BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

Hello. This debate began in reaction to Varrack switching from a theist to an agnostic. While this debate is written to a general audience, I hope that he will reconsider his switch. Rules 1. By "theism," I mean the belief in the existence of God, the all-knowing and all powerful creator of the universe. 2. By "naturalism," I refer to “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”[1] 3. The burden of proof is shared; whichever view is shown to be more likely in this debate is the view that the judges shall vote for. 4. Round 1 is for acceptance only. 5. Round 2 is for opening arguments. 6. Rebuttals are permitted to occur as early as in Round 2 or in Round 3, whichever Con chooses; there are not strict rules concerning rebuttals. 7. All extrabiblical sources used in the debate shall be placed here: http://www.debate.org... 8. All extrabiblical sources must be freely accessible via the Internet. 9. The proposition and these rules (including this one) will be based upon my interpretation of them, which shall be enforced by the judges. If you have any questions about the rules, please message me before accepting the debate. Pro’s Advisers donald.keller, http://www.debate.org... Wylted, http://www.debate.org... Con may post his two advisers in this round, Round 1. Thank you. I hope this debate will be very profitable for all involved and that all may discover the truth from it. Like the first-century Christians who had to investigate different teachings, so may we all follow this short piece of advice from the apostle Paul: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. This applies for all other Scriptures used in this debate by Pro unless otherwise noted.
Fast Food is at Least Partially to Blame for the Obesity Problem in America

Fast food is more popular than healthy foods, not only because its known commercials everywhere but the fact that its cheaper. Families with low income who can't provide their children with organic foods, will have to go to the alternative, which is cheap fast food. In other cases, lots of children eat fast food only because they perceive it as the best thing they ever tasted, unlike healthy foods because they lack the same "good" taste as the fast food like mcdonalds
Fast Food is at Least Partially to Blame for the Obesity Problem in America

Studies show that children are much more active than adults because they have recesses and after school activities and adults must eat more than children, therefore proving your statement wrong. Also, the adults have the money to buy things they eat, so they are able to make better choices based on their budget and wanting. We all have the choice to make good decisions with our food. Again, this is not just about the children though. It is about how fast foods are partially to blame for our obesity problem in America. Children do not in fact eat all the time and the obesity in adults is much greater than children.
Peaceful rise of Korean Peninsula is interest of China and its implications for USA...

Thing is this that America is influencing South Korea and other rivals of China, but the history tells that US is the main reason behind the fragile Korean Peninsula i think the game here is of status quo or may be domination. The status quo is such for a reason; options to remedy the situation require taking on undesirable risks. It may be possible to foment internal regime change or governmental collapse in North Korea, but the consequences are unpredictable and the risks high. The same can be said of preventive strikes on known and suspected nuclear facilities; how can we ever have sufficient confidence that we can successfully destroy 100 percent of North Korea"s stockpile? The United States and South Korea have shown interest in engaging in credible negotiations with North Korea if there were even a remote hope of it leading to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but North Korea has shown no interest in doing so. If these are our options, then it"s understandable that the status quo is what it is. Another thing is when South Korea and Its allies are against use of Nuclear weapons than why US has launched its submarines in sea?
Assisted suicide should be legalized

Thanks for your answer, Yerkezhan. I agree with you, that the pain might be intolerable, however, modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society"s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.
Assisted suicide should be legalized

The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to "control" their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. I think the situation will end by death in any case. So it is better to fulfill the last desire of the patient, event this desire will lead to death!!
Assisted suicide should be legalized

We can't compare the right to live and other rights. You can't suddenly decide yourself, that you want to die and just make doctors or others to kill you. You won't have second chance, if you die, nobody can make you alive again. Also people may be under depression or have psychological problems, so they make wrong decision to day. what about people suffering from disease, feel pain, now there are a lot of types of pain killers, which can stop the pain. Furthermore, there are numerous of people, who were treated from diseases which counted as incurable.
Assisted suicide should be legalized

Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die!!
Eating meat endorses cruelty.

