BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am not the stongest man in the word

My opponent has failed elaborate on the meaning of the resolution so I'm forced to use my own common sense (or lack of) to determine the meaning of it. For clarity's sake I'll make the meaning clear in this round to keep the debate on topic. Resolution: I am (is) not the strongest man in the word Since I'm forced to go on context clues I have to use the clues within the resolution it's self to determine the meaning. Since my opponent said "The Word" instead of world I can only assume he is referring to the word of God. As "the Word" is a common name for the bible. The Word: This is a common name used in reference to the bible. A simple Google search will show it's common for Christians to us "The Word" as terminology referring to the bible. https://www.google.com... At first I didn't know what my opponent meant by "I am", but after seeing "the word" as a context clue I immediately knew he was referring to God. I am: This is a clear reference to God. In Exodus 3:14 God calls himself "I am that I am". Jesus also refers to himself as "I am" on several occasions http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia shows several spots in he bible where it's used by Jesus and if you don't trust them as a source just use one of the free bibles on line to cross reference what they say. I use bible hub. Jews also used the term I am as a way to refer to God in medieval times. (The Reader's Encyclopedia, Second Edition 1965, publisher Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, editions 1948, 1955. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 65-12510, page 918). There is a ton of history behind this word and if you're curious about it you can read up a little on it by clicking the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org... So with these definitions we can come to the true understanding of the resolution. Here it is: I am (GOD) (is) not the strongest man in the word (AKA THE BIBLE). I can't wait to see who my opponent argues is stronger than God. I look forward to his arguments. Also I won't give any arguments this round as my opponent has requested in round 1.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

An atheist is most simply a person that holds no theistic belief, within this definition there are subgroups. Implicit atheism includes most agnostics, and anyone that has never thought about the question of theism. Explicit atheists include weak and strong atheists that have thought about the existence of the supernatural. An agnostic is somebody that either claims not to know from lack of inquiry(weak agnosticism), or that claims it is impossible to know(strong agnosticism). The problem here is the assumed requirement of a logical proof for or against theism. A proof can only be shown to be consistent with an assumption or axiom, and therefore limited in scope. Human curiosity is what we call the drive to develop a predictive model of our environment, to help our behavior bring about our goals (a goal is an end, most are instinctual in nature, like survival and reproduction). The most accurate predictive models are those that omit the possibility of miracles, or supernatural influence, by focusing on empirical hypotheses that have consistent testable implications. In developing a predictive model of our environment, in order to increase the influence we can bring to bear on the individual's environment, atheism is the most useful framework for inquiry.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

Before I start the debate I'd like to state I am a Deist and not Agnostic. I am also not against people with a different religion(or lack-of)/belief other than Agnosticism. Nor am I saying they are wrong. I am simply saying that Agnosticism is the only rational belief, despite the fact it is also the only belief that can't be correct. Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to know whether or not a god of some sort actually exists. There is no faith or assumptions involved in being an Agnostic. Very often Atheists claim to be the only rational ones. However by being an Atheist and not an Agnostic you assume that there is no god of any kind. This assumption could easily be wrong, because there is no way to prove whether or not any sort of god exists(Even though it might be possible to prove certain aspects of religions incorrect.). Even if every religion on Earth was wrong there could still be a god of some sort. Theism like Atheism is also not rational as it's the belief in a god(or something similar) without any solid evidence. Any solid evidence relating to a belief could also be false, as there is really no 100% way to know if anything is real(A concept well portrayed in the movie The Matrix.). Taking into account that neither Atheism or Theism can 100% be confirmed correct, the only rational belief would there for be Agnosticism.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

All the atheists I know hold their opinions on a tentative basis. With the information I have access to, the simplest and most predictive model of my environment is based on natural processes with no supernatural intervention. Proof is not required to act; acting based on the model most consistent and predictive of the environment is rational, regardless of the theistic content of the model. It is plausible for someone with access to different information than I, to come to a rational tentative position of a theistic nature. Rationality is a quality measurement of decisions and opinions, forged and revised, with respect to available evidence.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

