BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"There is reason to believe a God exists"

As stated in my introduction, Fundamental to this debate is that God is sentient. He cannot simply be a physical process or an ethereal realm from which we determine the cause of the universe or humanity originated. He must be shown to be aware of his actions and to act them out intentionally. Lack of EvidenceIt is my contention that such a being simply has no basis in evidence. While the God debated is often the one of the Abrahamic religions, It is important to note that a variety of gods have been independently conceived of by many cultures throughout human history. From the vain and arrogant Greek Gods to the aggressive Mayan Gods to the God of the Abrahamic religions, The conception of a superior being governing humanity appears to be a popular idea to humans of all kind. Yet common to these notions of God is the lack of any evidence for their existence. Not an iota of scientific evidence has gone towards showing the existence of any sentient God, Whether it be Greek, Mayan, Abrahamic, Or any other conception of a sentient God. Nothing observable, Or deduced, Or inferred has ever lended itself to the existence of God. While my opponent is free to contest this, I think it much more likely that he will agree - that God cannot be shown to exist through the scientific method applied to the natural world. As such, If the existence of a sentient God is to be shown, It must be through philosophical argumentation, Which brings me to my following point. Lack of Rigorous ArgumentationAs mentioned in my introduction, The Burden of Proof is on my opponent to argue why God exists. Until he is able to do so, We must default to a state of non-belief. As I cannot prove a negative, My own argumentation here will be rather short. However I will mention precisely what my opponent must show in order to fulfill his Burden of Proof. My opponent cannot simply show for example that the universe needs a creator (which, On a side note, It does not appear to, But my objections are irrelevant), As a creator need not be sentient. He cannot simply show that the existence of human consciousness requires a god which, Aside from using the God of the Gaps fallacy, Does not show that the creator must be sentient. He must show that there is a greater probability that a being who is not only supernatural but aware of his actions exists. My opponent has attempted to do so in this round and I am eager to show the flaws in his arguments. Importantly, As my opponent has the Burden of Proof, I only need to show how he is incorrect in order to prove my position. Suffice to say, I think the next few rounds will involve the meat of our arguments and will show to a much greater degree why there is no reason to believe a sentient God exists.
"There is reason to believe a God exists"

As Con, I will attempt to show why there is not reason to believe that a God exists. As my opponent has agreed, Fundamental to the debate is that God is defined one similar to the God of the Abrahamic religion. This is to say that my opponent must show that there is reason to believe a **sentient** god exists. My opponent need not show that the Christian God exists, But must show that a God exists who is aware of his actions and who is more than just a physical process. We have settled on the definition of god as a "superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes". This may be a maximally great being or may being like Zeus who has weaknesses but still maintains these characteristics. It is significant to note that the Burden of Proof is on my opponent to show that such a being exists. I do not have to show that it is impossible or for such a being to exist. But that much like fairies, And leprechauns, There exists no evidence nor reason to believe in such a being, And that as such we must default to a state of non-belief. My opening arguments in the following round will therefore be comparatively short as it is incumbent upon my opponent to make a convincing case for belief as opposed to the default of non-belief. Both my opponent and I have agreed to the following debate structure: R1: Introduction R2: Opening Arguments R3: Rebuttal to R2 Arguments R4: Rebuttal to R3 Arguments R5: Final rebuttals and closing arguments I will not be able to rebut my opponent in the same round he makes them so as to ensure we each have equal space to make our case. Additionally, Round 5 will disallow the introduction of new arguments so we don't make argument that haven't been able to be refuted by our opponent. I'd like to conclude this round by stating what I intend to gain from this debate. I begin this debate with the belief that I am correct but with the possibility that I may be wrong. And if I am indeed incorrect in my position, I would much prefer to know that I am incorrect. I will read my opponents argument with an open mind, As I hope he will read mine, And look forward to having my views challenged.
"There is reason to believe a God exists"

Hello. I am Pro and I shall dedicate this first round to an introduction. The existence of God has been the subject of much debate throughout human history debate which increased following the Age of Enlightenment, The adoption of Humanism in Europe and the Scientific Revolution. As a Christian and as a Philosopher like many other Christian Philosophers I believe there indeed is a reason if not many to subscribe to the proposition that states a God or higher being which is sentient does exist. Following my opponent's introduction, I shall lay out my opening arguments. Thank you and God bless.
"There is reason to believe a God exists"

My opponent and I chose to extend the debate into another debate. I'll wait until the first round of that debate to respond to R4 and R5 and then we can respond to each other immediately. So he can respond to my round and I can respond to his response in the same round until the last round so we have an equivalent response space. The rules will be clarified in the next debate if this isn't clear. I'll be sure to post the link to that debate in the comments of this one.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

