BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

It actually is an interesting topic. From an evolutionary standpoint it has been suggested by some (who have come up with the same observations that you have) that males are interested in appearance because of a natural desire to reproduce. For instance, wide hips and large breasts indicate a female that has the most likely chance to successfully deliver and raise a prospective male's offspring. That brings us to females and ho wit relates to this topic. It is speculated by this group that women seek out mates that can protect and provide basic survival needs to her and her offspring. If true, that could explain why women also stereotypically seek out "bad boy" types for their ability to protect, and wealthy men for their ability to provide. It is this latter association that can easily be confused with 'status'. I can provide sources and explain more in depth if you have any interest in this hypothesis. Now since I have seemed to argue against my own points, I will add: Since humans are much more complex than most animals (and certainly more complex than our primate past), there is much more for males and females to consider than merely innate and subconscious desires.
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

There is little emperical evidence for, or against, my claims-- only opinion based on experience and observiation. That being said, I think most women would agree that their selection in a spouse or boyfriend will have much to do with the resulting social status they will experience among their group of friends. This topic arose out of a very interesting conversation that, unfortunately, did not translate well into debate. Sorry for wasting our time.
The government should require a license for people to get married.

"I assert that the government has no business dictating the terms of marriage, and should recognise it no more than as a private contract. " I counter assert that it is the government's business to dictate the terms of a marriage; precisely because they recognize it as private contract. Marriage: a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Since being married carries certain privileges by law; the government is part of this contract and can therefore dictate terms. One of the terms they dictate is that people require a license to get married. "The exact origins of marriage are not known, and a subject of much debate. What is not disputed is the religious connotations with the origin of marriage in the country. " The reason that contracts, personal or otherwise, use definitions is to avoid connotations. This is why the government should require a license for people to get married.
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

I do want to remind my opponent that when I accepted this debate I said I was coming from the atheist position and that I intend to refute the Biblical God using biblical canon and the Bible. I then went on to produce the evidence for the non existence of the biblical God by showing that prayer is non effective and according to biblical canon this is meant to be effective. My opponent has then stated that "My opponent uses the ideology of prayer in his answer and there is no logical rebuttal because i agree with his point about praying. " My opponent has even gone further to say that prayers go unanswered "Prayers are normally unanswered and don't work as often as they should" and this is the basis of my evidence and proof that the Biblical Go does not exist. If the biblical God existed then prayer would work and that is according to biblical canon. As such, I have proved to my opponent (and he has agreed? ) that the Biblical God does not exist. This means my opponents argument that it is impossible to refute a deity is flawed as I have effectively shown that at least the biblical God can be disproved. In refutation of this my opponent has said that " that he and I are only human and we are not exactly capable of understand a deity in full, nonetheless prove or disprove him. I must stress that the bible was ,in fact, written by humans, having historical and factual inaccuracies. " But in coming into the debate I said I intend to use Biblical canon and the bible as the evidence to disprove God and my opponent did not object. So I have to wonder why my opponent disagrees now? Also I am not sure how my opponent can say "i believe the prayer argument is weak because the bible is full of inaccurate in many things that we know aren't right. " While I agree with my opponent that the bible has many errors, that was not the point of the debate. If the bible is meant to be inspired by the omnipotent Biblical God then it should be accurate and is held in this view by most Christians or at least should be. (1,2) However, as I pointed out before prayer does not work (3) according to the biblical verse from Mathew 21:22 which says "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. "(4) I would say I would pray for a good outcome for myself in this debate, but I know it will not work. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for a stimulating debate. (1) . http://christiananswers.net...(2) . https://www.christiancourier.com...(3) . http://www.nytimes.com...;(4) . http://biblehub.com...
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

On my first refuted point, I have pointed out in my introduction I'm an agnostic-atheist, meaning I doubt there's a god, but I think there may be a God or a deity somewhere in the large universe. Allow me to redefine deity: a god or goddess of any kind, not just one that humans depict. To clarify with my "We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe. " What I mean is a deity has so much power correct? He can kill all of us if he wanted or he could make us all billionaires if he just give the command. We as humans don't know of that infinite power first hand so we cannot know if one exists or not. To my "proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing. " I am sorry, I must have made a typo within that sentence, and am not sure what I exactly meant by it. Back to my unicorn argument: My opponent is somewhat correct in saying, "a far more logical position is to say there are no unicorns as all evidence we have shows there are no unicorns. " However, I stress something key in round two, which is, "No CURRENT evidence of unicorns" and how I said how little we know about our universe. Yes, as of current science we can say there is no God, but even though unlikely, what if scientists come out with discovery of a deity tomorrow? New things are found everyday, and maybe one day a deity will one of those things, but both you and I don't know that. With my theism argument, I was saying that theists will cling onto God for a cause and will try to prove that he exists by clinging onto him. Atheists don't cling, and try to disprove them, both not knowing for sure if one is real or not. My final thing to say is and my main argument this whole time has been: "There is no evidence for a god, yet it would be unwise to simply say God doesn't exist. Nobody knows the answer to this question. So stop pretending you know the answer. " I wish my opponent luck in his defenses. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.diffen.com... . http://boingboing.net... . http://www.gamefaqs.com...
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

