BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Opening It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited the last round. I urge voters to take account of this in their voting decisions. Re-Cap I will simply re-state the arguments I’ve presented so far. Argument from Experience P1. For all propositions p, unless there are plausible defeaters for p presented* to S, if a subject S’ personal perceptions and experiences entail p, it is prima facie reasonable for S to believe (assent to) p. P2. There are no plausible defeaters for the belief that [God exists] presented to S. P3. S’ personal experiences and perceptions include [spiritual experiences of God]. P4. A necessary condition for S’ spiritual experiences is that God exists. P5. S’ spiritual experiences entail [God exists]. C. Hence, it is prima facie reasonable for S to believe that [God exists]. I defended Premise one by citing common sense examples of reasonable beliefs. This assumes a foundationalist account of justification (which can be problematic), but since PRO has already made several such assumptions, it seems unobjectionable that I do the same. Premise two runs along these same common-sense lines. Surely, any belief for which there are defeaters presented to S, it is unreasonable to have those beliefs. However, PRO’s only objection thus far to theistic belief has been that there is a lack of evidence. This, however, falls prey to the Argument against evidentialism. A1. It is unreasonable to believe any proposition p that is not supported by evidence. (Assertion by PRO) P1. Proposition W [An external world exists] is not supported by evidence. C1. From A1 and P1, believing W is unreasonable. P2. Proposition C [Human cognitive faculties (our senses and reason) are reliable] is not supported by evidence C2. From A1 and P2, believing C is unreasonable. The implications of this argument are powerful. It is the conjunction and W and C that allows us to collect evidence, since it is unreasonable to believe W and C (alone or together) it is unreasonable to believe anything which follows from them, similar to how truth or falsehood transfers from premises to conclusions. This means that believing anything based on evidence is unreasonable, leading to a severe problem for PRO. On the assumption A1 above, evidence is required to make a belief reasonable, but evidence cannot justify a belief in C or W, which negates the justificatory power of evidence. So, either A1 is false or else all beliefs are equally unreasonable. That being the case, PRO’s arguments fail to affirm the resolution. I would go so far as to suggest that these arguments serve to negate the resolution. Closing I urge voters to take into considerations PRO’s forfeit in this last round. Not only have I presented reasons against the resolution, PRO has also left my arguments standing. These two should, ideally, lead to my receipt of conduct and arguments. I would like to thank AndyHood for this debate. It took me some time to formulate my argument, and I appreciate the opportunity to think.
A Creator's Existence is Apparent

Full Resolution: Given the philosophical thought and empirical evidence available to us within the natural universe, we can safely conclude that a creator's existence is apparent.Rules:1. The burden of proof is solely on Pro. My job is to demonstrate any possible errors within his reasoning.2. Due to this, I will begin my counter-argument in round two while Pro will give his argument in the first round.3. Pro mustn't provide any new argument in round five to compensate for his advantage of having the first round to present his argument. Round five will be reserved for a concluding remark for Pro.4. Though it is preferable that Pro sticks with the arguments that he has presented in another debate he is currently participating in, it is not necessary for him to be constrained to these arguments. Pro may mention anything he thinks makes the existence of a creator apparent.5. By accepting, Pro accepts the following definitions:Creator (as stolen from Pro's current debate): An intelligent mind that thinks and creates; an actual personal entity which is eternal and everlasting.If Pro takes issue with any of the proposed rules, then he will comment his complaints in the comments so that I may change them as he sees fit. Good luck!
Chocolate tastes good

If you don't like chocolate there are three possible reasons why. 1) You have never had good chocolate 2) You are allergic to chocolate 3) You are an alien or robot. The fact is chocolate is good, and science even shows that it has all the right chemicals and properties to be good. (serotonin, glucose, sucrose, etc.). Not to mention that cocoa has many health benefits, in moderation, and can fight some psychological diseases. The root coco even means 'grinning face,' so its got to be good.
Anonymity should be allowed for social media.

