about the legal argument which he had given. my opponent had mentioned about the "supreme court case Lawrence v Texas". There he had written that it's not a protected class, I would like to say that here we are not talking about any special rights, we are talking about homosexual marriages should be legalised and it doesn't required to be in protected class for that. so, at last I just want to say that my opponent had not given any relevant point to debate on.
homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

My opponent does nothing to actually rebut my argument, but simply states that homosexual marriages should be legalized worldwide. I provided a legal argument that shows that they should not, an argument that easily has parallels in other legal systems. My opponent did not address this argument. He also largely ignores the substance of the argument concerning the definition of marriage. The argument is valid when one considers that "getting married" is something that homosexuals cannot do, regardless of the legal validity of a "marriage" between two persons of the same sex. Calling what is definitionally a non-marriage does not make it a marriage. Lastly, my opponent argues that I have not addressed the normative condition of the resolution. Obviously, if one considers my legal and definitional arguments valid, the normative condition "should" is satisfied. Basically, if my arguments are valid, then gay marriage should not be legalized because of the state's interests against it. Under the rational relation test, a state interest in simply codifying the moral considerations of the majority is enough to strike gay marriage. *************************************************** Extend my arguments; my opponent has not actually addressed them, but rather incorrectly asserted that they are off-topic and ignored them. AFFIRMED.
homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

My friend, first of all I would like to clear the thing that here I m not saying about a particular country. I am saying that it should be legalise all over the world. I know the fact that in some of the countries homosexual marriage are legal but there are some countries who think this as wrong. And I think you are simply diverting the topic. you are telling the rules and laws of Homosexual marriages but here topic is "Homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!" so, you have to contrast the thing that it should be legalise or not. And the last and the only thing you have given is the definition of marriage. This is the only argument that people give respect and accept the persons happily after they get married. Otherwise there relation is not treated as social(here also I am talking about the whole world). so, I am just saying that this right of marriage should be given to homosexuals so that they will also get the social importance.
It is inconsiderate to protest Christmas just because you don't believe in it , it isnt hurting you

Christmas is a great holidy. When I was your age, everyone celebrated Christmas. We had the baby Jesus on the courthouse steps. The pinkos made that go away. I not sure, but they ain't real smart, you see, because I done talked to one once, and she was all dressed like a wacko and was smoking some kinda nasty tobacco. Them people broke the good America that I knew It all started with the Roosevelt and commies. Roosevelt was a commie. America hasn't been the same since. And the hams! Christmas hams was always the best of the years, momma always done cooked one for us and grandma done come over and sing. real nice. So I really like Christmas.
It is inconsiderate to protest Christmas just because you don't believe in it , it isnt hurting you

Here is what I want to debate . If you don't believe in Christmas , that is fine. But why must a person protest that it is wrong and evil and such? If you don't believe in , thats your decision. Why must people protest it, how does it bother you so much? Christmas is a Holiday many believe in , many don't . I don't think just because you don't believe in a holiday that many people do that you have to criticize it. How does it affect you that others celebrate Christmas? Why does it bother you so much and how does it possibly hurt you in anyway for others to believe in it. I don't celebrate Hanukkah , but it in no way bothers me that others do. Why should it , that is their belief. I have heard people say Christmas isn't real. That people who celebrate Christmas are lying to their kids. That it is a lie and a farce. I do not understand why someone who doesn't believe in Christmas , has to attack it. I think everyone should be able to believe and practice whatever religion and holiday they want , as long as it is not hurting anyone.
A crocodile could beat a shark.

Well first of all a tiger and a shark had nothing to do with this debate." Lol wut? I assume you mean a tiger and a crocodile? And yes it does. Earlier you stated that Salt Water Crocs could kill tigers, along with other mammals. That was just to prove that your information was incorrect. Ladies and gentlemen, other than this, my opponent make literally NO attack or rebuttal throughout this entire debate. You are going to vote Con here, because I have done my job while arguing everything he has said, while he has literally made no arguments. My opponent has mistaken this "debate" for a fact sheet. A debate is more than just listing a bunch of facts. It's about having sources and arguments to back those facts, such that you can make a logical claim about the resolution. As you viewers can see, my opponent has merely copy and pasted facts from previous arguments, and (plausibly) other reports. Basically we haven't actually debated anything because my opponent has refused to respond to any of my arguments, or attacks on his. That of the two sentences he did actually write, weren't really arguments and were filled with numerous grammar and spelling error, along with logical fallacies. This could have been turned into a semi-interesting debate, seeing as their is some strong arguments in favor of the Salt Water Croc over the Great White, and other species. However none of them are made! So we are forced to vote con, because I have proven that 'sharks' is a loose term allowing us to use practically any shark to fight this one Croc. There are many species of sharks that are bigger and more vicious than a salt water croc. Also fighting in their own environment, it is almost impossible for them to lose. Even if the crocodile were to have the upper hand, it would eventually need air and have to surface, leaving it open to attack. My opponent has also admitted that the Croc wouldn't win. In round 2 he says it would probably end in a stalemate. This really didn't help his case out seeing as were trying to prove which one would win. So basically the Pro has defeated himself. Given all this information, I strongly urge the voters to vote CON. Thankyou.
A crocodile could beat a shark.

Well first of all a tiger and a shark had nothing to do with this debate.Now I am going to state some facts on both the saltwater crocadile and the great white shark. The saltwater crocodile has a longer muzzle than the mugger crocodile its length is twice its breadth at the base. The saltwater crocodile has fewer armor plates on its neck than other crocodiles, and its broad body contrasts with that of most other lean crocodiles, leading to early unverified assumptions that the reptile was an alligator. An adult male saltwater crocodile's weight is 600 to 1,000 kilograms and length is normally 4.1 to 5.5 metres , although mature males can be 6 ;metres or more and weigh 1,300 ;kilograms or larger. This species has the greatest sexual dimorphism of any modern crocodile, with females being much smaller than males. Typical female body lengths in the range of 2.1 to 3.5 metres . The largest female on record measured about 4.2 ;metres . The mean weight of the species as a whole is roughly 450 ;kilograms . The largest size saltwater crocodiles can reach is the subject of considerable controversy. The longest crocodile ever measured snout-to-tail and verified was the skin of a dead crocodile, which was 6.1 ;metres long. As skins tend to shrink slightly after removal from the carcass, this crocodile's living length was estimated at 6.3 ;metres , and it probably weighed well over 1,200 ;kilograms . Incomplete remains have been claimed to come from a 7.6-metre crocodile, but scholarly examination suggested a length no greater than 7 ;metres . There have been numerous claims of crocodiles in the 9-metre range the crocodile shot in the Bay of Bengal in 1840, reported at 10 ;metres ; another killed in 1823 at Jalajala on the main island of Luzon in the Philippines reported at 8.2 ;metres ; a reported 7.6 ;metres crocodile killed in the Hooghly River in the Alipore District of Calcutta. However, examinations of these animals' skulls actually indicated animals ranging from 6 to 6.6 metres .Sharks grow to an average of 15 feet (4.6 meters) in length, though specimens exceeding 20 feet (6 meters) and weighing up to 5,000 pounds (2,268 kilograms) have been recorded. This information is the size of a saltwater crocodiles. aggression does matter when it comes to a shark because if not aggressive the shark will retreat.