BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnostics are Atheists

Well I must say nayme tore my argument apart! I had not even realized how contradictory my argument was until he/she pointed it all out in his/her first rebuttal. In this case, I will have to rephrase my argument: One is either theist or atheist, there is no in between agnostic. So many people label themselves as agnostic which doesn't tell me anything, because one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist as pointed out by someone in the comments and by nayme in his dissection or my initial contention. Being agnostic means one is admitting he or she does not know, which I wager is the case for most atheists. No one knows for sure, but what we BELIEVE is made known by our title theist or atheist. If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. If you say, "Well, there could be, I don't know," you're just speculating and should therefore be labeled as, "Undecided." After all, atheism and theism regard belief, whereas agnosticism regards the body of knowledge, and how could you know something you don't know? How can anyone know the unknowable? I can't wait to see nayme bring out all of the flaws in this argument!
Agnostics are Atheists

My opponent is essentially claiming that all agnostics are atheists. He/she is not simply claiming that some agnostics can be atheistic.In actual fact, Pro's entire argument is self-contradictory.If atheist means 'without God' and agnostic means 'without knowledge', then anyone who has no knowledge of God existing is, by these definitions, an agnostic Theist. For them to qualify as both godless and lacking all knowledge they must be without any knowledge whatsoever and Pro must prove that God does not exist.Aside from this, the actual self-contradiction comes from Pro's following statement:"Going by this, all theists and atheists are agnostics."Pro actually stated that all Theists are agnostics. This means that there are agnostics who are not atheist.Pro then finishes his/her round one he following statement:"All agnostics are atheists since they disbelieve in all gods as well as atheists."Not only does this contradict the earlier claim,. made by Pro, that all Theists are agnostics but claims that all agnostics disbelieve in god.If agnostics are defined as lacking knowledge in God's existence, Pro cannot assume that Occam's Razor will be the methodology that all agnostics will use to reach their conclusion.
Agnostics are Atheists

The word atheism comes from the Greek word 'atheos,' the word, 'theos,' meaning God and the prefix, 'a-,' meaning, 'without,' together it means, 'without God.' Now the modern English word is similar only, 'theism,' means, 'belief in God,' and therefore, with the addition of the, 'a-,' it means, 'without belief in God.' The word, 'gnosticism,' means knowledge, so the word, 'agnosticism,' means, 'without knowledge.' One pair of words, theism and atheism, regard belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism regard knowledge; they're separate areas. Going by this, all theists and atheists are agnostics, because no one knows; even though theists claim to know. Atheists certainly don't know but aren't about to use ignorance as an excuse to exercise faith. It can be concluded that therefore, all agnostics are atheists since they disbelieve in all gods as well as atheists.
shahrukh khan is better than aamir khan

can Shah Rukh Khan's reputation and hard work be higher than legendary shahenshahs like Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan,Rishi Kapoor,Sunil Dutt,Raj Kapoor,etc. I don't think so! - well thats because shahrukh khan is younger then Amitabh Bachchan etc. and they have been in bollywood longer. When Om Shanti Om released people walked out of the theater since the movie appeared boring to them, does this show interest? People also walked out of Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and Don, does this show interest. - do you have eye witness that people walked out of the theaters? if you do then i am guessing you went to one theater to watch the movie not all and that is the opinion of those peole not everybody!
shahrukh khan is better than aamir khan

most of his fans are teens and as you can see more people prefer srk than amir khan . it seems like srk comes in more movies. not many adults are into the whole "bollywood thing " but i have seen that adults actually know shahrukh khans new real eased movies and are interested in them (sometimes more than the kids are)i don't know how you see that amir khan has came in the same amount of movies b/c it is clear that shahrukh khan has more movies then amir khan. if you want i can type all of his movies with year and that will take up all my characters that i have remaining, so i don't think i will do that and waste your time. well it isn't srk's fault that hes many fans gave him that name and there is nothing wrong with being proud and calling himself "king khan" THERE IS NO DOUBT that shahrukh khan is king khan. no one is stopping the other actors from calling them the badshah or whatever and that doesn't make it lowering the other actors. yes they are all hard working but shahrukh khan's reputation is higher and worked very hard. in your point of view sharukh khan has less movies then amir khan but his movies are more successful and worth watching. shahrukh khans fans and i don't see how amir khans success ratio and hit ratio are higher than shahrukh khan. if amir khans hit ratio then why arent his fans calling him " king khan "or so-and-so. shahrukh khan probably said that b/c he wanted to be a good role model for amir khan.
shahrukh khan is better than aamir khan

