BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organized religion

Hello! And thanks for starting this debate! Now, I'm not going to flog you with religious text, that would be ignorant. I'll hear you out, perhaps it is a flawed system, and the issue you you presented, "may squish any other beliefs that may be present prior to accepting religion or disables you from beliefs that may actually relate to your surroundings and it can cause you to believe that there is a "plan" for human kind." is extremely common. However, not all religious organizations are like this, while it may be diamond in the rough, the religious organizations which appeal to the overall well-being of a body are good. The issue with religious texts of God are that they can be heavily interpreted. Most of the times, these interpretations are used to sway the ideology of those who listen. However, it is possible for a group or people, who have a faith, regardless of religion to be truly good, and want the best for a person. Regardless of whether they believe in the same thing or not. Organized religion on itself is not inherently bad, it's the people who are behind the curtain that make it bad. There can exist a pure desire for holiness, but it can only be achieved through loving one another, which is also in the majority or religious texts. Thank you, I am not finished
Biblically Free Will is the choice of what influences you.

God gave man and angels the ability of free will. As in it is a will seperate from god's that one can follow. Allowinf for this choice does not undermine god's power or existence.God chooses to allow a person to maintain their free will, in that God allows a human to follow the influences the human wants to follow. God allows every man to walk the path they choose. God make inroads or attempts to lead a person on a different path. but that is like posting a sign "Exit Here" This is how biblical free will should be interpreted.
Biblically Free Will is the choice of what influences you.

I accept.To clarify:Merriam-Webster has two definitions of free will:1: voluntary choice or decision 2: freedom ... to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine interventionI take it that you are confining the debate to the existence of the second, then?So we will not discuss the existence of "freedom" (the ability to do or not do something), but the existence of "free will" (the ability to choose to do or not do something, without outside control such as under incompatible determinism).In addition, from your comments in the Comments section, you wish to argue over a free will that is not involved in every action, but only in "choos[ing] what influences us", correct?
University education should be free

Rules:1. Bop will be shared2. My opponent as PRO in this debate will start by giving giving his case immediately in R1 and to even out the rounds he shall pass the lastRounds:Round 1: PRO : Acceptance,ArgumentsRound 2:CON : Arguments, Rebuttals.PRO :Rebuttals & counter rebuttalsRound 3:CON : counter rebuttalsPRO : Shall pass this round.And I think think that about settles it. Any questions can be clarified through PM.I wish my adversary Good Luck!
Air fares should reflect the combined weight of the passenger and their luggage

Next, I would like to challenge my opponent's statistics. He claims that the average American weighs 177lbs / 80kg, and while I broadly agree with this figure (my source actually states 178lbs / 80.5kg), aviation is an international industry and the average global body weight is only 137lbs / 62kg. Furthermore, the population of Asia accounts for 61% of the world's population and the average weight of people in Asia is only 127lbs / 57kg. (1). That is to say, that on a flight between an an Asian country and the United States, where half the passengers are Asian and half are American, the American passengers will be on average 50lbs / 22kgs heavier than their Asian counterparts. On a long-haul flight between the two continents, the fuel required to transport an Asian passenger weighing 127lbs / 57kg will be approximately 1.6 litres per kg / 0.5 US gallon, that is 85.5 litres / 22.5 US gallons at a cost of $3.20 per gallon / $12.60 per litre (2) totalling $273.60 per passenger. Meanwhile, on the same flight, the fuel required to transport an American passenger weighing 177lbs / 80kg will be approximately 1.6 litres per kg / 0.5 US gallon, that is 128 litres / 33 US gallons at a cost of $3.20 per gallon / $12.60 per litre (2) totalling $409.60 per passenger. So we can see the average American costs the airline $136.00 more to fly across the Pacific than the average Asian, so my $50.00 increments are actually very conservative. Surely my opponent wouldn't suggest that relatively wealthy Americans deserve to be subsidized by relatively impoverished Asians, or, indeed, that overweight passengers internationally should be subsidised by underweight or normal people? It is in recognition of this weight differential that airlines offer children between 2-11 years discounted fares and charge extra for excess baggage. (3,4) Finally, I recognise that airlines do not currently oblige overweight people to pay the true cost of their tickets for PR reasons, and prefer to maintain the status quo whereby less hefty passengers pick up the extra cost, but this is the point of my argument - the current pricing system obliges people of normal and below average weight to subsidize overweight passengers, which is unjust. This concept is almost unique in capitalism where usually consumers pay according to their level of consumption, rather than according to their need, which is an idea more commonly associated with communism, and, as my opponent points out, airlines are companies, not state-run utilities, and their current pricing structure discriminates against people who are not overweight, and this system must be replaced with an equitable and fair pricing structure. Thank you. (1) . http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2) . http://www.indexmundi.com... (3) . http://www.britishairways.com... # (4) . https://www.britishairways.com...
Air fares should reflect the combined weight of the passenger and their luggage

