BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in God is Rational

When a person owns a belief they must possess two things: a thought and the feeling of that thought as true. but feelings don't represent facts or knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge about reality, to speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. Knowledge can only be formed by the use of reason. Reason is absolute. There is no other path to knowledge, not faith not belief. Although one can believe in knowledge, one can obtain knowledge without owning beliefs.
Belief in God is Rational

Frist I would to thank you for the debate and I would like you to know it is not my intention to offend, but given the subject matter it may happen. This argument reflects my thoughts about the subject of belief along with what science has discovered about it. Because what we believe affects how we think, conversely how we think effects what we believe. Since beliefs effects our actions, what seven billion people matters. The fact that we have this forum, to a certain extent indicates a healthy exchange of ideas. I look forward to learning from your arguments. The point I am trying to make is that beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts, that is what reason is use for. Which method works best: acting on beliefs or acting on knowledge? If you have difficulty answering this question, then perhaps your beliefs prevent you from acknowledging the obvious. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding. My point of view is based from my (and others) experiences, observations, and research about the thought process. I do not present them as beliefs but rather as an investigation into the mechanism of belief. If any of my statements prove false, then they will show simply that, and subject to further revision. Disowning beliefs does not guarantee "truth" or accuracy, only a method to help clear away superstitions and falsehoods.... What do you think?
Belief in God is Rational

You have a very arrogant, and frankly ill conceived notion that belief in God is irrational. To say this would be to say that the countless great minds of the past; Francis Collins, Rene Descartes, Galileo, John Lennox, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, George Lemaitre, and Max Planck, are all irrational, for they believed in God. Now this is not some emotional appeal; I am drawing attention to the fact that countless, eminently rational men, many of whom were the founders of modern science itself, believed in God; and many of them devoutly so. But the pro position also would entail that even earnest agnostic seekers would be irrational for considering the existence of something so ludicrous it is "irrational.". While you may feel that the vast masses of Christians are foolish, even if they were to be so, this doesn't prove your case any bit. For foolish people can, and often still believe rational things. A 7 day creationist might believe the earth is round. But the inverse however is seldom true. Remember: an idea doesn't necessarily have to be true to be rational, (Though holding a belief known to be false is irrational), merely in accordance with reason. .
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

I must take exception with my opponent's definition of a scientific theory as one which "cannot be refuted…" This is plainly not the case - Popper's work on falsifiability is uncontroversial so I'll only briefly summarize it. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... for more information.) In short, a scientific theory must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. And any theory which is not falsifiable is not scientific, although this doesn't mean that it is of no use. A common example is our early theory of Atoms, which was both unfalsifiable and incorrect, although it did pave the way for modern atomic theory, which is falsifiable. Moving forward, I want to stress that my initial statement concerns the diversity of life on Earth, and not its genesis, a subject about which I am agnostic. TOE posits that all living things share a common ancestor, and while it is often useful to study individual species a broader view is also important: genetic material, whether passed from parent to offspring, shared via endogenous retrovirii, asexual reproduction, or lateral gene transfer - propagates throughout the gene pool or else it does not. Many factors, most notably those which provide a survival advantage, affect how successful genetic material propagates, but the point simply is that propagate it does. Taking a step back we see the result: the branching off of species from one another, an ever expanding bush of different (and eventually distant) life forms. So that's a very brief synopsis of TOE, with which I'm sure my opponent is familiar. The question then becomes, "are there any competing theories which agree with our observations?" The answer, which I will outline in the next round, is no. There are no other scientific theories which are falsifiable, have stood the test of time, and have the predictive power that TOE does. The small handful of contrary opinions from actual scientists represent a fringe group who more often than not have to misrepresent TOE in order to refute it. TOE is uncontroversial amongst all but the blindly religious, and it's the best thing we've got thus far to explain life on earth.
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

Before I proceed for my first argument, I would like to point out that the theory of evolution is not the ultimate theory of everything. As we all know, there is no evolutionary theory about life before life existed of Earth in the planet's early formation. Before Evolutionary theory of life got started, the big bang theory proposed by numerous scientists such as Stephen Hawkins and Friedman, cosmologist, astrologist, etc. must first occur and proceed to its thermodynamic principles, quantum theories and general theory of relativity in order to produce countless galaxies, stars, planets and eventually to the existence of life itself in order for evolution to be observed by human beings as it is today. Without these initial conditions, there is no life at all and evolutionary theory about life would be worthless and meaningless. I also like to point out that Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution has assumed the first living thing out there such as a living single cell organism without any explanation about how did that single cell organism came into a being. Finally, I would like to comment that a good theory is a theory that cannot be refuted, disproved, nor be falsify because of the initial conditions are empirically necessary such as the law of gravity discovered by Isaac Newton where it is written in his book "Principe Mathematica" in 1864. As I begin my first argument, my instigator had clearly included the word "diversity" meaning: more than one, many, numerous kinds and so on, and in this case about the diverse life on Earth. Therefore He declared that "The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth." At first I thought this statement is pretty tough to refute but later on the day I finally found a crack on the wall to disagree with this statement. I know that the theory of evolution is one good explanation why we have a diverse life on our planet but I would argue that the theory of evolution is only a partial explanation why we have diverse life on Earth. I believe that there are more important essential information and major factors why we have diverse life on Earth not only on the evolutionary theory. I believe that evolutionary theory alone cannot explain why life blossomed on Earth therefore I will argue that the theory of evolution is NOT the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth. again He declared that "The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth." If this is so, my question is why is it that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth? After he answer this questions, then I will begin to explain why I disagree.
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

