BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of god

Each thing I write is a counterargument to what you say. Read his argument and mine at the same time, back and forth, sentence to sentence. Here we go If you have no proof that there is something to accept, that how do you know that there is something to accept in the first place. Unless you can prove to me that he does, all I know is that god doesn"t exist. What lack of fair play? What hypocrisy? Also, I am immature for challenging you to a debate for know reason just as you are immature for accepting this debate for no reason. Plus, unless you can prove to me that god exists, I don"t think there is a hell! Unless you can prove to me there"s something to look at, I"m failing to see nothing! Plus, what have you seen? Have you seen god in person? Also, remember that lying is sinning, so don"t lie! I do have evidence that god doesn"t exist. For example, the Bible states that god is human-oriented, but the universe that god supposedly created is not human oriented. There are two trillion galaxies, and only one of them has us. The universe is not human oriented, and if god created everything and he is human oriented, the fact that the universe is not human-oriented proves that god doesn"t exist. Unless you prove there is something to be ignorant of, I am ignorant of nothing. This talking and these scrolls, clay tablets, and multiple religions could all have easily been made to gain money and power off of people like you. Calling me stupid, lazy, and useless is immature (as you mentioned earlier) and doesn"t prove me wrong. If I understood what you were saying through your poor grammar, you have no proof I will suffer eternal suffering unless you prove god"s existence. No, it doesn"t. Any person could"ve wrote that attribute. (were you not paying attention , because you have very poor grammar) I am not unaware and abtuse unless you give me proof there is something to be aware and abtuse about! Who says I am like these people? You have no proof I am! I didn"t stop believing in god because of a commercial! You have no proof that when people die they go to hell! Again I am not those people, and again, you have no proof there are consequences. You have no evidence anything will happen to me or you or them! Anyone could"ve wrote that. You have no proof that will happen to me. Calling my beliefs useless proves nothing. Anyone could"ve wrote a scripture. You have no proof I"m going to hell. So it was in the news. People could"ve made up those stories. Do you know those people? Scripture could"ve been written by any man or woman.
Language classes in schools should be allowed to use dialects.

My conclusion will be short. I will point out that local dialects die naturally all the time. It is a natural process and I only argue that we don't keep local dialects artificial alive by teaching them in language classes. By taking the long view we will also be able to prevent all the short lived negative effects my opponent have brought into the case. Children who learn the standard dialect will still be able to talk to the parents and grandparents, because they should all have learned if as second language before we make it first language. For the end I will point out that in round 3 we came to agreement that a common language helps unify a country. In round 4 and 5 we agreed that when a nations lack unity it creates social instability, which may end in civil war or other tragedies. In the last round my opponent point to social stability as the main reason behind Scandinavian success and their social progression. This doesn't mean that a common language will bring social progression or prevent all civil wars, but it points to the fact that a common language is something to strive for.
Language classes in schools should be allowed to use dialects.

I shall now go on with my constructive arguments. I shall present two of them in this round, and save another two for Round Three. Firstly, not all students are gifted with the ability to learn several their native dialect and the standard language at an early age. Many a child has been deprived of her language abilities because she needs to learn her native dialect, the standard variety of her native dialect, and the international lingua franca, English. In one case, a child who had to learn Cantonese, Putonghua, English and Japanese ended up speaking only baby-talk. (1)Learning their dialect and the standard simulataneously can confuse children. For example, the characters 隨 and 垂 are pronounced 'sui' and 'chui' in Putonghua, but the consonants are reversed in Cantonese: the two characters are pronounced 'ceoi' and 'seoi' (jyutping) respectively. Influenced by Putonghua, many Cantonese pronounce 隋 as 'seoi' and 垂 as 'ceoi'. (2)My city was returned to Chinese rule 15 years ago, and unlike the Mainland and Taiwan, no efforts have been made to replace Cantonese with Putonghua completely. Schools are encouraged, but not obliged, to use Putonghua during language lessons. There is certainly more Putonghua than during the colonial era, but calls for complete replacement are not loud. This is because many schools which teach Putonghua in Chinese lessons have less time to teach written Chinese because of the extra burden to teach pinyin. (3) This is not good for weaker students as their learning may be hindered, not enhanced, by Putonghua. Secondly, the language skills of teachers and teaching resources for the standard variety may not be up to scratch. For example, one author wrote that when he was in school, some teachers spoke incomprehensible Putonghua during the lessons. (1) In Hong Kong, in the years following the handover, Putonghua teachers were trained, but some teachers were so weak in Putonghua that they had to rely on recordings to teach. (4) If children are taught an incomprehensible version of the standard variety since they were little children, how would they truly master the language when they grow up? Sources:(1) . http://www.baby-kingdom.com...;(2) . http://www.cantonese.asia...;(3) . http://hk.news.yahoo.com...(4) . http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk...
Language classes in schools should be allowed to use dialects.

