BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism(pro) vs Theism(con)

Debate Format:Round 1: -Pro gives definitions and sets up debate -Con accepts the debate and confirm (and provides) definitions. Round 2: -Pro gives opening argument -Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals. Round 3: -Pro responds to what Con argued -Con responds to what Pro argued (does not defend arguments) Round 4: -Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.Definition:- domain of a statement 'X': a limited scope in which the validity of the statement is confirmed. When a statement is taken outside of its domain, its validity becomes uncertain.Example: The domain of the statement "Aliens do not exist" is Earth.
Good public transportation is necessary for a functional city

Public transportation is not necessary on campus. The housing and campus buildings are very close and easily traversed with walking. There are options such as taxis and bus transportation to get around off campus. The downtown and shopping areas are easy to get around, and the downtown area is not far from campus, so walking or biking is a viable option. However, transportation is needed to get to the shopping/mall area. I use my car since I don't live on/near campus.
Good public transportation is necessary for a functional city

Bus Transportation is the most important section of the public transportation in big city areas. People mostly travel through buses to different parts of city. Buses are available to almost every routes of city. Similarly, train service and the car services are also other mode of transportation and very much essential for the people. The public transportation is very much important in case of the of city areas or rural areas. Basically the transport service providing companies are playing a huge role for this. They are the responsible for the better transportation services.The tracks or roads of the vehicles like: cars or buses or trains those are providing the transport services need to be more developed in terms of the better transportation.
'Modern Global Politics' presupposes a single victor.

Global politics names both the discipline that studies the political and economical patterns of the world and the field that is being studied. At the centre of that field are the different processes of political globalization in relation to questions of social power. presupposes: tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case. victor: a person who defeats an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition“Victoribus Spolia,”
'Modern Global Politics' presupposes a single victor.

Welcome Bogcha,'Modern Global Politics' presupposes a single victor.'If you have any questions regarding this debate topic or it's definitions, feel free to address them within comments''To the victor, belong the spoils' and Good Luck.Let me lead by example:During 'the Cuban Crisis', the US and Russia played Russian Roulette with each other.http://www.theguardian.com...Are you familiar with this game?, are you familiar with the dynamics of all-in poker?Look at Syria today. Not much has changed. Do you know of any games that possess such preordained catastrophic outcomes for the vanquished.(All or Nothing) My promptings are an effort on my part to 'marinate thought' on these considerations among the readership of this debate thread. All are welcome to contribute to the discussion that encircles this debate topic. Come back with something Bogcha, and we will proceed from there.
Love Conqers All

Love provides a stimulating positive morale boost, due the happiness it provides, so is the most potent in battle situations. In daily life, it provides stimulating positive effects and as well as a rush of pleasure, therefore it increases survival and so it is the most potent in daily life. As well as with happiness and rush of pleasures, it lowers stress, fear, anxiety and depression so therefore it increases your overall ability to function. Love conquers all.
Love Conqers All

This argument is about the emotion that is most potent in battle situations, daily life, and overall abilities. Love may be the most positive emotion that a person can feel, but it does not "Conquer all." My debate was that it was not the most effective emotion that a person can experience, in this I mean that in an overall count of any ability a person can perform, the most powerful driving force behind those abilities is fear, not love. Sorry if there was a confusion.
Love Conqers All

If you are taking a biological standpoint, fear is more of a potent chemical release. It allows the body to do more more efficient, and more quickly. Phobias are mental disorder tat a person is irrationally afraid of something, be it an animal or an inanimate object. It throws a person into a state of hyperventilation, sweating, and sometimes comas. There are cases where people with phobias, (keeping in mind they are irrational fears, it is just the same as any fear, they are the exact same thing in their symptoms and effects, it is simply directed at something that shouldn't be feared.) have done this and more" -got 53 different tumors -Killed somebody -Fainted -Went in cardiac arrest -hyperventilated -Over used of the adrenal gland, which led to death -Went into a coma, ended in death -was Traumatized -Was paralyzed Fear has inspired MUCH more than what is on this list, nearly infinitely more. Fear has influenced wars, battles, it kept oppressed people in their places. Joseph Stalin used his gu-laug as a fear to keep the little people working. Fear has the potential for a person to run 3 miles straight without even getting winded. With love you would probably out after a mile, and I am talking about shuttle-running, maximum speed towards the end.
Love Conqers All

