BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is logical to say that God exists

No one has the Burden do proof as no one is able to prove it. This debate will be decided through logic and facts. Let's not go through the: You can't prove god exists, and you can't disprove God exists thing. :) We know who would win anyways... If you think you have proof to support your god then please show it though. Arguments are allowed to continue in the comments if desired. You are allowed to use the bible, but you must remain with the bible for the rest of the debate. Or any other sacred text and beliefs your Religion might have. I was using the bible as an example. Also by using this you now take the burden of proof to show how your Religion is the most logical option for how the universe has gotten here. One round forfeit forfeits the debate Not citing sources is a forfeit You may use Youtube videos And/ or articles, but please do not just give me a link to Bible.com or whatever and expect me to read the entire website and then refute it all. If you don't like the rules, don't take the debate. The winner is declared on who is most logical in reasoning, so may the logical debater win! PS: Pro will now go first.
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

The fact of the matter is not everyone needs or wants to debate in every day life. The professions that need debating skills the most are Lawyers, Politicians, speechwriters, Radio talk show hosts, and judges. The rest can usually get away with only speech and communications skills. As good as it might be, some people just don't want to debate. There are plenty of people out there who want to live their lives happily without getting into logical arguments every day. There are many of these people who are perfectly happy and successful. Believe me, I know where you're coming from. We both share the same love for debates. However, some people just don't. And it is not out job to shove out love for something down someone else's throat. Regardless of how "nice" it would be. Here is where we may find some common ground: In my opinion I think schools should be required to teach debating skills, however, it should not be a mandatory course for students. That is, the student will still get credit for the course, but other students, who have professions in mind that don't require debating skills nearly as much as other courses do, will not be required to take that course and will be able to take another course in it's place. We should encourage debating, not force it down people's throats.
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

the lacking of logical arguments is exactly why i believe debate should be required. we have arguments everyday. how nice would it be to say yea. i won with logic..and how nice would it be to use this in everyday life? and not have to worry about the fact that we DONT have these skills? as far as the being a mother and having a son who couldnt debate. i would be more than happy to help him out. i was shy when i first started and getting over being shy doesnt take long to do. everyone has that one course they have trouble with not everyone is completely perfect in school. and passing debate is not hard. all you have to do is show an understanding in logic..ie. because _________ happened. then _________ must be true because _______________. its the same way in math. if 2+2 =4 then we know that 4-2 = 2. its logic..and while that problem may have been common sense. i just made it to get a point across. debate is the same way. its logic. while it make take a while to figure out possible arguments you can also figure out how to defend your arguments as well.
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

Firstly, your argument is based on the assumption that speaking skills and public speaking is the same thing as Debating. This is simply not true. I personally know happy successful people who can communicate and give over a nice speech just fine, but when it comes to a 1 on 1 debate their logical argument's are lacking. Debating is correlated with public speaking, and communication skills, however it is not the same thing at all. I can have a nice conversation with people and do business with them without having to debate them. Again, some people are just not cut out to debate, and probably will continue to lack in that area. Yet they are bright students in other academic areas. How would you feel if you were a mother of a son, and one day you learned that your son couldn't get his high school diploma because he couldn't pass debate classes? The teachers tell you that he is quite bright in many other subjects, but since debate is mandatory he may not receive credit for high school. You talk to your son and he explains that he just isn't good at debating. He has no communication problems, he just naturally is shy and isn't that good at debating. How would you feel?
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

yea but it should be something that is mandated to succeed in life as communication is always gonna be the basis of america. and so is free speech? whats the point in having free speech if people dont stop and stand up for their ideas and share why? if we show them how to do it..it gives us all the more reason to have free speech. and just because they are taking debate doesnt mean they still cant associate with peers. i am on the debate team at my school and i still associate with peers. im just saying that it should be a requisite for a high school diploma. its not a hard class to pass..and while math and english and science may be important..so is learning effective communication which is what debate teaches. you have to effectively communicate your views to the judge(s) to win a round. thus proving it is important. we use communication in every day life just as we use math in every day life. how can something as pointless as history or science be required when we dont use them as often as we would communication skills yet debate not be required?
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

I'm not disputing that debate skills could help anyone, ANYTHING has the potential to help people. It's which subjects are MOST important that should be taught, like math, science, history,..ect. It's true that debate skills may help a doctor, but not nearly enough to take away his medical license. Students should expand on their social and communication skills by communicating with their peers during their social time, during recess, lunch, or out of school. It is not something that needs to be mandated in order to succeed in life.
Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools.

