BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism has less evidence than Christianity

Do I even need to post anything? You have not shown God exists. But on to my rebbutals. "Con speaks about Noah's Ark and it's "impossibility". Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not." This story clearly is meant to be taken literally. The word "like" does not appear, and it is discribed in a litteral manner. Plus, if it was a metaphor, why is their so much detail put into it? Con: "God was not pleased with His creation." It's ad hominem and would be meaningless to His existance. How is that ad hominem? And plus: Genesis 6:5-6, Genesis 1:31. Plus, how can an omnipotent God make something he isn't happy with? Con: "Adam and Eve are created at the same time and Adam is created first." This statement contradicts itself. Adam was created first in the story. Of course that is contradictory. That is the point. Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:21-22 The next 2 contradictions are contradictions because how can you invent birds and trees twice? Con: "God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent...evil exists, God can't exist." Ad hominem. If one claims no free will, this has nothing to do with His existance. Evil existing has nothing to do with His existance. It's the means to an end. He is omniscient, thus if He thinks the end product is good, He allows evil to exist to get this final good product. Proven love for Him is the product. How is that ad hominem? And evil has everything to do with it. How can an omnibenevolent God have evil exist? You are not all good if your plan requires suffering. Now for the science claims. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is 6,000 years old. If you count up all the times and dates mentioned in the bible, then it adds up to around 6000 years old. And my second point still stands. Con: "Prayer doesn't work." Mine does. But I have an unrelentless faith that God can do anything, and devote my life to Him. Where's the proof prayer works? And anecdotal evidence is not valid. Con: "You can not walk on water." Oh? Let's see if this statement is true. Looks like my opponent has stated a nonfact. Can people walk on water? Con: "The bible repeatedly alludes that the Earth is flat." Con gave no verse to show his claim, but I will give you some that show what it does say about the earth. Job 26:7 That does nothing for your claim Isaiah 40:22 A circle, as in a disc. Not a sphere. Job 26:10 A disc Earth is in the shape of a circle. So where is your evidence? There is zero evidence for the Christian God existing. And plus, you haven't given any evidence for the Christian God existing! So where is your evidence?
jail guards suffer the same penalty as the prisoners escape during their watch

I don't even have to debate in order to win this one, and I'm not expecting much of a debate from someone that doesn't even speak English as a first(nor second or third for that matter) language. But I will post an argument for the sake of it, although like I said I don't expect Pro to actually debate and I might have to wait out all of the "This round was forfeited"'s. There are only a few incidents of prisoners escaping that I am aware of. In most of them the prisoners had outside help, not help from the guards. But even if the guards helped the prisoners escape, they committed a very different crime than the prisoner and by any modern form of law they would(and should) be prosecuted for the crime they actually committed as it would make no sense otherwise Pro's profile says they're from the Philippines, but it sounds more like they're from somewhere in the middle-east where stealing a loaf of bread would get your hand chopped off. But in this case not only would the thief's hand get chopped off, but the shopkeeper whose bread was stolen too.
Parts of the gender wage gap can be "explained away," but not all of it.

That a gap in the unadjusted median incomes of men and women is, of course, a fact. Ergo, I won't call it a "myth". That said, the fact that the gap exists doesn't really mean much - what matters is the cause.I've come across the AAUW paper before, and it doesn't do much to lend credence to the idea that a significant portion of the gap is definitively caused by sexual discrimination. While it should be given credit for being far more comprehensive than other reports on the wage gap, it still failed to account for several (extremely significant) factors) that would've likely given very different results.For example:The paper did not account for the fact that men are much more likely than women to take overtime work/overwork.http://asr.sagepub.com...http://stats.bls.gov...Productivity disparities were not accounted for either. Several studies have shown that, when adjusted for these disparities, women are paid at least as much as men are.http://link.springer.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Work absence was not accounted for. Women are far more likely to be absent from work than men arehttp://www.bls.gov...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Women are also more likely to take non-monetary compensationhttp://www.consad.com...There are many more significant factors the paper ignored, but I'll go into them in the following rounds.Can absolutely all of the gap be definitively stated to have nothing to do with sexism? No. Is the AAUW paper's estimate correct? No.
Parts of the gender wage gap can be "explained away," but not all of it.