My opponent has stated in round 2 that he is an agnostic to the question of God as he says it is "impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing" This seems to me to be an atheist position,as my opponent is saying he does not believe in something if he cannot form a mental picture of this thing. How I have to wonder is my opponent been agnostic about a god, when it is evident that he cannot believe according to his definition. Agnosticism is the position of someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities.(1) Yet my opponent has said you can only believe in an object which you can from a picture of. It is impossible to form a picture of god according to my opponent when he states "We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe." This means that according to my opponents belief position that god does not exist.I also want to add here that I am not sure what my opponent means when he says "proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing." This seems to me to be a serious contradiction, as the proof is impossible yet it is a fact? I would like my opponent to clarify this.I have to agree with my opponent that science does not have all the answers. However science is the search for truth, that means if there is not an answer for a question science will try answer the question and not take the default theist position. To clarify the default theist position is: I don't understand hence god. Additionally,it should be noted that such a big question which affects society at large, i.e.the existence of god, has been researched using the tools science has. Unfortunately for theists and agnostics alike, everything points to no deity or no heaven and hell. (2-4) Additionally, I agree with my opponent there may or there may not be Unicorns in the universe. However, a far more logical position is to say there are no unicorns as all evidence we have shows there are no unicorns. This same logic should get applied to a god hypothesis,as all evidence shows there is no god. This is position is made even more relevant than the unicorn example as this god is meant to be everywhere.My opponent has essentially pinpointed the problem with theism. He said that people like to cling to a deity so that they feel they have a cause. But, this is not evidence that a god exists or doesn't exist in any way. This is purely a psychological response to wanting some meaning in life beyond what we are able to do ourselves. It is sad that some people are not able to live a full life without a belief in a deity, that makes them do good things. This argument is very weak to show that there should be a cause to actions, especially since we understand a lot of the psychology of doing good.(5)Over to my opponent for their final defence for their points.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.nytimes.com...(3) http://godisimaginary.com...(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...(5) http://www.psychologytoday.com...
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

Hello, excuse my short response, I am VERY late because i had to go to replace my internet provider. My opponent uses the ideology of prayer in his answer and there is no logical rebuttal because i agree with his point about praying. Prayers are normally unanswered and don't work as often as they should. However, I strongly stress the point to my opponent that he and I are only human and we are not exactly capable of understand a deity in full, nonetheless prove or disprove him. I must stress that the bible was ,in fact, written by humans, having historical and factual inaccuracies. Science, however, has not discovered even a tiny portion of our galaxy, and the universe is such a large place that we don't know what is exactly out there, and through all of the things we don't know, isn't it possible that a deity can be one? I once again say the unicorn argument, "There is no current evidence of unicorns, but does that mean there is no way in all of the universe's mysteries that there isn't one unicorn?" No, we don't know, and we probably never will know for sure, especially for a god of that matter. However, i believe the prayer argument is weak because the bible is full of inaccurate in many things that we know aren't right. I again apologize for my last second response, and I will be sure to respond ASAP on the next round :)
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

As of now i make my main 5 points as to why I believe what I believe: 1)I am an agnostic as to the question of God. I think that it is impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing, so furthermore, proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing. 2) Disproving God is impossible because science doesn't have all of the answers. We can't search beyond the universe or everywhere in the universe. There are tons of questions that aren't answered and can't be answered. For example, there is no proof of unicorns right? Well, does that mean that there is a 100% chance that they can't exist in all of the universe or other universes? No that is irrational, the same to say if you say they have to exist. 3)We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe. 4)Heaven and Hell (afterlife) again, cannot be proven nor dis proven, see my previous arguments. (Though I think the idea of after life is irrational, but that is another debate for another time) 5)People don't like the idea of not knowing what their cause is, so they will often cling onto a deity looking for moral or mental support, trying to disprove other people's ideology. Atheist much rather accept the idea of no god at all, but will often try to disprove god, both acting irrational. I now await my adversary's response, looking forward to see what he brings to the table.
You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.

Hello, I would like to debate the fact of not being able to prove or disprove a deity. I hold the view of an Agnostic, but to somewhat of an extent leaning Atheist. For those unfamiliar Agnosticism is holding the belief that proving or disproving god is impossible. Let me explain the debate below: Round 1 is accepting the debate. Round 2 is first arguments with no rebuttal from either side. Round 3 is refuting your adversary; no new evidence is to be brought to the table Round 4 is defending your points. No refuting each-others' defenses. Before we begin, please state where you are coming from weather it be Theist or Atheist. Please tell me if you have any confusion. Thanks!
Children 10 or older should be able to have a Facebook account

Thank you for putting up this debate. I'd like to start out by saying that ten year old kids are not old, nor responsible, enough to be on Facebook. I know fourteen year old teens who are still not responsible enough to be on the internet. My friend, 14 years old, was stupid enough to send nudes to a guy and the guy posted the picture on Facebook and tagged all her friends in it. Ten year old kids have never been responsible. They still only care about having friends and making their friends happy. They still like to go and play outside at recess. No ten year old kids should not be on Facebook.
Children 10 or older should be able to have a Facebook account

