BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
give me a rational reason to substantiate your basis for being an atheist

My opponent starts out by stating: I first want to start by saying that everyone has faith of some kind. You yourself have faith that god doesn't exist-because if you knew without a doubd that there was no need for an intelligent designer then we would not be having this debate. This is false. Just because I know so, doesn't mean the average Christian or Muslim would be totally convinced. As to Sir Issac Newton, he was living at a time when Science was still in it's infancy, and even believedin Astrology. So, his opinion is no different then those of all other people of the time. It may have been justified at the time, but now evidence has shown that the Universe is in no need of a creator. Furthermore, I would like to call out my opponent on his claim that I can't prove that the Universe be the result of chance. I have given more then enough unadressed evidence to show that the probability is in my favor. There is proof that particles can come from no where, it is proven that Universe started at a single point (Big Bang), and it took 15 billion years to get where we are now. I am not going to mense words with my opponent, then it is both stupid and incompident. And again my opponent is betraying his own logic. If something as complex as the Universe has to have a cause, then so does something even more complex then the Universe. Yes, I do think that matter and energy have existedn for ever, but they are not complex. Now let's analyze what my opponent is arguing. He is saying that rather then the simple small building blocks forming up everything gradually and resulting into a explosion, he is saying that there was a very complex thing that has always existed, and then started a big explosion that then started to change constantly for 15 billion years and then eventually become what we see today. According to all our data everything on Earth started from small organisms and then billions years later they had evolved into us and other organic life-forms. So, with the evidence I will conclude that the first is more rational and logical. I will go on to concede the Problem of Suffering. It has no use as to the fact that it is ment to battle against Theism, and my opponent is clearly a Deist. So I will contend that my other arguments are just fine in proving why Atheism is a rational stance to hold. Now as for the Paradox of the Stone, my opponent fails to see the point in it. If a god can not perform both the abilities at the same time then it is obviously not all-powerful, and therefore can not possibly create something as complex as the Universe and whatever else may be in the everlasting reaches of space. Since god would have to create logic alonng with time and such, then there would be no logical impossibilies for such a god. ConclusionAnd I will concluse this by saying that I fulfilled my burden of proof. I have stated several good rational reasons to be an Atheist. I have given countless scientific and logical facts that show why it is improbable that it could have been the product of intelligent design, and I have refuted my opponent's argument from design.
give me a rational reason to substantiate your basis for being an atheist

I am very curios as to why you choose your positioning side as an atheist? Its very interesting to see if you will side with science or philosophy to validate your argument. I have studied debates like this for a while and it seems like people of your faith ( i know you dont, or will never call it that, but that is what it is ) have a certain type of confidnece that you bring to the table, when it comes to arguments like this. I will keep my morality and be respectful, even though i know if I drew the truth out on a etch-a-sketch you would still be skeptical, but what else could you expect from a person with the certain kind of faith that you have. You will read this and pick the word faith out and think that you are an atheist, so how could you have faith, but rather if you realize it or not you do. oh yeah, I am not a christian, its just fun proving its truth!!! Take the debate, people love heariung your typical, repetive arguments.
Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

Response A: This argument is a complete strawman evident that my opponent has absolutely no idea what I'm trying to argue for. I not only conceded that other groups can be disadvantaged as homosexuals are (even though I've provided evidence to say that homosexuals are more disadvatanged and my opponent's evidence points toward that same conclusion), but I argue that these other groups should have legislation done for them as well. The focus of this debate is the enumeration of bullying against sexual orientation into protocol for dealing with bullying in schools, and enumeration for bullying against obesity and people with deficiencies in speech or otherwise other impediments can be included as well. Should they be included? Absolutely. Are they the specific focus of this debate? Absolutely not. The essential question in this debate is whether or not sexual orientation should be included in this enumeration, and unfortunately, my opponent's rebuttals deviate from the true focus of this debate. Even if we were talking about a legislation that solely focuses on sexual orientation and nothing else, another piece of legislation can be made for other groups anyway if needed (and is needed). My opponent's arguments about discrimination are not a real issue.Reponse B: First, my opponent obviously did not read my evidence in detail because it included a statement that said that bullying against gays is more intense than other groups. Needless to say, this response is only an extension of Response A's strawman, and I've already addressed this. My opponent completely misunderstands my case.
Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