The gender wage gap clearly exists and should be recognized as such. Many people have heard that the gender wage gap was 21% as of 2014, where men were making more than women. Critics of the wage gap say that the wage gap exists because of career choices that women make. Although this is partly true due to "choice of college major and job pursued," research performed by aauw.org (http://www.aauw.org...) says that: After accounting for college major, occupation, economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA, type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical region, and marital status, Graduating to a Pay Gap found that a 7 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained" (AAUW). I challenge someone who believes that the gender pay gap is a myth, or any lesser extreme.
Resolve: Arguments involving morals standards are weak and/or useless - take 2

I intend to prove that arguing a topic based on moral standards is a bad idea, and should not be done. Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example Opinion - a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterThese are the definitions that will be used in this debate. They can be found here: . http://www.merriam-webster.com......... First of all, moral standards are weak arguments because they are not set in stone. As the definitions show, morals are the difference between right and wrong. This clearly can vary. In World War 2, Hitler thought it was right to kill off everyone who wasn't Aryan. Obviously, almost everyone else disagreed with him. This is because the Axis Powers(Hitler's Group) and the Allied Forces(America, Britain, etc. ) had different opinions on right and wrong. A standard is something that can be based on custom or opinions. I will use World War 2 again. Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to eliminate all who weren't Aryan. Since they were in control, this became the standard goal of Nazi Germany. The Allies, however, disagreed. This was an overwhelming public opinion. Therefore, the standard goal of the Allies was to stop the Axis Powers. Next, morals are opinions. Since opinions are views formed by a person, they don't have to be shared. Due to this fact, morals can't be used because they might not be shared by both sides. This is obvious in a debate I took part in because I said yes, hunting should remain legal, but my opponent said no, it shouldn't remain legal. We had different views based upon our opinions. Our opinions had facts, and so they did become useable. The moral factor, however, did NOT always have facts. I had reasons why my morals could be accepted, but my opponent didn't. Regardless of facts or lack of, both moral arguments were very weak. Finally, moral standards are weak arguments because standards can vary. For example, in China it is normal to eat dog, but most Americans wouldn't dream of eating dog. Hi again losedotexe, time for a second debate.
Resolve: Arguments involving morals standards are weak and/or useless - take 2

Now that expert has been defined, I have no problem with the definition. Now, I am completely ignoring Wikipedia since we know that it's an unreliable source. The second source doesn't say Lincoln was an abolitionist, it says that he said a country can't stand with half slave and half anti slave. You may have heard his famous saying "a house divided against itself cannot stand".[1] Here is another quote from Lincoln. "I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution ofï¿½slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." [2] It can clearly be seen that Lincoln had no intention of eliminating slavery. The amendments my opponent speaks of came late in the Civil War, with the Emancipation Proclamation. This clearly shows that there was no slavery debate with morals. I don't care that morals are required for motive. It is irrelevant in this debate. Your motives are different from mine the same applies to our morals. My opponent has openly stated that everyone has different morals. That's all I needed to read. We have different morals. That's why terrorists can blow themselves up to kill civilians, but Americans won't fire until fired upon. Laws are based on morals, sure, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with them. Are you so ignorant that you can say Hitler's morals didn't become he norm? He ruled for over 10 years and killed millions. Can you really say that his morals didn't become the norm? Once again, I'm not denying that morals are important, I'm arguing that morals aren't a valid argument because they differ. As a closer, you state that we can decide eating animals is immoral. That is a perfect example of my point. I disagree that eating animals is immoral. My opponent has failed refute my ideas, and so they flow through. He dropped them all by saying that even though something changes from person to person, it's a valid argument. I have shown time and again how morals are in invalid arguments. Once again with the quote, not everyone agrees with laws, or morals. 1 http://mobile.brainyquote.com... 2 http://academic.udayton.edu... Thank you.
Resolve: Arguments involving morals standards are weak and/or useless - take 2

