BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is easier to believe than atheism

Hi. 1) "1 in 10 to the 138thpower chance": A. A logical person would have to honestly accept that the probability of a god existing by pure chance is exactly the same as the probability of me existing by pure chance. B. Ultimately we cannot get beyond the thought that at some moment, Matter in some shape or form appeared out of nothing. The something from nothing principle. Magic in other words. C. As there is no tangible evidence for the existence of a god and there is irrefutable proof for the existence of matter, I would therefore confidently suggest that the more reasonable theory is that matter rather than a god appeared out of nothing. 2) Intelligence: A. Intelligence is as intelligence does. Intelligence is extremely variable and there is no correlation between intelligence levels and either religion or atheism. In simple terms there are clever theists and there are clever atheists, Just as there are not so clever theists and not so clever atheists. B. Intelligence is not a prerequisite of common sense though. I would suggest that it is far more sensible to accept what we know to be real, Rather than accept the words of an archaic mythology. 3) Apostles: Gullible people are easily lead and can be coerced into doing the most ridiculous things in the name of their supposed cause. Ultimately suicide. Here are 5 examples of suicide cults: a) Order of the Solar Temple. b) Hara-kiri. c) Heavens Gate. d) The Branch Davidian e) Peoples Temple. 4) Mount Rushmore: Pro's main argument is their most stupid. We know that Gutzon Borglum designed and created the Mount Rushmore Monument. 5) Atheism is non-belief whereas Christianity is blind faith and in real terms both are states of mind that can be as easy or as hard as we care to make them. 6) As ever this sort of debate always relies upon the ridiculous cosmological tenet that states: Because something exists and we don't know why it exists then it must have been created by a god. But of course it is never explained how a god was created. All theories fall down at the point of something from nothing.
Both A Triangle Without Three Angles And A One-Sided Pentagon Exist

Thanks Con for that lengthy response.Con's brought up some points that I feel should be addressed.One of those points is that I'm a pillock.While British insults are fun, debating a massive fanny isn't.*Responses to Con*Con gripes:"Why this is 4 rounds, God knows, I'll end it in one."My response:The debate is 4 rounds, because I had wrongly assumed that the person who might accept my debate challenge could take an intelligent position on two falsisms, which could have required 3 rounds after accepting.Also, you won't end this debate in one round, because voters must use opt-in voting standards and they, unlike you, understand the sentence "By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to."Con defines:"Tri- means 3, Pent- means 5."My response:What does "the definitions are agreed to" mean Con?Con childishly whines:"Don't tell me I'm wrong."My response:You're incorrect.While your definitions for prefixes may be correct, your application of them to the relevant terms of this debate is incorrect.You've agreed to the definitions of triangle and pentagon irrespective of your prefix analysis.Con continues:"If I'm wrong, then pigs fly, pizzas can talk, and I can swim up a bloody waterfall."My response:Ok. Con yells and runs:"D1CKHEAD!!!"My response:5H1TFACE!After making my case for a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon...Con reprimands:"They are not actual shapes you pillock."My response:Are they actual representations of the agreed-to definitions, Con?Con continues:"[For] example[,] if i named my kid triangle, is he a triangle[?]"My response:Yes.While the name Raul isn't very common, I know a Raul.While the name Triangle is virtually nonexistent, one could still know a triangle, perhaps your kid.Con ponders:"If a triangle doesn't have 3 angles than it is no longer a triangle."My response:Except for if it's a musical instrument consisting of a steel rod bent at only two spaces where two surfaces of the steel rod meet.*Conclusion*Con hasn't been able to cast any doubt on my case for a triangle without three angles or a one-sided pentagon.The resolution has been affirmed.
Both A Triangle Without Three Angles And A One-Sided Pentagon Exist

