BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

Babies are not conceptually aware to a level in which they can hold a notable scale of confidence in their beliefs about propositions, and due to that fail to meet the criterion for agnosticism.1. Agnosticism has nothing to do with knowing what you believeAgnostic'sm is not 'unsure of your belief' in any way that implies the belief in and of itself is unlocked in your brain. It is confidence in whether the belief is true. I believe in Aliens, I am agnostic due to weak conviction that my belief is almost certainly true. I am not agnostic as to whether or not I believe in Aliens, that is logically void. 2. You can only believe/disbelieve in propositions.I am unsure whether I believe X proposition is a non-sensical statement, it is literally saying you cannot tell whether you yourself believe in a proposition. If you do not actively hold a propositional belief in X, then you do not believe in X. There is not middle ground on belief. there is no 'uncertainty' whether you believe it or not, only if you are confident in the truth of the belief. 3. Babies don't believe in propositions, therefore atheism is more correct than not.A baby is therefore unable to be cognitively aware in a state that can on a scale actively hold confidence in a belief, not only that but a baby doesn't have a propositional belief in anything theoretical. A baby does not believe in science, a baby does not believe in the E.U. They do not have the ability to hold the belief, and therefore a baby does not believe in God. 4. Babies certainly cannot meet the conceptual criterion for agnosticism.Is it just inconsistent to try and slam agnosticism onto a baby, when you fully admit the conceptual limits of a baby, especially in reference to theoretical concepts. Atheism is the rejection or non-belief/disbelief in God. Now, rejection implies active, since they cannot fully 'reject' propositions, due to their limits, the statements babies reject the belief in God, due to their inability to believe in anything of that level will do.Conclusion.Babies should be considered atheists, until a point in time in which they can become agnostic atheists/agnostic theists/Gnostic theists/Gnostic atheists. By that time, they are not babies.Sources Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism"
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

con doesn't really have much of a definition to back him up, and it mainly goes against the commonly thought notion of this stuff... "agnostic means undecided, atheist means rejection".Firstly, that is not the 'commonly thought definition', that would require a statistic, I used a definition from a cited book in which I then further defended. You have not been able to define anything coherently."con says I can't criticize him for being arbitrary and inferior in his arguments."I never said that, I wouldn't concede my argument are inferior, con is clutching at straws.Easy debate due to no further argument, conjectures or even evidence for his statements. I made a case, I made a sound argument with reference specifically to a definition from a book. Criticise my book or definition, don't just assume I can't have a definition because you don't want me too. In other words, this debate never got off the ground because con didn't stand up to the challenge.
Free will exists only if the soul exists

First off I must say that I never talked about the laws of physics because that is not what governs human behavior so my opponent's argument here falls. My argument about BIOLOGICAL devices is simply to make that point that if we go with his assumption that there is no inherent free will and there has to be an extra force, there are perfectly natural ways of explaining it without asserting a soul exists. But to respond to the rest of his argument, if you actually look at the definition of will which is "the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention"[1] you can see that even if events in the universe are random, which they are, you can still make decisions. So my opponent assuming that with random events comes the inability to make actions is fallacious. Also, when my opponent talks about the brain being subject to the laws of physics he is dead wrong in a) we don't even know how the brain works and b) that the laws of physics are usually used to refer to non biological laws. So here we have shown that even if everything is deterministic, there are other possible explanations and my opponent has not defended his assertion at all.
Free will exists only if the soul exists

It seem that Con misunderstood the point that was made. If human actions are governed solely physics then they must be either deterministic or random, depending upon differing views in classical and modern physics. HOWEVER! Free will as Con kindly defined is "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies". therefore, if the laws of physics are deterministic then there is no FREE will since all of history is set in stone since the beginning of time. and if the laws of physics are random, then there is no WILL at all. (The connection between the nature of physics and human actions should be obvious. human thoughts and actions are centered in the brain which as a result of being a physical object is subject to the laws of physics.) It follows that the only way for free will to exist is for the mechanism to reside in a non physical entity. which might now be called the soul. I look forwards to Cons upcoming arguments
Free will exists only if the soul exists

