BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is based on Faith

I thank CON for his arguments. There is no proof 1. The Conditional a. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden Shifting "For P1 to be true, we have to accept the condition that there is no proof for or against God" There is no absolute proof of God's existence. "the term "proof" is misleading if it's intended to be argued as an absolute, rather than evidence that leans one direction or another" Proof, as in absolute proof, as opposed to evidence. Evidence provides the possibility, proof provides the answer. "it a black-and-white fallacy to assume that there's a one-hit KO piece of evidence out there for either side and dismiss any evidence that only sways one way or another" I never said there was; in fact, I have been arguing against this fact. "The atheistic position is not a position, in and of itself, rather a responsive position provoked by the declaration that God, or gods, exist(s)" CON has neglected from responding to my argument; rather than believing God is unlikely they have a disbelief in God, meaning they do make assumptions against God's existence. b. Equivocation I'd like to point out here that there is a difference between agnsotic atheists and gnostic atheists. AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS - Those who believe God is a possibility, yet unsupported by evidence GNOSTIC ATHEISTS - Those who believe God cannot and does not exist It's important to distingish between the two; one is making a claim, the other not. Although the two groups do become muddled, CON is arguing that the latter group have no faith in their beliefs. 2. The Link a. Non-Sequitur "there is a difference between making an assertion and responding to an assertion" I disagree! It is impossible to not make a claim about something if you are defending it; would you argue that defending lawyers are not arguing for the accused in a court case? Unfounded Claim I'd, again, like to point out the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheists. The former is not making a claim, the latter is. 3. P2 This can be considered the atheistic "evidence" used to expand their arguments. It seems CON is taking the BoP upon himself to disprove God, going against his previous arguments that atheists make no claims. 4. The Conclusion Although I thank CON for his efforts, it seems he has been arguing for agnostic atheists rather than gnostic, or proper atheists. =============== 1. Faith vs. faith I'd like to begin by pointing out that CON has ommitted from stating which definition of "faith" he deems relevant to the debate. Atheists defend their beliefs as strongly as any theist. While they may lack a universal set of beliefs, they stand up for their beliefs as much as any believer in God. ============== It seems CON has made the resolution completely in his favour. I request that voters keep that in mind when they vote on this debate. ============== I look forward to CON's reply. Unfortunately, I will only be available for the remainder of today; therefore, I request that my opponent responds quickly and concisely to my points. If not, I may not be able to complete this debate which, I'm sure, would be a great disappointment to him and to me.
Atheism is based on Faith

Firstly, I request that CON posts their arguments as soon as possible as I will only be available for a couple of days. I will try to do the same. There is no proof We have no proof either for or against God. Therefore, any decision made about the existence of God is based on faith. Atheism, as defined by CON, is the "lack of belief" in God, ie believing God doesn't exist. Therefore, atheism is, most definitely, based on faith. I apologise for keeping this short; I haven't got too much time at the moment. Again, I request that CON submits his response as soon as possible.
Atheism is based on Faith

Resolved: Atheism is based on Faith.--------------------Welcome, DDO, it's been a while. About a month ago Jegory and I debated in the opinions section over the extent to which atheism requires faith. After coming to an impasse I decided to challenge him to a more formal debate. Due to timing conflicts, I unfortunately couldn't set up the debate at that time. But, now I do, and hopefully Jegory does as well. As agreed through PMs, the resolution for this debate will be "Atheism is based on Faith." Since I'm instigating the debate, I'll lay out the rules and structure:StructureRound 1: Pro's choiceRound 2-3: arguments (new arguments allowed)Round 4: closing statements (new arguments not allowed)Breaking the structure will result in conduct loss. New arguments in the final round should be disregarded if they come up.BoPPro will be responsible for carrying the philosophical BoP for affirming the resolution. Con's burden will be to refute Pro's claims by either direct refutation or showing BoP has not been fulfilled.SourcesSources will most likely be a non-issue, since definitions will be provided below. If sources are used, they should be for reference, not a to provide further arguments.Definitions1. atheism (n): disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [1]2. faith (n): a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, or b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. [2]3. Faith (prop. n): generic term referencing a particular religion.ConcessionsForfeiting a round or dropping an argument will be a concession of the argument, not necessarily the debate.--------------------If Pro has any questions pertaining to this debate, feel free to ask for clarifications in the comment section or PM me. Pro has the option to either use the first round as acceptance or for his first opening arguments. If Pro decides to use it for opening argumentation, I ask he leave his last round blank to keep the rounds even ("Left blank by request" or something along those lines would suffice). With details out of the way, I'm looking forward to an entertaining debate. And with that, I'll turn it over to Pro.[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
all gods are technically the same

