BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT there should be no gay marriage

Your proposal of having a religious marriage and a civil marriage is extremely well thought-through and reasonable; however, you are not the commander of the universe, as in you are mostly powerless to do anything do change the marriage laws. This particular debate is about the existing marriage laws for gay peope and therefore although your point would be great in another situation, it is invalid here. Also, yes, a small perentage of the religious community says no to gay marriage. Regardless of how much that particular religious community is against gay marriage, it is wrong of them to impose their opinion on others. I, by no means am telling people that we should just ignore the group of people against gay marriage's opinion but other people shouldn't have to conform to their personal religious beliefs. History has proven time and time again that most traditional beliefs are wrong like children being seen and not heard and the people of the same gender being not allowed to get married is another one of them. Thanks.
THBT there should be no gay marriage

My proposal:Currently, in 'marital' life a person can have 3 statuses. Married, single, or in a civil partnership (which before the laws were passed was legal for the LGBTQ community). The word 'marriage' started with only religious origins, and has begun to be recognised by the state- but it's not a matter of one size fits all. You need to have a religious marriage, and a civil marriage. I therefore suggest that we abolish the term marriage as a civil concept, and only have civil partnerships, to which all the benefits of marriage would accrue.If the word marriage ceases to have any meaning, there will be no gay marriage which satisfies the resolution.For the purposes of religion, let us assume that roughly 5% of the religious community says no to gay marriage. If, as Pro says YES, gay marriage all the time then that is infringing upon the rights of that community.Thank you.
THBT there should be no gay marriage

Firstly, gay (and lesbian) people have the right to get married because, quite frankly, they're humans too. If "straight" people are allowed to get married, so can gay people. If I put it out there plainly, marriage is not a religious ritual. Some might argue that marriage is an "institution ordained by God between a man and a woman" but there are plenty of atheists who get married. Neither is marriage a system to get children. Marriage is a legal contract. By denying gay people to get married, we are excluding them from our society. Yes, it is just a certificate, a little slip of paper that you could easily lose but to some gay people, it means the world to them so why not just let them get the marriage certificate they've wanted for so long? This would be a big step to gay people finally being able to fit into our society. Some politicians get all worked up and excited when it comes to racism and colour discrimination but if not allowing gay people to get married isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.
I am bad at debating on this website

The fact that you might win this debate would prove that your not really bad at argueing because you beat me at this debate but then again, If I won this debate it would count as a loss on your part, however, it would also say that your good with debating on this website. It could go either way. I would just find it funny though if I won this debate and you lose this one lol. "First off, I lost a debate to a guy who's argument supported my side the entire time. I am obviously a bad debater if I lost a debate all of the arguments were for my side and the opponent won. The opponent not only won, but he dominated-he won like 22 to 7" Like I said, the voters were probably either being stupid and/or they thought it would be funny if they would make it if the other guy won. You obviously deserve to win. If the voters took that debate more seriously then you probably would of won the debate.
I am bad at debating on this website

So, what if you won 80 arguements and lost 2 arguements? I would think that you would be really good at it. Just becasue you lost 2 arguements doesn't mean that your bad." This is not the case for me, though. I am 0-3 right now. I have done three debates, and I have lost all three of them. Since I have entered numerous debates and lost all of them, it proves I am a bad debater. "That's because the people voting probably would just find it ironic if they voted for the other person. You have come close to beating me on the gay marriage arguement if not already." First off, I lost a debate to a guy who's argument supported my side the entire time. I am obviously a bad debater if I lost a debate all of the arguments were for my side and the opponent won. The opponent not only won, but he dominated-he won like 22 to 7. It does not matter if I came close to beating you on the gay marriage debate. I am currently losing. If you readers vote con, you are saying that I am a good debater. If you vote pro you are saying I'm a bad debater. Thank you
I am bad at debating on this website

"Losing arguments does mean that a person is bad at debating on this website. I got crushed by The Skeptic on the homosexual marriage debate." So, what if you won 80 arguements and lost 2 arguements? I would think that you would be really good at it. Just becasue you lost 2 arguements doesn't mean that your bad. "Worst of all, I lost a debate against youngpolitic, when youngpolitic's argument clearly supported my side of the argument. In the first round, his argument clearly supported my side. Then in the following rounds, he posted no argument. Clearly I must be a bad debater to lost to a person who supported my side of the case. I haven't come closing to winning one debate yet." That's because the people voting probably would just find it ironic if they voted for the other person. You have come close to beating me on the gay marriage arguement if not already. "Obviously, I am a bad debater. (P.S. if you vote for Con, you are saying I am a good debater)" P.S. I know, I really do think that your a decent debater. I wouldn't really say that your really great but I wouldn't say your bad either. I would say that your good but not very good.
I am bad at debating on this website

