BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists.

This is not a debate between evolution and creationism. This is also not a debate on whether or not god exists. This is a debate about the futility of trying to prove god exists or not. Also, if you think there is proof (actual hard, scientific, undisputable proof, one way or another) please provide it in your argument. To those who say there is proof he exists: As of this moment there is absolutely no scientific evidence that god exists or has ever existed. You may be believe with all your heart that he does exists, but that's not proof, that's call faith. To those who say there is proof he doesn't exist: You are just as delusional as the other side. You could literally explore every single part of the universe and you will probably never find any real evidence that god exists. But just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean he doesn't exist. For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you. Until he decides to reveal himself to us (so that we can actually physically see him and tell us all about himself) we will never really know if he exists or not. Once again this is not a debate on whether or not he actually exists, just about the proof or disproof. Also (for all you ladies) I'm not saying god is a man, I just didn't feel like writing he/she every time. For all we know god could be in the form of a 20 year old lesbian at Berkley.
Political correctness attempting to limit free speech, and turn people into weenies

And this is why I don't noob-snipe but the topic was very compelling.By forfeiting, Pro concedes my definitions and framework. Political Incorrectness is a poor excuse for hate speech and racist violence. Politicians who pride themselves on being "politically incorrect" are ignorant morons unaware of how to treat human beings with basic dignity and respect. I am not arguing that the government should take any action against politically incorrect speech. I'm saying that it is net harmful.Pro therefore has no access to freedom of speech arguments. To win this debate, Pro MUST show that hate speech is desirable and beneficial. By extension, he must also show that hate crimes are good for society. He must show that it is net beneficial to refer to female firefighters as "firemen." He must show that it is good to call black Americans "negroes" and Native Americans "Indians," "Savages," or "Cannibals." He must also show that calling undocumented workers "illegal immigrants" is not only acceptable but beneficial if he wants to even begin to outweigh my hate crimes impact. He must show that it is okay to refer to Bill Clinton as a "wanker," George Bush as a "mass murderer" and Obama as a "wimpy apologist." This is the position of those who think they are particularly clever mavericks and denounce political correctness like it is something undesirable. Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org...I'd normally say no new arguments in the final round but I really do want to see what Pro comes up with so I'd love to do that. I doubt he'd show up and forfeits are rather irritating but I guess I can go back to only debating members that I know.
Political correctness attempting to limit free speech, and turn people into weenies

The idea, of political correctness as it appears to me, is a blunt and obvious attempt to infringe upon the freedom of speech, as well as trying to limit expression. (Definition of political correctness I will be using http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now obviously, for the sake of public safety not all words are safe to say, for instance screaming fire in a movie theater, But that is the only type of limitation to the freedom of speech I deem to be acceptable. But saying I shouldn't say something that will offend others based on their sexual orientation, gender, religion, skin color, or whatever it may be is absurd! If America was a society ran around the basis of political correctness simple things such as saying "firemen" would be deemed un-acceptable, because "their's women fire fighters also" Like are you serious? People use the argument "Words hurt people, sometimes resulting in a murder of an innocent, or a suicide" This is true, sometimes words hurt, however political correctness is not the solution to this predicament. Rather then teach Americas youth "Don't voice you're opinion if it offends people." we should be teaching our youth to toughen up! We should be teaching our youth how to properly handle such opinions, teach our youth to have thick skins! We are raising a generation of a bunch of weenies, and this nonsense has got to stop! America is slowly losing it's backbone, and it's our fault!
Political correctness attempting to limit free speech, and turn people into weenies

Sorry I did not mean to forfeit, I merely forgot about the time limit to post my second argument. I'm not going to rant, and I'm not going to turn this into a cross fire. Also, People who advocate and preach political Correctness tend to throw derogatory terms on facts. Let me use An example, Mitt Romney V's Barrack Abeam. During one of his speeches to persuade I believe it was Commyfornia,(Haha oh the jokes) He said something along the lines of "We're never going to win the Minority vote." And Way left extremists were calling Mitt Romney A racist? But it was factual information he said, for 47 percent( I believe it was I could be wrong) Of blacks alone voted for Barrack. And what's wrong with the term "Negro" ? It's completely different from the term Nigger? In Martin Luther King jr.'s "I have a dream speech" He refers to the skin color black as negro multiple times? And Just because you believe in Political incorrectness doesn't mean you hate civil rights and that you're a racist. I think it means that you say things how you seem them without trying to cake up what you're trying to say in "nicer terms."
The United States Should Use the Metric System

