BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is an atheist.

I'll provide the definition of atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... "...that would imply that an atheist believes in religions that that don't include God (such as Hinduism). This however is not the case. The actual definition of an atheist is one that doesn't believe in religion."This is a mistake many people make. They think all atheists are irreligious. That is, in fact, not true. Buddhism does not necessarily include the worship of deities, but it is still a religion. Buddhists can be religious atheists. Here is an About article that discusses atheism in relation to certain religions: http://atheism.about.com..."If nothing controls God that means that God doesn't believe in a controlling power and therefore does not believe in a religion. Thus making him an atheist."In reference to the part of your quote that I bolded, does God not believe in Himself? Let us look at it another way. There are some people who claim to be god. That doesn't mean they are atheist simply because they believe themselves to be god. In order to be atheist, you have "disbelieve in the existence of God or gods." Since these people claim to be god, they do not deny the existence and are therefore, not atheists.
God is an atheist.

But the definition of an atheist is not one who doesn't believe in God, that would imply that an atheist believes in religions that that don't include God (such as Hinduism). This however is not the case. The actual definition of an atheist is one that doesn't believe in religion. Also the definition of religion is the belief and worship of a supernatural controlling power. If nothing controls God that means that God doesn't believe in a controlling power and therefore does not believe in a religion. Thus making him an atheist.
God is an atheist.

If we acknowledge that God is Transcendent and Immanent, then it is understandable. Nevertheless, we are not focusing on the article. I took a quote out of that article to explain what you said.For the sake of argument, let us take the person definition out. An atheist is one who denies the existence of God. Does God acknowledge the existence of Himself? If so, then He does not fit the definition of an atheist even when taking the person factor out.
God is an atheist.

Taking the article into consideration I must say that it is entirely contradictory. To create absolutely everything would be to create creation, which is impossible. To not be anywhere and to not be nowhere is impossible. To not be in a place and exist in that place is impossible. I'm sorry to say but to me the article seemed to imply more that God doesn't exist, than anything else. Though I suppose if God doesn't exist he couldn't be an atheist. On a different note why does one have to be a person to be an atheist. Hypothetically is let's say that an intelligent alien from another planet came to earth and let's say that this alien believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Would this alien not be considered a Christian even though it is not a person. Since a person is defined as any human individual.
Music Talent Competition

Inspired by some other music competition I saw on here I decided to make my own. Open to anyone who has any type of musical talent, whether it be singing or playing an instrument. I and my opponent will go back and forth performing different songs from the categories listed below. Each performer must upload a video through Youtube and share it. The song MUST FIT THE CATEGORY ASSIGNED TO THAT ROUND. For example, if the category in Round 4 was Love Ballads and one of the performers chose "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus, then voters must vote accordingly. Here are the rules:1. When uploading the video, the performer cannot edit the video in any way possible. This includes jump cuts and audio edits. 2. The performer must be playing some type of instrument during their performance.3. The song choice must confide with the assigned category for that round. The performer can either sing the song or do an instrumental cover of the song. 4. The performers cannot use original work. 5. Loop pedals, effect pedals, ect. are prohibited during this debate. Microphones are allowed if the performer needs to amplify their sound, but before the performer begins the song, they must show on camera that they are not using any kind of effect pedal. 6. The video must at least over 2 minutes, but under 6 minutes. I will start the actual performance, so do not upload a video for Round 1. The categories for each round are as follows:Round 2: Songs from the 60's. Any song by any artist that was made between the years of 1960-1969.Round 3: Guilty Pleasures. Widely popular songs that were a huge sensation that people still secretly enjoy today. Song choice can be from any decade. Round 4: Chart Toppers. Songs that have been #1 on Billboard for at least 3 weeks. In the description on YouTube or on this website, the performer must provide the number of weeks the song was #1 on Billboard and a link to whatever site they got their information. Please do your research before you make your song choice. The song can be from any decade. Round 5: Free Choice. This round is free for the performers to decide. Please refrain from using profanities. Just remember that at the end of the day, it's all about fun for this debate. Let's try to play nice, and that goes for my opponent and commentators as well. Let's get started, who wants to take the challenge? Got questions? Ask me in the comments!
Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy

