BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

Resolution: A theistic god exists.StructureThe burden of proof will lie solely on Pro. Con will not be contending that a god does not exist, but he will act as a sketpic and question and refute the arguments presented by Pro.DefinitionTheistic god - An intervening and personal god that created and rules the universe.Rules1. Round 1 can be used for the first argument.2. Pro must waive round 4 to compsensate for round 1.3. Do not be condescending during the debate.4. Please do not accept the debate if you have doubts about staying with it.Once you accept the debate, you can post your first argument. Enjoy! :)
gay marriage

Pro seems to have found something I have said elsewhere, and wishes to respond to it in a debate format.I am happy to do this, although this debate will be somewhat informal, since it is a continuation of a standpoint I have written somewhere else.Until I decide to present new arguments, I will ask voters to consider the argument quoted in Pro's round 1 to be my opening argument.____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right, now onto the argument.Pro simply responds to my argument by stating:'I do not believe that gay marriage is weak.'But I never argued that gay marriage itself was weak, that's beside the point; all I argued was that the act of changing the definition of marriage will weaken marriage itself. We accept that marriage is good, and so any unnecessary weakening of it is bad. Gay marriage weakens marriage unnecessarily, so gay marriage is bad. Simple as that.
You do not exist

Hey, you gave me the idea :P "I'd like to point out that my opponent completely and entirely dropped my case." No, I didn't. My case just clashes with your case, therefore there was no point. Anyway I cited your case within my case. 1. Solipsism 1. "If solipsism were true, then my opponent would exist. He would be the focal point of solipsism, and anything outside of his mind wouldn't exist. Only his mental state is something that he can confirm, thusly making him the only person to 'exist'. So if you're voting off of solipsism, you're be voting con." Unless of course, my opponent was the solphist. And "me" just a figment of my opponent's imagination. Therefore, "I" would not exist. My opponent still has not shown any valid proof of my mind's existence. 2. "Solipsism is just flat-out false, though. There are plenty of ways that we can verify if others have mental cognitive states and minds, such as brain scans and cognitive testing. We can verify things outside of ourselves as in existence, thus solipsism fails." But, have you done a CAT scan on "me"? I say no. Therefore, this fails. 3. "I'm going to be outweighing because he dropped my second argument, which provides a scenario where we know he mentally exists. This disproves solipsism, as I just verified the existence of something outside of myself." You have not. As "I" stated above, "My opponent cannot prove with absolute certainty that "I" was the one who was "Typing on the keyboard" and this just is not his imagination placing letters on a computer screen. My opponent cannot prove "my" thoughts differentiate from "his" thoughts. "My opponent" knows English therefore, how can they prove it was not "he" that was the one who knows English and is making up a separate persona which knows English?" My opponent has not even attempted to disprove this. 4. Cross-apply 3 as I addressed your third argument. Now for the butterfly argument :P 1. "Even if this is true, he would still be in existence. If he were to be the butterfly, he would still be existing as a butterfly, which disproves the resolution." You had to have proved "my mind and my physical body exist with no uncertainty." My opponent had to have proven that my physical form exists. He did not. 2. My opponent claims an ad infinitum fallacy here. But, there simply must be one source for all these dreams within dreams etc. Without that nothing exists. :P Actually I like that, my opponent has upheld the resolution. Nothing exists. 3. I like this :P I ask my opponent if he has performed a CAT scan on a butterfly lately :P Now here's another great one. My opponent could simply be insane :D. I mean he sees these letters on a screen but, how does he know there is another person on the other side of the screen typing them? 'I" could simply be a product of a hallucination. My opponent has not proven with full certainty that "I" exist. My opponent has not shown any valid proof my mind is separate from his, nor has my opponent proven we are not, in fact, butterflies. :D
You do not exist

