BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world would be better off without religion.

Why Religion is Good(1) Charity( http://www.forbes.com... )Forbes, the top 50 charitable organizations list, well lets talk about that for a moment. Over half of these charities are religious organizations. The notion that religion does not good is just outright false; many drug addiction programs including Alcoholics Anonymous have their roots in religious organizations ( http://www.dickb.com... ) and backgrounds. It speaks for itself.(2) DiversityAll religions are a type of philosophy and many of those philosophies preach all sorts of good things about how to deal with one's neighbors. It is not the teachings of the religion but the corruption of mankind that allows the assemblies of evil to rise. Men twist anything, any philosophy, and any ideal, shamelessly but that should not be a reason to ban religion where religion is actually more often than not a gateway to modern concepts.Islam for instance helped usher in Feminism, Christianity helped end loads of poverty and American slavery, the things that Eastern religions did are so numerous there's no way to choose which would be the best example whether it ranges from ending classism and the oppression of the shogunate to bringing light to issues such as Colonialism and ending oppression from even their own governments. Religion wages wars that men who would truly rather benefit from do not; while it is often a scapegoat so such is anything that is available to the greedy man and the contemptable.From "Atheism" today being associated with being intelligent, forward thinking, and progressive (of which it embodies none of this at face value) to Zen Buddism being a religion of "chilling out and relaxing" (which it's not) there's simply much to be had by truly studying and understanding one's brethren. Many religions do not suggest wiping out people. Jains, Taoists, Christianity (who follow the New Testament), and so forth do not say "slay everyone". (3) WealthProverbs 21:20 reads "The wise store up choice food and olive oil,but fools gulp theirs down." (https://www.biblegateway.com...)Islam bans interest (http://www.islamic-banking.com...) as it is seen as unethical.Hinduism speaks on proper spending and a lack of hoarding but also states that wealth is a principle and the gain of wealh and responsibility of wealth are good things (http://www.hinduwebsite.com...)"The sage does not hoard. The more he does for others, the more he has. The more he thereby gives to others, the ever more he gets." Taoism too speaks on money and management and he importance of charity. (http://www.taoistic.com...)Where then does this fail a man?
The world would be better off without religion.

Here to have a calm debate about religion. Note: I am anti-theist, skeptic, cynical and sarcastic, and what I say may offend you due to speaking my mind openly; but that is not the objective. To clarify:The world = Humanitywe'd be better off = the disatvantages outweigh the benefitsreligion = in this case organized religionsBOP is sharedRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - Further arguments and rebuttalsRound 5 - RebuttalsRound 4 - Rebuttals and conclusion.
Public Schools should have uniforms

First off there is no reason for there to be any school uniforms. Unless if you are in sports! Obviously, you wear them then.There might be alot of reasons. One, it breeds professionalism. But, if you look at it logically it doesn't make since to wear school uniforms like private schools do. Yes, us public school could be better with school uniforms mainly of the fact of that there wouldn't be a school dress code we all have to abed by...What? Please be more clear. Just a uniform but the only reason we don't is because public schools are from the state and the private schools are not.. NOT SCHOOL OF THE PUBLIC KIND FOR UNIFORMS!!!!I did not understand Con.Freedom of Expression doesn't count. Imagine being in a wedding and you talk about how sexy one of the newlyweds are in bed would get you kicked out. You being kicked out is 100% just.As such to school can send you with better clothes if yours don't reach the wanted way.
Public Schools should have uniforms

First off there is no reason for there to be any school uniforms. Unless if you are in sports! Obviously, you wear them then. But, if you look at it logically it doesn't make since to wear school uniforms like private schools do. Yes, us public school could be better with school uniforms mainly of the fact of that there wouldn't be a school dress code we all have to abed by... Just a uniform but the only reason we don't is because public schools are from the state and the private schools are not.. NOT SCHOOL OF THE PUBLIC KIND FOR UNIFORMS!!!!
The sale of dog meat is legal in most states in the USA.

Hello, I accept. Here are my reasons why selling dog meat should not be legalized. 1. Stray dogs are mostly not vaccinated. They are very likely going to transfer and spread their diseases if they bite or scratch the dog butchers in "high risk" (1). 2. As many of the dogs that are slaughtered are stray dogs, there are higher chances that a person who is consuming its meat can die as a result of rabies and other diseases (2). SOURCES: (1) http://www.acpagroup.org... (2) http://www.onegreenplanet.org...
The sale of dog meat is legal in most states in the USA.