"children are born without any theistic belief, implicitly atheist." When you are born you are ignorant. Ignorance is not ration. When a child is born they don't know "There is no god!", they also don't know "There is a god!". They have no idea of either of those concepts as they haven't learned them yet. You seem to be debating more that a child is born an Atheist rather than Agnostic, which has nothing to do with the topic. Humans certainly aren't rational at birth. "Do we call people that fail to believe in fairies, afariest? No, because the burden of proof is on the person claiming the fairy exists." Even if something isn't proved, that certainly doesn't say it's wrong. Also, there really is no such thing as the "burden of proof" as proof is impossible to measure. Everyone picks and chooses which proof they want to accept as actual proof. Proof that a god exists could include the fact the universe exists in the first place, despite the inevitable paradox that the universes creation brings up. All sorts of things could be proof, but as I said earlier it's impossible to prove anything thus saying the burden of proof is on the person claiming the fairy exists is pure idiocy. Again, it seems like you're trying to debate that Atheism is correct and everything else is wrong. This is NOT the topic. Atheism can be correct and irrational at the same time. "For the course of action to be rational, it must be useful. It must the belief or action most capable of achieving a goal." For something to be rational it doesn't have to be useful, nor does it have to involve achieving a goal. It only has to be the most logical conclusion after reason. Since neither Atheism or Theism can be proved correct, logically the most rational conclusion would be there is no definite way to prove either correct.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

You said, "If you are an Atheist you already have an opinion and thus naturally a bias." This is not true, because children are born without any theistic belief, implicitly atheist. Theism should be treated no differently than any more other claim of fact or truth. The default position for any claim is negative. Do we call people that fail to believe in fairies, afariest? No, because the burden of proof is on the person claiming the fairy exists. It is not a matter of believing god(s) do not exist, it is a state of not believing they do exist. Many if not most professed agnostics are implicitly atheist. The word theist is a statement of belief in god(s), atheism is the lack thereof. However, the question we are debating is if a course of action or belief is rational. For the course of action to be rational, it must be useful. It must the belief or action most capable of achieving a goal. If your only goal is happiness, the most useful course of action may be to enforce your own ignorance. Agnosticism(weak) with respect to any claim can be useful, but only when actually comparing claims for predictive accuracy/usefulness. People who hold onto weak agnosticism too long suffer opportunity cost, and strong agnosticism is a self-defeating proposition.
Agnosticism is the only rational belief.

I disagree. If you are an Atheist you already have an opinion and thus naturally a bias. Where as if you were Agnostic you believe either way might be correct and are more willing to look at things with more open eyes - without jumping to a conclusion as easily. You are also assuming the most useful way to inquire about things is if you are starting off with the belief there is no god, and are thus trying to learn more about your environment. However many of the greatest minds in history have done the exact same, except it was in an attempt to figure out god's design and to aspire to become more.
Abortion

This will not be a formal debate. both of us are trying to prove our points, and that is all we will do. thank you for accepting:) Now, abortion is sometimes referred to as 'murder' however, this fetus is not a full human yet. It does not have emotions, it can not feel pain, it doesn't even know what this is. It doesn't even know what it is. While i will go ahead and stop this argument before it is started: Do i believe that you should be able to abort a fetus because you didn't use protection? No. But in the cases that someone did use protection and it failed, or a rape of some kind occurred, i believe that abortion is a right and an option. Like I said..this is not a formal debate... I don't really care if people vote me down..im not putting sources, and im not listing everything formally. I'm more interested with debating and hearing other points, than winning. Good luck to con:)
resolved: The prostitutin is a legitimate occupation and should be allowed in the United States.

I would also like to bring up the point of what if the prostitute conceives a child? the whole idea of prostitution is a one night stand. so if the child is conceived the man is not going to want to take care of the child which is going to raise the foster rate which is going to raise the foster home numbers and ultimately leave children homeless and on the streets. there is also the issue of abortion which this would raise the rate of abortions in the us we do not need that!!!!
resolved: The prostitutin is a legitimate occupation and should be allowed in the United States.

I guess what is considered "inappropriate" is in the eye of who is judging it. Also prostitutes are not committing an inherently harmful act. While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects. If you are categorizing someone as being a prostitute you need to know there are multiple things you have to prove before it is considered and endangered occupation. I can see where you say something about spreading an STD, well there are many laws that say you need to have a way to prove of a check-up stating you do not have a sexual transmitted disease. With your story about the man having unprotected sex with 5 women, the women obviously knew what they were getting into with having sex. Was there any proof that the women didn't know he was protected? If so, the predicament would have been taken care of differently.
resolved: The prostitutin is a legitimate occupation and should be allowed in the United States.