Gah xD Screw you, THEBOMB. Making this a serious debate. .. grrr. Oh well, I'll go forth from here like a normal debate. I'd like to point out that my opponent completely and entirely dropped my case. Thusly, it can be extended in it's entirety as conceded. This is going to prove vital for the debate, as he concedes two reasons why he mentally exists and a reason why he physically exists, which will counter back both of his arguments. Now, to respond to my opponent's points as to why he doesn't exist.1. SolipsismOh, solipsism. How ridiculous of an argument are you. There's two things wrong with this, plus two things that went conceded that answer back for this. So, technically, there's four things wrong with this.1. If solipsism were true, then my opponent would exist. He would be the focal point of solipsism, and anything outside of his mind wouldn't exist. Only his mental state is something that he can confirm, thusly making him the only person to 'exist'. So if you're voting off of solipsism, you're be voting con.2. Solipsism is just flat-out false, though. There are plenty of ways that we can verify if others have mental cognitive states and minds, such as brain scans and cognitive testing. We can verify things outside of ourselves as in existence, thus solipsism fails.3. I'm going to be outweighing because he dropped my second argument, which provides a scenario where we know he mentally exists. This disproves solipsism, as I just verified the existence of something outside of myself.4. I'm still going to be outweighing, again, because he dropped my third argument, which proves definitively that he has a mental cognitive ability, thus disproving solipsism. So his first argument falls completely short. Now to adress his second, where he says that he may not be a human, but merely a butterfly dreaming of being a human.1. Even if this is true, he would still be in existence. If he were to be the butterfly, he would still be existing as a butterfly, which disproves the resolution. 2. This creates an infinite cycle of regression, because if he could be a butterfly dreaming about being a human, wouldn't it also logically entail that he could be a unicorn dreaming about being a dragon dreaming about being a platypus dreaming about being Barack Obama dreaming about being a backpack dreaming about being a fly dreaming about being Osama bin Laden dreaming about--You get my point. There really isn't a place to call an end to it, thus making it logically fallacious and a horrible argument to make.3. It's just wrong. We all know butterflies can't dream.
You do not exist

This should be interesting :P Yes, my opponent was correct, I am going with solipsism. I must remind the readers, according to the above stated rules my opponent must prove with absolute certainty, 1) my mind exists and 2) my physical body exists. C1. Solipsism (my opponents prediction came true) Even with all of my opponent's arguments he still fails to prove "I" exist. According to solipsism, the only absolute certainty is the existence of your own mind. Until my opponent can prove "I" exist separate from "him" mind "I" do not exist. My opponent cannot prove with absolute certainty that "I" was the one who was "Typing on the keyboard" and this just is not his imagination placing letters on a computer screen. My opponent cannot prove "my" thoughts differentiate from "his" thoughts. "My opponent" knows English therefore, how can they prove it was not "he" that was the one who knows English and is making up a separate persona which knows English? The simple answer is, until "my opponent" proves to everybody they do not believe in solipsism, then, I am nothing more than a figment of "my opponents" imagination and not a separate being. C2. The impossibility of proving your a human being (separate argument then above) How can my opponent know he exists? Well they may respond with Descartes, "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am) here's the problem with that, it provides a great proof for the existence of YOUR mind, but, nobody else's. Furthermore, it does not even prove that you are a human being, simply proving your mind exists is much different from proving you exist in the form you perceive. I mean to use the famous Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi's statement, you could be nothing more than a butterfly dreaming of being a human. Until my opponent can create an argument that he is not in fact a butterfly who is dreaming of being a human how can he attempt to take on the enormous task of proving 1) my mind exists separate from his and 2) I am in fact a human being (and not a butterfly). When applied to myself, how does my opponent know he is not simply a butterfly who is asleep and dreaming of humanity (including these words which are on his screen)? The simply answer is, my opponent has provided evidence he is not a butterfly who is dreaming; nobody is a physical entity but, rather a figment in my opponent's mind. To conclude, my existence is uncertain simply because my opponent must prove 1) he is not a dreaming butterfly and I am not a dreaming butterfly, 2) If he succeeds at (1) he must prove solipsism to be certainly false and that I am not simply a product of his mind. (Numbers (1) and (2) can be switches.) Until this is done, I do not with any certainty exist. My fun is your fun :P
You do not exist

Oh, now I just know you're going to run solipsism xD this'll be fun. I'll go ahead and get right to it. Thanks for accepting, by the way.As we can see, my opponent (THEBOMB) typed a response in the first round. There are three ways that he could've done this, all of whch confirm that he exists both physically and mentally.1. Typing on the keyboard.Pretty standard and easy. Humans have fingers and when you press the keys, letters appear on the screen. The fact that letters have appeared in his round box means that he must've pressed the keys corresponding to the letters that appeared. The fashion that he pressed the letters in does not matter (typing with your fingers like a normal person, using your nose, using your elbow, rolling your face across the keyboard, etc.). The simple fact that letters have appeared on his part of the round confirms he exists physically.2. Thinking on the keyboard?Yes, people. Technology, similar to what Stephen Hawkings uses/used (I really don't know if he's alive or dead right now xD what a fail) to speak is also employed for those who are physically unable to type to still use a computer. The thought they use is corrolated into electrical signals that are sent to the computer and converted into the letters and symbols, sort of the same way that we type. This way, if it is the case, we can confirm he exists mentally. 3. He knows English!To be able to speak the english language, as my opponent did in his last round, he must have the mental capacity to either a) know English to begin with or b) be able to look up the words necessary to make his first round acceptance. Knowledge of the English language requires, at the minimum, a basic mental cognitivity that confirms that he exists mentally.For the above three reasons, I advocate that the pro debater, known as THEBOMB, does exist.Have fun :D
Animal Testing Is Inherently Inhumane

