BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

That was all very entertaining. However, my opponent has clearly misunderstood the definition of faith as well as pacifism. Pacifism is not a faith driven concept or idea; in any way shape or form. Pacifism is, by definition, "The refusal to participate in war or military service because of such a belief." There is no faith required to simply not act. At the same time, pacifism might be the result, or end state of a faithfully driven idea, religion or concept that advocates pacifism, but in no way is faith actually required to practice pacifism itself. I digress simply because I feel it would be completely superfluous to argue a logic that has no place in a debate that is dealing with the dangers of faith. From Islam to Christianity, they all share the same belief, which is, "anyone that holds a different belief than us will burn in hell." This belief or idea has been responsible for some of history"s greatest atrocities. It is very similar to racism, "everyone who does not have the same skin color or comes from a different ethnic background is sub-human." Here is how the faithfully religious folks reason: 1. Our beliefs are the truth and anyone else that believes differently is wrong. 2. If you do not accept our beliefs, you will burn in hell. 3. The people who proclaim differently are putting people"s souls in grave danger. 4. If necessary, we will stop people from proclaiming differently by force. 5. It then follows that the use of force in the name of our faith and in the name of our religion is justified. Because of this, many atrocities have been committed in the name of faith. The Buddhists were still committing human sacrifices until the mid 19th century. Muslim Jihads as authorized in the Koran, killed millions over the span of TWELVE centuries. Suicide bombers and murder in the name of god are all examples of atrocious acts stemming from faith. Faith permits people to believe what they want to believe without any evidence to the contrary.
A Logical Person Would Believe In God

I'll try to make this brief. Firstly, of all the "logical arguments for God" posted by Pro, only one is actually a logical attempt at proving God, that being the Ontological argument, the others are inconclusive to the task at hand or do not use logic. The ontological argument is easily refuted by the simple idea of preservation of matter and energy. Meanwhile, Pro fails to explain why forced happiness is any better than free-will semi-suffering; furthermore, if there is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, it would follow that this is and will always be the best of all realities, which contradicts the free will that Pro advocates. Furthermore, my opponent's defense of feigned belief. Because Pascal's belief does not reach the conclusion that you should be subtly converted after feigning belief so as to move towards true faith, such advocacies must be discarded as they are extraresolutional. That being said, all other attacks made by Pro can, and already have, been defended by the simple fact that the Wager cannot cover all possible deities. There may be a god who rewards those who believe in him, or who punished everyone regardless of belief, of a god who, like Pro advocates, likes to determine the well being and fate of souls to a flip of the coin. All of these situations end with undesirable outcomes for the wagerer. Because Pascal's Wager cannot constitute any sort of depth on the infinite possibilities of potential gods, it cannot be used as a logical argument to prove of disprove these gods, or as a method of proving what our attitude towards these possible gods should be. The resolution has been negated. Vote Con. Thank you for reading.
A Logical Person Would Believe In God

Pro offers Pascal's Wager as a logical base for the belief in God. However, Pro ignores many logical conclusions standing in opposition of the existence of God, such as the problem of evil, among others. As Voltaire said in regard to Pascal's wager, "any interest I may hold to believe a thing is no proof of that thing's existence". Because Pascal's Wager makes no effort to prove the existence of God, it is only valid if all of the numerous logical invalidations of the Christian God's existence are fundamentally false. Therefore, because the Wager is an appeal to consequence and not a logical proof of God, God is still logically impossible. If my opponent wishes to discuss the logical problems with the Christian God's existence, he can express such wishes in the next round. Additionally, logical fallacies exist within the Wager itself. The Wager assumes either: (A) A jealous and benevolent diety exists, or (B) No deities exist. The limitation of possible outcomes it the main obstacle in the validity of the Wager. For instance, the Wager makes the assumption that a diety would prefer apathetic, feigned faith as opposed to reasoning that would either lead to the belief or disbelief in a god. A gambler's attitude in such a significant portion of one's life opposes the belief systems of many religions, including Christianity. One may be willing to bet one's eternal fate on the existence of God, but would the same person wager that such a god would believe a dishonest belief over honest skepticism? Furthermore, the Wager does not designate a specific deity to believe in. If I believe in Zeus and, after I die, the true god is revealed to be the God of the Abrahamic religions, I am still going to hell. However, if I believe in the Christian God and Odin is revealed to be the true god after death, my afterlife won't be too pleasant either. Because Pascal's Wager fails to provide a means of designating a set of religious beliefs, it is insufficient to determine which god should be believed in. Before I return the discussion to the hands of my opponent, let me quickly point out the significance of the issue at hand. Pro has stated that little is lost by apathetically believing in a religious system; this statement is, at best, at odds with an enormous portion of history. Because of various religious beliefs, cities and empires have been destroyed, millions upon millions have died, wars have been waged, and planes have been flown into buildings. Pro's dismissal of religion as simply an obligation to go to Mass every Sunday is ignorant to the world around him; monumental decisions should neither be put to illogical gambles nor shrugged off as an insignificant triviality. I await my opponent's response. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Logical Person Would Believe In God

