BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no rational path from deism to theism

I think the a topic of whether or not the universe had a designer or designers and the issue of the first uncaused cause are all very interesting and worth a serious debate, maybe in some other topic. Nevertheless even if one grants deism as rational (not that I do) it is very unclear how one can make a rational argument for any particular religion from this point. People many times fail to notice this fact, but the distance from arguing for an entity or entities that designed and started the universe to arguing for a specific god such as the biblical one is many light years away. Note that even if it were possible to go from the designer/starter god or gods to a personal god (not that I see how) which cares about human affairs and interferes in the world, in the form of miracles, it would still be impossible to show which of our religions is correct. Do remember that their claims are incompatible after all. Even if we could somehow narrow it down to the religions that are practiced today, it would still be impossible to know which of them are correct. How about "Sathya Sai Baba" the god man ? The current estimates are that he has around 6,000,000 followers, some argue that there are up to 100,000,000 followers, many of them claim that he is a true miracle worker and they have seen his amazing miracles ! see http://en.wikipedia.org... Imagine a person like this Sathya Sai Baba living 2000 years ago, when we had no knowledge of science. If anything, believing in Sathya Sai Baba claims is more rational than believing in the Jewish, Christian or Muslim claims since, at least, the people that claim Sathya Sai Baba is a god man are alive today and can be interviewed. At least we know for sure that this person exists. The fact of the matter is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient eye witnesses, hearsay, or people just being certain of something to be true are just not good enough to be considered evidence, not to mention extraordinary evidence. If you think I am wrong then we all need to be believing in UFOs, Big foot, Vampires and Sathya Sai Baba, of course. So, having said all that, I am now really interested to see how a rational argument can be made from deism to theism to a specific religion on rational grounds without resorting to "leaps of faith", which are basically the willingness to hold a believe in the absence of evidence, and could make anything possible, including invisible pink unicorns. Conclusion: Atheism is merely a default position "to not believe in any unproven claims", so for a theist to argue for his hypothesis he must make the following rational path: 1. Atheism, non-belief 2. Deism a belief in a designer or designers that started the universe 3. A personal god that cares about human affairs and makes miracles happen 4. A specific religion which is the claim that god wrote specific ancient books or inspired ancient people to write these books and that all of these books are in fact god's word, none of them are fictional, and that they must be followed without exception. This entire path is one that has never been seriously attempted.
Debate the two party system and the elctoral college

The electoral college is (excuse my french) crap. To win the presidency you basically need to win 7(California, Flordia, Texas, Ohio, New york, Illinois, pennPennsylvania) big states and you easily have the presidency, and that is most of the campaigning is held is. In the recent election Donald trump won the electoral vote but not the popular, and in my opinion, that is stupid. We need a system that does it off the number of votes of the people, not our representative's that vote us a person we do not want in office.
Debate the two party system and the elctoral college

I will be debating on the side of the electoral college, but not the two party system. The electoral college gives more power to: The States and The People The Electoral college gives more power to the states by each state counting up its own popular vote, and voting for President based on that statewide popular vote. College members then cast their votes to President based on the statewide vote. This allows individual states to hold power in the Presidential election, instead of it going by the terrible idea of national popular vote. The Electoral college gives more power to the people as well. It allows people in lower population areas and states to have their voices heard. When 80% of people live in the cities, they can suppress anyone who lives in the countryside states during elections if there was a national popular vote. People from anywhere that wasn't the city would have their voices drowned out, which is against democracy, the idea that all voices must be heard.
Conceal carry laws reduce crime

I have a BOP to prove conceal carry laws reduce crime, 50% chance or more. My opponent negates this. =note I know people want to debate me, challenge me now if you are one of those people= =Definitions= "Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... ---> Rules try to stay away from semantics, NO SEMANTICS with the resolution. None of the [literal] law actually lowers crime. I argue, though, that when these laws are passed, there is a correlation with decreased crime. No trolling, aka no imabench status. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... And any other versions of obvious trolling. ok, basically a civil real debate.
I will not Contradict myself

