BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does not and cannot exist

God shows himself in many ways. He say himself, search and you will find me. He has shown himself through miracles, he has created, the earth. But all in all God doesnï¿½t have to do anything, to reveal himself, he doesnï¿½t need to prove himself, because he is. God speaks through people, and people are touched in unthinkable amazing ways. God loves us and cares for us, he sent Jesus his son, as a sacrifice for our wrong doings, so that we may live with him. But we all have free will, and will never force us to live with him. Believing in God does take faith, so in that since, I will not be arguing, because God is, but you may ask questions.
God does not and cannot exist

I like your style of trying to get people to think differently and question their own beliefs. I therefore challenge you to this debate in the same spirit of attempting to make you question your personal beliefs. I became an atheist because religion and the concept of god do not make any sense to me. Moreover, any argument that I have ever had boils down to an unverifiable belief rather than empirical fact. As for the concept of god being unable to exist, I will let you post an argument before I move on, because I want to have a solid base to refute from.
You are not Obligated to Win a Debate.

So, in conclusion, we can agree that just because you enter a debate with one view, does not mean you are obligated to continually defend that view throughout the debate. the function of a debate is to present acceptable facts which can persuade the opponent to admit that you are right. It is never acceptable in a debate to use impudence and stubbornness as a tactic. thank you, everyone for participating in the spectating of this sport, and judging appropriately the content in the appropriate context. cheers. to winners being on both sides, when we produce clear winners. (it is also reasonable to note that, the opponent should in the first place believe in his arguments (with factual reasonability) and not insolently pretend to be defending the Clause, whether it be Pro or Con. As both parties are: Presenting a Case. Both parties have burden of truth. I say, "There is a reason to do this.", therefor you say, "There is No reason to do this." - either way we must both contribute facts and defend our claims, not banter the opponent nd make things personal.)
You are not Obligated to Win a Debate.

Contrary, a debate is all about deciding a winner. Whoever makes the most logical sense should be the winner, and it shows what stance has the one up in that specific subject. If there was no winner, then there would be no point in having an argument, and the whole debate would just fall apart from lack of structure. However I do agree when you say, "There is no dignity or honor in Stealing a debate by being an impudent troll who disregards context, disillusions the subject matter, lies to himself regarding the accuracy of his opponent's claims, etc..", because that also destroys the point of a debate, but when you say that there is no winner, that ruins the point of the whole debate. That would be like a having a boxing match, without having a winner.
You are not Obligated to Win a Debate.

IN a debate, " You are not obligated to win." "You are obligated present a case you believe in, provide facts, dispute false contributions of your opponent, consider all content and context appropriately, and Always yield to the truth. There is no dignity or honor in Stealing a debate by being an impudent troll who disregards context, disillusions the subject matter, lies to himself regarding the accuracy of his opponent's claims, etc.. YOU have no obligation to win a debate that you Lost by default or otherwise. You are only obligated to present the case of the opposing idea and defend it as rationally as possible tot he best of your ability without dishonesty or insolence - - A DEBATE" Duh. so let's see some, _ Lack of Opponents on this one.
The flaws of Democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."[1]I. Firstly, my opponent has made a number of claims with no evidence of them every occurring. He has made the claim that the people of Ireland do not feel at least partly responsible for their voting, and has stated that they blamed the media and their government. Even in the assumption that this is true, can they not have been genuinely deceived by the media and their government? To say that the media and the government can't influence and manipulate towards specific outcomes is to be ignorant of reality. He claims that they were warned, but again, can you not be warned but still manipulated towards or against a specific choice? Of course you can. II. My opponent has yet to provide an actual attack on democracy in and of itself, and has instead provided a number of instances that refer to fallibilism among human beings. A major part of the human condition is to be wrong, but there is no government that alienates the ability of humans to be wrong. Thus, my opponent has shown a problem with no specific government, but humanity itself. Prejudices, bias, spontaneous decisions, and fallibility are all flaws within humanity, not democracy. Democracy encompasses the idea that the people of a given society are allowed to play a role in directly electing who they feel to be the best representative of the people. It also ensures that the people, as a majority, are able to directly control their own outcomes for better or for worse. That is not a flaw, it is called empowerment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The flaws of Democracy

