BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are meant to attempt answering the questions of life

Thank you Kinesis, my next debate topic is resurrection :) Note: I am not saying that humans are to achieve correct answers, but that they instinctively; and therefore are meant to, try to achieve answers the best they can. Kinesis said that "humans are not *meant* for anything." Humankind is not meaningless. If you look around, it is quite obvious that humans are meant to be born and to live and die, and sing, and dance, to answer the questions that they long for answers to, and to do all of those darned things that humans do. The proof is in the pudding. The pudding is life. Kinesis said that "We simply *are*." While that statement tries to be very zen, and all, here's something that will stroke your buddha as well: It is embedded in the DNA of all living things to try improving themselves and their circumstances. The human means of progression just happens to be knowledge. That, we gain from the phenomenon of question and answer. So, sir, you are saying that we, as a species are going nowhere, that we simply "are," until our time here is done. There's no such thing as human nature, I guess.... Plus, the statement "We simply *are* ." truly makes more implications of 'creator and the created,' than my statements ever did. I can think of a road to take, other than the religious one. One frequently traveled. Some would say that is the complete opposite of Faith road. It is the scientific route. By contesting that humans are meant to attempt answering life's questions, you are entirely denouncing the work of scientists. Kinesis is either all-knowing or has some desire to be ignorant about the world around him, life, and everything... Hey Curiosity, the cat is still alive.
Humans are meant to attempt answering the questions of life

I thank Shakespeare for the chance to debate (and would like to register my pleasure that such an important historical figure has finally come back to life. I knew it was only a matter of time). My contention shall be that humans are not *meant* for anything. We simply *are*. If we say we are meant for something, a creator with an intention and purpose in creating us is implied. If Pro wishes to take this road (and I can't think of any other at the moment), Pro must first demonstrate that such a creator exists, and then that that creator's intention in creating us was for us to answer the questions of life. Until Pro does this, and having the burden of proof as both instigator and Pro, the resolution is negated.
D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates

D. A. R. E. does not prevent many people from using drugs, participing in gangs, and violence. In fact, four major associations believe DARE to be counterproductive and sometimes inadvertently cause teens to use drugs and do violence etc. . http://alcoholfacts.org... . http://www.drcnet.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... All three of these sites prove that DARE is ineffective and possibly even counter-productive. The U. S. Surgeon General to condemn the program and the U. S. Department of Education has prohibited using government provided funds on DARE. My opponent uses an irrelevant source because it is the organization's own website and thus is considerably biased. The very fact that adults don't want a teen to do something is just cause for them to do it in a teenagers opinion (I should know, I am a teen and have seen my classmates use drugs and participate in gangs) My opponent states: >>> "This program wouldn't be used in such multitude if it weren't effective. " <<< This is completely untrue. The only reason that DARE continues to exist is that discontinuing the program would look bad to the public. It would seem that they no longer care about teenage drug use and violence. The people in charge of DARE are deluded into believing that their program works. When the National Institutes of Health/University of Kentucky study found DARE ineffective, the organization's leader called it "bogus," 10 an "academic fraud," 11and claimed that it was "part of an anti-DARE vendetta by therapists. " 12He dismissed the results as "voodoo science" and charged, without any evidence, that DARE's critics are biased by their financial interest in prevention programs that compete with DARE. "I truly believe they are setting out to find ways to attack our programs and are misusing science to do it. The bottom line is that they don't want police officers to do the work, because they want it for themselves. " 13 The above quote came from . http://alcoholfacts.org... by a leading DARE executive. This shows that they are deluded. In face of evidence to the contrary, they continue to insist that DARE works. My opponent has still failed to provide any facts or proof that DARE reduces drug use and Violence.
D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates

My purpose to my argument is not to state that ALL D. A. R. E. graduates avoid drugs, gangs, and violence, because that would be unreasonable. Rather, I would like to prove that D. A. R. E. significantly lowers the number of people involved in these activities. . http://www.dare.com... Summed up, this source states that since 1983, 75% of schools around the the country have used and are still using the D. A. R. E. program. This program wouldn't be used in such multitude if it weren't effective. It also says that since kids are taking these courses at early ages, their highly impressionable minds are seeing the law as good, and drugs, violence, and gang activity as bad. So while it is true that some D. A. R. E. graduates may drink or use drugs, the majority of them will not.
D.A.R.E. successfully prevents drug use and violence in its graduates