I stand in affirmation of the resolution: A Logical Person Would Believe In God. I will be a proponent of Pascal's Wager In this life we will have to decide whether or not we will believe in a God/Gods/God-like entity. If we truly think about the situation, and make a logical choice about it, we should believe in God. Why? This is why: If you are an atheist, and you turn out to be right, what do you gain? Answer: Well, you really gain nothing. Based on the largely atheist belief that there is no life after death, you won't even have be able to confirm you were right! If you are an atheist, and you turn out to be wrong, what do you lose? You have to burn eternally in hell after you die. That is kind of a bad way to spend an eternity... If you are a theist, and you turn out to be right, what do you gain? You gain everlasting life after death in Heaven. You also, unlike the atheist, get to at least that you are right about the matter. If you are a theist, and you turn out to be wrong, what do you lose? You lose any time/effort on Earth that you put into religious matters (going to church, missing out on sinful activities) and that is just about it. However, is that really that much of something to lose? When compared to what you lose as an atheist, then no. In fact, you might even gain something from being a theist even if you are wrong, religious people turn out to be better people most of the time. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Technology advancement is not more important than the environment

Hello angienature. As a realist, I would postulate that ultimately this is an issue that will be decide by material evolution and not an issue that will be decided through human concept. I would suggest that human society is now at the top of the organic evolutionary tree and very rapidly being succeed by the evolutionary advancement of technology. I would also suggest that the natural environment is continually under threat. from selfish, human population growth and not necessarily threatened by technological advancement. I might even go as far as to say, that technological advancement/evolution might ultimately be the salvation of the natural environment.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Thanks to Pro for providing a reply! I admit, I was worried you had forgotten to reply with less than an hour left to reply!http://www.youtube.com...Rebuttal 1:My opponent again is making assumptions, and leaves my questions unanswered. How would promotion of gay marriage through the administration of law reduce homophobia in citizens, be it religious or not? And where in the US constitution and/or other law document declare the government is "instrumental in ensuring the security and maintenance of the society"? And if a majority of people are against the idea of Gay marriage to the point where the vote against it, such as with California's proposition 8, why should the government feel abliged to legislate in favor of it? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) integrate these persons into society? Why shouldn't the government recognize their unions?Rebuttal 2:Keep note, my opponent has tried to belittle my argument by ignoring it. I asked why the government should provide economic benefits to a certain group just to recieve economic benefits in return? This point also has multiple failures. If the purpose of allowing Gay marriage is to stimulate the economy, shouldn't there be a mandate requiring homosexual couples to have weddings and make purchases that will benefit the economy? And if so, is this institution legitimately the same as marriage? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) stimulate the economy in the same way? Why shouldn't the government recognize these marriages?Rebuttal 3:Mr. Alan Keyes puts it nicely in the video provided. Marriage is not about the act of procreation, but rather the types of relationships in which procreation is inherantly possible. Because the infertile are still capable of being in a relationship where procreation is possible, they are not excluded. However, homosexuals are not capable of such acts, and are justly barred from the institution. My opponent might contend that marriage is about love rather than procreation. But why should the government recognize our interpersonal relationships, romantic or not? What legitimate government interest does this action satisfy? And why is this marriage conceived around love greather than a marriage conceived around procreation? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) be a responsibility of the government, since all of these marriages revolve around love and intimacy?Rebuttal 4:By my statement, I meant that I do not care about civil unions, nor do I believe there be legitimate reason to recognize such unions. They may as well be irrelevant to the entire debate, as they satisfy neither of our positions.I now turn over to you!
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Rebuttal 1: At the point where my opponent is saying that I failed to correlate the two, it's obvious that my opponent has not looked toward my evidence at all. The correlation is that homophobia is the main cause of these negative statistics in the homosexual community, and by promoting gay marriage through the administration of law, these numbers would decrease. The government is instrumental in ensuring the security and maintenance of the society, and at the point where we have the ideals of social contract theory to stand behind government, this argument is still upheld.Rebuttal 2: My evidence shows that the products bought for gay marriage stimulate the economy. My opponent has not attacked that point whatsoever. Furthermore, we move on to the idea that when we analyze the reasons as to why someone would buy products, there really is no reason nor incentive for homosexuals to spend on these arrangements, as clearly shown by the states who have fewer dollars in their GDP because they do not allow gay marriage. Marriage in general has become something recognized by the government, and at the point where we are bound to a duty not only to protect freedom but also promote economic stability, gay marriage is the way to go. Tax cuts and legal benefits are great for homosexual couples in the idea that it provides them with more spending power.Rebuttal 3: At that point, then the argument about infertile couples getting married also stands or couples who simply do not want to marry also stands to reason because they do not reproduce either, but their marriages are still considered to be acceptable. This is nothing more than a double-standard at this point. Rebuttal 4: This debate does have something to do with civil unions at the point where it is considered to be an alternative to the very thing that we're talking about right now. At the point where civil unions are directly made in order to be considered less than marriage, this is the epitome of what encompasses inequality.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

