BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is stupid to be an atheist.

Well you say that the reason god isn't scientific is because it doesn't follow the scientific method, but is that really true? Let's walk it through the scientific method shall we? 1. Make observations. I notice that all around the world people have made all kinds of religions to worship gods. 2. Interesting Questions- Why are all of these places that are all separated by thousands of miles all worshiping gods? 3. Formulate Hypotheses- A god of some kind must exist that influenced these cultures. 4.Develop Testable predictions- if god is real then Atheism must be false. From #5 onward they cannot be tested. That being said can the Big Bang Theory be tested/proved? It is at the exact same point that religion is in the scientific method. So I think to say that god is unscientific is an unfair claim.
It is stupid to be an atheist.

IntroductionHello people of DDO! In this debate I will argue that it is not stupid to be an atheist. To do this I will rebut my opponents opening statement and present several arguments against the existence of God. Note that the character limit is set to 2000, because of that I will hold to a minimal structure."‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."(1)Negative CaseMy opponent argues that people are atheists on the basis that God is unscientific, which I would agree with, but this does not mean that the "God question" cannot be answered otherwise, like the means of natural theology.However this mindset is not against science. The scientific method works as follows (2): As long as "God" is not a plausible hypothesis for any phenomenon, it is perfectly valid to say that God is unscientific.Positive CaseRight now one might think that agnosticism is the go position, because of that I will present an argument in favor of atheism (I originally intended to do two, but the character limit did not allow for that)The Problem of Evil1) God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good.2) If there exists something that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good evil would not exist.3) Evil exists.4) Therefore God does not existConclusionIn this first round I have rebutted my opponents arguments and presented a strong case for atheism.Sources(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dogs are purple

I accept. The burden of proof is on PRO, as he is making a positive claim. First, he must prove that all dogs are purple--though this isn't the case. See Exhibit A of this adorable white Maltese: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Even if there were a mutant breed, he loses because not all dogs are purple. The resolution doesn't say "there is a purple dog," but that all dogs are purple. Then he admits that this study doesn't exist, so not even some are purple.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

I accept the challenge here. I won't be defending Hillary during this debate, given the fact that she should have already been arrested for her criminal behavior by setting up her own email server, mishandling classified documents (F.B.I. director claiming that she's too stupid to understand that the C stood for classified, email leaks showing that she's in bed with the DNC and other corrupt organization, some of which support terrorists (which would be an act of treason, and therefore will be a disqualifying factor in all of this). Thus, I will be defending Donald Trump and showing why he is more than qualified to be president of the United States of America. I wish my opponent the best of luck. May the best man win.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

Introduction This will be a second attempt at this debate, since I wasn't specific enough when I started the last one about this issue. Debate Layout Round 1: Acceptance and Introduction Round 2: Main Argument Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusion My opponent can choose to defend Clinton, Trump, or both candidates. Position Many voters are wary about who to vote for, and for good reason. Over the time of their careers, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have spewed out many lies, were involved in a number of scandals, have displayed outrageous public behavior, etc. I hope that at the end of this debate, I can prove to the audience and maybe even my opponent that both candidates are not suitable to become the next president of the United States of America. Key Terms Unqualified- not competent or sufficiently knowledgeable to do something. Hillary Rodham Clinton- a candidate for president of the United States. She is running as a member of the Democratic Party. Donald John Trump- another candidate for president of the United States. He is running as a member of the Republican Party.
Resolved: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry

Your arrogance amuses me. What evidence have you offered to support your claim other than a long determined work of fiction by your hero Ms. Hooker ( a quite fitting name for her I might add)? I have repeatedly said homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, they simply don't deserve special rights because they happen to like the same sex. Your debate is aptly named Homosexuals Should Be Permitted To Marry, what part of they are do you not understand? They do not however own the definition of marriage and they should not be permitted to change that definition because they chose an alternative lifestyle. By allowing homosexuals to marry each other we perpetuate the Gay agenda which is acceptance of their sexual deviance. After legalizing gay marriage in MA less than 5% of homosexuals married after ten years.(us census bureau 2012) The debate is not whether or not they should be able to marry each other because that is clearly not what they want, they seek acceptance to further their agenda of normalizing homosexuality. paraphilia [perR42;əfilR42;yə] Etymology: Gk, para + philein, to love sexual perversion or deviation. A condition in which the sexual instinct is expressed in ways that are socially prohibited or unacceptable or are biologically undesirable, such as the use of a nonhuman object for sexual arousal, sexual activity with another person that involves real or simulated suffering or humiliation, or sexual relations with a nonconsenting partner. This term is consistent with homosexual behavior which is biologically undesirable as it does not produce offspring. It is also socially unacceptable to many people. Regardless of their motivation homosexuals have the right to marry so any point beyond that is irrelevant and unfortunately for you only shows that I have won this debate hands down. It is yet to be seen whether people will vote with integrity or if they will vote simply in favor of the gay agenda, judging by what I have seen it will be the latter and thats ok my goal is not to win but to educate people on how homosexuals have truly advanced their disgusting lifestyle to that of a social norm.
There is justification in limiting freedom of religion.

