BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Agnostics Are Atheists

I will argue that all agnostics are actually, in fact, atheists (and not the other way around)... My argument: There's a difference between "knowledge" and "belief". For example: I can know that a black cat has four legs. I can have this knowledge despite any other beliefs I might have. I can believe that 1) This black cat will land on his feet if scooted off the table, and 2) This black cat is bad luck because it is black. And we can have many more beliefs despite the knowledge of it we have. An agnostic is one who does not know if a god can or does exist (a = without, gnostic = belief). No one knows for certain of a god's existence (especially for the way god is defined), which makes us all agnostic. However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god (a = without, theist = god-centered belief). Now, of course, there seems to be no logical contradiction between 'belief' and 'knowledge'. Thus, it would appear that one can believe and not know that there is a god, and know yet not believe in a god. Yet, I counter that one cannot believe in something which has no knowledge of. That is, if one does not know if there is a god, then it seems inconsistent to say that one can believe in a god. How can one be sure that there is a god to believe in? Which god is it that we do not know? And if it is a specific god, how can we know this much about it? The 'god's name' may be non-sequitor concerning when determining whether or not existence can actually pertain to it. That is, one will surely fall for the fallacy of ignorance if they do not know if a god can exist yet believe that there is one. Therefore, all agnostics are atheist.
Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

In the previous statement written by my opponent, he stated that clubs are not free of charge, while in fact, they are. The money which will be raised to sponsor these will come directly from fundraisers, the school budget, etc. Although the students will pool in a little of their money, we can all agree that after-school club participation will cost less than classes which take place on the weekends and have nothing to do with school. Now, onto my opponents second rebuttal. He states that after-school activities interfere with one's learning. Although this may happen, it would also happen with classes that occur over the weekend. It does not matter what the time or date of the class is, if the student's mind is on the extracurricular, and not on his school work, that is his fault. The student's mind is entirely his control. In his third rebuttal, he talks about my point on the financial problems of families in the U.S. Of course. Even if your family does have financial concerns, this does not take away your right of a proper education. You will always be able to go to school, despite your financial issues, but you just would not have enough money to pay for classes and sports leagues outside of school. These people have nothing to do with the nation-wide school system, so it's either give the money, or don't sign up. With schools however, it is different. They can come up with compromises and other solutions that allows you to sign up for activities, clubs, etc., even if your family does have financial concerns. This is my point exactly. A lot of families have financial concerns, and they wouldn't be able to sign up for extracurriculars outside of school, but in school, they would, considering that it is a lot cheaper. Now, onto his fourth rebuttal. In this rebuttal, he talks about me bringing up the issue of obesity in the United States. In this rebuttal, he states exactly this: "I'd like to point out that all students have the financial and physical capability of signing up for out-of-school activities or simply going to the gym to solve their 'obesity'." Yes. You are correct, but some families do NOT have the financial and physical capability to do these things. You can participate in physical after-school club and activities even with financial concerns.
Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

My opponent, in an attempt to rebut my point that getting rid of extracurriculars will save money, stated that the after-school activities are "completely free of charge". I don't understand what he is getting at here, because to my knowledge paying for the materials and the supplies will cost a couple hundred. Even for the simplest club, such as soccer, you'd still have to pay for the soccer balls, the soccer goals, snacks, drinks, and all of this will be put to waste if no one goes to the club in the first place. A couple hundred dollars down the drain, and my opponent thinks this is 'free of charge'. Now, onto his second point, which was that it wouldn't interfere with a child's education. During the periods when the student is supposed to be learning, he instead may be distracted and thinking about the after-school activity, which would essentially be a roadblock to his education. It's quite a simple point, and the fact that my opponent fails to recognize this is concerning. Now, onto his third point, which was an attempt to refute my point stating that students can simply take the extracurriculars outside of school. He stated that many people in the U.S. have financial problems and that it will cost a lot of money. Well, if they honestly had financial problems, do you think they would be able to go to school in the first place? This debate doesn't pertain to them, which thus renders my opponents point completely null and void. Now, addressing his concern that it will cost a lot of money, you have to prioritize here. It's either a lot of money for schools that already have low-budgets, or a family that can completely afford it. What would you choose? As a side note, he stated that it's free of charge, however, I believe I have already addressed this point so his whole argument is invaild. Now, he brought up something about obesity, however this is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic. I'm not sure what he was trying to get at here, but obesity has nothing to do with whether afterschool clubs should be allowed. However, in an attempt to refute his less-than-understandable point, I'd like to point out that all students have the financial and physical capability of signing up for out-of-school activities or simply going to the gym to solve their 'obesity'.
Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

