BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of God is more probable than not.

God damn, I don't know why I even bother my opponent has brought 3 arguments that are the intellectual equivalent of: If there are presents under the tree on christmas, santa exists there are presents under the tree on christmas therefore santa exists. When given alternative explanations such as parents he rebuts with the intellectual equivalent of, "Wah, wah,wah but parents aren't defined as the guy who delivers presents under the tree on christmas so it can't be them" My opponents first argument is to a cause and not god what so ever. In the mean time to get there it inductively draws conclusions about the whole from the parts. Secondly the argument also commits the fallacy of Equivocation. Lets look, everything that has a cause comes from things that were not caused ex nilo, or from nothing. Strangely though the universe would come from nothing, so the way they were caused is different. It is one thing to say that something is caused using something. It is completely different to come out of nothing. I am sorry that a majority on this board don't understand the concept of dichotomies so this next argument will be useless. He has asserted god, he has given no good reasons for this assertion. I have given many alternate options, he has attempted to refute one, for which he has failed. As for TAG, My opponent ironically asks us to believe a magical being can create something out of nothing,then his imagination is completely and utterly stifled when it comes to a different universe using different laws. The irony. My argument completely stands that the laws of the universe are what make the laws of logic work. And finally his last argument. wow he calls me out for special pleading. I have shown that in the set of complex things there are 2 types of things 1. things that are known to be designed and 2. things that are not known to be designed I have then gone on to show that this 2 > 1. This is not even close. So, how he in anyway thinks you can inductively say that because something is complex it requires a designer is well beyond me. With the data, I would say inductively that complex things are most likely not going to show a need for a designer. I asked him to show that the universe or people are more like a coke bottle, then say a galaxy which has no sign of a designer, he refused. My opponent has failed in so many ways, yet you idiot voters who are the average age of 15 and have yet to take a philosophy class will buy into his nonsense and vote for him.
Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

I wanted to take advantage of this last round to express my gratitude to my opponent who has struck up a very interesting topic and full of input for thought. Reflections put forward by my opponent are full of references to laws and religious theories of individual who most likely will not have really faced a clinical problem. stating that religion pays great attention to the process of the soul after death and not the fate of the remains materials, supporting the theories referring to religious precepts seem somewhat medieval. What we are talking about is the prevailing medical relevance and perhaps legal. you could argue for weeks or perhaps months trying to cite verse citations or theories in support of its position, but one to which I invite you all to think about is: Is it right to have an opportunity to save the life of a man, and throw it away. IS is right to continue to see a person slowly die and reject the assistance it deserves. who is called to decide on the life and death of an individual? What my opponent missed was the point of view of those who suffer! I try to explain it with an example. M - S, the mother of two girls began to suffer from postpartum cardiomyopathy, the symptoms have worsened more and more until they became so debilitating that she was no longer able to care for her children. after many vicissitudes and a thousand tests. he was offered the inclusion in the list transplantation as the only alternative for survival. MS has lived in expectation of the transplant for a whole year, going into and out of the hospital several times. M-S failed to survive the wait. Never got a heart suitable for her. Doctors told her : few donors. just before the last crisis left her lifeless. M-S will no longer see her children grow up. A donor could have saved her. But while people suffer and live with hope, we lose valuable time to discuss about philosophy aspects of donation. Behind the unpredictable and unfortunate death of someone lies a great opportunity to give life to someone else. Limiting this possibility will cause two families suffering rather than one. Therefore vote for us, vote for people trying to give hope to people in more seriously sick and not to those from the top of his perfectionism pontificates indifference to those who were not so lucky.
Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

I have accepted this challenge that i find very interesting. the procurement of organs from the deceased is an hardly debated topic. the main aspect to be considered is that the patients waiting for a transpant procedure outnumber the organs suitable for transplantation. many patients suffer from an advanced organ failure beiing unable to wait for the organ. they die without having had any opportunity to survive increasing the pool of donors by using organs from deceased can shortens the time spent in waiting list, offering opportunity to a large portion of patients.
Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

The resolution is as stated. Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.The format will go as follows:Round 1: Acceptance and Opening Pro ArgumentsRound 2: Con (Arguments and Refutations) Pro (Arguments and Refutations)Round 3: Con (Arguments and Refutations) Pro (No Arguments or Refutations, or Automatic Loss)Thank you to whomever accepts, and best of luck to my opponent.*This debate is under the premise of whether or not the resolution will make the government most just. Accordingly, no arguments claiming that there is not just government will be found with any merit. All arguments as such will be disregarded and treated as irrelevant.*
Mayonnaise is in fact an instrument