Losing arguments does mean that a person is bad at debating on this website. I got crushed by The Skeptic on the homosexual marriage debate. Worst of all, I lost a debate against youngpolitic, when youngpolitic's argument clearly supported my side of the argument. In the first round, his argument clearly supported my side. Then in the following rounds, he posted no argument. Clearly I must be a bad debater to lost to a person who supported my side of the case. I haven't come closing to winning one debate yet. Obviously, I am a bad debater.
I am bad at debating on this website

"I am bad at debating on this website. I lost my first debate to The Skeptic on homosexual marriage, and now I'm losing to youngpolitic in a debate where his case supported the side I was on. Case closed: I am bad at debating on this website" Just because you lost an arguement or two doesn't mean your bad at debating on this website. You put up a pretty good arguement against me on the "Gay Marriage" debate.
Religion has been, for the most part, a highly negative force in the world.

I thank Atheist1096 (Pro) for this debate. As introduction, I would say, blaming religions, ideologies, philosophies for bad things happened to human kind is little bit silly (or fallacious). Because religions, ideologies or philosophies can do nothing by themselves, it is the humans how implement these things. Therefore blame is on humans, not ideologies or religions.A. Terrorism, Violence and AbuseAs ex-USSR citizen I would say, Pro is not aware of what Atheist State by Constitution had done to its people. At least terrorists kill people, but tortures done in the cells of KGB are just unspeakable. Instead of T.V.A. religion gives mercy and justice, like Omar ibn Khattab (r.a., second caliph of Islam), Tariq ibn Ziyad (conqueror of Iberia), Salahuddin Ayyubi (you know who he is), and Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha (Admiral of Navy of Ottomans) - they all saved Jews and Christians from Jews and Christians.The terrorist acts done by Muslim is not something traditional, but rather new invention. The best example is Ayman Al-Zavahiri's grandfather, Rabia'a al-Zawahiri - scholar, Imam at Al-Azhar University, one of the authors of Constitution of Egypt, and also Ayman's great-uncle Abdel-Rahman Azzam, was the first secretary of the Arab League. [1]Does the terrorist acts done by Muslims are caused by Islam? Answer is NO, according to experts. Robert Pape [2] said in one his interviews "a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." [3] Michael Scheuer [4] says almost the same thing. Also he said "I don't consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter." [5]B. Political InfluencePolitical view of each person is influenced by something. It is not really an argument. And using LGBT as example also is fallacious. In Iran transsexuals are officially recognized, and they can go sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. [6] Also Evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula in Iran (and other Muslim Majority Countries). [7,8]C. Education and Scientific Thought & MedicineIslamic History proves Pro's argument on this issue to be false. Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Medicine, Transportation, Logic and etc. exists today thanks to Muslims.Al-Biruni, Al-Jabri, Nasir Al-Din Tusi, Ibn Sina are just enough to prove my point.Actually, in Islam, education is a commandment from God (and also, seeking medical treatment [9]). Throughout the history Muslims had high number of public schools, libraries, and hospitals. (But their number rapidly decreased after colonization.)[1] - http://edition.cnn.com...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] - http://www.theamericanconservative.com... (I suggest you to read this article)[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] - http://en.wikiquote.org...[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] - http://yjhm.yale.edu...
Religion has been, for the most part, a highly negative force in the world.

Premise: Religion is a dangerous aspect of human life. Keeping it away from essential spheres of human life such as education, politics, healthcare etc., is of utmost importance. The one who accepts this challenge is expected to refute this statement. First round is preferably for acceptance, but I don't mind if the con begins his/her arguments right away. There are no specific rules for this debate.
Language is for communication.

Due to this untimely turn of events, i am unable to post a conclusion, i will renounce my satus so far in respect for Con as i have now missed two rounds. I did wish to contribute more on this debate; however i am in no way a warden of time. I thankyou for the opportunity to debate and apologise for the lack of consistency that was required by signing up to this debate. Thankyou. ~Kryptic
Language is for communication.