My opponent's position is "Debate should have to be taken as a required course for graduation in high schools." Firstly, I would like to say to my opponent that her position is not quite clear. Exactly how will people determine a passing grade for the course? Are you saying just because someone loses a lot of debates, they should not be able to graduate high school? If so, there are many people that have achieved great goals without being good at debating. If I want to be a medical doctor, I need to learn biology, biochemistry, chemistry, organic chemistry physics, ect... Now if I master all those subjects and want to further my education in college/medical school, but I fail debate class, according to your logic, I would not be able to be a doctor, despite the fact that I would make a good one. Granted, that everyone should be taught how to communicate with each other. However requiring people to be good at debating, and denying them a high school diploma just because they may be shy or what-not is just not fair. Some people are naturally not good at debating, yet they excel in other fields. To require people to be good at debating in order to get a high school diploma is just wrong.
Dogs are better than cats

First off, I would like to point out that your argument should be invalid because you mentioned Call of Duty and expect it to be a credible source. By stating that manual labor caused by dogs is more important than the deity of cats, you are stating that labor is more important than morale. The pyramids may not have been built if they were not working for the all-mighty kitten who would bless them both in life and in heaven. To put it in terms that may be more relevant to you, the farmers (fun fact: slaves were not used in the creation of the pyramids. [http://news.discovery.com..., http://harvardmagazine.com...]) were building the pyramids for Jesus (the Pharaoh) and his disciples. Dogs may save cats, but only to preserve a source of food. Dogs often consume cat food and even attack cats simply because they lack self control. Cats may rarely rescue dogs but at least they're not psychopaths who attack dogs and steal their food after rescuing them. And they also declared war on 'their enemies(cats).' "...Like you said, all cats do is just sit there doing absolutely nothing. All the damage they CAN do is a" tiny wittle scratch", just as you say..." I never claimed all cats as being lazy, I did however, state that lazy cats are great for elderly citizens. Active cats are great for younger families who simply don't have enough space for a dog. Cats are usually more reclusive than dogs so they are also compatible with loners who sit on their computer and write programs and apps that improve society. Again: Cats rule; dogs drool
Dogs are better than cats

First off, i meant history as in, were they abused? If they were, maybe that's the only way to protect themselves. Was to fight and protect itself. Dogs save lives more than killing people. http://www.youtube.com... Yes, cats were treated as a God then, and dogs were the "peasants" and did "peasants' jobs" at least they HELPED us get food rather than cats just laying around all lazy. They help us hunt, help us get food, so WE can survive. Cats on the other hand, depend on humans and dogs getting their food for them. Yes, dogs are loud. Dogs bark. The reason why Dogs are much more useful than having a cat around when they are burglars is because they can bark. They can both scare away the burglar AND warn us that someone enter the house without invitation. If the burglar even tries attacking us, the dog will attack them. (Call of Duty) They knows who side to be on. Maybe them being dangerous is a good thing? Because they can know who to attack and actually WIN. Like you said, all cats do is just sit there doing absolutely nothing. All the damage they CAN do is a" tiny wittle scratch", just as you say. Most dogs are gentle yet active. As long as you train the dogs "which they are easily trained", they will learn what not to do and what to do. Dogs know who to be gentle around, such as children. http://www.youtube.com... They are faithful, loyal, gentle, and kind. Dogs aren't only loyal to us Humans, but loyal to eachother. http://www.youtube.com... And to Cats http://www.youtube.com... Tell me, do you hear any stories on cats saving dogs? No, it is very rare. Dogs helps not only humans, but even their enemies (cats) Dogs has much much much more high qualities than cats. There are many kinds of different dogs. Small, big, loud, quiet, calm, active, and so forth. While cats mainly have the same personalities.
Dogs are better than cats

"It all depends on the history of the dogs..." If we're talking about history, may I mention ancient Egypt? Cats were revered as gods among men. They received the noble treatment and highest honors, while dogs were left to do dirty labor like hunting, a peasant's job. "... When people want pets, they want someone to simply play with..." What about elderly people who simply want a companion? :Lazy cats are perfect for old people because its social convention to potty train cats so you don't need to take them out every hour. "..They play fetch, run and do all sort of active things while cats... well... all they do is sleep and be fat and lazy..." Clearly, you have never played with a kitten. They are the most energetic creatures in existence and will not stop playing until you give up. One of my favorite games is to try to tap a kitten's head while its bouncing around and trying to scratch you playfully. "...What if a burglar come into your house? What would a cat do? Nothing. Just sleeping or purr against their legs..." Sleeping is a defense mechanism. In the same scenario, what if the burglar had a gun? Sleeping is a much better reaction than barking and getting shot. Worse still, what if you were out of the house, came back, and found a dead dog among a ransacked house? * I'm not sure about other cats, but mine growls when there's someone new or even if the UPS truck drops off a package. This growling is much more subtle than a large bark that sends the message "we're home, shoot us!!!" *(Speaking of ransacked house, dogs tend to be much nosier than cats. Very rarely will a cat beg for human food or tear up a room for fun. Cats may scratch furniture but you can have them declawed. Dogs may tear everything apart being playful, but you cannot have that removed. Cats may not save lives as frequently as dogs but they are not nearly as destructive or deadly)/*
Dogs are better than cats