The debate seems to focus on 2 issues. Response A: Pro concedes that other groups may be disadvantage similarly to homosexuals and advocates legislation in their cases as well. The question becomes now "where do we draw the line? " Let's go back to the resolution which explicitly advocates anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation - and I ask, how does one focus on an issue if not by discriminating against others? It's apparent that Pro wants to create a caste system of discrimination where certain types of bullying are treated as worse than others. This brings us to our next point where I believe the crux of the debate lies. However, before I go there I'd like to hear Pro state one group which would not be covered by anti-bullying laws and how such a view is justified. In essence, Pro can "open the floodgates" for any disadvantage I name without a problem - but to specifically focus on sexual orientation inherently requires discriminating against other forms of bullying and outright stating that the sufferers of that abuse - however severe - do not warrant the same attention as those who face bullying due to sexual orientation. Response B: I'm still willing to grant the hypothetical world where GLBT is the only group that is disproportionately bullied. Would legislation in such a case then be justified? I'd say still no. Certainly since group A might be discriminated against at a higher percentage than B, C, D doesn't mean discrimination doesn't occur to B, C, D. Moreover, this says nothing of the severity of the discrimination/bullying. I would advocate legal evaluation on much more case-by-case basis rather than sweeping legislation that makes allowances for members of one group and not others regardless of severity. My point remains that non-GLBT bullying victims deserve the exact same treatment as GLBT victims depending on the severity and frequency. As soon as we begin targeting one group for special treatment we inherently ignore the plights of other groups.
Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

This debate has turned into semantics. My claim is that Pro's interpretation of his resolution is misleading. Let's take an example. Say a mayor of a town announces the passage of a special piece of anti-crime legislation that "focuses on jewelry store theft." Such a claim heavily implies that either extra resources or harsher sentencing laws are being enacted to counter thefts from jewelry stores. However, upon closer examination the law targets not just jewelry stores but all thefts in general under the given jurisdiction with no special protection given to jewelry stores in the context of similar thefts of that nature. Would it still be rightful to say that the piece of legislation "focuses" on jewelry store thefts? I'd say the claim is misleading at best and a gross misinterpretation at worst. To bring this back to the issue at hand, how can one claim to "focus" on sexual orientation when every other possible discrimination claim is being treated as equally important under Pro's own terms? The term "focus" implies a kind of exclusivity. For instance, to "focus" in on an amoeba under a microscope is to apply special attention to the amoeba and to essentially neglect other pieces of matter outside the amoeba under the microscope. It would be disingenuous for Pro to deny this. Pro insists that people with disabilities or the obese are not the subject of this debate, but clearly Pro has both mentioned them and accepted that they deserve their own legal protections. I would also like to note that Pro has never answered my challenge as to what groups should not be given protection. From this it's implied that Pro actually favors general provisions against bullying rather than the resolution which carries much different implications. I would also question Pro's sources, but this is a whole other point that's removed from the central issue of contention. Even if we take the high 84.4% figure cited by the GLSEN study that is essentially equal to the amount faced by stutterers as cited earlier considering margin of error. Additionally, one much consider the degree of harassment, the subjectivity of self-reporting, and the pressures that GLBT students are under when answering these surveys. In conclusion, it appears that we both agree on general anti-bullying provisions that would cover virtually all cases of harassment in schools. However, the resolution clearly states that Pro is arguing for special provisions that FOCUS in GLBT victims. Not – as he has tried to claim – that governments ought to legislate anti-bullying policies that merely cover or include discrimination claims based on sexual orientation.
Transparency vs. Secrecy

