BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Don't Exist

Pro shall argue that I do not exist. Con shall argue that I do exist. Con, upon accepting this debate, is accepting the primary burden of proof. Con has these burdens: 1. Give a reasonable explanation why the arguments of this debate should be based on probability rather than certainty. 2. Upon providing burden 1, prove that it is probable that I do exist. This will happen if Con does not accomplish the burdens: 1: If Con provides a lousy argument(by discretion of the voter) explaining why the debate should be based off of probability rather than certainty then it will have to be assumed that my existence is uncertain and thus Con loses. (Normally, there would be a new burden for Con to prove that my existence is certain but since the integrity of Con's explanation is judged after the debate this can't be done) 2: Con may provide a reasonable explanation why the debate should be based on probability rather than on certainty but if Con does not prove that it is probable I exist then Con loses. The debate shall have this lay-out: Round 1, Pro: Intro/rules Round 1, Con: Burden 1. Round 2, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 1. Round 2, Con: Burden 2 Round 3, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 2 Round 3, Con: No arguments may be posted; short closing statement. This is essentially a 2 round debate but it is expected to be difficult and highly semantical. If either Pro or Con forfeit a single round, besides Con's closing statement, it is an automatic loss. Definition of I: The entity who started this debate. Definition of entity: Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit. These definitions are clear and do not need any further definitions of words in them; Con may not present any.
The United States' involvement in WWII was just as important in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's.

Resolution: The United State's involvement in World War II was just as important, if not more, in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's involvement. The United States getting involved in World War II helped save Europe just as much as Russia's involvement. While it's true that the war was already over for Germany, and Russia did defeat Germany at Berlin, the United States played just as important a role in saving Europe. Rounds:R1 = AcceptanceR2 = Arguments and RebuttalsR3 = Arguments and RebuttalsRules:- Con may use Round 1 to post his first argument, kicking off the debate. He must forfeit his Round 3 if so. Con chooses who goes first. - All wording must be straightforward. No word-play and deceptive/abused semantics.
Christianity is greater Than atheism

Thank you for the fast reply. > "Usi[n]g the English language grammar to try to prove against tye fact it is greater to exist than not exist is irrelevant." No. Very basis of our debate is to try and prove each other wrong through the use of arguments and theories. By using the English language and it's grammar (the same thing you are doing), I am examining your argument and exposing the fallacies. That is to be expected within a debate. So, it is not irrelevant and in fact, quite necessary for this to be productive. > "You and I have an impact on the world today, simply because we exist. Our great great grandfathers do not simply because they cease to exist to us because they are gone from this world." We are ABLE to make an impact because we exist. But our existence does not guarantee an impact. > "Therefore it is greater to exist than to not exist, so god has to exist." Non sequitur. Again, I've already shown the fallacy of using "exist" as a predicate so this line of argument is useless unless you prove Immanuel Kant, Guanilo and Gassendi's arguments to be lacking or incorrect. You have not done so. > "If u truly believe atheism is better than Christianity, then why does Christianity have a billion followers all over the world with millions of churches, meeting places, holidays, traditions, radio stations, beautiful cathedrals, and the list goes on." Actually Christianity has 2.3 million. [1] Rape is also prevalent in our world - does that make it "better"? Same with murder, theft, genocide, hunger, slavery, war, etc. Simply because something is ongoing within a society or on a global scale, does not make it "better" than the rest. You have to analyze it for it's merits; what pros and cons it brings to the society it is effecting. Also, Islam is the fastest growing religion. [1] Does this make it increasingly better than Christianity - would you concede that? > "You just need to accept it and begin to follow Christianity, because it is the way to eternal happiness." I am quite happy with my non-belief and the stability along with happiness it brings me. Christianity is not something I will "just believe". I am very careful to analyze my beliefs along with what claims it brings - Christianity has remained illogical to me and for that very reason, I will not believe. Do I believe that atheism is "better" than Christianity? It's better for ME however, since that is completely subjective, I would not believe it is "better" on a global scale. That would be fallacious. > "That is my advice to you." Thank you for the advice but I'm content with atheism. Vote Con. Sources [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Christianity is greater Than atheism

