BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity.

I am sorry that I did not make a response to your argument from revelation. I must however point out that much like the argument from majority, we are at a standstill with this one. You cannot prove how the sheperd boys allegedly gained their information. You have not proven that they learned it form god and I have not proven that they did not get the information from god. The argument from miracle or testimony There have been many books and pamphlets and eye witness testimonies claiming that people have been abducted and anally probed by aliens. Most of these people come from very diverse backgrounds and most have no reason to lie about their supposed experiences. However, just because they reported something does not mean that they have brought external evidence to the table. Many people have written that people of different races are inferior. Just look at Mein Kampf. These people certainly are not lying but that does not mean that they are right or that they have brought any external evidence to light. Evolution If you would look again you would see that I also listed several examples of intermediary fossils from reptiles to birds, showing that macro evolution does in fact take place. However, since I guess you didn't see that I will post a few more here. These are intermediary fossils showing invertrebates evolving into fish, showing maroevolution. Invertebrate to fish: Pikaia Conodont Haikouichthys Arandaspis Birkenia Guiyu Amphibians to reptiles: Westlothiana Proterogyrinus Limnoscelis Tseajaia Solenodonsaurus Hylonomus Paleothyris Hopefully this will adequately prove to you the truth of macro evolution. Morality You have by no means shown that altruism and morality are different. You have brought no external evidenceto prove your claim. Creation Again, you have shown no evidence that god is the creator of anything. You merely play with semantics and make the definition fit your theory. Disproving Existence If you would read the resolution it does not say that I have to prove that god does not exist, I only have to prove that no sufficient evidence has been brought that would make belief justified. You have brought what you think is evidence and I have in my own opinion disproven it. It will be up to the voter to decide though.
There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity.

I will argue that there has not been any evidence to make believe in a supreme deity intellectually acceptable. Supreme:greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal" Deity: A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often called in some religions as a God. Evidence:that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. There have been many arguments which allegedly show that a god or supreme being exists. I will show that not one of these arguments has any logical validation. A The argument form revelation This is what the majority of religions are based on. However, revelation is nowhere near that of fact or evidence. I can come around and say that god told me that white people are the supreme race but that is by no means external evidence for god's existence or the alleged supremacy of caucasian people. I have brought no evidence to the table and therefore people may discard my revelations. It is mere hearsay and no one is in any way obliged to believe what I say B Argument from miracles or testimony These arguments go like "Jesus performed miracles so he must have been divine" Penn and Teller also perform alleged miracles that you could say imply divinity. Just because you cannot explain how something is done does not mean that it is magic or something. This also ties in with the argument form testimony. People say that they have experienced god or have seen an angel appear before them. There have also been people who have reported being abducted by aliens and probed by them. If one person reports seeing the god of christianity and another reports seeing the god of islam then who are we to believe. Again, there has been no external evidence brought to the table. C Argument from the majority People like to say that since most people in the world are christian then that means their claims must have validity. This by no means implies that they have any point believing in a god. A few hundred years ago the majority of people believed that leeches applied to the skin could cure diseases and that other races were somehow inferior. Does this mean that any of those claims are true? While there are hundreds of reasons that people say they believe in god, space only allows me to put a few. If anyone has any good reasons why god exists then I will be glad to disprove them.
Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

I strongly believe that the Harry Potter franchise is much better than that of Star Wars. Harry Potter was and is much better for the younger generation as it promotes literature to its audience while maintaining an epic storyline. The creatures are much better in Harry Potter. For example, compare Chewbacca and, for example. Dobby. The companion creatures in Harry Potter have much better backstories and are much more majestic. Flying dragons that spit fire, compared to, let's say, fat objects of matter like Jabba the Hutt. Harry Potter is simply better in every way, and I'm ready to prove it.
Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

