BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump

First of all, why do you think Mr. Trump will be such a "great" president just so I know you aren't the kind of person who likes to talk about an opinion and not have anything to back it up. Trump is an inconsiderate jerk who thinks that he can say all the crap he likes to say about people and get away with it. He also talks about reducing our debt. Ask him how he can do that when he wan't to build a wall around Mexico, which will: 1. Put us billions of dollars into more debt. 2. Make it ok to let him do with whatever he would like without trying to actually TALK to the Mexicans and ask them to stop illegally immigrating into our country.
Circumcision doesn't prevent any disease or infection

Extend arguement.Please vote for me for:Sources - I used relevent ones including scientific studies and PRO used noneConduct - Pro FF almost all roundsArgument - Were it was possible to find what PRO's vague unsupported claims where talking about, I showed his claims were incorrect and in fact completely wrong, with the science showing that there is a benefit to circumcision with it preventing disease and infection.
Circumcision doesn't prevent any disease or infection

Pro has FF.As he has not sourced or explained any of his claims and I believe my R1 statement succintly counters his position, I extend my argument.Additionally I've been able to decipher the logic behind one more of his claims, specifically. Langerhan CellsLangerhan cells do help prevent HIV[1]. However Langerhan cells are present in the skin throughout the entire body and are nothing specific to the foreskin[2]. there is no logical reason to beleive that removing the foreskin would increase infection rates. Aside from being contrary to all available evidence and a claim that has never been supported by a single study I can find, regardless of whether there is a foreskin or not the skin cells will still have langerhan cells.PRO's claims here seem to be based on extrapolating his own wild theory of of studies that he hasn;t fully read or understood, just like the WHO studies mentioned in round 1.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Nihilism is the only rational approach to life.

I'm excited, since this is my first debate on this site! This should be fun, and it's a really intriguing topic, and I very much appreciate Brennan-Huff's invitation. Now, as per the posted rules, I will not post any arguments here, and instead merely provide my position in these rounds. I'll explain why I hold to them later, as that would be argumentation, but I will explain what that view is. What I'll be arguing is utilitarianism. The view of nihilism is such that it does not permit normative moral theory because it rejects all of these theories. Utilitarianism is the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people. The basis of utilitarianism, that we should always act in ways that will maximize the total well-being of everyone affected, is an example of an objective moral, though attempts to achieve it are often based on the subjective. I will argue that this moral is not only objective, but rational, and that there is a distinct necessity for morality like this to be recognized in order to drive action. I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to steer clear of argumentation here, though I might have dipped into it slightly over the course of this explanation.
Nihilism is the only rational approach to life.

I am Pro the notion that a nihilistic approach is the only or most rational approach to the world today. I have come to this conclusion based on the implausibility of a creator and the irrationality of trying to apply morals to an amoral world. To be clear I am arguing that in today's world, morals have no objective ground to stand on, so they should no longer be tried until we have a basis from which to judge them. Definitions Nihilistic: rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless. Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. Round 1: Acceptance and why you think I'm wrong. Round 2: Arguments for/against Round 3: Refutation of arguments Round 4: Closing arguments To be clear round 1 isn't arguments but rather why you've come to believe or do believe that morals are or can be objective, or if it matters, i.e. they stand on their own. I'm very new to the site and also debating, so take it easy on me. I don't necessarily take the position of nihilistic, but I'm willing to argue for it. If I've made a mistake please feel free to post in the comments, or if you want me to be more clear also ask questions in the comments. Like I said, this is my first real debate as I've just been lurking for the last couple of weeks every now and then.
once saved always saved v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows.

you are clearly sabataging the debate from the clear trajectory intended by me. i refuse to dignify such a sabatage with arguments defining heaven and God. if you want arguments, look into my past debates about GOd, and look into the NDE phenomenon for proof of heaven. i dignifified your arguments too much as is. as i didn't want to leave you hanging on smething as solid and accessible as the evidences i gave. asside from that, no more comments.
once saved always saved v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows.

Unless you are saying "only God knows" in the way English speaking people use the phrase , you must prove that God exists. You must explain what you mean by "saved", and if you're definition of that is "allowed in to heaven/not going to hell", then you must define heaven and hell and prove they exist and then you have to prove that there is a connection between God, heaven, and hell. Please note that holy texts and quotes from anywhere but scientists, historians, and secular philosophers, that are credible in their fields will not be accepted as reliable proof. We have an 8,000 character limit and another 2 rounds to do this so let's put on a show for the voters.
once saved always saved v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows.

once saved always saved v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows. is it possible to be hitler and saved? it depends on how he approached what he did, and if htere was any sliver of repentence in his heart. only God knows that. was hitler one who if he was ever 'saved' is still saved despite his crimes? only God knows. was hitler one who was never saved to begin with? only God knows.
once saved always saved v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows.