During this debate I will attempt to prove that the Theory of Evolution ("TOE") is the best explanation science has to explain the diversity of life on our planet. First, two definitions. 1. Theory. While several definitions exist, I intend to use the term as it relates to science: "...a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."[1] 2. The Theory of Evolution: "...evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."[2] Rather than begin my formal argument I'd like to give my opponent a chance to read these definitions and either agree or disagree with them. My sources are listed below. As both of these definitions come from respected, non-controversial sources, I hope we can proceed quickly, and should this be the case I offer my opponent the first word, should he desire it. If not, I will begin on my next turn. [1] Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which cites this from Mirriam-Webster.com. [2] From talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org...), which takes this quote from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
People should not be named at birth

.. sort of. .. >My opponent has begun to play semantics with me. I do not know whether this is a test or some other sort of idea but I can still refute it and shall do so. As my opponent say, I am in favor of those who are very young not having the abilities to make large decisions. Right here, in this situation, I am saying that the ends outweigh the means. To clarify this, I mean that though the individuals in question are making this decision at a very young age, it is still better than the other method because at least this way these people have a choice. My opponent remains unsatisfied with my burden of proof. My last example, reader, in my last comment: "A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like. B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage. " You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years. " I still believe this is an excellent reason because. .. well. .. Which would you rather? >To answer my opponent's second question: That could be plausible. It could work sort of like license plates do now (personalized ones). If your number was already taken, though, then too bad for you. You would just have to wait 5 YEARS OR LESS. >My opponent has twisted my manner of answering his third question, again semantically. I believe I said that both could be used to persecute. I did not, however, say that my opponent was in any way correct. There are MORE NAMES that can be used to persecute (hence my example) than there are numbers. >I will now answer my opponent's fourth question. A) See my arguments this round. B) I will indeed submit evidence. In America basically any foreign name can be made fun of. That leaves. .. thousands of choices. I can give my opponent a short list if he pleases. Numbers, however, are not so easy to make fun of. In fact, the opposite is easier. For example, if your name was 123456 I am sure many young kids could describe that as cool. >To respond to 2a: It is impossible to choose your parents. It is possible to choose your name. These two are related how? Is my opponent proposing that we all choose our parents? >Response to 2b: I do not have evidence that officially says that he did this. I have no police records in my residence. If my opponent would like me to attempt to acquire them I will, but do not expect me to have them from New York by the next time my argument is due. If my opponent wants to assume I am lying, it is his choice. But you, reader, do not have to make that same choice. >My opponent has not really responded to my next point. He just says he agrees with the current system and then leaves it. Drop? >My opponent has ignored my question probably because of the answer that would be given. Perhaps this is the reason for semantics. I will take this as a drop due to my above arguments. >I look forward to my opponent's response.
People should not be named at birth

>Thanks to my opponent, Logical-Master, for his response. >My opponent says that people can change their name as they like at legal age. This is completely true, but they may be labeled so to speak and this could be a detriment to their childhood until they do finally change their name. I will now answer my opponent's questions: 1) Indeed there are always people who are against the system. I still believe that choice is the best decision here. 2) Then they only have to wait 5 years or less. Right no if you don't like your name you could have to wait as many as 16 years. Would you rather wait 5 years or 16 years? I am not sure what my opponent means by the second part of his question so I'll leave clarification up to him. 3) Indeed this is true. There are also many names which aren't numbers which would be similar to this. For example, the name "Jesus" (as in the one pronounced "hey suse") could be made fun of because of its spelling like the biblical Jesus. 4) Two responses here. 1: it's a 5 year wait, not 16. 2: there are more names like that than there are numbers. > I will now respond to my opponent on "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them." My opponent has brought embarrassing parents into this name discussion. I am not sure how this works, so I won't refute it until clarification. Next, (in point B) my opponent basically accused me of lying. I don't think that I have said anything thus far that implicates me lying and it would be much appreciated if my opponent could assume that I am truthful (which I am) for the purposes of this debate. I am not saying he made a smart decision, just that that kind of thing CAN happen. >My opponent goes on to say that parents generally pick names because they like them. This is precisely my point. THEY like the name. The KID may not. Also a response to what my opponent says, the name may not fit. For example, Mars (I don't know anyone by this name, it is an example) was a god of war (mythology). A pacifist named Mars would not make sense and would not fit. >My opponent responds to my last argument by saying that people should just wait until their current legal age to change their name. He then says that I should prove my system better. Reader, I want you to imagine 2 situations: A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like. B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage." You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years. >I look forward to the next argument from my opponent.
People should not be named at birth