Your Argument was REALLY short. It's even smaller than sana8829's whom I was debating with a couple of days ago. first of all he has more fans -Aamir Khan also has many fans and is a territory favorite in the myscore part of India. he comes n more movies than aamir khan -Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan have been appearing in the same number of movies in the past 3 years. Aamir Khan had 1 in 2005, so did Shah Rukh Khan. Aamir Khan had 2 in 2006, so did Shah Rukh khan. Aamir Khan had 2 in 2007, so did Shah Rukh Khan. So, this argument is just basically your opinion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Arguments: Aamir Khan is not arrogant like Shah Rukh Khan, who keeps calling himself King Khan.He just competes with himself.Shah Rukh Khan calls himself the Baadshah or whatever and lowers all the other hardworking actors, who are equal with him. Aamir Khan's success ratio and hit ratio is higher than Shah Rukh Khan's. His career has been more successful than Shah Rukh Khan's. A less amount of flops and a great amount of super hits in his career. Shah Rukh Khan has more than 18 flops in his career, and 3 super hits, while Aamir has 6 super hits and 9 flops. Even though both of them started their careers at the SAME TIME! Shah Rukh Khan himself says that Aamir will be better than him. When Aamir Khan was text messaging Shah Rukh Khan to see his new film Taare Zameen Par, Shah Rukh Khan commented that the film is going to be really sweet and Aamir WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER THAN HIM! He himself said that.
shahrukh khan is better than aamir khan

well thats because shahrukh khan is younger then Amitabh Bachchan etc. and they have been in bollywood longer. -So, what! Hrithik Roshan is younger than Shah Rukh Khan does that mean his reputation and hard work is better than him? do you have eye witness that people walked out of the theaters? if you do then i am guessing you went to one theater to watch the movie not all and that is the opinion of those peole not everybody! -Ok,fine for the sake of argument I agree on this statement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You didn't answer half of my arguments that I made in my rebuttal so I suppose you agree with them. You also didn't answer the answers to my arguments except the rebuttals so I suppose you agree with them as well.
Prove me right

Kudos to my opponent for his valiant effort in attempting to disprove a theory; unfortunately, his reasoning here is specious and doesn't provide an alternate explanation nor does it provide any evidence that Germ Theory is flawed. Clarifying the misunderstandings It seems that Con believes that I don't understand the purpose of this debate. If this is true, then it is my opinion that Con needs to better define the criteria of the debate before instigating it; an opponent can only understand the debate from what is written in round 1. In round 1 my opponent clearly states that " Pro's task is to prove that it is possible to prove a theory", which to me suggests that my role is to prove it is possible to prove a theory—and I did. It is not clear why Con is now stating that this was never stated. Pro's position is to present a theory--any theory—and prove that it can't be contradicted; Con's position is to refute the theory I posit with an alternate explanation, which was also stated in round 1. Confounding issues for Con Unfortunately, I don't think Con fully understands what it means to disprove a theory. The definition of disprove is to "prove to be false or wrong" (1). Con has failed to demonstrate a plausible alternate theory to disprove Germ Theory. It is Con's position that if a theory is flawed then it is not complete, and therefore would fail to be proved. However, Con has not demonstrated any flaws thus far with the conditions I presented to prove germ theory. Providing an alternate explanation doesn't provide sufficient evidence for flaws in the theory. One has to find the flaws first then establish that an alternate theory can be acceptible; this is the very basis of a null hypothesis (2). The main issue here is that Con doesn't understand the nature of a theory: At its core, a theory is a guide used to better understand the phenomena being studied, not an overarching rigid paradigm that is designed to ascertain certainty. Deconstructing Con's alternate theory Con's alternate theory that our reality is merely a dream is more of a metaphysical contemplation based on conjecture than it is a plausible explanation. It is also unclear if the dream is his or mine. Either way, our reality is predicated on cause and effect relationships, which has lead to an understanding and awareness that enabled humans to develop technologies to manipulate the dimension we perceive. If it were merely a dream, how does one explain the advancement of civilization? Or is this all just an illusion my mind has created for me??? Even if we were to take Con's explanation at face value, how does stating that carrots causes disease provide evidence for his alternate theory or contradict Germ Theory? The only necessity that I can see from Con's alternate theory is the necessity of having to forth some explanation to keep from forfeiting the round. Con's "theoretically" possible explanation does not disprove nor identify flaws in any theory let alone Germ Theory. Germ Theory as presented in this debate still stands as proved. I am eagerly awaiting Con's closing arguments. References: 1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prove me right