ConclusionIke did a good job of answering his questions.However, I believe I can show at least one contradiction in his statements:Can we know if there is an Objective Moral Standard?In the first round of questioning, Pro answered the question "Is there an objective moral standard/universal deontology everything must follow?" with a No. However, he then proceeded to answer the question "Can we ever know if there is an objective moral standard/deontology that everything must follow?" in the second round of questioning with a No (the human lifespan portion is irrelevant). The problem I see in this is that in the first round he makes a definitive statement that there is no objective moral standard. But he later says that we cannot know (at least he cannot know) if there is an objective moral standard. Thus, he contradicts himself by saying that something is a fact and then saying that we cannot know that it is a fact; please note that there was no "do you believe," in either question. So: a contradiction.Of course, it is up to you, the voters, to decide if this is a legitimate contradiction. But I believe I have shown that it is, and I urge you all to VOTE CON.Thank you.
I will not Contradict myself

1. Do you believe this world is all just a dream?2. Do you believe that God's existence means that there is an objective moral standard?3. Do you believe that same sex couples should be allowed to have marriages with equal legal rights as opposite sex couples in America?4. Is this world all just a dream?5. Do you believe in an objective moral standard?6. Can we ever know if there is an objective moral standard/deontology that everything must follow?7. Favorite food?8. Is killing another person ever justified?9. Can we ever know if this world is all just a dream?10. Is public speaking/performing a fun actvity?
I will not Contradict myself

Are you an elitist?2. Are some economic systems (communism, capitalism, mercantilism etc. ) preferable or better than others?3. Do you believe in a god or gods?4. Do you enjoy public speaking and/or performing?5. Do you believe that some types or classes of people are better than others?6. Is there an objective moral standard/universal deontology everything must follow?7. What is your definition of justice?8. Is capitalism better than socialism?9. Are you a moral nihilist?10. Do you believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples?
Consequentialism is the most logical form of societal ethics

Resolved: Consequentialism is the most logical form of societal ethics ==Definitions== 1. Consequentialism: ethical theory which states that the most ethical action is the one which produces the best outcome 2. Logical: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning 3. Societal: dealing with society as a whole by extension government action 4. Ethics: that which deals with correct or right action ==Rules== 1. Rd. 1 is for acceptance debating starts round 2 2. Drops are concessions 3. Rd. 4 is ONLY used for weighing and evidential analysis
Rap vs Metal lyrics comparison

suicide machine by Death Controlling their lives Deciding when and how they will die A victim of someone else's choice The ones who suffer have no voice Manipulating destiny When it comes to living, no one seems to care But when it comes to wanting out Those with power, will be there Prolong the pain How long will it last? Suicide machine A request to die with dignity Is that too much to ask? Suicide machine How easy it is to deny the pain Of someone else's suffering Robbed of natural abilities In death they now seek tranquility In a confused state of mind Extending agony, they must be blind Manipulating destiny When it comes to living, no one seems to care But when it comes to wanting out Those with power, will be there Prolong the pain How long will it last? Suicide machine A request to die with dignity Is that too much to ask? Suicide machine This song is about jus what it says lol
God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

It is good in God's eyesCan you be more clear what you meant? Definitions do matters and I do not want to talk past you instead directly at the argument. Also, Is the definition of "right" as you said in #2, Same as morally good? YesHe gave us free will but not to have the will to do bad, Since Adam and Eve didn't know what "evil" is. Therefore God didn't enable us to do bad. Adam and Eve did that us. Then that is not free will. Adam and Eve were capable of doing the wrong thing. Either you are free to do whatever you want or you do not have free will. Since God is all knowing he knew with Eve's free will she will eat from the apple. I am disregarding the point that the free will is restricted to only good things. To me either God is not all knowing or God knowingly allowed Adam and Eve to commit a wrong act.
God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

I accept your opinion and I am ready to start. My definition of morally good is:" It is good in God's eyes" Any time I talk from the Word of God, I am speaking from the New International Version (NIV) Also, Is the definition of "right" as you said in #2, Same as morally good? Just for clarification. First let's think "why", Why did God give us free will? Well, To go back to Genesis 2:9 The Bible states In "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. " Adam and Eve didn't have the knowledge of evil. . . Yet. He gave us free will but not to have the will to do bad, Since Adam and Eve didn't know what "evil" is. Therefore God didn't enable us to do bad. Adam and Eve did that us. By giving us the free will, We are in charge of what we want to do. We decide to go do something that is morally good, We will be punished in the end. And if someone dies because of what we have done, That means God has allowed that to happen, If he thinks that them dying is morally good for God. Besides, The person who died? If they were innocent or was good then they will live a happier life up in the heavens. The "Why" paragraph is just background knowledge and you can use that to help rebuttal me.
God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

