BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cosmological Argument (CA) Increases the Possibility of a God or Gods

Skipping formalities, let's quickly cover the issue. Pro assumes that, to disprove his thesis, I must disprove the cosmological argument; however, I don't intend to do that. Nice job trying to predict my thoughts, homeslice.The answer to this idea of probability is resolved thus: By a logical dichotomy, either A or ~A; we cannot have both. That is to say, either God exists, or God does not exist. My opponent's argument is based upon the faulty presupposition that God's existence is based on the validity of any arguments which could be offered. Because God must either exist or not exist, no argument which we could hope to offer would change that reality; the validity of the argument may make it easier to stomach the idea of an omnipotent creator, but the facts of reality don't change based on arguments and wishful thinking; in fact, arguing is our way of conceptualizing, classifying, and understanding the facts of reality; incidentally, I think that my arguments have substantially increased the possibility of me winning this round (but that might just be wishful thinking, too). [http://en.wikipedia.org...][http://en.wikipedia.org...] So: 1. My opponent assumes that God's existence is a matter of probability; however, as I've noted, God either exists or does not exist. We're not looking at a 50/50 sort of thing here. 2. Even assuming that, by some twisted logic, the facts of reality were contingent upon uncertain possibility, offering up different arguments wouldn't change reality, nor does it in any way affect the existence of God (or the possibility thereof). Once again, argument and logic are the tools we have to understand reality - not to shape it. Now then, here's your points breakdown: Conduct: Con - A 1-round debate, Pro? Really? S/G: Tied - I didn't really see any errors in particular. Arguments: Con - Obviously. Sources: Tied/Pro - I gave myself the benefit of the doubt, to be honest; but, I will admit that Pro had a couple of legitimate sources, though one of them was technically a quote. Your call.
The Cosmological Argument (CA) Increases the Possibility of a God or Gods

I would assume this would be accomplished by disproving the CA. Thanks! The Cosmological Argument is as follows: 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. The Law of Causality is a fundamental principle in science. See *1 for more info. Even David Hume admitted, "I never asserted to absurd a preposition as that something could arise without a cause. " *2 2. The Universe had a beginning. Since the Universeis ever expanding, so it follows that it can be traced back to an originating point -- ie, the beginning. For more info, see *3. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. *1 . http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics) *2 David Hume, in the J. Y. T Greig edition of "The Letters of David Hume", volume 1 page 187. *3 . http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Abortion is morally acceptable.

First I must state how delighted I am to debate such an intelligent opponent. Already, this debate has been whittled down to the very most important point of every abortion debate. That is, the point as to whether or not a fetus is a person. Thank you for saving the time which has been wasted in so many other abortion debates, Skeptic. We are at the point where we must ask 'what makes human life valuable?' The answer is very controversial. So long as there are opposing viewpoints, this issue will be debated. My opponent, as an atheist, believes that human life is made valuable through rationality. Maybe we should define that. Rationality: 1 : the quality or state of being rational http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now we need to define 'rational'. Rational: 1 a: having reason or understanding http://www.merriam-webster.com... So, my opponent believes that the quality/state of having reason or understanding determines personhood, or what is valuable about human life. He has cleverly presented this personal belief as though it were common fact. The truth is, there are no definite qualifications for personhood, and many different beliefs on what qualifies a person. The very concept of personhood is still disputed.[1] It is a matter of opinion, and is impossible to definitely determine. To be short, I disagree with my opponent's criteria for personhood, and for the following reasons. 1) I do not like the implications. By his reasoning, those that are severely mentally disabled, the brain-dead, those in a vegetative state or in a coma, and even those who are asleep would not be persons, as they are not 'rational'. If they are classified as 'non-persons' then they would have no more rights than animals. Thus, they could be abused or killed for any reason at all without penalty. 2) If the ability to reason determined personhood, then you would have certain individuals who are more persons than others. You would have partial persons and extreme persons. Thus, they would have different degrees of rights. 3) Another problem. Just when does a fetus become a person? Just how 'rational' do they have to be before they have rights? What about premature infants? Do they have any rights? As anyone can see, my opponent's qualification for personhood has some very serious problems. Which is why it is not to be accepted. Instead of the ability to actively reason, I believe that to be rational by nature is what gives us rights. This is a definite qualification; it would eliminate all the problems which have come from my opponent's condition, as all humans are rational by nature. ======================== In Conclusion ======================== My opponent claims that rationality determines personhood. I have shown why this is not the case, and I have provided an alternative. By my alternative, a fetus is a person, and thus entitled to rights, primarily the right to life. Thus, an action which denies the rights of the fetus (abortion) is wrong. Resolution negated. I look forward to your response, Skeptic. I have greatly enjoyed debating you. [1] http://www.answers.com... (Scroll to the bottom of the page)
Abortion is morally acceptable.

