BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

Not only is scripture almost all false, it also encourages matrydom and murder in the name of religion. Although religous people try to act better because there is evidently (or rather un-evidently) a diety watching over them, it that really better than just being a kind person on your own acord? An interesting antecdote to support this is in 1976, Canada. When the police went on strike a massive crime wave swept the city, untill the army and national guard had to be called in. Studies show that out of the hundreds convicted less than one percent were athiests, and the vast majority were christian. Hmmm....
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

My opponent has pointed out my error, and I apologize for that, and will continue with this debate properly. My opponent says that it is known that Santa does not exist. But how? How is this known? You may not be looking in the right area. It is possible that we are looking in the wrong places to look for Santa. Maybe Santa is not as we described so perfectly, but neither is anything else. We find new things out everyday about something we thought we already knew. Mermaids: such a thing could actually have existed. If you know of the Discovery Channel's documentary on this, then you know what I am talking about. Yes, Discovery Channel did admit to faking the whole thing to trick people, but they based it all off of the aquatic ape theory. So is it impossible? Well, I am no professional so I will not say so Leprechauns: I am talking about a 2-3 foot dwarf with orange hair that grants wishes and has pots of gold and what not Unicorns: You have proven me wrong there, and I accept that "with fairy tales, we know they do not exist". Well, what defines fairy tale? A story fabricated by a person. Who is to say God isn't a story fabricated by a person, or people? People did get benefits out of making up stories back then. Is is possible that Thor or Zeus existed, even at one point? Maybe we miss interpreted the texts, and we are not looking in the right areas for such creatures
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

I must point out that my opponent violated a rule. "2nd round: Arguments"That means that there are NO rebuttals until the next round. There is evidence against Santa Claus, mermaids, leprechauns, unicorns: Santa Claus: Earthly-bound AND wide-spread to everyone over 15 that it is a myth and does not exist. Mermaids: We have not found a creature that is indeed half human and half a fish. And we also know that such a creature could not exist. Leprechauns: Someone has never been to Ireland... Unicorns: Also, all of my opponent's descriptions of common fairytales and comparing them to a being that is a Creator of the Universe and is also completely theoretical is an incorrect correlation to God.Is God a fairytale? No. He is a theoretical being that we are UNSURE of existing. With fairytales, we know they do not exist. Except Unicorns. As depicted by the picture of fossils of the creature. So my opponent must now consider concessing... In order to determine the chances of something existing, we must determine how it functions. However, we can not know how God can function. Thus, his chances still remain neutral. AKA 50/50. I look forward to my opponents next rebuttals. Thank you..
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

My opponent's claim is that because there is no evidence for it not existing, there is a 50/50 chance of god existing. If this is true, then the same can be said about unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. You don't have evidence that goes against them. We have only failed to come up with evidence for these fairy tales. But what makes us so sure that they we can positively claim that those so called fairy tales don't exist? If we lack evidence in the universe of a god, the chances are not 50/50. At least at the moment, the chances of a god existing are lower. In order to establish a 50/50 chance, there must be some sort of understanding of it. However, we have as much of an understanding about a god as we do about unicorns. They are characters and creatures in books that we have yet to believe is true. The Bible's claims have been debunked on numerous occasions, so the bible is in no way a reason to believe in a god, nor is it a reason to believe that there is a chance of god. If my opponent claims that there is a 50/50 chance of unicorns existing, then I may consider a concession, but as it stands, as far as I know, few people will claim unicorns have a 50/50 chance of existing.
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

Since we are talking about God (also, when I say God, I mean a being that created the universe, essentially). Now, many propose that Christianity is an untrue religion, however, this is irrelevant. We are talking about God, not the beliefs that some individuals choose to follow. Sure, they pertain God ideals, but is that the only way he can exist? The answer to this is No. So, now we look at evidence. Is there evidence of God? The answer: None that can be deduced as secular. So, in the end, we have an absence of evidence. However, this is not evidence of absence, disproving the existence of one such being. The art of disproving requires evidence against anything and determining that there is no way he can exist. Yet, we can not do that with God. Why? He is something that we do not understand. If God were to exist, and there was evidence of it, scientists would likely be baffled by it. They would not have the faintest clue how its possible. Thus, he is something beyond our comprehension at this point in time. His existence continues to push outside of the bounds of what we know. We know the Big Bang happened. We know that the code and true source of life is most likely abiogenesis and DNA. But, whatever we don't explain, whatever we cant explain, still can be from God. It is a theory. Just like the Quantum Fluctuations theory. It is still a theory. So is that God made the universe. Now, since God does not have evidence for or against him, we can conclude that he either exists, or he simply does not. Thus, his chances of existing are 50/50.
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

