BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In an Atheistic World, the American Concept of Inalienable Rights is Based on Sound Reasoning

Full Topic: The resolution states, “In an atheistic world, the American concept of inalienable rights is based on sound reasoning”. That is to say, that in the absence of deities or a higher power, the concept that life, liberty, and property are universally inalienable is based on sound reasoning. The key words for this debate are: "inalienable", or unable to be taken away. Although these rights can be abused, humans will always have the right to life, liberty and property."universally", I.e. the right to life, for example, is not bound by the political boundaries, racial boundaries, or socio-economic boundaries that encompass our world. Burden of Proof: B.O.P is with Pro for this discussion. As Con, I will be examining Pro’s claims and determine if they are sound. Structure of the Debate: R1: Pro gives thesis and opening argument. R2: Arguments continue to be presented, keeping your previously stated thesis in mind. Cross-examination commences.* Direct rebuttals can be made. R3: More arguments presented, direct rebuttals can be made. R4. Closing remarks, direct rebuttals can be made. No new evidence/sources may be presented. *Note: cross-examination is a series of five (5) questions, located at the end of your argument and directed to your opponent, that must be answered by your opponent's next response (not necessarily next round). If you are unable to answer these questions, a valid reason must be submitted.
This House will Ban homework

Hello. In this round, I will debate to con s arguments and state mine. REBUTTALS: 1. Con said that Practice makes perfect and doing homework makes you more successful and will allow you to go to a better college. But who knows that? Teachers give homework for the student's benefit, but many students don't try their best on it. Just because you do homework doesn't mean that you are a smart person. There are many students who try their best and do all their homework, and saying that doing homework automatically gets you into a good college is a generalization. -Since Con had no more 'real' arguments, I'll continue on to my points. ARGUMENTS: 1. Wastes time for more productive things. 2. Keeps them up late/ harms health (In next round) 3. Meaningless work that doesn't promote real learning (In next round) 4. Middle/Upper classes have better resources to teach child. (In Next round) 1. Wastes time for more productive things. -From middle school and on, it is the norm for teachers to give more than 10 pages of homework. Majority of the students feel stressed about doing this because it takes too much time. Therefore, most students stay up after midnight in doing homework. Now, if homework was effective, nobody would say anything. However, homework is not work to check if the student can actually explain the material, but it is merely filling in blanks or calculating answers. Most students don't even actually try hard on it, they look back to the textbook, find the answer, and fill it in. CON side, do you think this is actually helping students go to a good college? Instead of wasting time, it is much more effective for children to spend time doing extra curricular activities or practice playing sports. By doing so, students will have more experience in many different subjects, which will make you have a happier life in the future. Let's look at what a professional says about this... http://neomam.com... There Is No Homework In Finland! March 4, 2013 by Marina Biljak 30 Comments So, every single student these days is talking about it " there is no homework in Finland! I guess you are all already packing your bags. But, is having no homework really a smart thing? Well, according to this awesome infographic " it is! High school graduation rate in Finland is at 93 percent, which is fantastic, especially when you compare it to 78 percent in Canada or even less (75 %) in United States of America. Finland also has the highest rate in Europe of students going to college (two of three). They don"t have homework and they are so successful! How is that even possible? There are only twelve students on one teacher, so students get plenty of teacher interaction. They also don"t have much-standardized tests. For example, student in New York takes ten standardized test before he or she reaches high school and guys from Finland only have one standardized test at the age of 16. Finland educational system sounds really awesome and other countries can learn from them! Argument 2 will be in the next round
This House will Ban homework

My team line is that... Homework is PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT. When kids do homework they are practicing what they have learned in school. Many kids do have extra curricular activities outside of school such as playing sports and playing an instrument which is good but that doesn't mean it should stop you from learning or becoming smarter. Most people that do play an instrument or play a sport know that if you want to be good at what you do you have to know one simple concept. PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT. If kids do homework they can PRACTICE what they learned in school and become more successful in Elementary School, Middle School, and High School which means that they get better grades which means that they go to a good collage which means that they can get a good job when they grow up. Although some kids are really good at their extra curricular activities they can go proffesional with that and can be successful when they grow up. But the problem is, how many of those super talented people are there? Not many, which means that most people end up having a bad job with a LOW PAY. Getting a good job is very dependent on homework and can lead most people to be more successful then they thought they could be if they do well in school. Also Pro did not say their definition of the debate. So Con should win this debate. Good Luck.
This House will Ban homework