1) "My role in this debate, which Con established in round 1, is to "prove" that a theory can be "proved", not whether it is "complete", "necessary" or "accepted"" 2) "It is now up to Con to prove this explanation is wrong and provide a plausible alternative with "sufficient evident"." 1) If a theory is to be proved, it is to be complete, for a proved theory must have no possible flaws, thus making it whole. As for "necessary" and "accepted", I did not mention that Pro is to prove his/her theory is either. Maybe if Pro were, my opponent may have better luck. 2) As I stated before, I am not to prove the theory wrong, or the theory of Pro's theory being wrong would be proved, of which Pro can use against me, countering my former argument. I realise now how little Pro understands this debate. The theory is accepted, but if an alternative theory were to be correct, Pro's theory would be incorrectly accepted - not proved. This merely suggests the possibility of the former being incorrect, however my explanation only needs to contain evidence for Pro's to be disproved. If there is a possible alternative theory, the former theory cannot be proved, as it is possibly flawed. The alternative theory is that the dimension we call reality is merely a dream. In the true reality, in dreams, one can feel and think, unlike in the dreams in the dreams. In the true reality, there are no diseases or conditions caused by microbes. All are caused by eating carrots. The theory offers no physical or theoretical evidence other than its necessity. If it is theoretically possible and concludes all it is created to conclude, it is necessary. Most science is based on necessity, including the ultimate M-Theory. As I have given a contradicting theory with evidence, I have suggested a possible flaw, and so Pro's theory is not proved, merely accepted.
Prove me right

Although I am still confused: what makes a theory "complete"? A theory is an explanation for observable phenomena (1). Thus, its completeness is subjectively determined based on how one chooses to apply it. Respective Roles My role in this debate, which Con established in round 1, is to "prove" that a theory can be "proved", not whether it is "complete", "necessary" or "accepted"; the rules in this debate appear to be a moving target. It would seem that Con's role is to disprove the proposed explanation (i. e. , theory) and provide, not prove, an alternate theory. The theory I am putting forth is Germ Theory. Therefore, Con must find flaws with this specific theory and come up with an alternate explanation, as per Con's established rules presented in round 1, in those disease states where microbes are thought to be involved. Proving a Theory The crux of this debate rests in how one ‘proves' or ‘disproves' a theory. For scientific theories, the validity or proof comes from experimentally testing a falsifiable hypothesis with rigorous scientific methodology and then making predictions that can be confirmed. The hypothesis behind Germ Theory is that microbes are the causative agents in certain diseases. The operative words are ‘certain diseases', not all diseases; this fact doesn't concede that it is incomplete but rather that it is selective to particular pathologies. Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch experimentally demonstrated more that hundred years ago that a link between microbes and disease could be established (2). One prediction that this hypothesis makes is that if a microbe is a causative agent then removing it or blocking its actions on the organism should prevent the disease. One example of this prediction is the rabies vaccine (3), which primes the immune system to attack the microbe that leads to the pathology that the rabies virus causes. Another prediction is that exposure to a microbe will lead to a disease state. One such example satisfying this prediction is exposure to the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes a disease of the immune system (4). Closing Comments As I alluded in round 1, theories by their very nature are dynamic and can be modified over time as new information presents itself; theories do not assert certainty. Moreover, all theories make assumptions about the reality of the phenomena they are explaining. Having said that, there are ways to ascertain the etiology of certain diseases, which Germ Theory sets out to do. Further, the strength of any given theory rests in the many strands of evidence that show strong statistical associations. Germ Theory has not only been demonstrated experimentally by many independent researchers, but has been applied to real world public health issues with relative success. I have provided proof for the explanation that germs can and do cause disease. It is now up to Con to prove this explanation is wrong and provide a plausible alternative with "sufficient evident". Reference: 1). http://dictionary.reference.com... 2). http://tami-port.suite101.com... 3). http://en.wikipedia.org... 4). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prove me right

1) "could Con better explain what is meant by an "ultimate theory"." 2) "how many theories does Con have to "disproved" in order to win the debate." 3) "I think the burden of proof should be equally shared. Both positions should have sufficient and necessary evidence to support their respective proposed theory" 1) If my opponent's theory is not "complete", then it is not proved. It is merely accepted, or necessary. A proved theory must therefore be ultimate. 2) Pro may put forward as many theories as he/she wishes and i must explain how all of them are not proved. 3) As is the nature of this debate, my opponent is to be the bearer of proof. Pro's task is to prove that it is possible to prove a theory. Therefore, it is my task to explain why it is impossible to prove a theory. If I were to prove my contradicting theory, I would be contradicting my own argument. Instead, I am to give an alternative theory which merely contains sufficient evidence to contradict Pro's theory. If there is a possible flaw in Pro's theory, it is not proved, maybe merely accepted.
Prove me right

