BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can either believe in a god or not, there is no in between

That is what I am saying. You can not be "undecided" because there are not 2 sides which you have to pick from here. There is a single side, which is choosing god and you can choose this side or not. If you do not choose this side you are, by definition, an atheist. Atheism is actually a word for not doing something and only exists because religion is popular among people. As I said, there is only one side. And if you can not say that you belong on that side with certainty, you are not a theist. I know you will object to the word "certainty" here so let me explain that. Someone who believes in a god may not be able to prove his existence and may doubt his existence. But this does not change the fact that the person actively and certainly believes in a god. Apatheists, the people who do not care about god are by definition atheists. The question is simple: "Can you say: I believe in a god?". I think we can agree that only people who can say that phrase are theists. Can these so called apatheists say that they believe in a god? If not they are atheists. "What about people who have never heard about god?" you might ask. Those people too are by definition atheists. They have never heard of a god therefore they lack belief in one. "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." I claim that this description is flawed. Agnostic means the opposite of gnostic. And gnostic originated from the word gnosis which means: "knowledge of spiritual mysteries." in greek. Notice that this has nothing to do with belief. "knowledge" and "belief" are two different things. "An agnostic is either an atheist or a theist." is not a wrong statement. But it is very similar to saying something like this: "Gardeners are either atheists or theists." it seems like random information when inspected more carefully. I would like to change my button metaphor to a switch to be more precise. It is off by default and you can turn it on. You can say that you do not care about the switch but that does not change the fact that you either flipped the switch or not. You can say that you never went to the room with the switch, which would suggest that your switch is still turned off. You can not claim however that your switch is neither on or off. It must be one of the two. I repeat, there are not 2 different sides like Atheism vs Theism. There is only one side, and the ones who do not pick that side become atheists. You can not be in between of picking a side and not picking a side. They are literally opposites.
You can either believe in a god or not, there is no in between

I will be arguing that a person can both believe in religion and not believe in religion. There are three reasons for this. The first is that people are not absolute. Indecision is a common thing that many people face throughout their daily lives. Someone can be undecided about whether or not they believe in God. Unlike pressing a button, where once you have pressed the button, the button will always be pressed, people opinions and beliefs are fluid. The second reason that people do not necessarily care. One can be apathetic and simply hold the opinion that it doesn't matter and thus not worth having an opinion on. Finally, I challenge your conception of agnosticism. The definition of agnosticism is, "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." So yes there may be agnostic theists but, agnostics by definition do not believe or disbelieve in God. For these reasons I feel one can be in between on whether or not God exists. I strongly urge a con ballot and am looking forward to the debate.
You can either believe in a god or not, there is no in between

The title explains it. You either believe in god or not. There can be no in between. If someone can not say "yes" to the question: "Can you say that you believe in god?" then they are an atheist. Before someone brings up agnosticism, agnosticism is not about belief but about knowledge. You can not be a plain "agnostic" you can only be an "agnostic atheist" or an "agnostic theist". An agnostic atheist would say: "I do not believe in god but there is no way to be sure." and an agnostic theist would say: "I believe in god but I can not prove that he exists." Let me present it in a more metaphorical way; There is a button in front of you. You either press or not press it. There is no in between. Those who say: "Pressing the button is irrelevant. Pressing it or not pressing it does not change anything." are not in between because they too did or did not press the button.
(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One

Shared BOP to show which is betterStructure RoundsPro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals(4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.Con(1) Acceptance(2)Contentions(3)Contentions/Rebuttals(4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.Rules(1) 6k character limits.(2) No trolling/ this will result in a ff
The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