I am glad to see my opponent has accepted this debate challenge and I hope it turns out well. Also, I agree with my opponent's definition - there is no controversy concerning them and I'm positive there won't be a problem with definitions hereafter. My opponent has wisely decided to simply give three arguments of his own and allow me to garner my own objections. To attempt to find a counterargument for every pro-abortion argument is tedious and probably doomed to failure given the character limits. Thus, I will refute my opponent's three arguments against abortion. In the process of refuting such arguments, my own position will be established and the debate can thus go on. ==================== My opponent's 3 arguments against abortion ==================== 1. A fetus may be biologically human, but this does not mean it is a person, which is a rational entity. Since it doesn't have the required brain development to be a person, then it doesn't have the same rights as people. There is lingo that we have to be careful of - all humans are persons, but not all persons are humans. For example, a supercomputer or an advanced alien race can be considered persons as well. 2. If the unborn child has no rights, then the mother has no responsibilities in that respect. It's akin to you saying I should be responsible for the welfare of my Sims character - it has no rights, therefore no responsibilities on my part. 3. By "human life" it should be changed to the life of those who are persons. Because a fetus fails this requirement, it is not on an equal playing field as the rest of us are. ==================== Conclusion ==================== It should be apparent from my responses what my one and only argument for abortion is. The philosophical underpinnings of what we call a person.
Abortion is morally acceptable.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am deeply honored to debate you, Skeptic. You are one of my favorite debaters on this website. I have read most of you debates, and they are all magnificent. Now, to get on with it. I will assume you are allowing me to provide the primary definitions. Fetus: an unborn human embryo. Note: I understand this is not the 'proper' dictionary definition of the word 'fetus'. However, seeing as this definition is relatively unimportant, it would be more convenient for both of us to use it. Abortion: 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus http://www.merriam-webster.com... Morally:1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical http://www.merriam-webster.com... Acceptable:1: capable or worthy of being accepted http://www.merriam-webster.com... Human: a bipedal primate mammal :Homo sapiens http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] Person: 1: human http://www.merriam-webster.com... Obviously, morality is a idea that varies from person to person, so this may be the tricky part of this debate. This is why in my other debate on abortion, I gave the resolution as 'Abortion Should Be Illegal in the U.S.', instead of "Abortion is wrong", or something of the like. However, I hope that my moral viewpoint will be close enough to my opponent's that this will not be a major issue. Now that the most important terms have been defined, I will begin my argument. Having read all of your abortion debates, Skeptic, I can probably guess what you are going to say. However, it would probably go better if I did not try to make your arguments for you and then refute them. So, I will only present my own arguments. I give you fair warning though: I have exhaustively studied every pro-choice argument I have ever found, and I have compiled many notes on this subject. I plan to take this debate very seriously; I won't make it an easy win for you. 1) A fetus is undeniably human. It has unique, 100% human DNA, along with its own gender. Since a fetus is a human, and thus entitled to human rights, then abortion is indeed wrong. 2) The mother, as parent to the fetus, is responsible for the well-being of her unborn child, so it would be immoral to abandon it to die. 3) As we cannot know all, we must assume that all human life is equal. Therefore, the life of the mother cannot be said to have greater value than the life of the fetus. Both must be treated as equals. Of course, in very rare instances abortion can be morally acceptable, but for the most part it is not. Also, there are extremely obvious times when abortion is not morally acceptable, but to be fair I will not bring these up. I believe I have held up my part in this debate. I am done for now. I will say nothing further at the moment; you may present your rebuttal, Skeptic. I see the arguments you will present, but I will say nothing further until you give your argument. Good luck. :)
Abortion is morally acceptable.