Thank you to BrianJustin3709. First, I will do my final rebuttals, and then continue on to say why I won this debate. He has asked me what rate is. However, I explained from my previous argument that the 93 percent rate in Finland was the percentage of people finishing high school. Bogged down basically means you are stressed because of too much of something. For example, you have too much homework, which makes you feel fatigue and be stressed. I belive that I won this debate because I correctly rebutted all of Pro's points. His points were weaker than mine as well. VOTE FOR CON!!
This House will Ban homework

Thank you for Brianpark1025 for his arguments. First I will answer my rebuttals. First I said things twice because I wanted to make it stronger for the voters to really think what it is. These were the things he copied and pasted. First he said that Finland has 93% of rate. what rate? Please explain what other countries rates are and also explain. Also researchers said that people people should reccomend 10 minutes of homework. He is supposed to say we should BAN homework but instead he said make homework time less, which does not support his side but our side because we have to say we need homework. And also, How do you know it is 10 minutes is always different to every kid. A kid might have 6 minutes or 40 minutes in the same amount of homework. Also why do they sleep late? It is because of academies to follow what you are learning. So if you just participate in class and do your homework, you don't need to worry about being left out in the class. Also I wrote my reasons. Homework encourages students to work more independetly (by themselves) Homework ensures that students praticse what they are taught at school.In conclusion I think that Homework should not be banned because of 3 main reasons. My first reason is that Homework is basically PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT. My second reason is that Homework encourages them to work more independently. My third reason is that Homework ensures that students pratisce what they learned in school.I have some questions. what does "they're so bogged down. mean? Also how do you now they will do productive things. They HAVE to do homework but some kids don't do other productive things. In argument three you wrote Active learning encourages participation and hones problem-solving skills. What is hones? You said Homework does not provide these kinds of opportunities and eliminates time for self-motivated play that could build intuition, imagination, or problem-solving skills. Many kids would rather finish their homework than doing other productive things. Thank you
Android is better than IOS

Sorry for the false claim, I seem to be living in the past. Anyways, i will rebut to your rebuttals and argument Jail breaking is not the equivalent of stealing, it means to modify a device to remove restrictions which have been set by a manufacturer and if jail breaking was stealing it would've been made illegal a long time ago. Android provide software too and I would say Apple's ones aren't better since these type of software is simple and light in storage. Memos is equivalent to Notes. And for Numbers and Keynote android users could just use Excel and PowerPoint. It isn't hard to type on an android, what makes you think it is hard? It's pretty easy to type on an Android. Now to my arguments Apple doesn't have a back button on it's phones and Android does. I think the back button is very useful because if you are inside an app and you want to go back you can easily press the back button but on Apple apps have to be designed so there is a back button on the screen instead of having a back button right next to the home button on Android and sometimes on Apple, users have a bit of difficulty getting used to where a back button is on an app because it is somewhere else on another app. This difficulty is just for some users, i'm not saying you have the difficulty but some users do such as a few of my friends. Now to NFC which is near field communication. It is not the same as bluetooth. It is away of sending pictures, phone numbers, music, videos and many other stuff and you can do it by bringing two electronic devices together and it tells you to tap the screen on ,which is what you're sending, and bring the devices back together again. NFC is available on about 200 android devices and only 6 IOS ones.
Android is better than IOS

First, I will start with my rebuttal. My opponent has presented a false claim. IOS does include widgets. In fact, there is even a little square button you can apply to the side of your IOS device that allows you to have easier access and easier control over your device. Say your home button is broken, you can use the Accessible Touch to press the home button. You can also set a default browser in your IOS settings. Personally, I have chosen Bing; I could change it to Yahoo or Mozilla. And jail breaking should be illegal because it is the equivalent of stealing. Now to my argument. IOS is harder to hack than Androids. About 10 million Android phones have suffered to a malicious app[1]. While an IOS phone was unable to be opened by the FBI. With IOS, you can put what is on your device onto the TV, which is very helpful. IOS provides better office software such as Notes, Numbers, and Keynote. It is hard to type on an Android. Sources: [1]-https://www.cnet.com...
Android is better than IOS

Thank you for accepting. Storage: IOS doesn't have a sd card slot which means it doesn't have expandable storage but Android phones do have sd card slots so Android users can buy sd cards for extra storage up to 1 Terabyte which is more than most laptops. If you want more storage on IOS the only way is to buy a iPhone with higher storage which costs way higher than most sd cards or by a new phone. Customisation: Android has way more customizable options. Such as widgets which is a small part of bigger application on the home screen for easy access. Then there are launcher which are third party application which changes the way your phone looks and it can be suites to your preference, some of most used launchers are nova launcher, touchwiz launcher, cm launcher, z launcher and Google now launcher. The default search engine can be set by default unlike IOS. you can further customise your Android by flashing a custom Rom which is a modified version of Android. You can download one to your preference, it updates your android to the latest version ands a few tweaks here and there. You can also root your Android device which is the equivalent of IOS jail breaking. On IOS it is illegal on an IPad while on Android it isn't illegal on any type of device Range of phones: Android has a wider range of phones to choose from than IOS. So you can buy one to your preference but in IOS you are stuck with about 10 phones while Android has 24,000 phones. I am look forward to debating with you
In a time of war, the US should always institute a draft.