All gods are the same in that they are all, in their nature, human constructs designed to aid in the functioning and cooperation of societies. People create gods to explain the unknown. People create gods in order to personify their culture and values in the form of story and song. That is what all gods are. Thus Jesus and Vishnu are no different. They offer their believers a set pattern of behavioral norms, and attatchment to common ideology that serves as the social and emotional glue holding together different people into a common system. Gods may differ between each other in trivial details, such as what the afterlife is like, who gets to go to the afterlife, what supernatural feats did they perform to earn their position as a god. But these are superficial matters.The only argument that con gives to suggest that gods are not all inherently the same is that this one specific diety happens to forgive people freely. Many other gods offur such spiriual pleasantries as well, but that is besides the point. One can not try to compare gods to each other only on the most fickle and minor details.By the very nature of their existance, origins, and purpose, all gods are the same.
all gods are technically the same

I accept your challenge. I would like to point out that this is not exactly what I said in my comment, but nonetheless, I think I can argue this. What I did say to you earlier was the all Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) follow the same god. Since the con has not put forwards any definitions, I will provide some. This debate might be influenced by the semantic interpretation of the terms "gods" and "technically the same". I propose that "gods" be defined as the general pantheon of all human dieties. According to the English dictionary, technically means "in fact, exact meaning, strictly". I propose that "the same" be defined as meaning "having the same nature". Obviously, it would be impossible for me to argue that Hera and Kali have the same traits and characteristics. Thus I instead limit "the same" to meaning that all gods are inherently similar in the nature and significance of their existence.I hope my definitions are fair and acceptable to the con.
Impromptu!

First let me say this is one of my first debates (my first actual debate not having gotten a response yet) and my first Impromptu debate. So apologies ahead of time if I break some taboo or do a poor job at providing debate topics. It sounds like a fun idea and here's to an enjoyable time for both of us. :) I would like to argue PRO for option 1, that is, I support the resolution that the government should not endorse national or state lottery games. My opponent's choices are: 1) ESL (English As A Second Language) students should not be separated from normal classrooms. 2) Cats are superior to dogs. 3) Loud noises which cause distress are a form of violence.
Impromptu!

As per other impromptu debates, in round 1 my opponent will choose to debate either Pro or Con of one of the choices that I have provided below, and then proceed to provide me with three choices to debate in return. In round 2, we will then provide our cases. There will be no rebuttal. Points should be provided based on who voters believe presented the best case. So without further ado, my opponent's choices are: 1) The government should not endorse national or state lottery games. 2) The Blackberry is superior to the iPhone. 3) Latin and Ancient Greek should be taught in schools before other foreign languages.
should kids be allowed to use there cellphones in school.

I thank con for his arguments. Cons main argument was that it's an unnecessary risk to have cellphones in school. I don't think it's a risk to have your cellphone in school because there are many ways to keep your cellphone safe. You could put in your locker, your backpack, or other private places. You could also put a password on your phone. I am one of the few people i know that knows how to break a password on a cellphone, and it's rather hard to do. Having your cellphone makes school more efficient and convenient. Teachers are often busy, books are not convenient, and computers are often being used. You say that there a other things that can do certain functions better than cellphones, and that's true, but those things cost money, while most everybody has a cellphone at this point that will need it. the con says that the school would become less efficient. I think the effect would be the opposite. I ask the con to expand on his reasoning for this argument. Also, I am not saying the teachers would have to be constantly monitoring every single kid. You could have certain times where cellphones are aloud, such as free research time, and time that you can't, like silent reading. Just take away there phone if they are misusing it. They can't rebel and use there phones if they don't have it. If a classroom only has one computer there is probably going to be a lot of demand for it. I await your arguments.
should kids be allowed to use there cellphones in school.

