BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists

Although I can not win, it is possible for me not to lose. I have forfeited all my points, but Pro has not claimed any of them. Despite the fact I can not get the score for better arguments, grammar, or conduct, it is possible for Pro not to get the scores for them either. There are plenty of smart people who are theist. Ben Carson is capable of surgery that takes immense education. To become the pope you must work your way through a political system that takes as much intelligence and ability as any other. Theists have been some of the smartest and most important people in history.
Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists

Being an Atheist, I accepted this to prove, even knowing full well that I will lose in points, I still was willing to accept believing I am capable of winning through this loophole, thus proving my stupidity as an Atheist and proving that Atheist are capable of being stupid. Meanwhile, Theists have seen this and didn't accept do to few of the reasons I did, thus proving these Theists smart than me, an Atheist. Through these terms, a Theist can be (is) smarter than an Atheist.
Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists

I believe that people who do not believe in celestial beings are smarter than those who do Terms: 1. These terms are here to prove that anyone who accepts this debate did not think before they accepted. 2. Accepting this debate is a 7-point Total forfeit for con 3. Whoever accepts this was not smart enough to scroll down to the bottom of my arguments 4. Contesting terms 1-5 is an automatic forfeit 5.
Existence of God

Hello. I. laws of logic, nature, mathematics: I shall ask you as I did on the previous debate: where did the laws of logic come from in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview? In the Christian worldview, they stem off from the Sovereign"s nature; that is, the laws of logic are immaterial and universal. They are not possible in a universe without God, as they contradict the naturalistic/materialistic worldview, which asserts that only material, physical nature exists. And we can"t hit our head on the laws of logic and nature, can we? II. uniformity in nature: The universe continues to remain "regular". (E.g. the universe remains uniform). But why so? Why must the universe obey certain immaterial laws and continue to act orderly at all times and in all places. III. information in DNA: DNA contains genetic information. This is why you are who you are, rather than a cabbage. Where did such information come from? IV. origin of the universe: In the Christian worldview, the one who created the universe is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial - (he created time, space, and matter). What is a reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe by naturalistic processes alone? V. origin of life: We always* observe biogenesis. Abiogenesis is completely unscientific - it isn"t a theory, rather a hypothesis.
Genetically modified food should be labeled.

Every one has the right to know what is in their food or how it was made. There are those who practice a certain religion or are vegans and vegetarians and need to know where their food came from and how it was made. Especially if GMOs use animal dna at times. Even if you are not any of those people named all of us have a riggt to know. For the well being of everybody involved, genetically modified foods should be labeled. http://agbioforum.org...(source)
Music should be freely distributed on the internet

In setting forth the affirmative case as to why music should be freely distributed on the Internet, I would like to make it clear that this is not an abstract debate. This debate is not about whether music is being freely downloaded on the Internet, but whether this should be happening. This is a classic "is-ought" fallacy from philosophy, which was first stated by David Hume. The problem comes from arguing that what is happening, is what should be happening because it is natural. I will therefore refrain from committing this fallacy. My opponent in setting up his case has used three economic arguments for his case. The underlying basis of these arguments is that if music is allowed to be freely distributed on the Internet, all musicians and the entire music industry will disintegrate because they can no longer generate revenue from selling their music. However, this idea falls apart under further examination. It assumes that music creators, their agents and the middlemen have a 'right' to make money from selling a non-scarce good. Music is already freely distributed on the Internet, what these people are doing is trying to sell something that is exactly the same as what we can get for free. Economics is not a moral issue[1]. All artists have a right to try to make money, but not to make money. Under the current system, where digital music is sold online, artists do not get the cut that Pro argues they deserve. In reality, one third of iTunes royalties go to Apple. Most of the rest goes to the record company, the artists only makes ~10% of what is being sold. [2], [3]. This can only get worse as more and more music sales are lost to piracy. A new model is needed. What artists need to do is sell what is scarce, which is their live performances and merchandise. the So there you have it, Con has put all their eggs in one basket and relied on three arguments that all share the common assumption that artists have a right to make money, instead of a right to try to make money. It is up to Con now to argue the case as to why artists ought to make money off something that has zero scarcity. References 1. bit.ly/eXsU9k 2. bit.ly/WHBkL73. 3. bit.ly/tg0wHf
Music should be freely distributed on the internet

