BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

I thank anyone who accepts this debate. Good luck. RESOLUTION: Theism is more reasonable than Atheism Burden of Proof In this debate Pro will assume the burden of showing that theism is more reasonable than atheism. Con will assume the burden of showing atheism more reasonable than theism. Definitions Atheism - disbelief in the existence of deity. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Theism - belief in the existence of a deity. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Reasonable - being in accordance with reason; sound judgment. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rules 1) No forfeited round is allowed. If any round are forfeited by either debater then that debater shall forfeit the Conduct points. 2) All sources and links shall be viewable for both debaters and readers. If either debater needs extra space for sources or links then they may post them in the comments section or an alternate source. If either debater does not follow this rule then that debater shall lose the source points. 3) No semantics or trolling allowed. If either debater chooses to act as a troll or argues with semantics then that debater shall lose conduct and argument points. 4) Any dropped points by either debater shall be viewed as a concession. Rounds 1) Round one is for acceptance only. 2) The second round is for Pro to present his argument. Con shall also present a argument in round 2 or Con can choose to just rebuttal Pro. 3) The third round is for adding more arguments and to rebuttal previous arguments. 4) The last round is for closing rebuttals and a summation. No new arguments may be introduced. If arguments are introduced in the final round, that debater shall lose conduct and source points.
military draft

Why exactly do we need a draft right now? We have the strongest military in the world. We are not engaged in any wars. There are no threats currently threating us to warrant a draft. And, drafts and wars are very unpopular. To draft people to fight ISIS would cause a ton of hate for the government. Look at what happened in Vietnam. The US let its' citizens die for no reason. The BoP is on you to prove why we need a draft right now. I believe we don't need one. Good luck!
psychology

"it seems the police have not really been interested in getting the baddy for right to be done, but would get anyone, even if that means framing them, knowing they have the wrong person but just to get someone for the crime committed." Not every policemen are corrupt. Also my opponent has yet to explain how a psychological test would alleviate matters. "Too much is put on the police for them to be examined in any proper way." Too much of what, is put on the police for them to be examined in a proper way? "Then I read about careers psychopaths are found in, and alot of them gravitate towards the police force, for authority and power and ego reasons." Not all policemen are psychopaths. And how a psychological test will differentiate psychopaths from non-psychopaths, my opponent does not explain. Furthermore, psychological testing is already a requirement in many police academies. http://education-portal.com... "Then I thought, you know what kind of person becomes a policeman? I watched a few videos on youtube and read a bit, and it seems they arent very nice people, not the type you would want to invite round for afternoon tea." There are good cops, and bad cops. There are good people, and bad people. Not all policemen are evil. I saw a police officer helping someone start their car in the blistering rain a few days ago. Many policemen are kind-hearted, and very much people, who I would invite for an afternoon cup of tea. "Their attitude stinks and in a number of surveys a large proportion of the public dont actually like or trust them." As stated above not all policemen have poor attitudes. Whether or not the public does not like or trust the hired officers, is not the issue. As long as the policemen do their jobs, and enforce the law, there is no problem. Again, I do not see how a psychological testing will alleviate matters. "So why are they not policed more themselves and examined more, motivations etc.. especially as they are now so powerful, in this country at least.. " The newly recruits are polygraphed before being hired. Their motivations will be questioned among many other things. I believe the polygraph, while not 100% accurate, is a more sufficient way than a psychological test. http://www.policetest.info... Policemen do not NEED to be psychologically tested, though many of them already are. I ask that my opponent explain how a psychological test will help any of the problems he had mentioned, in the next round.
psychology

well due to time reasons I cant find and post the links i've seen here but it seems to me what the media and movies portray about the police and the reality of life are two very different things. Also personal and professional experiences have made me wonder. In the uk, since the Guilford four to the present day, and with the target driven environment that the Labour government introduced which made things worse apparantley, it seems the police have not really been interested in getting the baddy for right to be done, but would get anyone, even if that means framing them, knowing they have the wrong person but just to get someone for the crime committed. Then I read about police corruption and it seems everyone in power closed ranks when this is talked about, its almost taboo. Too much is put on the police for them to be examined in any proper way. Apparantley its rife. I talked to a solicitor and it was disturbing what he said. I wont repeat it here. It takes one to catch one. Then I read about careers psychopaths are found in, and alot of them gravitate towards the police force, for authority and power and ego reasons. Then I thought, you know what kind of person becomes a policeman? I watched a few videos on youtube and read a bit, and it seems they arent very nice people, not the type you would want to invite round for afternoon tea. Their attitude stinks and in a number of surveys a large proportion of the public dont actually like or trust them. So why are they not policed more themselves and examined more, motivations etc.. especially as they are now so powerful, in this country at least..
the idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