In fact, the topic of Internet anonymity is one I feel very strongly about so I hope to be able to create a good argument for anonymity. Why should we care about Internet anonymity? There are a multitude of reasons that we have seen in the past and am sure we will see in the future. Where a valid comment, blog or even debate by a person has resulted in real world consequences. We just need to consider the case of the Atheist bloggers in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh that have been jailed for saying something as simple as "I do not believe in god". (1,2) Maybe I should add that the blogger in question from Saudi Arabia is also going to get lashed 1000 times! Now probably my opponent will point out that this is extreme and this stuff only happens in far right counties. Well this is clearly not the case for the Alabama blogger Roger Shuler who never did anything wrong in terms of defamation for 9 years on his blog. (3) Now there are two charges and jail time, even though the first amendment is probably being disregarded in both these cases. Seems like anonymity in these circumstances would have been a good thing, and this is why I am in favor of anonymity. Signs ups don't help My opponent says that signing up for services will stop cyberbulling, which I will touch on in the next section again. The fact is you can still get around these sign ups and ensure your anonymity on-line by using VPNs or TorBrowsers. (4, 5) As such cyberbullying will not stop as these people will do what they always do anyway with the help of proxys etc. The fact is the Internet is becoming more restrictive now with bizarre policies in place. For example, why do you have to give your phone number to sign up for an e-mail adress? Its not necessary, unless they want to be able to pinpoint you. Now while this may sound like a conspiuracy and probably is. Lets not forget that the NSA listening in on all conversations was considered a conspiracy too by many people. (6) High NSA peeps, I hate you :) We need a free and anonymous Internet to be able to organize protests or parties with no fear of retribution. Parental responsibility A child using the Internet needs to be taught responsibility by their parents. The fact is cyberbullying can take place and will take place even if we try take away anonymity which is impossible. A responsible parents job is to monitor their childs Internet use and make sure they are not using it for bad purposes. In fact even social media used to have age limits on them, however this has all changed as parents are not taking responsibility and the companies have giving up playing parent. (7) In essence cyberbullying could be stopped by parental control, so the problem starts at home and not on-line with anonymity. I now hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://amnesty.org...(2) . http://www.christianpost.com...(3) . http://www.salon.com...(4) . http://www.webopedia.com...(5) . https://www.torproject.org...(6) . http://www.theguardian.com...(7) . http://mashable.com...
Anonymity should be allowed for social media.

Anonymity on social media means that one does not have to give away their identity when posting. Most of the major social media websites and apps (such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and even Debate.org) require the user to create a profile with a username an passowrd. That way, other users can tell who is posting what. Other applications and websites are anonymous. These incude sites like Whisper, Yik Yak, and Ask.fm. A few online newspapers and magazines also allow anonymous posting. While anonymity may be useful for protecting one's identity, the cons outweigh the pros in this situation. There are too many dangers with anonymity, and it therefore should be banned from social media. This I plan to prove to you. Cyberbullying is one of the biggest problems among teenagers today. About 20-30% of teenagers have been cyberbullied, and about 20% have cyberbullied others. About 1/10 of the victims have attempted suicide, making it the third biggest reason for teenage deaths. Why is cyberbullying so big and widely used? It's simple. It's efficient. It's easier to get away with. Many parents and educators are unaware of cyberbullying simply because they are not as attune to social media. If a bully is calling a kid names in the hallways, teachers can more easily spot the issue and work to fix it. Online, kids can post mean comments, mock others, and hurt many people's feelings without being caught. They still have a risk of getting caught when they have profiles, but on websites that are anonymous, the bullies can be invisible. Take Ask.fm for example. The idea of Ask.fm is that a person sets up a page (so the person's identity is known), and they tell people to ask them questions that they have to answer. Unfortunately, the askers are anonymous. I have heard tale of countless people in tears and considering suicide because anonymous askers have bullied them on Ask.fm. They have no way of figuring out who the culprit is, and they cannot track down and stop the problem. Yik Yak is considered on of the most dangerous social media apps out there. The idea of this site is that the user can send out an anonymous post to everyone within a certain radius (almost like a large community group chat or anonymous tweeting). Schools across the nation have seen this app used to blow up the school (in a figurative sense) in just a matter of hours. With false rumors being spread, and mean insults being sent to a large population of students, the victims have little way of defending themselves. These examples are just a few of many. A frightening number of social media sites have anonymous posting, providing a playground for cyberbullies and a battlefield for students across the nation. We need to put an end to recess and sign a peace treaty to stop this war. Sources: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cyberbullyhotline.com... http://www.foxnews.com...
High-speed rail should receive federal government subsidy in-place of current subsidies on highways