Sorry for the rush, had barely any time, really busy. All soruces will be posted later in the comments and I will elaborate further later on. Sorry! 1. Robs musicians of their money iTunes has reported that artists make 3 times the amount they in iTunes sales compared to album sales. This is because on an album sale artists make little amounts of money, yet on an iTunes sale they have larger margins and they thus receive more of the cut. If we were to allow for the free distribution of music, who would buy music when you can have it for free? This resolution would rob artists of the fruits of their labour, this is unfair and unjust. 2. Theft of intellectual property This is essentially the theft of the musicians intellectual property. The song they created is copy-righted, someone downloading it for free is nothing short of theft. In fact ,Metallica was the first of many bands to sue NAPSTER for taking songs from artists without consent and releasing them on the internet for free. This gross violation of copy-right laws ended up in NAPSTER being sued into the ground. This resolution takes what is an artist's and gives it away for free. 3. This resolution will close many music stores Many businesses selling records or albums have already shut their doors. Why? Because who needs to go to the store and pay 15 dollars for a single song when you can download it for free? This resolution would only drive more businesses into the ground as it will encourage people to download more music. This is the same concept with BlockBuster and Netflix. BlockBuster rents out DVD's and video games for a week, then you need to return them. Well when Netflix came out people no longer needed hard copies of their favorite movies. They could just watch it on Netflix! What happened to BlockBuster? They went out of business! This is the same concept with CD's, this resolution will rob many people of their livelihoods. Sources will be posted in the next round or in the comments, depending on when I have the time. Sorry for the delay (super busy), they WILL be posted. I look forward to my opponent's response!
Music should be freely distributed on the internet

Definitions:Freely Distributed– the ability of the music to be freely accessed by anyone and freely downloaded in MP3 format Music – the art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and colourOn the internet – the music will be uploaded onto specific websites and from which anybody will be allowed to download the music from those websites free of charge If my opponent wishes to contest these definitions, it must be posted in R1 and I reserve the right to deny any definitional changes. Best of luck to my opponent! SOURCES1. www. dictionary. com
Music should be freely distributed on the internet

I understand the futility of trying to sway voters in the 4th round, but it is my role so I shall give the final word on this. I wish to restate the my arguments of the 3rd round and clarify any misconceptions anyone may have. As the 3rd round was itself a rebuttal, and did not directly give BoP, I shall not provide that here. I stand by my thematic grouping of Con's points, as having the same underlying message. Con's points are all so similar that a strong rebuttal to any one of them is a rebuttal to all of them. Con makes the point that whenever music is downloaded for free via the internet, it is a lost sale. But where do the sales take place? Con says that most of the money now comes online and not through CDs. My point here is that this is an untenable position for music companies. Music is already freely distributed on the internet, they are selling the exact some thing as can be freely obtained. Con conflates morality and economics, and says that music companies have the right to Intellectual Property, and therefore to profit from it. Con simplifies it as a lost sale for every pirated good. This is not true in every instance of course, though piracy is growing very rapidly throughout the world, entertainment remains a very profitable business. My point is that at this rate, it will reach a point where it is no longer profitable to sell music online. Hence the resolution that music should be freely downloaded from the internet. Con says that artists selling only scarce goods and services "will never work". Con makes a fallacy by thinking that consumer behaviour won't change once music companies stop selling non-scarce goods. All that money (far greater than con's $14 billion figure) will have to go somewhere. In the end, what's to stop consumers from spending all the saved money from pirated music on the music industry? Better yet, they get real goods, not digital ones that are already free! In closing, I would like to thank Con for putting a lot of effort into their debate. I would have liked to have presented more material, and I regret that I did not. If I can say one thing to the voters, it would be to not weigh conduct so heavily into the debate. Instead, pay more attention to the substance of the arguments. Con's arguments all shared a common, economic foundation and the same assumptions that music companies deserve the money they are making from digital sales- from a non scarce good.
Illegal immigration is a cowardly act. Stand and fight for America in your own country.

Pro made two statements that provide good evidence for Con’s position. First, Pro stated, “I would never blame the children. ” Second, Pro stated, “It is not the childrens fault for their plight. ” According to Mother Jones Magazine in 2014, 70,000 undocumented children will attempt to cross into the United States illegally [1]. From Pro statement I glean, he does not consider illegal immigration by children to be “cowardly” if he “would never blame the children” and the fact “it is not the childrens fault for their plight. Therefore, Pro in the last round seems to have move toward Con’s position because he indicated that children are not to blame, he conceded that some form of illegal immigration are in fact not cowardly. Moreover, Pro did not explain the meaning or how an illegal immigrant “could stand and fight for America in their own country. ” One more question I would have posed to Pro had there been another round is how can a person that lives in another country, also engage in a “cowardly act” “fight for America in their country” and also be an “illegal immigrant” inside the United States? I do not understand how all of these can function toward and have any consistency. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. Good luck in the future. And thank you voters for considering the arguments debated. [1] . http://www.motherjones.com...
Illegal immigration is a cowardly act. Stand and fight for America in your own country.

