BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The true meaning of atheism is the belief that God is just as likely to exist as not

In order for someone to declare something is likely or unlikely to exist they must have vested beliefs in that something. Either for that something (positive) or against that something (negative) either was, asserting that something is unlikely to exists is an active position. The definition of atheism is to lack beliefs in God. the definition of belief is to have an unproven opinion on something. So to think that God is likely or unlikely is to have an unproven opinion and therefore, belief in the status of God's existence. This is in turn disqualifies said person from being an atheist. It follows that if one has no opinion as to the status of God's existence then they must be in a poisition of equal plausibility. If Person A has been alledged of a crime and I do not believe he is guilty nor innocent I would be in a state of suspended belief until I have gathered enough evidence to manifest a conviction. At which point I would have vested beliefs in the status of Person A's guilt. If I hold the atheistic stance of non-belief in God's existence then I cannot assert whether Person A is likely or unlikely to be guility or innocent. Even slight belief is belief. So, if i so much as slightly believe Person A is more likely to be guilty than not I am no longer in a state of suspended belief in regards to Person A. I will follow up with these unproven opinions in the hopes that they are confirmed or rebuted. If I remain in a state of suspended belief even as mounting evidence proves that person A is guilty I could still not assert it is likley or unlikely for as long as I suspend belief. I may do this because mounting evidence has historically been proved wrong up until a certain point. Therefore, i would have equal evidence to contradict the mounting evidence. In this case, it was past experience, which could be considered a form of subjective evidence. So, I have demonstrated that to state non-belief in something is to imply a position of equal plausibility. As soon as you formulate a belief for or against a claim you no longer lack belief and therefore cannot be considered an atheist because atheism means lack of belief in God's existence. Not denial or believing God does not exists but a complete lack of belief.
The true meaning of atheism is the belief that God is just as likely to exist as not

Atheism: The lack of belief in a deityThe burden of proof is on me to proof that the meaning of atheism is to hold no preference toward the likely hood of God existing or not. The minute an atheist claims God is not likely to exists, on any level, they become an anti-theist and are no longer an atheist. If you you hold no preference toward the likely hood of god existing then this is the same as believing God is just as likely to exist as not - it makes you completely neutral. First round is for acceptance. This is my first time debating
This House Would Recognize That The NDP Should Lose the 2009 Nova Scotia Election

Let me begin by thanking Volkov for the wonderful idea. I would define 'this house' as the Nova Scotia legislature, still led by Rodney MacDonald's Progressive Conservative party. I would loosely define 'recognize' as put forward a platform as to why the PC, Liberal or Green party should win stead of the New Democratic Party. I define 'lose' as any configuration that results in the NDP not forming government. I hope that satisfies my honorable opponent and I invite him to change any bones of contention before he goes into his arguments.
Being single is way better than being married

Being single is way better than being married. I know the media likes to say that married people live longer but I say bull crap. I will debate anyone and provide examples of why it's better to be single than married Being single means - No compromising, no fighting for the remote, always eat what you want, no kids to babysit, save tons of money not buying gifts, valentines, Christmas. And no drama, just the couch and sports all for me, no romantic comedies So tell me why being married is better, and I'm sure I can refute it. By the way the divorce rate is at 50% now, so half of you agree with me already, that is why you got divorced right?
Being single is way better than being married

If you are marrying someone because you are fat and have no friends I guess would qualify as being better then being single. Being married means you owe half of everything so when the wife divorces you she will take half of everything you owe. If there are kids you will be paying child support, so in essence you will be paying more. Also if one spouse owes money to the government the IRS will come after you for money owing. Mother and Father in law, good luck with that one!! Don't keep the girlfriend past one year. Studies have shown the "love" spell wears out after a year, then it becomes just putting up with each other. And when she says it's time to get married that's when you get out and find someone else, there are plenty of fish in the sea, you just need confidence. There is more then one person out there for everyone. People don't just settle on one person anymore, and besides most people date many people before settling down. There are a lot of people out there, you do not need to marry and be locked with one person for life. Just like cheaters they get bored with their partner and see others. I'm not saying you need to cheat but you can break it off and see other people. The possibilities are endless You are right there are people that are happy in marriage, but that is a small percentage of people. Just like in the animal kingdom where only 1% of animals stay monogamous, like sea horses, pigeons and geese, most animals just mate and stay single. Well it's no different with humans, we might be on top of the food chain but with the amount of cheating going on, I believe being single is cheaper, no divorce costs and less stressful, no fighting, nagging, putting up with each other over the years. Why tolerate someone and listen to the same stories for decades when you can have new every year. Your rebuttal sir
Being single is way better than being married