I dont think you understand the idea of what the Welfare state in America totally encompasses. The welfare state also does include Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, Unemployment, etc. We spend approximately 1.1 trillion a year on social networks designed to "serve the unfortunate and poor". The more we increase this the more we increase the welfare state and make people dependent. Let's first put together what poverty is in the United States. To be defined as in "poverty", you have to make no more than 24,008 dollars for a family of 4, and you can own a television, coffee maker, car and more. This idea of poverty is nothing compared to other nations, but thats not what this argument is for. Welfare and such should only be used as a springboard to head into a job or being on their own. Obamacare is a complete flop for the good of everybody, especially in California where premiums will raise by 27% for people here. We need less of a welfare state and more freer for the people, cause frankly I dont want to pay higher taxes for other people. I understand the need of basic medicaid for elderly people and social security for people who actually can't work. what would ultimately work better is if Obamacare was replaced with more barebones plans, emergency or disastrous plans with pre existing conditions, but nothing mroe, it woud reduce costs for all people and would provide more care.
the idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

the idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth only ten to a little more percent of federal spending is on programs for the poor. our spending is a somewhat arbitrary intake of our economic output.... if you measure it according to GDP, poor people spending is like two or three percent of GDP. the only thing a person in the usa can be sure of, if he's not disabled, is food and education, with a very small minority getting housing assistance. anything else comes from the states and most states dont add much. for example, you may or may not be in a state that expanded subsidizing healthcare to poor people under obama, and it's not really a tangible benefit. if you're lucky enough to get cash benefits, it's usually only if you have kids, limits to just a few years, and you have to work unpaid as if you have a job anyway. like ninety percent of spending is on social security, medicare, defense, and interest on the debt. this stuff is designed for helping everyone, not just poor people.
the idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

this site breaks down where your number of about a trillion comes from https://www.washingtonpost.com... that site doesn't consider medicaid welfare, but i would. so the things that are welfare, is less than half your trillion number. the federal government spends four trillion a year, and all the states spend another trillion. that means what is really considered welfare amounts to only ten percent of all government spending. that's not runaway welfare. everything else you argue is mostly expamples of poor and inefficient government, not run away welfare. you list some examples of wasteful welfare, but it's a stretch to translate that to runaway welfare.
Smart and stuff dying

I will talk about your mistakes since I am Con...A) It is impossible to "diagnose" somebody with severe retardedness.B) It is not nice to talk about your sister like that on DDO.C) There is absolutely nothing wrong with crying and praying, even if you do it all day.D) Your sister probably is very unhappy, therefore you must help her.E) It is not nice to call people retarded.Pro provided no arguments so for now, this is all I can say.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Thank you for responding. On to the debate! "The equation is balanced because it's not completely based on win ratio, and it's not biased towards experience. Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience, but in a tie, experience wins. " The opponent explains this is why his equation is better. However, isn't the same statement true of the current leader board? 1. "Not completely based on win ratio- Neither is the current system. " This is why Danielle is on top, and not a person that has won 1 out of 1 debates. 2. "Not biased toward experience"- The current system allows people with less experience to be above those with more experience 3. "Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience"- As mentioned before, experience is not a major factor, and wins and losses count more. How is the opponent's system better when they are very similar. Also, why does experience rule in ties? Although the more experienced person did win more, they lost more also. Obviously, the opposition is false in saying that the system is not biased against experience,when the experienced will get the upper hand in ties.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