Since I am on the Con side of this debate I will let my opponent start. The definition: D.A.R.E. is: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, better known as D.A.R.E. or DARE, is an international education program that seeks to prevent use of illegal drugs, membership in gangs, and violent behavior Good luck to whomever accepts this debate.
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

When I speak of the Egyptians lack of records, I am talking about the lack of record of slaves. They also lack the records of world wide events stated in the Bible such as the world wide flood. If the flood did occur, and the Egyptians were around before the flood began, a rise in water or a long rain storm. They also never recorded owning Israeli slaves. Although historical records do leave out details, details such as a flood, which would not wipe the cave walls clean of the records, and owning slaves would more than likely be put down on somewhere. However, we have seen none of this. Is this definitive? No, but it hurts the chances. Let's say that it is true that God is outside of the universe. Let's grant that propostition. We define the universe as everything that exists, so let's say everything that exists is in the universe, with the exception of God. Everything that exists is defined as something we can observe. And the only things that we can observe are things inside the universe. So, given the propostition that God is outside the universe, in the human eyes, unobservable is equivilent to not existing, and if God cannot be observed, it is safe to claim that he does not exist, or has the equivilent attributes as that that does not exist, and we cannot say whether or not a deity exists outside the universe because we cannot observe outside the universe. Thanks for the civilized debate, and thanks to the audience for observing.
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

Pro makes a reasonable argument, and I will address his points to the best of my ability. Regarding the lack of records, Out of my own curiosity, I would ask Pro to provide an example of what Abrahamic claims can be refuted by the lack of records. The Egyptians did indeed use the Israelites as slave labor, and in an elitist mindset, I would suggest that the Egyptians considered Abrahamic religions beneath them. Therefore, it would have been disrespectful and absurd for the stone workers to honor such believes in their creations. Historical records are infamously talented at leaving details out, especially when written by the dominant nations. Therefore, I would be surprised to find any historical document which supported opposing beliefs. Specifically: I'd be shocked to discover that Egyptians recorded the beliefs of their slaves. The second point that Pro makes addresses the widely accepted view that God exists outside of the universe. Pro suggests that the universe is defined as everything that exists, and therefore, if God is not within the universe, he does not exist. I would like to point out that Pro does not argue the outright inexistence of God, but suggests that God cannot logically be defined as existing, if we believe that he exists outside of the universe. This is a good argument, but one that only appeals to human definitions, rather than evidence and logic, as science would demand. In response to this argument, which Pro has admitted was rather weak, I would ask: "what exists outside of our universe?" You may substitute any synonym for universe here, my real question is of whether or not you think God exists (disregarding our definition of existence) outside of our realm. I suggest that the claim that "We don't/can't be sure" is not an acceptable argument, as it is a position-less argument. In addition, stating that there is no outside realm would only lead to the conclusion that any existence of God is confined to the infinite universe, which nullifies your initial argument about existence. (I would like to apologize for my numerical contradiction in round 2.) So then that would leave us with two acceptable arguments: either God or nothing exists outside of our universe. If we were to argue that nothing exists outside of the universe, then I would refer to your point that everything in existence resides in the universe. Then I would argue that, theoretically speaking, there is no point in the physical universe where "nothing" exists. "Nothing" would constitute that life, nor light, nor time, nor space exist. I would argue that we cannot observe or even conceive of "nothing." By Pro's own definition, if "nothing" does not exist within our universe, which it does not, then it technically cannot exist outside of our universe. So if "nothing" cannot technically be defined as existing outside of our universe, then the only result is that a deity of some form exists outside of our universe, either that, or Pro has a logically flawed argument. I look forward to our fifth round, composing of final rebuttals and conclusions!
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