I agree that there are many valid reasons to swap to the metric system, but I think they ignore the fundamental difficulty with the switch. America is a large county whose infrastructure has long referred to the imperial system. The switch would not be easy. For such a difficult process to be justified, there would have to be great reward. I do not believe such reward exists. The imperial system is working fine. Americans get around alright, and those who need to use the metric system, scientists, doctors, etc. (and myself included), learn it with no difficulty. They are not hindered by the imperial system. Can we justify so much effort when there is no reward? If you argue that it is worth the reward, however small or large it may be, because it makes more sense, then tell me something: why has the world not converted to metric time? An hour has no more intrinsic relation to a second than a foot has to an inch. The day could just as easily be broken into ten units as it is broken into 24 hours. Obviously there is a rational for the length of a year (roughly 365 days being the time it takes to revolve around the Sun), but there is no reason the day couldn't be 10 hours of 10 decihours of 10 centihours. Or the other way around. I would argue that the switch to metric is a great effort with no reward. If you don't agree, where's your metric watch?
The United States Should Use the Metric System

I believe that the United States should switch from the Imperial system to the metric system. The current system in use is outdated and inaccurate. It is based off of random numbers, which do not scale easily. For example, an inch is one twelfth of a foot, a foot is one third of a yard, and a yard is 1760th of a mile. The current system is confusing and arbitrary. The metric system is based off of the base ten system, and the different forms of measurement comply with each other, such as length and liquid volume. The base ten system is much easier, more accurate, simplistic, and useful. The temperature is based off of natural phenomena as well, with 100 being the boiling point of water at sea level, and 0 being the freezing point. The metric system is already the universal system for scientists around the world, and the United States is one of the only countries left in the world that is still using the antiquated Imperial system.
Democrats are violators of the law

My opponent's claim is "Democrats and Liberals are in violation of American law under the basis that their beliefs and actions fall under that of treason, and just punishment is to incarcerate or kill the aforementioned party." My opponent's claim is ludicrous and patently absurd. 1. My opponent is wrong by definition. Because my opponent used a conjunctive claim, that Democrats' and Liberals' "beliefs and actions fall under that of treason" and because my opponent is the proponent for the resolution, my proponent must prove that holding a belief can be an act of treason "in violation of American law." Under U.S. law, treason consists only of the 'actions' of either "levying war against the United States or in adhering to their enemies by giving them aid or comfort." [1] Therefore a mere belief in and of itself can never amount to legally actionable treason. My opponent therefore can not prove his claim anymore than he can prove that a square is a circle. His claim is inherently nonsensicle. 2. My opponent has not explained which actions amount to treason such that ALL Liberals and Democrats must be killed or incarcerated. Therefore, I will simply state that my opponent can only win this argument if he can prove that every Liberal and every Democrat holds some universal belief or beliefs that inevitably lead to treason. He hasn't done this yet, so vote Con. 3. My opponent must be joking. My opponent is clearly joking and not taking this thing seriously. I mean, he used Kermit the Frog as his avatar for goodness sake! Kermit was a creation of Jim Henson's! Jim Henson "was concerned with promoting understanding across cultures and around the world, a subject that was very important to him." [2] Sounds pretty darned liberal to me. It must not be easy being green (and a dirty traitor, if you believe my opponent), but that's hardly any reason to cut my opponent a break in calling for what would amount to a genocidal culling -- a call to action so severe must be backed up by facts or dismissed out of hand. [1] http://www.lectlaw.com... [2] http://muppet.wikia.com...
Morality should be legislated

Ooookaaay . . . Impressive, Con. But don't see what your libertarianism philosophy has to do with the resolution. I said we would use standard definitions, but out of laziness didn't actually state them. Now I will briefly do so. Morality: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior [1] Legislated: basically, enacted through laws. I think we know what the word means, but Con can contest this if he wants to. I don't think the word requires a great deal of exegesis. So beliefs about what is right and wrong should be enacted in our laws. In other words, we should make laws based upon our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. It should be obvious that this is would be a good thing. After all, if we can't make laws based upon our knowledge of right and wrong (punishing the wrong) then what can we base laws upon? The NAP is based upon the MORAL baseline that "The initiation of physical force or the threat of doing so against a person or his property is morally wrong." Nowhere did I insinuate that a particular type of morality (public acceptance of morality) was specified, and I did not want to debate concerning those particulars. I am sorry if Con misunderstood, but in fact his NAP is based upon morality and as a result does not contest my resolution. His point seems to be only that the government should not dictate morality. To which I respond, Yes. The people, through their elected representatives, should be the cause of morality-based legislation. Judges or presidents should not just decide privately what should be right or wrong. My only aim was to prove that morality should be legislated, and if forced to go into detail I would specify, the people's morality. Thanks Con. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Rap battle