In most places, language classes are taught in the standard variety of a language. In this debate, I will be arguing for the notion that dialects can be used in language classes in schools; in other words, schools should be allowed to teach non-standard dialects. Definitions (so no semantic arguments): Dialect - a non-standard variety of a language (regardless of mutual intelligibility). Therefore, Wu, Cantonese, Min Nan, Hakka, etc. , are dialects even though they are not mutually intelligible with Putonghua, the standard variety of Chinese; Serbian, Croation and Bosnian are not dialects. For the purpose of this debate, the standard variety is considered a 'standard' and not a 'dialect'.
Should the death penalty still be used in the U.S.A.

In the United States at least 4% of all people killed by the death penalty are innocent. This means that every time that the state puts someone to death there is a chance that what they are doing is not a punishment but a state sanctioned murder of an innocent person. Considering that people are not perfect and there is no such thing as 100% accuracy in the legal system. I contend that that due to the risk of killing innocent people the death penalty should be discontinued leaving life imprisonment without chance of parole should be the highest penalty the state can give. A person being permanently segregated from society unable to hurt anyone on the outside should provide both the punishment and the safety that society as a whole gains from not having dangerous people mixed in to the general population.
It Is Not Necessary That Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

Pro says "If a person was higher than other people, the other people would be upset and may try to get even. But they could fail in their attempts." . Strawman; I never made such a point; my points were: 1. We ultimately live in what feels normal to us. 2. I challenge pro on why a happy life is important to the present self? My point being a measure of happiness, and therefore fairness, is made on the present and future self. Say I came back from a holiday; I went on the holiday for the then present self, but my present self has negligible benefit from that. In all, whether that be move to a big house, or a loss of a loved one, because every improvement and set back in our life ultimately joins our definition of a normal life; then we ultimately everyday will feel "normal". Whether that be waking up in a million dollar house of in the slums, living through a "normal" day fills us with no feeling of happiness or sadness. Yes, some have more improvements, but "Ultimately" we are even.
It Is Not Necessary That Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

We are socially uneven but here I'm arguing that we are "ultimately of equal happiness". "Ultimately" comes from the topic name, equal as synonym for "even" and happiness from pro's round 1 clarifications. I implore readers to try and relate to the following model: An improvement like getting a bigger house makes us happier. However, with time the bigger house by defintion joins the definition of normal. On the other hand, losing a loved one hurts, but in time living without them becomes the norm. Everything ultimately becomes the norm and we ultimately live in the norm. Further, everyone must feel the same happiness living their respective normal day. This comes from the definition of a normal day as "neither good nor bad". Then because we ultimately live in the norm and the norm feels the same, everyone must ultimately be even. Lastly I question pro's notion of "happy life". I ask pro to explain to me the significance of having lived a happy life in the past on the present self.
It Is Not Necessary That Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

You should disagree with me. That is the side of this debate you have opted to take. If you agreed with me or did not want to take the opposite side of my side, you shouldn't have accepted this challenge. Life can be unfair. It's possible that some people die in debt, socially or financially. It's possible some people are just superior to other people. It's possible some people only live until age 3 with average lives, while others live to age 93 with good, happy lives. It's possible some people steal and get away with it in every way possible. If some people are uneven, some people may not like that fact, but it seems there's nothing the dislikers can do about it. That would just be life.
It Is Not Necessary That Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

It's possible that ultimately, not everybody is even. In other words, it's possible that "overall, some people are better or worse than other people" or that "overall, some people have happier and more fulfilling, or sadder and less fulfilling lives than other people have." I contrast this debate with a debate I started and completed less than a week ago titled "Ultimately, Everybody Is Even," located at http://www.debate.org....
Religion as the basis of politics (overall, not of a specific country)

I agree, religion should not be apart of politics but that's not what the argument is about. In many countries, the country was formed for religious tolerance and or religious freedom. Many countries, such as Israel, have been formed as a safe-haven for a certain group. Looking at America, many of the colonies were formed for religious freedom. That influenced the framers when establishing the government. Religious influence on federal, state, or government funded operations is prohibited even though religious freedom was the basis (not the sole basis but one of) for the country and government.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