Resolution: Governmental transparency ought to be preffered to secrecy in the United States. It is the stance of mysel, the negative, that secrecy is superior to transparency within governments. To prove this, I present the exterior moral justification of Freedom. Freedom ought to be pursued in all instances of life, to ensure that the general welfare of the global community is upheld. To maintain clarity, I offer the criterion of a Constitutional Republic, to make certain that freedom does not devolve into anarchy. Freedom within the bounds of a constitutional republic remains self limiting. Frederic Bastiat said that liberty is "the ability to do what one sees fit, without inhibitng anothers ability to do the same". Let us proceed to my contentions. Contention 1: Secrecy Protects Freedom If the United States government were to remain entirely transparent, as the affirmative advocates, then our country would collapse. We see this on a minor scale, with the example of SEAL Team Six. After the assassination of bin Laden, the identity of the team that shot him was compromised, leading to the deaths of the team members. On a much larger scale, Wikileaks revealed critical, classified, governmental documents, which hurt America's image. Thankfully, the US still pursues secrecy, and because much of our government, and particularly our military, remains secret, foreign dictatorships, who seek to inhibit freedom, are incapable of conquering us. Thus, preserving our secrecy protects the freedom of America and her people. Contention 2: Transparency Harms Freedom If the United States government were to sacrifice its secrecy in favor of more transparency, then America's autonomy would be harmed. If we had not kept the Manhattan Project secret during WWII, then the Japanese may have built one first, and the world would stand a good chance of being controlled by the Axis powers today. There are countless examples of where transparency in government harms individual and national freedom and for that the resolution falls.
THW: ban smoking everywhere

While I agree with my opponent that I only talked about in public places, I thought it would be evident that the damage done by cigarettes is a detriment to persons. Like I previously stated, there are 480,000 deaths a year due to firsthand smoking. There comes a point where we have to be responsible for the greater good, and not for our own selfish desires. 480,000 is a gigantic number. One that can't be swept under the rug. This is the basic shopping list for cigarettes: Ammonia: Household cleaner Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals Arsenic: Used in rat poisons Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas Cadmium: Used in batteries Cyanide: Deadly poison DDT: A banned insecticide Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals Lead: Poisonous in high doses Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens Methoprene: Insecticide Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984 Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element Not to mention 4000 more chemicals. Cigarettes have been proven to damage your genes within minutes of you smoking them. Your genes are what you pass on to your children and then to your grandchildren. You are not only harming yourself. You stated that getting rid of cigarettes would not destroy, but at least severely damage the economy. The cigarette industry is estimated to be worth a total of 35 billion dollars. While this is not to be laughed at, the GDP of the united states is worth over 17.5 Trillion. The cigarette industry only accounts for 1/500th of our economy. The average number of cigarettes per person per year is over 1000. (1038 to be exact) With 63% of the population of the United states being adults, That accounts for over 532,224 pounds of waste PER YEAR. Over 5 million pounds of waste in the last 10 years alone. Not only do the chemicals damage us, but they also damage the environment. Incinerating them is not an option and putting them in a landfill lets the dangerous chemicals seep into the ground. If Marijuana and other drugs are banned, the why are cigarettes still allowed? They have no medical properties, at least no positive ones. If addiction to other drugs is a terrible thing, then why is addiction to cigarettes a banal thing? There are absolutely ZERO benefits to cigarettes. Thank you and please consider my argument.
THW: ban smoking everywhere

Before going on to my argument, I will first rebut and refute to what the proposition has stated. Yes, I agree that smoking and secondhand smoking will damage people, and kill, to a certain extent. Yes, I certainly would not like an axe murderer who is happy, and I certainly agree on the point that smoking can be dangerous to others. However, this is only the case in some public smokings. In public, yes, secondhand smoking exists. They can be dangerous. However, this is not the case for someone who is smoking at home, or private places. When smoking in private places, the smoker harms nobody, and secondhand smoking does not exist there. As I have said, a human does what he wants with himself, and by private smoking, he is doing what he want, and he is harming nobody. And so, when it is somewhat justifiable when banning public smoking, it is certainly not when banning private smoking, and the motion includes the two kinds, and so my opponent has certainly made a right point about public smoking, but has not for private smoking. My second argument is about the effects to the economy when all smoking is banned. First, when all smoking is banned, what happens to the tobacco farmers? They had made money be growing tobacco and selling them. When all smoking is banned, they will not be able to sell this crop, and they will likely go under. And to protect these tobacco farmers, we must not ban all smoking. Second, cigarette companies contribute a lot to the economy by selling cigarettes. When all smoking is banned, then these companies must go under, just like the tobacco farmers, and their portion of contributing to the economy will not be there anymore. I am not saying that the whole economy will fail-I am saying that a part of economy will not be there, and we would not be able to do with that part of the economy. And this is why these assertions connect to the caseline. We must oppose.
THW: ban smoking everywhere