Note: Sidewalker has taken this debate. It will remain up until we start it in around a week :) Note: This debate should be impossible to accept. If you find a clever way to work around the rules, you automatically forfeit all seven points. If you would like to debate, please say so in the comments after reading this opening round.I do not plan to start this for a week or so. I started early as I don't think many may be willing to take this.ResolutionThe full resolution is as follows: 'Resolved: The primary function of language is communication.'Definitions -Language - A complex semiotic system to express a large variety of ideas used by humans (we are excluding animal language)-Communication - The transmission of data and information from (an) individual(s) to other individual(s)-Primary - mainRules1. Debate structure:R1: Con posts opening arguments or accepts.R2-3: Arguments and rebuttals. If Con posted opening arguments in R1, he or she should also post his or her conclusion here.R4: Arguments and conclusion. If Con posted opening arguments in R1, he or she should waive this round.2. No trolling, no kritiks. Semantics allowed for obvious reasons, but not for any words in the resolution.3. In general, all arguments should be posted inside the debate, but if you are really busy, I will accept arguments posted in the comments shortly after your forfeiture of the round.4. BOP is on Pro.5. I'll probably change the definitions and full resolution during the challenge period. You are welcome to give suggestions for their betterment.By the way...I know this is highly atypical of me, but I didn't create this debate to win. I created this debate to learn more about the topic through debating, so I won't be a sore loser at all!Good luck!
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

My opponent claims, essentially, that given the definition of God, God must exist. This gets things backwards. All knowledge comes through experience. A definition does not come out of nowhere, it has to be based on a body of observational knowledge that we have acquired. For example, the definition "man is the rational animal" is legitimate, because it explains countless observations about human nature - the fact that we can speak grammatically, the fact that we can build airplanes, and so on. A definition that is not based on observation, like "God is a being than which none greater can be imagined," is illegitimate. If a concept isn't based on evidence, it cannot be knowledge, it can only be empty words or an expression of emotion. My opponent may have some feelings or mental images that he associates with this definition, but that does not establish that it has cognitive value. Since my opponent's argument is based on an illegitimate definition, his argument is unsound. Thank you.
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury discovered a way to prove God's existence through though itself. It is through the idea of a God, that is perfect, sentient, all powerful, all good, all knowing, distinct, separate, holy, uncopy-able, and not capable of being destroyed. This comes through the thought of something that nothing greater can be imagined. The premises are: 1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) 6. Therefore, God exists.
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

To conclude this debate as clearly as possible, I will remind everyone of the resolution: "Anselm's ontological argument for God is sound." That is what we are debating. We are not debating the theory of evolution, nor are we debating the teleological argument, Galileo, or a number of other things my opponent discussed in his last speech. All we are debating is Anselm's ontological argument, as presented by my opponent in Round 1. Throughout this debate, I have defended an objection to the first premise of my opponent's argument. That premise, again, was: "It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined)." My objection to this premise has been that it is not a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be conceived, because that definition is not based on any observed facts. It is not a conceptual truth, it is only an expression of emotion. The success or failure of this objection is the only thing that this debate should be judged on. My opponent has given essentially the following responses to this objection in his last post, which are mostly repetitions of previously refuted points: 1. Our senses might be wrong, we might be dreaming all the time, you can't prove that you don't live in the Matrix, etc. 2. The scientific method is flawed. 3. Reason is necessary to make sense of evidence. Let's consider these one by one. Point 1 overlooks a response that I have given many times, which is that all of these are just arbitrary suggestions with no basis in fact. If someone says "there might be a group of goblins reading Hegel on Jupiter," the rational response is not to evaluate the claim, it is to dismiss it out of hand. Similarly, when someone says "you might be plugged into the Matrix," the rational response is not to consider their assertion, but to reject it without consideration. That's the rational way to treat any arbitrary claim. Point 2 overlooks the massive consensus that exists about the fundamental principles in the hard sciences, from physics to chemistry to biology. Science has built up an impressive edifice of knowledge starting from sensory data. To be skeptical about the scientific method is absurd. Point 3 is simply a repetition of a point I have addressed before. Empiricism doesn't deny that reason is necessary to make sense of evidence, it just says that our reasoning always has to be based on evidence at bottom. I conclude that my opponent has never adequately addressed my objection to Anselm's ontological argument. For these reasons, we should negate the resolution. Thank you.
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