It depends on what type of person you are. If you are a person who is always surrounded in friends/family and are attractive, I'm sure being single is spectacular for you. If you're obese and ugly, and have no other friends/family... then marrying the girl who you've dated for 10 years and is your only friend in the world could be an excellent decision. Being married allows for easier/reduced taxes, shared health insurance benefits, easier to handle administrative tasks over simply dating (such as inheritance, medical authorization, buying a house, etc...) If you're in the military, you receive more money in living allowance for having a family. Beyond that, having an additional income oftentimes is a good thing. Not to mention that the female's parents will generally approve of your relationship more if you marry their daughter. She will also become sad/depressed a lot of the time if her friends are getting married and you never propose. There are benefits for some people. It's not for everyone, but as you said, 50% of people never get divorced and of those 50%, I'm sure at least 1% of them are happy their entire marriage and regret nothing. It works for some people.
Music Battle

Going with FT's Spanish theme here, one of my last pieces is the first movement of Symphonie Espagnole by Edouard Lalo. I played this piece when I was in eighth grade; it made me feel pretty badass lol. I like the Spanish motifs throughout the piece. It's really...how should I put it...sassy? Lol. I hope you like it, and if you do I recommend listening to the rest of the movements as well. And my last one is Winter, from Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I like all of the movements. The first movement is crisp and seems to depict the flurries of snow falling from the sky. The 2nd movement is really gorgeous, peaceful, and deceptively simple. The 3rd movement is fast and furious again. Vivaldi gives us all the characteristics of winter--it can be soft and beautiful, or harsh and stormy. Winter is another piece that I have also played. A lot of people can play the notes but getting the right emotions into it is much harder.Thanks to FT for instigating this debate. It was very enjoyable :D
Music Battle

For the final round, I give you Paco de Lucia. Paco de Lucia - Minera/Fandango Paco de Lucia - Entre dos Aguas If you've never listened to Paco de Lucia, I promise this'll change everything you know about guitar and Spanish music. The first one is a solo piece that moves between two traditional flamenco styles. The second is a Spanish rumba, and it's the piece that put Paco de Lucia on the map in the 70s.
Music Battle

That counterpoint was very interesting and I've never heard of it before; it's pretty amazing. I'm envious of his coordination to be able to do that. I played piano once but dropped it to continue violin, and I was never spectacular at it :P Very cool piece.I used this in my previous music battle, but I hope FT doesn't mind. It's a song written by Chen Xi and Dong Dongdong called "Where Has the Time Gone?" (translated from Chinese--DDO doesn't recognize Chinese characters) I first heard this when it was performed on Chun Wan, the show that happens each year in China to celebrate Chinese New Year. It's hard to explain my feelings about this piece exactly since it's in a different language. I think the Chinese is much more elegant and expressive than any English translation...the song is bittwesweet, recalling fond memories of raising a child to adulthood but at the same time lamenting that so much time has already passed so quickly, leaving the writer in old age before he has fully realized it himself. https://www.youtube.com......Translation can be found here (it loses the rhyme and rhythm in translation, but just so you get the general theme):http://eastasiastudent.net......
Music Battle

