BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The BOP lies on atheists

Your second paragraph is quite frankly a cop out. You claim that the person saying "bananas are not poisonous to dogs" (the negative claimant) has to test bananas on every dog on earth, while the other person (the positive claimant) has to simply test on one to prove that they are not poisonous. Honestly, think about it. If your friend (the positive claimant) said he had a pet dragon, and you (the negative claimant) said he didn't; who would have to provide the proof? You, or him? This concept can, according to theists, be applied to every scenario imaginable, yet somehow religion gets a special privilege. In science if someone has a hypothesis, they have to prove it correct, the skeptic does not have to prove it wrong. This double standard is not only irrational, but it is plainly wrong.Of course the negative claimant doesn't have to provide proof, because it is impossible to provide prove that something, whether it be gods, ghosts, or dragons; does not exist. Claimants simply have to show their discovery as proof. What can skeptics show, a lack of proof? This, by definition, is absolutely impossible.For these reason, all positive claims require proof, and that it is literally impossible to prove most negative claims, the resolution must fall.
The BOP lies on atheists

Firstly there is no such thing as a 'negative' or 'positive' assertion because to assert anything to any degree requires some justification. If you say 'bananas are not poisonous to dogs' especially if you sell bananas is one helluva claim to make. You'd have to ensure EVERY DOG ON EARTH is not going to be harmed by bananas. The other person merely has to prove that the banana can be poisonous to dogs. In the same way theists only assert that a form of god is possible and actually can be a very good guidance of the 'right' way to live, the atheists say no god WHATSOEVER is the true one and supply no evidence AT ALL!Thanks.
The BOP lies on atheists

First you were the one who brought up morals by saying "theists are essentially the band of humans whom live to seek meaning, a guidance to be as good a person as they can", and I was refuting your point by saying that morals naturally evolved. Atheists say "I do not believe in god", not "there is no god" We are simply saying that because of lack of evidence, it would be illogical to assume that there is a god. Theists claim that "There is a god" not "There could be a god". Most theists assert with complete conviction that there is, without a doubt, a god. Theist are making a positive assertion, and atheist a negative assertion. To refresh your memory, a positive assertion is a claim that, in their simplest form, do not use the words: not, no, none, or the prefixes un, or dis. For example, a claim that bananas are poisonous to dogs, would have the burden of proof. A claim that bananas are not poisonous to dogs, would not hold the burden of proof. Likewise, a claim that there is a god, would hold the burden of proof. Not a claim that there is no god. Perceived size, or monumentality of a claim is not relevant to whom the burden of proof is thrust upon.
The BOP lies on atheists

I don't understand where your evolution and DNA argument came into play it was totally irrelevant.In reply to your attack on my last claim let me better explain it...Atheists deny/disbelieve any and all possible gods of any nature whatsoever. Theists often propose a god of some kind or form merely suggesting that they have faith in it purely becaus eits possible not because they assert proof or 100% certainty (which no atheist should do either). The different is atheist deny ALL GODS OF ANY KIND, while theists only propose one. Please explain how more BOP lies on theists.
The BOP lies on atheists

In your argument, you said: "To think that all your personality, all your actions in life and all that you are and ever will be is worth zilch in the end is actually a rather pointless concept to accept." I disagree with this statement because I would rather accept that I will die and stay dead, and make most of my time on earth, than be gullible and think that my soul will get sucked out of my body and I'll be living in the clouds for the rest of eternity.Later you said that: "theists are essentially the band of humans whom live to seek meaning, a guidance to be as good a person as they can" Do you not agree that atheist can seek meaning and to be a good person? Theist often claim that they are "morally superior" to the rest of the world. The irony of that statement is not lost on me. Morals evolved in humans to further the chance of that humans DNA being passed on to the next generation. One of the arguments that creationists often resort to is: If morals developed through evolution, why do we help people we aren't even related to? The answer to this is actually quite simple. If you help someone, you expect something back. You may not know it, but when you lend someone a pencil, or give someone food, you want something in return. But why do we have organizations like the Red Cross. They don't expect anything back when they help out after an earthquake. Good point. The reason for this is because humans' DNA to eachother is more than 99% alike. That means that if they safe 100,000 people in an earthquake, 99% of their DNA is still being passed down by 100,000 people.At the end of your argument, you said that Atheists are making a bigger claim that there is no god than theists' claim that there is a god. If anyone thought this statement over, they would realize just how silly it is. If I claim that a giant scorpion farted out the universe while juggling, and you denied it; who is making the bigger claim? I am. Why doesn't the same hold true for you the ridiculous concept of god?
is abortion moral

