BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World Governance

While I am all for democracy, what you are talking about it simply not feasible. The other problem is that with a world government, the small countries would be under represented. For example, if all the people in the world are voting on something, then whatever choice is most favored by China and India is going to win. However, somewhere like Ireland, which has completely different values and culture than China and India, is going to be subjected to the choice of the larger countries. This is why we should keep the system of of sovereignty like we have now.
Creation is the only logical explanation

My opponent is doing what most atheists do: shifting the burden of proof. Atheists do this because they know very well that they have no evidence in their defense. The only thing they can do is shift the burden of proof. So, I would like to explain in greater depth why atheists bear some burden of proof:We have never seen an object come from nothing, for out of nothing, nothing comes. I'm sorry that my opponent doesn't like this, but this just a fact. Nor have we seen intelligence come from non-intelligence. My opponent can argue "natural selection" until he is blue in the face, but unless he backs this up with evidence, his opinion means nothing. If atheists are going to mock and ridicule creationists, then the atheists need to provide evidence that life came from non-life and intelligence came from non-intelligence. My opponent says that I need to prove creation. But that's just as ridiculous as standing in front of a brick wall and saying, "you need to prove that the brick wall was designed. " NO ATHEISTS! !! You need to prove that the brick wall came to exist WITHOUT a designer. What atheists are doing is playing the "pretend to be stupid" game. They know that objects have a creator, yet they refuse to acknowledge creation in the complexity of life. Just calling it natural selection is a cop-out. Natural selection cannot produce information because information requires an intelligent mind. If not, then show me the evidence! I thank my opponent for taking the time to engage in this debate, but he has refused to present any evidence or good arguments. His trick has been to shift the burden of proof so that he can wiggle off the hook, and in his next reply he will continue to do this. If he refuses to bear any burden of proof, I'll just have to keep on looking for an atheist that can give me the evidence. If science is really on the side of atheists, then why are they so unwilling to provide the evidence? Could it be that they don't have any, and they are too proud to admit that they are relying on faith? I think so, but will they admit it--never! Peace
Creation is the only logical explanation

What can I say? Just about everything my opponent said is false, and he refuses to present evidence to show that the orighin of life came to exist without intelligence. I don't know why he brought the Bible into it, because I don't need a Bible to know that an object has a creator. All I need as common sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. I believe that a wall has a builder and a garden has a gardener. It's not up to me to prove this, bwecause all I need is common sense. It's up to my opponent to give evidence as to why the origin of life did not have a creator. So far he has refused to give evidence.
Creation is the only logical explanation

I will explain why my opponent has the burden of proof:Atheists are always howling about evidence, yet they refusing to acknowledge that objects have a creator. They will admit that it takes a designer to build a brick wall, or a sand castle, yet they refuse to use the same logical standards when it comes to the origin of life. If I walk into a beautiful garden--nice pathway, neatly cut grass and trimmed hedges, and a few plant pots--I don't have to prove that a gardener designed it. I know by intuition that the garden must have been designed. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Common sense is all it takes. So, if atheists are going to argue against creation, they need to prove, or at least give some evidence, as to why the origin of life came from non-intelligence. I've never had an atheist provide this evidence. Most of them refuse.There isn't a single example of nature producing information. The genetic DNA in humans is in the right order for humans to survive. Genetic information cannot come from non-intelligence, yet this is what atheists claim. But they never ever ever give a single iota of evidence. Not a single shred. The best they can do is demand evidence from the theist when they refuse to look at the creation around them.If my opponent refuses to provide any evidence, the debate might as well end.
Creation is the only logical explanation

I will accept this challenge, and as the con position, I will argue that creationism is in no way the best explanation for the existence of life.To begin with, I must assert a few things:1. The burden of proof lies on pro. He supports the side that believes as oposed to the atheist side which disbelieves. Since pro is trying to assert that his belief is the best and most logical explanation for the problem posed, he must offer strong proof and evidence to make it clear that it is so. It is his task to prove his explanation is correct. As the side that disagrees with the explanation given by pro, it is con's task only to disprove that creationism is the best explanation for the existence of life. In this debate, as opposed to disbelief, belief must be backed up by evidence.2. Pro did not set any rules or definitions, so I shall take it upon myself to fulfill that task:RULES:1. Round 1 is for acceptance. The burden of proof is on pro, so it is only logical that he should be the first to present his argumentation.2. Round 2 is for opening arguments, round 3 for presenting a rebuttal, and round 4 for defending your arguments and presenting a closing statement.3. No semantics or lawyering.DEFINITIONS:creationism - creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Eart and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God [1]logical - according to or agreeing with the principles of logic [2]SOURCES FOR DEFINITIONS:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...I impatiently wait for my opponent's response.
Creation is the only logical explanation