Your response is straying away from the topic. Your topic is "The sale of dog meat is legal in most states in the USA". This sentence has the word "legal" in it, implying that dog meats can be sold in butcher shops, supermarkets, grocery stores, meat shops, etc. or in other words, it can be sold commercially, and that states would allow that which of course I proved wrong. You also agreed with me that selling dog meat commercially is illegal yet you said that private sales are legal. Where is your proof on that? You provided references that do not even mention private sale of dog meat is legal in any state. No, selling dog meat in a local farmer's market is still illegal. Are neighbours selling dog meat okay? Well, if they slaughtered their own dog then I guess they can sell its meat. However, if they turned it into a business and or start dog meat trafficking then that is illegal unless there is a valid license allowing them to do so which I highly doubt. My position stands that commercially selling dog meat is illegal but personal consumption is legal.
The sale of dog meat is legal in most states in the USA.

Ok, I might have been confused with your statement in round one since you wrote "I've been arguing that we should legalize dog meat in the USA."You said that the sale of dog meat is legal in most states in the USA.The answer is NO. In 44 states, you can personally consume dog meat but you cannot commercially sell it. According to this article, it is illegal to sell dog meat in supermarkets and restaurants but you can humanely kill the dog and consume it at home (1). At the end, it depends on the state whether or not this classifies as animal cruelty. Some states, like Virginia, prohibit people from unnecessary killing of dogs unless exempted for "farming activities". In California, consuming and selling a carcass of an animal traditionally kept as a pet is prohibited. In Georgia, it is illegal to sell dog meat for human consumption. In New York, butchering domesticated dogs and cats as meat or meat products for animal and human consumption is prohibited.SOURCES:(1) https://www.consumeraffairs.com...
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

I thank Con for their reply.Lack of detection does not prove the alien mothership does not existAlot of Cons counterargument rests on the premise that we have lack of evidence of the alien mothership. As Con says..."In order for this definition and the resolution to be true then there has to be some logically connected way that an alien mothership has been suspended within the area of Earth's atmosphere without being detected by humanity." But notice the hidden assumption, it assumes that if the alien ship exists that we would detect its existence. But what if the alien ship had a cloaking device and/or took measure to hide themselves ? Unless Con can prove that its impossible for the alien ship to exist without detection then the lack of detection does not prove the alien ship as a logical impossibility. Logically possible vs PlausiblePlausible = (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable [1]Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean its plausible and/or likely to be true. After all, what ever probability you assign to the existence of aliens, is lowered once you add them having an alien ship, which is lowered again once you add a cloaking device, etc.So I grant the alien proposition is utterly implausible based on the various evidence and observations given by Con, such as lack of detection, suspension of movement by the ship, etc. Never the less, this doesn't prove that an alien ship hovering above earth is IMPOSSIBLE just that its implausible. As such its still possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth.Over to you Con.Sources [1] http://www.google.com.au...
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

Definitions Con has added some definition information in regard to hovering. Cons definition seems to restrict hovering to the "air". Air here could be interpreted as the earths atmosphere. .. "a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere. " [1] My intention by saying hovering within the context of the alien mothership was something more along the lines of the ship being in the earths atmosphere or just outside of it, like existing in the thermosphere or exosphere. Cons source also allows for a more general understanding of hovering as it says. .. "to keep lingering about; wait near at hand. " [2] There is no logical contradiction in the claim that an alien mothership is hovering above the earth Wikipedia explains. .. "A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true" [3] Conclusion: Therefore its possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth I look forward to Cons reply. Sources [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!DefinitionsAliens = Extraterrestrial life (from the Latin words: extra ("beyond", or "not of") and‎ terrestris ("of or belonging to Earth")) is defined as life that does not originate from Earth. Mothership = A vessle of some sort that is used to travel through space by aliens.Earth = Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and thedensest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in theSolar System.Possible = A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