Rebuttal So what I got from your argument is that you didn't really read my arguments or didn't understand them on a moral level which is okay not everyone does. But I believe because I made the topic its called IS ABORTION MORAL killing helpless humans is not and should not be called moral so all your rubbish about killing babies because they would grow up in poor and impoverished homes which is bad but so is killing defenceless babies who can't defend themselves which we can stop by not treating sex as a health issue but something that you should not do until you get married and you don't have to intrude on people rights but change public opinion, by the way, your stats agree with my last point if we promote safe sex contraceptives are very cheap and if you want to have sex take precautions. If everyone was careful we could half all unwanted births. On the off chance that your ability to listen to reasoned is not impaired debate I will recommend some links to some videos That might help to change your opinion to your point about fetuses not being human two human people had sexual intercourse to produce this child so it would be denying a science fact that this is not human offspring this is a quote from your last post on this debate While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life. This is a quote from you This is your definition of "Human Being": A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. does this mean that my friend with a speech disability is less human than me because he has this problem he still identifies as human what about someone who is deformed who doesn't have an upright stance by your definition this excludes two fully human beings? do you count them by your definition if you do you are proving your definition wrong can you please answer. because that is what your definition says and I also like how you mention the word child in your definition. While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life this is a quote from your last post which completely destroys your own argument. What you are using is a deductive argument the concept of a deductive argument that it can't be false if the premises are true but unfortunately for you, your premises are false I will leave a link in sources to say what a deductive argument is. of thank you for reading. God bless
is abortion moral

My position on this particular subject is no matter what happened no matter what you are going through even if the baby is going to wreak your short term life you can't bring a baby back from the dead when it's convenient the baby does not deserve to die because its mother got raped or went to that wild party and in the small chance of teen pregnancy I don't think that teens should be pregnant but once they get pregnant they should have to give birth of course with assistance I can not think of any argument that excuses the right to live because of someone's personal convenience issues. three facts that should debunk any opposing arguments are " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1."" Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life 2.No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. 3.Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result except for the baby doesn't get executed. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ironically the argument for abortion is the exact same as the argument for slavery the argument is that if it's on my property I get to decide if its property or not so, in conclusion, should the murder of literally the most innocent among us be treated with no more care than getting a tooth pulled " a good society can survive people doing immoral things but a good society can not survive when people call immoral things moral .
is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

First, Pro has not contested my point on spelling and grammar, sources, or conduct. Pro’s grammar is so bad that I can barely understand his final round. Reading his R3, I struggle to distinguish what text he is intending to quote and what is the text of his argument. Second, Pro fully concedes that he is the author of this poem, that he tries to stir up discussion of his own work as a means of self-promotion, and that by trying to pass of his own work as the work of “Australia’s leading erotic poet” he is engaging in dishonest tactics. His dishonest tactics are clear when he makes the argument that: “if a surrealist poet had written the poem con would just go along with it .“ Pro tries to pass himself off as an already established poet to play on a well-known cognitive bias. He wants people to think he is a famous author so people judge him favorably without critically engaging his poems. Pro is a liar and a con artist. Punish him by voting Con. If Pro posted this debate honestly, if he posted this debate clearly stating that the poem was his own, clearly laying out that he wanted to discuss the quality and merits of his poem in this debate, I would take a very different tone. But Pro is a con artist trying to gain fame by spam. He has posted to many other websites beside DDO, including Wikipedia. I am done critiquing his poetry. His poem is bad. Sorry dude, your poetry sucks. If I read it in an high school text book I would say it sucks, when I read it on DDO I say it sucks. You know how I know it sucks? Because YOU KNOW IT SUCKS. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t try and trick people into liking it. If you thought your poetry was any good, you wouldn’t try to pass it off as the poetry of some “leading” poet. Get off your ego-trip and rejoin the rest of us in reality. You write poetry- honestly that’s awesome even if it isn’t good. I have a ton of respect for people who use their time creatively, even if the results aren’t “great examples of narcissist poetry.” If you posted this exact poem in the entertainment section of the forums, I would probably still think it wasn’t very good but I would remember you as someone that took the time to be introspective and engage in a creative endeavor. Seriously, stop being a jerk and be honest with yourself and others. You want people to read your poetry, ask people to read it. Don’t lie about it.
is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