1. Needing meat to survive has nothing to do with whether it is cruel.2. Cecil the Lion is a stiatistical minority. Trophy hunting is out of reach as far as cost goes for average americans. Cecil's hunt cost $55,000. . http://www.latimes.com... $55,000 for 1 lion vs $50 for 12 deer (In TX). Which one of these sounds like the more likely purchase for 13.7 million Americans. 3. I already addressed premature death. An animal dying prematurely in nature is nothing new and is normal for most species. If you really want animals to live a full live do you support the removal of predators of predators from their environments?4. The suffering these animals endure as a result of being hunted by a predator is called nature. And I would think that a bullet in the brain is preferable to being chased down by a predator, knowing you're going to die, and then being torn apart. Or starving to death. Or slowly succumbing to a disease. Hunting can be a lot more human than nature sometimes. Con contends that hunting an animal is not cruel because traditionally, the animal doesn't know you're there, unlike being hunted a predator. Dying at the hands of a hunter is prefereable to dying of starvation, disease or predators. At least to me it is. Also Pro ascertains that you are either on one side or the other, and leaves no room for people who simply don't care or don't think about where meat comes from. ""If the family members refuse to eat the meat, they are rejecting hunting. ""This is not necessarily true. They might refuse the meat because they aren't hungry or they may be so used to farm raised meat that wild meat may make them ill. ""Yet, if they eat the meat they are supporting and sustaining the practice of hunting. ""This is also not true. Not everyone who eats meat consciously supports hunting. You have provided no evidence to enforce this claim. I contend that the majority of these people simply don't care. Hunting is not animal cruelty.
Eating meat endorses cruelty.

Bah, always forget something. Hunting is cruel for several reasons. First and foremost humans don't need to eat meat to survive. There are plenty of high protein vegan foods. B-12 can be gained from supplements and from raw organic fruit and veggies. Second, the animal doesn't always die right away. Reading about Cecil the lion's killer anybody can tell that Cecil suffered for a prolonged period of time. "With one shot of his bow, Walter Palmer went from being a Minneapolis dentist to the world"s most reviled big game hunter. Only wounding Cecil, the lion spent two days bleeding while being tracked by Palmer who eventually killed him and taking his 'trophy.' "[13][14]. Third, there is still the issue of ending the animal's life prematurely. Finally, as for animals killing each other and eating each other. Surely the animals must suffer from the actions of other animals sometimes. Yet, this does not negate the suffering caused by humans. Rephrased, if a person A causes a cruel act and then person B does the same. This two cruel acts do not negate each other. Just as if an animal performs a cruel act, it does not negate the cruelty of humans. Pro contends that by consuming the meat of animals hunted and killed a person is endorsing cruelty. Think about a hunter bringing meat to his or her family. If the family members refuse to eat the meat, they are rejecting hunting. Yet, if they eat the meat they are supporting and sustaining the practice of hunting. Same for the hunter. Thanks for the debate, vote Pro. Links 13. http://preventdisease.com... 14. http://www.news.onlinenigeria.com...
Eating meat endorses cruelty.

Pro gives a very good case as to why factory farm raised meat is cruel. However, the subject is not whether factory farming is cruel. It is "Eating meat endorses cruelty". To address this, I will contend my position mainly with hunting. Hunting allows an animal to live in it's natural habitat and live a normal life. Due to natural predators, ending the life of an animal in the wild is not cruel because dying before the end of it's lifespan is something to be expected i. e The wolves take fawns, foxes eat young rabbits, the bear eats the fish both before and afer it's reproductive season. The U. S currently has around 13.7 million registered hunters ( . http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov...) Assuming 90% of hunters eat what they harvest, and that is roughly 12.4 million animals each year that are consumed but in no way encounter any form of cruelty.
Eating meat endorses cruelty.

