BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism says there is no God, therefore it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager.

Thank you, Medv, for accepting this challenge and honoring my requests for decorum in this debate. I hope I can gain a tie in all votes relating to good conduct, as your are displaying excellent conduct from the start. I have to wonder how you will argue this as you stated: "I will argue that no God exists, and an Atheist can win Pascal's Wager, and that some Theists may lose more than just the finite lose of some earthly pleasure as Pascal assumed." Theists winning or losing in Pascal's Wager would be a different debate. This debate is about the impossibility of even being able to play Pascal's Wager in order to win it if there is no God to pay off on the Wager. A person who says "there is no God" has already excluded himself from playing Pascal's Wager. An atheist would have to stop being an atheist and at least become an agnostic to play Pascal's Wager in hope of pleasing or appeasing God to gain eternal life or entrance to heaven. Over to you.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager.

I accept the terms. I am personally Agnostic, but Atheism is often conflated with Agnosticism that it is trivial enough for me to argue the Atheist position. I'll agree not to reference anything with a direct link. There should be no need link to a well known argument, and anything I have to bring up should be common knowledge. No points will be attributable to sources because of this stipulation. I will argue that no God exists, and an Atheist can win Pascal's Wager, and that some Theists may lose more than just the finite lose of some earthly pleasure as Pascal assumed.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager.

I would like an atheist to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager and remain an atheist at the same time, but it seems to me that an atheist would not argue this way as it allows for the possibility that God is there and atheism excludes that possibility.. A non-atheist can argue this debate against my position. Please give a sample argument in the comments before I allow you to accept this challenge. If you need a dictionary to define words or if you need a web page link to define or to understand Pascal's Wager, please do not ask to accept this challenge. You must agree to use NO outside sources for this debate. By accepting this debate, you must agree that no outside sources will be referenced, and you must state in your opening argument that you will not use or refer to any outside references. If voters or observers need dictionary definitions or a web page explaining Pascal's Wager, they can find that stuff easily without our help.
Short Story Battle

The creativity is really amazing and I'm so glad I did this. I love Marvel and DC so I have to give you a super thank you for a super hero story. Anyways its time for those last two stories, one from me, and one from Marauder. This story is about sibling rivalry. Everyone has experienced it even if they don't have siblings, but this story is more medieval and a lot more is at stake. Title: New Age ï¿½ Long ago in the kingdom of Wonk there was a great King and Queen, they were fair and just and everyone loved them very much, but sadly they were gone often on business. The King and Queen had two sons Zaltar, the eldest son, and Eric the youngest. Zaltar was 24 and about to take the crown on his 25th birthday, but until then he practiced spells, potion, and all other magic. While Eric was in training to be a great, peaceful knight.ï¿½ ï¿½ One day while the King and Queen were out Zaltar started up to his usual ways, he went through out the kingdom screaming and shouting, threatening anyone who dared to speak his mind. While Zaltar was busy punishing two young peasants who had dared to look at him Eric decided that the kingdom did not deserve the terrible treatment that they were given and ï¿½ "I shall stand for this no moreï¿½ foul brother, the kingdom must be free," Eric yelled out with pride and bravery in his voice, "As long as I shall live you will not become king."ï¿½ ï¿½ Zaltar turned to his brother with a sinister smirk across her face, "And what makes you think you can challenge my power you paladin?"ï¿½ ï¿½ "I am a Prince too, and therefore, I have the right to challenge you for the thrown" yelledï¿½ Eric from across the great castles' courtyard. ï¿½ "Bring it you revolting savage," yelled back Zaltar. ï¿½ That is when Eric started to charge, but right before he struck, Zaltar pulled out his wand and with just a flick of the wrist Eric was frozen solid. ï¿½ "I told you brother, you cant beat me" said Zaltar devilishly. ï¿½ Then, from the depth of the ice, came a roar, "You can not beat me Zaltar, I shall be the next king, not you." and then the ice started to crack and steam came up from the frozen Eric as the ice quickly melted away, and then Eric swung his sword and the evil Zaltar, to stunned, and amazed to react, was quickly killed as his severed head rolled along the ground at his feet, Zaltar's body fell to its knees and started to turn to stone.ï¿½ ï¿½ Then Eric looked up and found that the King and Queen had returned and were shocked by what the saw, as they yelled and scolded Eric the peasants rejoiced in freedom and the knights shouted in glee. That is when the King and Queen realized that Zaltar must have been very cruel indeed, and Eric was the one to bring the a new age to the land of Wonk
Speed Debate: 1000 foot Lion Whale Gods are real, and they live on Saturn