Usig the English language grammar to try toprove against tye fact it is greater to exist than not exist is irrelevant. You and I have an impact on the world today, simply because we exist. Our great great grandfathers do not simply because they cease to exist to us because they are gone from this world. Therefore it is greater to exist than to not exist, so god has to exist. If u truly believe atheism is better than Christianity, then why does Christianity have a billion followers all over the world with millions of churches, meeting places, holidays, traditions, radio stations, beautiful cathedrals, and the list goes on. You just need to accept it and begin to follow Christianity, because it is the way to eternal happiness. That is my advice to you.
Christianity is greater Than atheism

Since my opponent did not address any of my points, and they now remain unchallenged, I assume that means he concedes. > "It is greater to exist then to not exist, therefore god must [exist]" The ontological argument. Let's see: I'm going to use Immanuel Kant's argument - "Kant argued that the problem with the argument lay in its claim that existence is a predicate. A predicate term describes something done by a subject; so, in the sentence "John is eating" the predicate "is eating" describes something that the subject, John, is doing. Kant argued that existence cannot be a predicate because it does not add any new information to an understanding of the subject. To be told that John is bald, that he is eating, and that he is angry is to add three things to the stock of information about him. However, to be told that he exists does not genuinely communicate anything about him. Likewise with 'God'." [1] So, in your argument, you are trying to use "exist" as a predicate when in fact "exist" is not a viable term since, as Kant pointed out, it adds no new information so although "exist" may be a logical predicate, it is in fact not a real predicate. Also, Pierre Gassendi stated that "existence is a perfection neither in God nor in anything else; it is rather that in the absence of which there is no perfection." [2] So, existence is not a property or a quality. And so the ontological argument makes the mistake of stating that existence is greater "in re" than existence "in intellectu". And if that isn't enough to make you skeptical of the validness of the ontological argument, I turn now to Gaunilo's Lost Island objection: "In a second objection, Gaunilo posits a ‘Lost Island,' abundant beyond anything ever experienced. We can picture this "most excellent" island, and can accept that it exists in intellectu; but we would hardly say that it therefore exists in reality." [2] > "you are wrong" You have yet to prove that. Once again, your assertion is unfounded and easily refutable. > "End of debate". I believe we have two more rounds after this. Unless you have given up which in that case, I will be disappointed. Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://www.lycos.com... [2] http://www.philosophynow.org...
Christianity is greater Than atheism

Thanks for the debate, Pro. Hoe you had fun like I did. >"What if I changed it to it is greater to have existence then not have existence? Therefore there must be a supernatural being. " "Exist" would still be the predicate since it is the root of the word. And it would still be refuted by my aforementioned (and unchallenged) arguments put forward by Immanuel Kant, Guanilo and Gassendi. >"It was interesting debating you, and I know I learned a lot and hope you did too. " Feel free to challenge me again! And congratulations on finishing your first debate - hope you stick around.
The musicians of today lack the talent of the artists of yesterday

Nice to meet you, brented. Your argument: I think that the artists of today lack the talent and style of the past artists. All they know how to do is sing the same lyrics over and over. They don't really tell a story or make you want to be interested in what you have to say. Talent? (Natural aptitude or skill.): Seen Eminem? No, his talent isn't fast rapping, it's being able to keep a smile on people's faces and excite them. ---- Same lyrics over and over? Not that true, rapping goes onto many different things (I apologize for using rapping as a reference often). ---- Stories? I disagree, many put their souls into singing. There was a story about a Japanese woman (I heard this in an old singing assembly), who was getting married to this man from America, he went on holiday for seven years and came back married to another woman. She poured a ton of emotions into a song and many learnt her story. Many songs have a story behind it. ---- "Make you want to be interested in what you have to say." Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sorry.
The musicians of today lack the talent of the artists of yesterday

The Final Round. I will begin my points, then. --- Era Many of us lack the talent of yesterday since we live in a different era and people are becoming... stranger. I love classical music, I like the doors, The Beatles, etc. ---- FL Studio Many have a talent for FL Studio, it's a hard thing to use since there's many little plugins and things that you could easily miss things, I consider that a talent. ---- We still have some good artists today like Pink. So I can't say that they all lack talent... obviously some of the artists do it for the fans and limelight... or to get away with a happy slap.
The 10th Doctor is better then the 11th.

