BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dodge is better than Ford

Dodge is fine, but if you take out they cummins they are a pile of junk, I mean it's the only thing they have running for them. Ford is the #1 fleet truck because the rarely ever break down, has some of the toughest truck engines ever,most are exceeding 500,000 miles and still running not to mention their indestructible box steel frame. and when you have a truck that is constantly breaking down that costs your money. The top ten least reliable cars and trucks ranks Dodge's heavy duty series as #3 as the worst car and truck,Ford's trucks aren't even on the list. Second of all cummins makes thin cast aluminum block for their engines, why does this matter? This matters because the slightest sudden jolt may just crack your engine block. You say what they put quality in their vehicle, Bologna. Just because they put an ipad in the truck dash does not make the car itself better. Dodges suspension is also years behind in technology they use leaf while ford uses coil over shocks. "I just test rode a new 2015 1500 Ram and the suspension felt like a 2001 silverado, terrible."-edmunds car reviewer.
Secular morality is superior to religious morality

I could mention many of the atrocities committed in the name of religion historically, but I find this to be an argument that doesn't work very well. If you look at the last century or so, the biggest component of global violence is state violence, and its motives are largely political. Trying to lay this violence at the feet of religion (or secularism for that matter) is a contrived exercise in guilt by association. So I'd like to approach this subject in a different way: by trying to determine how a religious moral system works and how a secular moral system works. How do moral precepts come about in a religious moral system? 1) Some people -- the literalists -- believe that an ancient text (e.g. The Bible) is all you need to determine what absolute morality is. The problems with this seem obvious: The Bible is simply wrong on morality on various counts (e.g. slavery). It is an Iron Age text written by people who couldn't have known better. Additionally, it can't possibly tell us about every type of situation where moral judgement is necessary. 2) Others pick and choose between different passages of The Bible, based on their personal preferences and perhaps social pressure. It's unlikely these choices are based on rational assessment of arguments or evidence. 3) Yet others believe that they have some internal God-given means to "know" if something is right or wrong. Some might even believe God talks to them and so forth. How do moral precepts come about in a secular moral system? Briefly, in a secular moral system you start out with some basic premises that practically everyone would agree with (e.g. well-being of the population is desirable, life is better than death, health is good, etc.) The rest comes about through rational evaluation of the evidence, debates, and so forth. All of this is done with the benefit of historical knowledge and precedent. It's not a perfect system, and disagreements are likely unavoidable in any gray area. But it is a much better system than the religious one. Blindly following an ancient text or believing that God talks to you is not just irrational, it's dangerous.
Secular morality is superior to religious morality

Summary thus far. There's no evidence that a transcendental absolute morality exists. The default position is to disbelieve its existence. My opponent argues that without such an "actual morality", there's no way to evaluate human-constructed systems of morality. I disagree, of course. As with "health", a human construct, it's possible to evaluate different systems in regards to how they promote "health". Secular morality can't say why something is actually wrong. According to my opponent, secular morality can't say why child rape is ACTUALLY wrong. This is what presumably makes it inferior to religious morality. If my opponent believes that religious morality can explain what makes child rape ACTUALLY wrong, he should try to tell us how he determines that. It's not hard to imagine what the result of this exercise would be, and why it would be nowhere near convincing. Morality as a social construct. In the absence of a trascendental absolute morality, we can only conclude that morality is a social construct. This is not to say that it's useless. On the contrary; if we find that it's a good idea for people to have conceptions of what's right and wrong, it's a useful construct and it should be kept. There are many things in our reality that are social constructs, and we often don't realize it. Government, for example, is a social construct. Does it not make sense to evaluate different systems of government? Is the power of government diminished by the realization that it's nothing but a social construct? Tangential point about slavery. It's technically correct that there are probably more slaves today than at any time in human history, but not relative to the size of the population. What's key is that slavery is illegal everywhere, which is a significant advancement compared to a couple centuries ago. This is an achievement of rationality and secular humanism, not religion. Final remarks. Let me unpack the argument. It might be the case that secular morality can't tell us that something is right or wrong for sure, but neither can religious morality. Maybe there really is a transcendental absolute morality, but we have no way to convincingly determine this. As things stand, morality appears to be nothing more that a social construct. As such, we should try to make it the best social construct it can be. Do we achieve this with reason and evidence, or with gut feelings, visions and ancient texts written in the Iron Age? The reader can decide.
Politicians

