BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

As Con, I shall be proving that gay marriage is, in fact, pretty swell. And gay. Pro gets the honor of, well, I don't know, I don't know why anyone would be opposed to gay marriage. Constrains are pretty simple: - Videos as evidence will be instantly dismissed. - Invoking the vote of the audience in statements such as "Vote for Con" or otherwise informing the audience of the outcome, rather than allowing them to evaluate it themselves, is an automatic concession of the Conduct point. - Arguments with illegible grammar can be summarily dismissed. - Sources serve to cite and support statements, not serve as arguments; arguing with sources [as a way to circumnavigate character constraints] will be instantly dismissed. - The making of slurs against gay people or anti-gay people will be vehemently discouraged, for obvious reasons. - Be prepared to logically support arguments, not simply spout platitudes and propaganda. Comment to accept. Fair luck.
Tony Romo is an above average quarterback in the NFL

First, we should clarify what above average means. I believe that it would be not quite elite, like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and the Drew Brees, but better than QBs like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Donovan Mcnabb, and Alex Smith. Second, I think that the Cowboys inability to get to the playoffs has been brought to the fans of Dallas, most in part to a dysfunctional coaching staff, owner, and general manager (mostly Jerry Jones.) Also this season the Cowboys defense was riddled with injuries all year long. Tony Romo has also thrown for over 4,000 yards in each season each season he starts every game, excluding the first season he came off the bench. Third, addressing the interceptions, watch the video in the link below, and look at interceptions 2 and 3, the second one was clearly not his fault, and the third one was debatable as a fumble and not an interceptions, thus making his stats misleading. Actual source for 4000 stat: http://www.nfl.com...
Tony Romo is an above average quarterback in the NFL

Tony Romo is an average quarterback in the NFL right now. Based on the chart he provided, yes Tony Romo did throw more touchdown passes than the quarterbacks he listed, but that doesn't make him an above average quarterback. Joe Flacco is an average quarterback, now Joe Flacco is a good QB but not above average. Same thing is for Ben Rothlisberger.Matt Schaub is not even a good quarterback, and this is coming from a Texans fan. RG3 is a rooke and the fact that he has stats similar to a player that played for 8 years show how elite of a player he is. Russel Wilson is also a rookie.An above average quarterback: A quarterback that has thrown at least 180 touchdown passes in a 10 year period and/or has regular appearances in the playoffs and/or has won a SuperBowlContention One: on the chart he provided, Tony Romo is tied for first with the most interceptions with Drew Brees.Contention Two: All of the QBs that I would consider above average have had at least one playoff appearance in the past three years and Tony Romo hasn't done that.Contention Three: In his career, Tony Romo threw less touchdown passes in his career than all of the quarterbacks he listed above except Joe Flacco and Matt Schaub (who aren't really above average quarterbacks) and Russel Wison and RG3 (which are rookies). http://espn.go.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...;
Tony Romo is an above average quarterback in the NFL

The reason why he doesn't have as many tries is because he doesn't perform well enough in the regular season, not because it is the coaching staff.The reason why he has so many 4th quarter comebacks is because he has messed up in the beginning of the game and has to fix what he started.That doesn't show the abilities of an above average quarterback.If he was a second string and was able to come back through all of the things the first string did, then he would be an above average QB. But that isn't Tony Romo.
Tony Romo is an above average quarterback in the NFL

The cowboys coaching staff is dysfunctional because Jerry Jones himself said dysfunction is okay. Also consider the fact that he has a 1-1 playoff record. He hasn't exactly had many tries. Romo has also has had 18 fourth quarter comebacks and 19 game-winning drives. He also might as well be carrying the offense on his back, as he had 29/37 touchdowns last season. http://www.pro-football-reference.com... http://espn.go.com... http://content.usatoday.com...
Tony Romo is an above average quarterback in the NFL

Thanks for responding.My opponent can not prove that the reason why the Dallas Cowboys can't make it to the Playoffs because of the coaching staff, but I must concede that it is because of the coaching staff why they can't win. A good coaching staff would realize that Tony Romo cannot deliver the team to the playoffs. A good coaching staff would realize that Tony Romo is not an above average quarterback. At the end of the day, it is because they kept Tony Romo on the team why they are unsuccessful. Jeremy Sickel said that " the quarterback is 1-7 in win-or-go-home games in his career and has failed to consistently prove his worth when it matters the most" showing that he cannot produce in crunch time situations. That separates an above average quarterback from an average quarterback: their ability to perform in serious situations. As you can see, Tony Romo can't do that, making him an average QB.Just because he threw for 4000 yards doesn't make him an above average QB.Matt Schaub threw for 4008 yards, but that doesn't make him an above average QB. Matt Schaub is surely not an above average QB.Also, many interceptions are due to the fault of the quarterback. It is not the wide receiver's fault that the quarterback chose to throw the ball to him. And if it ends up a turnover, then it is not the wide receiver's fault. The quarterback should have never threw it to him. That is the same with Tony Romo. https://www.google.com...=http://bleacherreport.com...;
Resolved: Reality is a differential of potentials.

