BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

She*. My mistake.My opponent still doesn't respond to anything I posted from my theory argument. Extend it out as continually conceded.Her only question was "why change the whole debate due to a mistake."The problem with this question is that it makes a critical mistake in that this could've been a debate in the first place. Truisms leave me with absolutely zero ground to work with in terms of making arguments: how am I supposed to argue that it isn't a sport when, by definition, it's a sport? There's no possible grounds for me to do that. That means the only possible recourse for me to win the debate is to argue why debaters who argue in favor of truisms ought to lose the debate. Back to pro.
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

First off he is a she, second, why are you twisting words into nasty things like quote, "Yeah, it's a truism, but a lot of people still think it's not a sport and it's annoying to try and slap them with a dictionary all the time". Third, truisms give an unfair advantage as I now see, yet that is not what this debate is about. If I am talking about horseback riding, than why change the whole debate due to a mistake. Thank you for informing me and bettering my future debates though, next debate, I will have to do a ton more research
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

So two interesting things happen in my opponent's last round.The first interesting thing is that he concedes that horseback riding being a sport is a truism. This means he's going to be 100% linking into the harms coming off the theory argument as to how he's harming debate as an activity, and why he should lose because of it.The second interesting thing is that he doesn't respond to a single thing I posted in my argument about why truisms harm debate and why it means he should lose because he tried to debate one. He literally just says "Yeah, it's a truism, but a lot of people still think it's not a sport and it's annoying to try and slap them with a dictionary all the time" before kicking it back over to me.Hold this against him in the debate and extend out my arguments as dropped. Debating truisms make it impossible for debaters to have equal access to argument ground, which harms the fairness of the activity and the educational value of the activity. Because he's harming fairness and education, he ought to lose the debate. Kicking it back over to pro, hoping for any kind of response.
Atheism is more rational then Theism

No, you may not post rebuttals R5. I never can reply. I find it cowardly.Here is my opening:Rational [thought]. 1. The quality or condition of being rational. 2. A rational belief or practice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Rational. 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Con is free to disagree. I'm not going to force you to use these, if you don't agree.Point One. One thing that really gets me on most Theistic arguments is that they can be used to prove any god. So, even you prove that a god exists, which one is really the one? This isn't my point but I want Con to think it over and answer it for me for why he might think the way he does.I truly think that it is impossible to prove God. The guy is pretty much outside of logic and time. Holding faith over something is on par with me thinking that there is someone who lives on Pluto. I don't believe in the man on Pluto because I don't having any evidence for such. Replace the man with a teapot or the FSM for taste. Back to Con. Sorry for the delay.
Atheism is more rational then Theism

I accept. My Position as stated below is, It is not my duty to prove that theism is more reasonable than atheism, but my opponents burden to prove that atheism is more reasonable than theism, my duty is to rebuttal all the arguments put forward by my opponent and give reasons as to why atheism is not more reasonable than theism, based only on the arguments put forward by my opponent, if my opponent fails to convince me or the audience that atheism is more reasonable that theism, I win the debate based on my opponent failing to prove the resolution is true, Note, I have no burden to prove the resolution true, and therefore do not need to construct an opening argument that defends the resolution, I only have to wait and rebuttal my opponents arguments who has the burden to prove the resolution true. If I fail to do this then my opponent wins.
Atheism is more rational then Theism

Round 1 Con makes his/her first arguments and accepts the rules I laid out.Round 2 Clash.Round 3 Clash and Con's closing thoughts.Round 4 My closing thoughts. Con only posts this: "No arguments here, as accepted."Theism is :"...belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"http://www.merriam-webster.com... Atheism is: Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings NO COPYING OTHER PEOPLES ARGUMENTS. If you do, it's a 7 point loss No semantics.
Atheism is more rational then Theism

