BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does exist

I would rather you start, I liked your opening round... In fact lets begin with that. You started off with your explanation of a 'reasonable definition' of a God according to you. To describe God as an omnipotent like being. (I have forgotten the three descriptions you gave prior to this debate [omnipotent, omnipresent & all loving being, I think are the descriptive words you used] its what made me want to debate you in the first place.) You then said it was unreasonable to refer to God as 'love' or the 'universe' but what makes you think that God is a thing we would refer to as a being? Do you think God has a material form or body? (In this case I refer to we as a unified human understanding not just a group of theists) I do not refer to myself as a christian although I have read much of the bible. I would rather refer to my self as a theist agnostic. I believe the bible has unfortunately undergone Chinese whispers and therefore mistranslation. Whether it be accidental or manipulated to gain power is any ones guess. I think it may be a bit of both. If you want me to find you solid proof of God's existence then I ask you to find me proof of a spaghetti monster. Pointing out this mysterious figure above the clouds is a myth. Your opponent before me told you about DNA & you replied to him with a concept about aliens. I thought that was an interesting reply. Not silly! However what alien then came and created those aliens? What was the first alien? Notice how it comes back to an original creator? I dare say the concept of God was personified so others could understand. Who said God has to have any human like qualities? Because Jesus walked the planet over 2 thousand years ago? I doubt Jesus is God (he even refered to his father according to scripture if its still true) I understand Jesus plays a big part in it all though. If I was going to pick anyone (ho ho ho) Jesus would definitely be my first guess. It says in the bible (book of romans I think) that god is love. Where would we be with out love? Is it love that drives us to survive or fear of death? Do we eat because we love food or because we fear starvation? Is it not out of love that we avoid pain but then struggle so that our loved ones have better? This is one of my favourite subjects to talk about (if you have not already guessed lol) I hope I have not offended you in any way (I know I'm confident about what I'm saying however I'm not comfortable with how I word it sometimes, so I may need to reword some of my phrases on occasion) I don't mind if you want to be cheeky about it, It might be a good laugh however I would like us to be polite (not a kiss arse but not a jerk either) I can be slack at replying so I hope your patient & good luck!
Is the U.S. doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS? (Pro=Yes, Con=No)

The U.S. has been fighting ISIS in two ways: sending drone strikes and funding Iraq's current government and Syrian rebels. I will be showing how both harm U.S. interests in the area. Drone Strikes: Bashar Assad, the dictator of Syria, has stated that U.S. drone strikes are like fertilizer for ISIS/ISIL. I agree and there is evidence to back me up. Drones have been shown to miss targets more than hit them. In fact, most drone strikes end up hitting civilians than actual ISIS members. The surviving civilians become outraged by this horrible injustice and seek revenge. The only group fighting the U.S. is ISIS so they will, of course, join them out of vengeance. https://youtu.be... "The Intercept" has estimated that drone strikes are, "10 times more likely than conventional aircraft to cause civilian deaths." The U.S. has been funding the Iraq's current government in fighting ISIS/ISIL. But what they DO with the funds is highly unethical. The Iraqi government has been training their soldiers much like how ISIS trains their OWN soldiers. Iraqi and Iranian soldiers chop off the heads of ISIS militants. You might say, "eye for an eye," but stooping to the low and unethical acts of our enemies doesn't quite prove we're better than them. Here's proof: https://youtu.be... Just watch this: https://youtu.be...
Is the U.S. doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS? (Pro=Yes, Con=No)

I accept with the understanding that the burden of proof is on PRO.I will maintain that the US is not doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS which I will refer to as ISIL. Please note that I do not have to prove that the US is doing less harm than good, I must simply prove it is doing something other than more harm than good. I will define ISIL a group of radical sunni muslims based in Syria and Iraq who wish to establish a caliphate in the middle east.Will define 'more harm than good' as a statement about whether our actions over there are supporting or hurting US interests objectively. Whether or not they are actully helping destroying ISIS is unimportant to me because when talking about good and bad (harm), the answer will depend on who is being benifited and becuse the resolution is about the US, we are most likely talking about the interests (good or bad) of the United States. This makes sense because each country is benifited differently by the US' actions against ISIS depending on their political situation...ect, so in order to have an objective discussion we need a reference point on which to say what would or should be considered as 'more harm' (bad) or good.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