It all depends on the history of the dogs. Dogs are like human, something cause them to be that way. When people think of the word dogs, they think of cute, active, best friend, or hero. Cats, on the other hand, makes people think of bloody scratches, bites, and pure evil. There was even a news article about a dog rescuing someone in a fire that a CAT caused. When people want pets, they want someone to simply play with. Pets such as dogs. Dogs actually PLAY with their owners. They play fetch, run, and do all sort of active things while cats.... well... all they do is sleep and be fat and lazy. They always hide from you, while dogs show their affection by running towards you and give you big kisses. I mean who wouldn't want a wet slobbery kiss? Don't say you don't cause I know you do. It's the same thing as your girlfriend giving you a wet kiss. Trust me, I KNOW you want that. Same thing as a dog. Dog are so loving and caring, they actually HELP their owners in all sorts of ways. Like helping a blind person, or saving a baby from crawling into the water on a beach (true story). They care about how we feel, they care about us, just like our best friends. They know when you're sad or not. They are also absolutely loyal. Like Hachiko, the famous japanese dog. He waited for his dead owner to come home from work for 10 YEARS. I don't hear thing about a cat doing THAT for THEIR owner. Dogs also protect their owners too. Like guard dogs. What if a burglar come into your house? What would a cat do? Nothing. Just sleeping or purr against their legs. Meanwhile DOGS bark and if they sense their owner being attack, these dogs FIGHT to save their love one's lives!!
Dogs are better than cats

Cats are more violent but dogs are more fatal. Its general knowledge that people would rather receive a small cat scratch than a large dog bite. I had a friend who was bit in the crotch by a large dog, if a large cat bites you there, all you do is laugh. And with cats, you don't have the problem of a 100lb dog trying to sit in your lap like its a small, cuddly cat. While you may not see "My Dog from Hell," I may remind you of "The Dog Whisperer" and that other guy who tried to be like Cesaer but clearly never did as well as him. Also, I have never been scratched by any cat, besides playful kittens. IF you do not see the unconditional love in cats, you have yet to meet three of my favorite cats. They all beg for attention and will follow you wherever you go, and its for more than just food. They get in your way just to make you stop and give them love. Likewise, cats will sit on your lap and purr happily because they get to have you. Some cats even lick you, and the sensation is more of a pleasant tickle than a wet tongue.
Dogs are better than cats

Are you saying that Dogs are more violent than cats? I strongly disagree, many people that have cats often has scratch marks more than dogs. Have you seen or heard a show called "My cat from hell?" showing how evil and vicious cats are? I don't see ANY shows called "My Dog from hell." You're saying that cats could crawl into tight spaces to help save people's lives, but could cats even PULL the person into a safe place? No. Cats are weak and dogs are strong. There are many dogs that come in all different sizes, and no matter what the dog will always be strong and cats, on the other hand, no matter how small or fat they are they will always be weak. Cats do not help us in anyway. The only time they come to us is when there are no food in their bowl. While dogs loves us. Even when you're gone for five minutes, they will act like they haven't seen you in 5 years. While dogs roll on their tummy, begs for treats, and just does nothing but LOVE YOU, cats scratches and bites their owner like it hates you.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs are "man's best friends" but there have been more fatal dog attacks than fatal cat attacks. So, if you're looking for a loyal companion who will soon turn on you and bite your throat, I say choose dogs. [sources: http://www.dogsbite.org... and http://ask.metafilter.com...] ALSO, dogs only help policemen and firemen because they are trained to do so. Cats have the same nasal abilities (allbeit no cat has the pure beef that a Great Dane does) as dogs and are more comfortable when in tight spaces. Felines adore crawling into tight areas, so they are more useful than dogs when someone is trapped. Cats are also the only animal capable of expressing the same properties as liquid. [source: http://www.boredpanda.com...] P.S. Cats rule, dogs drool
Dr. manhattan is the most powerful comic character

