BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious

PrologueSince the resolution was left pretty vague, I base the guidelines of this debate from what my opponent said in her opening round - "should everyone believe in God?" So therefore, as Pro, I should show that people should believe in God. I define God as "the creator of the universe". Positive CaseHow to fulfill my BoPI will fulfill my burden of proof if I can show that the following logical format is sound:P1: God existsP2: If God exists, then people should believe in GodC: Ergo, it is prudent that people should believe in GodA1 The Cosmological Argument from ContingencyP1: All physical entities has contingent existence. P2: If the universe is defined as "all space-time, matter and energy", the universe has contingent existenceP3: All contingent entities are the universe, so therefore the universe has contingent existenceP4: If the universe is contingent, there must be something that is non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitumP5: The non-contingent being must be transcendental, because the being cannot create space-time, while existing in space and time.P6: If all physical entities are contingent and the causer isn't contingent, the causer must be non-physicalC: Therefore, a being that is non-contingent, transcendent and non-physical must exist.Defense of premise one:Premise one is a known posteriori - all physical entities has contingent existence, viz. all entities in the observable universe has a cause to exist e.g.. the expansion of space-time is contingent upon dark energy. (1)Defense of premise two:The universe is defined as "all matter, energy and space-time as a whole". (2) Since the universe is what was just listed, it evades the parts whole fallacy as it is not composed of it, it is all matter, energy and space-time. If premise one is valid, the validity of this premise logically follows. Defense of premise three:Premise three is also dependent upon the first two premises. Defense of premise four:Reductio ad infinitum is a logical incoherency proposed by Aristotle. (3) The fallacy rests upon Aristotle's notion that everything must have a cause. If Pro wishes to refute this postulate, then she must refute Aristotle's intuitive notion. As already noted, everything is contingent upon something, yet there would logically require something that is non-contingent to spark the chain of everything else existing viz. if we were to regress through time, to the first notable event in the universe (the big bang), there must be something to cause that to happen; to cause the universe to exist etc. Defense of premise five:The cause of the existence of space-time cannot be within space-time, so the creator must be transcendental.Defense of premise six:This is a tautology as long as the assertion is true. Therefore, the causer is transcendental, non-physical and non-contingent. Now, how many contenders are there to fulfill this position? None really; except God. Since I have proven that God exists, my BoP syllogism is sound, hence my BoP is fulfilled. ConclusionI wish my opponent good luck, I am too a non-believer in God. (1) http://science.nasa.gov...(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(3) https://glosbe.com...
Justification for neonatal male circumcision

Hi. I'll be arguing in favor of neonatal male circumcision. My points regarding why I am in favor of it are as follows: -It decreases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. [1] [2] [3] [5] -It reduces risk of penile cancer [1] [5] [3] and reduces risk of cervical cancer in females in which the circumcised male has sexual intercourse with. [1] -The risk of urinary tract infections are lowered. [1] [3] [5] -It prevents balanitis and balanoposthitis, two disorders that result in gland inflammation. [1] -It also prevents phimosis and paraphimosis, two disorders that result in the inability to retract the foreskin [1] [3] -It also allows for slightly better penile hygiene. [3] As for the risks, they tend to vary, but they're fairly low, and I'd argue a decent chunk are minimal. Plus, most of the risks are fairly short-term. These risks include pain, bleeding, infection, gland irritation, risk of injury to the penis (such as the foreskin being cut too short or too long, failing to heal properly, or the remaining foreskin attaching to the penis [4]), and what is arguably most significant, an increased risk of meatitis, inflammation of the penis's opening.[1] Something that's also worth noting is that the American Association of Pediatrics, as well as The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists feel that the benefits of neonatal male circumcision outweigh the risks. [5] Good luck! :) [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [4] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [5] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Justification for neonatal male circumcision