Seeing as my opponent provided no definitions it is my duty to do so. =========Definitions========= Free will: "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies"[1] Physical world: "The Universe comprises everything we perceive to exist physically, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy. "[2] Deterministic: "an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes"[3] Random: "lacking any definite plan or order or purpose"[4] ========Arguments======= My opponent claims since (he says) our actions are not random, they must be deterministic and thus the soul exits. This is a major fallacy because his argument assumes that there is no other cause to our supposed free will except the soul. This may not be true considering we are biological machines and, according to the definition of determinism, our actions can be controlled by anything, even our chemistry. Nextly, our actions are, in fact, random. Our decisions are aren't governed by anything seeing as, when things are governed by a force, they are predictable but since, as my opponent would agree, any given action cannot be predicted accurately. Lets compare our random actions with something that is governed. The theory of gravity is a predictable, governed action. We know that if we drop an apple it will fall whereas if I ask someone to decided to leave a room or not, we can make a guess based on probability but we cannot know for certain. I will be expanding my arguments as the debate goes on. [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Rap Battle : Jack Sparrow(Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

That rap was so gay that I wish I would have just stayed dead Elizabeth may have chose me second, but I still got some head You said you beat the dark lord with a wand, like that was actually sick I dont know what you are smoking, but a sword always beats a stick I am a king of pirates, a legend in my own right The only reason you are a legend, is because you watched your parents die. Why would they pair me against this little runt We have nothing in common, he has never even seen a cnt I have slept with so many girls, that I lost count a long time ago This btch couldn't even get hermonie, so he decided to fuk a weasley hoe I am going to end this little btch right here, before this goes on to long That little red head he thinks actually loves him, is smoking on my Caribbean dong.
Rap Battle : Jack Sparrow(Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

Please I beg of you put that rum in a cup Then grow up and wipe off the makeup You were Elizabeth's second choice All you can get is tavern hor with a man's voice You were defeated by a lazy drunk and by the way check your fingernails there is some nasty funk I used a stick to defeat the dark lord You got beat by a white boy with a sword You whine and cry about your black pearl Just your scent make me want to hurl Your obviously gay for your first mate What fans do you have because all I see is hate Your black beards Bitc* When we would wrather warch Lilo and Stitch Grow a pair Then quit lying about your back hair This battle was ober already Ready Aim Steady ZAP Now learn how to read a map So go home cry, and do the only thing you can do FAP,FAP,FAP
Rap Battle : Jack Sparrow(Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

YO HO HO and a bottle of rum It is finally time to put an end to this four eyed bum This rap battle was over before it was even through You know its bad when Rowling said dumbledore was gay for you How do you expect me to kill me mate, I already rose from the dead I am going to put a bullet in your knee, and give you another scar to match the one on your forehead. Ive plundered villages and boned women, you have hardly even had a snog That one time I kissed elizabeth, she told me my dik felt like a log See we are in different leagues there is no denying that fact. I hang out with pirates and hot chicks, you hang out with a gay guy in a hat Poor little harry lost both him mum and dad as a boy To be honest when I read that I shed a tear of joy The one big difference between voldemort and myself is people always try to see the best in me But one thing we both share in common is that we need to kill little harry to finally fulfill our destinies I am going to end this round right here, anything extra would be an added bonus Then I am going to take his wand and shove it up his azz, then yell EXPO POTRONUS
Rap Battle : Jack Sparrow(Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

I have a magical wand You ride boats in a pond I am the chosen one I could knock you off with the Elder Wand Do not speak of the one that shall not be named I am the one with the glory and fame I will cast a spell and put you to shame While you dance around with your jar of dirt SHIZAMMM now I will bring the hurt I will break your bone and marrow Stand down Jack Sparrow
There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

My opponent is correct in saying that we are debating in the context of whether gay marriage should be allowed as a matter of of public policy. Marriage is a civil rightA civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [1]. If civil rights are rights that are gained by membership in a society (citizenship), then marriage is one of these rights. Marriage is not a natural right because it is not something that humans are born with. Marriage is a right that one gets from society, thus a civil right.Not allowing same sex marriage is a violation of civil rightsFrom the Cornell law website:"Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class" [2]. Marriage has been established as a civil right. If we deny a class of people the right to marry because they are a member of this class, then this is a civil rights violation. Definition of marriageIf marriage was defined as an institution only between a man and a woman, then it could be argued that denying homosexual couples marriage is not a civil rights violation. In the first round of this debate however, the definition of marriage included same sex marriage. My opponent did not challenge this and drops are counted as concessions, so marriage can either be heterosexual or homosexual. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.Sources:[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]- http://www.law.cornell.edu...
There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

Resolved: There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage.Definitions: Valid- sound; just; well founded [1].Deny- to withhold something from [2].Reasons- a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event,etc. [3].Same-sex couples- a relationship between two persons of the same sex [4].Marriage- the societal institution under which a man and woman or partners of the same sex establish their decision to live together as spouses by legal commitments [5].Rules:1. First round is for acceptance unless Con wishes to begin arguments.2. Drops are counted as concessions3. No new evidence last roundBoP:Con must prove that there are valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage. Sources:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Truth" is Ultimately subjective.