Hello Debaters, and welcome to another debate about God. Atm, this debate is impossible to accept. Leave a comment if you wish to join, and if I choose you, you will be contacted via PM. 1st round: Accepting with written claim2nd round: Arguments3rd round: Arguments/Rebuttals4th round: Final Rebuttals and ConclusionCon must prove that God's chances of existing are indeed not 50/50. My claim is that God does indeed have a 50/50 chance of existing. Thank you! I look forward to the different people and my opponent's statements.
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

I made it clear that the documentary was faked, but it was based off of a true aquatic ape theory. My opponent must have misunderstood what I have said. When I ask how do we know for sure X is not real, I mean us as humans all together. How do we know that it has just not been discovered versus not existing? I do not believe any god has a 50/50 chance of existing because there is evidence that would actually go against it. As far as we know, everything that exists exists with in the universe. If any god exists, then there must be a way to measure the presence of one. If any god does not exist with in the universe, then there is already evidence against it. If there is claim that says the subject in question is not measurable, then there is evidence against such a thing. Anything that is existing can be measured in some way shape or form. If we have yet to come up with a way to measure it, then we have a good hunch that it does not exist. If it is not with in the universe, even if it did exist, then we have no way of testing it, and therefore, in the eyes of ours, there is nothing that distinguishes from not existing and not being in the universe. If you can support the idea that something can be outside of the universe with a reliable source, then I will consider this debate a loss on my part. I ask that the audience to not take in to consideration my opponent's source when voting on sources, as it only mentions why what I say is wrong , which I do not believe the link suggests that entirely.
God has a 50/50 chance of existing

My opponent asks how Santa is not known to everyone as a myth. If only I had an answer for that. .. Gee. .. If only there were parents that admitted to making the whole thing up once you became of age. .. Mermaids: You just claimed that the evidence provided by the Discovery Channel was false. I am not sure if I must dive into this topic any further. . Plus, they do not fit the evolutionary pattern. Leprechauns: You mean a short lil dude with a green hat who makes your Lucky Charms? Well, I am sure you can read back to Grimm's fictitious story which was also the first time they were made. My opponent repeated the correlation between things we know as make believe and God, which we DO NOT know as make belive. My opponent's argument is purely correlation. This is a red herring fallacy. He is desparately trying to take the debate away from the chance of God existing, but the chances of other things in existence. A red herring fallacy is a distraction from the original topic. Red Herring: . http://logical-critical-thinking.com...I
It is OK for women to slap men.

To thou, why is violence hence the same? To said person with no such thing as testicles and a penis, I beseech thee to think. To ponder, and to take in. What wide scope you conquer, and what narrow you see. For it is 'pparent, to "it" that because of its weak portray in media of now times, to keep such intimacy with the common belief, it is a powerful weapon indeed. A powerful weapon that, however immoral, can be fired, at will, without morals. We as the opposite pity such, with restraint. We seldom hit them, as we hope to know better, but problems arrive when the door is first open, when portal spits out all manifestations of evil. And what evils do I owe the pleasure to? Said person could theoretically take advantage of such an advantage, without moral constraints, they have the upper hand, foot, and social status. When under the scenario of such, say, when wom_ I refrain from using such a highly praised word, as it describes an intelligent being, a human being that is capable of independence without such tactics of leeching and such. Without much more, can I say, can I ask? For how can the counter argument be, a reflex? Is it true that men rape women with short skirts because of such a "reflex"? And, in many cases, the woman hit first, but they have the exact stereotypes that they are fighting against aiding them from years of physical labor and acquiring the prestigious title of "inmate", while the woman reap the reward the man suffers. This however is hypothetical as, I hope, woman have more morals than the example given. I will await your argument! :D
This house would ban WWE

Well,looks like dear con is just lost in the mist,that's why he didn't have replied. But now it's my turn. . . .let's get started. First,I'd like to note that first you challanged my defination,so,there should be no rebutul except the rebutul about challange,so,I must say ,Y0U ARE CLASHING IN THE GR0UND OF A CHALLANGE DEBATE! So,it is pretty much P0O. Well,you said that you are challanging from the ground of truism. . . . .And I've done truism.But I'd like to say that the BTP was uncounterable. . .so,in this fact if I can show you that the BTPs were counterable,the debate is over. Now I'm showing those countering points. CR0SSFIRE AGAINST BURDEN TO PR0OF::: 1;IT WILL NEVER CAUSE LIFE RISK>well,most of us know that the show of wwe is totally makey,the wrestlers are given scripts and technique sequence 2 days before.So,because it's totally makey,no chance of liferisk. 2;IT'LL NEVER GIVE ANY CHANCE TO HARM ANY0NE.>well,.here,it's noted that never give any chance. . .with these term,I'm saying about the fight between the wrestlers.But,because it's makey,no chance to harm any one and the conditions are kept under controll.S0 no chance to harm any one. 3;N0 ONE WILL TRY THIS AT HOME,0R SCH0OL OR ANY WHERE:>just as your rebut,it's a problem of spectator.If the house can make them awared,the problem could be eradicated. 4;IT HAS MUCH G0OD EFFECTS THAN DRAWBACKS ON SPECTAT0RS>well,in this regard,here is a term,'on spectators'. The main problems which we see are the physical problems of wrestlers.those are n0t facting here.the fact is the spectators. . . . . . .and also,just as you rebut,this teaches us the way of selfdefence.and selfdefence is one of the most important thing in ones life.so,it has more merits than demerits on spectators. Another thin I'd like to say you dear con,I THINK Y0U D0N'T KN0W H0W TO DO A CHALLANGE DEBATE.because,IF YOU CHALLANGE,THE TURN CHANGES AND IN THIS REGARD,Y0U NEED TO SH0W THAT THE DEFINATI0N IS UNC0UNTERABLE INSTEAD OF REBUTTING!
This house would ban WWE

