BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Osama Bin Laden is not dead

Thank You for accepting :)Well, its pretty simple. Now evidence of osama's death has been released...yet.Logically it makes little sense for the US to kill a man who brought the world's super power to their knees and then the don't release his dead image or video. And why would the burry the f&cker at sea, yeah sure dispose of his body and hide it from the world. That ...thing.... killed thousand of people and we all of a sudden decide to adhere to Islamic rituals ! Sound rather fishy to me, It would not be the first time government lies plus, obama's poles have gone down drastically. 14,000,000,000,000 debt, $5.00 gas, 2.8% groceries, guantanamo bay open, inflation, and war like on 4 countries ! Osama's death could be a good misdirection and bump for the poles.
Osama Bin Laden is not dead

Clearly my opponent did not read his sources in much detail. The first two sources are "unauthenticated" by their own admission. The third is wikipedia, which gives a long list of recordings. Only two are from after 2001, both are likely fake. How can you prove that the person in the tapes is Bin Laden? You cannot- you just take their word for it. Videos and voices can be faked, and there is considerable evidence that they were. Here are my sources:. http://www.the-office.com...http://www.infowars.com...http://911lies.org...http://www.prisonplanet.com...Thanks for the debate.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

I do not know your exact position due to a lack of more specific information regarding your exact beliefs or lack thereof, your life experiences, major events in your life, your upbringing, et cetera. A major group of people that do not believe in god consider themselves to be spiritualists. These people consider themselves "spiritual but not religious". Spiritualists typically believe in the physical world and the metaphysical cosmology. They believe that there is some higher power, but that power is not a god. They typically view their journey as one of personal growth and development. The exact tenants of spirituality are not set in stone, thus each individual will prescribe to different philosophies and guiding principles. Some example philosophies and practices include but are not limited to the usage of crystals, meditation, vegetarianism or veganism, breathing practices, burning of incense, and pilgrimages. People with the position of disbelieving the god claims or believing the god claims to be false could also be members of a wide range of religions such as Animist, Totemist, Shamanist, Buddhist, or Shinto. Atheist and atheism are titles that people attribute to other people who do not have a conception of a god. Lots of atheists have grown up in a culture where the idea of a god exists. These atheists hold the position that there are no deities with which to disbelieve. This is to say they have a fundamental rejection of the concept of deities. Lots of other atheists have grown up in cultures where the idea of a god does not exist. These atheists do not consider themselves atheist, because they do not have the conception of a god (for example rural New Guinea tribes). People with no conception of a god cannot have a belief about a god is and cannot have a belief about what god is not. If you disbelieve a god claims, then you have conception what a god is not. If you have a conception of what a god is not, then your position is not within the atheist community.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

We agree that denying other gods (or false idols as Christians call them) is part of Christianity"s theism. Christians believe in God (c -> bG) Atheists do not have a belief with regards to God (a -> ~bG) Having a belief with regards to God is something Atheists are not (do not possess) (bG -> ~a) Therefore, Christians are something that atheists are not (Christians cannot be Atheists) (c -> ~a) Also, (a -> ~c): Atheists are something that Christians are not (Atheists cannot be Christians) Sorry for not noticing your question at first. I tried to answer your question in the comments. If you believe all gods are false, then you are an atheist. If you believe some gods are false, then not enough information is provided to classify you on the spectrum of atheist " spiritual - theist. Your position is you have a belief, but are unsure if your belief is true. This means you are a normal human being. Claiming something that is unknown as truth is not a valid or sound claim. This is not to say that claiming the unknown as truth is necessarily false. The specific belief of "i dont believe any gods are false, but i dont believe any of them are true" would make you fall in the category called spiritual. Lots of normal people are spiritual. There is nothing wrong with being spiritual. We fundamentally disagree on the supposed requirement of disbelief for atheists. A person raised outside of religion (both individually and community) would have no knowledge of religion. This person would have no concept of God(s) with which to adhere or disobey. This person would have no belief system with which to reject. This person would be an atheist without disbelief. Sorry for rushing this part " I need to get to work soon.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

christianity is atheism, because i have to deny other god claims to be a christian which makes me an atheist in regard to those god claims you didnt answer my question if i believe that gods are false what is my position? because i can believe gods are true, but on the other hand i dont know god is true, so i can also accept that i dont know, which is true, as the claims are unknown only 3 position exist on any imaginary claim you have to be good this year if you want presents from santa atheism is not 1 thing, atheism is a position on an imaginary claim, so on any imagianry claim there is an atheist position if i disbelieve science, i am an atheist to science, but i cant disbelieve without having a belief to begin with
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