Great... Imabench assured me that he would at least include some serious challenges to my resolution. I didn't restrict round 1 to acceptance only, and intended to get right to it, but it seems habit may have kept my opponent from responding with more than acceptance in the first round. That's Ok, I'll elaborate on round 1 in round 2. Certain traits in humans have been constant through history, and so reasons for conflict between groups have been constant. To show this, consider these wars and how each motivation played key roles them: Ambition/Envy- any war to do with Empire building. -Alexander the Great's campaign -Saddam Husein's invasion of Kuwait -Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese Empire's territorial advances. -Babylon's expansion -Assyria's expansion -PRC's plans to destroy RoC (There can be only one China) Ideology/Religious conflict -Crusades -Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -South East Asia conflicts of the 1960's-70's -Jihad -PRC pushing RoC off the mainland -myriad uprisings through history (Marxist, Muslim, American Revolution, French Revolution, Reds vs. Whites Russian civil war, American Civil war) Nationalism/Rascism -German, Italian, and Japanese expansion in WWII -William Wallace against the British -Persian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman expansion -Tamil Tigers Survival -1948 Arab-Israeli war and War for Independence. Revenge -Ammonites vs. Jephthah (Judges 11) -French Revolution -Various Communist uprisings -Trojan War -Babylonians and Medes vs. Assyria All other points extend from round 1.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

I have heard much wishful musing over the years about the total elimination of the world's nuclear stockpiles. However, I contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found. I base this resolution on the state of human nature and historical precedent. -I know of no effective weapon that was willingly eliminated from existence by its users without a suitable replacement. If my opponent can supply some examples, he may be able to build a case. -As far as we can tell, armed conflict has been practically constant since 4000 B.C. [1] -The reasons for conflict, and therefore war, are not anywhere near eliminated, and no foreseeable elimination is in sight. The main reasons, as we can see historically are: Ambition/envy (includes ambition for resources in a territory) Ideology/Religious conflict Nationalism/Racism Survival Revenge Unless all these reasons are remedied, there will always be conflict. As long as there is conflict on a personal level, and human leaders, there will be conflict between groups, which leaves war a possibility. So the need for an upper-hand in case of war will always be around. What higher hand exists than an ultimate weapon or more effective strategy to apply force? 1 http://ask.yahoo.com... 2 http://original.antiwar.com...
There is No God

"my opponent must provide an exhaustive proof that he has scaled every inch of the universe" You don't need to scale every inch of the universe to recognize a failed hypothesis. Do you need to search the universe to prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? No, because it is easy to see that the flying spaghetti monster is a ridiculous idea, and if you can see that, then why shouldn't you be able to see that any god is a ridiculous idea? "my opponent is contending that there is absolutely no possibility that God exists" This quote should be enough to answer your question: 'We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.' - Richard Dawkins "Aside from it being completely untrue that there is no evidence (perhaps my opponent confuses evidence with proof)," Please present some "evidence" that a god has ever existed "there is absolutely no reason to assume that something cannot exist if there is no evidence" That statement is certainly true for a lot of things, but not for a god. That statement is not true for a god, for two reasons: 1, with all of the advancements in technology throughout human history and the complexity that a god what need to exist, it would be extremely probable that a god would have been discovered by now if it existed. 2, if a god existed and was all-powerful and wanted people to believe in him, then wouldn't he want to be sure humans had a reason to believe in him? Certainly a god would want to leave behind evidence if the god wanted people to believe in him. "I await my opponent's groundbreaking proof that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist." You don't need groundbreaking proof that a god is impossible, any idiot could figure it out. If something is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, then it must be a living thing. A law of science states that all living things die, so an immortal god is impossible. There would be nothing for a god to exist on before he supposedly created the universe. Also, if a god could listen to prayers, then the only range of hearing would be on earth, which would rule out the possibility of a god being in another universe or even in space. God was only a hypothesis by primitive man on how the earth and universe were created, a failed hypothesis shouldn't be believing in the 21st century.
There is No God

