BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Coverage (insurance) for genetic disorders/Genetic counseling

Besides the fact that it is impractical because of the price, the other and final reason that people with genetic disorders should not receive health insurance (at least for their genetic disorders) is because maybe we shouldn't be altering what nature has made us. If we change the things about us like ourselves that make us US, then are we really the same person. We are getting to the point where we are capable of changing our characteristics to make us stronger, faster, and smarter but if we do that we are taking away what makes us human, our mistakes. While everything humans do is basically unnatural ,when do we cross the line in terms of what we do to ourselves and our environment for science. The line should be at changing ourselves even if that includes our genetic disorders.
Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process.

I'm just going to amend the materialistic atheism argument's conclusion, because I realised I made a typo. The conclusion should read "the universe must have, if caused, a material cause.Firstly, all my arguments posed (with the exception of the first, which is now valid through that typo fix) is valid. I take great personal offence at questioning of validity. For reference, validity means that, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Each argument was either a modus ponens, or a lemma, which works through predicate reasoning (i.e. if the sun set yesterday, then there was a yesterday and the sun existed yesterday by lemma/predicate). In fact, I'd be happy to completely overhaul the debate that we are doing in order to debate the validity of the arguments posed. Secondly, they all disprove and equally prove good reason why one would believe in God - though this is a strawman, and not for debate. The debate is whether "Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process". Thirdly, my opponent is magically claiming rational theism with no justification. If he claims it to be true, then he must claim that a theist can know with certainty and be correct that theism, or atheism, is accurate. Further, seeing as e.g. the teleological argument claims knowledge of what made the universe, he must discard his first premise of his argument ("We do not know what made the universe") and thus concede the debate. In fact, this acceptance by my opponent is irreconcilable with the resolution, and forces his own defeat. Fourthly, he needs to disprove each argument I posed as being reasons why an atheist might be atheist, or a theist might be theist, instead of saying "it doesn't [dis]prove God." as that is unsubstantiated and false. Finally, my opponent seems to have given up justifying any of his premises. If he does not do so, he cannot fulfil his burden of justification, and must rationally abandon his argument: otherwise, it's just making stuff up and hoping they're true.
Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process.

You are twisting theism and atheism into separate things.The reasoning behind materialistic atheism makes no sense. It doesn't disprove God.The reasoning behind political atheism makes no sense. It doesn't disprove God.The reasoning behind personal theism is subjective and irrelevant.The reasoning behind cultural theism is just blind brainwashing, like the education system, it doesn't necessarily prove God.Rational theism is what I suggest, what you suggested is irrational because it stated "One must accept that God exists." and this is not rational.Please only give valid arguments.
Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process.

I accept. In essence, all I'm going to do is restate the comment because it's right in pointing out the problem here, but still: all I have to do is provide reasoning which someone can present to propose atheism over theism, that does not rest on a lack of knowledge of a universe's cause. Materialistic AtheismP1 - Everything is made from other materials.P2 - The universe is somethingC1 - Thus, the universe has a cause (Bertrand Russell's argument, shortened from his works) This argument does not use the reasoning my opponent presented at all. This states explicitly we have knowledge of the universe's cause: the material nature of it. Political Atheism:P1 - One ought not support the existence of a dictator at any stage of any system.P2 - God is de dicto a dictator.C1 - Thus, one ought not support the existence of God, i.e. atheism.This is again different reasoning to my opponent's strawman of atheism.However, theistic reasoning is different, and is luckily easier to pose:Personal Theism:P1 - I experienced God.L1- God Exists.L2- Theism is true.(where L is lemma)This is an example of theists being theist because of personal experience.Cultural Theism:P1 - My upbringing was Christian/Zoroastrian/Muslim/JediP2 - My upbringing determines my faith.C1 - Therefore I am a theist.This is an example of a theist that is their faith because their upbringing was just so. Strangely, these people do exist.'Rational' Theism:P1 - There is a rational Argument for God(teleological, cosmological, etc.)P2 - If the argument is rational, then if one prizes reason, one must accept its conclusion.C2 - One must accept that God exists.L1 - Theism is true.This is a very broad generic example of people being theist because they know what made the universe: God. FallibilismAnd this is just an additional point, but still: my opponent has to provide reason for infallibilism. That means that, if infallibilism is true, one cannot know something that is false. So for example, one cannot know Mt. Etna is the largest mountain in the world. Similarly, my opponent's first premise rests on infallibilism: one does not know what made the universe is not enough, for one can easily posit a person who does know. One has to posit that one cannot know anyone who knows the cause of the universe. This is completely unjustified.
Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process.