My opponent said that signing up for an educational class outside of school will save money. This is completely false. The extracurricular activities provided by schools will be completely free of charge. These extracurricular activities also would NOT interfere with a child's education, considering it would not be during school, but after school. Also, you pointed out that students, if needed, can take a sport, such as Soccer, outside of school. These outside-of-school sports teams will most likely cost lots of money, and many people living in the U.S. have financial concerns. Students will be more prompted to participate in sports clubs directly after school, which are free of charge, and easy to go to. So, instead of driving once a week maybe five miles away to a soccer field, you could stay after-school and just walk to the school fields. And you said that these sports extracurriculars are "ridiculous", "afterschool club money shouldn't be wasted on it", and that "When school budgets are already bad enough, they shouldn't be wasted even more on things a student actually doesn't need". I am positive that the obesity rate is high in the United States, so after-school clubs like these are very important to the health and fitness level of the student.
Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

Essentially, what matters most in a school is the education, the main core classes. These classes consist of History, Math, English, and Science. More money in the schools budget need to be spent on these subjects, not ridiculous extracurriculars such as soccer. Students, if needed, can simply take a soccer class outside of school. Afterschool club money shouldn't be wasted on it. When school budgets are already bad enough, they shouldn't be wasted even more on things a student actually doesn't need. Now, my opponent is arguing that there is a variety of after-school clubs. However, I don't really understand how this actually applies to the topic at hand nor how it supports his argument. Just because there is a 'variety' of extracurriculars doesn't mean 'extracurriculars' are supportive in the least possible way. Now, I'd like to move on to his last point, which is that there are educational clubs. Sure, I agree, however the fact remains that it is cutting off of the school budget, and this shouldn't happen. The parents themselves should just hire a tutor or consider signing up for an educational class on a Saturday or a Sunday, which won't interfere with the child's learning in any way. This is a lot more logical and practical, yet still saves a lot of money. There are also clubs which help you academically. For example, there could be a history club, or an astronomy club, which you can attend if you are unfamiliar with a topic. You can then learn more about that topic.
Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

Schools should have after-school clubs and activities. These are not things you remove when schools have budget cuts. These may not seem important to education, but they actually are. Schools have a variety of after-school clubs for students to go to. This allows the students to choose which clubs they wish to attend, so they can choose clubs that they are interested in. Although lots of schools have after-school clubs like basketball, or football, which don't help you academically, they help you stay fit, considering the United States has a high percent of overweight or obese students. There are also clubs which help you academically. For example, there could be a history club, or an astronomy club, which you can attend if you are unfamiliar with a topic. You can then learn more about that topic.
Abortion

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus, and that is to prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems, to protect the woman"s health if threatening physical or mental conditions are present, to end an unwanted birth resulting from rape or birth control failure. Abortion has been a controversial subject in many societies through history because of the moral, ethical, practical, and political power issues that surround it. It has been banned frequently and otherwise limited by law while it has been legalized in most parts of the world. Abortion should be legalized if the subject in hand has an honest and logical reason, which means that the woman should not take advantage of this procedure to frequently kill the embryo resulting from planned sexual intercourse. If the fetus is found to have the Down syndrome for example, the baby is anticipated to live in constant agony he and his family where his health will be an obstacle that will affect the normal life of surroundings that is in the terms of economical, moral and social burdens. Divine religions tell us not to kill but it is not the fact of killing that matters in this case; it is the thought of wanting to help an ensemble of cells to not live a life of misery and psychological problems majorly. If the childbirth threatens the woman"s health, it is necessary to protect her by preventing any kind of danger or difficult hard changes. Therefore, abortion should be legal in specific cases that are to be studied completely by professionals before coming to the conclusion of taking action. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://worldabortionlaws.com... http://women.webmd.com...
Abortion