Thanks for taking this debate, Con.The opposite of thanks for not using round 1 to accept, per the rules, Con.Con, by accepting this debate, has agreed to the definitions from round 1.Reminder to voters and moderators, Opt-In voting = crappy vote removal.*A Triangle Without Three Angles*While the high-pitched chime of a triangle can provide a pleasant note to a musical composition or even make people salivate with the prospect of an impending meal, it utterly fails to serve as an object with three angles.When triangles are produced, typically in a factory, the steel rod that will eventually compose the structure of the triangle is bent in only two places, rendering the completed triangle with only TWO spaces between intersecting surfaces at the point where those surfaces meet; triangles only have two angles. *A One-Sided Pentagon*The U.S. Department of Defense is unwavering in its support of America's values around the world, leaving this particular pentagon very one-sided on most global military conflicts."[We] will unapologetically represent America"s values and belief in democracy...for resisting authoritarian trends, contesting radical ideologies, and serving as bulwarks against instability...we must prioritize what is most important to field a lethal Joint Force...[which] articulates our strategy to compete, deter, and win..."https://www.defense.gov...This quote is directly from the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the U.S. Department of Defense which indicates a very one-sided pentagon on issues ranging from military force against "radical" ideologies and "instability" to the success of the U.S. in economic, technological, and innovative competitions with other global entities.The DoD is clear.This pentagon is one-sided, because it's biased towards the United States, its values, and its interests on nearly every issue. *Conclusion*It's clear.Both a triangle without three angles AND a one-sided pentagon exist.See above.Con?
Both A Triangle Without Three Angles And A One-Sided Pentagon Exist

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.*1st round is for acceptance.*By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to.*I request that moderators remove crappy votes.Full ResolutionBoth a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist.Pro Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Pro also has the BoP to show that a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist.Con Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.Definitionsboth - used to refer to two things.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...exist - have objective reality or being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...angle - the space between two intersecting lines or surfaces at the point where they meet.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...without - in the absence of.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...three - equivalent to the sum of one and two.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...triangle - a musical instrument consisting of a steel rod bent into a thing nearly shaped like a triangle and sounded by being struck with a small steel rod.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...one-sided - unfairly dealing with only one side of a contentious issue; biased.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Pentagon - the pentagonal building and its entire staff serving as the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, near Washington, DC.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Both A Triangle Without Three Angles And A One-Sided Pentagon Exist

Thanks for your 3rd round, Con. Clearly 10,000 characters cannot accommodate Con's arguments. Con touched on a few things, and ignored a lot. I'll point it all out and end this thing. *Drops*Con never contested that triangles are bent in only two places or that this current pentagon is biased toward the U. S. and its interests. Con basically drops the entire Pro case, so Opt-In voters must vote Pro. *Response to Con*Con attempts insults:"You're so pathetic n sad for making that. "My response:Aside from the ambiguous antecedent, this makes no sense. Whether Con is claiming that I'm "pathetic n sad" for making my entire last round or for making those hilarious images, the claim is unwarranted. Being a successful debater on a debate site isn't pathetic; it's virtuous and beyond Con's capabilities. Con councils:"Get a life. "My response:I always find it funny when people tell a Biology teacher to get a life. I might have more lives on slides in the Biology lab than anyone else you might tell to "get a life. "Sorry Con, I have so many lives, your advice to get one is needless. Con compares:"at least i have a degree. "My response:Yeah, a high degree of stupidity. Also, I've had my masters degree for over 10 years, and I'm a certified teacher in three subjects in a thriving school district in Maryland, USA. Con rhetorically inquires:"what you got, nuttin u wanker"My response:Well, see above. Also, I hope it's obvious that the extent to which I may or may not masturbate is unrelated to whether or not I have a degree, so the British insult of "wanker" can be ignored as merely a red herring from Con. I'm saying, even if I were a wanker, I could still have a degree. *Conclusion*Voters, please vote seriously and with the Opt-In voting standards. Both a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist, and Con has done nothing to cast any doubt on that. Also, my insults were better.
Abortion