Just let me explain what I mean first.Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[1]Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods.[2]God: TheoneSupremeBeing,thecreatorandrulerofthe universe.[3]Logical reasoning: Using language to express and analyse a concept in order to reach a conclusion.Just don't think I am trolling or laugh at me. Too many people on this site are ignorant fools who vote based on preconceived opinions and make me lose unfairly because instead of reading my debate they merely laugh at the side of it which I am on.Just listen:Agnosticism is the truth. Anyone who says it isn't is a fool.Atheism decides that because we have no seen a sign of a supreme being that made our universe (not necessarily the multiverse, only made our universe) then we must immediately not believe in God.Theism decides that because we have no logical explanation for everything existing, a superior being to us made everything.The reasoning behind atheism is same as behind theism in that it takes the fact we don't know the beginning of universe and then jumps to opposite conclusion because we don't know. The reason they reach reversed conclusions is because they look at other side first then loop back to their own conclusion like as follows:Logical Reasoning Behind Atheism1) We do not know what made universe.2) We have seen no signs of it being a supreme entity so thus should not believe in it.Logical Reasoning Behind Theism1) We do not know what made universe.2) We have seen no signs to deny it being a supreme entity so thus it probably is.3) This is further justified because the most intelligent species we know cannot decipher the truth.If you really are so foolish to think you can disprove this go ahead and try. don't just be a cocky person who thinks they'll get cheap votes for picking easy side. Seriously.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Gladiator matches for death row inmates

There's a good reason gladiator fights have been abolished and are now considered a barbaric method of punishment. It is immoral for a number of reasons:The death penalty itself is immoral. Killing a criminal does nothing to protect anyone because the criminal is already in prison where they can't threaten society, so the death penalty takes a human life for nothing. Forcing criminals to slaughter each other is not morally justifiable. No one should be forced to kill another person. This is especially bad because the criminals here already have to cope with the guilt of having killed someone before, and now they are being forced to add to that guilt by killing more people.Current methods of capital punishment are at least quick and painless, but the methods you have described are some of the most painful deaths possible. Some gladiators would die brutal deaths of being mauled by bears or rabid animals or by being beaten to death by another person's bare fists.There are also many practical reasons gladiator fights are not reasonable. The cost of building arenas would be very high, and they would take up space that could be used for other purposes. It would also be extremely difficult and expensive to transport dangerous wild animals, let alone rabid animals, to the arena. The weapons that the gladiators fight with would also cost money.Another practical problem is the danger of criminals or animals escaping. If you set wild animals loose in an arena, there is a possibility that they could escape. It is also possible that the criminals could escape after you give them weapons. This would be very dangerous to the guards, who would be killed in either scenario, and to society, since escaped criminals with weapons or rabid animals could be set loose in a populated area.This system also would only work if there was an extremely high number of death row inmates, which is definitely not something we want; we want to execute fewer criminals. On Monday, you have two inmates fighting, on Tuesday at least two, you have twenty on Wednesday, at least two on Thursday, three on Friday, and there is a tournament on Saturday, meaning there would probably be around 64 gladiators. This is at least 93 gladiators every week. Even if you count out the victors, that's 88 people killed every week (I'm assuming no one will beat the bears because, well, no one will). Do you really think we have or want to have enough death row inmates to make this a reality?You also mentioned here that I have to prove that gladiator fights are a bad idea, and I think have done so. However, it should be noted that the burden of proof should fall on you for this, although it's fine if you want to put it on me just for the sake of debate.
Gladiator matches for death row inmates

I believe we should have gladiator matches for death row inmates and prisoners with either life or just bad for the prison. For death row inmates it will be a 1 v 1. They will have swords,spears,shields,but no guns. Mondays will be 1 v 1 as I stated. Tuesday will have rabid animals while they fight. Wednesday will be 10 v 10 team fight matches. Thursday will be fighting with there bare fist. Friday 3 prisoners will have to fight 3 bears. Saturday will be a tournament. The champion will get 30 years in prison. Sundays will be a break time. 4 armed guards will be watching the match. The winner will not get death row but will go to prison for life only on Mondays. The rest of the wreaks will have different prizes for the winners. Con will have to prove this is a bad idea.
Eastern Europe is better off under the Russian Sphere of Influence