I am going by the basis that God does exist. I want the other side to show me how God is morally good while also giving us free will. There are inconsistencies with free will that I can mention but I did think about that it but I will narrow it down to morals to keep it simple. Wanting someone who believes God is morally good not someone who is playing devil's advocate. Arguments starts the round you start. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. I'll leave the definition of morally good to Against since it will give them more room to give counter arguments and starting arguments. Premise:1. By God giving free will to humans It has given the power to humans to do wrong. 2. For God to be morally good It must do what is right. 3. By God giving free will to humans It is not morally good. May both of us learn something new.
Macroevolution is a Scientifically Correct Explanation for the Diversity of Life on Earth.

I've started a couple of debates that cover subtopics of the Evolution vs. Creationism "controversy". It comes up often in such debates that Creationists will tote Microevolution is scientifically backed up, while Macroevolution isn't. They state that speciation isn't possible, and thus evolution can not be true. The intent of this debate is to show whether or not Macroevolution is grounded and proven with science. *Contentions* 1. Transitional Fossils. 2. Comparative Anatomy. That's all I will say for now, I'll let my opponent have the first say.
The Game "Halo Reach" Exceeds the game "Halo 3" In quality

I requested this debate for my opponent and he accepted on my profile, thus I am starting this debate.*****FRAMEWORK/RULES*****1. First round will be for for acceptance.2. This debate will be argued on our own opinions, sources, and arguments, rather than statistics on whether other people specifically like either or game, etc.3. This debate will be judged the winner, by the debater who has proceeded to make the best arguments. S/G points, conduct, and Sources will all be awarded as normal.4. Both debaters will remain polite and cordial throughout this debate.5. A forfeit conducts in the automatic loss of a debate.I will present my case in round 2.
vote stuff

By to young I mean to young to be legally vote on propositions or in elections. Secondly my argument is is we don't allow smokers to vote then we take away their option to vote Then, how is it fair we allow non smokers to vote? The Answer is it isn't. I know your not arguing wheather or not they have they right. But weather or to allow them to excercise it. Smoker should be allowed to vote on cigarette issues because it pertains to them Just like you'd have the right to vote on something that pertains to you
The education system should try to make children question their religious beliefs

Semantics: When I say that I use it in the meaning "to give an opinion or a recommendation" I meant "It is my recommendation that the education system should try to make children question their religious beliefs". I think that would be obvious to most readers. Such an understanding of my use of the word "should" makes perfectly sense both in both the resolution as well as my arguments, but my opponent's arguments are of course better in accordance with his definition. Again, let those who read this debate judge for themselves whether my opponent has the more natural understanding of my use of the word "should" as well as my clarification in round 3, or whether he just tries to collect cheap points by active misunderstanding. Now to the rest of my opponent's argumentation in Round 3: My opponent argues as if I wanted schools to submit students "to teaching to doubt their parents in regular daily sessions". This has no root in anything I have written, and I agree that indeed this would be a horrible thing to do. As for the time devoted to this advancement of critical thinking in religious matters, I would estimate that 5-10 hours every year should be more than sufficient. My opponent fortunately doesn't seem to disagree with my view that promoting critical thinking is a vital part of what an education ought to achieve. But if we want future students to become free spirits with excellent skills in critical thinking, it doesn't make sense to exclude from this aim critical thinking about ground-rooted beliefs, into which category religion usually falls. Now, my opponent argues that what we talk about is not critical thinking. In fact, he continues to equal trying to make children question their beliefs with brainwashing. Let's say that an atheistic child in grammar school is exposed to a priest who is invited to talk to the class in an hour or two about why he feels his Christian belief is justified, or that a Christian or Muslim student in high school is asked to read Richard Dawkins' excellent book "The God Delusion". It would hopefully have these students critically evaluate their beliefs, but is it brainwashing? My opponent is right when he points out that we here talk about minds in their most impressionable years. In these years children are often exposed to emotional pressure from their parents to adopt their religious (or non-religious) beliefs. Is it brainwashing when the child is also exposed for arguments the other way, while it is not when the parents alone influence the child in these matters? In fact brainwashing is often achieved by seeing to that a person in only presented to facts and arguments that point in one direction, while ensuring that the person is also acquainted with arguments in the opposite direction is usually the best remedy against brainwashing.
The education system should try to make children question their religious beliefs

