BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

God fundamentally was invented by people to explain the world they lived in. Man made God to try and make sense of the world that they lived in, and religion has increasingly been forced to adapt to the scientific advancements we have made since the conception of religion. I would first like to draw attention to the burden of proof. By it's very nature, the burden of proof lies with the theist. In simple terms, If I said that a microscopic teapot orbited the sun between Earth and Mars, then it would be my Job to prove that my claim is true. Essentially, the person making the claim has to back it up. This is true across any debate, including this debate. As my opposition has made the claim, that God is real, It Is my opponent's job to prove his claim true, not my job to prove that it is not. With that being said, however, I would like to present my case with a very simple statement. God, by His own definition, cannot exist - at least the Abrahamic deity. Back to my example of the teapot. If I, along with my original claim, I said that the teapot was entirely made of china, and entirely made of steel, by the law of noncontradiction, the teapot cannot exist, as It cannot be entirely made of two materials at the same time. When we apply this logic to God, we arrive at the same outcome - the Abrahamic God's qualities are self contradictory, He cannot exist. To be clear, the Abrahamic God Is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. An omnipotent being cannot exist. This is best outlined with the omnipotent being paradox - "could God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" As I am sure most are aware, the answer is either yes, and God cannot lift the rock, or no, he cannot create the rock. Either way, a being cannot be omnipotent. Secondly, with an omniscient being, freewill cannot exist. If any being is omniscient, that being would know everything that is going to happen in the future, and if you did otherwise (had freewill), the being would not be omniscient. This fundamentally contradicts the principle many religions hold of reward " heaven " for good actions, and punishment " hell " for bad actions. If we don't have freewill, then heaven or hell are not justified, as we never had any choice to do right or wrong. The Problem of Evil is also contradictory of God's existence. An omniscient being would know about evil, an omnipotent being would be able to stop evil and an omnibenevolent being would want to stop evil. Yet evil exists. This means that God is either not all powerful, or not all good. To conclude, God, by His own definition, cannot exist.
changing curfew time to 11:00 p.m. in california

Poorly worded question, but hell, I'll bite. Curfew laws should be abolished. No party has the right to enact them. I had no idea until I saw this that there actually are such things in the United States in nonemergency situations, it's in definite contradiction of due process, as it's a universal application of house arrest without a trial. Not to mention free speech, freedom of assembly, and probably forced labor when it comes to enforcement. The office of Juvenile Justice, I'm sure, needs laws like this to keep it's job, so it can hardly be considered an independent study. You cannot reduce victimization by enacting a program that in and of itself victimizes everyone by enslaving them to governmental whim. As for "delinquency," you'd have to define the term, usually it just means whatever the Office of Juvenile Justice and co think juveniles ought not be doing, usually without any right to determine that ought.
changing curfew time to 11:00 p.m. in california

curfew timage should stay the same because interesting report on "comprehensive, community-based curfew programs" in seven cities was done by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP 1996: 1). The report concludes that "information by communities where curfews have been implemented indicates that comprehensive, community-based curfew programs are helping to reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization."ame because
Men should have more rights then women

Men should have more rights then women. Lets face it men can do more work then Women because we get the hard jobs such as, labor or business. Women can do these things, but they have problems with keeping and doing their jobs. In the real world men are more successful then women because in a poll they tested that for every dollar a man makes a women makes 72 cents, and for every African American Women makes 62 cents. This is important because if a man had a high position job the government would make more money and then this would effect the economy in a positive way. This is because for their pay check the taxes would take more money from men then any other Women. This effects the economy in a positive way because if the Government has more money they can make more jobs and if more Men get more jobs then the economy would get even better. This will solve a lot of world problems because the economy will be better and then unemployment % will be lower. Please comment on what you think about this debate and give your reasons why.
Gay marrige

Thank you for accepting, and i look forward to debating with you! Well, people always talk about "our rights" and "equality for everyone" Yet people are willing to take away others rights, just because of how they feel. If one man, is attracted to another, then who are you to say that's, "sick" "unnatural" If it wasn't natural don't you think it wouldn't happen? I believe that everyone deserves to be happy, everyone should live the life they want to live, and not have to be judged for it. What i can not understand is how people are quoting from a book, that was made thousands and thousands of years ago, and we can't even prove that those things happened. So how can you go by something so unreliable?
Gay marrige

I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. People who like the same sex, are still people they are the same as you and me. The only difference is that they like the same sex. Why should that really matter, that is their business not yours, not mine, not anyone's but their own, and for them to be judged on who they are is pathetic. Everyone always talking about, "love yourself" and "no one should be judged" They are just everyday because of their personal life. I am absolutely for them, everyone deserves to live long, and truly, truly, HAPPY.
Gay marrige