Refutation:My adversary stated that Harry Potter’s success for the Young Adult genre is irrelevant. The contender is wrong. Notice how he mentioned that any series was capable of achieving this feat. If this was true, how come they didn’t? If that was true, why did Harry Potter give inspiration to tons of authors today? That’s why Harry Potter has had such an impact on modern-age society; it was one of the biggest YA author inspirations, if not the only one. In fact, let’s take a look at Rick Riordan, the author and creator of the highly esteemed Percy Jackson series, as well as many more. In my first source, you can clearly see that Rick loves the series and admits that he took inspiration (note: I am not saying that he tried to make a carbon copy, I am specifically saying that he took inspiration). Furthermore, he quotes “After all, Harry Potter is the most successful and high-profile young adult fantasy series of all time. I love Rowling’s books, and I am grateful for the impact they’ve had on young readers and on the revitalization of children’s publishing.” This itself essentially counteracts my adversary’s point entirely; remember when he said that “As for his point about winning tons of awards and having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters, and awesome duels, literally every widely recognized series in that genre has those.”? My highly credible source clearly doesn’t agree.Con attempts to invalidate my entire cultural impact argument because it’s about ‘which is better’. I’m very aware of that, however this is extremely ignorant as, he himself talked about SW’s cultural impact in the first round, as well as the fact that the social impact of the Harry Potter franchise is one of the factors, in my view, of what makes HP better.However, I am aware that con may point out that this is simply one person. This is why I highly advise them to look at my second and third source for further nullification of their point.Next, his muggle point. First of all, I’d like to point out my opponent’s clear lack of reading a dictionary definition; he simply took a glance, didn’t see anything explicitly HP related, and assumed I was wrong. However, if he took, what 5 seconds to look at word origin, you would see that the etymology was from Harry Potter. Constructive Point:Furthermore, do you know how many real-life Harry Potter events exist? From Hogwarts in the Snow to Harry Potter Universal, Star Wars simply has a small stage and a ride at Disneyworld. Next time you’re there, try a glass of Butterbeer!Sources:(1) http://rickriordan.com...(2) https://media.bookbub.com...(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

I will first refute almost every single point my opponent has made, and then proceed to make my own. My opponent has stated that his point about J.K. Rowling being able to hook people into the world of books is valid, because the Star Wars books were released at a later date than the movies. However, this has no effect on their popularity. In fact, the majority of Star Wars fans did read them, contrary to what my opponent has said, for a number of reasons. As for his point about winning tons of awards and having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters, and awesome duels, literally every widely recognized series in that genre has those. My opponent has said that Harry Potter paved the way for future young adult books. This is completely irrelevant, as it is not about which book paved the way for a different book, it is about which series is better. This does not relate to cultural impact, as a different series could just as easily have done this. This point adds no value whatsoever to my opponent"s point. Finally, to his point about "Muggle" being an actual word, first of all, it means "a person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill," and second, when have you, or anyone, ever used the word in that context? My guess would be never. I will now state my own point. Star Wars" cultural impact is huge. Harry Potter"s cultural impact looks like a mosquito in comparison to the Death Star. Star Wars references are now embedded within popular culture. Darth Vader has become the iconic villain. Voldemort gave up on that a long time ago. Characters like Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3PO are recognized around the world. Phrases like, "May the Force be with you," are part of the popular lexicon. In fact, the first Star Wars film was a cultural unifier. Many new films, books, etc. in the science fiction department can be seen to draw heavy influence from the original Star Wars trilogy. The sheer number of sequels, spin-offs, comics, games, and much more exceeds Pottermore by orders of magnitude. Star Wars" impact doesn"t stop at fiction, though. The Smithsonian"s National Air and Space Museum had an exhibition called, "Star Wars: The Magic of Myth." It was an exhibition of the original three Star Wars movies" props, costumes, and characters. In 2007, Nasa even brought the original Luke Skywalker"s lightsaber hilt into space for two weeks! (After which it was returned to George Lucas.) The first successfully launched space rocket was called the Falcon, after Han Solo"s Millennium Falcon. In fact, scientists have named organisms after Star Wars characters, such as midichloria, Yoda Purpurata, Wockia Chewbacca, etc. Star Wars" cultural impact is so huge it has made its way into the real world. Harry Potter can"t even come close.
Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