C1) SongsThese songs are about whales and lions because, they are either singing to whales or lions. C2) Whale God on SaturnThis is not photo shopped but used in paint. The lion in the picture is to small to see but its there. Affirmed hear we can see the whale god on saturn right as he eats itContention 1 ) Solipsism [p1] I am the only possible mind[p2] lion whale gods in Saturn exist in my mind[c] lion whale gods exist[1] Contention 2) Whales can swim in space. [2] Contention 3 ) Lions and whales can fuk tech, and we all are gods. So if whales can bone lions and we all are gods . A whale god exists when they are screwing [3] Contentions 4 ) Whales like saturn See the whale swimming to saturn Contention 5 ) Lions like saturn C3) Lion whale picture that is a picture of a 1000 foot whale with a lion inside him. I'm also inside the whale shark. I'm just to small to see and you need an xray. Since all organism are the same, this is a lion whale . All beings are the same thing per the circle of life [5]This is before he ate mehttp://www.wherecoolthingshappen.com... Contentions 4 ) Whales like saturn see the whale swimming to saturn [4] C5) Whale named thorier Per my previous argument this is a whale lion god named thornier at least according to solipsism. I only need to prove it exists in everyone’s minds, and since I am the only possible mind and we are all the same minds, it is the same in everyone’s minds.[1-5] he is also 1000 feet, the picture is just msallsources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.laphamsquarterly.org... [3] http://www.iawwai.com... [4] http://www.galle.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...In addition to all this my adversary states that con has the BOP to show that whale lion gods exist on saturn. He is con. Just out of kindness I gave how they could exist as proThis however does not affirm his bop. Con has the bop to uphold his own set of rules which he did not meet. I met his rules as pro for a good show. He fails to uphold the bop and follow his own rulesvote meh
Speed Debate: 1000 foot Lion Whale Gods are real, and they live on Saturn

Con must prove that 1000 foot Lion Whale gods exist and occupy Saturn in one round. The BOP will be taken 100% seriously, and failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1000 foot Lion Whale gods are real and live on Saturn will result in a full 7 point forfeit. I am not required to make any arguments or refute yours. This is not a "BOP went unrefuted so is affirmed" debate. The audience will judge based on Pro's abillity to prove this scientific theory beyond a doubt.Things required to affirm Resolution- A picture of a 1000 foot Lion Whale gods on Saturn (Not photoshopped)- Four credible sources proving 1000 foot whale gods live on Saturn (scientific studies preferred)- 8 songs about either lions or whales (required to win. 4 may be posted in the comments. Other 4 in debate)- 5 strong contentions that 1000 foot lion whale gods exist - A picture of a selfie with a 1000 foot Lion Whale god (can be photoshopped) - A drawing of a 1000 foot Whale God Named Thorier (We must know his name is Thorier without you saying or writing his name as Thorier).All arguments and sources must be in the debate, or they do not count. 4 lions and whale songs not included. I am expecting a complete essay within the context of this debate following all the guidelines and rules I set up. Failure to do so, once again, equals a full 7 point forfeit. As I also stated earlier. BOP will be taken 100% seriosuly on Pro. I will have the power of review in the comments. Meaning I will be able to state in the comments if my opponent succeeded.http://www.youtube.com...;
The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment.

I'd like to start out by saying thank you for agreeing to be my opponent. First, I would like to say that I did not mean to imply that the emotions of the family should affect the punishment of the criminal, merely that committing another wrong does not make the original crime better. If we decide that the criminal has given up their right to live, we are no better than they are. Just because one person decided something does not make it ok for us to make the same bad decision. I don't believe that punishment is about revenge at all. It is about reform. It should be about allowing people who have made bad decisions change. Putting someone to death leaves no room for reform, no room for remorse even. Putting someone in jail will allow them time to think about the crimes that they have committed, it is an attempt to show them that what they have done is wrong and morally reprehensible. In regards to your claim about crime deterrence, that is actually not true. According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, in 2006 states without the death penalty had a murder rate that was 40% LOWER than those with the death penalty. Offering death as a punishment is not going to stop someone from killing an innocent person; it seems that spending their entire life in jail with no hope of seeing light without bars in front of it is a stronger deterrent than death can ever be. The chances of convicting an innocent person are FAR from nonexistent. Our justice system is not perfect and it never will be, but we allow for those imperfections to be corrected through appeals and the death penalty cuts that off. There is always a chance of reexamining evidence once better technology is available. Also, I believe you misunderstood the statistic I used in regards to cost. It is $470,000 to try ONE case. That does not include the numerous appeals which cases go through. Just as it is ONE case without the death penalty being offered that is $47,000.
The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment.