I would like to reiterate to my opponent that we are having a purely metaphysical discussion. We are debating ideas. As such, proof is incredibly difficult to provide. The "intent" of this debate relies on the intents of the two parties participating in the debate, and the intents of both parties (in all cases) are different, and therefore, subjective. No two parties ever debate over "objective truth". The fact that my opponent is even trying to disprove my argument means that his argument(as well as mine) is ultimately subjective. I would like to propose a scenario: If a young child only did half of his homework when his parents asked him if he had completed his homework, and he said "Yes", is he lying? From the parents' perspective, he might have been lying, but from another point of view, he was indeed telling the truth (be it a half or quasi-truth). "Truth" all comes down to the perspective of the involved parties. While I have not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that truth is ultimately subjective, I hope that I have adequately shown the plausibility that all truth is ultimately subjective.
"Truth" is Ultimately subjective.

As we are talking about the metaphysical, my opponent attempts to weasel his way out of the burden of proof; but that's not going to happen on my watch. . http://wristfashion.com... So, it does remain my opponent's burden to defend his assertions. Meanwhile, my previous statement is not subjective. It being about objective truth or subjective truth is irrelevant, because that's not what my statement hinged upon. I'll cut the statement so as to highlight the important part. "It is, as a matter of fact, an objective truth that we are having this debate. " The only way my opponent could deny that is if he tried some sneaky way to define the sentence out of context, but that would be bad conduct on his part; we both know the intent of this debate. And here's something else to consider- it is an objective truth that my opponent will have to type on a keyboard in order to respond to this/these argument(s). I anticipate something foxy.
"Truth" is Ultimately subjective.

I would like to clarify that we are talking about the metaphysical in this debate, and as such, "proof" is very difficult to provide. In light of this, I would like to assert that my opponent's previous statement that "we are having this debate about objective truth" is, in itself, subjective, due to the fact that while he (or she) may think that this debate is about "objective truth", I may possibly think this debate to be about "subjective truth".
"Truth" is Ultimately subjective.

I'll provide the definitions. ---Definitions--- Truth: the true or actual state of a matter [1] Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). [2] Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased [3] ------------------ I have one argument, seeing as my opponent only made assertions without backing them up. I claim that it is, as a matter of objective fact, an objective truth, that we are having this debate about objective truth. If my opponent can prove otherwise, we'll find out in round 2. I look forward to my opponent's response. The resolution is negated. ---Sources--- [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Truth" is Ultimately subjective.

This was, by far, the quickest intellectually-stimulating discussion I've had on DDO. Anyways, let's analyze the debate, in terms of points. My opponent made the assertion that all truth is subjective, and then did nothing to prove it. That is voting point #1, AGAINST PRO. Voting point #2 is that TeaGreenAttorney DID in fact use the keyboard to refute my argument, which is objective. It was an idea initially, and it came true. Voting point #2 is FOR CON. The third voting point is the homework issue; the question asked was if he had "completed" his homework. For homework to be complete, it must be 100% taken care of. The child did in fact lie, and in any case, child psychology proves that the child understands this- he just doesn't want to have his WoW account cancelled, like in the case of the provided video. http://www.youtube.com... Voting point #3 is AGAINST PRO. QUOTE (from TGA, or TeaGreenAttorney hereafter) ______ "The "intent" of this debate relies on the intents of the two parties participating in the debate, and the intents of both parties (in all cases) are different, and therefore, subjective. No two parties ever debate over "objective truth". The fact that my opponent is even trying to disprove my argument means that his argument(as well as mine) is ultimately subjective." ______ END QUOTE This paragraph makes no sense, and, even if it did, it is not pertinent to the debate. Voting point #4 is a DROP, AGAINST PRO. Finally, the fifth voting point- my opponent only ATTEMPTED to prove that SOME truths are subjective; and I agree. But the resolution he is defending claims that ALL truth is subjective. Also, AGAINST PRO. Thanks for the quick debate, but it wasn't as in-depth as I had expected; although it was fun. I urge the only reasonable vote to be cast by the voters- which is why I urge you to ~VOTE CON~
Christians should use peaceful conversion methods.