The first thing I would like to discuss is what is "inappropriate"? I believe that the line of appropriate and inappropriate varies between subjects. the seconds point is that you don't know what you are working with. you could be working with a felon rapist or the guy next door you just don't know what you are getting into. what happens when the prostitute contracts a disease? they are now bringing there work into there home lives and it is directly affecting them. An HIV-positive New York man was sentenced to one year in jail for having unprotected sex with five women. One of the victims was 15 years old. Another was pregnant at the time with a second child of this man. He admitted to knowing he was infected with the AIDS virus when he had sex with the women. so there is laws in place to keep the diseases controlled
Pineapple belongs on a pizza

Let's face it, this debate will go nowhere. We each have our own opinions on it. No matter what each of us present in our agreement, we will both be wrong. Your saying I need a example on how its wrong, didn't you read my opening statement? Meat and veggies are the things that go on a pizza, by definition, pineapple is neither a veggie or meat. It is a fruit. Therefore, pineapple doesn't belong on pizza. Plus, where did you find that definition of a pizza, because without a link, we can only assume you made that up when writing this to throw me off
Controversial foods should be continued

First of all, Argument dropped. " We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible" and as we see, the debate ends, so my argument goes unopposed. Another argument of "obesity and diabetes" go unoppsed too. Now, as for the rebuttal. .. "I agree with 'funwiththoughts' comments. Right to eat anything they want is different from right to assult or kill. Or if a person thinks reading books are bad, people should not read it? " Of course it is. I never said it was same as right to kill and as for the example of books, It is not appropriate with the motion. See, reading and eating are far away points. As for the Human flesh thing, what I wanted to say is that suppose a person dies. .now, one thinks that human flesh is awesome. .. so, he goes and eats that corpse. See? Now, will it be a nice and good thing? Even if it was neither an assault or a murder, is it right? People will disagree with that man and he willbe called a lunatic. Yeah. .. right to eat. Man should know his limits. A free country is based so that the people as a whole can be happy and not a group either be it the majority or the minority. Now, how can one be happy if his roommate is killing birds like pegions in front of his eyes and eating them? It of-course (at times) is inappropriate to stop eating if someone thinks what we eat is gross but the controversial foods aren't something which are considered gross but harmful. Harmful to the environment, society, religion, health etc. .. As my unopposed argument goes " We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible" such a condition is harming the environment while another "obesity and diabetes" argument says that controversial food can cause harm to human health. In conclusion, I agree that one shouldn't just stop eating because someone thinks waht he eats is gross but as for controversial foods like Shark fin or Whale liver etc. .. it is a different case and it will be better off if this controversial foods are not continued. THANK YOU.
Controversial foods should be continued

Controversial foods should be continued because people have the right to eat what they want to I agree with 'funwiththoughts' comments. Right to eat anything they want is different from right to assult or kill. This is a free country. People have the right to say their opinions, say what they want to say, and eat what they want to eat. If this is not allowed, they would not call this a free country. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If other people think that controversial foods are disgusting, they could just not eat that food or not go to places that sell controversial foods. If a person should stop eating foods they want to eat because of others it is actually violating the person's right to eat what they want to eat. Also, from Con's opinion, if other people thinks that eating beef or anything is disgusting, they should stop eating it. Or if a person thinks reading books are bad, people should not read it? It is inappropriate for people to stop eating what they want to eat because others does not like them.
Controversial foods should be continued

.. Controversial foods. .. Like Shark fin? We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible. Same for seals here. Such situations will lead to extinction of animals. Take the example of whales here. and trust me, enough people are dying out of diabetes and obesity. Controversial foods are so called because it might contain Vitamin D but it will also contain some factor that can make you unhealthy. Also, if controversial foods are continued. It will lead to distress and finally strikes and turmoil. Instance? Beef for Hindus is like Satan for a pope. In such a case, if one comes and starts eating beef infront of a Hindu, it is going to create some problem. *gasp* I see Pro's second point counters this. .. but," For example, even if other people think that controversial foods are disgusting,it is the eating person who should think about it and not other people who are just looking at. "Right to eat? If such a right was ever present, it is sure that the people have reconsidered it and removed it. .. for the better. Just an instance, if now some group thinks that they should eat humans because eating them will give them all the nutrients, it is insane. but hey! I have the right to eat! So, I take this person, cut off his limb and chew it up infront of him. .. Think about it. Right to eat is an insane thought.
Controversial foods should be continued