I don't accept that The 10th Doctor is better than the 11th. There are two perspectives in which we can see this debate. First, is that every 10th batch of doctors that is trained, may be in any Medical School is better than the 11th batch that comes up. So, for that I have to say that Every next generation or batches that are coming up of Doctors are better than the previous ones, As they are equipped with better state of art technologies and more accurate techniques than the previous ones. So although the 10th batch is senior to them, but they are not equipped with as latest techniques as 11th batch. Second perspective of this debate can be in the sense of How many doctors we visit for consultation, when we are having any disease or are in need of a complex treatment. So, according to me Its always better to take as many consultations we can. Every next doctor can give a better piece of advice than the last one, & even if he don't give You have the last piece of advice in your hand. So if you visit the 11th Doctor after the 10th one, you are with better options of which line of treatment is best for you. Here, I rest my case with the Conclusion that The 11th Doctor is better than the 10th. Thank You!
The 10th Doctor is better then the 11th.

Most of the debates I do are more serious I thought I might do a more light-hearted one. You have to try and convince those viewing the debate the 11th Doctor is better while I am trying to convince all the 10th is. This one is meant for a bit of fun. No personal attacks please. Round 1 is acceptance then round 2 it begins. Thanks for joining and good luck.
The 10th Doctor is better then the 11th.

The apology of Pro for not making the title as clear as it should be is accepted. A title with lack of details can readily misguide the direction of discussion. I want to remind Pro of the fact that there are in-numerous Television shows going on around the world. There are even the Television Consultation shows in which Doctors are called everyday to discuss on some serious health issues around the globe like The Dr. Oz Show, a daily television program focusing on medical issues and personal health, launched by Winfrey's Harpo Productions and Sony Pictures in 2009. The interpretation of the debate was taken in this manner that the 10th doctor who was called in the show was better than the 11th one, And I stood against the topic and spoke as Con that I believe it's always better that we consult with maximum good and trustworthy doctors possible, as the next physician we are consulting could give a better piece of advice than the last one. And even if he doesn't give better advice, we have the piece of advice of the previous one in our hand, already. I believe that once the debate was started, it would have been better if it was taken further, such that we can come to a good conclusion for the betterment of the society and the world. As the Pro hasn't taken the debate further and gave no wise argument as how can someone consider by his statement, "That is why it is filed in the television section and Doctor was spelt with a capital D. " That it is a "Doctor Who" show And Not what I considered it to be as, "One of the leading Television Health Shows calling Doctors on regular basis for Consulting on the Health and Medical Issues of Concern Around the globe. " Hence, the argument made by Pro is unsuitable and inappropriate. So, I would like to make my argument that the Information given in the Debate by the Instigator or Pro that it is in the Television Category and the Capital D is being used because it is dealing specifically with the Doctors, was enough to make me interpret it in the way that who the better Doctor could be to Consult in the leading Television Health Shows, the 10th Doctor or the 11th Doctor who came as the Panellist in the show. And I conclude that if we consult the 11th Doctor after the 10th one, we are equipped with better options for opting which line of treatment is best for us. Here, I rest my case with the Conclusion that "The 11th Doctor is better than the 10th". Thanking you all!
Marijuana should be legalized

I will give a list of reasons why marijuana should be legalized and then explain then later on in my argument So Number 1: It Restricts Personal Freedom One of the fundamental human rights is the right to do what you want with your own body and using drugs in no exception to that right. The Government people live under is judged on how it governs its citizenry and a number 1 indicator that a government is turning tyrannical and bad is that it starts going after personal liberty's that the common human gets to enjoy. In the land of the free the government should not be going after choices that people make with there own lives like smoking a plant. Going after choices the citizen wants to do and restricting it is a sign of tyranny and bad government meddling in peoples lives. Number 2: Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal Marijuana has been proven by numerous scientific study's to be way less harmful then cigarettes or alcohol Here are some articles that talk about it . http://themindunleashed.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.iflscience.com... Why should the government allow drugs that are worse and more deadly but strictly control something that isnt as deadly? Number 2: Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse Like all of the prohibitions before it the drug prohibition has been a complete disaster , has destroyed many family's and lives, destroyed many freedoms humans used to be able to enjoy. History is repeating itself, We tried to prohibit alcohol (Which is worse than marijunana) and look what happened? the same things we see today. Rise in use of illegal drugs . http://www.drugabuse.gov... Rise in organized crime and criminal gangs . http://criminal.findlaw.com... Also legalizing would hurt these drug cartels and lower crime in general . https://news.vice.com... and many other effects that were also a result from the alcohol prohibition which can be found at the link below . http://www.patheos.com... Thank you for going over my arguments, cant wait to see the reply :). Good Luck!
Resolved: A truely capitalistic system would be detrimental to slavery, even if it were permitted t