I would like to remind everyone, the debate is over whether or not Gay marriage should be recognized formally by the government, not whether or not it should be considered a crime to pronounce your love publically to a member of the same sex.Rebuttal Sub-point 1aMy opponent has failed to correlate homophobia and marriage. How will legislation deter those of us who are homophobic from causing harm? She also fails to show how the government is responsibile to prevent any sort of discrimination. Why is the government entittled to provide affirmative action?Rebuttal Sub-point 1bMy opponents argument is beside the point. Surely she does not believe that it is legitimately illegal to pronounce your love to another person in public ceremony. (Or did I miss that story about the S.W.A.T. team at the gay wedding?) Marriage has occured since times before the government formally recognized it as an institution. Since people can still get married without the governments intervention, why should the government provide tax cuts, legal benefits, and economic benefits to homosexual couples? [1]Rebuttal Sub-point 2aBefore we can conclude whether or not a certain group is not being treated unequally, we first need the relevant facts. What is marriage, and why does the state recognize it? If marriage is about procreation, which I argue it is, then nobody is being barred from the institution. If homosexual couples do not fit the required criteria of being able to perform acts that directly relate to procreation, they are justly barred from the institute of marriage. Blacks are capable of such acts, so they would qualify as a suspect class if they were not permitted to marry.Rebuttal Sub-point 2b This debate has nothing to do with civil unions, although I do not believe that civil unions should represent same-sex couples either.1. "Marriage Rights and Benefits." Nolo Law for All. Nolo, n.d. Web. 10 Jan 2012. <http://www.nolo.com...;.
Resolved:States ought not possess nuclear weapons

I thank my opponent for posting this topic, and I affirm the resolution that Resolved: States ought not to Possess Nuclear Weapons. Contention 1: Money. Between 1940-1996, the US spent 5.5 trillion dollars on the nuclear weapons program. In addition, 20 million dollars were spent to cover the toxic/radioactive wastes that were produced by the nuclear weapons. This figure does not include the 320 billion dollars that are proposed for future year costs. Of the $5.8 trillion, just seven percent ($409 billion) was spent on developing, testing, and building the actual bombs and warheads. To make those weapons usable by deploying them aboard aircraft, missiles, submarines, and a variety of other delivery systems consumed 56 percent of the total ($3.2 trillion). Another $831 billion (14 percent) was spent on command, control, communications, and intelligence systems dedicated to nuclear weapons. The United States also spent $937 billion (16 percent) on various means of defending against nuclear attack, principally air defense, missile defense, antisubmarine warfare, and civil defense. The amount of money spent on the entire program was obviously extravagant, and the cost of developing nuclear weapons will amount to a large sum of money. The United States is just one example, but as you can see, the cost of developing nuclear weapons is costly, and states should not waste money because the results of using the nuclear weapons will be catastrophic. Contention 2: Environmental damage. Initial nuclear radiation is defined as the radiation that arrives during the first minute after an explosion, and is mostly gamma radiation and neutron radiation. The level of initial nuclear radiation decreases rapidly with distance from the fireball to where less than one roentgen may be received five miles from ground zero. In addition, initial radiation lasts only as long as nuclear fission occurs in the fireball. Initial nuclear radiation represents about 3 percent of the total energy in a nuclear explosion.Though people close to ground zero may receive lethal doses of radiation, they are concurrently being killed by the blast wave and thermal pulse. In typical nuclear weapons, only a relatively small proportion of deaths and injuries result just from initial radiation. From the explosion itself, millions of lives will be lost. Sources: http://www.nti.org... http://www.atomicarchive.com...
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