Well,at the very first I'd like to say that my BTP wasn't that much hilarious as you are saying.Because there were some sections with which you would have been abled to continue the debate like 'It will never cause any liferisk','it will never give any chance to harm any one' and 'no one would try this at home ,school or any where'. After that ,you noted that we will ban things than when it will be extreme threat.Well,I'd like to say no in this fact.Because,there are a lot of example where many bollywood,hollywood,dhallywood films were banned .they were n0t 'extreme threat'.they were just threat and their bad effects were m0re than good. I would like request you to clear your concept m0re.Because,at first you challanged,which means those BTP were correct,and ,then you started to talk in your own side.so,please,make it clear.D0N'T MAKE THE SITUATI0N MISTY!
No topic

RE: "At this point in the debate you probably hate me and want to vote against me, but wait, it was all strategy." You need not worry about this. Anyone who debates me is guaranteed more votes. Those are the laws of the debate.org, as evident by my win ratio. ;) RE: "The debate had "no topic" I presented the case of "I have won this debate round". He says "prove it" so i go on this antic about how debate is generally bad yada yada, which wasted probably an hour of my opponents life. But it was all for NOTHING." "I have won this debate" is not a case. It is simply making a claim without having any premises for it. My opponent failed on the grounds that he didn't actually debate in a debate. That is all. RE: "I was "for" no topic. Yet the negative made the debate have a topic (whether or not i have won). Therefore I have won this debate round because I was the only one to keep the argument having no topic." 1) False. There is a topic. If there were not a topic, the topic area (which my opponent personally filled out by the way) would be blank and this debate would not have been initiated in the first place. In other words, "No Topic" is a topic in itself. If my opponent's burden is to prove that there is no topic, he is doomed before the start granted that he placed information under the topic area which every instigator fills out. Thus, it is ironic that my opponent would say that he was the only one to keep the argument having no topic when he was the one who made the topic in the first place. 2) My opponent is (intentionally) supplying false information. He was in fact for a topic in the previous round and that was "modern debate is bad" Thus, based on his logic (or lack of rather), he has essentially conceded to my position which he claims I have. 3) How is one really to conclude that I made the topic on whether or not PRO has won the debate based on me insisting that PRO prove what he stated? I was simply asking PRO to prove why he won. Given his so-called clarification in this round, this would translate to me insisting that he prove he was upholding there being no topic. My intention was simply to learn how he won. It was nothing else and the lack of evidence supports this. RE: "So by saying I have won the round was merely pointing out the fact that I have maintained having no topic. He on the other hand changed the topic from being about no topic, to being about whether or not I have won." For the sheer heck of things, lets think about what my opponent is saying for a second: He is insisting that because he said he has won the debate round, he was maintaining the position that there was no topic, but in order for there to be no topic, there must be no positions. In order for there to be no topic, one cannot maintain anything. The fact that my opponent confesses to having maintained something in this debate proves that he acknowledges that there was a topic. And if we look at the mere fact that my opponent provided a "topic" in the next round, it all makes plenty of sense. Now matter how you look at it, my opponent has lost this debate considerably. I now await round 4.
No topic