I will be arguing that limiting freedom of religion is never justified. First, my opponent believes that freedom of religion causes death. They say that a Muslim can kill a Hindu and be justified by the First Amendment because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. But the First Amendment doesn't allow people to kill others in the name of freedom of speech, so why would it be allowed under freedom of religion? Instead, it is in countries where freedom of religion is limited where people are killed because of religion. Take pre-independent India and Africa. European settlers imposed restrictions on the natives, not allowing them to practice their native religions. In response, conflict sprung up. When freedom of religion is restricted, nothing changes. Freedom of religion used to be restricted to strongly in Africa that people were killed for practicing tribal religions. That restriction involved mass religious persecutions. People will always want to practice their religions, and restriction will only cause more death because there has never been a peaceful restriction on freedom of religion, and there is no way to peacefully AND effectively restrict freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not cause death. People cruelly taking advantage of their religion and manipulating their religion's text to kill others causes death. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or freedom of religion, and therefore it is unjust to restrict it in any way, shape, or form. (Disclaimer- I am an anti-religious atheist. This is, however, my personal belief. Also, it is hard to form a proper argument in ten minutes, and I commend my opponent for posing this challenge.)
There is justification in limiting freedom of religion.

(This comes from a Christian! Of course, this is just for debate purposes. ) Freedom of religion spurs people to act on their religion, sometimes in radical ways. For example, Muslims are commanded to kill infidels- people who don't share the same belief. So a Muslim goes out and kills a Hindu. This act of murder to the Muslim would be justified because he/she is simply exercising his/her right of freedom of religion. However, murder is still murder! By limiting this freedom of religion, that Hindu's life is saved. My opponent might say that from an ethical and legal standpoint, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the first amendment (because this debate is taking place from a US viewpoint) and therefore is a civil liberty belonging to the single individual that should not be violated by anyone or anything. However, to this I would say that if we can't just look at the rights of one person. We have to do the most good for the most amount of people (Utilitarianism). If limiting freedom of religion saves lives, then it is justified. For my opponent to win, they should be able to prove to the voters that there can never be justification in limiting freedom of region. Ever.
There is justification in limiting freedom of religion.

What I am saying is that freedom of religion spurs malicious actions. Muslims are literally commanded by their religion (the Quran) to murder people of different beliefs. If they obey their religion, then there is no telling how many people would be in danger. In this instance, by restricting religion you are protecting lives. At the end of the day, as I said, we have to do the most good for the most amount of people. So if one person's civil right is compromised, but thousands of people are saved, then restricting religion is justified. My opponent says that freedom of religion does not cause death. To this I would ask him to then explain the motive of the perpetrators of 9/11. Did they not kill out of freedom of religion? (Because their religion commanded them to?) Because if the Quaran literally says to kill select groups of people, then these Muslims would simply be obeying the Quran and exercising their civil right (in their eyes of course)
Con will make me a sandwich

These sorts of debates can only serve to enrich the site. Firstly definitions. Con: Refers to myself the user known as Cerebral_Narcissist, . http://www.debate.org... Sandwich: Is defined by wikipedia as "a food item consisting of two or more slices of bread with one or more fillings between them. " . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Though the article also references the existence of the "open faced sandwich" it shall be assumed that this debate concerns the proper true sandwich as indicated above. My opponents resolution is that "con will make me a sandwich". The burden of proof is therefore upon him to demonstrate that I shall in the future make him a sandwich, so definitions given I shall allow him to post his initial argument and/or evidence.
Con will make me a sandwich

I would like to remind my opponent that the stated the stated resolution is that "Con will make me (Pro) a sandwich". He states, "What do you mean i offerd no evidence.. i already thanked you for it.. what evidence do you have that i didnt actually recieve it?-" Here my opponent is suggesting that I have made him a sandwich, this is irrelevant as the resolution clearly states that I will make him a sandwich. The debate concerns a prediction of my future actions. If my opponent could offer evidence that represents a pattern or routine of me manufacturing sandwiches for him, then this could be used as circumstantial evidence that I will make him a sandwich in the future. He has however not done so. As instigator the burden of proof is upon Pro, they have failed to offer any evidence that I will, at some time in the future make them a sandwich. Therefore the motion is negated and I strongly urge a vote for con. Thank you.
Con will make me a sandwich