This is my first debate in a while and I am absolutely thrilled about it. I'd love to contribute to the increase in quality regarding the debates on this site.Unfortunately, it seems my opponent does not feel the same way. Rather than formulate an argument that is understandable to the "common man", he (I'll assume the gender of the opponent is male) has elected to present a quasi-scientific idea in such a way that it is purposefully difficult to understand. Seeing that both my opponent and I agree that quality debates are necessary to the improvement of this platform, it is clearly my opponent's responsibility to clarify his position in the next round, to the degree that the "common man" could understand it. To be fair, we shall say that the common man only concerns those who use this site to its potential and are somewhat educated. I'm not asking for a middle school explanation -- rather, a "I'm in college, but I don't have my Bachelor's" explanation. This will allow the voters to understand and fairly judge the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for our audience), it does not matter whether the debate is easily understood. The opponent has claimed that he can show something to be 100% true. And in my experience, that is largely impossible. I look forward to my opponent's simplification of his argument and opening remarks. I also look forward to the inevitable journey this debate will take me through the land of "physics".------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lastly, since the opponent failed to provide rules, I'll layout the rules that are generally accepted and understood on this platform. 1. No drops. 2. No new arguments in the final round.3. Be civil.4. The Burden of Proof rests upon Pro (as stated by Pro in opening statements.)Have fun!
Resolved: Reality is a differential of potentials.

This debate is part of Tejretics debate-of-the-week effort to increase the quality of debates on the site.Resolution: As a derivative of theoretical physics, philosophical resolutions on reality vs. the scientific method, and discoveries and findings of fact in quantum physics, it is proposed that 'reality' and thus the physical universe itself is derived from differing potential probabiliteis trapped along a single vector of observed time known as the universe.Pro: to show that all evidence available to date confirms that there is at least a 100% parity of evidence that baryonic matter arises from differing potentials rather than absolute physical reality.Con: to present any evidence or argument capable of disproving the absolute assertion of Pro. (Evidence through experimental testing of reality that shows a distinct difference between potential for existance and existance).1st round: Pro presentation of resolution and rules.1st round. Con: clear acceptance through statement of counter-position.2nd round: Pro 1st argument2nd round: Con 1st argument3rd round: Pro 1st rebuttal.3rd round: Con 1st rebuttal.4th round: Pro 2nd rebuttal, closing statement.4th round: Con 2nd rebuttal, closing statement.
There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

There is a certain flaw in my opponents argument; he fails to realize that atheists also "contend that whether or not a god exists is unknowable". There has been tons of arguing over the definition of atheism, but I am confident that most would agree that an accurate definition of an atheist is "one who does not believe in the existence of every purported deity thus far". Now remember, I never said the atheist KNOWS this, but BELIEVES this. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. Even though it involves a matter entirely unknowable, this is when the spectrum of theistic probability comes in, something my opponent has yet to address. I have brought up the examples of imaginary creatures such as unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and now leprechauns, and for the sake of wishful thinking lets assume that they cannot be proven by the scientific method, in the short run meaning they are inherently unknowable. Are there those who believe that the 3 stated creatures do not exist and those who believe that matters as such are unknowable and thus hold no belief on the matter? If you were to apply the spectrum of theistic probability concept, then such a matter would be of no importance. I do not see why an "agnostic" can't apply such concepts to god-related metaphysical claims . "Although I disagree, let's assume that there is no distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. My opponent's description of both Atheists and Agnostics fits exactly within the agreed upon definition for agnostic. Why then in this logic isn't the meaning of Atheist irrelevant?" Because the meaning of an Agnostic is like the partial meaning of an Atheist. An atheist contends that the truth value of god's existence is unknowable BUT does not believe in the existence of purported god's. There have been philosophical views such as agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. If we were to incorporate the definition of agnosticism, then an agnostic atheism would describe the majority of atheists now. I find it irrational to claim to be just an agnostic, taking neither side. You can always apply concepts such as spectrum of theistic probability, burden of proof, etc.
There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