I had never heard that. It's a nice piece. Not crazy inventive or original, but I agree the performance had a ton of energy and heart, and that's always awesome to see. I loved the middle, where it built up beautifully and really brought out some powerful emotions. Here's my next one, from my favorite jazz pianist, Brad Mehldau: The piece is a jazz cover of a Radiohead song called Exit Music. Unfortunately, I could not find the whole thing on Youtube, so the video cuts off in middle of his improvisation, but it's still totally amazing. Brad Mehldau is particularly known for his contrapuntal improvisation. Instead of playing chordal accompaniment with his left hand, which is what most jazz pianists do, he plays independent melodies. These melodies interact with other independent melodies in the right hand to create the harmonic progression. It's awesome to experience, as you'll see his left hand improvise freely as a solo voice, which then complements and provides "counterpoint" to the complex melodies played by the right hand. At certain points in the piece, he's improvising four independent lines (bass line, melody, and two guide-tone lines). It's one of the most difficult and mind-blowing things I've ever heard. Another part of what I love about Brad Mehdau is that he's one of the most innovative jazz musicians ever, but he innovates from within a conventional jazz environment -- a trio covering popular songs. I love that idea, because you'll always recognize the songs, and they're very simple harmonically, which allows the freedom to do crazy stuff with the improvisations.
Music Battle

I'm generally not one for opera myself, but that was a really haunting piece, nice.My first piece is an original composition by The Piano Guys called Arwen's Vigil. It was inspired by LotR and to date it's one of my favorite videos of theirs. The quote that goes with it is: "When Aragorn was abroad, from afar Arwen watched over him in thought" --Lord of the Rings. I thought this was quite fitting, especially since the serenity, elegance, and mystery of the piece really reflect Arwen as a character.Also, if you haven't listened to The Piano Guys, do it--all of their performances are really beautiful and they put a lot of energy and heart into their work.
Music Battle

I'm gonna start off with Missy Mazzoli. The first time I heard her music was one of the most chilling experiences in my life. For those of you who've never heard her, she's a contemporary composer, and her music is just ridiculously beautiful and inventive. The song I'm choosing is from her first opera, "Song From the Uproar," and it's called "You Are The Dust." I like to describe her music as high-tech neo-Classicism, and I think you'll see what I mean if you listen to it. I love it, and I hope you do too!
I will not contradict myself

It seems Con has forfeited the last round - so by the rules, I win. However, he wasn't pleased with my answers. I have made then much broader, so we can pick up again in Round 4 with 10 more questions. Keep in mind, though, that most of my answers were yeses or noes, just in sentence form. 1.) Does everyone have the right to clean conditions and basic needs (Nourishment, ect.)? Yes. 2.) Is it morally wrong if a rich man lives elaborately while a poor man dies? No, so long as the rich man became rich morally. >No. 3.) Does that rich man has the responsibility to improve the life of the poor man, even if it comes as an expense to him? Yes, the rich man ought to help some poor people, even at his own expense. >Yes. 4.) Does a human life have intrinsic value? (Does it have worth to society)? Yes. 5.) Is it morally wrong to force ones morals on others? Yes, unless many lives would be saved or vastly improved, or forcing morals overrides another forcing of morals (overthrowing a dictator who forces his morals on his subjects). >Yes, unless it helps many people. 6.) Are their morally superior nations or religions? In my view, a religion itself is not moral or immoral, its followers are. There are nations that act more morally than others. >Yes. 7.) Is killing ever justified of innocent Civilians, collateral or otherwise? Yes, in some cases. >Yes. 8.) Should those who kill innocent civilians be punished for murder/manslaughter? Yes, except in a few cases. Soldiers ought not to be charged, for example. Leaders should only be charged if the killing is not justified. >Yes, except in extenuating circumstances. 9.) Are people born with Criminal intentions/behaviors? People can be born aggressive or unreasonable, but not necessarily criminal until they enter society and society defines crime. >People can't be born with *criminal* intentions. 10.) Is the death penalty sometimes justified? Yes, but only in rare cases. >Yes.
I will not contradict myself