These sorts of debates can only serve to enrich the site. "- Glad I could be of such great help to such a noble cause- -"Con: Refers to myself the user known as Cerebral_Narcissist"- for this debate its Franklin- -"Sandwich: Is defined by wikipedia as "a food item consisting of two or more slices of bread with one or more fillings between them. " . http://en.wikipedia.org....... Though the article also references the existence of the "open faced sandwich" it shall be assumed that this debate concerns the proper true sandwich as indicated above. "- This statement made me lol. . but then I was -_-. .. did we really need a definition for sandwich? ? -"My opponents resolution is that "con will make me a sandwich". The burden of proof is therefore upon him to demonstrate that I shall in the future make him a sandwich"- Sure just give me a round and ill get to it- -all I can say is good luck ol chap-
Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. http://atheism.about.com... DNA is not information, it is a molecule, and last time I checked DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand. http://livinglifewithoutanet.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I feel that this page answers the rest of the question. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... Sexual reproduction is helpful because it has more variation, and therefore less chance of genetic diseases. http://www.diffen.com... Evolution has been observed in Laboratories and outside them to Refer to 1st argument http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... http://atheism.about.com... If you want to use God you first have to prove he exists no one has done this so you can't use him. He's saying that we are coming after it is done, scientists concluded that it was evolution, just like at a murder scene the detective concludes that it is a murder. Mutations do create new Information in the genome http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://www.newscientist.com... https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... Conclusion Evolution is true.
Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

I think that evolution has been proven as it has so much evidence. Don't worry I'm not going to source spam any more I was just hoping that it would keep any one out that uses stuff debunked years ago. The Fossil Record The fossil record is best shown in Humans. Fossils such as Neanderthal, Taung Child, Lucy, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, and many more. http://humanorigins.si.edu... It's been observed in labs Evolution has been shown to happen in labs. Refer to 1st argument. Similarity of Organisms Many animals are similar physically and Genetically showing that they came from a common ancestor. http://necsi.edu... Conclusion Evolution is true
Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

1. BoP is shared 2. Evidence is required 3. Logical Fallacies are illegal 4. If you think there should be any other rules put them in the comments Evidence of Evolution http://www.toptenz.net... http://listverse.com... http://www.cracked.com... http://www.wired.com... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://examples.yourdictionary.com... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://evolutionfaq.com... &t=3m16s Java Man http://www.talkorigins.org... Nebraska Man http://www.talkorigins.org... Orce Man http://www.talkorigins.org... Lucy http://humanorigins.si.edu... Neanderthal man http://humanorigins.si.edu... http://www.talkorigins.org... Radiometric Dating http://www.talkorigins.org... http://science.howstuffworks.com... Beneficial Mutations http://bigthink.com... http://ratiochristi.org... https://answers.yahoo.com... Labs http://www.newscientist.com... Second Law of Thermodynamics http://friendsofdarwin.com... Dinosaur Tissue http://www.livescience.com... Irreducible Complexity http://rationalwiki.org... DNA vs. Information Whale Evolution http://www.talkorigins.org... Macro vs. Micro http://atheism.about.com... Imperfect Design http://www.iampleasant.com... http://www.smithsonianmag.com... Fossil Record http://darwiniana.org... DNA is not Information http://livinglifewithoutanet.com... http://godisimaginary.com... Peer reviewed Creationist Articles http://www.skeptical-science.com... Abiogenesis Stupid Creationists http://www.ldolphin.org...
The publicly available sex offender registry should be abolished.

I will add a few things here. The false sense of security that people get from the registry makes them and their kids less safe. I would not steal a loaf of bread today because I have access to food, but if I became impoverished and was starving(in a non welfare country), I might. This is analogous to the idea that stamping ex offenders with a scarlet letter could be raising the probability of recidivism.
The publicly available sex offender registry should be abolished.