I am looking to debate an atheist as to why creation is the only logical explanation for our existence. My last atheist opponent failed to give any arguments against creation, so I'm hoping to find an atheist who is willing to provide any evidence or good arguments as to why the origin of life was not created. If atheists claim that creationism is foolish, they need to back this claim up with evidence.If anyone wants to debate this topic, then please take the challenge.
popes have an economic liberal bias

It is rather difficult to debate when the opponent so consistently misses the point. I am not sure exactly how Pro believes that to say that it is myopic and binary to say that the Church is liberal in some things and conservative in others is tantamount to agreeing with that statement. This is rather like saying that Richard Dawkins is a young earth creationist because he once said this position was untennable. I maintain that this is a reductionist and wholly inadequate way of understanding Church teaching and I am confident the readers will understand this.
popes have an economic liberal bias

I will try to be more clear as to my reasons for mentioning the things I did and on my reasoning in the rest.Historical ContextIn mentioning the controversy behind the word "liberal" I am showing two tings. First that the term itself is contested, and as such, even if we maintain it in the context of the United States, is problematic if left undefined. Secondly, I am showing what philosophical tradition this understanding of liberalism stems from, which happens to be one which has been condemned on many occasions by the Church and hardly the basis for Church teaching on these matters.Hardly a leftist positionCloser to the view of the Social Doctrine of the Church than "liberal" or "leftist" politics have been the traditionalist movements in various countries and the distributist movement in England. These regard capitalism not as the status quo which should be overthrown, but as a problematic novelty. The removal of the dignity of man from the center of the economy, the idea that any and all collective endeavors are "socialistic" or the conception of property as an absolute right are innovations from the French Revolution onwards, and not a traditional understanding of the economy. The Catholic Church was not born yesterday, and in Her teachings on economy a wider view is necessary. Liberalism and leftism sees itself as a fight against an unjust established order, Catholic Social Teaching sees both economic conservatism and economic liberalism as revolts against the natural order.DevelopmentA mark of most (if not all) liberal thought, is the more or less vague idea of the perfectibility of man. If we enact enough reforms, if we perfect our social order, we would be able to create the ideal society. None will go hungry, and all will be equal. This, of course, discounts the doctrine of Original Sin and ignores the Catholic idea that for humanity to truly progress, we must put our trust in God and not Man. This may seem abstract at first, but it has quite a few practical implications. A movement within the Church decided to discard this way of viewing things and actually did take a leftist bent, the Theology of Liberation movement. This group, condemned by the Church, wished to "immanentize the eschaton" that is, create a heaven on earth through revolution or reform. This is not acceptable from an orthodox Catholic perspective.Neither left nor rightI am glad my opponent agrees with me on this, as it is the crux of the matter. The very notion that the Church has a Conservative position on some issues (morality, abortion, gay rights) and a liberal position on others (economics, war, nuclear proliferation, the death penalty) suffers from a rather myopic and binary vision. The current left-right divide is no ore than three hundred years at the most generous. The Church takes her positions on the problems of the times from her full tradition. To try to apply modern categories to such an ancient institution will only lead to a less than adequate understanding of what is being taught.
popes have an economic liberal bias

i dont know what point was really served in con going on about giving historical context and pointing out the various counties, just mention it in passing and move one. we should assume USA liberalism is what i meant. im not sure what con is trying to get at by saying it's "hardly a leftist position" that the church has always recogizes the dignity of man etc. this is too vague to be a right or left principle, but if anything given the left is usually said to be for the "little guy", it seems itd be a left idea if anything. i have a lot of respect for con's debating skills etc, but his points about development are hard to read, somewhat incoherent. something like "progress is given to us, not done by us"? im not sure the point. but that dont look like a right position either. trying to pigeon hole whether development is either right or left or good with god or not, is way to vague and abstract to mean anything. also the last point about not either right or left doesnt say much... this is acknoledged by me... all i said is there's a left bias, thats all.an inclination is all.
The use of identity politics is immoral