We are constantly told how democracy is the greatest form of government you can have. But I would take issue with that. With the onset of the global recession, I have looked more critically at democracy. I believe that one of its greatest flaws is that "the people" refuse to take responsibility for their actions. For example, in Ireland the ordinary people keep saying that the recession was not their fault, that they were misled and deceived by the media and government. Yet I have found this to be a lie. There is ample evidence that, from 2000 onwards, the people were told many times that there was trouble in the banking sector and more so in the national economy. Yet, instead of heeding the warnings, the people opted to punish the Finance Minister and government that tried to tighten the purse strings. The Minister was packed off to an EU job and the government undid all of his work but the problems in the banks and the economy continued to bring about our current recession. Yet the people refuse to accept that they were at least partly to blame. This anecdote highlights the fact that democracy, far from being based on reason and good debate, is in fact based on the whims and prejudices of voters. Other criticisms of democracy are that it is inefficient and that its instability is threatening to trade which provides jobs for people. I would just like to finish off by stating that I am not a fascist or anything. I am just looking for a debate on democracy.
Labeling people as Republican or Democrat is silly and has become meaningless

I accept, and thank my partner for posting this debate. Since my partner hasn't provided any proof, solely a very detailed explanation of his stance, I will presume that this is a first round acceptance scenario. The resolution seems to be: "labeling people as Republican or Democrat is silly and has become meaningless." Republican - a person supporting the Republican party, which advocates the freer America where everyone has the opportunity to achieve the "American Dream". Supporters called Liberals. https://www.gop.com... Democrat - a person supporting the Democratic Party, which advocates the social-liberal America where everyone is equal in achieving the "American Dream". Supporters called Conservatists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(United_States) Silly - having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment. Google Meaningless - having no meaning or significance. Google Some basic rules as well. Comment if you would like to change them (only my partner) ( 1 ) No trolling ( 2 ) No deconstructional posts and/or comments ( 3 ) All points have to be presented in the second round. I await my partner's main points. And remember, if you liked this debate, well, there is a button for that.
Labeling people as Republican or Democrat is silly and has become meaningless

Every time I look at an argument on the internet about something political I see people accusingly call other people REPUBLICAN! or DEMOCRAT! I also see the same thing with LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE. these words are used so much that they have become cliche and meaningless. Whenever I see someone call another person a REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT they lose all credibility to me. Its like they have just assumed that the person they are talking about agrees with everything that one political party stands for when really even within the party itself's politicians there are many differences. No Liberal agrees with everything all other Liberals agree with We are all very different in our political views and yet we are all lumped together into two groups. This polarization of politics has made it to where everyone is forced to make an either/or choice when really they shouldn't feel the need to assosciate themselves with either party. People should keep an open mind and have their own point of view on things. For example, Just because you are Pro-Life doesn't mean you have to be for the death penalty. These two things dont seem to go together at all and yet they are lumped together into "Republican" ideals. This is just ridiculous and what is worse is that many people feel they should agree with all things Conservative when really they should be making their own opinions. In reality there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties they are ALL hungry for money and power and they want to take away your rights and your freedom. The government isn't split in two but America's people are. The government isn't attacking itself, it is attacking us and we need to start defending ourselves. The government is very familiar with the strategy of DIVIDE AND CONQUER and it is using this strategy on us now! "A house divided surely will not stand" "Government is a fearful servant and a terrifying master"
People These Days

Sure there are people who make asinine decisions like Father Balloon. But there are also "people these days" who contribute a lot of good into the world. For instance, Brad Blauser of Dallas, TX spends his time away from his family to help needy kids in Iraq obtain wheelchairs for their ailments for no pay. Roy Foster from Florida also works without compensation to help and take care of homeless veterans. Doc Hendley is a bartender from North Carolina who works to bring clean drinking water to people in third world countries. Indeed, there are countless other good "people these days." Additionally, why limit this to just big-time heroes? Teachers can be considered heroes, saving students from the perils of ignorance :) Moreover, people like soldiers and firefighters save lives every day - they're heroes and "people these days" too. Not to mention the countless scientists working for a cure for things like cancer and HIV. So, while there are definitely the bad and useless or disadvantageous people out there, there are some pretty great ones too. I suppose Pro has the burden of proving there's more bad than good? We shall see what my opponent has up their sleeve. Back to ye. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cnn.com...
People These Days