While I was strolling through the forums, I saw Lifeisgood start a thread in which he proclaims that all pro-choice arguments are wrong, and that abortion is almost always wrong. I'm here to dispute that claim. My introduction will be brief and succinct. I argue that there is no legitimate argument against the ethics of abortion - therefore I invite my opponent to show otherwise. I will allow him to go first, with clear knowledge that this puts me at a disadvantage due to less rounds to argue. Nonetheless, I'm confident that I can handle whatever argument he brings forth. My opponent's burden is to show that abortion is immoral. My burden is to give a counterargument to his argument, and therefore show that abortion is morally acceptable. Semantics will not be allowed. If it is shown that either I or my opponent resorts to such petty tactics, then it is an automatic forfeit.
who would win wolverine or hulk? i bet wolverine

I'll make my argument quick. The hulk has fought wolverine on several occasions. He has won or been interupted every time. One time he tore wolverine in half and threw him away. His power exceeds Wolverine's in almost every facet. He has near unlimited strength (dependant on his rage), has a healing factor far superior to wolverine's, is functionally immortal (he can adapt to any environment, and thus does not need oxygen or food to survive, and is also powered by dark magic meaning they he does not age and cannot be killed), he can fight wolverine from a range using his thunderclaps (which have the force of a hurricane), his skin also becomes tougher the angrier he gets, he is much faster than wolverine being able to run at 700mph, and all in all is a strong contender for most powerful marvel superhero.
Has Obama's foreign policies been beneficial to America, or detrimental

For my opponents first argument, which I might have misunderstood, he said that Obama's foreign policies have made Ecuador an independent country now. That has little to no bearings on how it affected America. In fact, it might have even made it temporarily worse as in the turmoil historically following independence of a country it drops production. Therefore, America will have less imports from Ecuador, which might not be good. For my argument, I will point out first that Obama's efforts have alienated our allies, and destroyed America's credibility. Britain, our close ally is now not our ally through Obama's actions. Obama said that action would be taken if chemical weaponry was used in Syria. When that happened, Obama denied his ever saying that, even though it was on film. Obama promised help to the Ukraine in case of Russian invasion. However, he again did nothing when that happened. In fact, the Syrians sent a message to the Ukraine telling them not to believe what America promised. In short, he has discredited America, and America's word is now worthless until the people remembering these events die off. His foreign policies have been some of the worst ever taken by any president.
Is Bernie sander good or bad

Con has not provided a coherent argument that fulfills their part of the burden of proof - to prove that Senator Sanders is "bad". They (well, someone else, but I will get into that) have made some remarks about how he is disappointing, and maybe he is - but I ask of you, is it objectively "bad" to be a bit disappointing in the world of politics, which we all know is about compromising? Is it bad to not get everything you strive for just because you must work with other people that are different political ideologies? Of course not, that is to be expected of anyone with a non-centrist view in the current political system! This doesn't make him bad; it makes him respectable in that he is able to make some compromises in order to get what is important into law.I'd also like to note that my opponent copied their entire "argument" from this source [1], which according to DDO procedure, is at least a breach of reasonable conduct. Please review this action from my opponent and judge accordingly.[1]. https://bullshitphilosophy.wordpress.com...;
This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity

My partner also completely conceded and dropped the preparation advantage where if home work prepares people for the workforce with all this time management skills and stress. Preparation and education for the workforce is why we go to school in the first place, so why don't we do homework as well? pro:"Homework creates stress. " stress is good in adequete quantities. Therefore homework is good if limited, therefore homework is not usless and futile. According to a Berkeley study, some stress can actually be good for you. "Kirby discovered that the stressed rats performed better on a memory test two weeks after the stressful event, but not two days after the event. Using special cell labeling techniques, the researchers established that the new nerve cells triggered by the acute stress were the same ones involved in learning new tasks two weeks later. "stress in adequete amounts can boost future memory capabilities therefore future productivity. Productivity is good. . http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...;The fact is homework can cause stress. But is stress truly that bad? According to the berkeley study above, stress in adequete amounts can boost memory. Homework is a tool that teachers can use to assess students while at home, not a torture device as pro has put it as. Homework in small amounts can be beneficial. I am not calling for a drastic increase in homework, merely that homework maintains a stock in our education system as a means and a tool for teachers. Yes inclass reviews with teachers can be effective, but so can homework assignments that practice your brain's ability to problem solve and think. As the cliche goes, practice makes perfect.
Evolution is more scientific than Creationism

