BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RESOLVED: Homosexuals (or MSM) should be able to donate blood

MSM are excluded in order to prevent the spread of HIV, it's part of strategy of containment that will ultimately lead to defeating HIV. Until the time that we have cured HIV or developed a test that can give us reliable results immediately, blood banks have no choice but to exclude MSM. This may not be so far off. Today, WEB-MD reported that eleven labs have already gotten into clinical trials (this is the final stage in drug development) for an HIV cure. Even then though, some people will continue to be ineligible to donate blood. It is important to acknowledge that exclusion is not based on prejudice, but on what is medically necessary. It is for these reasons that I must contest the resolution MSM should be able to donate blood, for now.
RESOLVED: Homosexuals (or MSM) should be able to donate blood

Since the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic decimated their community, gay men — or MSMs (men who have sex with men) as they are called by federal agencies — have not been allowed to donate blood. This ban has been present for way too long and has overstayed its welcome in the United States. The original intentions of this ban were to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV due to a lack of technology to test the blood. Obviously it is 2012 and this law is no longer necessary.Anyone who believes different can accept this debate, although I will ask/recommend for a few things: Be serious about this debate, I will not tolerate trolling or any nonsense. Do not accept this debate if you will forfeit rounds Use respectable grammar, I'd like to understand what you are trying to say. Be logical The first round is for acceptance, I will state my case in the next round.
There are no Aliens in outer Space

Within the Big Bang Theory, all Matter originally started contained and as the Universe started originally very Hot and has cooled down, and everything spread around and form into what it is now and continue expanding. What Matter expands into is what us humans are ignorant of, called for us: "Nothing" . There is however no physical certain explanation for us and that is because it is before our time, before us and thus we are Ignorant of it. The Big Bang (according to my theory) was created by God and was formed in such a way that our World is the way it is now. One substance created one World and there are certain Particles that certain "other life" would have to use, such as Organisms and Tissue. In order to have this Debate, you either need to believe in God or have a good argument disproving his existence. There are no rules in this Debate and have fun :). Also I do not call tiny Micro organisms or certain living substances or Beetles and that of the same type, Aliens. I call the more advanced creatures Aliens (I am perfectly happy to go into details if you wish).
There are no Aliens in outer Space

My opponent's remaining argument seems to be that God would not create a universe with multiple species, because God hates war, etc. If we're talking about the God of The Bible, this is not exactly true. That God encourages war, conquest, and the subjugation of others.I don't care to argue about the number of anecdotal accounts of aliens vs. ghosts. That's irrelevant. Both need to be treated skeptically. But it is simply factual that aliens are more plausible given what we know about the world.Final remarks.My opponent has failed to show that aliens don't exist or can't exist elsewhere in the universe. That's not surprising, and I believe it was a mistake to word the motion the way it is worded. This is basically all that should be necessary for the opposition to the motion to win. But there are further problems as we saw: Granting the God premise, it's hard to imagine that God would create an enormous universe, where only a tiny planet supports life, and even if we grant the possibility of interestellar travel, there are still a number of obvious problems with this single-species design.
There are no Aliens in outer Space

Point 1. a) If you feel that I have not given you enough evidence for my point that more people have more Ghosts then they had seen Aliens, then I shall do so. I from my own experience have seen and of heard more people saying that they had seen Ghosts more than that of Aliens. I was also describing people seeing an actual E.T. and not some strange light that looks like a UFO (because anything that is of the sort could be one of the following: *a light of a car in the dark *a military test *Lazar *mist) and from that there would be more people who had said seen a Ghost than an Alien. I have not found any particular source that says this (about people taking the same poll on whether they had seen a Ghost or an Alien) but I will do so if you wish. b) The phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is (I think) suggesting that I don't know that there is evidence which is not the case. Could you please (if you wish) reply to my main point about God having not created Aliens and also possibly the just Physical proof that I have. Have a good day.
There are no Aliens in outer Space

I will again point out that the motion is a strong positive claim: "There are no aliens." Meeting the burden of proof for a claim like this seems generally difficult, particularly since we have no way to examine every planet in the universe. The rest of the argument just boils down to some tangential disagreements, which I will address below.Space travel and colonizationIt's possible that at some future time we will have the technology to produce the incredibly large amounts of energy required for interstellar travel, and somehow solved the problem of high energy collisions. Is it probable? I don't think so. We can only make judgements based on actual knowledge, not hypotheticals that currently appear implausible. There isn't even evidence that we're making headway toward interestellar travel.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.No. Look i up.Life requires planets similar to ours.That is clearly not the case. There can presumably be life on planets different to Earth that are adapted to the environments of those planets.Notice also that my opponent tried to argue that the universe could be full of Earth-like planets: "Now you are suggesting that it is unlikely for there a planet that supports human life, but if God made this world suitable for us, then why is it unlikely that he will not do so again?"Aliens are just human constructs.There's a difference between aliens and, say, ghosts. The existence of aliens does not require a suspension of the laws of nature. We know that species exist in this planet. Hypothesizing that species might exist in other planets is not that extraordinary. Where are they? (Fermi's Paradox)There are many ways to answer this. The difficulty of interstellar travel is one.
There are no Aliens in outer Space