Above my opponent reasons that most theistic arguments can be used to prove any God, I do not actually agree with this, but by my opponents own admission, He believes that, MOST theistic arguments can Prove a God is there, but just not which God out of the many people proclaim. By this reasoning, that most theistic arguments prove God, then it would be more rational to believe in God rather than lack belief in God, which is what atheism entails. So here we see Pro has negated his own resolution. "So, even you prove that a god exists,". I never said anything that it is possible to prove God. What I was basically saying is that the KCA proves god as muchas it proves the FSM, but the FSM is treated as nonexistant. Also I will say you haven't answered by question. WHICH God is it? To begin with, Which God out of all the Gods people proclaim, is the real God. First I would like to mention what classical theism accepts about Gods attributes, God is an absolute complete being, in other words, He is infinite, and also self sufficient is power. Absolute means no separation, So absolutely everything is Gods energy, either directly or indirectly, what do I mean when I say either directly or indirectly? Well just like when I use a microphone to speak through and my voice comes out of the speakers, that is my separated energy, also I would like to give another example How God can be Simultaneously one and different with His creationThis is how God is able to be everywhere and yet be situated in a single spot, Although the sunshine is an extension of the sun and shares the same chemical qualitative attributes as the sun, they are still different. Example: If the sun globe entered your window, you would be foolish to believe the sunshine entered your window.......This analogy shows how God is able to be one, yet different with His creation using his separated energy, Which is inconceivably one and different. Is this a begging the question fallacy? Please. Let's prove god please. I could replace 'God' with 'FSM' and the logic would stay the same. This is the problem with Theistic arguments. I will not dive deeper because it is not worth answering. I be frank, I dont see why I should believe because the sun is shiny and shines everywhere. Why are you tying God with sunlight? This isn't a debate about God itself. This is a debate of why Atheism is more rational then Theism.You have not proven my first point false. You have sidesteped it.Back to Con.
Gum in School

When Pro states that she believes gum should be allowed in school, I am under the assumption that she means gum should be allowed to be used in school; thus, the BOP will look like this:BOP-My opponent, Pro, will argue that gum should be allowed to be used in school. I, Con, will argue that gum should not be allowed to be used in school. I look forward to Pro's arguments, and I hand over the next round to her.
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Ill make this quick 1) If you really want to incorporate US territories into the election system they direct popular vote wont fix that, that is a constitutional issue about what the rights of US territories as defined by the Constitution are. 2) The recount was called off by the Supreme Court and they had their own reasons for ordering a halt to the recount. The recount did not occur because there was a conflict between the popular vote and electoral vote http://www.usconstitution.net... 3) A direct popular vote wont give the Texas Democrat any more political say than in the electoral college vote. However in the electoral college system small states in general will have more of a say in elections than in large states. 4) The electoral votes each state gets is based on a simple equation number of representatives the state has + 2 = electoral votes This system was set up by the founding fathers and it accurately represents how much political say each state gets because the size of the state can be comparable to the number of people who votes in any one election. The Florida-New York case in 2008 was just one of possibly multiple cases where the system set by the founding fathers 200 years ago didnt quite get right. Ill end with this, In a direct popular vote the states with the largest populations will be the states that candidates try to win because of the massive populations. Smaller states though would not become as important in the elections because of their smaller size and smaller ability to be an important state to win to any candidate. The electoral system gives smaller states a larger say in elections because the electoral system, as designed by our founding fathers, gives more power to smaller states so that a presidential candidate would have to win their votes to become president. A direct popular vote system would give each and every person one equal vote, but large states would further dominate over smaller states because of their sheer size in population over the smaller states.
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