Your other debates do not matter in this debate. But, there are Christians who say that being saved only requires to be good. The way the pope seems to be acting is as long you don't kill or steal, you get in to heaven. He even says that atheists can get in to heaven. Is he right? Well, if not, what makes him more or less right than you? And if he is right, then it is certain that I am "saved" because I have not killed, I have not stolen, and I have provided for charity on numerous occasions. So, I can be certain in at least one person's eye, that I am saved. So, if we completely ignore my first round, which I still believe is a valid argument, because you still need to define "saved" for audience members who aren't Christians and don't know what you mean. In the case of the pope, only God and myself knows I'm saved.
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

That, Unfortunately, Is where you're wrong. The exact resolution for this debate is: "It takes more faith to be an atheist. " I am doing my job in negating the resolution by taking the opposite side. I do believe you to be wrong in this matter, As I proved in my first argument. I understand this debate perfectly! If you wanted to have a creation/evolution debate, You should have made the resolution more along those lines. I believe that when you look at the true Biblical definition of faith, Creationists CERTAINLY have more faith, Thus negating the resolution. I will stand by my defense in this debate.
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Hey Eugenious, I think you might have misunderstood the topic of the debate. It is, Does God exist? I clearly lay this out in the first round. Now then, I think it is important that you understand that you have accepted side Con, Which, As I stated earlier, States that God does not exist. I think you did not want to debate this side and so I am open to forfeiting the other rounds with you so we can end this.
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

The humorous thing is: I am a young-earth creationist. I belong to the Church of Christ, And I love Jesus with all of my heart. I strongly believe that atheism is terribly wrong as well. The reason, However, That I disagree with my opponent in this topic is that he is using a very flawed definition of "faith. " Now, I know that he said that to be against this resolution, You are supporting atheism. I am going to prove that this position can and will be defended form a CHRISTIAN perspective. It seems that he wants to do a creation/evolution debate, But that idea cannot happen here. Both of his contentions I agree with, And they fall right under my arguments here. If you look at the world's view of faith, You see that they believe it is a "blind leap in the dark. " If you look at some definitions for it, You get things like "A firm belief in that which you cannot prove. " This is quite simply not Biblical faith. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. " Confidence. Assurance. Can we truly have either of these things if we cannot prove what we are speaking of? Think about it: Do you have ASSURANCE in something you cannot ever prove? Do you have CONFIDENCE in something which cannot be proven to exist? Absolutely not. We have to look here at the BIBLICAL Definition of faith, Which is certainly not what we are seeing here. Now we have to talk about why it matters what definition we use in this topic. I mean, Why do we care how we define faith? Well, We must be careful what points we allow atheists to obtain against us. If we concede that the true and Biblical definition of faith is a "blind leap in the dark, " we let them then think that any time we use the word "faith, " we don't really have confidence in what we are saying. They can then say we are using the "God of the Gaps" method. It really is dangerous to allow these sort of things to be left to the atheists to have a field day with. Now, I agree with the general thought process of my opponent, (it fits exactly with Frank Turek's series: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist), But we have to have utmost care when defining our terms, Or else we allow the Bible to be misinterpreted left and right. It is for these reasons that I stand resolved that it doesn't take more "faith" to be an atheist.
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

"you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". -If you actually READ what I said, You'd realize that I was quoting the WORLDLY definition of faith. Please don't twist my words. And I am doing my job in negating the resolution. I don't care what you said the con side would be defending. I only care about what I am supposed to ACTUALLY defend, Which is the negative side of this resolution. And I have done that so far. My opponent has forfeited, So I guess it's all over. Thank you to everyone involved! -Eugenious
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