"Also, wikipedia is not an acceptable source material last time I checked." - Wikipedia is an accepted source by many if not all members of DDO. Unless specifically set out beforehand Wikipedia is an acceptable source. I will debate you on the claim that it is not an acceptable source. Also, you had no sources. I wouldn't harp on my source since you had none of your own. As for my refutations, I apologize I did not remember at the point of posting my argument that we weren't supposed to refute until Round Three. However, I did post legitimate arguments of my own that coincided with my refutations. I did not concede the debate but made points based around refuting your arguments. I don't think it matters what we refute or when but I will let the voters decide if I was in the wrong. Otherwise, your opening merely sounds whiny and defensive. C1. American driving culture is not unreasonable or unsustainable. If it was, it wouldn't be a big facet of American life. Also, you still have not responded to what I said about the fact that taking this money away would damage the safety of major road ways. Highways like I-95, I-10 and I-75 have thousands of drivers a day, not to mention the trucking industry which is completely reliant on the highway system. Taking money away from highways is just not an option. C2. You cannot use existing rail lines for high speed rail. They need to be a special kind of rail that are built of entirely light weight steel and have few turns or corners. You can't just use existing rail. Also, that would disrupt regular rail traffic already existing. Again, your claim for 4,000 miles of track constitutes ONE RAIL LINE. One line only. You're arguing for taking away highway money to build a single line? C3. You can fly across the country for $450, I sourced this in my last round. This is roughly the same price as your average ticket price but you'll get there WAY sooner by plane. C4. Yes but that is with absolutely NO STOPS. Trains stop quite frequently. If you averaged say ten stops from NY to LA for about 30 minutes each you've already added 5 hours to your trip time. That is the time it takes to fly cross country in train stops alone.C5. This isn't an argument, it's an attack with no facts, sources or points so I am going to ignore it.My arguments were 100% legitimate. I actually used sources. I apologize for breaching the rules from Round One because I honestly forgot. In a 3 Round debate you don't usually hold off contentions until Round 3 especially since Pro has the BOP. I will let the voters decide that.
High-speed rail should receive federal government subsidy in-place of current subsidies on highways

First off I would like to begin by saying that you conceded defeat when you broke the rules that you agreed to in round one by disputing my claims in the second round, that is what this round is for. Also, wikipedia is not an acceptable source material last time I checked. 1. I suggested taking money away from highway subsidies, the plan would be to phase out miles of unnecessary highway and take away money that lowers the price of oil (which is where most highway subsidy lies) and supports an unreasonably unsustainable lifestyle for most Americans. 2. The track I am referring to laying WOULD be around 4000 miles if you go from New York through Chicago through St. Louis through Denver through LA hitting many major cities, for shorter distance travel the best way to go would be to use existing rail lines to go north and south. 3. If you understood at all what a subsidy is or what a passenger mile is then you would understand that the $1600 is not for each passenger and passenger tickets worldwide average around $200-$400 American for a trip of this distance. Last time I checked you can't get a cross country flight for $200... 4. A cross country train ride at an average of 90 miles per hour (very low average speed for high speed rail) would take under two days and at a speed of 150 miles per hour the trip would take just over a day. Not unreasonable when you consider many people make that trip by car at much lower speeds on roundabout interstate systems. 5. You're claims are wildly false since you failed to comprehend any of my claims. Trains ARE cheaper, they are only slight slower than planes, and the sustainability of trains DO make them worthy of subsidy (if anything is). Let's recap why you should side with me, my opponent broke the rules agreed to in round 1, he didn't use any valid sources, and he made false arguments.
High-speed rail should receive federal government subsidy in-place of current subsidies on highways

1. The amount of money in government subsidies the U.S. spends on highways annually is around $160 billion. http://reason.com... 2. The first rail line that should be built would run from the east coast to the west coast as to make transportation most efficient totaling in around 3,000 miles of track, 4,000 at most. This is more of a statement as to how to make high-speed rail most efficient rather than a backing its validity but i felt it necessary to include. 3. High speed rail in Europe currently costs around 40 cents per passenger mile. So one full length trip cross country would cost $1600 meaning using just the $160 billion in subsidies on highways there could be 100 million cross country trips per year and this doesn't include the revenue from ticket sales. 4. Since high-speed rail is extremely fuel efficient (http://www.ushsr.com...) the united states would use significantly less oil. The reduced demand would keep the price of oil low. 5. High speed rail is a fast form of transportation compared to a car and it would be far cheaper than taking a plane. For anyone who has taken a train they are much more comfortable than the other two main forms of cross-country transportation. 6. (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk...) This blog refers to high speed rail in the UK but the important idea that the blog is based on is that high speed rail has already had great success economically in Europe, so why would a similar system not work here? 7. Railways are extremely safe, especially high speed rail. Railways are the second safest mode of transportation next to airplanes and high speed rail is right on track with airplanes. Remember that devastating 9.0 level earthquake and those tsunamis that destroyed large pieces of Japan's infrastructure? Do you know what wasn't damaged? The Japanese high speed rail system. http://www.treehugger.com... 8. As far as business is concerned high speed rail allows people to be most efficient while traveling. Work can be done while traveling since there is appropriate room on a train to do so, even conference rooms on some. The time you save in commute also allows for more time at work and quicker returns home. On a train you are afforded the luxury of full internet access and cellular access too. http://www.midwesthsr.org...
Should the United Nations Consider the Palestine State a official Country