In this debate I will be giving reasons as to why sex offender registry should be publicy available. Rebuttal 1-Sex offenders have an extremely low recidivism rate. The pro did not list any sources as to how low recidivism rates for sex offenders are so it is truly hard to know what "low" is, but I will do my best to rebut this. "The 61 studies provided information on 28,972 sexual offenders, although sample sizes were smaller for any particular analysis". "When recidivism was defined as any reoffense, the rates were predictably higher: 36.3% overall (n = 19,347), 36,9% for the child molesters (n = 3,363), and 46,2% for rapists (n = 4,017). These averages should be considered cautiously because they are based on diverse methods and follow-up periods, and many sexual offenses remain undetected. "[1] After reading through this paragraph there are a few things we will look at to do some calculations recidivism of any offense is 36.3% out of 28,927 sex offenders which is equal to 19,347. As of 2015 there are 811,389 registered sex offenders in the U. S[2]. So if we take 33.3% of 811,389 we get 270,192 repeat offenders. This is a fairly large number even though the Pro stated that there was only a small percentage of repeat offenders. The pro states "The problem with this is that if they will now have the option of no relationship or forcing their way on someone. " If a former sex offender chooses the latter of these two options wouldn't that mean that te had never changed to begin with. With this in mind wouldn't it be better for people to be aware of possible threats? Next the Pro stated "If you disagree with my conclusion that the registry should be abolished as it is cruel and unusual punishment, then it seems to follow that you should think anyone convicted of any offense should be put on a registry. " This is quite untrue due to the fact that many crimes such as theft are nearly impossible to prevent, so a registry for that wouldn't matter. Rebuttal 2- The sex offender registry is horribly abused by the public. The talks about the Letzgo Hunting group is irrelevant due to the fact that they do not use the sex offender registry to find their "victims", but rather set out to find unregistered offenders by using chat rooms. Argument 1- safetyThe registration of sex offenders is very important for safety reasons. For example when moving to a new city with your family(if you don't have one you can imagine) wouldn't you want to know how safe it is. Of course you can check how many burgularies, grand theft autos, and murders occur but you would still be missing the amount of sex offenders in the area. Due to this you wouldn't have even been able know if it was safe let your children walk to school, or walk down the street to the store. For this reason public access to the sex offender registry is a necessity. I await the pro's response. Sources[1]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[2] . http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org...
michael vick should be left alone for what he did.

Michael Vick committed a brutal and vicious federal crime. He conducted these illegal acts over state lines, thereby increasing the category of his actions to a felony. He was convicted of bankrolling a dog-fighting operation, and served nearly 2 years in prison for his endeavors. However, Michael Vick is an employee of a private organization (and even a team) - the NFL. Therefore, he is a representation of that business organization that could cost his franchise bad publicity and therefore money. Michael Vick has proven to be a liability over the years. After an incident where he was accused of marijuana possession in a Miami airport, and reaching a settlement with a woman who had accused him of knowingly giving her herpes, his reputation has significantly diminished. As a result of his crimes, Michael Vick did not lose his NFL contract and returned to the game to make millions. If people tease him or hold him accountable for a little bit, oh well. Tough. Everything passes anyway.
Animal Rights

This will be for my conclusionMy opponent says that Util sounds selfish for him. I never said to let them suffer, I said that the advantages for humans is if we ban animal rights, and I gave tons of reasons to that. My opponent says that the definition was confuse over the entire debate. He doesn't say why it was confused, I said it in round 1, and he never argued over it, when he could have done so, and now it is round 3, but he didn't. My opponent concedes that we should eat meat, which harms the right of life, which means animals do not have right. My opponent says that animals are extinct of humans. That's why we have zoos to protect them. And, I showed that animals also die, such as the tiger because of habit loss, and the lack of food. And, the lack of food also. My opponent says that we are probably hunting their food source. I showed that Siberia has almost no animals, it's cold, and they eat a lot, so there are no animals. We chop down trees for paper, and for houses, for use. I showed that my opponent's arguments where wrong, and my opponent concedes all of my arguments.
Animal Rights

Utilitarianism sounds pretty selfish to me. We should let animas suffer in order to help ourselves. That does not sound too good for me. My idea of animal rights is to treat any animals you decide to own with care. I think this definition has been kind of confused over this entire debate. It is true that we need to fish or hunt for certain animals for food, but keeping them in zoos is something different. We should not have zoos, as it causes certain harm to animals. We people are the ones who are invading these animals' homes, and we repay them by placing them in zoos? Animals will become extinct because of humans. We are very selfish and only want to achieve our personal goals. We really don't seem to care. Habitat loss is the fault of humans. We are cutting down trees for wood, mining for gold and other precious minerals all while destroying the natural habitat of animals. As for food, that is also because of humans as well. We are probably hunting their primary food source, so there is nothing for them to eat. In conclusion, animal rights are very important. There may be some cases when we have to hunt for food or in self-defense, but that's about it. Why should we destroy their habitat all for the cause of looking for gold? Why chop down trees for energy when we have renewable energy and can use the sun and wind to gather energy? Why?