BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God

Hey, I see you're very anti atheist and I would like to debate you on God's existence.God: The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Tri Omni (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) Creator of the Universe. Atheism: The Lack of belief in God(s) Burden of proof is sharedRules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post Argument8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting PeriodStart your arguments in Round 1Only 3 contentions max.Since this is a back and forth debate, each of us will only post up to 3 contentions for our case. Three will allow us to have plenty of space to refute and defend.Since Pro is going to present his case in R1, in round 4 Pro will post"For an equal number of rounds, no argument will be posted here as agreed."Agreeing to this debate means you accept the rules above.
One does not need to believe in "God" to be moral.

I've set everything to the maximum (rounds, voting period, etc) as I am very interested in everyone's opinion. I have not specified an opponent, so anyone may join in. Now on to my argument. I am an atheist (as my profile will confirm). This argument (personally) stems from a similar one I had with my ex-girlfriend. Is a belief in "God" a prerequisite for morality? While I do admit that many moral values stem from religious beliefs held by many, I disagree with the statement that morality is only in those that are religious. For the purpose of this debate, we'll use the following definitions. God: The christian deity, believed responsible for the creation of everything in existence. Religion: Christianity (because it is the most prevalent religion in the USA) Atheism: The dis-belief in God Moral: principals or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct [1] As I stated earlier, I believe that religion is not a prerequisite for morality. However, I do believe that everyone has varied morals, and they are not all wrong. While society in general agrees on some moral values (i.e. murder is wrong), there are some touchy moral issues that cannot be resolved specifically because people do not agree on these values. Round 1: Acceptance and Opening Statements Round 2: Religion and Morals Round 3: Debate Round 4: Rebuttal Round 5: Closing Comments I am eager to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. I look forward to this debate. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Have social equality rather than new technology every year

While I may agree that equality will lead to progress, I am here to debate as to why new tech every year would be much more preferred. I will open by explaining human nature. Humanity has risen from all parts of the world and led itself from the ground up to reach each individual point. Religions rose to help people comprehend why they and everything else exists, colors formed as a result of environments, and genders as a means of producing offspring. We can't unify them though, we can pass laws and make it a demand that we tolerate one another, but human nature will always be to put one's self on top. Unfortunately, that means by any means necessary. Technology has been the greatest unifying factor since the 18th century when the industrial revolution began. Yet, as more diversity was found, so did prestige rise. People will forget their silly individual differences if we give them the tools to do so, to reach species wide equality, we would need to reach a pinnacle in tech first.
Have social equality rather than new technology every year

I am for this motion " Have social equality rather than new technology every year' People are sick and tire of pain and strife. Making human rights a high priority should have been something we as a people thrived for along time ago. Almost all states proclaim that they respect human rights even when their actions are otherwise and many states actively promote human rights abroad. Yet there is a certain amount of inconsistency in this promotion. When push comes to shove support for human rights is mostly rhetorical. what i believe is ,when there is equality among all,no discrimination on the basis of creed,color gender,caste or religion, the minds are set free, no restrictions in aquiring knowledge, all the thoughts come forward as one and paves the path towards prosperity. As for technology, it will always be there.Moving forward for the betterment of humanity is much superior then working for greed corporations.when equality is there progress in technology is very likely to happen.
Baptism is essential to salvation

it looks like our debate turned into a "finding a text error".... ha ha, but i will try to change the harmony of he debate, i will post my argument, i I'll have the burden of proof, for if i continue to look for an error on Con's arguments it wouldn't fit on the 8000 character limit. ok To strengthen the authority principle of my position I will add some study about baptism just i said earlier baptism is for the remission of sins which my opponent ignores every time And in Acts 2:38 it states "repent, and be baptized in the he name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS and therefore necessary for salvation, and this baptism in the acts 2:38 is the implement o the great commission, And the great commission says in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, get the point baptism is divine imperative (1) in the case of Saul. Saul of Tarsus was to go in Damascus where he would be told what he must do" (Acts 9:6); not, "can" do, “may" do, but "must" do! Ananias comes to him in the city and says, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord" ( Acts 22:16) Thus Baptism is a "must". (2) A corollary. John 3:7 is a corollary passage. This text state, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye "must" be born again." (3) Other "musts". Faith is a "must" (Heb. 11:6); and scriptural worship is a "must" (John 4:24). Can a person be saved without baptism when it is equally a divine imperative? "Must" is the strongest word in the English language; and it modifies baptism. Thus, why try weaken its necessity? My opponent misinterpreted what i said in the comments section, an I would like to answer that- ragnal ral I think you don't read with understanding it, I said it's a "must" therefore what? Therefore it is necessary to salvation. back to the study, Baptism is a command (1) Acts 10:47-48. This passage reads. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Yes, baptism is a command not a mere suggestion or good idea or optional choice. And, be it observed that the word "non-essential" does not modify it. In fact the word "non - essential" does not even appear in the bible. (2) Other commands. The same Lord that made faith a command (Acts 16:31; I John 3: 23) and repentance a command (Acts 17:30; 3:19; 2:38), made baptism a command. Who has the authority to say two of these are important and one is non – essential. i hope also that con would also prove his position, and would not rely of what i'm saying although it is my job, but it wouldn't be a debate if i would only prove my argument, but also the opposing side
The public have a right to know if Sarah Palin's "fifth child" is actually her daughter's.