In round three, Pro was unable to post his argument due to a technical error that prevented him from submitting his rebuttal. Therefore, I would be acting unfairly if I were to post my rebuttal without allowing Pro to post theirs. In the interest of fairness, our rebuttals will be moved to round four. The third round is now void, and will have no value in this debate.
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

You pose several interesting points, and I am thankful that we can keep this debate civil and informative. As you requested, I will begin by framing my argument, rather than just posting a rebuttal. I would first like to say that I am a Christian, and freely acknowledge that there are an infinite number of things that I don't know about God, and possibly never will. However, I do believe that God exists, regardless of whether or not he's the particular God that I have in mind. When questioned about God, some believers will point to personal experience and tell some story about how prayer has changed their life, or how God spoke to them. For the sake of this debate, I will forego those types of defense, as they are not logic based, but faith based, and therefore not unbiased points. The concept that I would like to argue is that some form of deity is very likely to exist, whether he is a part of our universe, or completely separate from it. When asked to prove the existence of God, which I will admit is an impossible task, many people simply argue that God cannot be scientifically observed. Believers will argue that "you just gotta have faith." Nonbelievers will take this argument and reply by saying that a lack of scientific evidence constitutes a lack of God. Simplified, the argument is that "if we cannot prove or explain that something exists, then it does not officially exist," which follows the scientific method. However, there are an infinite number of things that exist, although we cannot explain them. If you would indulge me: I would ask if you support the theory that our universe is an infinite space, going on forever (as we perceive it)? I would then suggest that we have discovered less than one percent of our universe, while the other 99 percent are entirely undisturbed and unobservable by our means. Even if I subscribe to the possibility that God does not exist, I must submit that there is something else out there. Theoretically speaking, if we believe that the universe extends beyond even our imagination, then the chances for intelligent life are raised to an almost certainty. If man is a result of the Big Bang Theory, surely there are other planets with the capacity to support life, and surely life would have taken form on one or many of those sister Earths. It is entirely possible that there is life on another planet, possibly less advanced than we are, and possibly more advanced. Now, I understand that I have swung way out into left field with the previous paragraph, but the point that I am making is that if we accept the theory that our universe is infinite, then we must also accept that the possibilities are endless. The more possibilities, the higher the potential that a supreme deity exists. So then if we are forced to accept that the possibilities of our universe are endless, it becomes impossible to concretely suggest that there is not a deity somewhere. Whether or not we can scientifically observe him makes little difference.
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

Let's make this a fun one! Because of such a claim, I have a good amount, if not all of the burden of proof. Due to time constraints outside the world of DDO, I am going to provide a little bit of evidence here, and in future rounds, I will provide more facts as well as sources for the facts I present in this round because the time constraint is so big, I cannot even get proper sources. My first bit of evidence is the lack of records. Usually, this would be lack of evidence for the other side, and a lack of evidence isn't evidence for the other side, BUT, we all know well that the Egyptians kept records of almost all events of their times using heiroglyphics on walls. With the research going on, no heiroglyphics have been found of any claim made by Abrahamic religions. Now, that is an argument against deities, it's one against Abrahamic beliefs. However, when the credibility of a part of a claim is lost, then other parts of that claim also lose credibility. Most forms of deities are expressed as beings that cannot be sensed by human beings. Many claim that their deity is not of this or any other universe, but is outside the whole picture creating said picture. But, the universe is defined as everything that exists. By definition, many people's claims of a deity cannot be considered in existence. Unfortunately, this weak argument is my only argument for now. If my opponent is arguing that the chance is higher than 50/50, I do not expect a rebuttal, but an argument that it is higher than 50/50. If my opponent is arguing that my claim is wrong, then a rebuttal may be made, but I'd prefer an argument instead of a rebuttal.
The chance of a deity existing is less than 50/50