>What I want to debate here is that naming of a human being at birth should not happen. I mean this extremely literally, nobody would have a name until a later point in life. >My argument is basically in four parts. They are as follows: 1. People may dislike the names given to them at birth 2. People could be given names at birth which would hinder them 3. People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality) 4. People deserve a choice in what their name is I will now briefly highlight each part. >My first argument is that people may dislike the names given to them at birth. This is the most simple of my concepts, and basically involves human decisions. Some people don't want to be named after their Grandfather, no matter how much their Mom thinks that it should be there name. >My second argument is that people could be given names at birth which would hinder them. To give a well known example of this, Courteney Cox and David Arquette chose to name their daughter Coco. Most people would be teased and harassed because of that name, and it demeans the person. To give a personal example, I have an uncle (no, I have not met him) formerly named Chandler who actually became a murderer because he couldn't stand his name and had a mental breakdown. I believe his name is now John and he is now a normal citizen. >My third argument is that people could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality). Parents do not know what a baby is going to be like at birth. Therefore, they cannot give their baby a fitting name. As a hypothetical, a baby could have a name meaning "fiery lord" but actually be a calm philosophical person. >My fourth and final argument (for now) is that people deserve a choice in what their name is. In many countries, people are given rights such as the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech. In how many countries can people choose their birth name? None. Now this is obviously because the baby cannot make decisions like that at such a young age but they can remain unnamed until they can truly make the right decision. To my opponent (whoever you are): Don't people deserve the right to choose their own name considering all of the other rights they have? >The last major thing I want to say is for clarification. In the system I am proposing, babies would be assigned numbers until a decision on what to name them was made. >I thank my opponent in advance for their response and wish them luck. Thank you all.
School uniforms

School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all that all individuals have the right to express themselves feely. The U.S. Supreme court Stated in Tinker v. Des Moines independent community school district (7-2, 1969) that "it can hardly be argued that ether students or teachers shed their constitutional to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In the 1970 case Richards v. Thurston (3-0), which revolved around a boy refusing to have his haircut shorter, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance" does not "seem a justifiable part of educational process." Clothing choices are "a crucial form of self-expression," according to the American civil liberties Union of Nevada, which also stated that "allowing students to choose their clothing is an empowering message from the schools.
School uniforms

Your mind on the matter should be on getting an education, and learning how to create an actual argument, rather then trying to wear "cute skirts". School is by no means a place to develop your fashion. School is an institution where you learn, not where you play. I understand that our current school system is very poorly executed, which enables people to see it as a place to goof off rather then to learn, such as yourself. The fact of the matter is, your priority should not be to wear "cute skirts". If you were to ask me, I think that we should have uniforms in public schools that are paid for by the students, instead of being financed by the state. This will create a sense of equality, as to seem less devisive in terms of how dress rules are applied to students. Also, I'm sure that cross country guys are not "aloud" to go shirtless on school grounds.
School uniforms

We souls be able to express ourselves with our sense of fashion. Now I understand that you can show up to school in a bra and panties. But we should be able to wear cute skirts and be able to show our shoulders. And you see some schools with cross Country guys running around with no shirt on, and we're not aloud to wear short skirts?????? That's sexist if you ask me. This is Kat and I approve this message👍
School uniforms

I am quick to notice your sudden change of vernacular. I do not suspect plagiarism, but I think you can understand my suspicion. Nonetheless, this is not a debate over expression. School is, and always has been, a public or private institution in which you are taught a basic curriculum. Additionally, school uniforms create conformity to equal rules, rather then creating a disparity between females and males. The largest argument I see relating to this issue is that men are allowed to lower their pants while women are not allowed to show their shoulders. If we instituted an elaborate program, in which all students, were forced to wear a uniform, then these issues would secede. Additionally, school uniforms will eliminate clothing based bullying, as everyone will wear the same outfit. It will also eliminate any ability to wear anything related or attuning to a gang or juvenile and criminal institution. http://www.listland.com...
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

"As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war"He misreads the text. This means that if we do the embargo, the Japanese will probably attack us, which means we will be in war. This does not mean, however, that it is an act of war. Thus, we can still do it even if we're a neutral country."Neutral we weren't supposed to have allies."Misinterprets what it means to be neutral. Neutral meaning that we don't enter into a war for any side. This doesn't mean we can't have allies."but it seems as if America began to expand the idea to concern all the world."1. That doesn't make it the Monroe Doctrine. That just makes it an American ideology.2. Even if we were, this would only justify us actually doing what we could to help China. So this is another reason why the embargo was justified.It was justified for us to go and help China. This makes the embargo justified, and Japan's bombing unjustified. The resolution is negated.
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

We are not supposed to have allies. "As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war" This is what i meant. 2. Netrual we weren't supposed to have allies. 3. the Monroe doctrine does say that but it seems as if America began to expand the idea to concern all the world. It was not is not and ever will be our place to assist anyone and get us into more trouble than it was worth.