Women are, obviously, known human persons. They make up the majority of known human persons. Human persons have rights that an embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established. For various reasons, the person hood of a fetus is generally understood to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does not have rights prior to the viability threshold. There is also some question as to whether or not a ban on abortions would actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the procedure generally apply to doctors, not to women, which means that even under state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women would be free to terminate their pregnancies through other means--usually by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are intended for other purposes. "If a specific congenital anomaly has a very high percentage chance of death, where the infant once born is almost certain to die soon after, I would support abortion in such a case", Con says. Why support abortion in this case? If the baby is going to die on his own at an early age, why kill him on purpose before he is born? Con notes in the second paragraph that humans are not to make the decision of killing the fetus/baby; you"re contradicting yourself. You"re accepting abortion if the baby only lives for a very small while you"re refusing it if the baby grows while suffering from a particular painful anomaly. Shouldn't"t it be the other way around? Shouldn't"t you let life take its course in the first case (that is if you are not with abortion) while apply abortion on the baby who is going to live a long painful life? Babies do not remember that they have been killed, they do not understand what it means; the intention is pure and justifiable. Can you remember any experience up to ages 1 or 2? But a teenager or an adult will definitely remember every single minute he suffered. Pro wishes to clarify that she supports abortion in the case of extreme anomalies which does not include dwarfism, diabetes, or a minor handicap for example. It should be only used when the subject in hand is clearly diagnosed with a malformation that condemns him to a hard life as described in previous rounds.
RESOLVED: The Bible Teaches That Baptism Must Be Administered in the Name of Jesus.

My opponent has tried to justify that baptisms must be administered only in the name of Jesus by using four verses from Acts. I have clearly shown in the previous round that all of the verses he mentioned include the triune name Lord Jesus Christ. Not only that, but also I have shown that in Matthew 28:19, Jesus himself said that Christians should be baptized in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. " I gave my opponent three verses that prove the Trinity exists, and he has yet to refute them.
RESOLVED: The Bible Teaches That Baptism Must Be Administered in the Name of Jesus.

RESOLVED: The Bible Teaches Baptism Must Administered in the Name of Jesus. I will set out to show that Christian baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ and not the titles Father, Son or Spirit. I will begin with the record of baptisms in the New Testament. If any other proof or argumentation is necessary then we will offer it at that time. The following is the birthday of the church on Pentecost. Acts 2:38 KJV 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The following is the account of the conversions of Samaria. Acts 8:16 KJV 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Further proof. Acts 10:48 ESV 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. Acts 19:5 KJV 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. One can clearly see by looking at Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, that baptism was in the name of Jesus Christ. This is only an opening to get you started, this will become much more detailed I am sure. I am fully prepared for that as we proceed. I await your response.
Should Students vote in local school broad elections.

No I disagree. People who would vote against the best interest of the school, would probably not vote, because they usually don't care. But still students need a voice in their education system. A lot of students understand the importance of dress codes and other such policies. We are the ones mostly affects. But the school has to make a final call on it and the school board members are adults, they will guide us to make a fair just decisions.
Should Students vote in local school broad elections.

The real problem for allowing all students to vote in local school board elections is that they don't understand the issues, and that they would vote against things that are in their best interest. For example, a kindergartner cannot understand what electing a certain school board member would mean for them, and in the idea of their best interests we shouldn't allow people to be voted by a broad electorate of people that cannot even read. The democratic process is something that should be respected, and allowing someone the age of 4 to vote on their school board members without understanding what changes would occur goes against any idea of self-interest. Students would also vote for school board members that do not act in the best interest of the schools. For example, they would vote for a school board member that advocates for no dress code whatsoever, even though this would have some very bad consequences. They may vote for someone that promises to give all students A's no matter what - that is not in the best interest of their education. Whether or not the things affect them, that doesn't mean they should have a say in the democratic process. There aren't any reasons for WHY we should allow the students to vote except that it would be democratic... so what? That'd bring insane challenges to the school board as a whole.
Should Students vote in local school broad elections.