"god and dr manhattan face to face are on equal grounds, they could not destroy each other, they are both undestroyable and on EQUAL grounds. " Therefore, Dr. Manhattan isn't one of the most powerful comic characters. .. You just admitted defeat. Also, the word "undestroyable" doesn't exist. " but can you cite an actual comic that says the-one-above-all is ***also*** all those great things" You never provided any examples for Dr. Manhattan nor any other reasons for us to believe that he is omnipotent. " and not just the author describing him out of context of the story? " How does the context matter ? If I was described as an 8 year old with blue hair then despite everything else you can be sure that I am an 8 year old with blue hair. Same with omnipotence. "There are many equals to manhattan, but none that can be more powerful. " 1. Your position is that he is "the most powerful" and not that there isn't anyone more powerful. 2. Manhattan isn't omnipotent and if he is, you failed to provide any reasons for us to believe so.
Dr. manhattan is the most powerful comic character

god and dr manhattan face to face are on equal grounds, they could not destroy each other, they are both undestroyable and on EQUAL grounds. Anyone on the internet can whip up a webpage or write that someone is omnipotent or not, but can you cite an actual comic that says the-one-above-all is also all those great things, and not just the author describing him out of context of the story? i think you will find that although both those names are also very powerful characters, in the end, they are all equally powerful and all three of this can do anything they want and all are exempt from extermination. There are many equals to manhattan, but none that can be more powerful.
Dr. manhattan is the most powerful comic character

::God:: "God may have created everything, but the Dr. can create whatever he desires, including life itself as notated at the end of the watchmen series." Your point ? A writer can also create a character with great ability, nevertheless, that character is fully at the mercy of the writer. ::The-one-above-all:: "Once again, nothing stated is any more then what the great Dr. can be described as." Where is Dr.Manhattan described as omnipotent ?
Dr. manhattan is the most powerful comic character

You have linked to two similiar characters which by description share very equal traits, yet nothing conclusive to prove they are any stronger then that of which Dr. manhattan is capable of. God may have created everything, but the Dr. can create whatever he desires, including life itself as notated at the end of the watchmen series. God is beyond everything. That is hard to define, but the Dr. once again, percieves time past present and future all at once. The-one-above-all Once again, nothing stated is any more then what the great Dr. can be described as. Dr. manhattan has had way more human interaction and done way more for civilization then the few instances the-one-above-all has done.
Dr. manhattan is the most powerful comic character

::GOD:: http://www.comicvine.com... 1. God created everything. .:. God is beyond everything. 2. Everything except God is a creation. .:. God is the most powerful character. ::The One Above All:: http://www.comicvine.com... "The One-Above-All is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is the most powerful being in the Marvel Multiverse. His powers are unlimited, incalculable and immeasurable." Thank you
UK universities should be made free of charge.

I accept. I would like to say however that I would like to see fees dropped but for the purpose of this debate I will play devils advocate. My opponent has started with the proposal "UK universities should be made free of charge", however, a university cannot be free of charge, it is more accurately put as an issue of who is going to pay for the University and the education it provides to my opponent. Pro has stated that the cost is upto nine thousand pounds per year and that it is wrong for Universities to charge this. The evidence to support this is provided as: "This denies people a good education and future purely based on thee fact that they do not have enough money, which is ridiculous". However Pro has already conceded: "Therefore people from less privileged backgrounds still have the opportunity to gain a decent education". The statement also includes the odd supposition that without a University education some one can not have a good future. As we are all aware, many successful people have not been to University and have learned through experience on the job, take Richard Branson, John D Rockefeller, Sean Connery & Bill Gates for examples of the highly successful. My opponent also stated that this is unfair: "Not only is this unfair, as the student could be hard working and a model child, but it also increases the gap between rich and poor and dissolves the middle class". ( I have corrected the grammatical errors). Pro has made no mention of the interest free student loan facility run in the UK and implies that by Universities charging a fee a "hard working and model child" may be deprived of an education and that the fee is a class barrier to education " increases the gap between rich and poor" this is not the case. https://www.gov.uk... Pro also implies that someone else should pay for her education which is to her benefit alone, no logical reason as to why another person should pay for it is provided. I am not able at this point to draw a conclusion on the last part of the opening statement. "between rich and poo r and dissolves the middle class, a"
UK universities should be made free of charge.

The UK currently fees students up to 9,000 pounds a year to go to university. I I believe this is wrong. At the moment, secondary schools have both independant(private) sectors, in which a fee is payed, and public sectors, which are free. Therefore people from less priveleged backgrounds still have the opportunity to gain a decent education. However this stops when it comes to higher education, as universities charge. This denies people a good education and future purely based on thee fact that they do not have enough money, which is ridiculous. Not only is this unfair, as the student could be hard working and a model child, but it also increases the gap between rich and poo r and dissolves the middle class, a