========= Introduction: ========= My opponent has made the categorical statement that God does not exist. Since my opponent did not provide a definition for God, I will assume he means a creator of the universe. ========= Absolute Knowledge ========= Since the statement, "God does not exist," is an absolute statement, in that my opponent is contending that there is absolutely no possibility that God exists, my opponent must provide an exhaustive proof that he has scaled every inch of the universe – looking under every rock and in every chasm. He must show that he has considered every proposition and found that there is NO God. Since this is quite literally impossible, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden and had lost the debate the moment he submitted the resolution. As long as it remains POSSIBLE that there is indeed a creator of the universe, then my opponent loses. ========= God cannot exist because there is no evidence? ========= Aside from it being completely untrue that there is no evidence (perhaps my opponent confuses evidence with proof), there is absolutely no reason to assume that something cannot exist if there is no evidence. There is no evidence that a cure for the common cold exists, this, however, does not mean that no cure ACTUALLY exists. Evidence does not determine existence. 2,000 years ago we had no evidence that atoms or bacteria existed, does that mean they did not exist at that time… there certainly was no evidence for them? ========= It is impossible for God to exist? ========= I await my opponent's groundbreaking proof that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist.
Men and women are equal.

But i have not specified what this (ALL BASIS) are related to.I think its pretty obvious what one means when one says "ALL BASES"(once again, its bases, not basis). The word "all" is used to signify universality.I'm sorry, but I'm really forced to plead that my opponent was misleading in round 1.Anyways, I will argue my opponent on topics which he brought about in rounds 2 & 3.Source in question: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...;In this context, the word "works" is used to quantify "work" in plural. While it is true that "works" is plural for "work", we do not use "works" in normal conversation to denote multiple numbers of work.We use "works" when saying "engineering works" or "artistic works". You would've been correct in your usage of works if you said "who will take care of women's household works" or "household work done by women". But you said "...do household works that are...". This is wrong usage.Here: http://www.englishforums.com...It's a bit complex, I don't want to come off as condescending, and I don't want to get into an English lesson (as it would be off-topic), but since you bothered using a source and all, I was obliged to correct you.Bottomline, your usage is different from that in your source, and hence, wrong.Today many countries are understanding this and are giving equal consessions for women...Source in question: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...That is fine and actually good, but even after this, it only means that women's relative earnings are improving, and not already on par with those of men.So for now, they are still unequal. Maybe in the future they'll be equal, but that isn't what the debate is about. It's about the present.So I am not wrong.I await my opponent's final set of arguments and closing statements in round 4.
Men and women are equal.

But i have not specified what this (ALL BASIS) are related to. If you take all the bases there would be many things to argue-their height,length of their hair,whether they are obesic. .. .. .is my opponent hoping to argue all this. NEVER. This is the reason why i explained the correct initiative of my debate in the second round. And so it is necessary for you to argue on the topic i had given. .. . So i have not done unjust but my opponent has misjudged this topic. What is the matter of using the term masculine WORKS or household WORKS. I have not learnt a mistake using these. Check out only the heading of the following (just check only if you don't mind). . http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com... So if they can use the term WORKS, why can't i? I have not meat "society only exist because men and women are equal". My opponent has misjudged it too. I have said that only men and women together can form a society. If any of the genders are not present then the society does not exist. Therefore they are equal in society. So your point "if women and men are unequal then society exists" is indeed not an opposition of my argument. Just saying what they do is not only important. Is a luxury car only judged by its speed only? So it is necessary to check everything to determine whether they are equal in society. Earnings may be greater for men. But both are doing their roles in the society as these roles are equal. Today many countries are understanding this and are giving equal consessions for women. .. . http://www.equalityhumanrights.com... So my opponent is wrong. .. ..
Men and women are equal.

Pro's argument: ...i am not wishing to argue what men can do that women cannot do or what women can do that men cannot do... If that is the case, then I would like to ask why you said this in round 1: ...i would like to argue that men and women are equal in all basis... By saying all "bases", Pro gives off the impression that he is about to argue about all the abilities as well as disabilities of men and women, and state that they are equal. But then he goes on and says something else in the next round. I find this unjustified. ...who will do the masculine works or muscle power works.... who will do the household works.... I believe it's just "work", not "works". But anyways, we are not arguing as to what would happen if there were no men, or no women. If that were the case, then nobody would really realize the importance of the opposite, as people would be accustomed to doing masculine or household work (type of work performed by the opposite sex). ....they are equal since both of them together forms a society. That statement is no place to be using the word "since". Your statement implies that society exists only because men and women are equal. This is not true. Even if men and women are unequal, society WILL exist. While it is correct that men and women have equally important roles in society, that is not the entire picture. Just by saying that what they do is equally important does not mean they are equal. Equality must ALSO be measured by what is done unto them. Hence, my arguments: 1. Earnings - Men>Women http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. Criminal Sentences - Men>Women http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. Sexual assault victims - Women>Men I believe this many arguments are enough to demonstrate that men and women are not equal in all bases. I eagerly await my opponent's response.