The average American weighs 177 pounds(1). If we assume that the average hold baggage weighs 20 pounds, then each person brings, on average, 197 pounds with them. Now, the average fuel cost per person is about $65(2). 197 divided by 65 is equal to 33 cents per pound. For the airlines to justify a $50 increase in prices, like you suggested, a person would to be 150 pounds heavier then average, or 327 pounds. to charge people only a few pounds overweight $50 more is arguably more unfair then the healthy weight individuals subsidising the costs of the overweight. Furthermore, 69.2% of Americans are overweight(3), so the majority of passengers would be paying more while only a few would actually have their prices reduced. This plan would favor underweight passengers over the overweight passengers. Finally, airlines are still companies. If they consider the bad PR of discriminating against fat people to be more important then slightly decreasing the price of tickets for skinny people, then they shouldn't discriminate against fat people. The simple fact that a majority of Americans are overweight would cause any airline to put this into effect to seriously lose revenue. In the end this would only benefits the underweight, according to your plan the prices wouldn't change for an average weight person, and it would be detrimental to both the airline and overweight people.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.airlinefinancials.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov...
Dance is an art and a sport.

This debate is on the topic "Dance is an art and a sport. I will be doing the pro/for side of the debate. There are four rounds. First round is acceptance. Second round is full argument. Third round comprises of the rebuttals and the fourth and final round consists of the rebuttal and conclusion. The debate will be on dance; pro/for saying it is both art and sport and for/against for the side of against. Arguments can consists from several angles but none that comes from the stereotypical background.
spongebob or fortnite

I'm assuming i'm arguing for spongebob - so here it goes: "Fortnite is bad" - Ghandi There are two aspects to fortnite for those who don't know, the PvE side and battle royal side. I will address both, but as battle royal is the more popular side I will spend more time addressing that. To start off with the bad, I want to talk about everyone's favorite topic. That's right, microtransactions! They're inescapable at this point. It's as if developers feel like it's a necessity that they be in a game, or else it won't sell. Most, if not all the items cost a TON of gold, coins, or whatever the money is called (I really don't care). My guess is that the developers did this in hopes of making players frustrated to the point of using real $ to buy. I really don't see why anyone would spend money on this game, since most of the items are just lame skins. On top of that, if you want to play the PvE you have to buy the game as well. So you have to pay a fee to play as well as fee to win for PvE. Next is the gameplay. And let me tell ya, it's a garbage. There's no skill involved just luck. This is the same reason Player Unknown's Battlegrounds (Pubg) doesn't work. Both these games fail miserably in this factor. Progression is non-existent, and it gets old so fast. I had more fun watching paint dry than I did playing Fortnite. The map was huge, which gave me full opportunity to explore. But after those first 3 matches, you realize....thats the entire game. Over and over and over again. You get thrown out of a flying bus, scavenge for loot that has a small chance of being good, and run from a purple storm. Not to mention, the damage balance and aiming in this game is utterly terrible. It's like the developers rolled some dice while drunk and decided the damage based on those dice rolls. Aiming my gun, especially the rifles, feels like my character is having an epileptic fit. I have nothing against shoulder fire, but this autistic shooting mechanic makes the game impossible to enjoy. The second reason is shotguns. I understand that shotguns are generally supposed to be powerful in multiplayer games, but this is ridiculous. Even with 50 armor, you get 2 shotted by a pump action. Not even a tactical shotgun. There's nothing enjoyable about building an inventory of weapons and other items for 10 minutes, only for xxNinjaManxx420 to shoot you in the back of the head and dance over your corpse.It's all about who gets lucky enough to find the better gun. By that rule, 1 out of about every 20 games you play in Fortnite have a chance of going your way. Even with friends, this game isn't fun at all. My third point as to why this game is garbage is the level system. What's the point of leveling up if you get next to no reward from doing so? It's just one long and boring grind to eventually save up enough to buy something that doesn't even help you in game. Though the game is not entirely terrible - (I enjoy the graphics and idea) it is terribly executed and gets boring very very quickly. Leveling does nothing, and skill does nothing. Rolling dice would be just as fun at this point, because the game is ALL skill, no luck.
The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Hello, firstly I'd like to state that the existence of God cannot fully be proved or disproved. I personally think it is very very unlikely that a God exists but no one can say that God 100% doesn't exist or does exist. With this in mind, I feel that you have misinterpreted the "one god further" notion. It does not object to religion or object to the existence of God. It only poses the argument that the existence of a God is very unlikely: Of all the thousands upon thousands of God's that man have created since the dawn, what makes the Christian God the right one? (example). A Christian is brought up a Christian by sheer chance. If they were brought up in India they wouldn't believe in that God. If they were brought up in Ancient Greece they would believe in Zeus and Apollo. If they were brought up in the time of the Vikings they would believe in Thor and Wotan. Today Christians or any other religions discount every other God apart from the one they believe in so they are therefore atheist to 99.9% of Gods but why is their God the right one? Atheists just therefore go one God further. In a nutshell, thousands of God's have existed with man and there are two possibilities. 1. That one exists. 2. That none exist. Which one do you think is more likely given the thousands of Gods in question here? This is the point that the "One God further" notion makes, that put in to perspective, the existence of a God is extremely unlikely. I therefore feel that it is indeed a good argument as it uses rational thinking to pose a point that undoubtedly makes sense. It does not prove that God does not exist but it proves that the chances of a God existing are slim.
The "one god further" objection is fallacious