1)My opponent continues to bring up the fact that the electoral college help equalize power between the small and large state. He has been mentioning the population of Wyoming (540,000) and the smaller states that they deserve to have their voice heard. With the population of the U.S. territories being greater than 4,000,000. If I agree with his 30% republican, 30% democratic and the other 40% are the deciding factor. This is still almost twice as many so called "Voters That Matter" compared to the entire population of Wyoming. 2)Again with the Florida recount. The recount was originally called because Al gore had the popular vote but lost in Electoral Vote. Therefore there was a clash because the votes cast by the electors clashed with the tallied popular vote. 3)My opponent brings up that minorities have more power on a national level with the Electoral College. But, again because of the winner take all system the idea of a third party swaying or changing the outcome in a current election is unheard of. Also with the idea that minorities have more power on a nation level is crazy because as stated in the resolution" Direct popular vote." This is essentially says without participation of the states. This lets no one's voice go unheard but again, because of the current winner take all system there is no way for say a democrat in Texas to get there voice heard. 4)That point that I am trying to bring across is that because the number of electorates is based on census count that it doesn't matter how many votes are cast that state is still worth the same amount of electoral votes. So let's say only 1 person votes in California so then all of the electoral votes are given to the chosen party but then 2,500,000 people in Utah vote those 2,500,000 votes are only worth 6 electoral votes of course this is a great hyperbole. The New York, Florida comparison is only to more factually represent this scenario. Even though a smaller state Florida in this case had 800,000 more votes than New York but, it is still worth less in the electoral college because of the fact that the number of electors in based on census not the amount of votes In order for there to be equality for U.S. citizen's direct popular vote is easily the better choice compared to the Electoral College, because of 1. Territories have no representation in congress so they have no say in presidential elections even though they are directly affected. 2. The Electoral College has out lived its usefulness 3. Direct popular vote Strengthens the ideas of democracy by eliminating the regional advantage, and increasing voter turnout. Regional advantage is eliminated because in a direct popular vote each vote goes to candidate of choice instead of being tossed aside, in a Direct Popular Vote every vote counts so the populace would be more likely to vote because, their voice will be heard regardless of their states political allegiance. 4. The number of electoral votes is based on census not voter turnout.
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

My opponent stated in rebuttal to my first contention that the 4,000,000 disenfranchised people in the U.S. territories has a smaller impact than implied. But, this is still great number of disfranchised voters. The voter turnout in 2008 was 56.8% if we apply this to the U.S. territories it is greater than 2 million votes that are not being represented. Therefore the amount of voters not being represented can have a great impact considering 40 out of 56 elections have been won with less than half that number. On to the rebuttal of my second contention he brought up the 2000 election and the recount of Florida. But, you must realize the recount would have not been needed due to the fact that the number of electoral votes would not have clashed with the number of popular votes. So this is just pointing out flaw in the electoral system. To my contention 3 sub-point A. My opponent mentioned the fact that due to the large population of say California, the candidates from that region would have an extreme upper hand. But do to the winner take all system that is the Electoral College none of the votes of the minority party would contribute to their candidate of choice. This cross applies to my sub-point b. my opponent brought up that the state would still lean to the right or left. So in that state the minority parties vote would still be trounced. But, because a direct popular voting system is not a winner take all system. The votes of the minority party would still make a difference in determining the president. On to my fourth contention, my opponent stated that my facts were invalid due to the lack of time. I will agree to his stats and work my case around it so he brought up the fact that in the 2008 election New York had 800,000 less voters than Florida yet, still having a greater amount of electoral votes. So it takes 800,000 more votes in Florida to equal 27 electoral votes while New York with 800,000 less voters is equal to 31. Therefore gives an inaccurate representation of the people's views. So is it fair active voters have more or less power depending on their state. On to my opponents case is based on giving smaller states more power and how larger states would reign supreme. Due to the wording of the resolution specifically "Direct Popular Vote" this means coming directly from the people so it would be determine on a nationwide basis the idea of states reigning supreme in a direct popular vote scenario. Currently in the Electoral College a person's vote in smaller states is worth more than the same person's vote in a bigger state. This is unequal representation of people.
God is possible

I would like to apologize for saying The Jewish God in the comments, I thought he was talking about the God I believe in. The fact is that God is possible, let me rephrase, "nothing is impossible" to everything is possible. How could a God be impossible? Here's my question, if God is impossible, then how did the universe come into existence? The Big Bang? No, of course not because that theory cannot be proved. Lets take the Hindu Gods for example, the Hindus have thousands of Gods, what are the odds that at least on of them exists? If there is an almighty God, with powers we can't understand, then why would he be impossible? Atheists prove the bible correct, the bible says there will ALWAYS be atheists, so I thank all atheists reading this, because you are supporting Christianity!
God is possible