Can belive that someone would call 911 just get on Tv!!!! It is so stupid that people would do that!!! the thing is that the story about the 9 year old boy in the balloon. The dad calls in and says that his son is in a balloon and he was carryied away. The father must have known that they were going to find out that there was no one in the balloon and that the balloon wasn't even close to the size that it could hold a kid i mean come on people it is stupid you can go jail for that and then there for you face will just be hated!!!!
Which shopping is best Online or offline

Yes but just think about how many times shipping will cost so much your better off going to the store and paying for gas and going there. If you also order online there is a wait that can take a long time and if you truley need the item quickly then your screwed so you would then have to go get it at the store. Plus if it is delivered you may not be home and there is the chance of it being stolen or damaged. So then you might as well go to the store and purchase it there.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

I've heard many religious people make the point that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", And I can explain how that is not true. Before I start, I just wanted to say that this is not a debate on whether or not a god or gods exist, It is just about how that argument is flawed. The con side is the one of someone who thinks it's valid. Let's begin with the fact that the absence of evidence is the only way to indicate that something does not exist. If the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Then what is? For an unfalsifiable hypothesis such as god, There is no real evidence that he doesn't exist other than the lack of evidence that he does exist. The same thing can be said about unicorns. If there is any reason to believe that unicorns don't exist, It is the lack of evidence to support that they do. Say you were in my house for a visit, And then you went to use the bathroom. When you come back I say "Oh my gosh you just missed it! A huge elephant just walked through here! It left by smashing through the front door and it walked through my yard and onto the street! " You look around and nothing is out of order. There is no mess, The door isn't smashed, No fallen pictures, Nothing is knocked over, And no footprints are on my yard or in my house. That is all evidence that an elephant was never in my house, And I just made it up. Therefore, Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

I'll restate my point. "Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence" is not a valid position. At best, All it does is state that there is no evidence to make a claim either way. Here is how that statement (defense) is used. We'll leave out specifics. Really, It doesn't matter what you substitute for X and Y-- If it is a valid argument it shouldn't matter. Person A states "X is Y". Person B states "I do not believe X is Y. Please provide evidence. " Person A states "There is no evidence to show that X is Y. " Person B states "Therefore, X is not Y. " Here is why it"s an invalid argument: 1. When you don"t have evidence, You can"t make a claim either way. a. In the example above, Person A can"t say "X is Y". Likewise, The lack of evidence doesn"t necessarily mean "X is not Y". "X is Y" still could be true"perhaps Person A just hasn"t found the evidence yet. Therefore, Person B can not definitively say "X is not Y". At best, All they can say is "I do not believe X is Y because there is no evidence. Likewise, I do not believe X is not Y either. " IN other words, They are non-committal and can"t say definitively either way. b. It"s akin to what the court system does when the render "innocent" or "not guilty" 2. Whoever utters "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is capable of making mistakes: a. The evidence could be right under the nose, But they do not see it. They may not recognize the evidence when they see it. b. They could be expecting to see the wrong kind of evidence. As a simple example to help you understand this point, Someone looking for an elephant might be expecting to find feathers, So when they do come across bona fide elephant evidence they ignore it because they are expecting to find feathers. They expecting to see the wrong kind of evidence (feathers). I realize everything I wrote after ""is not a valid position" might be considered "gibberish" or unrelated. Lol. But I take that as code for "I just don"t understand what you are saying. " Again, Calling it gibberish is just another way of waving the white flag when you don"t have an argument to put forth.
Proposition 8 should not be passed.