In accepting this round I agree to all commentary on how the debate ought to be had but I seek clarification on the resolution and the analysis offered on the resolution, hopefully answered in the first affirmative. The agreed resolution is, "In a time of war, the US should always institute a draft." Yet there are two points in it that the affirmative needs to address. First, if the word "should" implies a moral choice, societal impacts, or one based on military efficiency. Second, if the word "always" means a draft would be called into affect to fill even a one soldier quota when regardless of expected volunteer rates.The next points to be clarified are the two clauses and one stipulation attached in the analysis of the topic. The first clause needs to explain the difference between a "full-fledged draft" and the "draft" suggested in war time.The stipulation attached to the first clause suggests proportional recruitment but does not explain means of doing so giving vastly differing and subjective possibilities. The last clause suggests a similar proportional homeland defense but no means of determining again.I look forward to my opponents response and wish him good luck in this debate.
In a time of war, the US should always institute a draft.

I would like to propose the following resolution: In a time of war, the US should always institute a draft. Just to clarify, I do not mean that we should institute a full-fledged draft like the one used before WWII. I would expect that the amount of people we draft up would be proportional to the needs of the conflict in question. Another limitation imposed by resolution is the limitation of the standing army during times of peace. The standing army should be limited to a number proportional to that needed for the defense of the homeland. I expect some analysis in the answers given and some attempt at addressing my arguments. Please be explicit in addressing each argument. That being said, I hope someone will humor me and accept this debate. Looking forward to it.
Uncivilized debate.

Yes I am a communist, But you must be a capitalist, With your democracy, And your dumb republic! Bah! We don't need such things, We need a good dictator! Of course, Raping Putin is not good, Putin would be the one raping Trump. You talk about my profile pic, But of course, Yours is of a finger, A finger in which you stick up your as$ daily, And then leave it there while you sleep. 230 debates done, 231 lost? What kind of drugs are you on, Oh, Thats right, You're mentally handicapped, Crazy, A doofus. Is that right? Or do you not understand such words? Easily swear at people, Hmm, I don't seem to be doing that, But if you wish, I shall. You are an Intellectually Impaired Stuck-up finger lickin' doofus monkey as$ sh! T face. Do you like that? "Have a nice life of loneliness and evening self harm" Hmm. I'm not sure if thats me, Or you, After this debate. We shall see, But, When the whole thing is over, VOTE PRO! I look forward to your reply.
Uncivilized debate.

I"m gonna get mean for this, Just because I can. I"m not usually this mean but here we go. You little normie dumbass. I bet you"re a communist and the reason your profile pic is Putin because you wanna rape him. I bet you"ve even tried. Multiple times. The best bet you"ve got is letting his bodyguards kill you for once. A quick look at your profile would show 230 debates done and 231 lost. So you wanted an uncivilized debate just so you would be allowed to easily swear at people as much as possible. The only reason people come here is to out smart each other. If you can"t out smart somebody, You need to validate yourself by out-dumbing someone. That"s the only reason you would ever start (and lose) this debate. Have a nice life of loneliness and evening self harm!
Best original rap

I'm a legend, I was born to be an infamous god You a faggot, wishin you would get stuck in the @ss by a rod Wow at you talking about you talkin about my mom's titties sagging, what a disgrace. The only thing that's sagging for you is your boyfriend's balls in your face. Your a faggot you never fought with a guy That's because every time you tried you got lost in his eyes I got groupies that wanna see how long my condom stretch. You got groupies and they go by names like John and Jeff. At your sonogram your momma asked what's your sex? Your doctor was like I'm sorry, we'll have to run more tests. You a prude faggot, probably never been twisted. You've never been in a fist fight but you have been fisted.
Best original rap

My opponent's a f@g plus I heard his momma's titties sag. You'll nail me to a cross? I'll kill you and cut you up then stick you in my duffel bag. My opponent's a b!tch plus he's probably a snitch. When I'm finished with this little jock itch I'll drop his body in a ditch. I heard my opponent has a fetish. He takes a sick old angler fish Fucks it, looking all cartoonish then cums in the face of some Amish. My opponent's name is Cybolic A better name would be idiotic. As I have shown, my opponent's a f@g, a bitch, and a fetishist. Well he's also a d-bag, a snitch, and probly a bolshevist. Just saying.
Best original rap