Your second argument is based on the self contradictory idea of "nothing is impossible" the idea that it is impossible for something to be impossible is it's self impossible. "nothing is impossible" doesn't work if you change it to "it is impossible for something to be impossible" then you see the inherently self contradictory nature of that statement. "First, I would like to say, what is possible? I believe according to quantum physics, anything is." No, quantum physics is simply a model of reality relating to atomic and sub atomic particles, in quantum physics there are rules (for instance the conservation of matter and energy) and so even in quantum physics the total amount of matter and energy in the universe cannot increase or decrease if you like in quantum physics it is impossible for the total amount of matter and energy in the universe to change. Here is more on quantum physics if you want to know what it says (the very very basics) http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk... I will re state my argument with more explanation. "I think, therefore I am" was invented by Ren" Descartes to counter hard solipsism it is a fact and is objectively true that I know that I am having an experience no matter what the nature of experience is it is impossible for me (or from your point of view you) to not exist in some form. "I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions): The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses, The assumption that knowledge exists, The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability. Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a god ("A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god. Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible. I have shown you that there are two impossibilities in the definition of god and therefore god cannot be either omnipotent or omniscient. And as any being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient god by definition doesn't exist and it is impossible for god to exist. I'm going to finish of by addressing your last sentences. "Now, I understand your view about forgiveness, the only way to get God's forgiveness and repent to him. Without those properties, God will not forgive." This is totally unsubstantiated by any evidence and is entirely baseless claims. I look forward to your arguments.
God is possible

First, I would like to say, what is possible? I believe according to quantum physics, anything is. I would also like to point out that when I say God, I mean any God, of any religion or faith. God is possible, because to many faiths, anything is, at first we thought building a flying machine wouldn't be possible for thousands of years, then, two brothers built it. That is why I believe anything is possible, maybe not now, but in time. So to say something is impossible, to me is (not saying that you are) idiotic. Now, I understand your view about forgiveness, the only way to get God's forgiveness and repent to him. Without those properties, God will not forgive. I await my opponents reply
God is possible

Before I start I fully accept the burden of proof is on me in this debate. Here is the definition of god "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." Both omniscience and omnipotence are logically impossible (and in themselves contradictory). Now no matter what omniscience is impossible, nothing can know everything because every sentient being has to make the three basil assumptions: The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses, The assumption that knowledge exists, The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability. Because these assumptions must be made by every sentient being it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. Therefore because there is a logical impossibility in the definition. And now for omnipotence. Omnipotence can be shown to be impossible by a very simple question and that is can god create an object that god can't effect? If god cannot create this object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can create this object then god is also not omnipotent because god cannot effect an object. Now (luckily for me) you constricting this to the Jewish god constricts this debate to this reality in which two statements of fact cannot contradict each other for instance a square cannot also be a circle or a being cannot be all forgiving and order the deaths of thousands. Now Yahweh is claimed to be both all forgiving [1] and orders the deaths of hundreds of thousands [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Yahweh is also claimed to be all righteous [8] and orders the killing of unbelievers [9]. I look forward to your counter arguments. [1] Isaiah 30:18 [2] Judges 21:10-24 [3] Numbers 31:7-18 [4] Deuteronomy 20:10-14 [5] Zechariah 14:1-2 [6] Deuteronomy 13:13-19 [7] Exodus 12:29-30 [8] Job 37:23 [9] 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Is The Illinois Lottery really a game of Chance

If I would place this debate under a IMAGE, I would show a Image of a " pair of loaded dice, " because I feel that the Illinois Lottery isn't a game of chance but just another way of exacting money for the government from the working class citizens or "retribution, " Another issue with this Illinois Lottery is that very seldom does any one from the state of Illinois ever wins this " lottery game of Chance, " but selected states, Like New York, And California, Mysteriously seem to come up with winners. Perhaps this Illinois Lottery is just another way of extracting a hidden tax, But whatever this " so-called, " Game of Chance, " is one in which Illinois citizens lose.
Is The Illinois Lottery really a game of Chance

The Illinois lottery is a game ran by the political hierarchy who's sole purpose is to drain money from the working poor and to provide money for them and their well connected friends One has to ask themselves if there ever was a game of chance, So-called, Where the adds weren't set in favor of the house? " There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, An American showman of the mid-19th century" and the political elite who put together the Illinois Lottery were well aware of this fact and knew all that they had to do was dangle the possibility of winning big money would draw like a bug is drawn to a light at night. Who then are the real winners, The ones who put their money away instead of throwing it away on a game of little, To none, Chance of winning.