They are the same as above The use of identity politics is immoral The use of identity politics is becoming more and more common. It is something that I personally find distasteful, but its continued use in the media has shown to me that not only is the use of identity politics distasteful but also immoral. Identity politics leads to a race to the bottom but most importantly it is a blatant bully tactic. The first of the two is said best by https://www.washingtontimes.com...... This article is extremely good at showing that identity politics leads to a race to the bottom for a few reasons 1. It extremely contextual to the subject at hand when it talks about how when it came time for the Democrats to choose a new chairman of the Democratic National Committee it became a matter of who could check more minority boxes 2. It still assumes current geopolitical climates My second claim that identity politics are used as a bulling tactic this is best said by Ben Shapiro in his book Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America. Ben Shapiro and his book are really good on this point, in fact the book isolates seven areas in which the left uses identity politics as a bully tactic 1. Insitutional Bullies 2. Anti-Patriotic Bullies 3. Race Bullies 4. Class Bullies 5. Sex Bullies 6. Green Bullies 7. Secular Bullies The book is excellent on all seven of these issues and if need be I am more than happy to go into detail on each one. All seven are independent reasons in which 1. identity politics are used as a bully tactic 2. identity politics are immoral With that said it can easily be shown that identity politics are distasteful and immoral.
The use of identity politics is immoral

The use of identity politics is immoral The use of identity politics is becoming more and more common. It is something that I personally find distasteful, but its continued use in the media has shown to me that not only is the use of identity politics distasteful but also immoral. Identity politics leads to a race to the bottom but most importantly it is a blatant bully tactic. The first of the two is said best by https://www.washingtontimes.com... This article is extremely good at showing that identity politics leads to a race to the bottom for a few reasons 1. It extremely contextual to the subject at hand when it talks about how when it came time for the Democrats to choose a new chairman of the Democratic National Committee it became a matter of who could check more minority boxes 2. It still assumes current geopolitical climates My second claim that identity politics are used as a bulling tactic this is best said by Ben Shapiro in his book Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America. Ben Shapiro and his book are really good on this point, in fact the book isolates seven areas in which the left uses identity politics as a bully tactic 1. Insitutional Bullies 2. Anti-Patriotic Bullies 3. Race Bullies 4. Class Bullies 5. Sex Bullies 6. Green Bullies 7. Secular Bullies The book is excellent on all seven of these issues and if need be I am more than happy to go into detail on each one. All seven are independent reasons in which 1. identity politics are used as a bully tactic 2. identity politics are immoral With that said it can easily be shown that identity politics are distasteful and immoral.
Private schools are better than public

Ah, so it seems that I shall be the one making the opening case! I make an initial address to your opening statement, that private schools are better than public schools because the classes are fewer in numbers, allowing individual attention and less crowding. I agree with you, that this is a definite positive feature of some private institutes. However, not all private classes contain fewer students than public ones. Unlike public schools, private ones are not directly controlled by the government, either local or federal, and are thus less regulated. Such institutes might therefore hire anyone, simply for the sake of filling a position. I have encountered some private schools that do not hire teachers even remotely qualified for their jobs: they have had no education in teaching philosophy and techniques, and they have had no education (beyond a high school or college entrance level) in their designated subject. This means that however much additional attention students might be afforded by the often microcosmic environment of private classrooms, their teachers may be less-qualified to teach a subject, and thus the attention they give the students is as ill-spent as qualified attention directed toward a larger audience, as is commonly found in public schools. Furthermore, because private institutions lack the governmental funding that public schools have, they by default have either fewer patrons, and more exclusive ones, or significantly fewer resources. Therefore, there is no consistent guarantee that a private school will be funded, and it must therefore be highly cautious with its funds. Public schools have more regulated funds and administration, and can therefore have more equipment, and more up-to-date equipment. Obviously, having books and equipment, as well as teaching technique, that are as modern as possible is a highly important objective for schools, and one which many private schools have difficulty achieving. My third, and for now, final, point regarding why public schools are superior to private ones is this: public schools are highly accessible. Many families do not have the money to send their children to private schools, especially given the state of the modern economy. Public schools, being free, are of great value to such families, as they offer affordable, quality (even if not premium) education.
Parents not government should be responsible for children security

Agencies are still government entities or government funded entities. Which are a part of the government, Or direct correlation. Also no, A minimum of two police officers and all school faculty members should be responsible for the safety of the government. Once again, If you are dependent of having parent's responsible for their own children. There were be many outrages and controversies. That means everything that they do will end up being blamed on the parents, Instead of other factors taking responsibilities. Governments are there in the first place to protect the citizens living in it.
Parents not government should be responsible for children security