My death is debatable.... Anyways, I accept your challenge although I would like to add two definitions: mathematical fact - a provable fact (by proof is understood a mathematical proof) axiom or postulate - a statement that is held to be self-evidently true - it cannot be proven although it can be used as a "fact" in a mathematical proof. I am going to assume that by "x=x is a fact" you mean a mathematical fact and argue against that standpoint.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

In this debate, I'll be defending the contention that x=x is a fact, whilst Con will be arguing against it.Definitions x - A letter that is in this case representing a numberFact - A true statementAssumption - A baseless statementFactoid - A statement widely believed to be true but isn't true.Rules1. No abuse of semantics2. No trollingRound 1 is for acceptance.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

Pro's Arguments: Argument 1: -The fault in his argument against my rebuttal is that once again he uses the assumption that X=X to show his statements to be true. In this case, he uses 5 instead of T, but his logic remains based on 5 equaling 5. Also, I'd like to challenge Pro to show that X=5=X => X=X WITHOUT assuming X=X. It's impossible Argument 2: Again, there is the problem that the law of non contradiction is based on the law of identity, which pro refuses to admit, even though I posted links.... Also, X=X AND X!=X is a contradiction, but X!=X by itself does not violate the law of noncontradiction My arguments: Argument 1: Here I was not trying to show that x != x could be true if you took x to vary with time. Argument 2: To explain, I am using axiom/postulate to mean basically the same thing asan assumption. Therefore x=X is an assumption - something we have to assume to be true in order for math to work. Therefore it is theoretically possible for x=x to be false for certain values of x. Therefore I did NOT concede by saying x=x is true Argument 3: (new argument) Another way to show we have to assume x=x is true is to consider words or strings as they are called in programming. In a sentence, the strings "Abracadabra" and "abracadabra" mean the same thing, but they are not comprised of the same bite code ('A' is considered different from 'a' in computer science. Therefore, we can have x != x and x=x to be true at the same time if we consider two different equality statements.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

• Con's "Rebuttals"My First Argument Con's problem with the third premise is unjustified, as I made it clear that T has a value and thatvalue is the same as X's. It doesn't necessarily have to be 'T', just another thing that is or represents the number X is representing. As long as T has a value and it is the sames as x (it is), the third premise is sound. What Con is basically objecting to is that T has a value and it is the same as X's. Remember, it doesn't necessarily need to be "T", it could be an actual number such as 5. Either way, it still works:X= The value of X = XX=XX=5=XX=XMy argument from the law of non-contradictionI'd just like to point out that my argument here is not circular,as the law of non-contradiction doesn't derive from the law of identity, it just means that if the law of non-contradiction is true, then the law of identity is true. So, my argument that if the law of non-contradiction is true then x=x and the law of non-contradiction is true so x=x is sound.• Con's "arguments"1. But if the two X's are different, then we're not talking about the same thing and you're point is irrelevant. X=X when both X's are representing the same thing.2. Note in this debate how I did not agree to Con's assumption that he meant proving X=X as a mathematical fact. I said: "I just want to make it clear that x=x is the fact that I'm arguing for". I didn't say "I just want to make it clear that x=x is the mathematical fact I'm arguing for". This means that in his second point, Con conceded by saying that x=x is true.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

To clarify what Pro said at the beginning of round two, a proof which contains elements that are not mathematics-based, still gives a "mathematical fact" as long as there is a proof which only contains logical steps that derive that proof. Otherwise, it is either an axiom or an assumption. Rebuttal: Pro's first "proof" assumes that X=X in P3, when he states that If X=T and T=X, then X=T=X. By making this statement, he is implicitly assuming that T=T because if T != T (!= means not equal to) then that step could not be made. To help, think of T1 and T2 as two different variables. Without knowing that T1 = T2 or X=X you cannot simplify T1 = X and T2=X. Therefore, Pro is using a circular argument in his first "proof" In his second "proof" Pro uses the Law of Non-Contradiction to prove that X must equal X. The problem here is that The law of noncontradiction is derived from the law of identity, which states that X must equal X. (Law of noncontradiction: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...; Law of identity: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) Therefore, once again, Pro is using circular arguments. Argument: There are two points I want to make here. 1. It is possible for X != to X if, for example, we consider x to vary with time, and then consider two x's at different points in time. 2. The most basic of Laws is the Law of identity: which states that X must equal X assuming a static X. This is also known as the Postulate of identity, which highlights the fact that X=X cannot be proved , therefore me must take it for granted as an axiom - still true, but not a mathematical fact.
x=x is a fact, rather than just an assumption or a factoid.