Many thanks for the well wishes to my opponent! I am glad we can debate this topic and hopefully shed light on the universe one debate at a time!I will first talk about my arguments why Hillary Clinton is better, then will explain why your reasons for Jill Stein's superiority are not true. Let's begin.1. Hillary Clinton has political experience.One of the things that makes a good president, is prior experience. This study: http://www.electoral-vote.com...; was done on experience vs greatness in the presidency, and it is seen that the split is about 50-50 statistically between great experienced presidents and great inexperienced presidents.But besides that, the number of years of experience for Hillary is startlingly large compared to Jill Stein. According to Biography.com Hillary Clinton "She later served as first lady from 1993 to 2001, and then as a U.S. senator from 2001 to 2009.... After winning the national election, Obama appointed Clinton secretary of state. She was sworn in as part of his cabinet in January 2009 and served until 2013." That is 20 years of experience. http://www.biography.com... Jill Stein, has according to NBC news, experience dating from 2002. '"The Green Party approached me to run for governor in 2002 and foolishly I accepted."' http://www.nbcnews.com... If you are counting, that is 20 years for Hillary, and roughly 14 for Jill Stein. So that difference in six years can mean having the contacts and deals in Washington to be succesful.2. Clinton understands how to connect.Jill Stein is not very popular. This website compares them. http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com... One statistic I will comment on is Facebook and Twitter likes. Clinton has 3.7 Million Facebook likes, and 6.6 Million Twitter followers. Jill's numbers are 215,000 on Facebook and 100,000 on Twitter. This statistic speaks volumes to the popularity and ability of Clinton to unite America. Jill Stein is relatively unknown and could do little to fix this country in a major way if she was president.Finally some responses, with limited characters :).1. Your argument on strengthened participation has no sources, so it is not credible yet. Voting is not an elite activity, because votes cannot be actually bought as that is against the law and people have gone to jail for that offense before. Clinton right now is actually a merger of people because I have sources and you do not. Yet. 2. When has she said Republicans are incorrect when they were right? I don't recall an instance, except maybe Benghazi and the evidence there is very scant of wrongdoing.3. Compromise is a very valuable trait of a president when used well. I see no problem with her compromise. Give specifics please.4. Your climate change argument has no sources.Awaiting your arguments eagerly!
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

Congrats on graduation and escape! And I appreciate your willingness to debate independently from your political beliefs - it is an attribute of a strong mind! Stein’s promotion of the Green Platform commits to strengthening the relevance and participation of the voter at all levels of government. This shifts the process of debate and compromise from being a back-room or committee activity by an elite few to a national process of reflection and widespread self-correction. Clinton weakens the ability of parties to debate each other, and strengthens their ability to hate each other. Her selling points to voters include both a strong history of fighting and blaming republicans and of compromising or working with them. When republicans are correct, she owes such information to her constituents; otherwise, it is her responsibility to take advantage of the truth, the strongest ally for which any advocate could ask. But she continually compromises on everything from invading foreign nations to reforming taxation, while insisting to her base that her hands are tied by the evil and ignorance of the opposite party. For a specific example, let us observe the issue of climate change. Though Stein proposes a more radical response to climate change than does Clinton, under president Stein we can expect an honest discussion in which liberals and conservatives discover the valid details of each other’s beliefs. Under president Clinton we can expect liberal leaders to continue disparaging the intelligence of conservatives, sieging their media and discussion into Fox News and other boxes which liberal viewers can categorically dismiss, and broadcasting scornful responses to only the most vulnerable of conservative voices. And yet in written policies, we can expect Clinton to continue opposing carbon taxes and support only meager subsidies for alternative energy. By contrast, if we observe the tea party’s powerful proposals to cut back the national debt, we must admit that if it were persuaded on the urgency of climate change, it would advocate sacrifices far more drastic than anything Clinton proposes. Therefore if climate change is an existential threat, Stein proposes the kind of economic overhaul that can respond to such a threat and the legitimate discussion to answer the questions of doubters, while Clinton ties our hands with strawman reliance on an evil or ignorant political enemy. If climate change is a relatively weak physical occurrence, Stein offers the kind of honest dialogue that would shed light on our misconceptions, while Clinton preoccupies us with supposedly anti-earth republicans, inhibiting our ability to focus on issues such as poverty, education, and debt.Regardless of the issue being discussed or the radical position taken by each party, honest disagreement is always healthier for our nation than dishonest agreement.My thanks again to con - I look forward to your rebuttal!
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