“My opponent is trying to present the idea that experience is what should make you on top.” Con has a flawed view of my equation. He conceded that Danielle should be on the top. Let’s look at my equation. (Amount of debates) + (2 x wins) - (2 x losses) – (ties) A person who has debated 54 times and lost 40 of them will lose to a debater who has debated 10 times and won all of them, for example. Yes, the person with 54 debates has more experience. But obviously despite the experience he/she is still not a good debater. The equation is balanced because it’s not completely based on win ratio, and it’s not biased towards experience. Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience, but in a tie, experience wins. Let’s take debater A and debater B. Debater A has twenty debates and all of them won. Debater B has ten debates and all of them won. Debater A wins because he/she has won more and has more experience. The score my equation gives them (I programmed an application to automatically compare debaters with this formula): Debater A: 60 Debater B: 30 That’s fair. Debater A has twice the wins and experience. Now let’s tweak it a bit. Debater A has 20 debates, but has lost 7 of them and tied 1. Debater B still has the same amount. Debater A: 29 Debater B: 30 Debater B wins although debater A has more experience. Let’s change it to a lot of ties. Debater A has 10 ties and 10 wins. Now they’re equal at 30. You see, experience is a part of the equation, but not nearly as much as winning or losing. My opponent’s argument crumbles. Lastly, my opponent did not address my second and third responses adequately. They also flow to me. As of now, Con has no arguments against this formula. Experience is a factor (my opponent concedes it SHOULD be), but it’s not too much (just what my opponent wants). It’s a balanced formula. As you are voting, please cast aside personal bias. If you hate my formula and like the Status Quo, then only show that through the “agreed with” votes. Please vote with absolutely no bias on the other points. Thank you, and I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Thank you to the opposition for responding quickly. "My opponent is trying to say experience shouldn't reign...Experience SHOULD rule." This is not the main point presented. I am saying that experience should not be a a major factor, especially in your equation. A person with less experience could be a better debater than an experienced debater. However, the equation would most likely favor the more experienced. The experienced, like Danielle, work their way to the top, with hard work, and not because of a faulty equation. My opponent is trying to present the idea that experience is what should make you on top. This is not the actual truth. Debaters get to the top by winning more, or getting a better winning percentage. Although the current system is not perfect- nothing is, including the opposition's equation, but the current system is equal.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

1. Con is to argue against changing the system to fit my formula. (He did so correctly). Moving on to his sole point about experience: 1. My opponent said it himself. "This just gives the experience the advantage. " Now, I would change that to say "an advantage" rather than "the advantage", but it still applies. My formula basically stresses wins and losses, but allows experience to have a slight advantage. The way it does this is by adding the amount of debates (basically experience) to double the wins, subtracting double the losses, and subtracting ties. This is important because let's take Danielle for example. She has debated basically 345 times, and won almost all of them. She's tied 6 and lost 27. Her win ratio is around 92%. She's at the top of the leader board, and rightfully so. My opponent is trying to say experience shouldn't reign. Therefore an 100% win ratio would be the top. That would mean Danielle, someone who has worked and debated for so long, would be pages behind. Obviously experience matters. 2. My opponent then moved on to do some math of two people, one with 200 debates, and one with 100. That's exactly my point. The one with 200 has won half, which is 100, rather than 50. That debater (I'll call him debater A), deserves a higher spot than someone who has debated only 100 times. Experience SHOULD rule. 3. Lastly, the current system is also based on experience somewhat. That's why Danielle is at the top, even though her win ratio isn't 100%. So this argument is non-unique. It's like saying "YOU'RE CAUSING DEBT! " when the status quo causes just as much debt. Of course, debt has nothing to do with this debate. "The current system is good" Sadly, no it isn't. Cross-Apply my examples of people who are higher than me even though they have less wins, more losses, and less debates. I looked just yesterday and the five people right on top of me have 7 debates, 3 wins, 4 losses. How do they get on top of someone with 8 debates (more experience) and 8 wins (better win ratio)? The status quo is simply flawed.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Hello, This is my first debate, and I would like to wish good luck to the opponent. I need to question this resolution however. Are we debating that your formula is better, or just whether the formula should be changed? I will be debating against your formula for the meantime. First of all, why would the amount of debates matter? This just gives the experience the advantage. For example, if two debaters both have a .500(50%) record, the person with the more debates would win. For example, 200 debates 200+(2X100)-(2X100)-0 = 200 While a person with 100 debates 100+(2X50)-(2X50)-0 = 100 The amount of debates would throw off the numbers. The experience would put the person with 200 debates way above the person with 100 debates. So clearly, the higher the number does NOT mean the better the debater. It could be the more experienced debater. The current system for rankings is good. The more debates you win, the higher you go up. The percentile keeps people that have won 1 out of 1 debates from being at the top.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