My argument is love is the main and greatest emotion one person can have. I'm taking a purely biological stance on this, not metaphysical or whatever because I'm relying solely on evidence. What is love? Love is attachment, commitment, intimacy, passion, grief upon separation and jealousy are words to describe it. But love is actually an emotional connection between people that causes chemical responses. Love lowers stress, anxiety and isolation, increases the safety of well being, social motivation and positive social integration. [1] Love primarily promotes positive feelings and chemicals. "The reason people are so attracted to cocaine is that it activates the area of the brain that makes you feel good. The same reward area is activated when people are experiencing the intense desire of romantic love." Arthur Aron, PhD. [2][3] Love lowers the feeling of pain, in a study done, the scientists used MRI scans and recorded what was happening to the participants brains while they looked at picture of their loved ones and someone of the same sex as their partner. The device got increasingly hotter as time went on and the patients were frequently asked to record their pain from a scale of 0 - 10 (0 being no pains and 10 being worst pain possible). They also asked the participants questions that had nothing to do with the experiment, to simulate distraction. The brain imaging showed that both love and distraction reduced pain. [2] Now back to stress, it is known that stressors can trigger a search for pleasure and closeness, this is because it will promote a re-balance of altered physiological and psychological states. Large amounts of stress can effect someone's life and survival.[1] Love has been found to increase levels of dopamine, which causes a rush of pleasure just like cocaine does. Serotonin, which plays an important role in regulation of learning, mood, sleep and vasoconstriction.[4] Oxytocin, has major roles in birth, lactation, maternal bonding, social bonding, awareness, trust and empathy.[5] Vasopressin, helps prevent the loss of water by reducing urine output and helping the kidneys reabsorb water in the body.[6] --------- [1] 66.199.228.237/.../neurobilolgoy_of_love_love_addiction.pdf (Scientific journal about the neurobiology of love.) [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] Arthur Aron, PhD is a professor of psychology at State University of New York. [4] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [5] http://scientopia.org... [6] http://www.drugs.com...
Love Conqers All

It is a hoax, people romanticize about life too much and too often. It is true that some conflicts have been solved by love, but there are conflicts that have been concieved by it. Divorces are a good example I think, two people love each other just to hate each other later in life and rip apart. I have experienced fights that have taken place over love. It, as a whole, gets conqered constantly, by death, resentment, and sometimes by itself.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic"

Ok then. Sorry for the forfeited round. "However, on the memorials of the both the holocaust, 9/11 or any memorial of a tragic event, they don't read out every names, they read out a statistic." - What about the Vietnam Memorial? Every known name of fighting soldiers are remembered there. "What my opponent has debated is that a million death's is as tragic as one death. But what we are really debating is how the victims are remembered. People in both 9/11 and the Holocaust are remembered as statistics. A single murder is a tragedy." -Ehhhhh, no. I'm simply arguing against the resolution. The way it's stated is basically like an analogy. one death : tragedy :: a million deaths : statistic That statement basically declares that a million deaths is not a tragedy, but a statistic. The definition of statistic is basically a number or a measurement http://en.wikipedia.org... So therefore according to that statement, a million deaths is not a tragedy as one death would be, but simply a number. On that note, the statement is completely untrue. "You can see that 1 person dying is a tragedy and may be given multiple reports in a newspaper, but those killed in Darfur may only be called a number and are nameless to the media." - There are all kinds of things wrong with that statement When you say "but" that's like saying as opposed to. Are you saying that events where large amounts of people die aren't given "multiple" reports in a newspaper? I'm sure an event like 9/11 was all over the newspaper. Nameless statistic? No. Tragedies involving a massive amount of people aren't nameless. Lets once again take the holocaust for example. It's not known as " The event of six million killed Jews which has no name." Its known as "the holocaust" Also, does giving the name of a single person that died as opposed to giving a single name to a large amount of people that died make either tragic event more or less properly honored? No! I don't have the dang memory bank to hold 6 million names of people, so I remember them by naming the tragedy. Besides, a single death isn't necessarily always a "tragedy". Individual people die on the news every day, and chances are neither of us is going to remember or even care. To compare that with mass deaths. Mass deaths are NEVER forgotten, almost like their a part of history. By history I don't mean any timespace nonsense, but just events that will be remembered and known by every average Joe. The only individual deaths that are remembered enough to compete on a scale with mass deaths is FAMOUS people. Even so, it's pretty hard to find someone who could say the death of an individual historical figure was more "tragic than 9/11, or the holocaust" My opponent is unable to state how "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" is: 1) True 2) Logical 3) Comparable My contentions stand undefeated, and I urge a CON ballot.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic"