So, extreme right-wing, ultra-conservative, Christian fundamentalist Sarah Palin's unmarried teenage daughter, Bristol, is up the duff and rumours abound on the Internet that she is also the real mother of her younger brother. (1) If John McCain is elected President and snuffs it mid-term (not unimaginable given his advanced years), Sarah Palin will become the world's most powerful person. As she cannot possibly reconcile her failure to bring up her daughter in accordance with her staunch pro-marriage views, we must conclude that she would make an unsuitable leader because even her own family don't respect her opinions or authority. Possibly worse than that, however, is that she may be deceiving the electorate by pretending Bristol's first child is actually her own. I believe the American voters have a right to know the truth and that independent DNA tests should be conducted on the boy to establish whom its real mother is. (1) http://edition.cnn.com...
The public have a right to know if Sarah Palin's "fifth child" is actually her daughter's.

My opponent pointed out that the relationship between Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton was different from that of Sarah and Bristol;therefore, Bristol, who's only a daughter of Sarah Palin MUST obey to her mother, and believe in the same way. And there should be a reason for her if she doesn't, and the reason should be her mother's political conceptions are distorted or just simply wrong. Although the relationship between daughter and mother may be different from that of a wife and husband, both of the relationships are the same in a way that they both need a total respect. Just because Sarah's daughter does not believe in her mother's, Sarah's opinions, it does not mean that Sarah is not qualified for the election, but it means that she just respects her daughter's opinions and does not feel it's necessary for her to persuade her daughter to think the same things as she. Although it's just a vague assumption, but I just want to point out that my opponent can't say that Sarah is not qualified for her position because she cannot make her daughter to have the same opinions as she. Yes, Bill Clinton's integrity was questioned when it was found that he had an affair with his intern. However, it was issued more than it was supposed to be because he was the leading figure of the U.S. and he was expected to have the perfect moral and ethical backgrounds. Sarah also as well is expected to have good moral and ethical backgrounds, however, it is her right to inform the public about her past and backgrounds. My opponent said "Similarly, my opponent may be correct in saying that the Palin scandal is essentially private and, legally, there is no way to force the woman to prove that the boy she claims is her son is not actually her daughter's child, but her integrity as a candidate for the Vice Presidency is a matter of real public interest and they have the moral right to know if she is telling the truth or not." We're arguing about the legal right of people rather than the moral right. Even though I already proved my point why people don't have the right to know about Sarah's privacy either legally or morally, my opponent failed to argue why people have the "legal" right to know her privacy when it is written in the Constitution that every person's privacy should be protected by all means. By the time he accepted the point that the public doesn't have the LEGAL right to know and dig out her privacy, this argument was basically over because he agreed it is not constitutional for the public to know if Sarah Palin's fifth child is actually her daughter's, and that was the topic of this argument. After, my opponent deviates from the topic and just tries to prove other points. And I think my job is done at this point. Ladies and gentlemen thanks for reading this argument.
The public have a right to know if Sarah Palin's "fifth child" is actually her daughter's.