Rebuttal My opponent is essentially arguing that because P. madagascariensis has many similarities with the Geico mascot, the Geico mascot must have been based off of the P. madagascariensis. This does not logically follow. My opponent did not discuss the probability that the Geico mascot was an original lizard creation that coincidentally happened to share many characteristics with one of the 6,000 species of lizards. My opponent's current arguments show that the Geico mascot COULD have been based off of the P. madagascariensis, but does not show why this scenario is significantly more probable than the alternative to the point that Pro's explanation can be assumed correct beyond reasonable doubt.
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

First I want to point out that the comparison with the Jesus Lizard, also called by the same name as the reptile that inhabits the Chamber of Secrets, is unfounded. In this comparison my opponent suggests that the Jesus lizard is the inspiration for the mascots bipedalism. However, the Jesus lizard is really only bipedal when it runs across water, something that I can't find evidence of the Geico mascot ever doing. Instead, the Geico lizard strolls around on his hind legs, with his forelegs functioning more as arms. This is not a characteristic of any distinct lizard species, rather it is anthropomorphism. Along with his ability to verbally communicate and provide advice on insurance, the Geico mascots bipedalism is an effort to humanise him, which enables him to become the voice of a major advertising campaign. The same could also be argued about his pentadactyl limbs, however as I will explain, this is not really necessarily.As per the resolution I want to clarify that I am arguing that the geico mascot is BASED on P.madagascariensis, not that it is a member of this species. Most movies based on novels do not try to recreate the text entirely but to use its core elements as the basis for the movie. This is what Geico have done. In the two pictures my opponent has shown above the similarities between the mascot and the real lizard are obvious. Using the overall style of the P.madagascariensis as a base they have created their own unique character, much as a unique movie can be created out of the text it is based on. My opponent has not argued that these similarities that I pointed out, namely body colours, patterns, eyes and size exist, they are so obvious this isn't really possible. In summary the Geico mascot is a being that possesses all the major characteristics of the P. madagascariensis as well as some anthropomorphic qualities so is it reasonable to conclude that the mascot is based on P. madagascariensis.Image from last round: http://tinyurl.com...
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

Although my opponent pointed out similarities between the Phelsuma madagascariensis and the Geico mascot, there are also features that the Geico mascot shares in common with other lizards that the Phelsuma madagascariensis does not have. Number of fingers The Geico mascot has 5 fingers per hand. The Phelsuma madagascariensis has only 4 fingers per hand. [2] The Mangrove Monitor lizard has 5 fingers per hand, like the Geico mascot. Bipedalism The Geico mascot is capable of running on two feet. The Jesus Lizard is also capable of running on two feet. [1] The Phelsuma madagascariensis is not capable of running on two feet. Conclusion The Geico mascot has multiple lizard-like features that do not exist with the Phelsuma madagascariensis. The Geico mascot is not based off of the species my opponent mentioned, but it is actually just a generic lizard, having characteristics of many lizards, and not fitting into the Phelsuma madagascariensis species my opponent mentioned. Sources [1] http://www.factzoo.com... [2] http://www.club100.net... (Ctrl F "Phelsuma madagascariensis kochi", 2nd image)
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

As my opponent has already pointed out, the Geico mascot is anthropomorphic lizard of some description. I will assume from my opponents first round post that this point is not going to be contested. Taxonomically lizards are classified into the sub-order Lacertilia within the order Squamata. My job as pro will therefore be to demonstrate that a species within this suborder forms a basis for the design of the Geico mascot. The next taxonomic step leads you to the family comprised of “small to medium species of lizard…found in a wide variety of colours.” [1] In Spanish a member of this family would be referred to as 'el geco'. A large number of these lizards are nocturnal, however the Geico mascot is usually shown in commercials being active during the day. This, along with his green colouring classify him into the genus Phelsuma [2]. From here the Geico mascot bears a resemblance to many species, however the best match is Phelsuma madagascariensis. It fits the relatively large size of the Geico mascot compared to some other members of the genus Phelsuma, with the largest members of P. madagascariensis being around a foot long. This species is also characterized as being “bright emerald green in colour” with “large eyes” devoid of light and “patches of red on the lower [dorsal side] and sometimes also on the head”. [3] All these traits line up perfectly with Geico’s mascot. As seen in cons picture above the green scales of the body and a red patch on the head are clearly visible. It is possible to go further and investigate whether one of the various subspecies that comprise the species P. madagascariensis is a more specific match however the resolution only calls for a distinct species so I will stop here. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...