I would never blame the children, bold faced liar. It is not the childrens fault for their plight. Quoting the huffer is not grounds for credibility, unless political subservience is what you wish, as all news sources are politically directed. Why are you such a font manipulating troll? Bold print is believable? You hope on senor', the far left bandwagon. hop.
Illegal immigration is a cowardly act. Stand and fight for America in your own country.

To begin the debate is not about whether illegal immigrant is good or bad, only “that it is a cowardly act.” Many of the illegal immigrants in the country are children, as witnessed in recent news. The process for children involves traveling with coyotes (paid by their parents) for thousands of miles across very volatile countries and harsh terrain to arrive in the United States hoping to gain entry based on political asylum, a designation that the United States often grants to individuals seeking asylum because of political, racial, or ethnic violence taking place in their home country. It is difficult to see how parents, fearing for their children’s lives and the children reaching the boarder, some entering illegally could be said to be a cowardly act. It appears to be quite the opposite. To the second part of the proposition, “Stand and fight for America in your own country,” it is unclear what this could entail in concrete terms. How could say someone in Mexico stand up and fight for America in their own country, when the United States and Mexico are allies as well as trade partners. And actually, many illegal immigrants that arrived as children in the United States, identify as Americans, the American ethos, and the American military. Currently, many of immigrants that arrived as children as lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would allow them to serve in the military since they’ve spent their entire adult lives in the United States [1]. Therefore, what does “Stand and fight for America in your own country” if these immigrants arrived as children in the United States, have spent their lives here, and now want to stand and fight for America [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
cannabis should be legalized.

I have many reasons why cannabis should be legal, so I guess I'll start with #1 Prohibition has failed The government has tried to use the prospect of prison to stop people for smoking cannabis for over 75 years and yet: cannabis is now used by over 25 million people every year. It is also the biggest cash crop in the U. S. So saying that prohibition has worked in completely ridiculous. #2 If regulated, legalization/regulation would keep it out of the hands of teenagers. As a teenager, I can say first hand that I can get cannabis whenever I want, but getting alcohol/tobacco would be a serious challenge. Also if cannabis is a gateway drug like most anti-cannabis activists say it is, decreasing the use of cannabis in teenagers would also decrease the use of other drugs. #3 legalization would take power away from criminal organizations. cannabis being a big source of profit for gangs and cartels, making cannabis legal would take away alot of power from those organizations. #4 cannabis is non-lethal and is safer than alcohol and tabaco. Overdosing on cannabis is nearly impossible, and it is established scientifically that cannabis is non-toxic to humans. Tabaco smoke unlike cannabis smoke causes alot of harm to the body, and alcohol kills brain cells every time you use it. While cannabis has been shown to stimulate brain cell activity. #5 cannabis does not make people want to commit violent crimes Being a casual cannabis user, I can say from first hand experience that cannabis does not cause you to commit crimes. The only thing it causes you to do is literally nothing. #6 there has never been even one death from cannabis use In order for a human to consume enough cannabis to be fatal, they would have to consume nearly 40,000 times the amount of THC required to intoxicate them. If it takes you 3 'hits' of marijuana to intoxicate you, it would require 120,000 hits to kill you. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to die of a marijuana overdose.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

This leaves me in the awkward situation of having to ask that you refrain from posting any rebuttals or arguments in the 2nd round, since that would be unfair to me. Although interesting, I will have to point out that all your arguments are irrelevant and hardly attack my position. If only you had let me post my argument first like I requested, you may have been better informed. Anyways, on to my arguments. The Paradox of the Stone is a rhetorical question posed as an attempt to prove that the concept of an omnipotent (all-powerful) God is illogical. However, it is self-refuting because both the affirmative and negative responses to the riddle reveal that the concept of an omnipotent God is logical! If one answers no, than this means that God can't perform the logic defying task. However, a no implies that the definition of omnipotence excludes the power to defy logic, so it is already expected that God can't create this stone. God's omnipotence remains a logically sound concept. If one answers yes, than this means that God can defy logic because that is what the task entails (being able to create a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it). Since the definition of omnipotence used includes the power to defy logic, than God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic, even though he can't lift the stone he made! The Paradox of the Stone is self-refuting. Thanks for this debate! Please do not use your turn to argue, as this would be unfair.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