I believe Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton, by- Establishing honest, respectful communication with American citizens and allies;- Protecting the natural ecosystems of the planet,- Investing in art, science, education, and public infrastructure; and- Heeding the voices of financially independent academics.This broad topic need not be limited to these bullets, I am simply providing ground on which we can begin.If you do not meet the debate's requirements, I am happy to override them after you demonstrate in the comments section that you can take the topic seriously.My thanks in advance,~ Brant M.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

Let's finish this debate! "My argument was that Stein promotes legitimate discussion between political parties, and compromises on the condition that compromise is warranted by the issues, while Clinton seeks to defeat the opposite party at the expense of the discussion and issues in question"An argument that had no evidence/experts to back up the idea that these traits existed in the candidates. Because of this, the argument is not credible. Whether it was valid content I would have debated if you had sources, but with a limited character limit, I will confine myself to credibility on this. "And though you have proposed we move on from that, you have not rebutted the point. Is this a dropped point? "It is not a dropped point. Once again I was attacking the lack of sources because of the need for credibility on whether the candidates have these traits. We cannot abide by your say so in this debate. We need extra witnesses to testify to what you are saying. And you do not have them. "Trump is not that unpopular? America's distaste for both Trump and Clinton is record-breaking. "If you look in Round 3 you said that "[Clinton had] twenty years of experience becoming the second least-popular presidential nominee in the history of presidential politics, second only to Trump" The US never was a different government than presidency, so I took you to mean in the world history annuls of presidential politics, Trump is the most unpopular candidate. Maybe he is in the US, but not throughout all of history. "I cannot prove that my reasons for dislike her are equivalent to those of all other Americans, but the causal mechanism exists to explain the valid evidence that she is unpopular. "This argument is your opinion, therefore it is not credible. What experts would support your "causal mechanism"? "It includes deregulating to produce an economic meltdown and invading Iraq"I know you didn't say order, but your words show you didn't say support either. So I took the ambiguous "invading Iraq" and drew my own meaning out. Is there something wrong with that? "But the financial meltdown is widely attributed to deregulation, which she supported until after the 2008 meltdown. "Actually a good argument can be made for the meltdown occuring because demand caught up with supply in the housing market. Deregulation was not the only reason, so why pin the whole meltdown on Clinton with this little shred of her platform? Also the huffington post is a blog. So how can I know if that person is an expert. "Good policy relies largely on being in touch with realities outside the political world"It most definitely can, but it also relies on connections to help pass good legislation. They go hand in hand, and Stein lacks experience that is neccessary. In conclusion, my opponent has many reasons why my arguments don't work, and few evidential or expert reasons why his arguments make sense.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

My argument was that Stein promotes legitimate discussion between political parties, and compromises on the condition that compromise is warranted by the issues, while Clinton seeks to defeat the opposite party at the expense of the discussion and issues in question. My specific example was climate change. It is possible you understood this, but your rebuttal stated that my "climate change argument has no sources." And though you have proposed we move on from that, you have not rebutted the point. Is this a dropped point? Trump is not that unpopular? America's distaste for both Trump and Clinton is record-breaking. http://fivethirtyeight.com... It is Clinton's twenty-year career that has caused me to dislike her; it includes her vague responses to specific questions and her obsession with republican opponents in response to difficult questions. I cannot prove that my reasons for dislike her are equivalent to those of all other Americans, but the causal mechanism exists to explain the valid evidence that she is unpopular. And no, there is "no proof that it was her who ordered the Iraq invasion." In fact, there is proof that it was George W. Bush who ordered the Iraq invasion. I did not claim she "ordered" the Iraq invasion, I used the word "support." And she did side with the Congressional majority in voting for the invasion of Iraq. There is no proof that "she was the cause" of the financial meltodwn. But the financial meltdown is widely attributed to deregulation, which she supported until after the 2008 meltdown. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... My argument about Stein was not about experience, I merely responded to the theory that a politician with a few decades of experience must necessarily be better than a politician with only a few years of experience. Good policy relies largely on being in touch with realities outside the political world, and appealing to political experience is largely an appeal to authority. Granted, we can predict what Clinton will do. I have predicted that under president Clinton we can expect liberal leaders to continue disparaging the intelligence of conservatives, sieging their media and discussion into Fox News and other boxes which liberal viewers can categorically dismiss, and broadcasting scornful responses to only the most vulnerable of conservative voices. What are your predictions about a Clinton presidency?
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