I. Definitions Eating " 1. the act of a person or thing that eats. " [1]. Meat "The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry):" [2]. Endorse 1. to approve, support, or sustain: [3]. Cruelty " 1. the state or quality of being cruel. 2. cruel disposition or conduct. 3. a cruel act. "[4]. Pro will contend for the resolution and Con against. Links 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Death Penalty

To conclude my argument, since my opponent said to keep it short, I would like to state how this debate went. For starters, my opponent made more claims without any evidence to support his argument. While I did provide evidence to support my own argument. Also, my opponent dropped many arguments that I stated, which should mean that he "dropped" the debate mid way through. Because of this, I think its easy to determine who should win the debate voters. To conclude my own argument, I stand upon that the Death Penalty is necessary in society because of more benefits than doubts. Why should we defend those who decided their fate? I ask this question throughout the debate, and my opponent has failed to answer; which is easily noted that he himself can't come up with an answer.
Death Penalty

Ok i seemed to have forgotten my evidence last time but this time i shall not and in the beginning when i said "with the death penalty there are several reasons for why i am against it. One i am STRONGLY AGAINIST IT is because it is killing a human being which is not acceptable in my book" i was just saying my stance on the subject and with my first part of rebuttial which will tie in with my own debate this round when my opponent said "I go with the idea that if the individual is potential harm to society, they should be executed for the protection of others. Whats the main goal in society? To watch for each others backs, and not a criminal who decided their faith after murdering or causing trauma to the victim. " in response to my first debate round about mentally ill people. For Example Back on March 17, 2015 Cecil Clayton was put to death without no legal reason in the year 1972 Mr.Cecil Clayton sustained a work related injury to his brain in a saw-mill accident and later after that he was diagnosed with dementia but before his diagnosis he had Violent impulses and Schizophrenia and in 1983 it got so bad he decided to check him into a mental asylum or institution during his brain MRI it was revealed that he was missing his frontal lobe which deals with problem solving and impulse control.A picture of his brain is shown below in the link.There are many more reasons why the death penalty is bad some are the following "The death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people,largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white"Just because you are colored why should you be killed over any-one else? There is something out there called the Brutlation effect and with one major reason why the death penalty as stated and QUOTED below "The death penalty is brutal on society. The brutalization effect suggests that when violence is condoned via the death penalty, more violence occurs. Homicide rates tend to increase around the time of executions, due to legitimation, desensitization, and imitation. The death penalty makes society more dangerous by further increasing violence through the brutalization effect."The above quote is true if america wants the violence to calm down SHUT DOWN THE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM!!!.IMAGE OF CECIL CLAYTON'S Brain-http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...SOURCES1.http://www.commondreams.org...2.https://www.aclu.org...3.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Death Penalty

With the death penalty there are several reasons for why i am against it. One i am STRONGLY AGAINST IT is because it is killing a human being which is not acceptable in my book, Another topic is america is wondering why our economy is in so much debt is because we spend a lot of money on the death penalty system. Another reason as cited below is "There is a better way to help the families of murder victims. " with this quote it is very true there are many other different ways to deal with families of murder victims such as a whole bunch of grief counseling why should a guy or woman DIE because of the crime. Murder is defined as basically killing a human being and how on earth is the death penalty sentence not MURDER? and why should innocent people die. With ending this argument mentally ill people are also killed using this death penalty no matter what their crime was who knows they DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
Death Penalty

Death Penalty is a major debate across the united states of america right now and i am aganist the death penalty. ROUND 1:Acceptance and opening statements and telling stance. Round 2:Arguments # 1 Round 3:Arguments # 2(ADD VIDEO WITH THIS ONE PLEASE)-SINCE YOU ARE PRO LOOK AT PRO DEATH PENALTY VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE OR GOOGLE. ROUND 4:CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS.
PlayPump International's PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa. The PlayPump system solves for water related disease. The system prevents women from having to walk great distances (womens' health) to get the water. Meaning that there is no reason for them to be traveling to the areas where the mosquitoes are, thus eliminating the risk of contracting Malaria. Another is that the water will be clean, meaning diarrhea from dirty water will be a thing of the past. Many other diseases are solved for in similar ways to those above. Also, it allows for more food to be grown. Through the PlayPumps women will have more free time. This will allow them to become involved in the agricultural work. By having more people to work, more work will get done. The more work that gets done, the more food there is. PlayPumps give clean water to victims of HIV/AIDS, allowing them to take their much needed medications with clean water. This helps their already weak immune systems and prevents them from getting diseases from the water. PlayPumps bring water closer to villages, allowing women to become involved in other activities such as agriculture, and brings clean water to those in need of it for illness related purposes.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