The full resolution is as follows. Resolved: A truely capitalistic system would be deteramental to the institution of slavery, even if it were permitted to exist. RulesFirst Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con. Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALSThird Round is Rebuttals. Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate. No Trolling. BOP is shared. No K's. If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition. Zarroette is banned from voting on this debate. If she votes it shall be concidered a votebomb and shall be removed as such. Truely Capitalistic System (Milton Friedman Capitalism)- an economic system in which investment in and ownership of themeans of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made andmaintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially ascontrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth, however, monopolies are forbidden to exist. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Detrimental- causing detriment, as loss or injury; damaging; harmful. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Slavery- the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Note that slavery shall not be permitted to exspand across that of the pre-Civil War slave states. No new territory nor alternate world history shall occur for this other than that of the Civil War not happening. Slavery shall not be permitted to exspand into US territories that they gain (such as the Phillipeans and such). *Disclaimer- this debate does not mean that I support the institution of Slavery nor supported. I condemn the notion of human bondage. *
Islam is a religion of peace.

Unfortunately all you have decided to do their is post 3 comments from the Qur'an, and one research poll from an independant investigator. However, these three posts are such a minority compared to the whole Qur'an itself. The poll also had very straight forward and such a blunt question asked, that this would of influenced what they would of said compared to what would of happened if you asked different types of violence. Their research was generalised, and therefore you assume that these small segments of their holy book can therefore be generalised to all Muslims. This also links me back to my last point which has gone amis. The vast amount of Muslims (fundamentalists) who take the absolute truth are the small minority, which you have decided to generalise to ALL of them. These quotes also suggest that modern muslims do it purely as in the past other Muslims may off presenting us with tu quoque. Just as at one point in time this may of happened, does not mean its the same in modern Britain or other countires.
Islam is a religion of peace.

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - Quran 8:12 "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" - Quran 8:39 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" -Tabari 9:69 "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." - Tabari 7:97 "A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified.... About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. An average of 25% of Muslims among the 20 nations surveyed believe suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is justified at least rarely" - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam is in many ways a religion of peace. They are renowned for being a religion who are very much community related religion, who tend to believe what they believe. The very few violent Islamic people are usually religious fundamentalists in countries such as Iraq and Iran. These religious fundamentalists are the only violent part of this religion. Minority. All you are doing is generalising the small group of fundamentalists, who are arguing to return to tradition values with current Islam, whom tend to have the monopoly of the truth, and so they can believe whatever they like thanks to our culture becoming secular. Their countries have very few people who disagree with secularisation, however the majority in the UK are happy with their life and therefore do not feel any need to assert violence to prove a point. This is because they do not have a point to make unlike fundamentalists.
Islam is a religion of peace.

Two. Out of all the UK. And I think you'll find Muslims may not start of happy, but due to a phrase known as cultural transition, the idea that their religious community helps them fit into this new Westernised culture. And these very few fundamentalists, the 25% who apparently are not the minority. are going through cultural defense, protecting their culture from these Westernisers. These have been proven by the sociologist Steve Bruce. As for the two soldiers. the fact that people generalised this once again to even more Muslims is once again showing the feeble minded individuals that the UK possess. whom more UK citizens are most probably killed by other UK citizens. My closing statement is that this 25% who ARE the minority are doing it in a cultural defense mechanism, and most of these cultural defensive muslims are in fact in their own country, and proctecting themselves from other religious organisations trying to overthrow them- the same as Russia did in the 70's.
THP private schools are better

Hamburgers or hot dogs. Coke or 7 up. Everyone has different opinions about everything. Though in the choice of private schools or public schools, if you are given the choice, I believe that private schools are the obvious choice. First of all, I believe private schools will be able to provide your child/children with a better education. Private schools have a much larger funding, which means that the school is able to support your child through his/her studies with better resources. While public schools may not be able to afford a swimming pool, a golf court, buses, trips, a proper gym, fitness rooms and etc, almost all private schools are able to provide your child with these opportunities.