While there are many instances where a State law act in the favor of its population, over that of a Federal law, but there are also a great deal of instances where Federal law is needed; this is one of those cases. However, this is not a debate about States rights versus federal authority, nor is it a debate about the Founding Fathers or the Constitution of the United States. This is not an ideological debate regarding social versus libertarian views. This debate is whether or not the United States Federal Government should lower the drinking age requirement to 19. My basis for reasoning, in that why the law should be 19, you in-part agree with -- grounds for dismissal of your counter-argument. At the age of 19, you are by in large considered an adult by more than one aspect. My plan allows for a lowering of the age requirement, with careful consideration to the special needs of the United States. You cite Michigan as a silly example, a border state to which would be applied. But I'm afraid there a total 14 states that are also considered border states, they include: Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New york, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine (all with Canada), and California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (with Mexico). These states represent roughly 30% of the contiguous United States, all you need to do is consider their state populations. A drinking age should be national, period. There are roughly 60 other countries in the world with a national drinking age, not a state or provincial age, but national. Prior 1988, states had their own drinking laws, but with any transfer of power comes litigation, as the drinking age would bring about heavy debate. You are under the ASSUMPTION that it would revert to the states with no issues, tell me when has that ever been true? In my own words, I said it could takes days, weeks, months, or even years of debate to come to a final conclusion and outcome regarding the subject, a point you dismissed as silly. Alcohol is considered a drug and one that brings out many passionate views, including those of lobby groups, such as MADD. To disregard that is silly, not believing this subject would be a further burden to state taxpayers, goes against the belief that there are no controversial topics in this country -- then why good sir, do medical marijuana, sex education, and government subsidies still remain under heavy debate, including countless man hours of study, monetary investment, and so on? There is one answer, a simple fix in our current system, at the national level, would avoid all the problems that states would create. Finally, this mandate would represent every state in the Union, with absolutely no problems when traveling across state lines. I stand resolved that the US Government should lower the drinking age requirement to 19.
The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

First of all, if the feds stopped extorting the states to have a drinking age of 21, each state would still have a drinking age of 21. They are state laws, after all. Why would taking away the federal government's blackmail operation result in "years of litigation, controversy and countless man hours debating the subject"? That's absurd. States had their own drinking ages before 1988, and they could easily do so again. You support the despotic means by which the federal government has set the drinking age at 21, but you just want them to set it lower. How do YOU know what the right age is? Couldn't the "right" age be different in different states? Why not have a world government that makes all laws right on down to the township level. It would save countless "man hours" but also result in horrible laws that were not appropriate for given communities. Your example of "spillover" is silly. Michigan is on the border with Canada. Teens can and do go to Canada where the drinking age is 19. So what? Furthermore, as the federal government does have the ability to regulate interstate commerce, it could make a law making it illegal to sell alcohol to out-of-state customers who were under 21, or in your world, 19. Problem solved! Drunk driving is a crime. Criminals should be punished and held accountable. This is not Minority Report -- you cannot punish people before they've committed any crime. I say increase the penalties for drunk-driving-related accidents. That's not the subject of the debate. The debate is, SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET A SINGLE DRINKING AGE OF 19, and I say NO, it should not. States should determine their own drinking ages, and I would want MY state to set the age at 18. You are correct to say that we are not debating the Patriot Act here. But we are debating whether the federal government should continue to exercise greater power than the founders intended, or if it should be scaled back. Why make a reform that leaves the power in check? Next, they could up the drinking age to 25 or 35 or 95. A state could not do this because its citizens would revolt and move to the next state, leaving behind only the "drys." I think people who are 18 should be able to buy alcohol. But the law should be determined at the state level (or lower), not by the federal government, who does NOT have the constitutional jurisdiction.
The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

The fact is, the United States Government does control the drinking age through various back door means, a "loophole" if you will - mainly the distribution of federal funds for highway projects. If a state does not comply with this back door policy, then they lose access to funding. The question in play here is not states' rights versus federal, rather what the drinking age should be. I establish that it should be 19 for the reasons stated in my opening argument. If you are to abolish the drinking age all-together and leave it up to the states to decide, you will undoubtedly be left with years of litigation, controversy and countless man hours debating the subject, at further cost to the tax payer of that particular state. Now tell me, where is the advantage? A one time cost to taxpayers via the federal government, or a policy in limbo for an unspecified number of days, weeks, months or years? The answer is clear. Case-in-point, it took Michigan more than one fiscal year to work out a budget for the State, almost forcing a complete Government shutdown; now consider adding one more mandate (and the cost) to that list. The advantages to a federal mandate, is that all states must abide and it is paid for in full. Furthermore, it establishes that the law is universal in all states. In a what-if scenario, could you imagine one state, say Michigan, whose legal age was 16 and Ohio's was 18. Think of the teenage spill over without penalty. In question, the probability of drunk drinking on border states with differing legal drinking limits surely would increase the number of drunk driving incidents and related accidents ten-fold. You agree that the 21-year-old limit is unjust and should be changed. I merely formalized the most logical and painless way to bring our Country's policy more in-line with the rest of the world, and the 21st century. Allowing the states to decide will only exhibit more harm through the length of time to have a limit in place, and will also allow for inequities in the system. There are many policies in place that do not abide by the original intent of the Framers or the Constitution, i.e. the Patriot Act. However we are not debating those here, in this case of controlling a legal drinking age, the is best solution would be applied by a Federal mandate through an Amendment, period.
The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