Here are layout and rules:Round 1) AcceptanceRound 2) ArgumentsRound 3) RebuttalsRound 4) Only say "no arguments agreed upon. " That's all you are allowed to say. Breaking this format will be treated as a loss of conduct and arguments points. Upon agreeing, you agree that if you break it, you get the full punishment. My BOP is that Evolution is more scientific than Creationism. Scientific: done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science (1)Good luck. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

I presume this round is for main arguments. Ok, here are mine:1- Legalizing drugs never worked. All places where drugs were legalized there have been an increase on it's consumption - even on harder drugs - and on crime rates related to their use. The Netherlands are a great example. Since the legalization of marijuana commercialization the crime rates related do drugs usage have been increasing. Therefore some Dutch cities got stricter in their drug policies and the Dutch government reduced the legal amount of possession for legal marijuana.2- If you legalize the drug commerce you'll have to amnesty all crimes committed by the drug cartels over the past 30 years. The old drug dealers will now have the monopoly of the drug sell, since they know the points of distribution, etc. Since the drug's demand will only rise, these ex-criminals will become rich and influence on politics. Therefore you'll have a new upper class formed by gangsters. I admit that this scenario is harder to occur in the most developed countries, but it will be precisely the case for the Latin American ones. 3- If you legalize the drugs and not amnesty the crimes, than there will be a war against the legal drug commerce by the drug dealers. Again, this is more likely to occur in Latin America, where the FARC are more powerful. 4- The FARC. If you legalize the drugs in Latin America countries the FARC will have the monopoly of the distribution and the selling of the drugs. The FARC are not recognized as a terrorist organization by Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela and Argentina. On the recent case of Uruguay, the FARC are already planting huge fields of marijuana to sell in Uruguay. Legalizing drugs in Latin America will only give the FARC more money, which will be used to finance it's terrorist activities.
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

I will begin with my main points: 1. Prohibition has not only proven to be a failure in every scenario from drugs to prostitution and even gambling and dogfighting, but it has also been shown to increase associated violent crimes, poverty, thefts, and "crime rates", though artificial. No matter what drug we are talking about, prohibition doesn't work and exacerbates the problems. 2. Focusing on drugs now, prohibition has only increased drug usage by adding the forbidden fruit factor. Telling teens not to try drugs only makes them curius, especially when they see movies like half baked. It is OK that media outlets can profit off the subculture and convenience stores can sell bongs and blunts, but people get a criminal record for simple possession, fines, suspended license, and often jailtime. 3. By outlawing drugs, we effectively created a new and rather large group of criminals who are committing non - offensive violations. This has led to many more people being stuck in a cycle of perpetual poverty, unemployment, drug usage, a division can also lead to antisocial sentiments and behaviors (such as a resort to armed robbery). 4. drug laws are historically based in racism, and have resulted in a disproportionately negative effect on minority and poor communities. This is the modern day equivalent of slavery. 5. Other countries refer to us as the nation of incarceration. We dwarf other countries in how many of our citizens we lock up. It is the modern day equivalent of slavery. 6. Our government is one of the biggest entities which profits off drugs and alcohol through commodity taxes and lobbying. 7. Portugal legalized all drugs and emptied their prisons, invested in rehab programs and education. As a result, violent crime lowered, dangerous drug cartels left the country, and drug usage other than marinara declined. They make good tax income off it and save space in their jails for real criminals.
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

Hello!First round is for acceptance only please. This is meant to be a 3 round debate.I am arguing that legalizing all drugs would be in the overall best interest of society.Con must argue that legalizing drugs would have more of a negative impact on society than continuing our "war on drugs".Note: I said "society", not "our society". I will be making arguments based on both national and international perspectives. (I.E., costs or benefits to other countries count as well).
Parliamentary systems are better than presidential ones

Good evening Internet! This short debate will be about which political system is better, more efficient, stable and utilitarian. This debate has three rounds, the first round is meant only for introduction, the second round is only for explaining arguments, while there are no rules in the third round. I will be supporting the idea, that the parliamentary system of government is superior to the presidential system of government. Parliamentary systems range from the typical Westminster system to the Western European model and South African variations. I will be focusing on the western European model. Presidential systems also range from country to country, my opponent will have the right to choose his model country. We will be arguing, which system is: -more effective (in means of passing & enacting legislation); -more utalitarian; -more stable; -more accountable; -more democratic; -more stable; -better in general. Good luck to my opponent and don't forget to have fun!