Note: This is my first debate as well. If any veteran folks see any errors in my argumentation, please help me out post debate. Other than that I look forward to this debate! The National Sales Tax or the "Fair" Tax would be problematic for many reasons. For one a 13 % tax on all American citizens would be good... for the wealthy, if that were to take place you would only be widening income inequality; making the rich richer while the poor get poorer. Also even if we overcome the huge income inequality that would take place, the government would have trouble spending as they do now, due to the lower tax revenue, (which is 2.5 trillion dollars now, it was 3.5 trillion, but the Bush Tax Cuts lead to a loss of 1 trillion in revenue) budget cuts will take place worsening our military expenditure, NASA budgets, and much much more, this may lead to the government laying off federal workers worsening our unemployment rate and inching closer to an economic bust, which would most likely take place if such a tax (13%) occurred. And before you even say the lost taxes on income brackets would be made up by consumerism/retail tax, this would also fail. The taxes on products would be raised significantly, and I'm assuming a 13 percent tax would flop miserably or not pass in congress, so a 23% tax would be more practical. People wouldn't go out and buy as much as you would of probably hope they would. If people don't buy like there's no end, our consumer based economy would plummet. Also you assume that a drop in taxes would spark an economic boom, with consumers rushing to stores with all their new found money, this would not be the case. Like I said earlier, taxes on products would be raised by a large margin causing consumers to avoid spending as much. There is much more dilemma with your proposed tax cut, but I feel like I got a point through. In summary, a national sales tax would hurt government spending; in turn, causing federal layoffs and raised taxes on consumables. If they took the course of raising taxes on products (or more debt annually which can be a temporary solution for lost revenue) american consumers would be less inclined to go on a buying spree. If this takes place, there could be a potential for an economic bust, thanks to a loss in consumerism. (but don't worry Walmart will hire everyone) Sources: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... http://politicalcorrection.org... http://fairtaxfraud.com...
Debate.org should use Elo based rating system for leaderboard

This debate is inspired by a comment on following debate: http://www.debate.org...3 round debateFirst round for definitions/ acceptance/ introduction2nd and 3rd round for arguments / rebuttalsDiscuss with me in comments in case of any clarifications==Definitions==Debate.org - Refers to the website http://www.debate.org...Elo based rating system - A player ranking system - http://en.wikipedia.org...leaderboard - A list of all debaters on debate.org order of performance (Currently ordered by number of wins. http://www.debate.org...==Introductions==I believe that should debate.org should have a Elo based rating system for debate.org. I will show advantage of this system over current method.If my opponent supports the current method - he/she will have to rebut my arguments.If my opponent chooses some other method rather than Elo based method, he/she will have to prove its superiority over Elo based method.
We should ban most (if not all guns) in America/ ROTW

Wow. Um....This is difficult for me to argue because eI feel like your logic has too many fallacies for me to negate but let me begin. I stand firmly against a ban on most guns in the USA and ROTW(I must admit it is unclear to me what rotw stands for)'for the following reasons: 1. Guns and other firearms are necessary for the protection of individuals I am very disappointed at many of your arguments because you believe that individuals shouldn't have the right to defend themselves apparently, however I firmly stand against your opinions. Guns are of the utmost importance for protection, for example: in studies done, 98% of the time an individual harnessed a handgun potential attacks were avoided. So firearms aren't even needed to be fired to simply protect people.Also, guns will continue to be purchased in the black market by criminals so if we banned firearms we would only be harming the innocent who need to defend themselves. 2. It is not only an infringement of constitutional law, but of natural law to deny individuals the right to protect themselves. The constituion cannot become outdated just because you dislike what it says. The second amendment is clear enough in itself. In addition, individuals have the right to protect themselves, it is natural law. You can't deny someone the right to uphold his or her own safety just because people misuse protection. 3. As the common saying goes, "guns don't kill people,people kill people" and there are alternatives such as thorough background checks,. I apologize if I didn't provide many statistics, I am busy right now but I will continue to debate with you. Thank you.
Life experience is more useful than education

It is only few examples when person without high education have a lot of money. But what about others who have not high education and have not high-paid job. Number of persons who have not high education and have not a lot of money is bigger than number of persons who have not high education but have a lot of money. Bill Gates have unique brain abilities, because he studied at Harvard and he had 1590 points out of 1600 on the SAT (The SAT is a standardized test for college admissions in the United States). Which show that he is really smart person. Also he had an idea which was needed for people. Industry of computer technologies started to develop with Bill Gates' company. That is way he is succesful man. It is only few persons who can do it like Gates.
Life experience is more useful than education