Why? Because Pro IS the author- he wants to self-promote and boost his web presence. Don’t believe me? Check out his history- all his debates are about his own writing, trying to pass himself off as a widely known and popular author. He even has a debate regarding whether or not he is a “shameless self-promoter. ” Pro doesn’t even deny this! DON’T LET PRO ASTRO-TURF ON DDO: GIVE PRO A SEVEN POINT BALLOT Conduct – Pro is misrepresenting himself and trying to manipulate the website for personal gain. Sources – Pro’s source claims the author is “Australia’s leading erotic poet” when the author is an unknown hack. S/G – Pro uses poor punctuation and cumbersome line breaks. Argument’s – Pro is a hack poet, his poetry is AT BEST mediocre, certainly not “great. ” I find it barfy. This poem sucks. The poem is not a good account of narcissism- a true narcissist is unaware of the irrationality of his own self-absorption. This poem is painfully try-hard; it strains to show how self absorbed the subject is. In trying to describe a narcissist, the author creates a caricature. This poem is about what someone trying to write about a narcissist thinks a narcissist is. It is over exaggerated and not at all a “great account” of a narcissist. Contrast this poem to a work like “A portrait of Dorian Grey,” where narcissism is subtly and realistically conveyed. I will respond to Con line-by-line: "lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost o"er me slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze" now you see the slivers of light refer to the "lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost " Ok so how how can something “jet black” be a “lightfall? ” Light is the exact opposite of jet black. This is classic mixed metaphor- a trademark of bad writing. Frost doesn’t flutter- frost develops on stationary objects over night. Even if “slivers of light” refers to a “lightfall of jet black,” the line makes no sense. So this lightfall is black like gauze? I have never seen a black light that looked like or reminded me of gauze. I have no idea what image the author is trying to convey. Is it a shimmering black object? Because gauze is not shimmer-y. This poetry is awful. the image is vivid and lurid it is the image of black light- dancing something to get your mind around I can’t get my mind around it because it is stupid. What is black light? Are you talking about the purple light that makes things look neon? Is that the dancing light? Listen dude, people share their poetry on this website all the time. Just be honest about it- don’t be slimy and try to trick people into thinking your stuff is good. Post it honestly and engage in actual discussion about your work. If your stuff is good people will respond to it. If it isn’t they will react much more constructively than I am- you will get real feedback to improve your stuff and you will be treated like a member of the community. But if you act like a self-important skeezball don’t be surprised when people treat you like one.
is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

so far con has not discussed whether this a great example of narcissism in poetry all he has doe is bag colin leslie dean al con says is \ "The poem is just a word vomit of adjectives strung together with no attempt at lyricism or well-crafted imagery: "slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze oh that canopy of night " How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, it certainly doesn"t convey any poetic image." reply 1) con says How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze" slivers of light refer to the lightfalls of jet black ink the full quote should read "lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost o"er me slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze" now you see the slivers of light refer to the "lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost " con says ", it certainly doesn"t convey any poetic image."" the image is vivid and lurid it is the image of black light- dancing something to get your mind around now back to the debate here is another example of narcissism in the poem "the shuddering pulsations of my rippling flesh oh my beauty captivates I my beauty sends I into consuming fires of delight I dissolve into an overabundance of bliss I burst into spasms of overabounding exuberance as I luxuriate in the presence of I oh give me those lips that I can kiss into insensibility give me the lips that I can enter into my beauties sublimity oh my flesh quivers my veins ripple with rapturous intensity give me those lips give me those red puffy lips of spongy heated flesh give me those lips that I can feel the love of my beloved pour from those lips all the beauty of I into I
is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