Hi, Firstly happy new year! Answer: NO Before diverging into my argument i would like to firstly point out the answer to this question may highly depend on what someones view of what god actually is. Which God? My God or yours? Mine might be able to, yours may not. My argument is a simple one, and will start by asking another question. Can Man build a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it? The answer is of course no. With time and technological improvements man has proven he can lift a man to the moon, no stone is too heavy. Surely if man can lift any stone, so can any God? For me this might be a question of time then, how long would it take for god to lift the heaviest of stones? Seconds? Days? Why compare man to God in this manner? Seeing as there is zero evidence of any supernatural God, one can only presume the God to which you refer is a natural being, an 'idea', or man made. So if man can create God, man can surely end God, create a stone, lift a stone. Ok, so perhaps a better way of asking this paradox is, can god create something even he can't undo? Then i would say yes. Man can build an atomic bomb, and leak nuclear waste into Earths oceans, the results being un-revocable, he can therefore no longer lift the stone... So to speak. But seeing as this is not the question... I will end on this, The God you MAY be referring to created the universe, matter and physics, to this 'being' weight, and the force of gravity simply do not exist, so again, no there is no such stone.
i am better in bed, then any god

Debate accepted. Thanks vi_spex for sending me this challenge and good luck ;) While I agree that Pro *is* in fact excellent in bed and an incredible lover, though there virtually no saying he is better than any God--especially the one true amazing Abrahamic God who actually invented sex and therefore knows more about it than anyone else. This is the God that proclaimed in Genesis 1:28 to "Be fruitful and multiply" and in Proverbs 5:19 it states: "A loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" and that "with her love be thou ravished always". So we all know that God [meaning the God of the Bible] thinks human beings should have and ENJOY sex. Even when compared to false gods, my wonderful opponent v_spex, as passionate and sexual as he is, maybe wouldn't match up. I admit that Pro is exceptionally good with his hands...among other things, but once again: he cannnot be better than God himself. How could anyone be better than He who gave it to the world in the first place? Mmmm, answer me that Mr. spex.
i am better in bed, then any god

But how can you discount a personal testimony? If someone says that they've felt gods arms, who's to say they haven't? I'd also advise that*any* potential readers look at the mathematical equations I've come up with through much research into the topic:Godly man+me= God himself. If you combine a godly man with me in sexual unison, you essentially what you come up with. Therefore one doesn't even have to be God in the first place. The primary requirement is that you have a powerful, strong, and forceful man, then have him partake in rough passionate relations with myself--then that's it, the result is that you have God. Now, reality+false+imaginary+false+reality ultimately = reality. Thus, we are left with the answer that God is in fact "true". Possession in my hand+two possessions in my hand=GOD. And god is [as the almighty ruler] superior to v_spex in bed. To conclude my argument, god has incredibly large hands which =more pleasure. Everything about god is of course, bigger. Thanks for the debate Pro, you've been a great opponent.
i am better in bed, then any god

so how do you tell if god is true? not just imaginary? in other words, are you reaching out your arm, touching god and thus you know he is true? i assume vi spex is light on a screen, and a story in your mind false=imaginary false dosnt exist in reality have you had a god in your posession like cash in your hand? im not claiming to have a million dollars, i am simply stating its better to have it in reality, then in my imagination, and i bet you agree..
i am better in bed, then any god

There's a big difference! For starters, one is "true" and one is "imaginary". Obviously v_spex is not imaginary, but that still doesn't mean he beats God (or rather *any* god) in bed. I could say that I've been with false gods and add testimony to them being amazing lovers, thus showing that Pro is not superior. Having a god in my possession, is better than not having a god in my possession, therefore, Pros argument about having millions of dollars in cash in his possession being better "then" imagining having a million dollars in possession. Thus, Pro does not have a million dollars of cash in his possession. Meaning that he is still not better than *any* god in bed. The God and gods also have considerably more money.
Gay Marriage

Thank you for accepting my challenge... For my initiation, I feel it is necessary that you provide evidence from an accredited source to support your claims in regards to homosexuality being a "health hazard". Please make sure such sources are validated by licensed medical professionals or health experts. I would also appreciate if my opponent did not use any form of religious documentation as such forms of "evidence" is not valid during this debate so please keep that in mind. The United States is not a theocratic nation so your argument must be relevant to the discussion and must abide by the United States Constitution. The first point I will address in your argument so far is your comparison between homosexuality and incest and pedophilia. Please be specific in your claims on how exactly homosexual marriage and activity between consenting adults are connected to sexual relations between family members and the sexual abuse of children. Also include the qualifications in which homosexual can be considered a "personal and societal health hazard". Also keep in mind that incest and pedophilia are paraphilias, not sexual orientations, so please know the difference between them before you make your comparison. I now await your response.