Having gone through your argument, I observe that it is yet to be established what kind of security being discussed. Yes, The government could be responsible for you in various ways. However, There are agencies specifically established by government to to watch over children in and out of school, At home or social gathering? If the government have to protect children, Then maybe a police officer will be assigned to each kid for maximum protection. Looking at the rate of pedophilia issues being recorded, Can we specifically state that it's the government who really protected these children or parents have majorly failed in their duties, Thus exposing these kids to the social vice.
Parents not government should be responsible for children security

This is only applicable to a survival situation, And anarchical environment. However, Most humans are not the savages we used to be, Thanks to the exponential growth of technology. If you are living under a inception, Specifically a government. The government is responsible for you, Yes you read that right. All governments are responsible for their person citizens, And provide them social programs. In some cases, They can provide socialist programs to them. You trade some rights in order to be sheltered by your government. You specified living under a government after all.
Parents not government should be responsible for children security

In as much as I understand that government agencies are responsible to security, It is obvious that government has not put in place adequate machinaries to engender the security of children specifically. Provisions made by the government is for kids who are out of the control of their parents. Government is further interested in handling kids who have already committed crimes - which may sometimes claim lives - Thus parents are left the responsibility of securing their children from danger. Also, The government has failed to organize talks, Lectures and symposiums that would adequately equip parents on ways to protects their children. Hence, Parents are forced to either read up or attend paid talks organized by private bodies who even give follow up unlike the government
debate on whether success is important to you and why

I believe success is important. Observation: If my opponent decides to rejoin the debate in order to win he has to prove you can survive without success. 1. well success is needed to survive lol 2. success results in higher income, higher quality of living etc. 3. success is needed to survive my opponent is supposed to argue why its not successful since resolution however the way this is phrased I think he should have put it in opinions. But yeah success results in gains and results in happiness. Success can be something as little as making a paper ball shot into the trash it doesn't even have to be something as big as making the NBA or getting into Harvard. Success is part of everyday living if you aren't successful in anything you pretty much die. For instance if you aren't successful in getting food for the family or you aren't successful in getting a job you can't live. I'm going to narrow success even more with this example. If you are a baby and do not successfully learn how to walk or talk you can't function or progress in society. If you aren't successful in putting food in your mouth and learning how to swallow or chew it you can't live. So yeah success doesn't have to be big it can be anything which is why I won also opponent forfeited.
Joseph Meglele is not really 100 years old

"He is not still alive therefore he is not 100 he died in 1979 and he will saty 67 until he comes back to life. "If he died in 1979, guess what? It still makes him 100 as his body was born in 1911 so his body is 100 years old; therefore, Mengele is 100 years old. "That is a ludicrus statement please prove it. It is not conceiveable. Even if it was it would be circa 2007 so he would start aging again and be 70 years old. "How is this a ludicris statement? We know people (tried) to do this with Lenin. And yes, he would be 100 years old. | CONCLUSION |I seem a bit confused as my opponent is talking about THE Josef Mengele or Joseph_Mengele. If he is talking about Joseph_Mengele, then he is 100 years old as it is confirmed that he was born in 1911, thus making him 100. If it is Joseph_Mengele, there is probable cause that he is 100. 1) Noone would support the Nazi regime unless brainwashed by SHITler; therefore, it is probable that Joseph_Mengele is the same brainwashed lunatic as Josef Mengele.
Joseph Meglele is not really 100 years old

" Joseph Mengele is clearly 100 years old, as he was born in 1911,"He is not still alive therefore he is not 100 he died in 1979 and he will saty 67 until he comes back to life. ""We can conclude that Joseph Mengele is the same as Joseph_Mengele as on DDO,"We cannot conclude this at all you must prove this statement. "My opponent states that he is 67 years old, but brings 0 evidence for his assertion" I do back my statement up and I will some more on Michael Jacksons birthday he WOULD have benn 53 we never say he is 53. 'It is interesting to note that we have Joseph Mengele's DNA [1]. Therefore, it is likely that Nazis of today's generation cloned him and brought him back from the grave. Is this not conceivable considereing that we do have the technology to do such a thing' That is a ludicrus statement please prove it. It is not conceiveable. Even if it was it would be circa 2007 so he would start aging again and be 70 years old.