My opponent has made a devastating error. It is almost painful to bring it up, but for the sake of truth, I will --- keep in mind, I have no animosity towards my opponent when I say this, and I am saying it merely because the truth must come out on this issue. It would be a disservice to the huddled masses of humanity to sugar coat it. My opponent brings up the blue man group. The blue man group, s/he sez, are an example of a music outfit which uses anti-musical objects to make quasi music sounds. This is correct. However, they clearly do not use mayonnaise. Even if their tubs or pipes or whatever were filled with mayonnaise, it is not mayonnaise itself which is making the sound. It is the percussive elements of the pipes. Mayonnaise may be muting the sound, but to say that such is the sound of mayonaise is equivalent to saying that the sound of a guitar is the sound of a muted palm. It is not. The palm-muting is only one aspect of the entire rigamorale. Now, I ask you, dear readers --- if mayonaise, in itself, were musical, wouldn't the blue man group be using it? Consider the types of "instruments" they use in their live shows, numerically: 1. Cackling geese 2. Wiffle-ball bats 3. 5 howling pugs 4. A beluga whales 6. A marwals 5. Probably some goldfishes (not the cracker kind) 8. Tap-dancers or two 9. Fish sticks 10. Mayonaise 11. A tabby cats 12. A microwave 13. An old episode of "All in the Family" 13. Pez dispenser 14. A tire iron 15. The bassoon 16. Oranges with little umbrellas sticking out of them 17. VHS tapes Source: http://www.blueman.com... Considering this, it is clear that not only did I win this debate, but my victory in this debate is so complete and assured that I even won adjacent debates. That is, just as a large stone when thrown into a pool causes a splash so large it can even get into the neighbors' yard, so too my victory here is so astounding and amazing that it means I have won other debates that I did not even join in, or comment on. This victory is probably going in the Guiness world records as the most biggest win in any debate ever. Nonetheless, I appreciate my opponent for making such a lousy case for the use of mayonnaise as a music instrument, for it ensures that I will now be mad a judge on this website and get paid real money into my paypal for doing so. Thank you, opponent! May your next loss not be so gruesome!
Mayonnaise is in fact an instrument

I will retaliate again with the fact that I never stated that mayonnaise is a MUSICAL instrument, whether you believe I implied it or not, is irrelevant. Although for your sake, I will begin this round by stating how mayonnaise can be an instrument. My opponent said "If it mayonnaise makes ANY NOISE AT ALL, that noise is disgusting, and no one would listen to it except maybe fans of Punk Rock" and from that we can conclude that he (or she) does not in fact know what kind of sound mayo makes and that s/he is assuming that the noise is unpleasant, therefore we know that "con" is making a statement without truly knowing what s/he is saying. we can tell s/he doesn't know what sound it makes because s/he said this "IF it mayonnaise makes ANY NOISE AT ALL." Notice how my opponent said "if." The blue man group, for example, uses buckets and bins as a drum kit. Many people go see the blue man group every time they perform. Those buckets' original purpose was not to be used as an instrument, it is the same with mayonnaise. In fact who is to say that the buckets aren't filled with mayonnaise. In fact I saw a few street performers attempting to imitate the blue man group (by using buckets as drums) and during the performance I realized that one smaller bucket, was filled with ketchup! Who is to say that one of the other buckets wasn't filled with another condiment, such as mayo maybe? I believe it is wholly possible. Before con begins to argue that "it isn't music" or that "nobody would listen to it" I would like to point out that they had attracted a numerous group of people and were receiving large tips. That most likely means that people did enjoy the music coming from the instruments made of condiments. My opponent argues that cephalopods are intelligent. Whether that is true or not does not matter. When a real life cephalopod tells my mayonnaise is not an instrument, I may change my point of view. I say again that while an instrument does not have to be solely for music, for the sake of keeping an interesting debate I will argue with the fact that it is. I would just like to point out that con numbered his points incorrectly: He skipped #3 and instead of putting #5 he wrote #21. May the best debater win. The prosecution rests.
Mayonnaise is in fact an instrument