"you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". -If you actually READ what I said, You'd realize that I was quoting the WORLDLY definition of faith. Please don't twist my words. And I am doing my job in negating the resolution. I don't care what you said the con side would be defending. I only care about what I am supposed to ACTUALLY defend, Which is the negative side of this resolution. And I have done that so far.
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Your definition of faith is incorrect. Even the secular definition of faith isn't just a belief. The secular definition is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved, " or something along those lines. You can't use that definition. The true BIBLICAL definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason. Therefore, We Christians have WAY more faith than atheists. Next, You said that even under my definition, It still takes more faith to be an atheist. I disagree. I think that the Christian faith is way more complicated than what atheists believe. We have many more things to be proved than atheists. Finally, You said that to negate the resolution is to agree with atheists, But I want to stress the point that you can negate this resolution from a Christian perspective, As I have already. Back to you!
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

"That, Unfortunately, Is where you're wrong. The exact resolution for this debate is: "It takes more faith to be an atheist. " I am doing my job in negating the resolution by taking the opposite side. I do believe you to be wrong in this matter, As I proved in my first argument. I understand this debate perfectly! If you wanted to have a creation/evolution debate, You should have made the resolution more along those lines. I believe that when you look at the true Biblical definition of faith, Creationists CERTAINLY have more faith, Thus negating the resolution. I will stand by my defense in this debate. " This argument comes with a great misunderstanding of the word "faith". Faith is to believe. When I say it takes more faith to be an Atheist, I mean that you have to believe more than Theism. The fact that you agreed to my contentions show that you agree Atheist have to believe far more in order for their world view to be correct. Example: Atheist have to contend that the entire universe, All that we have and will ever observe, Just popped into being as if by magic. I will still offer to resign the last few rounds, But continuing is ruining the point of this debate. Best, To Truth! -logicae
Lions are better, sexier and superior to wolves overall (canine vs feline)

I will now define the terms. Before I move on to definitions, my opponent claims that I alone have the BOP, but this is clearly incorrect. The BOP here is shared, my opponent must prove that Wolves are better, sexier, and superior to lions and I must prove that Lions are better, sexier, and superior to wolves. Clearly, the BOP is shared. Definitions:Better - of superior quality or excellence, in this case, which animal is superior to the other factoring in all relevant factorsSuperior - of higher grade, or quality Sexier - more sexually interesting or exciting to humansLions - a large, usually tawny cat, Panthera Leo, native to Africa and Southern Asia, having a tufted tail and in the male a large maneWolves - any of large carnivorous mammals of the genus Canis, of the dog family Canidae, especially C. LupusOverall - covering or including everythingAs this debate can cover a wide range of topics, I suggest we limit the comparisons between the two species to only which is sexier and which is superior (as in more likely to survive eg. hunting habits, sleeping grounds, behavior etc. ). However, I request that "superior" be limited to a certian degree e. g. superior at hunting, as we can compare almost any aspect e. g. the colour of their hair, yellow is superior to grey. My opponent will have the honor of saying what category superior must fall in. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments and a VERY interesting debate! SOURCES1. www. dictionary. com
Lions are better, sexier and superior to wolves overall (canine vs feline)

Ok now. The pro is for lions. Simply it is like this. Who is better? Who is sexier? Who is superior? The wolf. How to deny this? Simple, you can't. If one thinks they can, I shall offer this for you to accept. You can define (myst be scientifically accurate) and also YOU have the burden of proof, I have the burden of denial only.
Abortion

Ok, Rachael, (I'm guessing that's your name because I don't like addressing people as their usernames if I can help it) my argument will take a reply or two from you, but I'll see how far I can put my reasoning without further information. However, welcome to Debate.org, I hope you do decide to stay on this site, and if you do, I'd recommend customizing your profile too. You have stated that it doesn't matter how old the foetus is as it is considered a person to you. But if we go back step by step here, and I'll try to fairly guess your response, but correct me if I subject you unjustly; 1; Is a baby a person? (Yes) 2; Is a 7 month old foetus a person? (Yes) 3; Is a 3 month old foetus a person? (Yes) 4; When a sperm and egg first join, is that a person? 5; What is the difference between two people about to have sex and a minute old embryo? 6; What is the difference between a woman with eggs and a woman about to have sex? Just keep on going back; when does the person appear in this? If the moment an embryo is made, it is a person, that is practically the same as a couple about to have sex. There are far too many sperm, so if a woman has an egg in her system, shouldn't that also be a person? Would using contraceptives be the same as abortion in that case? If she has a period, is that killing a child? The problem is setting a line. My personal line is that you can't abort something with a heartbeat, because by that stage, you're a bit late to be having an abortion anyway. But before then, it is not a person. Saying that it could become a person means that every egg cell could become a person, and this instills a bizarre moral duty to procreate as much as possible. I have other reasons, but I'll wait for your reply to this first so as not to unfairly overwhelm you. If you don't answer the next round, I'll assume you've merely forgotten about the debate, rather than actually forfeiting, (in that case jut say when you're forfeitin so as not to confuse the voters and I) and I'll check the comments in case you put the argument in late. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
The United States ought to be Isolationist