Anyway, my opponent rightly pointed out that the Bill and Hilary Clinton had differences of opinion, to which I make the following observation: As the Clintons are man and wife, they are equal partners in a relationship. However, Bristol Palin is still only a schoolgirl and she should, in theory, respect and obey her mother. That said, I can totally understand why she wouldn't, but more of that later. It is interesting that my opponent chose the Clinton's as an example though. Bill Clinton's political career was ruined when it was discovered that he had an affair with an intern. This was also a totally private issue but the Republicans still tried to impeach him, because the matter called into question his integrity. Similarly, my opponent may be correct in saying that the Palin scandal is essentially private and, legally, there is no way to force the woman to prove that the boy she claims is her son is not actually her daughter's child, but her integrity as a candidate for the Vice Presidency is a matter of real public interest and they have the moral right to know if she is telling the truth or not. Sarah Palin could easily end the speculation through DNA testing but she refuses to. Why? The American public would be completely justified in being suspicious about her. Firstly, because she's not a patriotic American – until quite recently she was an active member of the Alaskan Independence Party, Secondly, she's corrupt. For example, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin fired a number of senior public servants, including the chief of police, for not supporting her re-election campaign. She was sued but, incredibly, the court found that she had the right to fire city employees even if their dismissals were politically motivated – so much for democracy in Alaska! Bearing this in mind, once installed in the White House, what's to stop her selling off America's military secrets to the highest bidder, for example? Not loyalty to the country - she doesn't even want to be an American citizen - and certainly not her conscience, her track record proves she doesn't have one. (Sources found via . http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The public have a right to know if Sarah Palin's "fifth child" is actually her daughter's.

First of all, I'm not really that familiar with this topic, but I figured out some points that my opponent gave out were misleading so I accepted this challenge. "As she cannot possibly reconcile her failure to bring up her daughter in accordance with her staunch pro-marriage views, we must conclude that she would make an unsuitable leader because even her own family don't respect her opinions or authority." Just because her family members do not agree with her view, it doesn't mean that her own family doesn't respect her opinions or authority. Hilary Clinton often had different views from her husband, Clinton when he was running the office and often advised him with her political perception. However, it does not mean that Hilary Clinton had no respect for her husband, it's just she had different thoughts from his thoughts. Therefore, it is fallacious to conject she will become a unsuitable leader just because she can't make her family members to think the same way as she does. "Possibly worse than that, however, is that she may be deceiving the electorate by pretending Bristol's first child is actually her own. I believe the American voters have a right to know the truth and that independent DNA tests should be conducted on the boy to establish whom its real mother is." The public doesn't have the right to interfere or denounce Sarah Palin just because it assumes there is a possibility she might be deceiving. It's part of her privacy and it should be protected by all means as written in Constitution. I don't see why the issue, who the real mother of the child, should be treated with great significance, when it has nothing to do with her political views or electoral pledges. Summary : 1. figuring out who the real mother of the boy is not really consistent with the issues of the election. 2. the public doesn't have the right to interfere with her privacy.
PETA are ethical

PETA are very ethical they set out to save the cruelty to many innocent creatures that have no voice so we assume the right to take all freedom from them. IT is disgusting the stuff some laboratory testers do their animals and even worse when the motive si something as insignificant as a fur handbag or a new cosmetic. The very definition of 'ethical' is pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. PETA do this. I don't even see how it is possible to debate that PETA are unethical.
PETA are ethical

Apologies for the delay, I recently fell ill and if I'm honest I'm still not too well but never the less, I am here. On your first point, whilst I agree that sometimes violence can be necessary I also believe that it should only be used for one reason. It is literally THE ONLY OPTION. If you can protest for investigation, If you can campaign for federal agencies to look at the clinics and research facilities, you have no right to use violence and claim it's ok because people who actually needed to use it, used it. Violence is not a tactic, It's a last resort. "It is their right to believe that all forms of domestication is wrong but as long as they leave the ones in non-abused circumstances alone, they are being ethical." Apart from the fact that in a PETA world they wouldn't pick and choose. You're right by saying it'd be ethical to leave the animals from loving households but my point is that that's not what PETA are saying. They're after TOTAL ANIMAL LIBERATION. That's not picking and choosing, that's EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL. This is straight from Ingrid Newkirk. If she meant that she'd pick an choose, why didn't she say that? Why did she instead say "Total Animal Liberation."? "You are sick in the head, and a very unethical person, if you support this" So because some places treat the process of killing animals badly, I should be classified as sick? I support eating meat one hundred percent but I do understand that it is sometimes handled badly and yes I do feel bad about but I refuse to let that drag down the idea of eating meat. "Also it's unreasonable and very bad debating conduct to merely call someone a fool." I admit that yes it's bad debating conduct but so is claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you has a warped view of ethics, compassion and emotion. However I would like to say that I agree it is my view of PETA so why shouldn't I speak my mind? Heck, if PETA are allowed to act in such a way to anyone who argues with them, why shouldn't those arguing against them? Why is only unacceptable when the con side does it? "Also stop with this irrelevant analogy of concentration camps," I will stop when PETA and their supporters stop. "In conclusion you offer no solid evidence to show PETA as being unethical, only that your and their ethics do not match." I offer you the UNNECESSARY use of violence, Slander of good, hardworking people and hyperbole to cause fear and anger.
PETA are ethical