In his opening statement, the contender attempted to definitively say that the Star Wars franchise has had a considerably larger cultural impact than Harry Potter. Star Wars has a large fanbase, but Harry Potter's imprint on society greatly outweighs that of SW. For example, literature. As I quickly referred to in Round One, the fact that the series was based off of books is a key factor in why Harry Potter beats Star Wars. JK Rowling was and is (to this day) able to effectively hook children and adults alike into the world of books, meaning that HP has the ultimate power of being educational (or at least, promoting an essential everyday skill). How does she do this, you may ask? By having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters and awesome duels. You may say that, because Star Wars also has books, my point is invalid. However, you need to realise that the release dates of literary series have great importance in this scenario. The Star Wars books were published (and, as an FYI, ghostwritten) after the first (in terms of release to the public) movie's release, meaning that they weren't as recognised by the majority of their fans (in my opinion, observations and background knowledge). It's easy to notice the significance of the written series in HP, though. For example, 'The Books were Better' and a fan base that undoubtedly loves the books. But there's more. Much more. Not only has Harry Potter saved the publishing industry, had box office highs, and won tons of awards, but the word 'Muggle' is now so popular within the modern age that it might as well be part of the English language. In fact, it is. Search up 'Muggle Definition' on Google, and you'll see a full-fletched google definition (etymology, translations, the works). Don't even bother to say that this isn't a credible source for definitions, because according to my second source, Google gets their definitions from Oxford. I wish you the best of luck trying to prove to me that an addition to the English language from Harry Potter isn't considered a massive cultural impact. Finally, it paved the future for the YA genre. Not only did it make Young Adult Literature popular, but tons of books these days had some sort of Harry Potter inspiration. For example, Percy Jackson. The idea of a training camp, safe haven or a school for unordinary kids was made popular and, in some perspectives, started in the HP series. Harry Potter is THE franchise when it comes to social impact. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://webapps.stackexchange.com...
Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

Star Wars is very clearly the better of the two. It surpasses Harry Potter in cultural impact as well as backstories. Not only that, Star Wars is far more iconic than Harry Potter. Have you ever seen a kid asking for a magic wand? No. He"s too busy asking for a lightsaber. Star Wars movies definitely surpass Harry Potter"s. Which would you rather see: A random kid and a nose less dude throwing streaks of light at each other, or a Jedi and a Sith fighting with lightsabers? I certainly know what my choice would be.
pre-pay pumps after dark

While my opponent's extensive list of random, hypothetical situations is all well and good, but there's something that we need to zero in on. Con states that she hates, even despises, prepaying at the pump, and then she continues by bringing up all these scenarios in which she would be left in a very undesirable situation. What may seem like an inconvenience at first is actually a lesson in personal responsibility. In the situations brought up by my opponent, she either brings too much money, or too little; if gas stations all mandate prepaying after dark, my opponent will likely develop better personal and financial accountability, by being able to anticipate the needs of those around her, such as those of her grandma, or her uncle, while also anticipating her own desires, such as the desire to buy a snickers; in fact, with the latter, mandatory prepaying may actually teach my opponent not to indulge on every impulsive desire that comes along; by refraining from the purchase of candy bars and Icees, my opponent is not only living a healthier life, possibly losing weight, but is saving money in the process! Clearly, prepaying at the pump is beneficial, and it only causes a minor inconvenience in return. Furthermore, we can reference my opponent's statement "oh, people pump & run? big deal!" Though my opponent offers some seemingly sensible options, we have to read between the lines; Con is advocating that, so long as it isn't an inconvenience to her, stealing isn't that severe, provided the thief can get away with it. Clearly, we must ensure mandatory prepayment to prevent pump-n-running from becoming an acceptable activity! My opponent obviously doesn't understand the implications of permitting people to get away with thievery, especially when it concerns our precious natural resources. As my opponent, a woman, admits, she doesn't "have the balls" to commit such thievery; while I don't discriminate on gender, Con must accept the minor inconvenience of mandatory prepayment in order to promote vigilance against stealing. So, let's quickly review the opening reasons to vote Pro: 1. Compulsory prepayment strengthens self-control, and promotes a healthier, arguably sexier figure and lifestyle. 2. Mandatory pay-at-the-pump services make us more receptive to the needs of those around us, like our diabetic uncles, or sweet old grandmas. 3. Obligatory prepaying discourages stealing, though Con advocates letting thieves run free to eliminate personal inconvenience. Take it from a kleptomaniac like myself. Stealing is a serious issue, and cannot be underestimated, regardless of whether or not my opponent's lack of testicles prevents her from understanding the mind of a thief, and the implications of stealing. 4. BONUS ARGUMENT: Even if Con does have to use more gas to get from Point A to Point B, and then to get back, that means that the gas stations, and companies like Shell, Phillips, Chevron, etc. bring in more revenue, which not only stimulates the economy, but also benefits the stockholders (like myself).
pre-pay pumps after dark