My opponent agrees with the definitions put forward and therefore acknowledges that a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism exists. The argument he makes is that the distinction is irrelevant because he says Agnosticism is meaningless as in his opinion it is no different than Atheism. I will make two points in contention. A.By definition, an atheist would say that based on evidence (or lack thereof) they believe that there is no god. "Believe" can mean to have faith, to accept as true, to hold a firm conviction, or to hold an opinion (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). An Agnostic on the other hand contends that whether or not a god exists is unknowable and therefore does not believe one way or the other. An agnostic cannot apply any definition of the word "believe" to the existence of a god nor to the nonexistence of a god. The only thing in the matter of "god" that an agnostic believes is that existence/nonexistence is unknowable. This point answers your question: "So are agnostics saying that ‘they do not know if they believe in X deity?'" The answer is No, they are not saying that they do not know if they believe in X deity. What they are saying is "I DO believe that the existence or nonexistence of a deity is unknowable therefore I do NOT believe in the existence of a god nor do I believe that there is no god. In other words, an Agnostic cannot say he has faith, accepts as true, or holds a firm conviction or opinion, in a matter that is unknowable. An Agnostic sees no point in believing in that which is unknowable. An Atheist however would be someone who does pick a side and believes (has faith, accepts as true, or holds a firm conviction or opinion) that there is no god. My next point is less important but still worth making as it makes light of a flaw in your logic. B.Although I disagree, let's assume that there is no distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. My opponent's description of both Atheists and Agnostics fits exactly within the agreed upon definition for agnostic. Why then in this logic isn't the meaning of Atheist irrelevant? So I think I made it clear in point A. that there is in fact a meaningful distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. The latter holds a belief in the matter of the existence of a god and the former does not. To say there is no meaningful distinction is to say there is need for only one word which I cover in point B. On to round 3…
There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

Now, my opponent gave suitable definitions of agnostic and atheist, and I have no desire to change such definitions. However, I do want to point out that essentially, the definition of Agnostic is meaningless in an Atheist/Agnostic distinction. Along with my argument, I will use the same definition my opponent has cited. The definition of agnostic basically applies to everyone. Even if religious people say they do know that God exists, they are irrelevant since this is between Atheists and Agnostics. As I have stated before, it takes infinite knowledge of the universe to know if a god, not necessarily a particular one, exists. Faith and Knowledge are two different areas. No one has "faith" when they turn on their car, they "know" it will. If something goes wrong, they can always get a mechanic to inspect their car, and explain why it malfunctioned. However, when it comes down to the existence of God, people either "believe" or not. This is why the definition of an Agnostic is meaningless, since it states we can not KNOW the truth value of metaphysical claims usually related to deities and religion. The definition my opponent has supplied for the atheist is correct, but it can be misleading. Though it doesn't explicitly say, an atheist is one who does not believe in any god that has been so far proposed as a candidate. "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings. " This means it has to a postulated one, a proposed one, a candidate that has been given for the identity of god. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I say this because no reasonable atheist can claim to have compelling evidence to disprove the existence of a god that has yet to be proposed. They can claim to have compelling evidence to disprove the existence of a Judea-Christian god, but not to spell out the possibility of any god existing that hasn't been brought forth as a candidate. Take the example of a unicorn. Will there be a-unicorns and agnosti-unicorns? The matter is that the beliefs in deities and such related metaphysical claims no one can "know" but only "believe". So are agnostics saying that "they do not know if they believe in X deity? " This would be a fallacious thing to say, of course they know what they believe. If an agnostic were to write all the gods they have heard about on a piece of paper, and gone through each one choosing whether or not they BELIEVE in such god, then they will either choose one and be a theist or not choose any and be an atheist. They can't say "oh I don't know what I believe". Atheists do not believe in any deities because of the concept of the burden of proof. The spectrum of theistic probability spells it out exactly. We base our beliefs on the probability of a certain belief being true. Atheists do not KNOW if Jesus Christ is God, but we can strongly BELIEVE he isn't because of all the evidence put forth so far. This is why Agnosticism is a meaningless definition and really a cop-out for something else.
There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