First and foremost, I accept you challenge. On many points, I agree with you. Every single persons rights are important, and a government restriction on what we can and can't do is a terrible idea. I think that people should do what makes them happy. But let me ask you this. If a being an axe murderer makes someone happy, would you let them be happy at the detriment of others? My point in this being, that smoking KILLS. According to the CDC "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.1 This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1" You read that right. 41,000 people die every year as a result of second hand smoke. This isn't even when you're smoking the cigarettes yourself, as that imparts a risk ten times higher! So you can keep smoking away, but you're killing people. I look forward to a high level argument. Good luck and have fun :)
THW: ban smoking everywhere

In this place called Earth, there are an intelligent species called humans. These humans have a set of rights that everyone must keep. And because of this, smoking must not be banned. Before moving on to my arguments, I will first define some important terms in the motion. Smoking obviously means any kind of smoking, and by everywhere, I mean everywhere, even all the smokers' homes. My caseline is that banning smoking will not cause any benefit in society. In the first round, I will be stating the first argument about the rights of people, second round the effect to economy, and finally the third round about the inefficiency of it. My first assertion is that the rights of people must be protected. As stated before, humans have a set of rights that no one can disobey or challenge. And one of these human rights that a human has is the freedom of choice, that a human has all the justification and rights reserved for eating, drinking, and other things. Smoking is one of them. Everyone must be able to eat or drink whatever they want, and some people should be able to smoke, too. When banning smoking, it is abandoning the rights that is reserved for every human. And so, in order to protect the rights that a human, and smokers, have , we certainly must not ban smoking. We must oppose.
Abortion...

Im not trying to say we can kill something because it's unconscious, but because the baby has yet to know that it is in existence it is still, presumably not alive, now I'm not saying that baby is dead because it is alive, I'm just saying that it makes no difference, and that is not to be taken in a " well it does make a difference because we just killed something" I mean without know u were alive, dieing wouldn't mean as muchI would also like to state that the definition of "human child" is a child between the stages of birth and puberty.
Abortion...

So just because the baby has not reached consicness* (pardon spelling) that means its ok. Tell me this if you were unconscious* would you prefer that we just kill you because you can't feel it, they have every right as humans they are human beings...there is no excuse for killing a human child none and there should be no excuse for killing any human at all so why do people get put in jail for manslaughter but abortion I still legal...
Abortion...

Hello since I shall be taking the pro for this argument I will be debating that abortion is in a sense right. which is not far from the truth. I may like to add that not everyone is against killing animals or capital punishment. that is because most do not find the problem with, we like to eat, we think others that have commited the immoral act of murder should should be executed. and we believe that abortion is right.so 1st we have time limit caps on when abortion may happen, the reason being is that after a certain time babies begIn to feel pain. so then yes, not to mention vital organs have been made.2nd if it is early in the development it would yet to have conscientious so it would be like killing a rock.so that is what i have for now so bye.
Abortion...

If people are so against the death penalty and killing animals...why is it right to kill an unborn child? No you haven't see the baby but if your pregnant it's a HUMAN CHILD!!!! Why kill an innocent thing and think that's perfectly fine when we are so against killing animals and etc...I'm sorry the only one way for me to even possibly CONSIDER (not saying yes) would be if someone was raped that's it. So tell me why it's ok to kill a little baby?
Evolution isn't supported with scientific evidence (4)

I am a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that God created everything about 6,000 years ago and that there was a massive, worldwide flood about 4,400 years ago. Full resolution: The theory of evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it is either flawed, irrelevant, or could be reasonably explained from a Creation viewpoint. Since evolution is taught in schools as science and Creation is not, Con's job is to provide an undeniable confirmation of evolution that couldn't possibly be logically interpreted or explained from a Creation perspective. The burden of proof will be on Con to show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution can and did happen. (Attacking the Bible and using majority opinion do not count as scientific evidence of evolution.)Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Science - Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Evolution is supposedly scientific so it should be fully verified and proven through observation and experimentation. Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. I admit that I can't completely prove Creation to be true empirically, thus Creation is religious.Round 1 - Con explains how evolution supposedly happens and provides several proofs indicating that it has happened in the past (not just acceptance). Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain Con's evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence (No new evidence/arguments added).