Most children in the world are from early age under strong influence from their parents in matters concerning religious beliefs, or the lack thereof. One of the most important tasks of the educational system is to let children develop into independent individuals with an ability to question and critically evaluate any "truth" presented to them from their parents, other authorities and their social surroundings. Therefore the schools should try to counterbalance the impact from the parents concerning religious questions, and presenting them with good arguments against the beliefs (or non-beliefs) they bring with them from home.
Suicide because of bullying is more unacceptable than bullying itself.

You said that bullying can damage one's psychological aspect and can lead to thinking about suicide or actual suicide. But the ‘thinking’ happens in the ‘victim’s’ brain. A lot of people have been bullied throughout their lives including me and everyone at some point will think or have thought of suicide as a way out. The rational people will say "Hey. I'm stronger than this. I will NOT kill myself!" and irrational people...you know. There are a lot of factors that contribute to bullying, yes, but no matter how bad your life is, you should not take it. It will hurt more people in the long run and yes, it will encourage others to do the same. 'Encourage' being the key word. Society also encourages people to kill themselves. 'Victims' of suicide want attention, they want to be loved and cared for, called beautiful and have celebrities talk about them. What society is saying is that if you kill yourself, all those things will happen. All of a sudden, celebrities will start talking about you, people will say "oh, she was so pretty" and "I wish I was her friend!" The problem is, you'll be dead and what people will truly feel is pity. They’ll pity how weak you were and how you might not have done it if there were someone with you. They pity how you thought of yourself in such a degrading way and how you couldn't stand up to some name-callers. The point I am trying to make is that society focusestoo much on bullying and not enough on suicide itself resulting in a giving suicide a positive look. It makes suicide seem almost alluring. If you kill yourself, all the pain will go away… The focus on bullying should die down alot and the focus on the negatives of taking one's life should be looked into. Bullying is one of thecauses of suicide. We should focus on the problem at hand, not just one of the causes. If there were a disease, you would try to treat to the disease itself, not the symptoms, right? The thought of suicide is all in a person’s mind. Bullying is just a helping hand. No one can plant thoughts in your brain and make you do something. Suicide is a choice. It is an option. For some people it’s a way out. To escape their misery; because their misery is the most important thing in the world. More important than the feelings of their friends, their family, just people around them who knows them. They are thinking, “People have done it before so why can’t I do it?”The only people who benefit from suicide is themselves. To conclude, the thought of suicide crosses everyone’s mind sometime but most people are strong and make sure they can pull through. But others will think of suicide as something great, they’ll see it as freedom because nobody calls it ‘an unacceptable thing to do, a pathetic and weak thing to do’. Bullying may be the cause of suicide, but no one can make you do something. Suicide is an option.
Suicide because of bullying is more unacceptable than bullying itself.

Thank you for inviting me :D So let's start ( anyways I will just do more COPY PASTE OF WHAT I SAID but I'll refrain from being personal as well) Suicide is taking away one's life, but in your topic, through BULLYING. What is exactly BULLYING? According to Wikipedia: Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively impose domination over others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Justifications and rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of class, race, religion, gender, sexuality, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability. Your definition of bullying was unsatisfactory. The human body may take physical pains but emotional problems are critically dangerous to the one"s psychological aspect. And this psychological aspect I am referring is highly connected to one's thinking process and may lead to DEATH. If that is not dangerous hannachoi I don't know what it is. Moving on, suicide because of bullying takes away one"s life and may encourage others to do the same. Now you may say that this is what makes "suicide because of bullying" more unacceptable. But it only proves how DANGEROUS, CRITICAL, DESTRUCTIVE and more UNACCEPTABLE bullying is. Generally speaking, one will not honestly kill his or her own self if he/she is not BULLIED. Can you see the impact brought by bullying? Suicide is not only the result of bullying. Isolation and being anti-social may occur. Anger may develop deep inside and one may not be able to connect to his/her own family. There are more results of BULLYING. To wrap up, in life nothing is absolute, cases like BULLYING can never be stopped. SUICIDE is not the right solution but that doesn't give suicide because of bullying the edge to be more unacceptable than bullying itself. Thank you.