I accept. As Pro has not specified whether the first round is for 'acceptance' or not, I will now proceed with my opening argument. ==Case== While Pro does indeed make some valid points about the European Union, the key fact is that they are arguing that Eastern Europe is 'better off' under the Russian influence; simply highlighting some flaws within the European Unionby does not affirm or even make any suggestion of this. An assessment of history shows that Eastern European and Baltic states suffered greatly under the former Soviet Union--and to a much larger extent than they are in fact ever will with the E.U. These countries are now fully able to recognize Christianity as a main religion and have the freedom to openly practice their belief[s] in it, while still continuing to hold secular governments. They may be maintaining traditional values, but there is still recognition of Western ideals and many of these countries have financially began to thrive and grow--thus leading to an improved way of life for their inhabitants. On the contrary to there existing a 'distance' to the West, there is considerable diplomacy with the E.U and Eastern countries do actually have their own form of power *and* say. Pro uses Hungary as an example [in the context of the refugee crisis] and while the E.U did want it to allow refugees and migrants to travel though [in order to reach Germany, Sweden, etc.]. Hungary was still able to refuse and establish a border fence without the E.U taking their authority any further or disallowing them to do this. The same applies to other Eastern European countries such Poland. As for the history of both the East and the West, once again this largely irrelevant; and not totally accurate from the stance that Pro is arguing from. For example Hungary has always had strong historical and cultural ties with the West and once had an empire [known as the Hapsburg] with Austria, which lasted from 1867 to 1918 [1.] http://www.britannica.com...Poland and the Czech Republic have also historically had significant ties with western Europe. There is also the fact that in the geographical sense, the majority of Eastern Europe is *close* to the west. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and even Serbia are technically nearer to countries such as Austria and Germany than they are to Russia. Thus proving that most parts of Eastern Europe and very much part of the West; specifically the ones that directly neighbour Austria/Germany. As for the West allegedly not allowing Eastern European countries to maintain their heritage and culture, Pro has so far provided no evidence of this. If anything they are more enabled to keep their heritage and culture--and in many cases, make a significant amount of profit from this, which enables further growth. [2.] p://www.digitaljournal.com... There are even statistics to show that certain parts of Eastern Europe are richer than areas in the West [3.] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Eastern Europe is better off under the Russian Sphere of Influence

So for anyone interested I would like to start off by discussing the Eastern European area. It seems throughout recent history, Poland, Czech Republic,Slovakia,Romania, Hungary , Ukraine, the Baltics and Belarus have never been able to gain some form of their own influence. For hundreds of years these countries have been either under Austrian, Soviet or more recently Western European influence. As far as most people are concerned the European Union is run by Western Europe which wishes to be like the USA but in it's own creepy way. One of the things that is an issue is the difference in Political Ideologies. While France, UK and Germany believe in Open borders, Racial Equality and LGBT rights, the eastern section of Europe differs greatly on these ideas. Old Christian values thrive greatly in Eastern Europe ever since the great Battle of Vienna, (http://www.historytoday.com...). Eastern Europe has a very different history from Western Europe. While the UK and France were invading muslim lands, the Ottoman Empire was trying to take Eastern Europe. Though thanks to the Russian Empire, for centuries, the Ottomans were kept under control and away from even taking Serbia. And thanks to the Russian Empire, Serbia was able to rise into the large communist nation of Yugoslavia. Though ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the European Union has taken advantage of the hardships of these countries by annexing them to just the "economic" bloc. And now since the Syrian Refugee crisis, these countries have begun to question what exactly Western Europe wants to do. With 4.1 million refugees marching across Hungary, it's almost impossible for Eastern Europe to be able to keep track and stop these people from plowing through. The Western European Union is now demanding that they have to take in refugees when clearly these areas do not want them. Slovakia is angrily demanding to only accept Christian refugees but their Western rulers demand more from them, they will not accept this kind of disobedience.(http://www.bbc.com...) With the Austrian Prime Minister calling Orban a nazi,(http://www.reuters.com...) clearly this will become something a lot worse eventually then just name calling. Thanks to Merkel and Cameron looking to create a European Union army, it is clear their next tactic would be to forcibly enact their policies on Eastern Europe. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) So I ask anyone who accepts this challenge, what will be the difference between the Western Bully and the Eastern Bully? At very least Russia had allowed these nations to keep their heritage and culture in Post Soviet Russia.
There Should Be a World-Wide Bacon Day

Contention 1: People everywhere like bacon. All across the world, there are bacon-lovers. Even vegetarians like bacon as evident in this video:I do not like bacon and there are some people who don't like it because of certain dietary laws i,e. vegans, vegetarians, Jews, Muslims.Contention 2: If there was more bacon, there would be less war. If there was a world-wide bacon day, everyone would be too busy eating bacon to fight, improving relations. If every country had a common interest, there would also be less tension.As you call it a "day" to state it would postpone long-term war tensions is irrelavent.This is not true, every country has a common interest of promoting there economy but this does not prevent wars.Contention 3: A world-wide bacon day would stimulate global economies. Bacon and bacon-related products litter the markets. If there was a world-wide bacon day, people would buy said bacon and bacon-themed items, producing sudden economic growths.The stimulation of certain countries' economic systems over the course of one day is no reason to designate a day idoling one food.
There Should Be a World-Wide Bacon Day