Sorry, I am new to this site. Atheists accept the world how it is. They rely on facts and tangible, material things to assess the world around them. They realize that every action is the causality of other actions. There is no set code to atheism. Every atheist is allowed to think about atheism in the manner in which they wish. Atheism does not have a god claim. Atheism does not have a set doctrine or behavior pattern. Atheism does not have a "something after death" story. Atheists do not gather in buildings at set intervals to discuss their lack of belief. Atheists do not have a set hierarchy with which to donate to promote their cause of atheism around the world. Atheism contains very few or no similarities with the multitude of theisms in the world. One theism in specific is Christianity. Christianity currently has 90 sects. Sorry if I misrepresent your specific sect (someone reading this debate). Christianity believes in the trinity (the Holy Ghost, Jesus, and God). Christians believe that they are the one true path to God and Heaven. Christians worship their deity at regularly preset intervals within buildings. Most Christians have a set routine for their weekly service. Christians have a hierarchy (different Christians have different hierarchies) with which to allocate funds for the purpose of spreading their faith across the world. These hierarchies also serve as guides for followers to ask questions when they become lost and provide services for ceremonies. Christians believe in souls and that when they die they will be reunited with God in paradise. Another theism is Hittite. They believe in Dyeus Phter aka Thor. They believe in multiple Gods, each deity doing its own thing. While I am not aware of the specifics of this (mostly) dead religion, there should be cultural myths and afterlife in their faith. Theism and atheism are polar opposites. Theism has belief while atheism does not. The manner in which each group conducts business within their group is radically different. The desires of their respective groups are different. The manner in which they advocate their group to others is completely different. They are not the same. Christians are not atheists. Atheists are not theists. Is this better?
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

Natural Atheism: the natural god-free condition of humans is the correct and a good condition. (1) 1)Atheism is not belief nor disbelief. Atheism does not rely on the opinions or lack of opinions of others. Atheism does not rely on convictions. Atheism is an absence of belief. 2)While Pro is correct with regards to followers of Christianity having to denounce other God claims that contradict the God claims that are made by Christianity; someone who believes in a god (God) cannot at the same time not believe in the same god (God). Natural Atheism mandates that someone who adheres to their principles not believe in any god. Christians cannot be Natural Atheists. (1) Home (Natural Atheism) http://www.naturalatheism.webs.com...
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

I will be using oxforddictionary.com , citationmachine.net , and Latin Definitions according to oxforddictionary.com: Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Belief: Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction: I accept that I will be arguing both: 1) Atheism is not about belief. 2) Christians are in no way atheists.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Yes love is a concept also within Harry Potter but it does not actually compare to Twilight. Love saved Harry and is all around him due to the various relationships. A force to be reckoned with but not the entire tale. As for Twilight is boasts a easy read about romantic love in ways that are only able to be fantasized about, a real get away from reality. Though with a slight possibly of happening , minus the vampire-ish parts. Sure Harry Potter is based in a whole new world that is just as imaginative but such ideas are only temporary. In reality people know they cannot actually do magic.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Yes, I'm not going to argue the fact that Twilight is a romance/love story but to my defence Harry Potter is as much of a love story as Twilight is. The reason Harry is alive in the first place is because of his mother's love that protected him. As Harry grew up throughout the books, he meets all these other people that love him and is willing to risk their lives for him and for each other, for example: Sirius, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Ginny, Weasley twins, Molly, Dumbledore, Prof.Mcgonagall,Hagrid, etc. This whole story doesn't revolve around a love between a boyfriend and a girlfriend because love exist between friends and family as well. As you stated that Twilight has a fan audience mainly of teenage girls and some boys while Harry Potter has an audience of any gender, age, ethnicity, or location. And you said the love and thought of dying makes Twilight a more sensation idea. Well since I have read and watch both of these stories, in the end of harry potter alot of our favorite characters died(Fred,Tonks,Lupin,etc) because they fought for what they believed in. But in twilight when they battled the newborns, nobody dies (except the bad guys). Now even if it's heartbreaking to see these characters you grew up with died, it's more realistic. Harry potter is of course the "chosen one" and he is the main protagonist of the story, but Rowling also put alot of background into the other characters as well that made the audience love them as much as we loved Harry. These characters changes throughout the story, for better or for worse. I also think that these characters set a better example for the fans than Twilight does. When Edward left Bella she put herself in danger so that he would come rescue her, now I know love is important and all but that's like teaching girls that when your boyfriend breaks up with you, you're not worth living anymore. When Hermione or Ginny's love left them they continued fighting and didn't curl up on the ground and wait to be rescued. You also say that in twilight one may not know what will happen next, Harry Potter has alot more plot twists than twilight does. In the chamber of secrets, who knew that Tom Riddle was actually Voldemort, in Prisoner of Azkaben, Rowling gave us all these hints in the beginning that Sirius was a bad guy and after Harry but he turned out to be the good guy and was trying to protect harry. In the end, who would've guessed that Harry turned out to be the 8th horcrox which explained all these unsolved mysteries of why he kept having these dreams in the past books.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