I would like to open with a quote from the official PETA site at http://www.peta.org.... The quote is '"The ALF," which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have provided proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise.' it explains exactly what PETA's view on the ALF is and why ethics and law are not inseparable. A further quote form the site is 'Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law in order to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to combat injustice.' therefore it has justified that despite breaking property to get their point across, they did it to empty buildings and uncovered truths that were hidden from us, now the law has become less ethical than the breakers of it. Also, give me an example where PETA removed a pet form a loving home? It is their right to believe that all forms of domestication is wrong but as long as they leave the ones in non-abused circumstances alone, they are being ethical.I don't see how the killing that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden carried out is worse than the torture and mutilation of animals occurring in farmhouses. Hens have their beaks clipped to avoid cannibalism when fighting for space to lay eggs in a three-to-one caging system where one hen is so fat it fills half of the cage (so one hen always is toppled around the other two). Piglets have their ears mutilated at birth so that more food can fatten up other areas of the body (stupid but very true.) Cows are hung upside-down BY ONE LEG ONLY and are fully alive and conscious while it occurs. You are sick in the head, and a very unethical person, if you support this. I am a vegetarian although I eat fish from time to time since I observe that they are killed efficiently and show little sign of actually being conscious (I don't eat endangered fish such as herring or shark). This is all sourced form the video of my round three debate.Also it's unreasonable and very bad debating conduct to merely call someone a fool. You cannot say PETA are possibly fools since there is not objective and inoffensive way to measure foolishness. That is your opinion based on your view of PETA's actions there is no need to bring insults to the table.Also stop with this irrelevant analogy of concentration camps, it is in fact a very accurate analogy and your view of humans being more important than animals should be left out of this debate. That is your opinion, not a fact.In conclusion you offer no solid evidence to show PETA as being unethical, only that your and their ethics do not match.
Tech should be allowed in school

While technology can be a valuable tool, It actually can impede the learning process of many people using technology as a crutch rather then a tool. Children who are using technology constantly (such as computers and phones) do not recognize non verbal communication from other humans, And lack social skills development which is just as important as knowledge in a professional workplace. With technology, A student does not actually learn any of the information, Rather they search it and copy paste (especially with online tests and the abundance of test questions on quizlet). Why learn algebra if you can use wolfman for equations or type it up on a search engine. Teachers use technology to teach and the overuse of technology. In most schools, Textbooks are full of correct information, And most kids already know technology quite well due to the massive reliance of tech in our society. Textbooks are fact checked by publishers and scholars with little bias (most the time). Most websites aren't fact checked, Have an author bias and may show incorrect information. One day, If technology fails us, How will these kids know how basic educational skills to assist them with their professional lives? When technology spins out of control and consumes humanity, How will the kids be able to fight back without the internet?
Internet Anonymity

I'm not sure if Pro would like to continue the debate but I will present two very short arguments just in case. I would like to begin by stating that anonymity and privacy are not the same thing. For example, on DDO I may choose not to share anything about myself and that would be privacy. However, the moderators having access to my IP address and using that information eliminates my anonymity. Internet anonymity is bad for these two reasons: (II) Child predators: The anonymity of the internet allows for child predators to interact with children and gather information about them, as well as convene with other pedophiles to share photos (1). (II) Cyber bullying/trolls: The following site has several statistics regarding cyber bullying and its prevalence and effect on youth (2). Decreased media richness on the Internet reduces social cues, and anonymous groups on the Internet have shown to be less conforming and more aggressive (3). If my opponent would like to explore whether Internet anonymity is more harmful than not, I would be happy to respond to any rebuttals and any cases he would like to put forward. (1) http://www.protectkids.com... (2) http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... (3) Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80-97. http://jcmc.indiana.edu...