Then I will accept that as a concession? You agree with everything I stated but still think they should be allowed to get married. That is not providing any evidence why you believe so, other than you think it is intolerant. You also completely missed my point when I mentioned it being a church found institution. I am not saying that other people besides churches should marry them, I am stating the church claims the right to the institution of marriage itself. That was the entire point I made about civil unions and avoiding conflict. So extend arguments due to no rebuttals and a concession. At this point I have provided a viable reason as to why it should not be legalized, and shown a viable alternative. As i stated I am playing devils advocate, but my adversary has offered up no reason to support the legalization of gay marriage other than personal opinions. Thank you for reading this
Gay marrige

I see and understand the US marriage laws. But, why should that mean that they can't get married? Not all religions are the same as Christianity. For there to be a law that they can not get married is wrong, because there are some religions that are not against gay marriage, such as, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Paganism. They can find those churches and get married by them. There is no real reason for gay marriage to be illegal besides the point of people not understanding it. If a church doesn't agree with it, that's fine, they don't have to get married by them, they do and could have other options. I understand completely, forcing gay marriage down their throats is wrong, and no i don't believe that is what we should be doing. I agree with what you said, "Just because religious people disagree with how someone chooses to live their lives, does not necessarily make it wrong." this is true, but i believe they should be able to accept it, they may not agree or like it, but they should be able to understand that, that is what makes those people happy. I also agree with what you said about legalizing civil unions, that defiantly avoid huge convicts.
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

Rebuttals:My opponent argues that the morals of Muslims are similar to Nazis,andthattheMuslims pose an immediate threat to America, and therefore do not have the right to seek refuge in America.On the contrary, approximately 90% of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-Muslims. Additionally, approximately 2.5% of all terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1970 and 2012 were carried out by Muslims (S1). According to the Harvard Political Review, Syrian refugees pose little to no security risks. Historically, according to a recent report by the Cato Institute, only three of 859,629 refugees who came to the U.S. since 2001 have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks, none of which ever came to fruition (S2). Even if the U.S. takes in 10,000 refugees as planned next year, that amounts to only one out of every 450 Syrian refugees posing a security risk (S3).My opponent concludes the round by saying that relatively 1% of America's population is Muslim, and that Muslims commit 10% of all crime. However, The FBI Crime Statistics show that around 1.2% of Asians, and being that the majority of Muslims are Asian (S4), commit crimes in America. I can confidently say that the claim that "Muslims commit 10% of all crimes in the U.S." is false.Sources:S1) http://www.globalresearch.ca...S2) https://www.cato.org...S3) http://harvardpolitics.com...S4) https://encounteringislam.org...S5) https://ucr.fbi.gov...;
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

My argument consisted in two points:The first was that Islam isn't morally different from Nazism, so just as we did not permit members of the Nazi Pary to enter the United States during WW2, we should not allow members of Islam, which seeks to destroy the United States, into our country. Just as it woudn't be considered a violation of political freedom not to let Nazis into the country, it would not be a violation of religious freedom to not let Muslims into this country. My opponent attempted to refute this by stating how the bible is filled with moral attrocities nd is therefore no different from the Qur'an. While this is true, the purpose of the New Testament ws to nullify the Old Testament, so though these things are in the bible, Christianity is founded around the New Testament. In addition to this, Christianity is not currently formed into a regime whereas Islam is. Likewise, the Torah is not much better than the doctrines of the Nazi party, and yet in WW2 we let Jews take refuge in the US, but we did not welcome Nazis. This is because the Nazis represented an immediate threat to the United States, whereas the Jews did not, just as Muslims represent a direct threat to the United States, but Christian refugees do not. The second was that the Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States, and so non-citizens are not entitled to be ensured religious freedom from us. This means that a ban on Muslims is not unconstitutional, as it only applies to non-citizens, whereas the constitution only applies to citizens. My oponent has failed to respond to this. I must now show how Donald Trumps Executive Order is beneficial, as I have not done this in the previous round. Islam is a danger to humanity and to the United States. This can be found in statistics, Muslims account for 1% of the US population, {1} but commit almost 10% of all crime. {2} This is why we shouldn't allow Muslims into the US, just like we don't allow druggies into the US. {1}. http://www.pewresearch.org...{2}. https://www.statista.com...
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

I presume that, because Islam permits violence, we must not give them "special privileges," or the ability to come into this country seeking refuge. He continues to compare Islam to Nazism, saying "We cannot give Islam any kind of special privelage as if it were anything fundamentally different from Nazism or Mansonism."However, if that was the case, why should we permit Christian refugees to enter our country when the Bible blatantly incites hate and violence such as Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” My opponent still has yet to discuss as to whether or not the Executive Order, "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," is unconstitutional, an attack on Islam and is beneficial.
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