I will restate myself to the fact that my definition of God is "illegitimate." I've defined God as the ultimate, perfect being, that created the universe. That being is a sentient, all-powerful, all good, and all knowing being. I will answer the objections made with counter-objections point-by-point: 1. Rational thinking is a way of knowing things in philosophy. You can't just throw it out. A lot of concepts that we take for granted are rational thinking. Do we believe in the presence of other minds? Do we believe that when we aren't watching, objects and organisms underneath humans that science has told us aren't as intelligent as us, are not as intelligence as us and aren't acting dumb to fool us? Is it believable to say that this universe is real and/or people in the universe aren't just actors in a conspiracy? Do we trust the scientific method is yield truth to us? Was a watch or our website, DDO, made by (an) unintelligent force(s) of nature? Yes, but we can't prove it until we have evidence or a REASON to think so. The scientific method is limited by a causal relationship and what we observe empirical. All these things we take for granted, and are rational thoughts. Empiricism can only go so far. 2. So the greatest idea ever thought isn't necessary to exist? Yes, it does, because the greatest idea ever thought (everything is the best and perfect) is a sentient, all-powerful, all good, and all knowing being which is God. How can the greatest think ever thought NOT exist? It is inconceivable. God is supernatural, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is the Argument from Ignorance. 3. I've already addressed this. 4. Can we know everything about God, the greatest idea ever thought? We can't know EVERYTHING about the greatest idea ever thought? No, but we can say that He or She is higher sentient being than any other, all-powerful, all good, all knowing, and that idea must exist. 5. I've already addressed this. 6. Changing the subject, because the argument is not based on observable facts is avoiding the argument that "that which no greater can be conceived" is God and is not what this argument is all about. If you don't accept or understand "the greatest idea ever thought" because it is not based on empiricism, then you can't really think at all, because all you have is empiricism. Senses are just facts, and you can't draw conclusions from them, like the scientific method or any of the other examples I made. Rational ideas are also a way of knowing that something is true.
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

In my previous post, I argued that Anselm's ontological argument is not sound, because it depends on an illegitimate definition of God. My reason for asserting that Anselm's definition of God was illegitimate was that it was not based on observational evidence, which is a prerequisite for a valid definition. My opponent has made a number of points in response to this objection, which are as follows. 1. Anselm is a rationalist, not an empiricist. 2. There is no way to empirically prove that God exists in this life. 3. We can know that God exists through the "greatest idea ever thought." 4. Anything less than "that than which no greater can be thought" is not God. 5. I am arguing from ignorance when I say that there is no evidence for God. 6. I am changing the subject, a red herring fallacy. Let's consider these points one by one. With respect to point 1, I agree that Anselm is a rationalist, not an empiricist. But this, by itself, is not enough to save the ontological argument. There are countless schools of philosophy in the history of Western thought, so naming a school that Anselm belonged to is not a sufficient rebuttal. Maybe the whole school of rationalism is misguided. With respect to point 2, I agree that there is no way to empirically prove that God exists, but far from saving the ontological argument, this is simply a concession of my case. My whole point in my Round 1 speech was that the definition of God cannot be supported by evidence. Adding that this is because God is "supernatural or spiritual" does not help either, because I don't acknowledge the existence of either of those categories in the first place. With respect to point 3, I don't agree that we can know God exists through his definition, because, as I said in Round 1, I think the definition of God is invalid. With respect to point 4, I don't think it makes sense to say that anything less than "that than which no greater can be thought" is not God, because that definition isn't based on evidence. It is not a cognitive assertion in the first place, as I said in Round 1. It is just empty words or an expression of emotion. With respect to point 5, I am not arguing from ignorance because the debate resolution is "Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound." You are arguing that the resolution is true, i.e., that Anselm's ontological argument is sound. I am arguing that the resolution is false, i.e., that Anselm's ontological argument is not sound. To win the debate, all I have to do is point out a flaw in Anselm's ontological argument, which I did in Round 1. With respect to point 6, I am not changing the subject or committing a red herring fallacy. I am simply making an objection to Anselm's ontological argument based on the theory of concepts that I accept. I have introduced some new issues into the debate, but this is legitimate because they are directly relevant issues. To sum up, my opponent has not presented a cogent response to my objection to Anselm's ontological argument.