I will expand the resolution by showing exactly how it should be: The leaderboard (top debaters) should be calculated by an integer that is produced by the following formula: (Amount of debates) + (2 X wins) – (2 X losses) – (ties) I’ll take myself as an example. I’ve debated 8 times, won 8 times, lost 0, tied 0. 8 + 2(8) – 2(0) – 0 = 24 The higher the result number, the better of a debater you are. Let’s take a debater who has debated a hundred or so times, won most, lost a minority, and tied a couple. 115 + 2(79) – 2(26) - 10 = 115 + 158 – 52 – 10 = 273 – 62 = 211 Of course he has a way higher number since he’s debated more. The win ratio isn’t TOO important. If it was calculated by win ratio, then the top debater, Danielle, would be several pages down and members who have 1 debate will be at the top. But multiplying the wins by two and the losses by two makes sure it isn’t all by numbers. If someone debated 500 times and lost 400 times, that would give the person 100 points which wouldn’t be fair for those who have debated 150 times and won almost all of them. It’s overall a balanced system. Previous formulas have been hard to understand and end up with random results, sometimes. I’ll take myself as an example again. I saw several people in the 90% who have 5 debates in all, lost two, won three. I’m in 88.94 percent. Now how is it that I am under that person? I have 8 debates (more experience there), all 8 wins (better win ratio). There’s no reason that he/she should be over me. That’s the case with a lot of people. Therefore I stand resolved the debate. org should change their formula to the one I have proposed. That would give the person with 5 debates, 3 wins, 2 losses, a lower score. (7) Con will argue that it is not net beneficial to have this new, improved formula. The rules will be like policy debate. Con may start with his/her arguments in Round 1. Thank you, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.
Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Well, it's been a great debate. I would like to compliment the pro for great debating, and here is my final stance. "I have yet to see a reason why experience should not rule in ties. If two people have won and lost the same ratio of times, but one has more experience, the person with more experience should win. That person is much more likely to be a better debater...another guy, InfraRedEd. 54 debates, 3 wins, 49 losses, 2 ties. Here's an example for Con to munch on. This is a severe example of misusing the "experience" part in the status quo. This guy is above people who have 100% win ratios and more than ten debates. 3 wins and 49 losses: that's really bad." Clearly, experience does not equal, "the better debater". The pro, argues that the more experienced debater is, "more likely to be a better debater." As shown by the opponents other argument, about InfraRedEd, this is clearly not true. More debates does not constitute, "the better debater". I am not suggesting that ties should not be broken. As I mentioned previously, the Pro claims that their system does not favor the experienced, when in ties, the experienced get a free pass up. I suggest that a way to break ties is by number of votes ahead of opponent. If there is a ti, and one person beat their opponents by an average of 15 votes while the other the average was only 10, then the person with the 15 vote average should be ahead. "You've debated more, and you've probably debated harder people." There is no way to prove this statement. Debating more does not mean debating harder people. For example, a new debater with only 10 debates could have versed Danielle 6 times, while a person with 100 debates and all their debates are people on page 17 of the leaderboard. As mentioned before, the current system is not perfect. The rankings are obviously based on an unknown formula. Vote co for equality for everyone.
All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

I understand and sympathize with CON's perspective.This isn't an actual war...this is a model of a war. The example to look at isn't necessarily an actual conflict, but rather other models of war, such as a simple board game like RISK which also involves "perfect ISR". Yes, the parameters of this debate left a lot up to the imagination, but some things were strictly prohibited, such as hiding anything. Like RISK, everything is to be revealed. Does that eliminate an element of realism? Yes, but this debate wasn't about the finer details of an actual war, but to explore one and only one topic, that being the effects of a moral position on warfare.Had NationA really flown a spaceship to the dark side of the moon, would NationB know? Yes, it would...that is how this debate was set up.Anyway, I thank CON for taking a try at this game, and hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings.
All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

It seems we’re at an impasse here, & the debate seems to come down to is ‘perfect ISR’ really perfect or not. - ‘Perfect ISR’ doesn't mean it's God (Omniscient), & as far as I know, this war is between humans, no gods involved. It can't know what people are thinking when they were building the tunnels, or what they were doing in their homes. - To prove that the perfect ISR proposed by Pro doesn’t exist, suppose NationA sent a space warship into space & landed it on the dark side of the moon, the ‘perfect ISR’ can not possibly know what the warship is doing there, that’s literally impossible, that's just strict Law of Non-Contradiction. Now, since ’perfect ISR’ is clearly NOT perfect, otherwise it would be able to tell what’s going on on the dark side of the moon, then it has limits, & thus, unless Pro can come up with a way how NationB is planning on knowing what NationA is doing deep under the surface with all communications being off, then the ‘perfect ISR’ will be obsolete, & Con will win.