This debate is about whether or not animal testing is inhumane. I believe it is inhumane. Rules: Standard rules for a debate (no vulgarity etc.) First round is for acceptance only. Second round is for arguments, and third round is for rebuttals/closing arguments Definitions: Inhumane (from dictionary.com): lacking kindness or compassion Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in experiments
Best Canidate for President

First of all I don't care if you are Pro-Con all I want is who you think is the best canidate. Also vote on best debate not if your canidate is one of these b/c it is not likely my canidate or my opponents is going to be the one you support I believe John McCain is the best canidate suited for the job as U.S. President. I believe this because of his experience, beliefs and pov's on important topics. The most important is obviously the War in the Mid East. I don't say just Iraq b/c it isn't only Iraq but Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iran. J.McCain wants to eliminate WMDs in North Korea, Iran and anywhere else they maybe. He supports overthrowing Adinajad and other dictators that pose a threat to us and the world as a whole. He also supports finishing in iraq and getting out of there ASAP, BUT doing our job FIRST. He is Pro-Life he wants to take S.S. off budget John supports the Civil Rights that our country gave each and everyone of us legal citizens but does not support using that right to attack our symbols of what gives them that right. He supports education and prevention of the drugs and the effects of them. McCain believes that our national education system is failing our children...our future(me) We trail other countries in math, science, and physics. 40% of 4th graders can't read. John wants to improve that educational system so 100% of fourth graders can read. John believes strongly in Free Trade and believes in a trade agreement in which any country who will trade fairly can trade, which will strenghthen our country greatly. But he still believes in utilizing national assets we have already. McCain believes in prosecuting strickly those who use gun violence b/c a innocent life is worth more than a murderers life. He wants to crackdown on gun violence but preserve those same rights for law-abiding citizens. He also wants to lower taxes. Currently a average tax payer pays 40% of there yearly earnings to the tax man and its not fair. John will lower taxes so everyone keeps more of there money
Picture Debate

A picture says a thousand words. This debate has a 1,000 word limit. Therefore, from Round 2 onward, our argument for each round must consist of exactly 1 picture and nothing else. Round 1 is acceptance. Upon accepting, Con shall decide upon a debate topic that I will be Pro for. Any topic is acceptable, provided it can be supported by pictures. Pictures containing walls of text are not allowed. Pictures should support the premises we are trying to prove, or else discredit the opponent's picture. Round 5 is for dissing. The pictures posted here must put down the opponent's character in some way. The funnier the put-down, the more convincing that round's argument is deemed to be.
Legal drinking age for military personel should be 18

Because my opponent never gave me enough to debate with in his last round, and forfeited his second, I am left with little to debate in this last round. So I will close my debate with what I believe and how it will work. When you join the military and are at least 18 but under 21, I believe that by showing your military ID, you should be allowed to drink. Because civilians don't have these ID's, and it would be harder for them to get there hands on them compared to regular drivers liscences. Them joining the military proves right there that they were able to make a mature choice, therefore it should be there choice to drink, not the governments. As for the bar tender, or the guy at the gas station or grocery store, all they have to do is ask for there military ID. That simple. So in closing, they serve our country, then we can serve them beer. Support our troops.
Legal drinking age for military personel should be 18

The minimum age to join the military is 17, with a signiture from at least one parent. Quote: "however think they should also make the age limit for the army 21 cuz at the age of 18 your still a kid" Adam, through out history many boys have fought at very young ages, because while they may still be maturing at 15, 16, and 17, they at least know what they are fighting for, and are abled bodied. But the age to join the military wasn't the debate's topic, so I will skip this. Quote: "cuz at the age of 18 your still a kid" Again, who's to decide when you are a kid? While this may be the legal age for most situations in the U.S., it dosn't mean you all of a sudden recieve a gift of instant maturity and liability on your birthday. Everyone matures at different rates than others, but those who are 'mature' enough to join there countries military, especially at a time of war, are to be considered some what mature. And once they complete bootcamp as well as basic training, the military has most certainly made them mature young men. You have not given me enough to debate with, you only gave me an opinion about the age to join the military. You also gave an opinion as if to say if you can be shot at then you can drink, therefore everyone should be able to drink at 18. Aren't you supposed to be con?
Legal drinking age for military personel should be 18