My opponent has presented 2 example's, 9/11 and the Holocaust. He claims people don't view it as a statistic. However, on the memorials of the both the holocaust, 9/11 or any memorial of a tragic event, they don't read out every names, they read out a statistic. A priest might say 'we remember the 3,000 who died in the September 11th attacks', or 'the 6 million who died during the holocaust'. The truth is, if a great figure dies, such as Pope John Paul II the second, the priest would say ' We remember Pope John Paul the II' and so on. The truth is when a collective group of people die in the same event, they are remembered together, but as a statistic. They may be individuals to the family that lost them, but ultimately they turn into a statistic. What my opponent has debated is that a million death's is as tragic as one death. But what we are really debating is how the victims are remembered. People in both 9/11 and the Holocaust are remembered as statistics. A single murder is a tragedy. Simply look at these articles: Let's take an example of 5 men who were stabbed to death in New York this September: . http://www.nydailynews.com.... By reading the article, we see that not one of the men's names are mentioned. They are mere statistics in the tragedy. If only one of those men were stabbed his name would be everywhere. Even on such a small scale, it is clear, One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Now let's examine a stabbing where only one man was killed. It occurred only 1 week before the aforementioned stabbing: . http://gangsinlondon.blogspot.com... The victims name is mentioned 4 times, at least, in the report. The article is roughly the same length, and involves the same type of crime, only with less people. Again it is quite clear, One death is a tragedy, a million Death's is a statistic.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic"

Hello my dear opponent, and sorry for such a late response Now, for the debate. I negate the resolution that "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic". A large sum of people dying is just as tragic as one death. It's actually more tragic. For example, 9/11. There's no way in the world that you can tell me that the people of the United States viewed those deaths as a mere statistic. It was all over the news, and there are memorials all over the place honoring each anniversary of 9/11. It was a tragedy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Another example is the holocaust. I don't think the killing of 6 million people of 1 ethnicity is something to laugh at. People don't view that as a statistic. There are memorials all over the place dedicated to those deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org... I urge a con ballot
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic"

In this debate, the topic is a famous quote made by Joseph Stalin. He says "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic". What we will be debating is if this saying is right or wrong. I will adopt the pro stance for this debate. What I stand for doesn't mean that I'm saying exactly a million, but a huge amount of ,say, over 100,000 being a statistic. I will base my argument of proof and examples: Example #1 - American Civil War: During a war which is recognised and portrayed as a war between the pro-slavery Confederacy and the abolitionist United States. During the war , a total of 360,000 were killed during the war. Odds are, the average American wouldn't be able to name 5 people. But there is one person who would crop up on all of those lists; Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was assassinated at the end of the war. He was seen as a martyr due to his status. I see this proof as Hundreds of thousands of deaths of regular soldiers being a mere statistic, but Lincoln's assassination being a tragedy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Example #2 - The Year 2006: During the year 2006, it is estimated by Jan Egeland a U. N. humanitarian chief 200,000 people were killed in the Genocides of Darfur. People largely turned a blind eye with the on going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, what caught people's attention was the death of Saddam Huessein. His death and trial garnered far more attention than the killings in Darfur. . http://www.sudantribune.com... Example #3 - World War 1: In World War 1 40 million lives were taken. Over the course of 4 years these men were slaughtered in the battlefield. But who is given the most recognition even before the war started? Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated in JUne, 1914 which sparked the war in itself. The countless number of civilians and soldiers are a mere statistic, but Franz Ferdinand has his name set in stone. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Example #4 - World War 2: During World War 2, more lives in any battle seen before were taken. An estimate of 72 million has been made, making it the deadliest war so far in history. These include those who were killed in the London Blitz, D-day and the Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, one man claims the fame for his death, and you may have heard of him, Adolf Hitler. His suicide at the end of the war gained far more recognition than the millions killed during the course of the war. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... As seen in all the above examples, one figure is seen as a tragedy and is widely reported. It is fondled over and given attention when it stands beside thousands upon thousands of deaths. You can see that 1 person dying is a tragedy and may be given multiple reports in a newspaper, but those killed in Darfur may only be called a number and are nameless to the media.
MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles) should be protected by a constitutional amendment.