In your own debate about Trump, You admit that Trump is not completely honest, And say that Obama is a big liar. As luanism said in the comments section in our debate, "With great power comes great responsibility. " WHY ON EARTH do the majority of people have such low standards for the people in power? It's just so simple: do not vote for ANYONE who gets caught being less than completely honest! The worlds leaders should be required to be perfect specimens - like captain Kirk. You know, There are a few people in the country who are super good. Why accept anything less? I just don't get it. Don't you realize that when leaders are less than the best, TORTURE HAPPENS, That otherwise wouldn't have happened? You must never have experienced torture, Because if you had, You'd know it hurts so bad that you wouldn't be able to stand seeing it happen for nothing. Yes, I can prove ALL the federal politicians are scum. I don't have all day to waste on this site, But here's enough right here to get the job done: About 16 years ago, One of the federal republicans lied to the rest of them, But the others didn't want to punish him. When John Roberts asked why, One of the senators said these exact words "Because we don't want to start a precedent that it's wrong to lie. " John Roberts reported that on the CBS evening news (with a pissed off look on his face. ) And I'd add, That every politician on Earth had a chance to say he/she saw that on the news and that so and so can speak for himself, Because they don't think such sick garbage. Well, I waited and waited for one of them to do that, But none did. YEAH, Because they ALL think it! I have time for one more thing: you know what? Those bunch of barf bags don't even make it the law that kids HAVE to get vaccinated against polio, Or any of the other deadly childhood diseases, Because they don't give one tinkers dam about kids being crippled if it might cause a 2 percent lunatic fringe starting riots. Because if that happened, They'd have to actually get off their lazy butts and do their job for once. So just let a few kids be TORTURED their whole life BECAUSE OF THEM! YEAH, It happens to at least a few kids every year! THANKS A LOT LYING BUNCH OF VERMIN POLITICIANS! I could go on and on with examples. WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE SUCH LOW STANDARDS? Lol, Like I don't know the answer. It's because they are either too young to know what the hell is going on, Or they are low life scum themselves.
Politicians

There are people that issue blanket condemnations, Of the police, Doctors, Lawyers, Jews, Blacks, Women, Southern whites, Gays, Your is just another bigoted prejudice. . Not all politicians are crooked and even if they were try to do without them. . You need police you need doctors and lawyers and politicians despite your baseless claim, If you are to claim that all politicians are crooked you are obligated to prove your claim, Please prove all politicians are corrupt you can't its impossible, Therfore you lose
Politicians

I say can every politician in the federal government. Then take away their pension and all their money. Bunch of lazy good for nothing vermin. That should be the hardest job in the country but look at how easy they make it on themselves. If it were hard, They'd be unable to stand it more than the time a person spends in college. Lazy vermin; have to take lots of the old geezers out in body bags because they won't retire. Do you know how hard 70 - 80 year olds work? LOL! Not very hard! And lying politicians sitting their fat butt around figuring on how to tell better bs isn't work. They make it so easy on themselves they want to never leave. The fact that they never leave til they're almost dead is proof they are all lazy sacks of XXX.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