My opponent's main rebuttal argument is that it would make sense for God to create a universe that allows for colonization of other worlds. That sounds reasonable, except for one problem: the plausibility of interstellar travel and colonization. If a spaceship were to travel at, say, 10% the speed of light, and it hits a small rock somewhere, the energy released is equivalent to that of a nuclear weapon. (You can do the math.) It would still take about a generation to reach the nearest star, but in all likelihood the spaceship would not make it. Further, if you get to that solar system, it's exceedingly unlikely you'll find a planet that can support human life. So we end up with the same conundrum: Why would God build a mostly empty universe with characteristics such that interstellar travel and colonization are virtually impossible? Now, in order to support the claim that alien life does not exist, my opponent posits that any life in other planets would be very different to human life. Be that as it may, it does not preclude the possibility of alien life in any way. His claim remains unsupported, and can therefore be rejected.
There are no Aliens in outer Space

I'm atheist, but I'm willing to grant your required premise that God created the universe through the Big Bang, for argument's sake. In fact, I believe this premise makes a rebuttal easier. First off, notice that you are making a positive claim: "no aliens exist." You didn't say "there's no evidence of alien life" which you could easily be right about. As things stand, you have the burden of proof. What is your evidence that no aliens exist? Note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, let's consider what you're saying. God, the creator of the universe (presumably a perfect or highly advanced being), decided to set up a Big Bang scenario that would result in about a hundred billion galaxies, each one containing billions of solar systems, and most solar systems containing a number of planets. But out of those trillions of trillions of worlds, only one contains the single species he meant to create the universe for. The rest is just wasted material. This is an absurd design, which doesn't appear worthy of an adept universe designer. In other words, the God premise makes the idea of a mostly empty universe extraordinarily unexpected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
god is real

'Well why do so many people believe in god then???' Just because an X amount of people believe in something it does not make it true, for example if the majority of vikings believed that rain is simply tears of God it wouldn't make it true just like the fact that there is more muslims then buddhists does not make Islam true. 'The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves. This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth. The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.' -(http://www.logicalfallacies.info...) You have made an appeal to popularity it seems . Here is an example off the website . ' (1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being. Therefore: (2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being. This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.' now let's address the second part of my opponent's arguments . 'Also, who caused the big bang!?!?!??!?!?' First of all by simply asking questions my opponent is not proving how God is real , unanswered questions do not prove God is not real because Pro actually has to fullfill the BoP meaning he has to show evidence for his claim . First of all Pro has to prove that something caused the Big Bang .
god is real

I'm gone play devil's advocate , the BoP is on pro. 'God exists because if he didnt we wouldn't be able to think read or write.' Prove that , the Burden of Proof is on. That is simply a claim and you have not proved it to be true. 'Where did the first monkies come from? ' Before my opponent uses the 'Why are there still monkies if humans evolved from monkies' argument I will point out that humans did not evolve from monkies but a common ancestor with the apes . There were no 'first' monkies just like the question 'did the chicken or the egg come first' is illogical because there was no first chicken . Organisms slowly evolve , if there is simply one small mutation that does not make the animal entirely different. Monkies came from another animal. 'Modern-day "monkeys" comprise two distinct groups: the Old World monkeys (living in Africa, Asia and Gibraltar), and the New World monkeys (living in Central and South America). The New World monkey lineage split from the rest of the simian lineage about 40 million years ago. Some members of this new lineage eventually crossed the Atlantic and evolved into the New World monkeys (the rest remained in the Old World and became extinct).' - (http://friendsofdarwin.com...) 'Where did the exploding star in the big bang come from?' I quote 'As George Gonazalez pointed out correctly, the Big Bang was not due to an exploding 'star'. Actually it was not a 'bang' at all! It is believed, it was the universe expanding at a tremendous rate, as earlier it was sort of compressed to a very small region.' - (http://www.quora.com...)
god is real

'I know god is real because i prayed and it came true -.-' I don't care about your personal experience , personal experience is no evidence at all it cannot be the subject to the scientific method for example it is not testible . You have to fullfill the Burden of proof , so far you have not provided any proof and I have refuted your every 'argument' (comment) . I quote ' The fact is, God never answers any prayers. The entire idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination. How do we know that "answered prayers" are illusions? We simply perform scientific experiments. We ask a group of believers to pray for something and then we watch what happens. What we find, whenever we test the efficacy of prayer scientifically, is that prayer has zero effect: It does not matter who prays. It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god. It does not matter what we pray about. If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer. Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence. Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time. For example, this article says: One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments. And: A review of 17 past studies of 'distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods. ' -( http://godisimaginary.com... )
Legalization of Prostitution