You can sit out all life on the work and do not get anything of value at the end of your life. Ok, Donald Trump had education but what about Bill Gates? He had only school education and he has the finance more than Trump and it is the real example for you one of the most rich educated person and one of the rich non-educated person. And whose position is more advantageous? Trump maybe would be richer than Gates but when Gates started to earn MONEY Trump just sat in university table.
Life experience is more useful than education

so most of the billionaires hadn't an education exept school and for example Bill Gates or Donald Trump and etc. It is not true. Donald Trump have high education. Trump attended Fordham University for two years before transferring to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in economics http://www.biography.com... By the work of accountant you couldn't achieve your goals or dreams and you should try everything and have risk everytime instead of just sitting in university or college It depends on what dreams have a person. Maybe his dream is to be chief accountant or financial director of big international company. All big things are starts of little things.
Life experience is more useful than education

Education is important for all people who wants to do a succesfull career. Also all skills which person got from school and university experience are needed in life and work. Many employers now require education for employment. If person did not learn accounting how person can work for position of accountant? How employer can know is potential worker know his work well if he does not have any diploma? All high-paid work required high education now. It is rule. Without diploma no one cannot find a good high-paid job. http://healthcareers.about.com...
Veganism

I must apologize for my tardiness in posting this argument but I have been busy with work and school. Lets recap this debate.. What was it about? The point of this debate was to determine if Veganism is bad for your health. I Have provided evidence that shows that veganism helps provide glycemic control, and may even help control pain in people with auto immune disease. I have seen and I believe my opponent has conceded that it is possible to gain all of your essential nutrients threw a vegan diet as well as supplements. My opponent has argued that my sources are guilty of “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” However the study never claimed causation. The studies talk about a strong correlation between veganism and glycemic control and pain in some autoimmune disorders.
Veganism

1) You can find all of your necessary nutrients in vegetables, fruits and supplements[1]. The price of the food or the supplements does not make this diet any less beneficial than an omnivorous diet. 2) There are vegan foods that have proteins, both simple and complex. Vegetables such as beans and Nuts such as peanuts and almonds can provide enough protein for your body in order to repair any tissue damage[2]. 3) My last rebuttal is your source. This author of this website does not have any authority on nutrition. He is a medical student, not a doctor, and not a dietician[3]. On top of that a simple Google search shows a lot of what he says is not true. For example the first tip “The only good food sources of B12 are animal foods like meat, fish and eggs.” That is not true Fortified Soy and Bran have plenty of B12 in them[4]. He selectively chooses the articles he uses for his research. For example he makes the claim that 92% of vegans had a B12 deficiency and sites an article off of Kager.com. If he would have finished reading the abstract of the article he would have read “ However, their complete blood count values did not deviate greatly from those found for nonvegetarians…”[5]. In the last turn I will post my arguments for your rebuttals. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://authoritynutrition.com... [4] http://www.healthaliciousness.com... [5] http://www.karger.com...
Veganism

Thanks a lot for your argument, it is much appreciated. My rebuttal for all three of the above arguments offered by pro is very similar. All of these studies are observational. They demonstrate correlation, but not causation [1]. I can attribute this to the fact that many vegan eaters are more health conscious in general, as veganism is normally applied as a health choice, and are more likely to be healthy, not because of their vegan habits, but because vegans are more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, and more likely to be married [2]. All of these factors have also been attributed to longer life. This is especially applicable to the third argument offered. There is no reason antioxidants cannot be obtained from an omnivorous diet, as omnivores can eat all of the same foods vegans can, and therefore have the same amount of sources for antioxidants, with additional benefits and nutrients as well as essential amino acids offered from meat, eggs, etc. Although the above arguments cannot be proven to stem from causation, even playing the devil's advocate, if they could be proven so, they still could not outweigh the positive effects of omnivorism, e.g. protein, certain vitamins, amino acids, omega-3's. A health conscious, natural-eating omnivore has a better chance at a healthy life than a vegan. In a recent study, Adkins-diet (high fat, low carbs, a healthy, omnivorous diet) using overweight women were compared with Ornish diet (high carbs, low fat. Basically a vegan diet) using overweight women. (These women were randomly assigned to the diets) The Adkins diet users lost more weight and had more beneficial metabolic results [3]. This study DOES demonstrate causation as the women were randomly assigned to the diets and were not pre-existing omnivores/vegans. Thank you for your time. [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://qz.com... [3] http://nutrition.stanford.edu... And here's another interesting article, if you would like to take a look: http://www.marieclaire.com...
Veganism