This debate is just an attempt to astro-turf and promote the author of the above cited poem.I will not repeat the name of the author of this poem (although I am 95% certain my opponent will) because I don’t want to boost the number of webpages the use the name. I will just refer to him as “author.”If Pro types out the author’s name in this debate, the judges should automatically give Con a full 7 point vote. Everyone can look at the linked Scribd source to see the author’s name, the only reason Pro would post it in round is self promotion.DO NOT INDLUGE PRO’S SELF PROMOTION: IF PRO POSTS THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR IN THIS ROUND, VOTE ALL 7 POINTS TO CON.1) The title page lists the author of this poem as “Australia’s leading erotic poet.”2) … but this author is virtually unknown, with no professional reputation or discussion of his work. A brief google search of his name reveals that this author has no major published works, no Wikipedia page, nothing.3) The author DOES have a discussion page on Wikipedia that notes he is trying to self-promote http://en.wikipedia.org...Note that the username of the individual defending the author is the same as the name of the poster linked by Pro on Scribd and of the “publishing company” the author uses.4) The author has spam across multiple website trying to stir up controversy about his poetry and “philosophy.” This debate is just another attempt to spam a website in a blatant attempt at self promotion.5) Also, the poem sucks. It is a huge run on sentence that repeats itself. It is boring and uses uncreative language. He keeps forcing self-reflexive language in awkward ways, e.g.:“I glory in the adoration of me into this mirrored glass I see the beauty of I”What? “I see the beauty of I?” Barf.The poem is just a word vomit of adjectives strung together with no attempt at lyricism or well-crafted imagery:“slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze oh that canopy of night “How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, it certainly doesn’t convey any poetic image.This poem is just full of barf and terrible.
is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

I ague that this work is a great account of narcissism in poetry http://www.scribd.com... this is the preface Preface The exquisite love of self To adore to worship to idolize self The captivation of self by self Oh that ecstatic gaze upon the beauty of self To luxuriate in the sublime gaze focused on self To love self To merge fuse self into self In its adoration of itself in its rapturous gaze of its self self sucks itself up into self disappears into itself into a singularity extinguishes itself
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

Finally, I will make a revision of my arguments and some closing reflections. If we go back in time we will reach a time where all men were equal, where all individuals had the same rights. They had complete freedom. People did their work, exchanged what they had to spare for what they needed, They did what they wanted and no one told them what was right or wrong, Anyway, earth wasn't in chaos. People respected each other and each others rights. If you are still confused this time is called Neolithic, the time between savagery and civilizations. People had full freedom. There wasn't laws that limited them, neither a government that controlled them. But then this time ended. People sold their freedom to obtain safety to the governments. First of all, I must point out that most of activities performed by the government are against freedom. Regulations, controls, taxes, prohibitions, orders, commandments, and so on, and so on. Government limits our freedom of choice, of thinking and acting. Then is insane to think that we need a government to ensure our freedom.Secondly, governments create aggressions to freedom. PRO argued that government is needed to ensure freedoms because is the only one who can defend freedom from outside hostility. But, as I have proved before, that outside hostility comes from another government. This shows that governments don't do anything but attempting against freedom, which reinforces my position.Finally, let's not fall in the assumption that not having a government produces chaos and vulnerability. Like Kant said in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View,anarchy consist of "Freedom without Force". Governments violate autonomy, anarchy protects the free autonomy of the individuals. As Robert Paul Wolff has argued" since 'the state is authority, the right to rule', anarchism which rejects the State is the only political doctrine consistent with autonomy in which the individual alone is the judge of his moral constraints."To conclude, governments don't protect freedoms, they violate them and work against them. That being said, I believe that no government is needed to ensure freedom. Instead, the education of the masses, the mutual dialogue, and the respect for others' freedoms, does ensure and foment freedom.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

For the last round I will state my closing arguments: In the history of human civilization, the only real bulwark for individual liberty has been a government, appointed by its populace, to advocate for its people's freedoms. Such a government that honors and upholds freedom of the individual created a space where freedoms can be exercised and without such a government, the freedoms of society would be vulnerable to aggression. Of course such a power, to effectively uphold and defend freedom, must exist only to serve its those it governs, and not an individual or group of individuals who hold the power, and it must be the goal of such a government to maximize freedoms, as well as defend the freedoms of the individual. Such responsibility could not be properly executed without a high level of organization and efficiency that a modern government can possess. The government allows for laws to protect its citizens within, and allows for an armed force to protect its citizens outside its borders. Without such defenses, we would be subject to the whims of every entity of aggression that does not value cooperation and peace, much less human life. As long as hostility exists between us, there will always be need for a power to defend freedoms. That need can only be met through a government to which its goal is to defend and uphold freedoms of the individual.