My reasoning for Twilight to be the better book is due to the numbers. The Twilight series is well known for it's romantic plot that allures many girls, especially teenagers, even some boys which allows he or she to think that this life could happen to them. Love is a powerful emotion hat allows people to be engrossing into the topic of anything as long as it gives them a sense that, hey maybe something like this could happen to me. As for Harry Potter the boy who is all popular the moment he steps into the school and is the "chosen one" is a tired out idea. In my opponent defense so is a love story but love stories are not that well varied though as for chosen one stories it can be varied. Sure the wonders of magic are vast and alluring but with the back ground of heavy schooling it can be redundant of a day to day task to think about. As for in the Twilight series one may not know what will happen next, will he finally snap into that killing machine he has always claimed to be and kill me? Sure Voldemort may come and kill Harry but he is always aware of the threat later in the series. The love and the thought of dying make Twilight a more... sensation idea. Now a response to your response to me. Opinion are not always a real debate point as there can only rarely be a certain winner. Using numbers is a way to help assist in the victory.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Harry Potter versus Twilight. Harry Potter the story of the boy who should have died butt thanks to the power of love from his mother he has lived with a scare upon his head. Twilight the story of a girl who falls in love with a vampire. Definitions Better - of superior quality or excellence Now this is more of a personal taste type of decision. I could be semantically, though I enjoy semantics, shall see numbers to show that Twilight is "better." I shall start off with a small example as there are four rounds. In one poll, Harry Potter Versus Twilight; [1] Harry Potter - 17,126 -- 23% Twilight - 51,485 -- 69% That is not a small number of people. I turn it to my opponent. [1] http://www.sodahead.com...
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

This is just a little friendly argument on why Harry potter is better than twilight. I'm a big Harry potter fan and I'm sick of hearing little teenage girls saying they love twilight and Harry potter sucks. I don't understand how people could choose twilight over Harry potter. Personally, I think twilight is badly written and the movies are horrible. The actress who plays Bella only has one emotion throughout all the movies. Each character in Harry potter teaches the audience a lesson. But all I get after reading and watching twilight is how much Bella depends on Edward. When he left her, she moped around and jumped off a cliff. That's like teaching girls that if a guy breaks up with you, your life is over. I also like how Harry potter is very original and when you read the books you feel like you entered a magical world and it's hard to put the books down.
League of Legends is a Better Game Then Dota 2

First of all, we are talking about the games here, not the community or competitive scene, so lets stick with the games and their mechanics. Lets begin comparing with characters. Characters in LoL must be constantly released for Riot to make money. This means that they often release heroes that are unbalanced. If you deny this, google "riot plz nerf". That should indicate that there are some imbalances. In Dota 2, the balanced problem is solved with counters. Dota realizes that perfect balance is near impossible, so instead of releasing OP heroes and then nerfing them trying to find that perfect balance, Dota as some heroes that play very well against others. A good example is Slark and Bloodseeker. This means that even if a hero is slightly OP, there is always a hero to counter them. The heroes in Dota also have better abilities. Where LoL champs have spammable harasses, the abilities in Dota are far more powerful and cost a lot of mana. This rewards timing and strategy as you need to use them at just the right time. For example, the stuns in Dota are way longer, so if you time them right you can wreck the enemy team. Also, LoL champs have only one passive that you can't level up. Dota heroes have two usually and you can level them up These passives usually really change the game and the fact you can level them just adds to Dota's snowball effect. Dota has agility, intelligence, and strength which really makes the heroes different. Intelligence boost mana regen which makes spell-spamers like storm spirt totally differnt from agility heroes like faceless void which are mainly right clickers. LoL just has attack speed, attack damage, magic resistance and the like. Supports in LoL are mainly just healers, while in Dota they have more varied abilities. Over all the heroes in dota just feel so much more unique and specialized with totally unique skills. In LoL heroes seem so much more generic.
League of Legends is a Better Game Then Dota 2