You say that the U.S. government should change the drinking age to 19. I say that the federal government should not have a drinking-age policy at all, but instead, each individual state should set its own drinking age. There is no constitutional basis for the federal government to set the drinking age. Technically, it doesn't do so now. However, it uses highway funding to blackmail states into adopting a universal drinking age of 21. Any state that does not comply does not get its share of the funding. In other words, the central government steals money from the citizens of the states through taxation, and then threatens to not give it back unless they comply with the universal drinking age. Given these facts, in order to set a national drinking age of 19 -- which is what you're arguing for -- you would have to either pass a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the authority to do so (much like how a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol), violate the Constitution (as the government now does frequently), or continue this immoral blackmail operation. Why not return the authority to the states, where it belongs? And why 19? Why not 18? I would want my state to respect adults' -- and at 18, you are a legal adult by virtually every other measure -- right to make their own choices and to be responsible for them. A national drinking age of 19 is tyranny against 18-year-olds, many of whom serve in the military. That's wrong. But any national drinking age is wrong, and goes against the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

It is true you can do many things under the age of nineteen, such as drive a car at age sixteen, buy cigarettes at eighteen, and sign up for the US Military, in which you can die for your Country, also at the age of eighteen. So you can be held accountable to drive a machine with potentially deadly repercussions, you can be given the choice of ruining your body with cigarettes, and you can go fight in a war, and in most cases kill an enemy - who chances are, had the legal ability to drink. These three abilities are a combination of expected and granted freedoms, in which any one individual is held accountable for their choices. How is drinking considered any different? The age of nineteen allows for several checks and balances of sorts. Teenagers will have had their unrestricted licenses for one year prior to becoming "legal." They will have already been offered other responsibilities, including the right to vote or even run for public office. Also, the 19 age limit would not inspire Canadians on the border states to spill over for the lower drinking age, as do Americans into Canada now. Bar none, the United States has the highest drinking age in the world. The next highest is Japan and Iceland at age 20, South Korea and certain proveniences of Canada at age 19, and the rest of the countries below that. Including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (in restaurants) at age 16. It is in my recommendation that the United States government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.
DDO Beginners tournament: Term limits are good for democracy

For the remainder of this debate, I will simply follow Pro point by point. Term limits limit the will of the peopleIn this point, Pro has argued that democracy itself is a limit on the will of the people. This is not necessarily so. Democracy only limits the will of the minority of the people. It is impractical for every whim and fancy to be enacted into law. This “limitation” forces the minority position to actively campaign for their ideology. What Pro has failed to state is what type of limitations are imposed. There are some that are purposefully done, and others that are simply logistically impossible. In limiting terms, Pro has decided to repress one fundamental human right, which is why I said there was a contradiction. This is the basic human right to expression. Pro seems to forget that we are emotive creatures.In Pro’s logic, a country without term limits ceases to be a democracy. This includes the United Kingdom, which has no term limits.Social Socialists (As opposed to fiscal socialists) is alive and well despite its slaughter of millions during its implementation. This is the essence of what I mean by “new faces.”Head of State without ideology“What Con proposes was pretty much what was attempted with some of Europe's Constitutional Monarchies in the early 20th century”What Pro proposes is my argument is actually a false picture of what I described. See my previous round, and I need not extend arguments here. No impact“Pro contends you cannot limit something in favor of what you are limiting. I have already shown this is patent nonsense”This is simply not so. This was a Contention. Note that Pro has not shown this to be nonsense, whether patently or otherwise. (See First point) Pro’s other arguments rely on limiting a basic human right, the right to one’s own body. As to the rest of his points, up to his analogy of the playground, see my above statement about the U.K. If his invalid slippery slope argument works, then it is logical to assume that the U.K. is not any longer a democracy.In my ideologies analogy, I clearly stated that A and B are incompatible and irreconcilable. It seems that Pro would ignore this. What is irreconcilable cannot compromise in favor of each other. Hence, Pro’s suggestion carries no weight. Concluding remarks on political relativismIt is never a good sign in a debate when one debater tries to impose a standard of “good”/”bad” on the other debater. When something is favorable or not favorable, that something has been compared to a standard and graded against it. Hence the grades of “good” and “bad.” It appears that Pro would want to impose a standard of which he has not made clear onto this debate. That is not permissible. With all of these in mind, I will strongly urge a Con vote, and thank you for reading.
DDO Beginners tournament: Term limits are good for democracy