These are some heavy questions, and I can't express my answers to all of them with single words. 1.) Does everyone have the right to clean conditions and basic needs (Nourishment, ect.)? Yes. 2.) Is it morally wrong if a rich man lives elaborately while a poor man dies? No, so long as the rich man became rich morally. 3.) Does that rich man has the responsibility to improve the life of the poor man, even if it comes as an expense to him? Yes, the rich man ought to help some poor people, even at his own expense. 4.) Does a human life have intrinsic value? (Does it have worth to society)? Yes. 5.) Is it morally wrong to force ones morals on others? Yes, unless many lives would be saved or vastly improved, or forcing morals overrides another forcing of morals (overthrowing a dictator who forces his morals on his subjects). 6.) Are their morally superior nations or religions? In my view, a religion itself is not moral or immoral, its followers are. There are nations that act more morally than others. 7.) Is killing ever justified of innocent Civilians, collateral or otherwise? Yes, in some cases. 8.) Should those who kill innocent civilians be punished for murder/manslaughter? Yes, except in a few cases. Soldiers ought not to be charged, for example. Leaders should only be charged if the killing is not justified. 9.) Are people born with Criminal intentions/behaviors? People can be born aggressive or unreasonable, but not necessarily criminal until they enter society and society defines crime. 10.) Is the death penalty sometimes justified? Yes, but only in rare cases.
I will not contradict myself

1.) Does everyone have the right to clean conditions and basic needs (Nourishment, ect.)? 2.) Is it morally wrong if a rich man lives elaborately while a poor man dies? 3.) Does that rich man has the responsibility to improve the life of the poor man, even if it comes as an expense to him? 4.) Does a human life have intrinsic value? (Does it have worth to society)? 5.) Is it morally wrong to force ones morals on others? 6.) Are their morally superior nations or religions? 7.) Is killing ever justified of innocent Civilians, collateral or otherwise? 8.) Should those who kill innocent civilians be punished for murder/manslaughter? 9.) Are people born with Criminal intentions/behaviors? 10.) Is the death penalty sometimes justified?
I will not contradict myself

Guess I'll try one of these too! If you're seasoned in these kind of debates, I ask that you wait at least 3 days until accepting - I'd like to debate with another novice. Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate.
4a. Campaign Finance Reform

We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws. This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy. Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed. The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations. The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable.
4a. Campaign Finance Reform

Politics is a messy business. People with money finance campaigns, and in return, they expect those politicians whose campaigns they financed to help them out a bit. No more should this occur. These are not democratic ideals. This country was founded on the notion that every taxpayer should have the same amount of say in government. That, unfortunately, does not hold true. To fix the situation, we must reform campaign finance. No more will we be a society where the wealthy and powerful make the rules while the everyman has barely any say. We should not stand for this. There is also another problem with campaign finance as it stands. He who has the most money to spend on a campaign is most likely to be more successful. Take Ross Peroe, for example. The only time in recent history when a third-party candidate got an appreciable amount of the vote. Why did he do so well? It is widely believe to be his wealth that helped him here. This should not happen. A person's wealth will not help him/her lead this country, so there is no reason his/her wealth should help win an election. Reform could obviously fix this problem. Perhaps candidates could have limits of how much personal wealth could be spent campaigning. That is one of many ways that problem could be fixed. I am not advocating any specific way, I am simply noting that there is a problem and some type of reform is necessary to fix it. For the better of our political process, for the better of our country, and for the better of this world.
The Christian Bible does not promote evil

first off god commands genocide multiple times in the bible. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and goat". samuel 15:3 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain". Deuteronomy 2:34 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and goat, with the edge of the sword". Joshua 6:21 "So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded". Joshua 10:40 "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them". Deuteronomy 7:2 this is condoning evil acts because god in the bible ordered it and the soldiers who did it were considered righteous and favored in the eyes of god. god also condones murder. "You should not let a sorceress live".Exodus 22:17 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."Leviticus 20:13 "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death". Exodus 21:15 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death". Leviticus 20:10 "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death". Leviticus 21:9 passages such as these cannot be regarded as anything but evil if the bible contains things like god ordered genocide and murder for witches, gays, kids who strike their parents etc its safe to say evil is condoned in the bible.