I would like to start out by saying I couldn't agree with you more when you say that "We cannot place value on one person's life over another's." That is why the death penalty is the only real solution ensuring that justice is truly served. Because to allow one to live who has denied that right to another is to value his life above theirs. By committing a brutal murder the individual has nullified their own right to live. After all, isn't the most fundamental principle of justice that the punishment should fit the crime? I would also like to point out that although it is unfortunate for the individual's family it should have absolutely nothing to do with the course of law. If we let emotion overrule reason and justice we would have chaos. For families of the victims the death penalty is the only closure they will ever get by ensuring that the felon will never have a chance to harm others like he harmed them. Not to mention the fact that if you incarcerate an individual for life in a state without the death penalty what is to keep that individual from murdering inmates? What does the convict have to lose anyways? He can't be executed, so what is to deter him? There is also always the possibility of the convict escaping and brutally ending more innocent lives. You seem to be under the false impression that capital punishment is nothing more than revenge. I would contend that prison without parole is not as effective a means of crime deterrent as it takes most of the sting out of the justice system, and-quite frankly-just doesn't fit the punishment to the crime. As you say DNA testing has resulted in clearing up many old cases and it is even more apparent that the chances of convicting an innocent person today are almost nonexistent, and even without DNA the trial process has become so rigorous that it is highly unlikely that an innocent individual will be found guilty unanimously by a jury of 12. The reason executions cost so much is because of the lengthy process through appeals to ensure beyond doubt that the individual is truly guilty. I do wish to make it clear, however, as I close, that I fully support the state's right to choose which it will endorse even if I disagree.
The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment.

The death penalty is currently offered as a form of punishment in 38 states. There are many reasons why it should not be, however. First, twelve people should not be allowed to judge whether or not someone has the right to live. We cannot place value on one person's life over another's. Someone who has been convicted of murder is still a human being. They still have a mother and a father and they still have the right to live. Killing the person convicted of a murder is not going to offer closure to the families of the victims. It is not going to bring back those who have been killed. Then there is always the chance that the convicted person is innocent. Especially with recent developments in DNA testing, many previously convicted criminals are being exonerated. Since 1973, over 125 people have been released from death row because of evidence of their innocence. Why take the risk of executing an innocent person when life in prison without parole is just as effective in stopping innocents from being hurt by the criminal. A decision to imprison someone for life can be reversed. Death is a tad bit more final. Yet another reason is the plain and simple cost. At the trial level, a death penalty case costs, on average, $470,000. The same case, when triad without the death penalty being offered costs around $47,000. This is a huge difference! Also, consider that this is just ONE CASE. In an appeal, cases involving the death penalty generate over $100,000 in additional costs than those which do not involve the death penalty. I think that will do for my opening argument. Good luck to my opponent! (Facts from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)
Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism.

Alright, it appears that Pro is basing his view on his sole experience. So lets have some fun and grade his writing as if he was in my classroom. "My opponents view 2 (*1) is looking little bit confused.(*2) I meant that some lecturers are giving more marks to their own country students.(*3) They are not considering that students are talented or good in studies.(*4). I have this experience.(*5) If one student want to score high marks,(*6) their (*7) should always go to meet that lecturer, ask doubts always, (*8) and whenever they have time they should meet them.(*9) This is not the real way to judge a student."(*10) *1. use of numeral under twenty should be written out -2 points. *2 .verb does not agree with subject and tense is wrong -2 points *3. passive voice and lack of subject verb agreement -4 points *4. vague writing, uses they instead of teachers or graders, no verb only adverb -4 points *5. terrible sentence but grammatically it is correct. *6 should be wants not want - 2 points *7 should be they - 2 points *8 "ask doubts always" is not correct term or saying -2 points *9 confusing and redundant - 2 points *10 confusing, previous sentence discusses what a student should do, but then this sentence explains this is not the real way to judge a student. -2 points Out of a completely arbitrary 24 points (four points possible on each sentence, with each mistake in that sentence -2 points) our Pro's total is 2 points out of 24 or 1 out of 12 or 8%. Based upon this, I doubt that Pro's grades are as a result of his country of origin. Instead, I am arguing that they are based upon his inability to write in English. While English may be his second language and I commend him for attempting to write in it, it is absolutely absurd to state that you think your teacher is racist, xenophobic, whatever, solely based upon your failure to get good grades; especially when you are unable to write adequately in the language I assume you are being graded in. I wanted to discuss objectivity in grading and that was not the way this went. However, vote for me, because I made an attempt.
Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism.