At this point in the debate you probably hate me and want to vote against me, but wait, it was all strategy. The debate had "no topic" I presented the case of "I have won this debate round". He says "prove it" so i go on this antic about how debate is generally bad yada yada, which wasted probably an hour of my opponents life. But it was all for NOTHING. The negative screwed himself over in his last speech He says that all things said about how "debate is bad" is "IRRELEVENT" in this debate round. Stick him to that... He makes the topic about whether or not I have won this debate round or not, which i am totally fine with. Being that I am "for" this resolution.. I was "for" no topic. Yet the negative made the debate have a topic (whether or not i have won). Therefore I have won this debate round because I was the only one to keep the argument having no topic. You can't vote for him for being against "i have won this debate round" because we are arguing NO TOPIC at all. I was merely stating the fact that I have won the debate round, because I didn't talk about anything. Thus fulfilling what was needed in order to debate a topic of no topic. Now hes going to say "but he said "i won the round"". This doesnt matter. I did not present a topic. It was the mere truth at the time, i was FOR having NO TOPIC. So by saying I have won the round was merely pointing out the fact that I have maintained having no topic. He on the other hand changed the topic from being about no topic, to being about whether or not I have won. Now you can stop complaining about the K everyone watching. To my competitor- Your K debating was pretty awesome. Even if it was just a decoy...
No topic

RE: "It seems as if my opponents DNA has forgotten an essential portion to being a human, the brain stem." My opponent can provide as many personal attacks as he wishes to provide . . . however, this will not change the fact that his position has been refuted entirely. RE: "Let me refer you to the fact that I do not and have not wanted a topic in this debate." Let me refer my opponent to the fact that through filling out the topic section that every instigator fills out, he has created a topic, regardless of whether or not he wanted it. RE: "But the pesky negative speaker keeps pestering about this topic of whether I can prove that I have won or not." Of course, as this is the purpose of debate. There is a reason this site is called DEBATE.org. RE: "He took the debate knowing that if he brought up a topic, I would win. " I knew no such thing nor of what my opponent had intended to argue. However, even considering his logic here, he has failed to provide any reason as to why me doing no more than insisting that he prove the claim he made in the first round would equate to me making bringing up a topic. To add, even if it did, it wouldn't matter considering that my opponent had brought up a topic both through creating this debate and wishing to insist that the topic to this debate was "Modern debate is bad" during round 2. RE: "I didn't want to ARGUE" The only way there is to win a debate is to argue. Ladies and gentleman, this admission speaks for itself. CONCLUSION: My opponent's argument is that because there is no topic and he has upheld there being no topic throughout the debate, he should be declared the winner. However, as I've shown, not only did my opponent concede to there being a topic through placing something in the TOPIC section before this debate began, not only has my opponent failed to prove how me saying "prove it" proves that I was the one to make this debate have a topic, not only does it not add up that my opponent would argue on the grounds that "modern debate is bad" as his topic (as shown in R2), not only has PRO acknowledged there being a topic (as I had shown in R3) even based on his logic, but we must keep in mind that my opponent essentially dropped my entire case, wasted his R4 and insisted upon himself being correct with the same previously refuted information in R5. To add, throughout the course of this debate, PRO ended up changing his argument twice and he has confessed to having no desire to argue while in a debate. For all of these reasons, it is rather clear that his case fails on all grounds. I rest my case. Thanks for the debate. :D
No topic

"PRO seems to have forgotten the essential point to debate and that is to ARGUE. He has chosen not to ARGUE, thus drops my his entire case as well as my arguments, thus has conceded victory to me." It seems as if my opponents DNA has forgotten an essential portion to being a human, the brain stem. Let me refer you to the fact that I do not and have not wanted a topic in this debate. But the pesky negative speaker keeps pestering about this topic of whether I can prove that I have won or not. He took the debate knowing that if he brought up a topic, I would win. I didn't want to ARGUE I didn't want to take a side and ARGUE. I was FOR having NO TOPIC. And throughout the debate have proven that I don't want to debate a topic. Being that I am FOR not having a topic, I have fulfilled my burden, therefore his entire case is unnecessary here today and the mere fact he brought up the arguments warrants him to lose.
Big Ben needs to grow another beard.

Some of the most brilliant minds and influential people of histor had beards. For instance, Confucius, Jesus, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Jim Morrison, Vincent Van Gogh, Zues, Jerry Garcia, and, of course my father all had beards. My Father, for instance, kept his beard for hunting purposes, in order to keep his face warm in cold weather and against the elements. A beard would certainly serve Big Ben for this purpose and possibly help his concentration in inclement weather, which will certainly occur if the Steelers must travel to New England in the playoffs.
Should Cell phones be allowed in Schools.

Telephone is a very useful thing for every student. Using mobiles Students can search for information in the Internet and also it"s very convenient cause mobiles are portable and students can find any information they want, they even can make lessons and home assignments by telephones. they can calculate using phones, they can write home works on their organizers. they also can chat. in my opinion telephones are very useful at study. if students will use phones in educational way their achievements s in study can improve. also parents will be calm for their children, they can call in order to know is everything good. also mates can chat with each other to help in study. Actually mobiles help studying. Moreover we are living in modern technical century we should know how to use gadgets. needles to say that there is function in phone to make it silence, so it's not going to disturb the lessons.