Disappointing. FF by Con"Between 1947-49: At least 700,000 Arabs were displaced and ethnically cleansed and their villages were destroyed. More than 80 percent of the total Palestinian population was expelled from the country. “More than 530 Palestinian villages were depopulated and completely destroyed.”Palestine should be independent because Issrael conducts apartheid on their people. Forfeiture by Con means automatic Pro
Should the United Nations Consider the Palestine State a official Country

FF leads to Pro ballotRebuttalJust because they are not currently recognized doesn't mean they shouldn't. My source is better than a Wikapedia blog"Current estimates put the Palestinian refugee count at 6 million people. Some of these reside in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Since 1948, the World Community has recognized the Right of Return to Palestine under the U.N. Resolution 194."http://itisapartheid.org...Israel oppresses the Palestinian country and they deserve recognition
Should the United Nations Consider the Palestine State a official Country

David Ben-Gurion, made clear the intentions of Israel’s Zionist movement when he said in 1937: “We must expel Arabs and take their place. But one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.” After the 1947 war was over, Ben-Gurion declared:“The Arabs of the land of Israel have only one function left to them-to run away.” 3 This has effectively been the policy of Zionist Israel to present day.http://itisapartheid.org...
Should the United Nations Consider the Palestine State a official Country

Today I will be debating of why the United Nations should not consider Palestine a Official Country. No offense to Palestine but they do not recive any recognition by the United Nations and also even though they might have "clamied" Jerusalem they are not Internationally recognized accourding to Wikipedia (Locked Page) also the Armed Forces they have is internationally recognized as a "Terrorist Group" accourding to International Bussiness Times.
Did WW1 Start Because of Gavrilo Princip

I would like to clarify the proposition to a greater extent then previously mentioned: It queries whether Gavrilo Princip was the root cause of World War 1. Gavrilo Princip was a mercenary and bourgeoisie fellow who worked for the Unification or Death organization. When he killed Sophie and her husband with a handgun, he tried to flee. When he was caught by Austro-Hungarian patrollers he tried to swallow a cyanide capsule. The patrollers allegedly waited for him to end his own fate as he was not of significant worth for interrogation and break down of the leader of the group. Alas, the cyanide capsule was too old and it did not kill him. The patrollers imprisoned him with minimal interrogation; he died of tuberculosis while incarcerated. As you can see, the Austro-Hungarian officials didn't think much of him and neglected to question him for the murder of their own crowned prince. He was of so little value to the officials that he was immediately headed to prison; this also proves that he was a small pinprick in the grand scheme of things and that he little if not any altered the tides of war. If you were going to blame the eruption of war on a single individual who holds power over the mercenaries (such as Princip) it would be Dimitrijevic, who was the man who initially planned the operation for the killing of the Archduke. He was the mastermind behind the schemes and there were many operations from different countries that targeted the man. He was a large pinpoint during the opening phases of the war, and he undoubtedly held a more pivotal role in the rousing of the war than Princip. He hired Princip to do his dirty work and as a result, he was targeted by Austro-Hungarian officials who suspected him of connection to extremist parties. His name popped up everywhere and he was given an infamous role, in the uprising of the Serbs. Once again, please hear me out. Princip was a small man that was being manipulated by many stronger adversaries that were controlling his actions. If the 'Black Hand' did not exist back then, then Princip would have not been scolded to bid the killings and there would be no monetary or credence incentive to do so. All in all, the public apathy of the time and the killing of the Archduke was a primitive and subtle factor of the uprising of World War 1.
Did WW1 Start Because of Gavrilo Princip

Yes i do agree. But only because Austria wanted Bolivia and the people of Serbia were not agreeing my argument is clear Gavrilo was unhappy because of what The Austrian-Hungarian empire wanted to do. He then planed to assassinate him. But i am realizing that there were other reasons on why WW1 started such as gaining an empire, germany and france trying to be better than each other, but the Assassination of Franz was the fuse of WW1 and Gavrilo Lit it