My opponents view 2 is looking little bit confused. I meant that some lecturers are giving more marks to their own country students. They are not considering that students are talented or good in studies. I have this experience. If one student want to score high marks, their should always go to meet that lecturer, ask doubts always, and whenever they have time they should meet them. This is not the real way to judge a student.
Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism.

Based upon the opposing sides wording, I am having some difficulty in discerning what they are proposing. View 1 of what opposing side is saying. If you take the plain letter wording of what opponents argument is, it it would be, "Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism." I believe a simple response would be: "showing racism" is not the problem, instead it is the lack of showing racism that is worse. Consider this example, Teacher A: Gives student a grade of a C on a paper and in the comments writes "Irishmen cannot understand this topic because they are always drunk and therefore your opinion is terrible" Most likely this showing of racism would result in a grade protest and academic disciplines. However, if Teacher B shared teacher A's view about the Irish but did not outwardly show racism it would look like this Teacher B: Gives student a C on the paper because he assumes Irishmen cannot understand this topic, then writes in the comments "your lower grade reflects a failure of understanding of the topic" In both examples the grade was not based on the student's ability; instead, it was based on the racist teachers' view and student received a C. However, in the second example, when the teacher did not outwardly show racism, the student would likely have no knowledge of the teacher's racial motivation and he also would have to look harder to find some sort of proof. Therefore, in this example it is better for a teacher to show racism in marks, then it is to have racism underlying a mark but not be expressed. View 2 of what Opposing side is saying. In order to provide cognizant view for me to debate I will summarize and rephrase opponents argument into something more articulate. OLD ARGUMENT "Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Yes it's true. i have seen in some schools and some universities, teachers are showing racism in giving marks. They are giving more marks to the students those who are good for them and familiar to them. I'm strongly disagree with this kind of teachers. Some teachers are looking country wise to give marks. They are giving more marks to their own country students. What is the purpose of this?" Opponents new argument:In my experience across several schools and universities, Teachers are subjectively grading students based upon various categories. These categories include whether they like the student 2. whether the student is agreeing with them and finally 3. Whether the student is foreign or of a different ethnicity. Subjective grading is bad and therefore teachers should dismiss them. View 3 of what opposing side is saying (this one is probably off and utilized a lot of reading between the lines) In my experience teachers are racist because they did not give me good grades and other people did get good grades. ARGUMENT: I will wait for opposing response before I write anymore, hopefully they can clarify and we can have a good discussion on the use of subjectivity in grading.
Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism.

Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Yes it's true. i have seen in some schools and some universities, teachers are showing racism in giving marks. They are giving more marks to the students those who are good for them and familiar to them. I'm strongly disagree with this kind of teachers. Some teachers are looking country wise to give marks. They are giving more marks to their own country students. What is the purpose of this?
If a claim is true, then it is not false.

I will begin with definitions. A claim is a proposition, something that can be true or false. For example, "the sky is blue" is a claim, and it is true. By contrast, "Lord Voldemort exists" is a claim that is false. True means corresponding to reality, like my belief that I am sitting in a chair. False means failing to correspond to reality, like a crazy person's belief that he is Napoleon. Now, given these definitions, we can clearly see that if a claim is true, then it is not false. If something corresponds to reality, then it doesn't fail to correspond to reality. A basic axiom of classical logic is the double negation rule: if p, then not-not-p. This is basically the resolution; if a claim is true, then it is not the case that it is not the case that the claim is true. In other words, if a claim is true, then it is not false. [1] I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. [1] http://www.phil.cmu.edu...