You claim that the person who saves the most lives in their scenario wins. I think you have the goalpost in the in the wrong spot. Allow me to move it for you. All I have to do is prove that it shouldn't be an amendment and just for extra credit, I'm going to go a step further and say that all assault rifles should be barred from public use. Yes I think the goalpost looks much better right here! So pretty much everything in your opening argument is irrelevant. I don't care about gun stats or death statistics. I'm sure you can throw something else at me next round though. :) There is no good reason for civilians to walk around with assault rifles. I don't mind people having them in their homes for protection but that's about it. If you're gonna bring up points about protecting ourselves from the government, I'll just demonstrate in advanced why that is fallacious. The government has planes, Nukes, Drones, Tanks, Grenades, Land mines, Money, And a well trained military. Oh, Not to mention all of the boats that could keep us landlocked and embargoed. So you think your assault rifles are gonna help against that? I think not. If you're going to say that we should have all of the big weapons that the government has, Then I'll stop you again. You like death statistics right? How high you think the death toll would be if we gave society: nukes, Drones, Tanks, Grenades, Land mines, And a well trained militia? I won't even try to guess. But I'll say VERY HIGH. The only good reason to have a gun is for low level personal protection and sport. We don't need assault rifles for these things. I now open the floor to my opponent.
Comprehensive Sex Education

Full Resolution: Comprehensive Sex Education Should Be Taught in Public Schools Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that teaches not having sex outside of marriage. It often excludes other types of sexual and reproductive health education, such as birth control and safe sex. Comprehensive sex education, by contrast, covers the use of birth control and sexual abstinence [1]. I will begin my arguments in Round 2. I prefer to debate someone with experience.If you are restricted from accepting this debate but have an interest, let me know!The first round will be for my contender's acceptance. Good luck.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
God's Existence

I will present one argument: a version of the argument from contingency. First I will define what I mean by a contingent thing. Something is contingent if it depends upon something else more fundamental for its existence. For example, a computer program is contingent upon a computer for its existence. Without the computer, the program couldn't exist. Or another example, a bottle is contingent upon the matter/energy that make it up for its shape. Without the matter/energy, then the bottle could have no shape. So here is the argument (informally presented): 1. Things are contingent upon more fundamental components of reality, until the ground of existence is reached which is not contingent upon anything, which gives existence to contingent things. 2. The ground of existence cannot be constrained/lacking in its being any way otherwise it would be contingent because further possibilities would exist outside of it. 3. Something which is not constrained/lacking in its being in any way must be spaceless, timeless, and supremely intelligent. 4. Therefore, a spaceless, timeless, supremely intelligent ground of existence must exist, which gives existence to contingent things. Now if the argument is accepted it proves a supreme being that gives existence to everything else. This is a basic description of God (meaning supreme creator of the universe). What objections might one make? Objection 1. They might argue that there could be an infinite series of contingent components and that therefore the ground of existence is never reached. Response: Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible. Objection 2: One could argue that things are in fact not contingent upon anything more fundamental. Response: This would be implausible since if something is not the ground of existence then it is by nature contingent upon more fundamental reality. Objection 3: One could argue that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists. Response: That is not relevant because the argument is not about the temporal beginning of the universe, but about what gives existence at all times to contingent things. Objection 4: One could argue that we simply are not able to understand the universe at this point, so the argument is jumping to hasty conclusions. Response: The argument is offering what is logically plausible. If one wants to maintain complete skepticism about the ability to draw conclusions about reality, then they can, however I do not have to adopt their skepticism. Objection 5: The argument does not prove any specific religion true. Response: I agree. I said at the beginning that it doesn't prove a specific religion true. Other objections could be made as well. But I will let Con respond now.