Thank you for accepting. I believe that kids should be able to use there cellphones is school for many reasons. First off, I went to a school that let you use cellphones and it helped greatly. I could use it as a calculator, do research on the internet with it, and do my homework on it. It was very, very helpful for educational reasons. Just because kids are allowed to use your cellphone does not mean the school would fall into an anarchy of texting and game playing. There would still be teachers to monitor usage and administer punishment when due. Imagine sitting in a classroom where there are no computers and just being able to whip out your phone and do research on it without having to ask permission to go to somewhere with a computer. It would be very beneficial. I await your response.
Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

PLEASE! If you're interested in learning:. http://en.wikipedia.org...Definitions:Electoral College: a body of electors; especially : one that elects the president and vice president of the United States Abolished: to end the observance or effect ofShould: Ought to About this debate:Time limit: 72 hoursCharacter limit: 8,000 charactersRounds: 5 split up as follows:Round 1: pro: acceptance and definitionscon: acceptance and definitionsRound 2:pro: 1AC(possible CX either in comments or email)con: 1NC(possible CX either in comments or email)Round 3:pro: 2AC(possible CX)con: 2NC(possible CX)Round 4:pro: 1ARcon: 1NRRound 5:pro: 2ARcon: 2NRDuring the fourth round, only attack arguments made in round 2. During the fifth round, only attack arguments made in round 3. No rebuttals may be done during rounds 2/3 outside of CX. BoP is on aff.
how the soviets gave communism a bad name

the soviets gave communism a bad name, communism was built based on an ideology were by all people are equal and are all friends" no poor, no rich, no discrimination just pure unity of the people, unfortunately this meaning was interpreted wrongly by the soviets which gave communism a bad name, communism is the best system in the world, capitalism sucks the living life out of a man right from when his born till when, his dead all to favour some group of individuals, but communism empowers all and wealth is shared equally amongst everyone, in capitalism the wealth of the world is owned by 1% of the people
Topic: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is important for people to learn th

As my opponent fails to specify the accurate explicit resolution, I will take it by inference that she means to debate on whether or not it is important to abide by foreign customs when visiting. As such, I will provide the brief definition of the following: 1> Important: of much or great significance or consequence [1] Preface: Now, as my opponent unfairly presents us with the specification of merely 2000 characters for only 1 round, I will be forced to devote most of these characters for refutations. =Adjustment?= Indeed, she states that adjusting to a country is 'important' and of great significance. Now, the latter point that she brings up concerning foreign customs and adaptation is all very well when taking into consideration the whole of the societal context, but 'being looked upon as a crazy person' would not be of ggreat significance or consequence. The subjective opinions of individuals in a foreign country would never be able to claim objective status for themselves in society, and thus would never have a tangible effect on consequences or results. Furthermore, it would not be under my BoP to testify against adjustment, merely that doing so is not absolutely 'important', for which I have done. =Language= Now, I would like to point out immediately that the concern of foreign language is not in any manner affected by my subjective choice to adapt, for it would be an inherent ability I either do or do not possess. It would not be in my capability, therefore, to strive to speak the language, if I did not have previous knowledge of it. As such, we find her argument invalid. =Viewpoint= Again, having such a good viewpoint is all well, but the latter definitely does not provide us with a matter of great significance or consequence, and thus is irrelevant to the debate. Indeed, as my opponent provides only subjunctive and vague arguments that fail to support even her own position of the topic, we find that my position is vindicated, and I urge a CON vote.
Topic: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is important for people to learn th