The premis of my arguments was that these things will make detection of an alien mothership impossible to miss. Eventually waste will be detected if it keeps being released regularly as it must. I must point out that my opponent has dropped a major piece of my argument in that the energy concerns of operating such a spacecraft would be impossible to miss. They have completely avoided the fact that it is impossible, as by the laws of physics, to hide so much energy from modern instruments. With so many satelites, telescopes and technological devices orbiting the Earth it would be impossible to hide the things that requires such a ship to run. 1) There is an alien mothership hovering above earth2) We don't detect an alien mother ship hovering above earth3) It would be impossible not to detect a mothership hovering over Earth due to the points outlined throughout this debate4) If we do not detect a mothership hovering over Earth there is no mothershipMy opponent misses the fact that based on my arguments it would be impossible for such a ship to hide from modern technology. Through my points, logic, common sense and the laws of nature I have clearly pointed out that in the circumstances pointed out in the Resolution it would be impossible to miss an alien mothership hoving over Earth therefore if we do not detect one there is no mothership therefore the resolution is impossible.
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

I thank Con for their reply.The alien mother ship does not have to break known laws to avoid detectionCon implies that for the alien ship to exist and avoid detection it would have to break some known laws of physics. Con doesn't prove this he merely asserts it. For example Con talks about how the aliens must produce waste. But so what ? just because we don't detect waste by aliens doesn't mean they don't exist.Con merely asserts that a hovering alien mothership will be hit by objects in orbit. Why is it not possible for an alien mothership to not be hit by an object in orbit around the earth ? why can't the alien mothership dodge it ? why can't the alien mothership alter the course of an object ? Why can't the alien mothership be in a position that will not get hit by objects ? Con merely asserts it MUST get hit, but even if it gets hit that's not enough to prove its impossibility because it assumes that you would detect such an event and that's not certain.I anticipate Con will say that if the alien ship moves it is no longer hovering. I would point out that an alien ship that hovers then moves to avoid an object then goes back to hovering is still within the claim that an alien mother ship is hovering above earth.Lack of detection does not prove the alien mothership does not existCon once again makes the same mistake as in the previous round, assuming that if the alien ship exists then we would detect it. Con presents two propositions which are claimed to be contradictory those been.....1) There is an alien mothership hovering above earth2) We don't detect an alien mother ship hovering above earthBut there is no logical contradiction between these two premises, this can be shown by adding a third premise....3) The alien ships exists and has not been detected.ConclusionIn short Con has not been able to show a logical impossibility that an alien mothership hovering above earth exists. Cons arguments about lack of detection of such a ship doesn't prove it doesn't exist and Cons claims about such a ship needs to break known physic laws to remain undetected is an unsupported assertion.Now just because it is possible does that mean we should believe the alien ship exists ? of course not, as I already said the proposition is implausible, never the less its still a strict LOGICAL possibility and thus the resolution is affirmed.I ask the vote go to Pro.I thank Con for the debate.
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

LogicI would like to point out that my points were made to prove the logical impossibility of such an object existing over Earth. If you go back and read through I have pointed out some things that must be obeyed by the laws of physics. Things that must be true following the laws of physics. - Living things produce waste [3]- Energy must be given off and taken in- An object must take up space [1]- Energy cannot be created or destroyed [2]- Matter cannot be created or destroyed [1]Things that must be true based on the resolution. - The ship resides within the exosphere- The ship is not moving within orbitTherefore: - Since living things must produce waste and matter cannot be created or destroyed waste will be created- Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it will emmit from the ship- Since an object must take up space, and said object is immobile, objects orbiting the Earth will collide with the shipThus under the circumstances provided and the facts given, all abiding by the laws of physics and nature the existence of an alien mothership hovering over the Earth is impossible. This renders your second point irrelevant. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Power corrups a few but weakness corrupts many

I guess my opponent can begin, seeing as he has the burden of proof. I'll define the verb "corrupt" as 1. to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., esp. by bribery. or 2. to lower morally; pervert: to corrupt youth. http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent has the burden of proof, so after he sets up I'll follow his framework to prove him wrong.
Arguing for the existence of God is akin to arguing that two and two make five.