Extend my arguments.I am going to add to my already overwhelming argument, so that if Pro decides to respond, he will have two rounds to address the content.General problem with same-sex parenting [19] In 2011, Sociologist Mark Regnerus was the lead investigator in a study by the National Family Structure Study (NFSS) which “surveyed 2988 young adults” to collect data about children “from various family origins” [17]. The young adults used were randomly sampled, which means that there was no control-bias in preselecting samples, which is commonly found in studies. So, from this study, it was found that children raised by lesbians were 3.5 more likely to be unemployed. Homosexual parents were more likely to raise criminals, and children raised by lesbian parents were the second highest involving risk of crime. As suggested by the “non-biological parents” arguments I made, homosexual parents were found to more likely abuse their children. Children raised by gay men were 3 times more likely to incur an STI in their lifetimes, twice as likely for children of lesbian’s. People raised by homosexual men had an increased likelihood of having suicidal thoughts. For those of you who like visuals, here are the graph versions of some of the findings [18]: On the contrary, ‘no difference’ theory has run into trouble on several occasions. Let me show you some trouble. In a review of the APA statement on gay parenting, Sociologist Loren Marks found that 26 of the papers she looked at did not meet the scientific standards required to be research in which the APA could conclude upon: “[the] strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted” [20]. Another review by Pscyhologist Tray Hansen found that researched produced by Pro-gay authored, addressing ages 14 and above studies all had “methodological flaws… including small, non-representative samples, lack of control groups, and non-longitudinal designs” [21]. Hansen concluded her review by arguing that “the research studies we have to date suggest that non-heterosexuals are far more likely to raise non-heterosexual children than heterosexual children” [21]. The research into homosexual relationships clearly indicates that homosexuals do significantly poorer in raising children, and in some areas, disastrously poorer. Also, the ‘no difference’ theory has been shown to be wrong, on several different levels. References [17] http://www.markregnerus.com...... [18] http://www.familystructurestudies.com...... [19] http://www.debate.org...... [20] http://www.sciencedirect.com...... [21] http://www.drtraycehansen.com......
Legalization of Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage should definitely be legalized for many positive reasons. Firstly, our era has evolved so much with accepting black people and removing the slavery laws. But how have so many places around the world not legalized gay marriage? All humans should be able to love and feel attached to people regardless of sex. Marriage is defined as a commitment between a man and a woman but should we really let these definitions take control over basic human rights? No! Why do people keep referring to the definition of the word marriage? People argue that there needs to be a new definition to gay marriage but why can't we change the definition of the word marriage? Maybe the gay community might have to accept that the government will be so inhumane and not change anything and allow them to define there love which is no different than ours and be called something different than marriage? Although that is inhumane to disregard and not include people just because their share a different kind of love? We accept people who have different skin, religion and beliefs but we can't even accept that people are attached to the same sex? Gay marriage should be legalized, not just because it is inhumane to disregard how people are attracted to others but because it would also help the dying economy. Love is not about money and neither is this topic and everyone should know that I believe gay marriage should just be legalized for fair human purposes but it would help the economy. Let's say there is around 2000 gay couples in Australia alone and the whole wedding process would cost around 20,000; that's 40,000,000 million dollars. That would stimulate the economy with more jobs and more money. To sum up, love is defined as " a strong feeling of attraction", just because that love is shared between two people of the same sex doesn't mean they should not have the ability to get married or whatever the government thinks they want to call it and feel the attachment and commitment as a couple. It would also stimulate the economy and give jobs to many people. Thankyou.