My opponent said that "we can never call a ballot measure irrational or based on irrational grounds until it has passed and been ruled on. Irrational aspires to a higher standard than merely wrong, to call something an irrational law means that it has no basis for being viewed as even a legitimate law. " In other words, my opponent stated that in order to be able to call a ballot measure "irrational", it must have to be "passed and been ruled on" (presumably, ruled against). With this premise, a law can only be rational if it first become a "legitimate law". One should see the faultiness of this premise. How could one decide whether to vote yes or no on a ballot measure unless he has personally thought of whether a particular ballot is rational or not. Surly, one have to be able to judge the rationality of a ballot even before it is already seen as a legitimate law. On top of this, even if a ballot has turned into a "legitimate law", one could still argue whether the law is rational or not. History tell us that not all laws that were passed were rational. Indeed, laws have been passed and than nullified later. One example would be the 18th amendment. Before it was passed and after it was passed, people argue over whether it was rational or not, and it was only after it was passed, that it was realized the law was not rational. It was not rational to expect the government to be able to ban people from consuming alcohol. Another point my opponent has brought up is that it is silly to call anything a pointless fight "because any ballot measure, amendment or legislation is a change" Although technically, this is true, but really, proposition 8, if passed, would merely re-enforce the status quo. Gay couples were already not allowed to be married, even though this is not stated in the California constitution. However, courts in California have ruled against gay marriage. Moving on, my opponent said that "many of the people planning to vote yes that there is a perfectly valid reason within their belief structure to vote yes" Indeed, I believe people have reasons to vote no on this proposition, but the point is whether those reasons are rational. Now that I have addressed my opponent's main points, I will tell you why the pro side has clearly won this debate. The task I presented for my opponent is very simple: to show why proposition 8 should be passed, which would, by the California constitution, prohibit gay marriage. My opponent has not really showed why this proposition is based on rational grounds other than stating that there are religious reasons why certain individuals would want to see it pass. Instead of rebutting the base I presented, the main chunk of my opponent's writing advocates that the proposition should be put "up for a vote by the people", a stance that I have never opposed. Because my opponent's case never negated my arguments, the pro side has won the debate, so I strongly urge a pro-vote.
Proposition 8 should not be passed.

Unfortunately, I feel you do not understand my response and therefore completely drop my arguments. Here is your original post "Proposition 8 is a motion that is based on irrational grounds. It is a pointless fight against change because it is reasonable to predict that eventually, gay marriage would be legal in all parts of the United States for the same reasons that African Americans and woman now have the same rights as a white male. " My argument is that we can never call a ballot measure irrational or based on irrational grounds until it has passed and been ruled on. Irrational aspires to a higher standard than merely wrong, to call something an irrational law means that it has no basis for being viewed as even a legitimate law. With gay marriage this is clearly not true. .. . The supreme court is now widely conservative and may decide otherwise and actually rule against gay marriage were this brought to the supreme court. A majority of states now have bands against gay marriage. Though the court may look to good precedents such as Lawrence v. Texas and decide ( justly in my opinion) that gay marriage is a constitutional right, it is equally likely given the current composition that they will not do so. To call anything a pointless fight against change is silly because any ballot measure, amendment or legislation is a change and this is just change in a direction that you personally do not deem just. In your last post you attempt to argue that individuals should vote no on this amendment. I would hold that for many of the people planning to vote yes that there is a perfectly valid reason within their belief structure to vote yes. There are scriptural and spiritual reasons for individuals to view marriage as a necessary holy bond between man and woman. I need not prove that every person should vote yes, but I have already just shown that many individuals can have a reason to vote yes. This is the nature of ballot measures, they give majorities the power to assert their views and will on the constitution. They push test cases to the court, they assert a states will to others to be seen. They have many legitimate purposes. Whether the supreme court of the United States in the end overrules this example of the people's will does not deny that there is a legitimate reason for those who oppose gay marriage for whatever reason to vote for this ammendment and to have it passed. You have failed to show why passing such a ballot measure can not achieve the desired effect for those who want it enacted nor any reason that this action is truly meaningless or futile. If you wish to debate whether or not gay marriage is a good or not please start a debate with that topic. This was not the case you presented or the task you offered me.
Proposition 8 should not be passed.

Before I start the arguments, I'd like to first thank the user "symphonyofdissent" for taking this debate, the potential voters for reading through this, and debate.org for making all of this possible. Now moving on to my response to the pro side... It looks like the pro side has misconstrued my stance. I have not said that proposition 8 is an invalid/ improper proposition, what I am advocating is that people do not vote yes on the bill. The con side's main contention is that any ballot measure "should be considered and be up for a vote by the people" once the proper procedures have been followed. On this note, I do not dissent from the con's view. Now to further elaborate my stance and my arguments, people should vote no on this proposition because the issue of gay rights is parallel to woman's rights and African American rights. Just like gay rights, civil rights for woman and African Americans were largely unpopular. There is no good reason to say that gay rights is any different. To vote yes on the bill is simply slowing down the progress of inevitable change. In essence, all oppositions to gay marriage would be futile eventually.