Sorry for the delay, I was busy this weekend."I must insist that my Round 2 argument has been largely misunderstood." "I explored two possible realities for climate change" "I explored two possible realities for republicans". What I am assuming you mean is that I missed the intent behind the argument, not that I misunderstood the whole argument. Because I didn't misunderstand you, I guess I just didn't catch the meaning you intended to convey. That might be a mistake on both of us. Let's put it past us."Clinton's experience is undeniable, but it amounts do twenty years of experience becoming the second least-popular presidential nominee in the history of presidential politics, second only to Trump."Unfortunately Trump is not that unpopular. Also, not all of Clinton's political experience amounts to this one facet of her politics today. That is non sequiter argument or a logical fallacy. You assume that since she must be the second least-popular presidential nominee in history, then she must have gotten that from her political experience. Because you have no source to link the causation, my point with a source still stands."It includes deregulating to produce an economic meltdown and invading Iraq - perhaps the two decisions the United States regrets the most about the last three decades. Does her experience hinder her ability to recognize prior mistakes? Her ability to learn new information?"This is two-sided. First, there is no proof that it was her who ordered the Iraq invasion. Second, there is no proof she was the cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Sources would be appreciated before these claims are to be believed.Also, her experience would help her know what is politically smart far better than Jill Stein. And she is able to learn new information, she just sometimes chooses not to. We all can learn new information if we want to. That ability is always there."None of our great presidents have been as experienced as Clinton or as inexperienced as Trump."This is 100% false and proves you failed to read my source on presidential candidates experience."It stands to reason that while the metric of experience cannot set Stein apart as preferable, Clinton's more-of-the-same experience can only reap the benefits of being so . . . same."Yep, Stein is definitely not set apart. And no, Clinton will not be adding to this so called "sameness" that you allude to.A couple points.1. Sources are on my side so far.I have presented 4, my opponent has presented none.2. Hillary Clinton is a safe choice.Jill Stein is a risk being a relatively unknown candidate. In comparison we can predict what Hillary will do. So Hillary is far safer of a bet.3. Recognize that Hillary would make a better president.Experience, predictability, ability to connect, ability to compromise, and dedication to politics itself make her the better choice.Eagerly awaiting your arguments!42
Jill Stein would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

I must apologize for a round so short as to nearly warrant a manual forfeiture. But I must insist that my Round 2 argument has been largely misunderstood. Let me list what I am NOT arguing: - that Climate Change is or is not a modern priority, - that republicans have ever been correct or incorrect, - that compromise is bad. I explored two possible realities for climate change - one in which it is a priority, and one in which we are misled by the politics of fear. I argued that Stein promotes more legitimate outcomes in both scenarios. I explored two possible realities for republicans - one in which they are correct, and one in which they are incorrect. I leave it to my audience and opposition to hypothesize on how often each scenario occurs. I argued that non-republicans can EITHER blame republicans while disagreeing with them, OR give credit where it is due while compromising with them. I argued that Stein upholds such a pattern of behavior, while Clinton does the opposite. Clinton's experience is undeniable, but it amounts do twenty years of experience becoming the second least-popular presidential nominee in the history of presidential politics, second only to Trump. It includes deregulating to produce an economic meltdown and invading Iraq - perhaps the two decisions the United States regrets the most about the last three decades. Does her experience hinder her ability to recognize prior mistakes? Her ability to learn new information? None of our great presidents have been as experienced as Clinton or as inexperienced as Trump. It stands to reason that while the metric of experience cannot set Stein apart as preferable, Clinton's more-of-the-same experience can only reap the benefits of being so . . . same.
If the freedom of speech law really is in effect inside schools

Second, I would like to point out that you do not specify what you define "school" as. Are we talking about high schools, colleges, universities, or junior high? You say that students cannot protest, but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of successful student protests. . http://www.youtube.com... There are the East L. A. walkouts in 1968, the Chicano Movement, Walkout in Crystal Lake, the People's Park protest in 1969, Kent State, The Knickerbocker Case, The Colombia Protests of 1968, Wild Lily Movement; the list goes on and on. You say students cannot wear what they want, but most schools do not have uniforms, leaving the choice of what to you wear mostly up to you. Other than the obvious exclusions of obscenities, which are not even covered by the first amendment. You say you cannot say what you want but in schools (as far as I know) the teachers do not walk around saying to students; "No your opinions wrong, this is what you are supposed to think, detention for you. " You say you are losing the rights in public land also. But this is because it is PUBLIC land. There are probably children within earshot and if you drop the f-bomb every four seconds and disrupte the peace, you will be escorted off the property. That is the law.