I have yet to meet a responsible ten year old kid. They shouldn't be worried about social media anyways, as they're body's have yet to even start growing and developing, so they should be outside in the nature in stead of sitting in front of the computer. When I was ten I was out side running around, swimming, climbing, etc. but nowadays ten year olds are out having sex, smoking weed, and playing on the internet. Yes I agree it all depends on the kid, and how their parents feel towards them getting online.
The Earth is not round

I'm sorry but if you believe the Earth is round, you're ridiculously idiotic and you've been scammed. Can you not see fundamental issues with this? For example, you'd fall off the Earth if you were in the southern hemisphere. I don't believe the Earth is flat either - that's equally stupid. However, I know it isn't spherical and it isn't flat. However, if you combine the two, you get a flat plane inside a sphere (much like our Earth). So therefore the Earth is BOTH spherical and flat.
This Simple Explanation Proves The Existence of God!

An uncaused God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, There is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, Called Occam's Razor: it turns out that when all evidence is accounted for, The theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, Thought, Personality, Creative drive, Love, An internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, Memory, Etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
This Simple Explanation Proves The Existence of God!

For years, Atheists and agnostics have claimed that there is no physical evidence that God exists. Today, They will feel humbled because I have found something that proves the existence of God. I want you to imagine a glass cylinder. Inside that glass cylinder is nothing but air. On one end, There is a little rubber hose that constantly sucks all the air out, Creating a vacuum (It's sealed on the other end. ). Now, An atheist or an agnostic would, Most likely, Look at it and conclude that there is nothing inside the cylinder and, Admittedly, They would be correct. However, They fail to realize that the glass cylinder, Itself, Also plays an important role in the existence of "nothing" and without it, "nothing" would be unable to exist. In conclusion, In order for "nothing" to exist, Something must be present to give it form.
Harrasing Celebrities

Yes, I agree that we have said most of what we wanted to. I agree when you say that there are some who would want to keep their lives private. However the problem lies in the fact that we are categorising them into a class called 'celebrities' and once you are one of them then you are in the limelight whether you like it or not. How much a celebrity feels harassed is a question in itself. The celebrities are quite a powerful lot and if they fight strongly enough I am sure the law would be beside them. There comes another question. Why have they not done it so far? Is it because they consider it no harassment but enjoy every bit of it? Maybe they do. Every profession has its lifestyle even when they are not at the workplace. As a teacher, even when I go out with my family I am conscious about how I conduct myself lest any of my students or their parents are around the place. I don't feel harassed because of that. Simply speaking when you are in a profession you will have to go by the pros and cons attached to it and there is no way out of it. When you consciously choose to join a profession which will turn you into a celebrity and yet you don't like being in public eye then you will consciously have to avoid doing it or accept it as a part of your life and not as a harassment.
Harrasing Celebrities

At this point of the debate I am shorting my explanation as I have said most of what I needed to say. I live in Canada, and while there are some attempts of cover ups it is dangerous for those who try because once the public finds out it explodes into a media frenzy. I have heard about the rapes in India and it breaks my heart that women are still treated as objects and hope that through law and education this will turn for the best. Here in North America we too have some celebrities that love being in the public eye whether they embarrass themselves or not as well as those who do there job and at the end of the day just want to go home and enjoy their life as we do. The celebrities that ask for outrageous amounts of money for special appearances such as charities and fundraisers usually get laughed at and that kind of stuff makes the general news, whereas the celebrities that want to live the private life do these events for free and cover their own costs. I support everyone choice on the way they live their lives (as long as it hinder other people) but if one chooses to be open about everything doesn't mean that all celebrities should also be expected to do the same. In the USA some celebrities have taken this issue to the government and with on going debate are fighting for their right to a private and harassment free life. This battle still goes on.
Harrasing Celebrities

I do not know which nation you belong to but in my country from what I see around me I feel that the celebrities want this kind of attention and my arguments are based on that. I know of a celebrity who wanted a handsome amount since she was going to make a public appearance in her Alma Mater on the 125th year celebrations. It was an invitation and the school already renowned would not rise to any great level because of her presence. Now if they are going to be so business like then other people will also make business out of them. Once you become a public figure your life hardly remains private. That is why Nelson Mandela's death is in the entire newspapers of our country while the rape and murder of an ordinary girl gets hidden somewhere. This very example will tell you why a celebrity is a celebrity. Of course I as an ordinary human being would dislike any invasion of my privacy but if I were to be a celebrity I couldn't avoid it. If we talk about journalists invading the privacy then, they are here to make money and the most unique scoop they can give, the better their prospects are. They are only doing their job. As you have rightly given an "extreme' example but that is extreme is it not? Why on earth would a celebrity come to the balcony of his/her home and wave out to the crowd outside if he/she did not seek attention? Why would the breast removal of a celebrity become public if she did not want it? I do feel strongly that though we are debating over this harassment the celebrities don't mind because if they did then by now some legal steps would have been taken. Its the non-celebrity who reacts against privacy invasion but does a celebrity ever do that?