Thank you for debating ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I strongly agree that controversial foods should be continued because it can be nutritious. seal is a controversial foods which people eat The Canadian government allowed citizens to eat controversial foods because it can provide a sustainable, healthy meat to people. Also, shark fin which is another controversial food, contains protein which can be beneficial to a person's health. There is shark liver too. Shark liver extract as a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, as well as a therapy for maculae degeneration There are goose liver too. It contains many kinds of vitamins and proteins which can be beneficial to the health Second, people have the right to choose what they want to eat As people has the right to do what they what to do, they have the right to eat what they want to eat. For example, even if other people think that controversial foods are disgusting, it is the eating person who should think about it and not other people who are just looking at.
Controversial foods should be continued

Controversial foods should be continued definition controversial foods? Debatable kinds of foods in which some people agree ex) dog meat, shark fins, goose liver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I strongly agree that controversial foods should be continued because it can be nutritious. seal is a controversial foods which people eat The canadian government allowed citizens to eat controversial foods because it can provide a sustainable, healthy meat to people. Also, shark fin which is another controversial food, contains protein which can be beneficial to a person's health. There is shark liver too. Shark liver extract as a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, as well as a therapy for macular degeneration In conclusion, controversial foods should be continued because it can be beneficial to your health.
near death experiences are a good reason not to be atheist

"A personal experience someone else has is not evidence for anyone but that person. Whether that person was (or is) an atheist is irrelevant." it might be a personal experience, but it looks like the experience has to do with us all. this means we should listen even to the personal expereinces of those people. "Certainly, almost dying can be a lifechanging event and a catalyst for reprioritzing one's life and views. An individual changing their views after such an event may have absolutely nothing to do with a NDE." it's more than just a life changing event. they go from not believing, to 'knowing' God exists. people overwhelmingly experience God. very few if any experience people like Zues Buddha or Mohammad. on a related note, an overwheling number experience Jesus, or at least a being of light, but my main point is they overwhelmingly expereince God.
near death experiences are a good reason not to be atheist

Let's get right into it, shall we? ! Near Death Experiences NDE - A near-death experience (NDE) is a personal experience associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. [1] 1. Pro claims "almost no one who is an atheist comes back [from a NDE] still an atheist. they might have a bigger or different conception of God than what is normally talked about, but atheist they are not. " This is an unsupported assertion. Pro's position is completely unwarranted based on what she has provided us, and she has not met her burden. 2. A personal experience someone else has is not evidence for anyone but that person. Whether that person was (or is) an atheist is irrelevant. 3. Certainly, almost dying can be a lifechanging event and a catalyst for reprioritzing one's life and views. An individual changing their views after such an event may have absolutely nothing to do with a NDE. 4. Lastly, Near death experiences are not consistent with an all-powerful god and tend to favor the beliefs and culture of the individual: "While it is “definitely clear that people do have experience at the time that they’re dead”, Parnia says, how individuals actually choose to interpret those experiences depends entirely on their background and pre-existing beliefs. " [2] If we had high percentage of individuals from all religions claiming they saw Vishnu or Zues (for example), then that would be something to think about. Unfortunately for Pro, collectively we have no consistent expectations of NDE other than the experience (when compared) will be inconsistent: These mental experiences ranged from terrifying to blissful. There were those who reported feeling afraid or suffering persecution, for example. “I had to get through a ceremony … and the ceremony was to get burned,” one patient recalled. “There were four men with me, and whichever lied would die … I saw men in coffins being buried upright. ” Another remembered being “dragged through deep water”, and still another was “told I was going to die and the quickest way was to say the last short word I could remember”. Others, however, experienced the opposite sensation, with 22% reporting “a feeling of peace or pleasantness”. Some saw living things: “All plants, no flowers” or “lions and tigers”; while others basked in the glow of “a brilliant light” or were reunited with family. Some, meanwhile, reported a strong sense of deja-vu: “I felt like I knew what people were going to do before they did it”. Heightened senses, a distorted perception of the passage of time and a feeling of disconnection from the body were also common sensations that survivors reported. [2] Back to you, Pro! [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.bbc.com...