I wish to thank Rational_Thinker for agreeing to debate this with me.The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.This is pretty self-explanatory, and pretty uncontroversial. The principle of causality is a first principle. In other words, it is self-evident. According to this fundamental principle, every effect has a cause and as such, non-being cannot produce being.Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist.The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. [1] As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death." As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal.We can also approach this from a philosophical viewpoint:1) If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.2) But today has come.3) Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning. [2]Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe had a beginning.This shows the argument valid (as the conclusion follows from the premises), and that it is a sound argument. It can be scientifically and philosophically shown that the universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause.But what of this cause? Can we know that this cause was intelligent and not just a natural cause?I believe we can.As was already stated, the universe had a beginning. Without God, there would have existed nothing before the universe, and nothing cannot produce something without intervention from an outside force. Nothing is a state of non-existence. Nothing, not the universe, not the world, not humanity, but nothing would be here right now if there wasn't a God.However, God pre-dates the universe. The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore has no cause. We humans are contingent beings. Our existence was began (caused) by God and we can only be kept alive at God's pleasure. We are contingent beings. A contingent race of beings could only have been created by a necessary being (i.e. God). God is a Necessary being because it is in His nature to exist. He has no beginning so He logically will have no end.As it would be impossible for the universe to have come into existence on its own, the only way it could exist is if there was an intelligent Creator.I look forward to our next round.[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com......;[2] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399.
California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Hello. First I would like to thank Fun-And-Easy for accepting this debate. Now I would like to make rejoinders. They said to my first point that the government will help them think of healthy methods of eating. The problem is that schools are already trying to do that. Does it stop kids and adults from not drinking sugary drinks? Obviously not. They said to my second point that health problems can happen anywhere, not just sugary drinks. According to (http://www.livestrong.com......) in the article Health Problems and Soft Drinks, it states that soft drinks cause tooth decay, obesity, and other health problems. They said to my third point that it is not impacted, so I will impact it now. My third point is trying to say that there are other healthy alternatives that are available, and not as expensive, such as water. Water is very healthy for you, and it does not make you become obese. They said to my fourth point that it's the people's choice. It is their choice, we are just limiting the amount that they drinks. We are not saying that they can never drink soft drinks anymore, we are just changing it so that the amount that you drink is a healthy amount for your body. Since it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, we should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks. Now I would like to continue on to making refutations. First their plan. They said that adding a tax would decrease the amount of obesity, but it's not like people that usually drink sugary drinks are going to stop drinking their normal amount because they have to pay 1 cent per ounce. - Their first point is that Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. If we follow along to what they are saying, taxing sugary drinks is also taking away people's Pursuit of Happiness, because they don't want to pay a tax on their sugary drinks. - Their second point is that Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy. They said that helping the economy is more important then obesity matters. Unfortunately, if all people become obese, half of them would probably die, and half would be to obese to do any work, so the economy would fail anyways. And since lives are the most important things in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet. Thank you.
God Does Not Exist

Hey, I'm an atheist myself, but I accept. Also, I'm not going to use only the ontological argument, as I think it is the weakest of all the arguments used to support theism/deism. So I'll present it. P1. God is, by definition the greatest entity that can be conceived P2. If God does not exist, then a greater entity can be conceived, that being one that exists C . Therefor, God exists.
God Does Not Exist

Sorry for replying a lil late. First, you imply that the mind and the physical are always mutually exclusive, you haven't substantiated that. I'm move on to another argument. If irreducibly complex biological mechanisms appear, then they were intelligently designed, because they couldn't of evolved from less complex mechanisms. Irreducibly complex mechanisms exist. Therefor, God exists. Lets pretend that there are actually irreducibly complex systems (I know there aren't actually)
God Does Not Exist

The notion of universal cause is an argument from ignorance. There must be a cause and since I can"t explain or conceive of the cause the cause must be god. P1 is a flawed conception of the mind. People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) can, and unfortunately often do, become very different people. In fact, a significant number of the homeless have a history of TBI indicating a correlation. If the brain and the mental were distinct then a TBI would have no effect on a person.
God Does Not Exist

Hol' up. The argument I presented was not an argument from ignorance. If premise one is true, and premise two is true, then the conclusion is true. On the final round, I'll go over all my arguments, and point out the issues with them (because they all have issues of some kind, otherwise I'd be a deist) Next argument: P1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist. P2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states. P3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE). P4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE. P5. The explanation is not an NSE. C . Therefor the explanation is a PE. P6. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic. C2. Therefore, the explanation is theistic. The first key idea in the argument from consciousness is that mental events are something over and above physical events. Although there is strong evidence that there is a connection between mind and brain, mind and brain are not the same thing. Whatever connection there might be between mental states such as beliefs, thoughts, and feelings on the one hand, and brain-states on the other, the connection is not identity. Brain-states have a specific location; mental states do not. Brain-states are as they independent of any perceiver; mental states are not. Consciousness is something more than a physical process.
God Does Not Exist

I'll let off the gas for a moment and admit, the origin of the universe and the forces that govern it aren't yet fully understood. However, that doesn't suffice for evidence that proves the existence of god. In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is a false dichotomy: until we have evidence to the contrary, god exists. That is a confusing argument from ignorance. The lack of evidence that god does not exist doen't prove that god exists.
God Does Not Exist

Dr. Anomoly, thank you for accepting. The ontological argument reveals several things about human nature: 1) Human beings possess the capacity of imagination. 2) Human beings are capable of cognitive bias. The argument is a circular argument that doesn't prove the existence of god. 3) "...The priviledge of Absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man only" (Hobbes). However, while the argument reveals a lot about human nature, it doesn't prove that god exists. If I say, "Stanley is in Worthington, therefore Stanley is in Worthington," doesn't prove that Stanley is in Worthington. The circular argument originally devised by Anselm doesn't prove that god exists. In other words, the ability to create an argument in favor of the existence of god doesn't in itself prove that god exists. It does not suffice for evidence. It simply proves that humans are imaginative, are capable of cognitive bias, and are therefore absurd.
Final Fantasy VII's storyline is the best in gaming