on the kindergarten and younger students, could vote, if the teachers or parents took a day before the election, to explain the issues and what each candidate's agendas in "laid men terms". But the issues effective us ( the students) more that most. This could also be useful for practicing for when you turn 18 and vote. (we should actually lower the voting age for all elections-http://www.debate.org... )
the solution is comprehending the problem

Okay, so here's one problem for you:There are five towns in Flatland: Centertown, Norton, Easton, Souton and Weston.Centertown is, roughly, in the middle of these towns; Norton is due North of Centertown, Easton due East, Souton due South and Weston due West.There are eight straight roads that connect Centertown to Norton, Centertown to Easton, Centertown to Souton, Centertown to Weston, Norton to Easton, Easton to Souton, Souton to Weston and Weston to Norton.Now, it happens that these eight sttraight roads all have integer (whole number) lengths when measured in miles, and that all eight roads have different lengths. It also happens that the total length of road is the shortest possible such that all of the conditions that I've listed are true.What is the total length of road, when you add up all the lengths of the eight roads of Flatland?I don't doubt that you'll be able to comprehend the problem but I very much doubt that you'll be able to give me the correct solution to the puzzle; this being the case, I think it adequately demonstrates the falsity of the motion: the solution is more than merely a comprehension of the problem.Whilst we're about it, I don't doubt that a few months of study would put you in a position of understanding very well the problems in the Middle East... but this would not equate to you having any practicable solutions.Quite frankly, to suggest that understanding the problem equates to having a solution is to completely underestimate the difficulty (and value) of not just Mathematics but all the Sciences too. For instance, many a mathematician understands the Reimann Hypothesis and the difficulty in providing a proof... but none has yet found an adequate solution to that problem.In the realm of particle Physics we face the problem of interpreting the (accurately predicting) mathematical equations that describe quantum theory in terms of a model of reality... many physicists understand this problem very accutely, but none have a universally accepted solution - which may, it's not beyond possibility, be beyond our capability to understand.In short there are many times where mankind faces problems that they understand whilst having no solution... indeed, it's not hard to imagine situations in which no solution is possible (whilst there is adequate understanding of the problem):If we accept the idea that no information can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum then we could face a problem where we needed to send information to Alpha Centurai in less than a minute; this problem, although easily comprehended, does not allow for a solution at all, let alone one that anybody would automatically have simply by dint of understanding the problem.Whilst I am providing examples of problems that are not automagically solved simply by understanding the problem, I wonder if my opponent is capable of providing a SINGLE example of a problem to which the solution is implicit in an understanding of the problem... I very much doubt it... in fact, the motion is not simply not true in general, it is false in general!
the solution is comprehending the problem

Vispex: how many times has life independently arisen throughout the universe?I assume that you comprehend the problem, but I'm equally certain that you don't know the solution!If you don't like that one, I've a puzzle for you... just ask and I'll post it here... I'm quite sure that you'll be able to understand the problem but not be able to find the solution... there is a palpable difference between comprehending a problem and having a solution.I'll concede this point, at least: often in life when we are looking to change our own behaviour it is true that comprehending the problem IS THE FIRST STEP towards a solution (but it still is not actually the solution).
should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on birth control

Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy. There are a lot of benefits from birth control, such as it can treat endometriosis, balance hormones and periods, ease cramps, make periods lighter and shorter, and lower the odds of ovarian and endometrial cancer. I do think that underage girls should tell their parents that they're on birth control, but some don't. I don't know about a requirement. Some parents think that if they're child is on birth control, they're more likely to have sex but studies have shown that women that are on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships. Due to this assumption, parents won't let their children get birth control which could effect them later in their life.(http://www.womenshealthmag.com... on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships than women who aren't using birth control)