First of all, the constitution ensures religious freedom to American Citizens, so it is well within our rights to discriminate aganist foreigners, as our constitution does not extend to them.Second of all, even a flat out ban on Islam wouldn't be the same as a ban on Christianity or Jainism. When Charles Manson started his cult, we didn't grant him religious freedom to do whatever he wanted, we deemed it a cult and arrested him and his followers. Even today, if I start a cult centered around Charles Manson, my group would likely be classified as a cult and I could get shut down for it. Third of all, Muslims cannot exect anything different than for people to think of them as terrorists. If I join the American Nazi party people are going to think of me as a racist, and if in WW2 we banned Nazis from entering the country, this would most certainly not constitute a violation of political freedom. We cannot give Islam any kind of special privelage as if it were anything fundamentally different from Nazism or Mansonism. If I started a religion, and in my holy book I wrote to murder all those who aren't part of my religion, my cult would get shut down and I would get arrested for promoting domestic terrorism. We cannot treat Islam any different.
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

This debate will judge the usefulness and the constitutional legality of Trump's recent executive order: "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. " I, con, will argue against the executive order, while pro will argue for it. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

The Muslim population in America has been, historically, very low- in fact our current population of Muslims, being only 1%of the US population, is at an all time high. So that Muslims commited 2.5% of terrorist attacks in the US, while accounting for, on average for the past 46 years, less than 0.5% of the population, shows that Muslims are disproportionately likely to commit terrorist attacks. Also, the majority of Muslims are not 'peace loving liberals,' in fct more than half of Muslims worldwide want Sharia Law. ;
Capitalism is better than Communism

Your responses are a representation of your lack of understanding of the free market. Firms are absolutely entities. I SHALL CORRECT MYSELF. "INDIVIDUALS" REFERS TO PERSONS. FIRMS ARE, INDEED, ENTITIES BUT ARE NOT PERSONS. THEY DO NOT BLEED, BEAR YOUNG OR GET SENT TO WAR. PERSON MAKE THEMSELVES INTO ENTITIES IN ORDER TO LIMIT FINANCIAL RUIN. They have their own limited resources RESOURCES ARE NOT LIMITED UNDER MANY CIRCUMSTANCES. SO, TO STATE IT AS A UNIVERSAL TRUTH IS NOT WORTH IT. and rational incentives as agents in the free enterprise THE INCENTIVE IS PROFIT. IF YOU HAVE A LIST OF OTHER INCENTIVES, I'D LIKE TO READ IT. Also, utility is a very general term. In economics, it means total satisfaction; NO. IT'S DOES NOT. firms can gain satisfaction from profits NO. PEOPLE IN FIRMS MIGHT GAIN SATISFACTION FROM PROFIT. FIRMS HAVE NO EMOTIONS. FIRMS GAIN PROFIT and therefore profits can fit under utility. NO. UTILITIES ARE UTILIZED FOR PROFIT. UTILITIES ARE NOT THE END RESULT. Also, consumers have the choice to choose which products firms are offering. That is the essence of freedom. THAT IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE FREE MARKET. THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM IS TO NOT BOW TO A MONARCH. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Lastly, capitalism increases the standard of living for everyone. NO. IT DOES NOT. A hundred years ago, even the richest people lacked cars and air conditioning. THAT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH CAPITALISM. THOSE THINGS DID NOT EXIST. Today, even people in the low class have some access to air conditioning and cars, even if they are used. NO. MANY POOR PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD CARS OR AC. AND, THAT HAS TO DO WITH INNOVATION. NOT WITH THE MARKET. PEOPLE WHO INNOVATE WANT COMFORT BEFORE THEY CONSIDER PROFIT. Also, middle class families live better than rich families did 30 years ago with new plasma tvs, better cars, and especially cell phones such as the iphone and android. All thanks to capitalism. THAT IS NOT DUE TO CAPITALISM. THAT IS DUE TO TECHNOLOGY.
Capitalism is better than Communism

Your responses are a representation of your lack of understanding of the free market. Firms are absolutely entities. They have their own limited resources and rational incentives as agents in the free enterprise. Also, utility is a very general term. In economics, it means total satisfaction; firms can gain satisfaction from profits and therefore profits can fit under utility. Also, consumers have the choice to choose which products firms are offering. That is the essence of freedom. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Lastly, capitalism increases the standard of living for everyone. A hundred years ago, even the richest people lacked cars and air conditioning. Today, even people in the low class have some access to air conditioning and cars, even if they are used. Also, middle class families live better than rich families did 30 years ago with new plasma tvs, better cars, and especially cell phones such as the iphone and android. All thanks to capitalism.
Capitalism is better than Communism