The legal drinking age in the U.S. as we all know, is 21. However, I do believe that while it should be 21 for non-militant personel as a precaution of maturity, it should be legal for those serving in our military today. The whole controversey with the legal drinking age is that it is really a maturity thing, and while others mature more slowly than others and some don't at all, who's to say if you have matured to the point where you would be a responsible drinker? There really is no way to determine this except for the exception of our military. If they were mature enough to join and pass, as well as put there life on the line for our country, shouldn't we allow them to come home and have a beer? To whoever debates me, good luck. And keep in mind that the debate is should we allow military personel too drink, as long as they are 18. Basically giving them three years advance in the drinking age.
Football players earn too much money

yes ... so rebuttle...1. Football players work hard every day by training long hours every week and they please all the fans and the nation. The time and dedication they put into football is only worth it if they get paid well.2. Football players are so expensive because they're very rare. Doctors, teachers and nurses e.t.c get paid less because they are more common and there are more than enough of them.3. Not all are overpaid for. It's mainly the footballers who perform well who get massive bonuses. Clubs who buy football players (eg. Torres- 50 million, Ronaldo- 80 million) have that money to spend due to all the ticket sales from the millions of fans.(a). It is the clubs money anyway, they can spend it however they wish.(b). The amount of money footballers are paid is only on account of the money the generate for the club.Firstly: Football isnt just a game anymore, it has turned into a business (all the clubs, cameramen, fans, managers etc.) They all have to work extremely hard to keep it running alot more than people think. Especially the players themselves who have a 24/7 job. They have to eat properly, train all day, travel all night. The amount of effort put into the football industry is massive. So there must be huge amounts of money involved.Secondly: Many people say that it is just a game where you kick a ball around for 90 minutes and get £100k. Football players are not being paid for kicking a ball around a pitch. They are being paid to entertain the people , just like muscicians and actors. They risk also if they don't perform well on one occasion, they could damage their whole career and let themselves and others (club, media etc.) down.Thirdly: For example, Wayne Rooney is paid £100,000 a week because 74,000 people pay to see him play every week as well as buy his t-shirt and other ways of generating inome such as sponsorship. So the only way to determine if a footballer is paid too much, is to see how much he generates for the club.
Football players earn too much money

The following points for the motion i will state at the beginning then i will go through each and explain them.1. Football players work hard every day by training long hours every week and they please all the fans and the nation. The time and dedication they put into football is only worth it if they get paid well.2. Football players are so expensive because they're very rare. Doctors, teachers and nurses e.t.c get paid less because they are more common and there are more than enough of them.3. Not all are overpaid for. It's mainly the footballers who perform well who get massive bonuses. Clubs who buy football players (eg. Torres- 50 million, Ronaldo- 80 million) have that money to spend due to all the ticket sales from the millions of fans. (a). It is the clubs money anyway, they can spend it however they wish. (b). The amount of money footballers are paid is only on account of the money the generate for the club.Firstly: Football isnt just a game anymore, it has turned into a business (all the clubs, cameramen, fans, managers etc.) They all have to work extremely hard to keep it running alot more than people think. Especially the players themselves who have a 24/7 job. They have to eat properly, train all day, travel all night. The amount of effort put into the football industry is massive. So there must be huge amounts of money involved.Secondly: Many people say that it is just a game where you kick a ball around for 90 minutes and get £100k. Football players are not being paid for kicking a ball around a pitch. They are being paid to entertain the people , just like muscicians and actors. They risk also if they don't perform well on one occasion, they could damage their whole career and let themselves and others (club, media etc.) down.Thirdly: For example, Wayne Rooney is paid £100,000 a week because 74,000 people pay to see him play every week as well as buy his t-shirt and other ways of generating inome such as sponsorship. So the only way to determine if a footballer is paid too much, is to see how much he generates for the club. I have more points awaiting in the next rounds and i now wait for my opponent to respond in a formal, constructive and proffessional manner. Good luck to you, CON
This Country Is Deteriorating And It's Disgusting

The fact that we can come into other's countries while they greet us with open, and loving arms, but the moment when others lets say, for example, step on the train, we shun them away and judge them because they're wearing a hijab or they have a different skin color. With the current President in office, there has been a lot of racism. I'm not saying there wasn't with others, however, it happens to be 2018, not the 1940's.
Most Abortion is Murder

My position for this debate is that in most cases, abortion should be considered murder. The qualifier "most" is used because I wish to exclude abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. I believe these are unique situations and they make up a very small percentage of total abortions performed annually. Terms are defined as follows: Abortion - Intentionally terminating a pregnancy before giving birth Murder - Intentionally ending another human life Life - I anticipate much of this debate will focus on when human life begins. I am open to debating the best definition of this. I would ask voters to accept the strongest definition that is presented. Organization is as follows: Round 1 - acceptance only, no arguments Round 2 - opening arguments from each side, no rebuttals Round 3 - rebuttals Round 4 - response/additional rebuttals, conclusion I realize this is a very emotional topic. I am looking for someone who is willing to debate in a calm, respectful, and logical manner. Burden of proof is shared. No trolling. Use of sources is encouraged. If you agree to these terms, please accept. Please do not accept if you plan on forfeiting.