"The Gameplay is not my argument here so it should not matter my opponents opinion on whether the game is confusing to play with more players even though you only play with one more at a time than Donkey Kong, i am simply arguing that the storyline of FFVII is the best and positively tops that of donkey kong" Round Three Here my opponent states that it is not about the characters it is just about the storyline. "My opponent obviously Thinks Two Monkeys traveling through a jungle is better than having numerous characters, including Tifa Lockheart, vincent Valentine, Cid Highwind, Red XIII, Aerith, Cait Sith, Yuffi, and of course Cloud" Round Two Here my opponent states that numerous characters are better than two Characters. So are we talking about the storyline or characters here? Anyways, My opponent also states that Donkey kong is not good because i said i played it when i was five and still havent beaten it. No where in that sentence did i say i lost interest and quit playing because it was bad. But lets face reality. Donkey kong is infact a very old game and some of you may have never even played a super nintendo before. But as my opponent stated earlier this debate is only about the storyline. Also back in the day when Donkey Kong was around and kicking it was voted as the best game numerous times. So no matter the date of the game and how old it is Donkey Kong is still one of the greatest games with the best storylines ever. And Also, although FFVII maybe the game to play these days , there will be a day where it is the old game and there are newer games that people think are better. And also yesterday when i broke out the Super Nintendo i did in fact beat Donkey Kong. Its been a pleasure debating you. Good Luck to you and may the best man win. P.S. You Know What. You Suck
Final Fantasy VII's storyline is the best in gaming

"Why in the heck do you need 8 characters to play a game. "-VC The Gameplay is not my argument here so it should not matter my opponents opinion on whether the game is confusing to play with more players even though you only play with one more at a time than Donkey Kong, i am simply arguing that the storyline of FFVII is the best and positively tops that of donkey kong and his pals traveling through a jungle to kill a large crocodile. The vengeance and entrancing drama based story is a much larger scale than a super nintendo game you play at five, and even my opponent says he has had it since he was five but not that he still plays it obviously he lost interest and this is the reason he has yet to beat it. Donkey kong does not even have dialogue to keep a storyline strong and ongoing. FFVII is a landmark in video game storyline history compared to what my opponent things is nintendo's effort to out interest it. FFVII will stay in the list of what some people have actually voted as the best video game ever made while donkey has and will remain never on any vote of such standards and importance. My opponent has made a good fight with his donkeykong ways but i trust you the voters to realize the reality here. PS: Donkey Kong Sucks
Final Fantasy VII's storyline is the best in gaming

"My opponent obviously Thinks Two Monkeys traveling through a jungle is better than having numerous characters, including Tifa Lockheart, vincent Valentine, Cid Highwind, Red XIII, Aerith, Cait Sith, Yuffi, and of course Cloud" -Zeratul My opponent says that all these characters are better than two best friends fighting the world together. Why in the heck do you need 8 characters to play a game. That is so inconvient and confusing to players until after they have played the game nonstop for a whole day. So back to the storyline of Donkey. In this game, Donkey Kong has to recover his stolen hoard of bananas from King K. Rool and the rest of the "Kremlings". His banana hoard was located just in a cave underneath his house. Fortunately, he has the special help of his best buddy, Diddy Kong a Donkey Kong wannabe. Cranky Kong who is a wise man gives them advice during their journey and Funky Kong who lets them fly back and forth to different parts of the island. P.S. There may not be a movie but there was a T.V. series of Donkey Kong and his friends that last for many seasons and was very successful.
Final Fantasy VII's storyline is the best in gaming

I agree Final Fantasy is a good game but it is not the best. Donkey Kong is. Without a doubt whatsoever the classic game Donkey Kong is the best ever. Its got the perfect characters Donkey and Diddy Kong who travel all through out the island battling through various enemies including birds, frogs, snakes, and armadillos. And after each area the two brothers face the biggest of the baddest of the area. There are bosses at every area which you must defeat before moving on. This game is incredible and it is never ending. I have had this game since i was like five and i have yet to beat it because it is so jampacked with excitement and news things every step of the way. Good luck to zreartuluetl or whatever the heck your name is.