So, these are the rules:8000 characters48 hours to debate1st round- I write rules, you make your argument. You can argue by explaining why the objection works...at least to an extent (you need not hold that it is air-tight and fool-proof)2nd round- Responses 3rd round- More Responses4th round- Closing Statements Please no forfeits. If you are too busy to respond, simply write "too busy"We are arguing whether or not the "one god further" objection to religion and the existence of God is a good objection. It is primarily an atheist argument.I think that the argument proves nothing. This is the side I will be defending
The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Firstly your arguments don't necessarily stand because I misunderstood them (which I don't believe I have), they only stand if they are good points. "if we arrive at the knowledge of one and not the other through a rational process, it follows that one and not the other exists EVEN IF this involves dismissing many "gods." Only believers follow the notion of dismissing other Gods because they have knowledge about their own. People can dismiss Gods but they can't say for definite that they don't exist and that their God definitely does exist. Therefore it is not valid to say that one exists over the rest because there is more knowledge about that one. Since when did the one god further notion mean one revelation further? It means what it says, "one GOD further", whether it's gods in relation to Thor, Zeus, Allah, Christian God etc. It is a very simple objection and if it was talking about revelation then the word revelation would be used. I feel as if you altering it from the black and white statement that it actually is. It has nothing to say about religion, just believed Gods. In relation to your preternatural point, what I want to know is what exactly makes all the "Gods" so different? I argue that because they are all the same principle and the fact that there is as little evidence for one as there is for other, then why shouldn't they be grouped together? Likewise with your pagan gods point, how are they so unrelated? Zeus was seen as a higher being, God is seen as a higher being. You have misunderstood the objection at hand here. It is not at all saying that if you deny one you must deny the others, it is saying that people discount all the thousands of "Gods" that have existed over the years (which is a fact and can't be argued against) atheists therefore just go one God further. Everything about the argument is true. "With regards to different religions that all believe in basically the same idea of "God." the problem is that it isn't as though one person is rejecting the "Christian God" while accepting the "Muslim God" they are really accepting the existence of God but one revelation over another". If a Muslim is accepting the existence of God just one revelation over another then they are still discounting the Christian God, no matter what way you look at it. Both Gods spawn from different religions therefore the idea of accepting one revelation over another doesn't matter as it is same as accepting a different God. Again the one God further notion does not attempt to disprove religion, it is saying that modern believers are almost as atheist as atheists because they discount 99.99% of "gods", therefore it is unlikely that only one God exists out of thousands. It is much more likely that none exist. This is a point with good reasoning so it certainly does not run the risk of committing the genetic fallacy. To say that the old "Gods" don't compare to modern "Gods" despite there being equally as little evidence for both is much more of a fallacy.
The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Unfortunately due to time constraints I have to be really brief. Although, I think my original arguments stand because con entirely misunderstands my arguments. First off, with regards to how we arrive at knowledge of God, this matters because if we arrive at the knowledge of one and not the other through a rational process, it follows that one and not the other exists EVEN IF this involves dismissing many "gods." Second, the question of revelation is relevant because often what is meant by "one god further" really means "another revelation." See, take Islam and Christianity for instance. These are not different gods but different religions. The difference in religion is based off of what is counted as the body of God's revelation. Third, the preternatural is relevant because certain things marked with the word "god" are really not the same as the type of being called "God." This isn't about word-games, who's god is better, or which is more rational. It is about how despite the fact that these beings all share the same name, they are actually entirely different. This difference is not merely in degree but in type. Because of this, the objection is comparing apples and oranges. The main thrust of my argument is threefold: 1) When the one god further objection is used to apply to pagans, it is fallacious because it compares the God of classical theism to the gods of ancient pagans. The flaw is not just that God is better than the gods but that they are entirely unrelated and different types of beings to begin with, therefore, the existence of one does not effect the existence of the other. Maybe a deeper knowledge of classical theism would be helpful although I do not have the time or the space for that. The point is that if God is meant as the ultimate reality of all things and the gods of ancient Greece or something are basically aliens or superheroes, how can we really say if you deny one you must deny the other? 2) With regards to different religions that all believe in basically the same idea of "God." the problem is that it isn't as though one person is rejecting the "Christian God" while accepting the "Muslim God" they are really accepting the existence of God but one revelation over another 3) With regards to the difference of revelation, the argument might have some ability. Change it to "one revelation further" but I think it is at best an argument that casts doubt on revelation itself but not the existence of God and at worse it is just a failed attempt to disprove religion. It certainly does run the risk of committing the genetic fallacy, that is for sure.
Faith is a pathway to knowledge