About the assumption Con makes at the end of his round one, I just want to make it clear that x=x is the fact that I'm arguing for, however the evidence will not necessarily have to be mathematical. Remember, abuse of semantics is against the rules of this debate. • The ArgumentP1) If T=X, X=TP2) T=XC1) X=TP3) If T=X and X=T, then X=T=XC2) (Following P2, C1 and P3) X=T=XP4) If X=T=X, X=XC3) (Following C2 and P4) X=X• JustificationP1 - This is pretty self-explanatory. If something equals something else, that something else equals that something. P2 - Let's say in this case that T also represents the number X is representingC1 - Follows P1 and P2 logicallyP3 - Pretty self-explanatory also. X=T, which equals X. C2 - Follows P2, C1 and P3 logicallyP4 - If something equals something that equals something, it follows logically that the first something equals the last something. In this case, X has equal value to T, which has equal value to X. This means that if X=T=X, then X=X. C3 - Follows C2 and P4 logically• Argument from the law of non-contradictionP1) If the law of non-contradiction is true, X=XP2) The law of non-contradiction is true. C) ∴, X=X• JustificationP1 - If the law of non-contradiction is true, nothing that's a contradiction in terms can exist or be true in the case of a statement. An X that is not an X is a contradiction in terms, as one statement is positive and one is negative, and they're both talking about the same thing P2 - No two mutually exclusive propositions can be true. For example, "X is Y" and "X is not Y" are mutually exclusive propositions and they can't both be true when they're talking about the same thing. C - Follows logically
The Grand National should be kept.

The Grand National argument First of all I would just like to tackle the main issue head on in this opening statement. The crux of the argument is centred around the treatment of the horses that take place before and during the Grand National. It is often said that the horses themselves in the preparation period before the race and throughout their racing carers are treated better than most children, their physical condition and welfare must be at a constant peak to achieve the best results come race day. During the race the horses undergo a tough 4.5 mile course, contrary to popular belief the horses actually enjoy the physical exertions of the Grand National and competing with other horses, this is also aided by the friendship built up with the Jockey and the animal. Secondly I would like to address the heritage and the history of the Grand National. The Grand National itself has been one of the longest standing Horse racing competitions in the world, it has been running for 175 years in total, last year audiences around the world peaked at 8.9 million and this year it was 6 million with 75,000 members travelling to the ground to watch. Around the country British horse racing generated a total of £570 million from licensed betting shop and £710 million in total combined with licensed and unlicensed betting shops. As you can see this is but a small proportion of the economics generated in total not just from the Grand National but also British horse racing as a whole. Lastly I would like to address statistics of the fatality rate of the horses. 90,000 race horses compete each year in British horse racing as a whole and of those 90,000 horses there is just a 0.02% fatality rate. With these statistics it impossible and illogical to end a single race that has stood for 175 years as a result of this.
Everyone should be allowed to eat cats.

This is a debate in which I feel very strongly. When I mean cat I mean the domesticated and stray cats. Intelligence is not a way to defend cats not being consumed. Pigs are in fact smarter than Cats. They're shown to be as smart as dogs and chimps. Since they're at least as smart as Dogs that means they're smarter due to dogs being smarter than cats. If we can kill 115 million pigs each year than we can surely eat a cat. Overpopulation of cats is a big time problem. 860 thousand cats are euthanized each year. We're wasting meat that can be used to eat. There is about 70 million cats homeless in the streets that are feral. Feral cats are attacking people and killing about a billion birds. Instead of letting these homeless,feral cats attacking and killing birds we should eat them. By doing that we're saving birds and reducing the feral cats. Eating cats is a quick easy efficient way to produce meat. Female cats can achieve their first heat as early as 4 1/2 month. This allow a fast quick easy way to produce cats that will make it easier to mate,reproduce and eat. Cats take little space compared to pigs,and cows. Cows eat 24 pounds a day compared to a average 8 pound cat needing 240 calories a day. Eating cats is easier and quicker way to produce meat. It doesn't matter if a cat is a household pet. We don't have a single care in the world if we eat a cow unless you're a vegan or vegetarian. But look there are people who can't consume different kinds of meat for religious purposes. Jews can't eat pork, Muslims can't pork and Hindu's can't eat cows. Yet we still consume them without any care in the world. They're in the minority and we can't a cow because of the majority deems it wrong and unnatural? Cites and Sources: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . https://www.psychologytoday.com... . https://www.aspca.org... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... . https://www.sciencenews.org... . https://www.thespruce.com... . http://beef.unl.edu... . http://www.catster.com...
Texting harms grammatical ability.