Hello, and to whoever may be my contender and peers for this debate, welcome. To start this off, I am a circumcised male who believes that the routine circumcision of infants, for non therapeutic or non religions reasons (though I would argue against those reasons as well, but that is for another debate), is not medically justified, and violates both the circumcised individuals freedom of choice, and the doctor's "do no harm" Hippocratic Oath. A sample of the reasoning and justifications for circumcision that I have observed are as follows: -It will keep the male cleaner -It will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and various other STDs -It looks better to the sexual partner -it fixes the condition known as "Phimosis" or the inability for the foreskin to retract. I understand that these are not the only justifications for circumcision. However, I would be hard pressed to predict every single reason that I will be arguing against. While the natural human body is, obviously, uncircumcised, the burden of proof should fall on the Pro standpoint, to prove that circumcision is justified and not detrimental in ways that outweigh the supposed benefits. However, since the rate of circumcision in the United States is higher than the rate of leaving males intact, It seems that the burden of proof will be equally shared. I have posted this question in the Society category, because circumcision seems to be a cultural issue. Many countries have already debunked routine infant circumcision as medically unjustified (1) and some countries have put bans on circumcision (2). This leads me to conclude that there is more to the practice than the purely medical standpoint, otherwise most developed countries would have a similar opinion on the matter. I ask that my opposition first state the positive points for circumcision that they are familiar with or are going to be using, so that my reply may be precise and to the core matter. Sources: 1. http://www.cps.ca... 2. http://www.bbc.com...
Abortion should be legal

Thank you, Americanspearjade.Affirmative CaseNot only does my opponent my opponent not contest any of my points, but she concedes them with "true". Thus, both my opponent and I agree that these are reasons you should affirm the resolution with me.Counter-argumentsCon provides us with, well, shall we say "terse" argument. Let's explore them:"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder"My opponent fails to do several things here. Firstly, my opponent fails to demonstrate how murder occurs in any abortions. In reality, she merely imply that it has been confirmed as murder. This is unfounded, and thus is a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [1].Secondly, because there is no logical framework which suppor this argument, this is an appeal to authority as the implication is that The Bible's word is all that matters [2].Due to the logically falacious nature of this argument, it gains no traction in this debate."and don't you think what that child has to go through"Con hasn't demonstrated how "what the child has to go through" is sufficient to outweigh my impacts in my affirmation case (of which she agrees to all the points), let alone existent. This is another bare assertion [1].Point of conductMy opponent decided to reference in the comments section, something which is against the rules of this debate. Not only that, but she specifically said, "here is my refrences". It's actually only one reference, but this is a breech in rules. I'll leave it to the judges to decide if this warrants conduct violation.ConclusionMy opponent agrees with *all* of my arguments! This only is enough for me to win the debate, giving the impacts of my arguments (i.e. what positive benefits of abortion I have shown). For this reason, it should be entirely transparent as why you should vote for Pro. So, vote Pro!References[1] http://dictionary.sensagent.com...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...
Abortion should be legal

Hello. I'm relatively new here. Let's have a super debate =)Full resolution: In the United States, abortion should be legalRules:1. First round is for acceptance (do not argue in the first round).2. Please do not present new arguments in the final round. Counter-arguments are fine.3. No trolling.4. No Kritiks of the topic5. References/citations need to be provided in text and in the debateViolation of these rules will give voters ammunition for conduct breeches or worse.Don't go too hard on me ;)
Jihad is a struggle, not a war

While jihad can have many different meanings, it is a form of warfare. There are two main definitions of jihad. One is "the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin". The other definition: "(among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers". While you may align with the first definition, you cannot deny the second one. Jihad is a real religious war between Muslims and non-Muslims, not just a spiritual one. ISIS is denounced by many Muslims who believe it deviates from the true teachings of Islam. However, they don't realize that ISIS is actually following the Quran as it is written and it's actually the "moderate" Muslims who are deviating from the violent and radical teachings of Islam by not killing the unbeliever. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is the 21st century version of prophet Muhammad. After all, both killed thousands in the name of Islam and waged jihad against Christianity. They're so similar yet so many Muslims choose to follow one and denounce the other.
Who should be president Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump

My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate, and has only posted a single argument. (Therefore I will be expending little effort in this debate myself.) Pro believes that Trump would better prepare the U.S. to compete with Russia and China. He claims that Trump will "give more money" to research projects. However Pro has not proven this would likely be the case. On the contrary, Donald Trump promises to balance the budget and promote private enterprise. He identifies as a capitalist [1] meaning he does not believe in government funded programs, but rather private businesses investing in research. Pro must prove that Trump's policy includes advancing the U.S. research and technology through government measures. He must also explain how Trump plans to pay for it, and why this is the single biggest factor that makes Trump more qualified to be POTUS than Clinton. As a libertarian, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan and I do not love her policy proposals. However Hillary would make a better POTUS than Trump. First, Clinton has a ton of political experience; she has more experience than her husband did when he was elected president. This experience has provided invaluable exposure to politicking and how to get ahead in Washington to implement one's agenda. On the other hand, Donald Trump is crass and hard to get along with. Many in his own party hate him and fear he has/will ruin the GOP [2]. We have no reason to assume that other politicians would be ready and willing to work with Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Hillary is a conniving snake in the grass who knows how to get ahead and get her way. Therefore she would be better equipped at dealing with others, both foreign and domestic, and securing the best interest for most Americans. Hillary is a social liberal who does not seek to take away people's guns, while still supporting abortion, same sex marriage and diversity. Meanwhile, Trump is an authoritarian who is xenophobic, hostile to gay rights and women's right to bodily autonomy, and arguably a little racist. In fact he's called for Unconstitutional measures to ban Muslim from entering the U.S. He's also suggested that an American-born judge might be too biased to perform their job based on their family's ancestry. So many things about Trump's position are contrary to positive values for America. Furthermore, Trump's economic plan has been called impossible [3]. He is opposed to free trade and wants to increase tension with China by raising taxes on Chinese imports. This would be bad for consumers by raising the prices on cheap goods. Trump, however, seems concerned with his own interests and his own ego. He doesn't care how ill advised or ill prepared he is; his arrogance and bravado trumps (pun intended) his reason and ability to work with others. [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://www.salon.com... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Every soldier who dies in Iraq, dies in vein

Pro again showed bad conduct by forfeiting. "In vain" means "without success." The successes of the Iraq War included removing Saddam as a belligerent force, ending Saddam's oppression and genocide, enforcing compliance with the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and facilitating the establishment of the first democracy in the Arab world. It established that the US was not a paper tiger, which adds substance to the US negotiating position with other terrorist-supporting nations. Pro made no argument that they these accomplishments did not happen or that they did not constitute successes. The resolution is negated.
Dogfighting should be legal

Dogfighting should never ever be legalized. This is just another way of animal abuse, However, I do understand that killing / hurting an animal is animal abuse such as killing chickens, Pigs, Cows, Etc; That is a different topic, Those animals did not have a chance of living. Why should dogs fight each other? Are people out of their minds? They pay thousands or even millions of their money to look after a strong healthy dog, Why waste the money and let their dogs fight? What if it does not turn out right? Dogs are just like humans, They can talk (bark), They have feelings, They are energetic and can get really hungry and thirsty. Us humans has the same instincts as them. I fully go against the idea of legalizing dogfighting. It is just really cruel and vile. Dogs can die from this and if we keep this up, They'll go extinct. A dog being killed by another dog is just the same as a human being killed from another human. This is called murder, Yet people find it alright to let dogs have the rights to murder anything they want. I DO NOT STAND WITH DOGFIGHTING!
Dogfighting should be legal

Right, A few things. You first say that dogfighting is animal abuse. That is clearly debatable. We kill hundreds of thousands of animals for their meat. However, It has been scientifically PROVEN that a vegetarian diet is perfectly acceptable and at times even healthier than their meat counterparts. Animal abuse is only considered "animal abuse" if the society does not benefit from these actions. A lot of people like dogfighting, And generates jobs as well as tax revenue for the government. Therefore, Dogfighting IS NOT animal abuse. Another thing you bring up is that farm animals have no chance of living. That is also weak. In different countries, People have different preferences about dogs. In countries like South Korea and China, Dogs are mostly disregarded by most of the population, While in America, They are kept as pets and live nice lives. On the other hand, In some countries in the Middle East, Pigs are of high importance, While Americans slaughter them for their meat. All animals are the same. Since we can kill these farm animals, Why not dogs too? You also say: "They pay thousands or even millions of their money to look after a strong healthy dog, Why waste the money and let their dogs fight? What if it does not turn out right? Dogs are just like humans, They can talk (bark), They have feelings, They are energetic and can get really hungry and thirsty. " Yes, They do pay thousands. But that argument is weak. It is like questioning one living in the Bronze Age why they would make their spear of top quality if it is just going to be damaged in a real fight. Dogs don't even die in these fights, But get injured. You bring up the point that dogs are like humans. True, But take wrestling competitions; Humans are always pitted against other humans, And it is completely true that everyone who wrestles uses up a lot of money to go train themselves and eat, And also treat their injuries. There is literally no difference between dogfighting and wrestling. Since wrestling is a thing, Why shouldn't dogfighting be? I wait for Con's response.
Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