Yo, I be like a real nigga from Texas, Yea, I say from Texas, From Texas, TExas Nigguh, I say Texas nigguh. yo nigga, Im a white motha fucka, stealing land from the redskins, yeah i said the redskins and you know your cool when you got on your dredd skin my dredd skin, babe im dreadin telling you i jerked off to a notha girl last weekend but i was so horny so fukinn horny and i wanted to cym in her pu$$y and suck out my cym with a straw, maybe id get some period blood clogged up in my throat but i wudnt care cuz shes aint white so shes broke! my niggas be reppin my nigga dont be steppin up to the front of the bus unless you want to get shot BOY! fuk this nigga fuk a niggas nigga fuk these border hoppas i be gettin high with my nigga dennis hoppa! i always win nigga i always win nigga fuk jeezy fuk yeezy, weezy, kanyeezy, fuk the blacks, they greedy fuk the women they needy white powa motha fukah all about that white powa birth of a nation i only like the first half of american history x nigga END RACISM!
There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

I thank Con for taking on this debate.While I agree with the statements in the links provided that cold would not be measured, simply the lack of heat, and the same with darkness/light, I disagree on the moral front.To say that evil is simply the lack of good negates morally neutral actions completely.Furthermore, in the same links, einstien is quoted as saying "none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being."Eitherway, what his personal beliefs were do not count as any proof of a God, and defnitly not a specific one of the Christian God. I will make my stance clear that I am not argueing that no god exists, just that there is no proof that one does infact exist. I look forward to Con providing proof of such existance.
There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

Hello and I will agree to your proposal on how to keep our 5th round free now to my opening statement. I would love to ridden this full of opinion but rather for now I will post things holding greater actuality. Now lets debate. Now to provide you head room and to bring in your justification to believe he doesn't exist I will leave you with only one piece of evidence to start things off. For you see even the greatest mind of science, MR. Einstein, even believed in God. He even argued debated and hypothesized and so forth on the matter. Here are my starting articles. http://urbanlegends.about.com... Here is a lovely video representation on how people believe this ordeal went. http://www.youtube.com... Here is more on the matter and a unique ramification to a rather unusual but probable way to view this matter. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I will rest on this all existence is of two things science and religion and Einstein once said religion without science is ignorant but science without religion is blind. I look forward to our debate and fold this round to it's official close.
There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

Since Con gets to put his argument over in round 1, I ask that Cons round 5 be left for closing comments rather than argument to keep it fair. "There is no proof that the Christian God exists. " By proof I mean an evidence strong enough for establishing a fact or a truth. By Christian God I mean the God refereed to in the Christian Bible, which is worshipped by Christians. By exists I mean to have actual being. That is, for the God in question to be real and actual. Con will have Burden Of Proof to prove that the Christian God exists, as.
There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

Allow me to once more say that what is valid proof. For you never answered. Also let me say I hope the voters take round 4 in contempt we all lead busy life's from time to time do we not. Now let me say I have provided very valid proof and reasoning. Also let me say my claims towards nothing and quantum physics stand I did make scenarios with them in mind as to show whether these things are factual or not that God is still a provable entity. Also allow me to elaborate on my energy is God. You see all things start as theoretical things and I shall explain this process. With more far-fetched things well an entire process is behind them. You see first they become theory such as atoms or the world being round or God. Second something must provide a way to find them or something similar, such as microscopes, navigation and the compass, and physics. Now it must be proven which can be done in different ways. Some are just found while others it takes comparison and reasoning you must process the matter does what you found fit the description and does the factual thing you found act like the theoretical thing. Well if yes then you have found it in a factual state. Such is God and energy all things need energy is energy by energy. Also energy isn't with beginning or end and can't be created or destroyed. So they fit into one another and thus the process has reached another cycle. God is energy is proven through physics and through basic reasoning.
Social deference is an anachronism that should be actively discouraged

With many thanks to brian_eggleston for his contribution, I remember when I had my first drink but despite all the years of practice I have had since than, I am yet to master Drunkenese, as a consequence of which I have no idea what my opponent was banging on about! In view of this I shall reiterate my point that to address your fellow citizens as "Sir" or "Madam" harks back to the days of feudalism when the ‘lower classes' were expected to know there place in society and address their ‘superiors' accordingly. In the modern world, this verbal division of the classes should now be considered and anachronism and such social deference should, therefore, actively be discouraged. Thank you.
Social deference is an anachronism that should be actively discouraged

With many thanks to Alk09 for his contribution, I remember when I had my first drink but despite all the years of practice I have had since than, I am yet to master Drunkenese, as a consequence of which I have no idea what my opponent was banging on about! In view of this I shall reiterate my point that to address your fellow citizens as "Sir" or "Madam" harks back to the days of feudalism when the ‘lower classes' were expected to know there place in society and address their ‘superiors' accordingly. In the modern world, this verbal division of the classes should now be considered and anachronism and such social deference should, therefore, actively be discouraged. Thank you.
Social deference is an anachronism that should be actively discouraged