Do you know this popular expression? When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When I first heard this, I thought it's very weird. However now I noticed it has very close relation with today's topic. There are many debate between this topic, but in my opinion, it is necessary to learn customs of country where someone will visit first. It's because we can adapt, communicate and can have good perspective in foreign country. To begin with, we can adjust in that country. For example, the Spanish do not put a lot of emphasis on punctuality and may often be late for appointment. In addition, business clothes there are more formal more conservative than in many other European countries. If you wear shorts in spain in public, you could be looked as crazy person. To adapt in foreign country, we should learn their custom. Secondly, we can speak with foreigners well. For example, Mike is very hungry and he decided to eat sandwich. He goes to bakery and ask for sandwich. However, he can't speak English well so he just say "san-de-wi-che " Clerk cannot understand what he want so just say " We don't have san-de-wi-che here" Learning simple language of country before going to trip is very necessary. Last, we can have good view point in other country. Let's give an example of India. India eats curry with hand and cleanse dung with hand too. If we don't know about India, we can have bad perspective of India people; dirty. However if we learn about their custom, we can have better point of view. In brief, I think it is very important to learn custom of country when we first visit because we can adjust, talk and can have positive viewpoint about country. Then, how about searching some information about country where you will visit in this summer vacation? To voters and debator.. Well, I'm middle school student in Korea so I just can write round 1 and 1000 characters. Also, I do not have enough skills. Sorry but I hope you will understand me
Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.

Thank you for that last round. 1. While a rise in global temperature is undeniable, I disagree that the greenhouse effect is the cause. I repeat my original point that the recent warming of the Earth has to do with solar cycles and that a 2013 study proved that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century [2], and the recent rise in global temperature are within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years [2]. Additionally, to address your point concerning the declining Arctic sea, it's true that it was slowly descending, but since 2012, Arctic ice has gone up by 50% [4]. Even the increase between 2012 and 2013 was visibly significant [5]. This increase is equally as important as the decrease. I again repeat my original point concerning receding glaciers. They have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes [2], and the recently receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to atmospheric circulation changes, which is the “large scale movement of air” [3]. 2. My opponent has argued that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activities.However this is not entirely true. David Henderson went through everything that Cook et all claimed and found that only 64 out of the 11,944 scientists that were examined claimed explicitly that global warming was a cause of humans. This number brings the 97% down to 1.6% [1, 2]. Here is Henderson’s list providing all the numbers: While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that human activities have caused global warming, there are still many scientists who disagree.In 2010, a report by Climate Depot claimed that over 1,000 scientists (many of which were form UN IPCC scientists) disagreed that humans are “primarily responsible for global climate change” [2].Again, in 2014, 15 scientists declared that the US National Climate Assessment’s declaration of human caused climate change to be “NOT true” [2]. Conclusion:It remains that many scientists agree that global warming exists only as a solar cycle and is not caused by human activities. Thank you for reading! Sources:1. http://econlog.econlib.org...2. http://climatechange.procon.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://townhall.com...5. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...
Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.

1: Does Global Warming exist?Yes, but how do we know? The amount of evidence is compelling and indisputable from the rising global sea level to global temperature rise, warming oceans, to shrinking ice sheets. Other ways we know that global warming exists includes but is not limited to; Declining Arctic Sea, Glacial Retreat, Extreme Weather, Decreased Snow Cover, Ocean Acidification. Now that we can agree that Global Warming exists the question becomes2: Is it man made?“97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” (1)This effect made by humans is called the greenhouse effect. Defined that is “warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”(2) This is mainly caused by burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. It is also caused by the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts, which runs assessment reports concluded “there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”(3)Conclusion: As we can see that Global warming exists and the experts in the field overwhelmingly conclude that Global warming is likely man made we can conclude that Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Sources:(1) http://iopscience.iop.org...(2) http://climate.nasa.gov...(3) http://climate.nasa.gov...
Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.

I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to "atmospheric circulation changes" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's "carbon sinks."Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org...
Batman: Arkham or Assassin's Creed

I understand that Assassin's Creed is a great franchise, and is loved around the world. It currently has nine main games in it's series, and is currently working on the tenth. Don't get me wrong, all of AC is brilliant, and I love playing the games myself. However. Batman: Arkham series started in 2009, and got GOTY first game. They introduced a brand new combat system never before seen in the gaming industry. And all games were awarded best campaign for each year. The second game also gained 2011's GOTY, and the latest game, Batman: Arkham Knight, got 2015's best graphics award. Batman: Arkham has 4 games, while, AC, has 9. Quality over quantity if you ask me. I understand that this debate will be mostly opinion based. May the best game win.