In my final argument for this debate, I would like to respond to any remaining points made by Pro. Pro has acknowledged my arguments and I appreciate his thoroughness. He mentions the theoretical notion that a deity could exist distantly, beyond our perception. However, then he places human limitations on said deity by questioning if such a being would be able to observe and affect the earth. First I would like to suggest that, if one submits to the concept of a deity with the ability to create everything, then the ability to observe everything loses its farfetchedness. Second, I would state that I am not necessarily arguing a deity's involvement in the everyday cycle of life. There is a branch of faith, which is known as deism, that believes God created the world and then wound it up and let it go, like a watchmaker to a watch. These are two accepted theories regarding the behavior of God. Regarding the need for something to be proven impossible, we simply do not have the capacity as humans to say with absolute certainty whether or not something is impossible. The scientific laws that say something is impossible can be circumvented. Man CAN NOT fly, however he can create a means to travel through the air. Light can be bent. Gravity can be defied. The things we think are impossible are impossible to us at the moment, but is it fair to suggest that our human limitations mean that something will never be possible? In response to Pro's claim about the Egyptians lacking records, I would respond that archeological evidence supports the likely presence of Israelites in Egypt during the 12th dynasty. Regarding the great flood, the biblical timeline would place the flood before 2500 BC, which would not have had any major effect on the Ancient Egyptian empire, sometime after 2000 BC. In addition, there are more than 230 legends about a worldwide flood, and many of them follow the same basic plot: Single family saves all the animals and rides out the flood in a great boat. http://www.wnd.com... http://science.howstuffworks.com... Finally, I would like to suggest that Pro has not actually disproven my argument from round 4. Instead of providing an argument to discount my points, he has granted the possibility of a deity existing outside of the perceived universe, and then suggested that our inability to observe this deity justifies our definition of said deity as not in existence. This is a justification of our human definition, rather than a proving that the chance of a deity is less than 50/50. Simplified, Pro suggests that because we cannot observe a deity, we cannot argue that one exists. However, if we cannot prove the nonexistence of a deity, then there will always be believers that will hopefully rely on a combination of logic and faith. I would like to thank Pro for a civil, hard-fought, and most enlightening debate. I hope that the audience can pull something from it. God (in whatever form he may be) bless you.
Police Brutality on Blacks is a myth

Seeing as the first link is interactive, I decided to input some data and see the results I received. According to (1), In 2018, 994 total people have been shot and killed by police. However, Of all of those, Only 47 people were unarmed. Out of those 47 people, 23 were white, With 18 being black, And 6 Hispanic. This does not appear to further your argument, Although admittedly I might have misread. Another statistic that I found interesting was (2), Which appears to show that 22. 4% of total crime was committed by blacks, Whilst 42. 9% was committed by whites. Although this study does point to the fact that black people are 27 times more likely to attack white people than vice versa, It does not show your earlier claimed statistic that black people make up half of all violent crime. Admittedly, I do not see the point you are trying to make with your last argument. Certainly, I do not believe that BLM protesters, When insulting police and giving them as much hate as they do, Are furthering their case. As I mentioned in my first argument, I would argue that much of the police brutality against blacks takes place because the police are naturally more prone to attack them than white people because of the bad experiences they have had in the past. . . While a minority of the cases are actually inherently racist acts for no other reason than to kill black people. This does not, However, Effect our discussion in any way. We are not debating the cause of police brutality, But whether or not it exists. (1) https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ (2) https://www. Amren. Com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Police Brutality on Blacks is a myth

https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/? Utm_term=. 3361acbb6abd Its a really good interactive website. https://www. Bjs. Gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM. PDF Chart at the end that shows that blacks commit more violent crime. But look at what this myth caused:BLM BLM shouts things like "What do we want, Dead cops, When do we want it, NOW". When cops are protecting them. They have divided the nation. Ban white people from their meetings. Top member is on a FBI watchlist. They hijack other peaceful protests and they say that All Lives Matter is a racial slur.
Police Brutality on Blacks is a myth

First, Welcome to Debate. Org Blacks make up 13% of the U. S population, HALF of all violent crime and 24% of police shootings. Do those numbers add up? NO. Oh Unarmed statistics. SAME RATE between blacks and whites. Micheal Brown was armed and robbed a convenience store. The cop only did his job which was LEGAL in Arkansas. Police Brutality is real, BUT NOT A RACE ISSUE NOR AGAINST BLACKS ONLY.