Before I get into my argument, I would like to reiterate the parameters of this debate as I understand them. As I see it, it is NOT my burden to prove the merit of Agnostic views, but only to prove that at least one person holds such views, thereby proving that there is "such thing as an Agnostic". So with that established, here we go. .. First it is important to define the word Agnostic. As there is an official, long standing definition of the word, there is no need for us to debate its meaning. Agnostic - Etymology: Greek; unknown, unknowable, from a- known, from ;skein to know — more at know Date: 1869 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something — ag•nos•ti•cism \ noun (Merriam-Webster: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...) For the purpose of this debate as outlined by my opponent, we will use the first definition. Because my opponent uses Atheism in his argument against the existence of Agnosticism, I will also introduce an official definition of the word Atheist to the debate. Atheist – Main Entry: Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity — athe•is•tic \ or athe•is•ti•cal \ adjective — athe•is•ti•cal•ly \ adverb (Merriam-Webster: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...) It is important to point out that contrary to my opponent's definition of atheism; it is NOT limited to "current deities". So there is a clear distinction between atheists and agnostics. It is now my burden to prove that there is at least one person who holds the view that "ANY ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable", in other words, "not committed to believing in the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" (A. K. A. – Agnostic). To do so I need not look any further than my opponent who states "I have yet to meet a reasonably smart atheist who has told me that he knows that no god exists. Now of course, by that he could mean that he doesn't believe that Jesus Christ, Allah, Zeus, or Brahma doesn't exist, but I doubt he meant to say that no god exists. You would have to have an indefinite amount of knowledge of the universe to say that". By definition, my opponent is describing all "atheists" he's encounter as agnostic. At this point I think that I have met my burden of proof. The burden has now shifted to my opponent to either 1) prove that he has the authority to change the definition of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" to mean the same thing OR 2) that another's definitions, whose authority in such matters supersedes that of the dictionary, are consistent with the definitions of my opponent.
There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

The issue I am debating is of this atheist/agnostic debacle. While most people contend that atheists and agnostics are two separated positions, some atheists such as myself contend that agnostics are really just atheists. In other words, agnosticism is a "cop-out" for atheism. I believe that one of the biggest problems is with the definition of "atheist". Most people state that an atheist is one who does not believe god exists. However, I would contend that a more accurate definition of an atheist is one who does not believe that all current deities that have been so far proposed as candidates exist. This might help clear up the confusion. I have yet to meet a reasonably smart atheist who has told me that he knows that no god exists. Now of course, by that he could mean that he doesn't believe that Jesus Christ, Allah, Zeus, or Brahma doesn't exist, but I doubt he meant to say that no god exists. You would have to have an indefinite amount of knowledge of the universe to say that. Now agnosticism is the position that truth values of metaphysical claims usually related with the concept of religion and God, are unknowable. But really, doesn't this describe everyone? No one can "know" if God exists or not, but they can "believe". For instance, take the fun example of our well-known deity the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, will there be a-FSMers and agnosti-FSMers? Of course not, you either believe in the FSM or you don't, you wouldn't withhold your judgement. I propose that this is a simple case of the burden of proof concept. If you have a claim, you better back it up with some compelling evidence. If not, then your claim is meaningless. Very similarly, Richard Dawkins has proposed the spectrum of theistic probability. You base your belief on the probability of the existence of a deity. So for atheists, we believe that all deities that have been presented so far are highly improbable. This is my first debate so let's see how it goes :D!
Porn is not bad

Pornography is an art, it expresses humanity's perspective on reproduction. It is a natural phenomenon. Viewing a video won't hurt your body. Viewing a pornographic image does not kill or harm anyone. Men and women view it to have pleasure, and having sexual desires for someone isn't bad. People as teens develop having crushes, develop having sexual desires, and it is only but a natural thing to do. Pornography is a billion-dollar industry which further improves the economy. Watching pornography isn't a disgrace to anyone, desires are only desires. It is not bad to want something.
tim tebow is the most overratted player in the nfl

They have the 31 passing offense in the nfl tim tebow doesnt evan have a 50% completion rating Since tim tebow has become starter he has only been the top rusher once, and it was against the jets and he had a hole 68 yards and games the bronco's won the most points put up against them was 24 when they played the Raiders, they have said tim tebow is one of the best comeback when the most he came back against was the raiders and the defense won that game with turnovers so. .. to conclude tim tebow is overratted he's not a qb he's a want to be running back. and the defense is winnning games in denver not tim tebow
The Osama Bin Laden assassination orchestrated by the U.S Obama administration on May 1-2 2011.

Hi cocksucker, how are you (first time I introduce myself like that) I do believe he was killed by USA marines. First of all: the President of the United States said so in an official statement. Seymour Hersh had a very critical (and interesting) report about the matter, but he never questioned whether there was a raid that killed Bin Laden. (The rest was a fantasy according to him). Everybody in the know (CIA and ISI) confirmed it. This great journalist was pretty much right about My Lai and Abu Graib. Furthermore, also Bin Laden's allies confirmed (and sometimes swore to revenge) the murder of that man with that beard. Also he was succeeded by Al Zahwahri, the former number two. We never heard of him again either. If I were Bin Laden I would fight back in this propaganda showdown you suggest is going on. --------------------- Hersh: http://www.aljazeera.com... Call for revenge: http://english.alarabiya.net... Zahwahri: http://www.ndtv.com... ===== The debate should be the other way by te way, but who cares.