I will anyway. All of my opponents definitions agree with mine more or less except one. His definition of opinion. It's just stupid. My opponent states that only an expert can form an opinion. Does that mean I can't have an opinion? While I think this definition is stupid, I also like it because it completely supports me. Since morals are based on opinions, very few people could have morals, and therefore they can't argue morals. This takes my point much farther, but it still supports my point. I don't deny that humans have morals, but like my opponent and I both said, everyone has their own morals. This is why they are weak arguments. No matter how big of an aspect morals are in our lives, they differ from country to country, state to state, city to city, town to town, and person to person. Since there is so much difference in morals, they can't be used to argue. I don't care about my opponents morals, I only care about mine. Finally, just because laws may be based on morals, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with them. I have already explained how morals and opinions are poor arguments based on the fact my opponent has pointed out. Morals differ, therefore it doesn't matter how many people agree with one moral, if you are arguing with someone who disagrees, then your argument is void. Although having morals dictates our actions, that doesn't mean people with differing morals have no incentive. Since we have differing morals, we cannot and should not use our morals to argue since we cannot guaruntee the same morals in our opponent. Based on the fact that Hitler gained control of a shamed nation, does that mean Hitler had the stronger morals? If you answer yes, you may want to reconsider this debate losedotexe, and if you answer no, your entire rebuttal of my first point is void. Trust me, most Germans did NOT support Hitler. I know this because my dad knew a German soldier who doubt in WW2 that would have been, like his comrades, very happy to kill Hitler. This same argument argument applies to my opponent's rebuttal of my second argument. Once again, a simple question voids my opponent's argument, or reveals them to be, in my opinion, morally weak. Granted, the morally weak is my opinion, and one of the people reading this could think Hitler had the greatest morals ever. This supports my point. I have already shown how my opponents points are void. That quote is a poor argument. We are not debating good versus bad, we are arguing moral arguments being useful. Morals depict right and wrong, as shown in definitions, and morals vary. My right is different from your right, losedotexe, and your wrong varies from mine. Just look at our hunting debate. You said hunting is wrong, but I said it's right.
It should be against school rules for a pupil or member of staff to wear any religious dress

My opponent has left this debate pretty wide open so my argument will focus on public schools and teachers in particular. Teachers are members of the staff so this contention is legitimate. Having established that this debate will only be concerned with them and not with students at private schools. Consequentially, my opponent's first two arguments are rendered irrelevant because it is unconstitutional for public school teachers to wear religious costumes. Public school teachers don't have the freedom to wear religious costumes to school any more than they have the freedom to take their clothes off at the Olive Garden. Contention 1: A Public school teacher wearing a religious outfit to school violates the establishment clause. What exactly comprises a religious costume? Well, in order for any costume or dress to be considered religious it has to represent a certain religion in some conspicuous manner. The costume cannot merely be something that certain groups of religious people often wear; it has to symbolize the religion in some significant sense. Here are a couple costumes that do just that. Catholic priest http://www.abc.net.au... Jewish Rabbi http://www.oliviamunn.com... Islamic Mullah http://smma59.files.wordpress.com... Buddhist Monk http://zoltantakacs.com... In order for a religious costume to really count as a religious costume it must be conspicuous, because it must meaningfully represent a certain religion in some way. Wearing any religious costume is therefore a conspicuous display of a certain religion that in some way promotes the religion of its origin. Therefore by public school teachers wearing these costumes they violate the establishment clause, because by wearing them they would be tacitly promoting a religion while acquiring taxpayer's money. [1] Moreover, we can expose students to various other cultures or religions by providing them with world religions classes that never seek to promote any one particular point of view. Contention 2: Children should be free from the religious influence of teachers at public schools. Even if we were to go outside of the United States to someplace like the UK the essence of my argument would remain the same. Children are young and vulnerable and they shouldn't be bombarded with overtly religious symbols from their teachers while they are in school. They should be encouraged to think for themselves while being free from any kind of religious promotion. ========= Conclusion: ========= Let me take a minute to address the religious people that may be reading this debate. I haven't completely dismissed the idea of becoming a teacher, although if I did I would want to teach at a university. However, if I did teach in a public school would you want me to wear this? http://liberal-debutante.com... I didn't think so. If religious people can keep their religious costumes at home we will keep our irreligious costumes out of school also. (Resolution affirmed.) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Best, Freeman
It should be against school rules for a pupil or member of staff to wear any religious dress

I have two points to put forth for my first argument; My first concerns how variety is good for society and for children, and the second concerns human rights and religion's relation to them. Firstly, variety is good. Put simply. We don't want to have children in and having left our schools to be regular uninteresting carbon-copies of each other. We want to have variety within schools and within society. Variety makes things more interesting, and enriches the lives of people to whom it is exposed. We are supposed to live in a multi-cultural society. One of the founding principles of prejudice, which threatens to destroy that society, is ignorance. My point being that if we expose our children to religion in schools, if we show them the nature of what exists, they will have the experience and will be less ignorant and therefore hold less prejudice. Variety makes society a better and more interesting place, and allowing religious freedom within schools should be the paving for a varied multi-cultural society. Secondly, human rights. In the UN declaration of the rights of a child it is stated that children have the right to worship and to express their religion. Put quite simply, if these rules were to be enforces we would be going against this declaration, something it would be unwise to consider. On a less legislative note, should we be taking peoples away, even if it were perfectly legal and not in contravention of any human rights declarations? The answer is no, the moment you take away a freedom, is one when to chip away yet another of the freedoms allotted to a human beings in the world today. We, should, be free to express our religions on the street most certainly, and quite in the opinion of the opposition, in the school scene. And there you have it, how the sanctity of variety, and the un-assailable nature of human rights make it thoroughly immoral for the religious freedom of children to be taken away from the school setting.
Abortion should be illegal