The basic case for term limits is rather straightforward, so this round I will not take up much space. There are many cases in which democracies have functioned (and continue to function) without term limits, however my contention is not that it is necessary to a democracy but rather that it is good for it. The argument boils down to the contention that one person should not have a disproportionate roll in the life of a democracy. This argument takes a negative and a positive form.Negative: Term limits avoid the subversion of democracy by a charismatic leader. Cases like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where term limits were abolished in order to allow this man to continue holding power and form an increasingly totalitarian and politically monolithic society show the most extreme example of this danger. If power is in the hands of one man for too long, even with the consent of the people, this could be dangerous to the democratic system as a system which protects minority views and in which the Head of State (or Head of Government where this roll is carried out by a different person to the Head of State) is bound to reflect the will of the people, and not his own will with the consent of the people.Positive: Term limits do not stop the positive development of policies which are pleasing to the people. Policies are not dependent on people but ideas. Even in the case that an exceptionally good president is doing wonders for the country is faced with a term limit, the following government can be elected to follow the same general policies. The fact of term limits makes clearer that policies are not supposed to be those of this or that politician, but those that work for the common good and are recognized as such by the people, regardless of the individual promoting them.As a prima facie case for term limits, I think this will do. From now on I will answer my opponents objections and develop my own case.
Gay Marriage

Since we are already debating another topic, I looked through your profile and saw we disagreed on this as well, and wish to challenge you to this debate. It will have five rounds. Round 1- Short Introduction to Both Sides Round 2- Arguments Rounds 3-5- Rebuttals While I would appreciate observing the spiritual side, I would like to keep main argument points purely secular. Spiritual arguments can play a part, but I don't want them to be the basis of our debate. My only definition to be used here is this: Same-gender marriage: A gender- and sexuality-inclusive term for "gay marriage". Basically, the marriage of two people of the same gender identity. And as for my opening statement, I believe same-gender marriage should be accepted and legal. The right to love is one that should be protected, as it can be included in the pursuit of happiness, for those to whom it applies. Spiritual beliefs, as well as personal beliefs, should not infringe upon this. Love is a beautiful thing which should be encouraged with open arms, not shunned and spurned. I also believe people in same-gender relationships should not be discriminated against, and over half of the US seems to agree (https://en.wikipedia.org...).
Gay Marriage

I am gay. I am a Christian. You can be both. And, """sweetheart""", the Bible says nothing about lesbians :). I thought I already mentioned I didn't want to argue spirituality with you, which seems to be what your entire Round Two argument consists of. If you want to talk Leviticus, have you worn jeans or eaten shellfish recently? If you have periods, have you talked to men while you are on them? And do you have or desire to have any tattoos? These are all against Leviticus, but they're ridiculous, as is the ban on love that you wish to impose. I agree that people have no obligation to participate in any service they do not wish to be a part of. Are they homophobic? Certainly. But I will fight to the death for their right to exercise (peaceful) freedom of religion, just as I will fight to the death for my right to marry a woman. I'm glad children would be taught gay marriage is "legal, normal, and moral". If I'd learned that as a kid, instead of having the bible and heterosexuality as the norm shoved down my throat, I wouldn't have spent so long denying my identity. Gay marriage is about the RIGHT for me to walk down the aisle and marry the woman of my dreams, just as a man could do the same. Also, straight people's relationships are not always healthy. There are plenty of abusive straight relationships, just as there are abusive same-gender relationships. The relationships are equal in healthiness, and they should be now in normality.