should gas stations make it mandatory to prepay after dark? ughhh, no. i hate this. i don't WANT to prepay. i hate prepaying, i despise prepaying. what if i only have so much money on me and i use it all to prepay because i think i want that much, then i realize i want a snickers, or my grandma calls me and i need to buy something for my diabetic uncle on the way home? then i have to go, find an atm, get out money, go back to the gas station and get what i need. so much time wasted, and gas too! also, what if i anticipate that i may need to buy something else with the cash i have on me, so don't prepay for as much, then don't have to, and wish i would have done it. or i get a call and i need to drive 30 minutes to pick up my uncle who doesn't have a car? now i don't have enough gas to get there and have to go BACK to the gas station, again with the waste of gas & time. AND what if i do have loads of money on me, prepay, walk back out there, pump my gas, aand nooooww, i want an icee.. ok, lets walk BACK in there and buy it because i didn't realize i wanted it until AFTER i was done pumping.. sooooo annoying. why can't we just pump what we need, then pay after? oh, people pump & run? big deal! 1. aren't there cameras at gas stations? - you saw their license plate, you saw them, deal with it later! 2. they get to ruin it for me? - noooot fair, i'm not a thief, i would never have the balls to pump & run, but because some jackazz did it.. i get to suffer. ridiculous.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

I. Adolescents don't have as good a knowledge of what is best for the family as do their parents/guardians.In this argument, my opponent says that adolescents may not have the best knowledge when it comes to the finances of the family. However, I'd like to ask my opponent which is more important: possibly saving an innocent life (or doing what's in their best interests) or the money involved? Most would agree that life trumps finances in almost any situation. My opponent then claims that the definition of medical can be made to relate to unnecessary procedures such as tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic surgery. However, this isn't quite true. Here's the definition again:Medical - of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries.;of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment. [1]Tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic surgery are purely for appearance and don't follow this definition. II. Not all teens have the brain capacity to make good choices, so they would be best off if adults made choices for them.My opponent says that the brains of adolescents aren't as developed as adults. However, I already explained this in my own arguments. Because of this, I'll repeat most of that argument here. It’s a common argument that adolescents simply can’t and shouldn’t make important decisions on their well-being because of their age. However, this is simply false. It’s been found that adolescents as young as fourteen can make their own decisions with competence. “These studies… suggest that adolescents, aged 14 and older, possess the cognitive capability to reason, understand, appreciate, and articulate decisions comparable to young adults. Perhaps more significantly, there is a paucity of scientific or social science study that supports the present legal view of adolescent incapacity. Despite the statistical and scientific evidence, which merits serious consideration by policy makers, the principle of decisional incapacity is the raison d' etre for law and the lack of a coherent legal approach for accommodating adolescent issues.” [2] Another study found that, when comparing people of the age of nine, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty-one, the groups of fourteen-year-olds acted similarly to their adult counterparts when making decisions. [3] In other words, they can indeed make competent decisions when it comes to their health, despite their age. Though their brains may not be as developed as their adult counterparts, that doesn't mean that they can't make their own decisions, as proven above. Conclusion In short, I've refuted both my opponent's contentions regarding finances and decision making. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals of my arguments. Best of luck. So long and goodnight. Citations[1]http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://tinyurl.com...[3]Adolescent Autonomy: Clarifying an Ageless Conundrum" Hastings Law Journal 51 Hastings L.G. 1256. Rhonda Gay, J.D., Ph.D. August 2000.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. DefinitionsAdolescent -(of a young person) in the process of developing from a child into an adult. Ought -Used to indicate adesirableor expected state. Right -a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Autonomous -acting independently or having the freedom to do so. Medical - of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries. ;of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment. StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening StatementsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - DefenseRules1) No kritiks2) No plagiarism3) No forfeitures4) No troll arguments5) BoP is on ProNote: Violation of these rules on either side is an automatic seven point forfeit to the opponent. (For example, if I violate a rule, my opponent earns all seven points and vice versa.
Resolved: The user known as Kleptin will not accept this debate on balance.

Members of DDO, this has been a very compelling debate. I feel my opponent and I have thoroughly fleshed discussion on all angles on this grand monumental issue before us. Now I understand he made an offer that you might not be able to refuse. $10 to $20 for voting PRO is a very tempting offer. Just the other day, I went to see Mission Impossible 5 and bought a medium popcorn. With $10 to $20, you can almost afford half a medium bucket of popcorn at the movie theater. His offer is so sweet that I'm almost tempted to give into it myself However, the contract PRO is proposing is virtually unenforceable. If he doesn't hold his end of the bargain, you're basically taking him to court over $10 to $20 dollars. Not only will you lose more than $20 of time and money in simply taking him to court, but the judge will probably laugh at you and make you pay $200 in court costs.Nothing much else to say!