The idea of a true faith is interesting. You don't make it clear what the true faith or faiths would be. This is interesting, since your entire argument revolves around destroying faiths that deviate. Many consider Catholicism to be heresy. This is for many reasons but one is that the pope wore a fish hat symbolizing a pagan God. "The Mitre hat that is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents Dagon the Babylonian fish god." [1] Because Catholicism is so popular, this begs the question, which is the one and only true faith? I will argue that using force resulted in more heresy. Instead of using logic, words, and biblical evidence force was used. Meaning heretics could force their way and corrupt Christianity. Thanks for debating. Sources 1. http://romancatholicbeliefs.org...
Christians should use peaceful conversion methods.

I first want to make a point concerning so called "forced conversions". Unless we are speaking in a completely historical context, there is no modern example to use concerning conversion methods. In fact, despite claims by Christians (and yes I am a Christian), Christianity is on the decline in America and Europe (1). Similarly, the only instance of any form of "forced" conversion would take place within a family setting- the well known attribute of disowning due to a change in religious beliefs among family members. So, I will instead debate historical accounts and traditions of Christianity concerning conversion. To begin, the most well known and written about account (in my opinion) of historical Christian conversion by force would be that of the early Christian church in the Middle East, North Africa, and certain parts of Europe. Due to the fact that the Christianity was so "new", any form of heresy would be catastrophic to orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it is extremely clear what form of Christianity was considered biblical correct. Of course, throughout time, various denominations spring from the original apostolic faith- but they are still considered being a part of the Church (Body of Christ in this context). Modern groups such as the Mormons, or the Jehova's Witnesses are NOT canonical and are better considered cults. Just in the same way that the Arians of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Therefore, forced conversion of these peoples to true apostolic canon would, at the time, be considered acceptable. In other words, in order for the church to have survived, any form of dissension would be catastrophic toward Christian structure. (1). http://www.dailyrepublic.com...
Christians should use peaceful conversion methods.

I think that Christians should use peaceful conversion methods as opposed to forced conversion methods. I really do not see the other point of view, if there even is one. All that will happen if Christians resort to violence is it will galvanize the non-Christian community. Peace is the way of Christ in my opinion. Just for starters the 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill. [0] Also, Christians are supposed to obey man-made laws. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." [1]There is no doubt in mind that Christians should use peaceful conversation tactics. Hardly any government would tolerate forced conversions in contemporary western culture. Thanks for reading, interested if anyone has an opposing viewpoint. Sources0. http://www.the-ten-commandments.org...1. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Flat Tax

“The increase in the poor's demand for money would lead many people away from low paying jobs, ensuring that companies compete more for their employees, raising their wages and benefits.” First off, my opponent conceded that implementing a flat tax would be completely unfair. My opponent claims that a flat tax would benefit countries. But, flat tax can shut down companies, more so than having a positive effect. [1] Not only would a flat tax widen wealth inequality in the country, opponents say it might allow the rich to duck paying taxes on a large portion of their income. Many proposals exempt investment income, which can be a major source of money for some affluent households. Small businesses may also suffer under a flat tax if they are unable to deduct expenses that cut into profits. In 2011, we had already tried out a flat tax, which failed, miserably. [1] 2011. Several Republican presidential candidates embraced the flat tax that year. Herman Cain recommended it be set at 9 percent while Rick Perry proposed an optional 20 percent tax. However, these proposals and others like them have failed to gain traction. It’s not necessarily because people love the current tax system. Even those who oppose the flat tax say our current tax code is broken. This is why we have “History” in schools, to learn from past mistakes, and to not repeat them. “This leads into the argument against your claim that the taxes would benefit the rich. The vast majority of the rich are owners of large companies, with a large number of employees.” My opponent is making the assumption that all wealthy people are business owners, which isn’t true. As I have stated previously, regardless how you get your money, and if you’re rich, a flat tax is completely unfair. [2] It gets worse. Flat tax proposals would exempt investment income, which largely goes to the rich. Our personal income tax already taxes capital gains and stock dividends at lower rates than wages, which mostly benefits the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. Rather than eliminating these and other special breaks, the flat tax proposals would expand them into one big exemption for investment income. As we can see, not only is a flat tax, completely unfair, but it is also bad for businesses which refutes my opponents arguments. Sources: [1] http://finance.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.usnews.com...