In today's perhaps all-too-connected world, text messaging's effects on one's grammar have come into debate due to the fact that texts can be so full of abbreviations and misspellings that they are incomprehensible to a person who is not familiar with the conventions of texting. 25% of words in a text message are misspelled in some way; some of those words are incorrectly capitalized, while others are spelled phonetically. [1] The content of an average text message is far from what one would expect in proper writing. In his round, con has raised several points that he claims demonstrate that there is no risk that texting would ruin somebody's grammar. They are as follows: firstly, that there are other already existing systems of abbreviation, secondly, that texters are easily able to switch back to proper grammar when necessary, and finally, that there is no existing evidence to suggest that text messaging can be a detriment to one's ability to write properly. Here in this debate, I shall set out to demonstrate that con's claims are false, and that existing fears over the potential risks of texting are legitimate. Con claims that since texting is a recent invention, its introduction should be correlated with a sharp drop within the general population's grammatical ability. However, many factors can cause indicators of grammatical ability within the general population to fluctuate, so the lack of such a steep drop does not even come close to disproving anything about the relationship between texting and poor grammar. Proving the existence of a sharp decline within grammar scores is not necessary to proving that texting is harmful to grammar ability, as many factors in addition to texting can affect grammar scores. Con further argues that since abbreviation systems existed before texting, there is no harm to texting in terms of grammar skills. This is fallacious in that the fact that previous abbreviation systems exist does not say anything about the effects of texting. Con made the argument that texters can switch between textspeak and normal writing with such ease that texting cannot affect their grammar skills. In reality, however, texters, especially those who are young, can have trouble with switching back to proper grammar after becoming accustomed to textspeak, and this is reflected in test scores. [2] Con's argument that studies show no negative correlation between texting and grammar skills is contradicted by many studies which do show such a negative correlation; I have linked to them in my previous argument. [1]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [2]http://news.psu.edu...
Texting harms grammatical ability.

Note: The debate should be impossible to accept. Please express interest in the comments section if interested. If you find a way to work around this, you automatically forfeit all seven points.ResolutionThe full resolution is as follows: 'Resolved: Text messaging is harmful to grammatical ability.'DefinitionsText messaging: The exchange of short messages, mainly composed of text, between portable electronic devicesGrammatical ability: The ability to produce morphologically and syntactically accurate sentences and to judge the grammaticality of sentences.Rules1. Debate structure: R1: Pro accepts and presents opening arugments. R2: Con presents opening arguments; Pro presents rebuttals. R3: Con presents rebuttals; Pro defends his case and concludes. R4: Con defends his case and concludes. Pro waives. 2. In general, all arguments should be posted inside the debate, but sources can also be provided in comments.3. BOP is on Pro.4. No trolling, semantics or kritiks.5. If Con disagrees with any of these rules, he must inform me before accepting the debate so that they can be modified.Good luck!
pro= crazy people are better con=normal people are better

DefinitionsI trust you will agree with the following definitions.Crazy-mad, insane [1]Insanity-a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (such as schizophrenia) [2]Normal, for the purposes of this debate will be defined as someone who is not insane.Arguments"Normal people are just plain boring. without craziness in the world, how are we supposed to enjoy our self's? that's right. we can't."I have a question that I would like the voters to think about.Do any of your fun, enjoyable activities involve insane people? Now, everyone has to have hobbies I suppose, but most people's activities do not involve insane people as far as I know."crazy people are better because they are fun and entertaining."This is somewhat sad really. You like the insane people because they are entertaining, which I assume is because of their state of insanity. Just think about that.Most people that I consider to be funny are perfectly sane individualls. I am farily sure that most comedians are sane.Back to you Pro. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...