First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent: The day I accepted this debate a huge snow storm knocked out the power, which is still out. It should be restored by tomorrow afternoon—god willing. Since I had no internet access, I could not properly prepare a full-fledged argument. So, I thought I could use the first round to get some clarifications , state the theory I am going to discuss, and give some general thoughts on the resolution of this debate. Clarification It is unclear at this time what Con means when speaking of an "ultimate theory. Few theories are ever truly final or conclusive and are often in a continual state of refinement and can even be replaced with a paradigm shift. Moreover, no theory can explain all phenomena within a given subject and as such no theory is absolute as to be undisputed. So, could Con better explain what is meant by an "ultimate theory". Also, how many theories does Con have to "disproved" in order to win the debate. I feel it is my best interest to put forth and defend just one? Theory The theory that I will be presenting is "Germ Theory", but I may provide others. I will be highlighting examples and scientific data where there is thought to be a link between certain microbes and specific disease states. Debate Resolution I think the burden of proof should be equally shared. Both positions should have sufficient and necessary evidence to support their respective proposed theory; rebutting the claims of any given theory isn't evidence for a competing theory. Moreover, any competing theory should be grounded in empirical fact and should have some scientific data to back into up. I am looking forward to reading an alternate explanation to Germ Theory in those cases where the etiology of the disease is beleived to be microbes.
Prove me right

Con has declaratively stated that he has accepted my theory, which by definition is an implicit acknowledgement that the evidence provided has provide it (1). Thus, the theory in my opponents mind is true. Con seems fixated on the notion that suggesting an alternate possibility implies a flaw in a proposed theory. This is categorically false. One has to test a null hypothesis to establish if an alternate theory is possible. Moreover, Con has failed to show any modicum of support that his alternate theory is acceptable or necessary, let alone possible. I do find it rather most humorous, though, that Con believes that the definition of a theory is irrelevant in a debate about theories. In closing, this debate has been about proving a theory. The theory I put forth was Germ Theory. During this debate I explicated stated how one goes about proving a theory and have addressed these points accordingly. Briefly, the link between microbes and disease was established for over hundred years ago. It has led to testable predictions, some of which I put forth in this debate. Germ Theory has been and continues to be a powerful guide in addressing public health issues. Thus, it is well founded and grounded in reality. Since Con has informed be that my reality is an illusion. His argument would be part of that illusion and thus his explanation would be erroneous by his own line of reasoning (2). Con's position has failed to identify any flaws with Germ Theory, and it has not provided a satisfactory possible alternate explanation. Thus, Con has not disproved a theory. References: 1). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2). http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Given the technology, cloning endangered and recently extinct species should be legal.

There are significant problems with DebaterAgent's arguments.First, a reason the animals went extinct was because they can't protect themselves. If we clone it, it still can't protect itself. And even if cloning is cheap, if we keep cloning, it will eventually cost a ton of money. Also, we shouldn't focus on trying to revive extinct animals; we should focus on protecting the "close to extinction" animals. We shouldn't kill for food even if we are cloning it. We have killed animals and all humans are going to do, is kill them again. Also, the other side didn't say the points in why they want to clone. They gave multiple reasons which were all easily counterable. We shouldn't eat a clone. That is useless. An example of a Pyrenean Ibex to be cloned back to life from extinction. It only lasted for seven minutes. Even if it is cheap, do we really want to spend the money for hours of work into minutes of life? No We can spend the money on other stuff. For these reasons, we are proud to propose.
Given the technology, cloning endangered and recently extinct species should be legal.

Let us assume for the purpose of this debate that this technology is feasible, affordable, fast, efficient, and effective A large number of animals and plants, which could be very useful to the human race, have gone extinct as a result of human action or inaction. Cloning would allow us to get access to these species, which might provide us with new naturla treatments of our illness. Cloning in no way hurts us or other animals. Using this technology will help further the human race throught the development of medical technologies, and will also allow us to fix or correct our failures in the past. Cloning specific species will also benefit us economically. Certain shars, for example, have been driven to near extinction because their fins are a prized ingredient in Shark Fin Soup; a dish which is highly valued by many Asian countries. For these reasons, we are proud to propose
You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

But see, you're missing the big picture, friend! Sure, they're not being represented. Neither are 4 year-olds! Neither are legal immigrants! Neither am I! I was taxed just today on purchasing a new Lego buildable! What if I feel that sales tax is to high! (do ignore my age; consider instead a 12 year-old) Also, people who don't vote are not without representation. Everyone is allowed to write to their local senator or congressman or governor. In America, we have a representational democracy!
You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

If you give minors the right to vote, you have to give them other rights as well. For example, you cannot say that I am allowed to vote, thereby determining partially the fate of the nation, but not allowed to order things off of infomercials. This is mad! Also, just because a minority is taxed does not mean they need a say in government. Immigrants who are not yet citizens are taxed and cannot vote. 4 year-olds buy things and are taxed, but surely you aren't going to suggest letting them vote!
You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

You are not forced to vote. If any sixteen year old felt as if they didnt have the information to elect a leader they wouldn't need to. In addition, 16 year olds with jobs pay taxes. Therefore, them not getting to vote goes against one of the principles our country was built upon, "no taxation without representation". This is one of the main things that the U.S was fighting for during the Revolutionary War, for us to not follow it now is hypocritical.