Please remember this is an "entertainment debate" so have fun and no trolling. Oh, and debate like a serious debate, just....bacon. Pro Case Resolved: There should be a world-wide bacon day. Contention 1: People everywhere like bacon. All across the world, there are bacon-lovers. Even vegetarians like bacon as evident in this video: http://www.youtube.com... Contention 2: If there was more bacon, there would be less war. If there was a world-wide bacon day, everyone would be too busy eating bacon to fight, improving relations. If every country had a common interest, there would also be less tension. Contention 3: A world-wide bacon day would stimulate global economies. Bacon and bacon-related products litter the markets. If there was a world-wide bacon day, people would buy said bacon and bacon-themed items, producing sudden economic growths.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican Nomination.

Hello NRW, I think that Ron Paul will win the Republican Nomination. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I do believe he will get the nomination. I think he will because after two disastrous terms, people are tired of Bush, and those like him. Also, Ron Paul has gained a monumental Internet following, and it's next to impossible to ignore. As of now, Dr.Paul has raised $18,588,187.00 in donations. Another reason is Ron Paul is refreshing to people, as libertarianism is "hot", and many people believe Ron Paul is the strongest candidate. Hope to see your response.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican Nomination.

Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican nomination. Overall, his views do not get him votes from the traditional GOP base votes - those votes are going to Huckabee and Romney, etc. Ron Paul is getting support, yes. However, this support is limited to a small group of people within the Republican party that disagree with a large portion of the rest of the party. This is why his support is not enough. Furthermore, taking this into consideration, the GOP will nominate a candidate that it thinks can beat the Democrats. The Republicans know that they face an uphill battle agains the Dems, because the GOP is getting blamed along with Bush's decisions in office. The Republicans will look for whoever has the most WIDESPREAD support, so that the candidate elected will have a chance against the Democrats. Because conservatives know this, Paul, who cannot even solidify the base, will not be able to win the Republican nomination.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican Nomination.

No problem. It's hard to ignore that Ron Paul is incredibly popular, even the GOP can't deny this. Paul is popular, and if the GOP wants to get another Republican in office, Ron Paul is the man. I know Democrats who support his views, so he's getting not only Republican votes, but Democrat votes too. This should be more than enough for the GOP, who's favorite candidates are incredibly far right, and toxic to most people. Yes, many candidates have large internet followings, but Ron's is unusually large. If you have the Stumbleupon firefox toolbar, every other political site is pro Ron Paul. And it helps that he's not the typical Republican. People are sick with them at this point in time. His fanbase is huge, although I am not part of it, and that should capture a large amount of votes. I've already stated that him not being your typical Republican will help, however.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican Nomination.

Alright, thank you for responding. You say after two terms, people are tired of Bush and those like him. This is my point from before - because people are tired of Bush, and the Republicans, the GOP faces a hard battle against the Democrats in the election - and the Republicans know this, so they will try to push for the person who will be able to beat the Democrats. Ron Paul is not able to solidify the GOP base - his views often coincide with liberal ones - this hurts his appearance as one who has a chance against the Democratic Nominee, thus he will not get the nomination. I know Ron Paul has a large "Internet" following - but so does every candidate. What Ron Paul lacks is a base voting block because his views are so unlike the typical right. And that's fine that he has raised a lot of money - so has every candidate. These are not reasons why he will win the nomination, these are just reasons why he is able to campaign. However, I am still the only one with reason as to why he will not be able to capture votes to win the nomination when the time comes. Libertarianism might be "hot," but the GOP knows it has to elect someone who stands a chance against the Democrats. Promoting Ron Paul's libertarian side will only alienate him from the rest of the right.
Mermaids: The Body Found Is Legit

Ok, so on Animal Planet there's been some debate as to whether the video is legit or not. To back up the fact that it's real, it's home website believeinmermaids.com's domain name has been seized by HLS (Home Land Security). It is illegal to fake a seizure warrant. So for those who believe that the owner(s) did this are most likely wrong, unless of course the said owner(s) of the website did fake a seizure warrant and broke the law. I don't think the owner(s) would go through all of this just as a prank. I'm new at this so don't make fun of me if I did something wrong,