Mechanical and micro skill level is lower due to league's fast paced nature. Metagame has a lower impact in the course of the game. Itemization is more broad, thus decreasing the original value of a champion's role. Certain characters have remained with the same lackluster/imbalanced kit since DotA. Esport scene is less enthusiastic, mainly because there are not many new star players plus the slow-growing community. No real purpose in climbing the ranked ladder, major difficulty on making a profit.
Libertarianism vs Marxism-Leninism

My opponent has broken the rules of the debate by not posting arguments as specified in the introductory paragraph. The reasons he specifies are not relevant because as introduced in the introductory paragraph I said he would be defending libertarianism not me. "To be clear the party I will be debating will be defending libertarianism(as in a Free Market economy completely and a completely lack of social influence and complete open-mindness in social matters that are none of the governments business) and attacking Marxism-Leninism. Thank you. " Notice I say the party I will be debating. If he wished to address these concerns then he could have messaged me and addressed these concerns well enough or if he had concerns it may not be recognized then he need only post in comments. As he has broken the terms of the debate over clarification I will post my introductory paragraph next round however this should be noted in voting. He had 72 hour window in which to post a argument therefore he clearly shows that he could have addressed these problems a differant way without breaking the terms of debate. I call for either a lose of the conduct point of a loss of all 7 points due to breaking terms of debate over a lack of understanding.
Libertarianism vs Marxism-Leninism

Hi. First off, I would like to state that what I am defending and advocating in this debate, does not necessarily represent my personal beliefs. That being said, I will still argue my side to the uppermost capabilities. Since there are many existing branches of communism, I feel that I will need to define the vague terms of "Marxism-Leninism." To clarify, I will be defending Marxism, as describe in the original text in The Communist Manifesto, it being a state-controlled economy. To a certain extent, I feel I will be unable to defend Marxism in the field of it's "open-mindedness in social matters" due to the fact that in the present day, cell phones, the internet and basically any form of mass communication will disempower authoritarian governments to a degree, by removing state control over the flow of information. I will not be defending Marxism as applied during the fascist Stalin-regime or in the modern day North Korea. I am sorry that I am unable to post my arguments this round. I would rather have your approval on my definition of Marxism before proceeding. Do you agree?
Libertarianism vs Marxism-Leninism

Hello, I would like to debate a moderate opponent not some one who is incredibly well versed in government theory, I am not supreme defender of my ideology but I would like to debate someone that is relatively of my compentance level. I would it to be good debate. Rather even and hope the voters take the debate and don't shut me down completely. Any way thank you. All standard rules(no ad homiem, no cursing, and no semantics arguments) except one as I am the Con I would prefer if the Affirmative-Pro party post there case this round instead of the general I accept. To be clear the party I will be debating will be defending libertarianism(as in a Free Market economy completely and a completely lack of social influence and complete open-mindness in social matters that are none of the governments business) and attacking Marxism-Leninism. Thank you.
School Uniform

We should have school uniforms because it saves a lot of money. I have proof from http://articles.latimes.com... that school uniforms cause 50% of bullying and we could put a stop to that if students today where school uniforms. Also, to buy a set uniform with school deals, the outfits will most likely not be as expensive as if they were going to buy the latest trends of fill their closets will clothes they will not wear in school.
School Uniform

I think school uniform shouldn't be worn as it is a waste of money and is too strict in style. It takes ages to iron and because we all have "normal" clothes anyway, there is no point in getting new clothes. School uniform doesn't suit everyone and you cant show off your style. Uniforms attract bullies because of the way you wear them. Also, any stranger will be able to see what school you go to and it might be a way of them tracking who you are. And no one likes them. so do you want to be uncomfortable in a stuffy school or have fun showing YOUR personality and being yourself. check: listland.com/top-10-reasons-school-uniforms-should-be-banned http://learningin21.edublogs.org...