I appeal to the intelligence of our audience, that they should see through the transparent nature of your "rebuttal". Not to appear rude, but you know -and any person of any deduction ability knows- that you have intentionally distorted my claims, as well as provided equally futile and transparent "rebuttals". There is absolutely no point, and it does you no favour, saying that "there are religious scientists" or "religious people are educated". I made no claim to the contrary, my claim was -if you took the time to read my point- that religion, in its nature , was a credulous and gullible philosophy. I made it very clear that I was not claiming the same thing for religious people. So, please, for the same of this argument, do not try to lie about what I claim.Now, to properly rebut your claims. Only 7% of American Physicists believe in any personal god, 4% for Biologists (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...). Religious people are not at the "core of religion". Now, it would be same to say that pre-Darwin scientists (like Newton) where of faith, but that is easy to see in terms of it's reason. So much was left unanswered, but now, it is equally as easy to see why this superstitious nonsense has declined so much in the scientific community."Most religions do not have a concept of hell" There have been millions of religions. Name me, if most do not have a concept of hell, 10 religions that don't.Now, in case you try your distortion again, to help you out a bit I will clearly explain my position. My position, and remember this, is: That religion, in it's persistence in the reward of Blind Faith, is directly apposed to scientific method. Since the very definition of "faith" is the belief of something without evidence. The monotheism's tell us that if we do not believe their hypothesis, we will be punished. This is not, as you've no doubt worked out, how a scientific theory tries to convince others of it's truth. It treats us like children, with a theme park of flowery happiness for those who are credulous- and the pain of eternal torture on the other side, if we dare to question (as we are instructed to do so, by science)To the audience, I wish that you can use your mind and make it up with yourselves. I wish that you see through my opponents well organised paragraphs of well thought-out distortion. Good luck to my opponent, again, nevertheless.
Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

We should have a very interesting exchange. The resolution: Religious Philosophy is for the Credulous/The Gullible I will be arguing that religion is for more than just the Credulous and the Gullible. That the cause of belief in religion is for more than the fear of hell. I will show that many religious people are exposed to science, real logic and rationality. I will show that religion has a point and is very productive for the human species. I will offer the definitions of those that supposedly only believes in religion: Credulous- 1 : ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Gullible- 1 : easily duped or cheated. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Most religious people will deny that they are unaware of science. Almost any field of work in the known world has had religious people at its core. I will offer a wide range of scientist who are religious and who undoubtedly have reason. On Wikipedia we can see historical scientist who were religious. The following link will also show modern religious scientist who have contributed to science and are considered very rational. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.jcsm.org... I have shown that there are many religious people who are rational and know science. I will now show that religion does have a point. Religion is presented to explain unknown questions & problems. Religion has connected societies and divided them. Religion offers many a way to express their strong emotional feelings. Many religious groups offer a wide variety of charities and good-will making religion productive. The point of religion is to give society a moral guideline, while also giving answers to questioned that are unanswered by the normal world. Religion offers inner peace. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Most religions in the world do not have a concept of hell, therefore making this point mute. . http://www.religionfacts.com... I have refuted all my opponents points so far, so, I will allow him to address my opening round and to further explain himself. Back to Pro.
Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

The question is this: Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is. Though, I mean to say that it is the philosophy of the superstitious, and is accepted by the credulous, because the only reason that they "believe" is that they're either afraid of the hell they've been promised, or that they haven't been exposed to real logic and rationality and science. I also say that religion is a pointless thing and belongs in the babyhood of our species; and it can cause pointless evil which would be avoided if we just got rid of this bullsh*t. We have to move towards science and logic, and away from nonsense and superstition. Good luck to those who wish to appose me.