I'd like to start off by saying I appreciate any time that anyone gives to this whether as a judge or an opponent for this debate. I will be representing the Pro position and arguing that "Abortion should be illegal." Rules: 1) No ad hominem (personal attacks) 2) No forfeiting rounds 3) Must have completed at least one other debate Debate format: Round 1- Acceptance and state stances (No reasons or arguments) Round 2- Opening arguments (No rebuttals) Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Final rebuttals and conclusions Pro stance: I am referring to abortions as the deliberate termination of a viable pregnancy and am not referring to instances where the fetus/embryo displays lethal developmental problems or is already dead. I am arguing that the US federal government should immediately make illegal the practice of abortions of any kind and for any reason except in the instance of danger to the mother.
Music Battle

I'll begin by thanking FT for accepting. Let's get to it. http://www.youtube.com... My first song is Rickie Lee Jones's "On Saturday Afternoons in 1963," a song from her debut album. It's a very soothing song that gives a sense of melancholic finality that most songs don't give us (i.e. musicians try and fail to do it). The song's rhythmic tune and its lyrics talk about blissful reminiscence of childhood back in the 60's. I was introduced to the song last year, in a scene in the medical drama "House," when the eponymous character is walking across a lacrosse field, imagining a game going on as he remembers his days playing golf - something he isn't able to do anymore, thanks to a limb infarction in his quadriceps muscle. This song serves almost as a reminder to why "nostalgia" was classified as a disease. According to Robert Hamilton: "In the year 1782, while I lay in barracks at Tin mouth in the north of England, a recruit who had lately joined the regiment ... was returned in sick list, with a message from his captain, requesting I would take him into the hospital. He had only been a few months a soldier; was young, handsome, and well-made for the service; but a melancholy hung over his countenance, and wanness preyed on his cheeks. He complained of a universal weakness, but no fixed pain; a noise in his ears, and giddiness of his head. ... As there were little obvious symptoms of fever, I did not well know what to make of the case. ... Some weeks passed with little alteration ... excepting that he was evidently become more meager. He scarcely took any nourishment . . . became indolent. ... He was put on a course of strengthening medicines; wine was allowed him. All proved ineffectual. He had now been in the hospital three months, and was quite emaciated, and like one in the last stage of consumption. ... On making my morning visit, and inquiring, as usual, of his rest at the nurse, she happened to mention the strong notions he had got in his head, she said, of home, and of his friends. What he was able to speak was constantly on this topic. This I had never heard of before. ... He had talked in the same style, it seems, less or more, ever since he came into the hospital. I went immediately up to him, and introduced the subject; and from the alacrity with which he resumed it.. I found it a theme which much affected him. He asked me, with earnestness, if I would let him go home. I pointed out to him how unfit he was, from his weakness to undertake such a journey [he was a Welchman] till once he was better; but promised him, assuredly, without farther hesitation, that as soon as he was able he should have six weeks to go home. He revived at the very thought of it. . . . His appetite soon mended; and I saw in less than a week, evident signs of recovery." The same feeling of melancholy escapes into the air from the subtle rhythm of the song.
Music Battle

Joanna Newsom - Time as a Symptom This song is my favorite off Joanna Newsom's latest album, "Divers." For those who haven't heard her before, give this a shot. It's not easy to get into but it's perfect in all ways, the melodies, harmonies, lyrics, everything. The lyrics in this particular song are about the way love brings our own mortality to the fore. At some point, she sings, "Love is not a symptom of time. Time is a symptom of love." The idea is that when you're in love, there's so much joy, but it's always pointed towards death, because there's someone in your life that you can't bear to lose. And for the first time, death stops being abstract. It becomes real. So time becomes real, a symptom of love, as Newsom describes it. It's a beautiful song, a powerful philosophical reflection on the moment, and poetic as fvck. I hope you enjoy it!