I will refute my opponent's R1 arguments followed by their R3 rebuttals. R1 Yes, it has a heartbeat but does that mean that it is alive? No, it does not. A fetus scientifically does not have any feeling of pain or emotion at the stage where abortion in the pregnancy that abortions are currently allowed. Sometimes it is a bit more complicated than just putting your child up for adoption. Please bare in mind that I am arguing against adoptions, I am arguing for the option to an abortion if the mother feels like this is her only option. I admit that in certain scenarios, abortion isn't necessary however I am not saying that I am pro abortion in all situations, I am saying that abortion should always be open as an option to the mother (and father) if they do not want a child for various different reasons. My opponent refers to the fetus as if it is a baby. I would like to make this clear - I am not Pro the killing of babies. An abortion should be an option if the mother or father have a valid reason to do so, ie. rape, underage pregnancy, financial issues, e.t.c. My opponent hasn't used this argument directly however I will refute this anyway because this is a commonly brought up argument: what if your baby would grow up to cure cancer. Let's see how likely that is. Out of every child in the planet that is born how many of them will cure cancer? The chances will be significantly below 1% since 1 percent is the equivalent to 1/100. R2 My opponent concedes that if the woman is raped then she has the right to abort the baby. Since the debate resolution and R1 never said that I could not argue that rape is an issue by opponent has conceded. It is unfair to say in the last round that rape is not a valid argument because you agree that you can have an abortion in this case. I will now cover the issue of adoption in greater detail since it has been raised more than once now. Many adoptive children grow up feeling bitter and resentful of their biological parents, even as they grow and mature into adults. These feelings are rooted in the abandonment that children feel they have suffered from. The adoptive parents sometimes can influence this outlook, but it remains a risk that a biological parent faces when choosing to give up her child. The adoption process and subsequent loss of a child often leaves the biological parents with a deep sense of loss, according to TheLaborOfLove.com. Grief is likely to set in, and it may reside within a parent for years after the adoption. Some individuals may continue to be haunted by their decision to give their child up for adoption, feeling haunted and regretful of their decision--regardless of whether it was the right decision at the time of the adoption. Sources TheLabourOfLove.com http://www.livestrong.com...
Abortion

I do know of rape my uncle did that to me and there are some people in my school who have had kids in 9th grade who chose to raise their kids. But if the woman doesn't want the child they should at least put it up for adoption to give it a chance at actually having a life to live instead of taking it away. If the person is raped they have every right to abort the baby. But many woman have kids that they don't want but over half of them give the child to some one who wants it rather than destroying it. How can you kill something so beautiful as life if you create it. Unless it is rape.
Abortion

Why would you want to harm an innocent life that is just beginning to grow. you can't say it isn't a live yet because even when it is still developing it has a heart beat. the earliest stage is called an embryo not just any embryo but your embryo and in a few months it will be called a fetus which is the baby before it is born. If the parents don't want the child they should have just put it up for adoption not kill it. they are making an innocent life over the parents mistake. You are taking away everything that could have possibly had in it's life, for what so you could do it all over again. instead of ruining you second chance at life, take it as a chance to start over again. give them what your parents didn't give you, unless you parents were great then that just means you have learned how to be a parent from the best. Show your kids how to be a great parent to. Don't kill the baby save it instead. The don't choose who the parents are, but you choose to be their parents when you keep them.
Abortion is wrong it is murder!!

You are right when you say it is a women's right to make a decision about her own body. But although the child is inside of you is it really your choice to kill it if it is its own person? By that i mean the baby is its own person he doesn't need your arm to scratch itself. of course you are the mother of that child but if you have a choice don't you think the baby does too? Satan laughs as mothers murder their own babies in the name of "freedom of choice". Therefore i feel you have no right. I agree with you when you say unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful. Being pregnant is not easy it comes with side effects and 9 months is a very long time but i believe if you honestly don't want the baby or you know you cannot take care of it as you explained your friend couldn't i think you shouldn't have to take care of it if you can't or don't want too and thats where adoption comes in you shouldn't have to kill a baby when you can give it to someone who feels they need it. Just being able to conceive is a blessing that many don't have and wish they were you. Also giving it away rather than killing it is better for ones health because 50% of women reported to have had an abortion also reported having emotional problem lasting years and I'm talking about depression,grief,fear of disclosure,sexual dysfunction,increase alcohol or drug abuse,nightmares,suicide,anniversary syndrome, and the list goes on. Another health issue it can produce is infertility, abruptio placenta, breast cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and future ectopic pregnancy. so honestly would you rather risk hurting yourself than just giving it away ? When the health of the baby and mother are at risk for any reason i believe instead of aborting it they should do an emergency c-section. why ? because I've met several people who doctor actually told them to have an abortion or they would die and they knew that abortion was not an option so they went along with there pregnancy and can you believe all of them today are healthy as ever and so are there kids that would've never existed today if they went by what the doctors told them. killing a baby is never really the answer there will always be complications but to those complications there are always solution and abortion not being one of them. When you speak about abortion and rape i understand where you are coming from. Rape is horrible and to find out you pregnant from this tragedy is even worse but when you kill the baby your not making your nightmare disappear but killing a baby that really had nothing to do with it. do you think the baby knows that his biological father raped his mother. so should a child go to jail for what a parent did i don't think so. like i said adoption is always an option she doesn't have to keep it and have that reminder there she can give it away to someone who really wants it. In conclusion, I believe abortion is wrong because not only does it affect the baby but it affect you as a person and potentially affect your body in a negative way. Inside the womb or outside murder is murder and its not your choice to take a life but gods choice.
Resolved: The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax

Any issue involving a "should" is a moral issue - to say that one should choose one path over another is to take the stance that that path is superior and good, while the other is bad. As such, you cannot divorce economics (or any other field) from ethics. Since taxation is primarily an ethical issue, we must look at what ethics is. Ethics is the field that deals with values and actions taken to obtain those values. In this way, ethics is only useful to entities which can value; trees and cadavers have no use for morality. The concept of "value" requires not only life but also freedom, for it cannot be said that a man being blown in a strong wind with no control over himself is able to make moral decisions about what to hold as values, nor can he decide how to act with those values in mind. Because of this, volition is a prerequisite of any moral system, and it can never be proper to subjugate any individual for any reason. If it is true that forced entities cannot make moral decisions, then the use of force cannot be just. The initiation of force, by its very nature, destroys the capacity for morality, and, if this is so, force and morality are opposites. There is a fundamental contradiction in saying that force is morally acceptable, considering that force destroys the foundation for moral judgements in general. Applying this to taxation, one can see that no taxation can be morally justifiable, no matter its so-called "pragmatic benefits". The government has no special justification that it can use to violate the rights of individuals (such rights coming from the requirement for the protection of volition for morality to make sense) no matter what. Taxation is, by definition, the forceful taking of property, something that cannot be reconciled with the idea of freedom. Given this and my previous arguments against the use of any force, it has been made plain that there is no level or type of taxation that can be justified. Pragmatism is not a primary - it is a moral system. As such, it has to "play by the rules" of morality to be acceptable, and, since morality is opposed to force, pragmatist ethical philosophies like those of my opponent cannot be valid - they undercut their own frameworks. If it can never be said that we "should" tax people (since any question of what we "should" do is moral in nature, and taxation is incompatible with morality), then all of my opponent"s arguments are rendered irrelevant. They assume that the pragmatist philosophy is sound, but, as I have shown, it is really untenable. Without a grounding in anything, his arguments are reduced to baseless assertions that carry no weight and will continue to carry no weight unless he succeeds in defending pragmatism to my objections.
Resolved: The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax

Select winner. Minimum voting Elo of 2k. As this is bsh's tournament, it seems appropriate to use his rules: == Rules == 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions8. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that Progressive Consumption taxes should not be implemented, I must argue that it should be9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss== Definitions == Progressive consumption tax (aka X tax): "The X tax modifies the VAT, so that it no longer imposes a flat-rate tax on all consumption. It splits the value-added tax base, which equals aggregate consumption, into two components, wages and business cash flow. The X tax achieves progressivity by applying graduated tax rates to wages and a high flat tax rate to business cash flow, which reflects consumption financed from wealth accumulated prior to the reform and from above-normal business investment returns, which largely accrue to well-off households." -- http://www.aei.org... Should is a common definition. Don't troll meh. Pretty much everything except progressive consumption taxes are common knowledge definitions. Rule 5 prevents ya from trolling.== Structure==R1) Acceptance R2) Pro's case, Con's caseR3) Pro rebuttal, Con rebuttalR4) Pro defense, Con defenseR5) Pro defense, rebuttal, and crystallization (if room m8); Con defense, rebuttal, and crystallization (if room m8)
I believe there are 2 genders, change my mind

Saying there are two sexes and two genders are completely different things. I believe that there are two physical sexes existent, male and female. They are the physical existing of sexuality, however psychologically there is a big difference. It's not a matter of people are changing gender more than the definition of gender has changed in the last couple years. Gender is now how you identify yourself. You could look at it as self-naming, or even make yourself feel better by calling yourself what you want to be. Since each person is uniquely different, there are as many genders as the current population of the planet, because each of them has a different view of themselves. Gender is a made up concept, but due to that fact, there is a limitless amount of them.
Young adult fiction does more good than harm.

I am sorry my arguments were stupid is was my first debate on this site but I will try my best to refute your arguments. 1.Popular/Generates Revenue First of all books do not generate money for the goverment therefore it can not lower debt. If anything these types of books would generate revenue for the authors and publishers of the book. So this is a false accusation. This is actually all i can refute and i await to see the results.