Capitalism is the economic system in which the individuals and firms ( FIRMS ARE NOT ENTITIES. YOU WOULD DO BETTER TO SAY, "INDIVIDUALS AND/OR GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS") can freely maximize their utility ( SURELY, YOU MEAN "PROFIT", NOT, "UTILITY") given their current resource constraints. THE SYSTEM IS NOT AS CONSTRAINED BY RESOURCES AS IT IS BY BUYERS The free market allows individual freedom to choose what is best for the individual. NO. IT DOES NOT. THE FREE MARKET MEANS THAT YOU CAN SELL IF SOMEONE WILL BUY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHOOSING SELF-THINGS THAT ARE BEST FOR YOU- YOU, PERSONALLY . Also, capitalism increased the standard of living FOR ONLY SOME PEOPLE through profit incentives that generation (GENERATE) innovation. INNOVATION IS DRIVEN BY NEED AND, IF OR WHEN THAT NEED IS FULFILLED, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TAKEN TO THE FREE MARKET. THE ONE DOES IN NO WAY ENSURE THE OTHER. Socialism, WHY ARE YOU USING THE TERM "SOCIALISM" RATHER THAN THE WORD "COMMUNISM" WHICH IS THE WORD WITH WHICH YOU STARTED? on the other hand, is an economic system that results in all of society, except the government, to live in utter poverty because the system lacks a pricing structure which causes the entire economy to collapse.
Capitalism is better than Communism

I disagree. Capitalism is the economic system in which the individuals and firms can freely maximize their utility given their current resource constraints. The free market allows individual freedom to choose what is best for the individual. Also, capitalism increased the standard of living through profit incentives that generation innovation. Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system that results in all of society, except the government, to live in utter poverty because the system lacks a pricing structure which causes the entire economy to collapse.
Should Santa Claus be considered a Child predator

Hi my name is Katelyn and it would be great to be called Katelyn So my first argument is that you know the famous Santa Claus song he sees you when you sleeping he knows when your awake he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake that in itself is very, very, creepy he breaks the law because he is breaking and entering into a house.Yes he leaves presents but so do serial killers its called a dead body they are pretty similar. I want to thank my Opponent and wish he or she the best of luck!!!
Citizenship is an outdated concept

First of all, good luck to my opponent. Secondly, It is great that my opponent has acknowledged what I will be arguing in this round. Citizenship IS a special status whose benefits of that status outweigh the status of a non-citizen. For example, the State Department and U.S passports state that in cases of emergencies, one could call for help, and the State Dept. would try its best to help. Thirdly, my opponent has said no reason as to how the Status of Citizenship is outdated. Based on the arguments made by my opponent, the same argument could be made for ANY type of identification. My opponent has provided a source that states what the State Dept. Can/Can't do during a crisis. This helps my case, as it explains that having citizenship can DO SOMETHING to help, rather than have nothing done whatsoever. Also, my opponent said that, "You should therefore pay close heed to our travel and safety information for the country they are traveling to or residing in, monitor local conditions, and have a plan of action in case of emergency." This isn't an argument against my case, but rather common sense. The State Dept. already says to do so, in order to warn CITIZENS to plan, however, if something unfortunate was to occur, then they could be saved/rescued since they are Citizens of whatever country. My opponent has provided no reason as to solidifying their argument, and the Burden of Proof lies on them. As the contender, I will rest my case simply by saying that the Status of Citizenship is NOT outdated.
Citizenship is an outdated concept

Part of being a citizen (vs. noncitizen) of the USA is the main expectation that the government "has your back". Citizens are supposed to have benefits over and above non-citizens and rescue from political turmoil and natural disaster are often expected. The services offered however, fail short of that expectation "We use the resources that are most expedient and appropriate to the situation. Expectations of rescue by helicopters, the U.S. military, and U.S. government-provided transportation with armed escorts reflect a Hollywood script more than reality. While some evacuations involve U.S. military or other U.S. government assets, most rely on commercial transportation and local infrastructure. Any level of departure assistance constitutes an enormous logistical effort. Will the U.S. government come and pick me up if I need assistance getting to the airport or other evacuation point? Crises place an enormous strain on our resources as embassy personnel focus on assisting U.S. citizens affected by the crisis. Security conditions can also limit our ability to move freely around the country. It is almost impossible for the U.S. government to provide in-country transportation service to individuals or specific groups during a foreign crisis. You should therefore pay close heed to our travel and safety information for the country they are traveling to or residing in, monitor local conditions, and have a plan of action in case of emergency. https://travel.state.gov... " Con will argue that Citizenship is a special status whose benefits of that status outweigh the status of a non-citizen.