Prostitution is consensual and is a business which women and their customers all are on board with. 1. Legalization would make sex workers healthier. Workers may be pressured into not using condoms or protection from their pimps/masters. With this act legalized, it would require the workers and pimps to test for diseases and overall keep them healthier. The United Nations also released a statement (UN): "Criminalization increases vulnerability to HIV by fueling stigma and discrimination, limiting access to HIV and sexual health services, condoms and harm reduction services, and adversely affecting the self-esteem of sex workers and their ability to make informed choices about their health." 2. Prostitution is usually a victim-less "crime:" With all parties consensual, it is a completely accepted business with all people. Why should the government take that away? 3. Economy can Benefit: This business can be used to collect tax revenue, leading to the government making PROFIT from this decision. 4. Having it criminalized does not stop it from happening. Think about it, even though drugs are illegal criminals still find a way to gain access to them. Why not just make it beneficial to all parties and legalize it? We should. Sources: http://www.businessinsider.com...
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Of course as i expected, lots of useless talk and insults with no real argument. A typical atheist. you use a fallacy to build a point and deduce using it. End of story. I won't argue fallacious arguments. Anybody reading this debate will see it obviously. and again all the rest of talk is all about religion once again + empty arrogance and ego covered with insults. Definitely not worthy my time. I can easily debunk all this nonesense but i came here to discuss one subject and you dodged and ran to another subject because you have no argument and only count on fallacies. lastly as an answer to your last paragraph's 7 sentences of waste of time and knowledge-claiming as usual is already above but seems you were too busy with thinking of insults to read 'it is agreed by religion comparison scientists like Bruce, Schmitt, Lang, Coopers and others that primitive MONOtheism is the root of religion OUT OF WHICH ANIMISM AND MYTH GREW.'
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

"There"s no proof, so YOU need to prove it." did you even read about Argument from Ignorance? Argument from ignorance 'a lack of contrary evidence' : It asserts that a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true (or vice versa). and that is exactly what you are doing. 100% true. also it is 100% commonly used fallacy by atheists. As lots of them use it in the funny trending stereotype of 'evolution is true until you prove it wrong and win Nobel prize' like who won Nobel prize on Evolution in the first place? anyway it's not our subject but i just mentioned an example of what i said as an answer to your 'Atheists do NOT do that. Again BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE.' Also atheists have another habit besides appealing to ignorance that is mentioning religion in everything and anything with no clear reason. We'll see in a moment. well that's disappointing, i said 'in a moment' then continued reading until the end and found it is all about religion. Sir, nobody mentions religion. You didn't mention religion in the first text. Now you argue about God's existence and nothing more. Then later in another debate we can discuss religion. just a note about your 'which god are you speaking of? There are over 2,000 different religions in practice right now in the world with different gods worshiped.' anybody who has studied and compared religions will know they're not totally different. They all agree in the major point of a great ONE creator to be worshipped. Of course they have all damaged by time and and more things were added or removed but it is agreed by religion comparison scientists like Bruce, Schmitt, Lang, Coopers and others that primitive MONOtheism is the root of religion out of which animism and myth grew. I can argue more about this but again it's not the subject of the debate. If you did not run out of arguments we may discuss the main subject without running to other subjects. but I can go on with you. When you believe first in a god/higher deity or whatever you might call we can together filter the 2,000 god :) if you do not believe in a god in the first place what is your problem with 2.000 or 2,000,000 god? :) 'Now as far as a designer or DNA, you know what I and scientists and atheists say? We say "I don"t know.' Now I have a question for your, do you believe that the directed functional complexity can be made my chance/no designer? do you believe there is any possible way at any time that a split of paint can produce the Monalisa? Pleases answer with yes or no. Also i'm interested to know if you believe that the egg was before the chicken or not :) Lastly I am not replying to these heaps of arrogance and knowledge-claiming plus out of context stuff of yours. And will wait for your argument over the main subject only. regards.
It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

First of all, you use Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. 'there's no proof so it's not there.' is a commonly used fallacy by atheists. Well no just because you didn't prove it yet doesn't mean it's not there. And by the way don't get it that I admit there is no proof for God. Actually I believe who says there is no evidence that God exists is somehow blind. There are many kinds of evidences but it seems you use the scientific one. It isn't experimentally tested so it's not proved so it doesn't exist! Well do you know what people understand when they say God? God is briefly a higher deity, supreme being that has no instance who created the universe. Therefore higher than the universe and it's laws because he created the laws. And definitely anybody with healthy brain will deduce He can't be experimented. How will he be a god or a higher deity when he comes to you and shakes your hand? Illogical and silly thinking. About the evidence, I need to ask you first whether you consider a design requires a designer or not. Please answer with yes or no. And also if I am not annoying you I would kindly like you to tell me if you have heard about things similar to a fine-tuned universe or dna. Be honest and don't ask google :) if you -all people who read this- believe and certain with no slightest doubt that the Mona lisa was made by a brilliant painter not by a split of paint, then you are half a theist.