I'm far better than you man don't f*ck with the boss. I'd rather cut off my own dick than suffering loss. Try to f*ck with me I'll nail you to a cross. When I came across this battle I was cracking a smile. Cause I haven't owned a faggot in a battle for a while. While I'm making this rap you jacking off to pictures of Billy Idol. Your raps weak, makin you comparable to Lil Wayne. My raps dope, makin me comparable to Wu Tang. I ain't callin you socialpinko any more, shitty rapper is your new name. These lyrics gonna be like gay teen porn to you dude. Probably gonna keep a photo of it in a cabinet with your lube tube. =========================================== I'm sorry to those who actually had to read my opponent's lyrics
Best original rap

I don't know you as I see you're new. You filled out some big issues so I guess it's time for a run through. You're straight as I can see so you like the pvssy I gotta admit that myself I'm a fruit If I saw Brad Pitt in a bathing suit It'd make my d!ck stand and salute. You're for abortion I actually agree If he don't wear a rubber 'cause he's far from sober kill the little fvcker like your life was in danger I'm kinda busy now so I'm gonna allow you to make a comeback though I can't see how. ============================= I am sorry to those who actually can rap for my terrible abomination.
The Moral Argument is Sound

RemarksFor all I know the forfeit was actually a moral choice- I can't claim to know the inner workings of Con, point granted. Theoretical Moral ArgumentVoters please recall the justification I gave above for thinking that objective moral values and duties are ontologically grounded in a maximally great being if they exist. Also recall that moral epistemology isn't relevant here, but rather moral ontology. We can be ignorant of how we gradually discovered moral truths without undermining the truth value of such values and duties. And if we gradually discover morality, and not invent it, then morals are in fact objective- regardless of how we apprehend them. I agree that moral facts are common sense. The claim that religion should change with the viccitudes of science is true in some respects, but rational truths are not emirical truths. And religious truths founded on rationalism, if they are true, they're always and ever true. But in the same respect a theist can be open to follow the changing evidence wherever it leads. This is what Anselm meant when he said, "ours is a faith seeking understanding." Likewise Pascal says, "God has given us evidence sufficiently clear to convince those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed."Practical Moral ArgumentArgument extendedConclusionAlas, God can be known internally, so that those who don't have the resources to discover God by purely intellectual means can still have knowledge by aquaintance of him (as opposed to mere knowledge by description). I found this true in my life, and so I'm convinced that I have a reasonable faith. But ultimately we shouldn't let the evidnece for God to so distract us from cultivating an eternal relationship with him, the maximal great reality.
The Moral Argument is Sound

What Aperion has said is true and there was quite a bit of confusion and misinformation on my part. As for my decision to forfeit, who is to say it is not a moral decision. Looking back on the circumstances and the apparent lack of knowledge on my part of Pro, I would say it was a moral decision for me to end this debate the way I did.As far as the Ontalogical and Practical Moral Arguments are concerned, they are only used by theists to prove the existence of God, but do nothing to actually prove that morals come from God or were influenced by Gods. There is actually no way of knowing how morals were developed. Theists say it has to do with the bible and God's word that makes it so, others claim it is just common sense, like I do. The logical mind will always lead you to the truth when you have evidence in front of you, unfortunately WORDS are not good evidence as they will change to fit the surrounding worldview. If science constantly changes from the evidence found and provided, why does religion not? Because they are stuck in ignorance. Now I am not saying that everyone who believes is ignorant, I am just saying, they would rather have a simple answer and move on with their life than to hear the truth and deal with it in it's complexity. Same thing with morals. People would rather have an imaginary being tell them what is moral and what isn't, more than they would like to think and figure it out for themselves.I may not be a good debater, because I think with a simple mind and talk in layman's terms. But I will give it a shot in the next debate. You can't get better if you don't keep trying. (That doesn't mean I am wrong in quiting this debate though) LOL
The Moral Argument is Sound

RemarksWe worked stuff out in the comments, we're cool now. Also I've noticed I have somewhat of a cult following on here now- But I don't think I know everything there is to know. I'm genuinely open to changing my views (as I've done in the past, just ask some of my friends).Theoretical Moral ArgumentArguments extended Practical Moral ArgumentArgument extendedConclusionCon's choice to leave this debate has no moral content. I showed proof for God from the argument from morality, both theoretical and practical proofs, plus the ontological argument and the conceptualist argument. None of which were refuted. Lastly, the theist doesn't believe God influences moral oughts, only that we apprehend a realim of objective oughts. And it's legitimate to ask where the ontological (not epistemological) foundation comes from with such objectivity... this is where the debate centers. I know more good atheists than some theists, but that's not relevant.