No I think your wrong Maddam because ummmm.................. well...................................... soooooooahh wait no maybe yes um well No no YES no............ OH YA wait no ok no wait umm............. ok um no wait stop well what was I what?..... ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmah mummmmmmmmmmmmm gummmmmmmmmmmmm blummmmmmmmmmm dummmmmmmmmm NONONONo wait ......... wait wait stop I remember it was because no um yes um no maybe wait well no maybe yes but what? well ummmmmm maybe wait no wait yes NONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!! ok i remember the reason why we need to classify people by their social/economic/pesimistic ideopeopleologies is because ummmmmmmmm............ well wait nope........... wait wait!!! http://en.wikipedia.org...
Social deference is an anachronism that should be actively discouraged

First of all, here's my inspiration for this debate: I am writing this from one of my local bar / restaurants where a fellow customer - an older gentleman who I know only to say "hello" to, greeted me and addressed me as "Sir" as I walked in. This was just seconds after I had given directions to a stranger, who was, again, older than me, who also addressed me as "Sir". Just to let you know, due to a scandalous oversight in this year's Queen's Honours List, my considerable contributions to British society have yet again failed to be formally recognised and, as a result, I am still waiting for the knighthood I so richly deserve! Until this outrageous injustice has been resolved, there is, therefore, no reason to address me as "Sir" – plain "Mister" will do just fine. The fact is, British people have the concept of social deference installed in them at an early age. So, because I am usually quite smartly-dressed and well-spoken, I am called "Sir", which I am very uncomfortable with as I consider myself working class (even if nobody else does) and also because I refuse to address anybody, except the ennobled or officially titled people as "Sir" or "Madam", and even then I do so reluctantly. It is similar in America, even more prolific, especially in hotels and restaurants, though the distinction between the social classes there is much more blurred and a big difference is that the staff only call customers "Sir" and "Madam" because it is part of their job description. In conclusion, I affirm that we should actively discourage the forelock-tugging, class-ridden practice of calling fellow members of society "Sir" and "Madam" and stick to "Mister" and "Missus" in a similar way to the way French people refer to strangers as "Monsieur" and "Madame" or "Mademoiselle". Thank you.
rap battle

As far as I'm concerned, you can bite me. I don't give a damn, you can drink me. I don't have a girl, love is for the weak, Who need it to survive every week. The purple circle means you're a scrub, not the kind you still do in a bath tub. You should grow up and take a man shower, and stop fapping yourself every hour. You jerk off to Minecraft cows on your computer; Giving yourself a first person shooter. I may be depressed, but I'd be happy to end you. Because all you do is bleat like a ewe. I'm orange and I'm certified fresh Like a Florida orange, earning all the kesh. Don't mess with me, it won't be an easy task. Who's gonna win? Like we even need to ask.
Rapper battle

Why would you make such assumptions? At what point during the argument did I show signs of unoriginality? At what point did you assume I was a boy? This is a debate between the quality of two rappers, there's absolutely no need for slander and hopefully the voters will recognize that. As for the Ill Mind of Hopsin raps, indeed, there are only five (as of now) but what is your point? You didn't make any connection as to why that makes Tech N9ne greater than Hopsin, you simply helped my argument by acknowledging Hopsin's "deep meaning," "skilled flow" and "creativity" and then called me an "unoriginal boy," showcasing your weak debating abilities.
Rapper battle

To avoid confusion, I will address your claims in numerical order: 1) You're absolutely wrong. Hopsin has more than five raps. In fact, he's released two full albums, each of them featuring 15 to 16 tracks of pure rapping. http://www.amazon.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Yes, I would like to regard those three things you mentioned about his "deep meaning," "skilled flow" and "creativity" because those are all vital reasons for why Hopsin is a great MC. I won't even touch the "unoriginal boy" comment because it's so ambiguous. Instead, I'll just let Hopsin do the talking: http://www.youtube.com...
Rapper battle

Hopsin and Tech N9ne's flows are greatly similar, thus making your comparison of flows a weak one. In addition, you must be forgetting that Hip-Hop is often a very angry genre of music, used to vent frustration and highlight the worlds problems through hostile lyrics and attitude. However, in this case, Hopsin's flow may come off as anger but he's actually very comedic and silly also, as shown in my second video. The part mocking Tyler the Creator is humorous on many levels, proving Hopsin is more than capable of displaying one emotion. http://www.youtube.com...