Ought: moral obligationIsolationist: the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc. , seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. This is a debate on obligations and which is more beneficial for the progress element of society. The Pro affirms the resolution the Con negates. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Reality TV

Leaders consent to losing some aspects of their privacy, but Pro is asking for the President to lose all aspects of their privacy. Not only is that completely unrealistic but it's also dangerous. Many parts of the president's job revolve around secrecy or knowing classified and confidential information. If we were exposed to all of the president's private life and knowledge, we would be putting the country and president at risk. http://www.fas.org... Pro has not provided a reason as for why it's reasonable for a president to lose all of their privacy. They are not making important decisions all of the time. Not all of their choices, habits or aspects of their lives affect their presidency or ability to do their job. You can still have democracy and have the people's voices and votes be heard without putting full spotlight on the president 24/7. Real life is much different from Reality TV which is often staged and exaggerated for entertainment purposes. http://www.wga.org... If politicians were on camera 24/7 they would still lie and be fake to appeal to the public.
Reality TV

Is a reality tv show where we watch the president 24/7 live on tv to much invasion of privacy? A leader has every right to consent to losing their privacy. A leader has every right to consent to leading the country. Do the people want to watch the president 24/7 live on tv? Clearly, consent is the governing force behind civilocity. Civilocity is a new form of government which the people can vote for. All that matters in a democracy is what the people want. Civilocity allows the people to watch the president 24/7 live on tv. Is civilocity an idea that people want instated? Would you rather vote for a candidate or watch whoever wins 24/7 live on tv? I believe civilocity and democracy are the two best forms of government. I would love to vote for which candidate I want and I would love to watch that person 24/7 live on tv to make sure they never cover up unlawful behavior. It would be a true turning point in mankind's history to be led by a person who is watched 24/7 live on tv because they can't cover up unlawful behavior. I would love to hear opinions on civilocity.
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

They're is no denying that Kobe Bryant is a good player, however he is not the second best player of all time. They're is no way you can vote him better then Wilt Chamberlain. Also you have to look at all the other players in NBA history which are so good, like Lebron JAMES. If you want to look at what players may do with the future of there careers. Lebrons Future is more promising than Kobe. Look at the 50 best players in NBA history, (. http://www.nba.com...), how can you put Kobe Bryant 2nd on a list like that? . http://bleacherreport.com... The Bleacherreport has Bryant as the 9th best player of all time. Behind the likes of Chamberlien, Jordan, Erven 'Magic' Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Larry Bird.
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

I never considered that one has to win a title to be the best. Nash, Lebron, Nowitzki, Iverson, and the Minnesota KG had not won a title but were still considered to be top players. Wilt only averaged 50.2 points a game because he didn't have any other high scoring player on his team. The Lakers still rely on Kobe. Kobe is the sheer force that drives his team. Like I said earlier, Kobe attracted so much attention that he was able to set up his team mates perfectly. Gasol played a good game but he was averaging a little bit below his normal scoring. Bynum played horrible. He quickly got into foul trouble and wasn't effective offensively. Fisher only hit that 3 because everyone was expecting Kobe to take it. Also the Magic were not lay-up and free-throw away from winning the finals. The would only have tied the Lakers. It is true that Wilt is leading in a couple of the stats that I posted but that is only because Kobe's career is not finished yet. He still has a good 5 maybe 6 years left in him. You said that a player doesn't have to play defense just because he is averaging 50 points a game. Basketball has 2 sides to it. Offense and Defensive. Players have to play both. There is no excuse to lack of from one side just because you are doing good on the other side. Many players get drilled when they are not playing good defense. Look at Kobe, when he led the league in scoring 35.4 pts. a game, he didn't give up on defense. He played it. He played it so well that he got elected defensive 1st team. No matter how many points a person scores never gives them an excuse to take a breather during defense. Defensive is just as important as offensive. For Jordan, Kobe, Kareem, Bird, KG, Dr. J, Magic, West, Russell, and Lebron. It is also important for Wilt. I believe that I indicated exactly why Kobe is considered the best of his generation. I was able to answer back every sentence that he said going against Kobe so please vote PRO. I had a great time debating with you on this subject.