Thank you to MikeNH for this debate. I accept the rules and definitions of Round 1.I add the following definitions:belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof (1)true: in accordance with fact or reality; accurate or exact (2)The resolution is that faith is a pathway to knowledge. This means that faith can lead to knowledge in some circumstances. It is not the only pathway to knowledge, and faith does not always lead to knowledge. However, faith is a very common pathway to knowledge. For example, when we are small, our parents tell us that medicine can make sick people better and we accept this on faith. Later, we watch people take medicine and get better, and believe the medicine is responsible (faith again, shaping our observations), and later, impressed by the power of medicine, we might study biochemistry and pharmacology to learn more about these amazing substances, at which point we study the evidence that they work, and faith is replaced by knowledge. But the faith provided the motivation and the early framework for learning, and so faith was a pathway to knowledge.(1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Faith is a pathway to knowledge

============DEFINITIONS==========The definitions we will be using for this discusssing are as follows:Faith - the belief that a proposition is true without evidenceKnowledge - justified true belief (1)============================================RULES==============1) You MUST agree to all definitions. If you accept this debate and do not agree to these definitions you have subsequently forfeited. 2) Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that one can attain justified true belief through faith as defined.3) In the first round, Pro must first state that they agree to these rules and then they are allowed to begin stating their case.============================================NOTE==============To anyone who does not accept the definition provided for faith, just know that there are many people who DO believe that definition is an accurate representation of their faith and it is someone with that view that I am hoping to debate. I do not disagree that there are other valid definitions of faith (as with every other word) that others use to describe what they call their faith, but for the purpose of this debate the provided definition is what will be used.===========================================SOURCES============ (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...;===============================
Resolved: The Monty Python "Theory of the Brontosaurus" is totally accurate, with only one exception

Monty Python's "Theory of the Brontosaurus" is totally accurate, with only one exception. The theory states that the Brontosaurus is "small at one end, grows thicker toward the middle, and small again at he other end" The pro position states that this is totally accurate, with only one exception. If it be waffles that ye be wanting then here be the jarl.... The brontosaurus can be described as a small stack of waffles at one end, more in the middle, and fewer again at the other end. And this is descriptive except for one fact.
Resolved: The Monty Python "Theory of the Brontosaurus" is totally accurate, with only one exception

Since CON is simply waffling PRO will continue. The theory, though very descriptive has one basic flaw. There was no brontosaurus. The body was an Apatasaurus , while the head was totally wrong. So while the theory could be applied to the Apatasaurus, the theory was misapplied when used with the brontosaurus. The exception is that it is a theory about something that did not exist.
Europeans are superior to everyone else.

"spelling and grammar point. " As fun as vote pandering is, it is not a debate point. "God created us all equally, so why should the opinions and ways of Europeans matter more than someone from another culture's? " Should I vote pander for my opponent using a run on sentence as his entire argument and using an apostrophe incorrectly? Conclusion: My opponent has not refuted any of my refutations. I completely dismantled his arguments. My opponent has not proved that G-d exists. He did not prove that G-d created everyone equally like he claimed. I thank my opponent for debating and the voters for reading, but I urge a vote for pro. Ps: I am not racist just took this for fun to challenge myself.