Presentation. 1)A low fat vegan diet can improve glycemic control and in a person. In a recent study conducted by the ADA 43% of people on a low fat vegan diet had a reduction of medication and an average of a 1.23 point drop on their hemoglobin A1C tests, as opposed to the control group who had no change in medications and only a 0.38 point drop in a hemoglobin A1C[1]. Hemoglobin A1C is a test to measure the average blood sugars in a person over the course of a month[2]. 2)A low fat vegan diet can help relive the symptoms of certain diseases such as Rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. In a study on fibromyalgia published in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology stated that there was a slight difference in joint pain, quality of sleep, health assessment questionnaires, and pain in the experimental vegan group as opposed to the control omnivorous diet[3]. Likewise the oxford journal published a study on RA that showed that 40.5% of the patients in the experimental vegan group showed improvement and only 4% of the control group showed any improvement. [4]. 3)People with a high vegan diet have an increased intake of antioxidants. In a study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Showed that middle aged female who followed a strict vegan diet had higher circulating blood concentrations of antioxidants[5]. Antioxidants are important ions that some research believes help prevent illness and aging[6]. I await the next round for my rebuttals. [1] . http://care.diabetesjournals.org... [2] . http://www.webmd.com... [3] . http://informahealthcare.com... [4] . http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org... [5] . http://ajcn.nutrition.org... [6] (Book) Toward Healthy Ageing: Human Needs and Nursing Response.
Veganism

Ok this is a debate about veganism in a general sense, and whether it is a good or bad lifestyle choice. Any type of argument can be used. There will be three rounds, first will be opening arguments, second will be rebuttals, and third will be final rebuttals/closing statement. I'll start the argument here, so all you have to do is accept the debate and get right into your opening statement. I will start with an argument about the purpose of eating meat. Since the dawn of man, animals have been a primary source of food, and they appeared long before any humanoid creature. Whether God or just natural forces placed animals on this earth, all signs point to a natural inclination of human beings to consume meat. Almost every Paleolithic diet included, and usually was dominated by, meat. (An exception is the Paranthropus, which died out due to a possible lack of a limited diet). Humans were naturally intended to consume animal meat. This is furthered by the presence of necessary nutrients found only in meat. For example, vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in meat and egg products, as are vitamin D3 and Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA). If you need more information on these nutrients, here's a link: http://authoritynutrition.com... Although it is possible to gain these nutrients through supplements, a diet including naturally occurring nutrients will be healthier, easier, and will save money on supplements. Another problem with veganism is a lack of protein. Protein helps heal the body's muscles and in athletes, make the body stronger. Synthetic protein sources technically do work, however are unnatural and expensive, and often include large amounts of unhealthy saturated fat. A natural diet is the best way to go, as evidenced by the large amounts of obese Americans who eat a largely unnatural, fast food filled diet. Especially bad cases for veganism occur when an athlete uses the diet. It can be very difficult for a vegan athlete to achieve the nutrients they need for recovery without meat or eggs. Although veganism in theory could be successful to an extent, it could not work as well as a full, "normal" diet, comprised of all of the available foods given to us. Fruits, vegetables, and meat should all be eaten in order to maintain a healthy diet. Veganism is in no way as healthy or as successful a diet as omnivorism.
mun is the best

I thank DEEEBESAA for the opportunity to debate this topic.Since my opponent is affirming the resolution, my opponent needs to make arguments to fulfil this burden of proof. In the event that my opponent's arguments are beaten or are shown to be equal to mine, I will win this debate due to my opponent not meeting his/her burden of proof.Keep in mind that no definitions have been specified.With that said, I await my opponent's opening round arguments.
mun is the best

My opponent's resolution involves a debate on whether "mun is the best". In order to prove that mun is the best, my opponent needs to show that mun is the best in absolutely everything in ever possible way, as there were no parameters to being the best. In light of this, I only need to show one instance of mun not being the best in order to win this debate.Affirmative Case A1: Sir Donald Bradman was the best batsman of all timeSir Donald Bradman has a test average of 99.94, which is by far the best in all of world cricket [1]. Meanwhile, "mun" has yet to play test cricket, and therefore has no average. 99.94>0.Reference[1] http://www.espncricinfo.com...;
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Due to over hunting, 100 years ago the United states had a deer population of only 500,000 approximately. Thanks to our conservation efforts (which were mainly pushed into law by lobbying from hunters) today the deer population in the United States is estimated at 25 million. Hunters ARE conservation. It was started by hunters, and is maintained by hunters. . http://www.dnr.state.md.us... There is objective proof that our conservation efforts have been successful, and as technology improves our ability to track populations of various game will only improve. . http://adventure.howstuffworks.com... It is important to note that an overpopulation of ONE species can cause the populations of several species, plant and animal, to suffer. . http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com... . http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us... As far as poaching is concerned, there are much bigger threats to the white tail deer population (white tail are the most poached game in the US) and all of these threats are addressed with money raised by selling hunting licenses. . http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com... Our conservation efforts rely heavily on the money raised by legal hunts.