Good evening, Tatarize. Thank you for posing this debate. I will relish the challenge. Tatarize, there is a simple incongruity between the two things you are attempting to make equal: one is disprovable, the other is not. In our three dimensions and in our limited minds, it is easily that two and two does not make five. We can collect all the data relevant to this question, and we can conclude from it. In fact, every human with a sound mind (and quite a few without) can comprehend this concept. It is as simple as night and day. Within the scope of human reason, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. To prove that God exists, we would need all available data. We do not have it, and even if we did, the data about every atom in the galaxy would be too much to comprehend, much less form an argument from it. Provided we could, I believe it would show the existence of God somehow. I have no idea how. You believe it would not. We have no way of proving this. That is within a reason wider than our own. However, even within human reason, the incongruity is apparent. Simply, no one on earth believes that two and two make five. However, billions of people believe in the existence of a god, or gods. Moreover, they regard this as the logical, reasonable conclusion. If human reason is the ultimate standard, then, God is irrevocably proved. You say that a 14-year old with a basic grasp of argument could easily win an argument with a pack of theologians about whether God exists or not. Well, Tatarize, I'll believe it when I see it. You are not arguing that God does not exist, you are arguing that the debate over His existence is logically similar to the argument (which no one has ever seriously made) that two and two equal five. This is obviously false. Thanks again, Sola Gratia.
Arguing for the existence of God is akin to arguing that two and two make five.

For the sake of argument by God I mean a mainstream accepted Abrahamic deity. I contend that there is a fairly similar nature between arguing in one of the two main staples of this site: the God debate and the math debate. I freely admit that on the quality and substance of the debate they are fairly distinct, however on the logic and unreasonable nature of the conclusion they have a strong kinship. This is the point I'm arguing. In the math debate one is asked to argue for a conclusion 'five' whereas there are strong arguments conclusion 'four'. This is similar to arguing for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good deity who wants to and is able to destroy all evil and suffering and yet evil exists. Sure, you could posit something like Free Will and God cannot violate Free Will. However, there is much suffering which doesn't result from decisions made by people like those of natural disasters but also this is middle knowledge theodicy is a bit like trying to add one into the equation to make it fit. Likewise the tactic of making a pretty long argument to try and hide the fact that they divided by zero and store the mistake in this undefined error is similar to many theodicy. The kinship on the logic and reasonable nature shared by the two debates is overwhelmingly evident by the trouncing the con makes over the pro at every turn. The debates are usually evident by the second round that con is utterly destroying the arguments made by pro. Typically the arguments of pro so weak as to warrant an eyeroll and hardly require the con to come along and trounce it. On the substance there is a difference. On the strength, logic, and reasonable aspect they are two peas in a pod. You could line up the experts on mathematics or theology on one side and some 14-year old with a basic grasp of the arguments on the other and the kid would easily trounce anybody advocating for an unreasonable conclusion like two plus two equals five or that God exists.
Rap Battle

So, I did a little search for your lines, On the web, and found you for your crimes, For every last word was plagiarized: [1] So to the one voter who almost voted for him: put on the brakes Because every line he claimed came from his mind was fake Consider this your death note, On it, your name I wrote, No place for you to win a vote, Clearly, like weed in Colorado, you've been smoked, with Every line, you were smote, like a" Dragon, drowned in the castle's moat Easily killed, like Em did to T.I. in "That's All She Wrote" Now look at the first letter of each line, and read them down, For that's what you did in the last damn round Giving the battle to me by forfeit, b*tch, you drowned And the last thing you hear will be the sound Of the Phoenix calling out For you to get the hell out of my town [1] http://www.rap-royalty.com... Thanks for the debate, seriously. You might want to make up your own raps next time though."
Rap Battle

Ok your rhymes are better than I was expecting But your impersonal puns aren't affecting" me, because I'm the f*cking best Emcee, Do I need to bring Justin Bieber to make you Believe? See all your rhymes are generic, Coulda fit to anyone, "Hey, let's stick a Phoenix in there and a couple puns, And call it done"" I already spelled it out for you why you'll lose For you it will be L's-for me, W's And you make fun of me for collecting exams, But it's because you just got schooled, man Damn See, you call my decline steep, But that implies I was on top, and you peaked When you attempted to battle me Even Vanilla Ice said "He's no Emcee" So if you know what's good for you, You'll turn around and run back to Your home and hide under the covers Because like aliens, Xenology is never getting discovered And you have to explain some bars in parentheses cuz they don't make sense You rap as if voters are even on the fence" Between you and I, they've chosen me, so yes I'll ascend I have the monopoly on the rap game, gimme the rent" You can't dodge a dodgeball, or a wrench, And when your stupid puns are all spent And when your sh*t rhymes came and went, It'll be only Phoenix, rising from the ashes, left "