I ask my opponent, isn't everything truly an instrument for something? Note that an instrument does not have to be musical, and neither did I specify that it is a musical instrument, while that was part of my first argument, I did not state mayo is ONLY a musical instrument . I would like to quote my opponent "(mayo) It is designed to be spread over a piece of bread in order to enhance the flavor thereof" A definition of an instrument is something used by another as a means or aid. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instrument A sandwich is meant to be eaten and a large part of eating is the taste. When you eat something, isn't the first thing that comes to mind how it tastes? A lemon for example, when you put it in your mouth instantly your face will pucker up because it tastes sour. Mayo is used to aid, or enhance, the taste of a sandwich. Therefore the sandwich is using it as an aid to its taste. I would also like to point out that my opponent said mayonnaise can not be an instrument because that was not its purpose, I would like to prove that he is wrong. Take bubble wrap as an example, it is used for packaging, correct? That was not its original purpose. It was originally meant to be wallpaper, but the designers realized it would be a good packaging tool, or instrument. I will quote my source below: Bubble wrap was invented in 1957 by engineers Alfred Fielding and Marc Chavannes in Hawthorne, New Jersey, USA. Fielding and Chavannes sealed two shower curtains together, creating a smattering of air bubbles, which they originally tried to sell as wallpaper. When the product turned out to be unsuccessful as wallpaper, the team marketed it as greenhouse insulation.Although Bubble Wrap was branded by Sealed Air Corporation (founded by Fielding and Chavannes) in 1960, it was not until a year later that its use in protective packaging was discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org...(brand) So bubble wrap had TWO purposes it was meant to be used for before it became used for what we use it for today. In fact I would just like to point out that in my video (first round) Squidward states that mayo is in fact NOT an instrument, why do I bring this up, you ask? We know that people who are stupid know less, and according to this chart (found from various sources) Squidward is below average when it comes to intelligence so we must assume he knows less than an average person and therefore we can conclude that his word is not reliable. Here is the chart http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net... My opponent said that just because a cat purrs it is not a musical instrument. While that may or may not be true, a cat is most defiantly an instrument. For those of you who have a cat, hasn't he or she picked you up when you were sad, or made you happy just when you thought you would cry? If so that means the cat is an aid, or means to your happiness. As stated above, an instrument is something used by something else as an aid or means to do or obtain something, isn't the cat helping you obtain happiness, just as the mayo is aiding the sandwich in tasting good?
Mayonnaise is in fact an instrument

Of course mayonnaise is NOT an instrument. It is a sandwich spread. It is not designed to timber and pitch, like your link says. It is designed to be spread over a piece of bread in order to enhance the flavor thereof. The fact that it makes sounds doesn't mean its a music instrument, does it? By that logic, everything that makes sound is a music instrument. A cat purrs. Is that mean its a xylophone or something? A toilet flushes and makes noise. I don't hear any toilets flushing on Lady Gaga's duet with Tony Bennett! I can stomp on styrofoam. It doesn't make me Nostradamus! I quote: "Mayonnaise was invented in 1756 by the French chef of the Duc de Richelieu. After the Duc beat the British at Port Mahon, his chef created a victory feast that was to include a sauce made of cream and eggs. Realizing that there was no cream in the kitchen, the chef substituted olive oil for the cream and a new culinary creation was born. The chef named the new sauce 'Mahonnaise' in honor of the Duc's victory." http://recipes.howstuffworks.com... There is NO mention of it being a musical instrument, whatsoever. I can hardly believe someone seriously came up with this.
Mayonnaise is in fact an instrument

Mayonnaise (commonly referred to as mayo) is in fact an instrument. A musical instrument is an instrument created or adapted to make musical sounds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument. A musical sound is any tone with characteristics such as controlled pitch and timbre. http://www.britannica.com.... By hitting, or stirring mayo you can create a slapping or swooshing sound which you can control based on how much mayo there is or how hard you are slapping or stirring. I wish my opponent good luck, whoever they may be. P.S before answering, watch this video:
Donnie Darko is the best high school movie ever.

You know what? I actually think you're right. I don't think it's the best high school movie, but bringing up Rebel without a Cause was a smart move. It had all the things I said I loved about Donnie Darko's high school aspect (good acting, good story, good characters) but Rebel without a Cause isn't as weird and depressing as Donnie Darko. So, you win. Is that how this site works? I can never tell.
Donnie Darko is the best high school movie ever.

Rebutting My OpponentThis debate really boils down to subjectiveness. I could just simply deny that Donnie Darko is "mesmerizing" and it would be just as objectively valid as the claim that it is. The real devastation to my opponent's case is A Rebel Without A Cause. I truly believe this was the trump card in the debate, because it is hard to argue that a movie like Donnie Darko could surpase a timeless classic like that no matter how unique it may be, or no matter how much my opponent subjectively likes it. Since there are not very many objective ways to judge this debate as far as "best" is concerned, we have to go with the movie that has not just stood the test of time, but probably will stand the test of time in the future. Objectively, and self-evidently, this movie is A Rebel Without A Cause. An objective fact about this movie is that it stars the biggest star of that time, and is the movie that made him famous. Jake Gyllenhaal is not the biggest star of our time, and Donnie Darko did not make him famous. A Rebel Without A Cause grossed grossed $4.6 million and Donnie Darko grossed $4.1 million. This is incredible, as money was worth a lot more back then and A Rebel Without A Cause still comes out victorious. ConclusionI respect my opponent's opinion, but positing A Rebel Without A Cause was a trump card. The resolution has been negated. Sources[1] http://www.emanuellevy.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Donnie Darko is the best high school movie ever.

I agree with you that those are great movies, but I don't think they beat Donnie Darko. On Rebel without a Cause: I agree with you that it's a great film. One of the all-time best. James Dean gives an amazing performance and is very relatable. If Donnie Darko wasn't so mesmerizing and simply unique, I'd say Rebel without a cause was the best. On Kids: I can say I think we have differing opinion on kids. I thought the movie was cool, but it got a little too harsh with some of the sex and violence. It can be argued that Donnie Darko got harsh at times, but it made up for it with it's clever humour. On the Karate Kid: Another timeless classic, one of my favorite films, but I can't say it comes as close to Darko as Rebel without a Cause does. I found it to be a tad bit cheesy at times, and I never got that feeling with Donnie Darko. Everything felt kind of normal- at least the high school stuff - like Gretchen and Donnie. I felt their relationship in this movie was easily the most realistic relationship in any high school movie. I respect your opinion, and am glad I got a sophisticated debater. The main reason I love Donnie Darko so much is how it's one of the few high school films you want answers from, but also don't want answers.
Donnie Darko is the best high school movie ever.

Lets take a good look at the argumentation provided by Pro, and see if it actually holds up to critical scrutiny. Rebutting My Opponent's Argument"It's the best one for multiple reasons. You've got a great plot that follows Donnie through high school and this spiritual journey. "According to Pro, a "spiritual journey" scores Donnie Darko some points in the debate. For the sake of argument I am willing to grant this. "You've got unique and relatable characters, and some of the best performances of all time. "I am only willing to grant one third of this. The characters were unique, but not relatable (one's parent killed her other parent, the teacher has a book room where he talks to students about time travel, a teenager that is insane/ time travelling ect. ). Also, the acting was good but there are way too many good movies to put it up there with some of the best performances. Donnie Darko is not up there with Scarface or Gone With The Wind. "Unlike so many other high school movies, this one gives the viewer genuine emotion, and perplexes them throughout. Is it the best film of all-time? Maybe, but it's certainly the best high school movie of all-time. "The above seems to delve off into a deeper level of subjectiveness, making his argument vague to the point of worthless here. Better High School Movies Than Donnie DarkoA Rebel Without A Cause James Dean was the most famous actor of his time, and he is remembered for this movie to this day. His character is more relatable than Donnie Darko as it does not involve being a time traveller or being potentially proper crazy. The "Chicken Run" segment will always be remembered, while Donnie Darko is only a good movie for our time. It is not a timeless classic like A Rebel Without A Cause, Kids When it comes to relatabilty, this movie hits right at home. This drama has violence, a good plot, sex, and consequences. This is definitely a cult classic. The Karate Kid This is the drama filled story of a high school teen who gets bullied, and learned martial arts. It demonstrates discipline, spirituality, and contains all the the elements of a timeless classic. Conclusion Any one of the movies I mentioned is sufficient to negate the resolution.
Donnie Darko is the best high school movie ever.

It's the best one for multiple reasons. You've got a great plot that follows Donnie through high school and this spiritual journey. You've got unique and relatable characters, and some of the best performances of all time. Unlike so many other high school movies, this one gives the viewer genuine emotion, and perplexes them throughout. Is it the best film of all-time? Maybe, but it's certainly the best high school movie of all-time.