BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

con has astonished me. 1. Just because accomplished thinkers believed in God does not make God exist. why do you think so? please give sound reason. 2. you did not give me any solid reason why atheists think that the world has no meaning and purpose. is it the faith of atheists? 3. i am presupposing it because from the way atheists attack theists, it appears to me that atheists are always attacking Christianity, Judaism and Islam. atheists did not attack on the gods of Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. why it is so? i saw many debates of eminent atheists like richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens on youtube. there they always attack Christianity, Judaism and Islam. they never mention a word against Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. from this i think the main basis of atheism is the faults of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. if this is so, then i will request atheists to look into other religions like Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. before renouncing god completely.
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

1. This is not logical. "therefore god must exist." No. Just because accomplished thinkers believed in God does not make God exist. 2. Atheists know what is presented to them. And what's presented to them is a world void of greater meaning and purpose. 3. Atheists deny the existence of all gods. "there must be a god . . ." Why are you presupposing this?
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

1. eminent scientists like sir francis bacon, kepler, newton, lord kelvin, descartes, max planck, einstein , newton all believe in god despite open practice of atheism in their time. these scientists shaped the world of science. they must have credibility . therefore god must exist. 2. atheists believe that the world has no meaning or purpose. but how atheists know that? why do atheists think that? 3. atheists actually love to attack the believes of 3 dominant religion of the world: christianity, judaism and islam. all their arguments used to counter the arguments given by these 3 religions. but there are other religions who profess a different kind of god.those religions are: buddhism, taoism, shintaoism, zen, jainism, wicca, shamanism etc. atheists never consider these religions. they never challenged nor tried these religions. therefore their (atheist) investigation is incomplete. their knowledge is incomplete. there must be a god but not necessarily he be a christian god or jewish god or muslim god. may be a different kind of god. con is requested not to bring arguments that attack only dominant trio : christianity, judaism and islam. rather con is requested to give direct answer to my arguments stated above.
The Implementation of Competitive Matchmaking for Team Fortress 2 will be a benefit.

Con has accepted this debate, though his response was extremely minimal, and therefore he accepts the terms of said debate, with that said, let's begin. (Excuse the extreme amount of rust you may see from me.)First off, I, as the Pro, define "benefit" in the parameters of this debate to mean "a good or helpful result". [1] And in terms of Team Fortress 2, it is Pro's stance that the implementation of competitive matchmaking into Team Fortress 2 will bring positive results from more than one angle, and I plan to show all of these angles.Contention One - Aid for current teams.If you look back to a previous debate of mine, titled "Competitive Team Fortress 2 is dying." [2] I show the statistics and numbers to prove that not only is there a competitive scene, but that it is doing a decent job of surviving. That said, my argument here is hypothetical. If a person were looking to join or create a team today with no previous idea of where they would be able to go, chances are high that they would flounder and eventually give up. Now imagine that matchmaking is included, now you have the added benefit of playing with a group of like-minded individuals who also may want to find a team, or players for a team they are creating. To expand upon this, a already formed team could easily go into a matchmaking game and use it for the purpose of practicing teamwork, positioning, or just the game in general, and as such, I hold firm on my argument that matchmaking will aid teams.Contention Two - It gives players a goal.Team Fortress 2 has been around since October 10th, 2007, as shown by the game's Steam page. [3] Since then, most players have come and gone frequently, with many players playing for fun, or leaving the game once they are the best in the servers they play, with no idea of the competitive scene that has been alive and kicking since the games release, and while players always come and go, I know for a fact that a larger percent of competitive players stay with the game than those who play casually. For example, the American player B4nny [4], has been playing competitive Team Fortress 2 since season 2. To put that in perspective, the year generally has three seasons, and if we are on season 18 now, that means b4nny has been playing competitive Team Fortress 2 for about 6 years. He continues to play, not only because he loves the game, but because he has the end goal of being the best. This gives to my argument that having matchmaking would give players a goal. I'll be saving some of my arguments for countering purposes, with that said, I give it over to Con. (It's good to be back.)1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com... (First definition.)2 - http://www.debate.org... 3 - http://store.steampowered.com... 4 - http://comp.tf...
The Implementation of Competitive Matchmaking for Team Fortress 2 will be a benefit.

Since I haven't done a debate in quite a long time, I figured that there would be no better way for me to get back into it by first whetting myself with a debate that I'm familiar with and won'r require much research, just for funsies.Rules:1. Do NOT accept this debate if you don't know what this is about, I don't have time to debate with somebody who doesn't understand the basics of the argument at hand. If you accept this debate and violate this rule, you forfeit the debate, because I'm not going to waste x number of characters to explain the argument. (That said, if you have a basic understanding, but don't know some of the concepts, PM me and ask, I'll anwser any and all questions to help you.)2. This argument is about a video game, since it's a debate, you are entitled AND encouraged to have your own opinion, but it's a GAME, not politics, so don't get hot-headed and start calling names, it's unprofessional and I've dealt with it way to much already.3. You may use sources such as a valid website, a youtube video, reddit, anything along those lines, because like I've said, it's for a video game feature, so there isn't likely to be a whole bunch of documented research. Feel free to call out a source if it doesn't help or doesn't even matter. (Judges love that stuff.)4. You may use examples from other games. (Example: Counter-Strike.)5. Do not attempt to change any of these rules or add to them without making sure that both parties are in full awareness and agreement, failure to do so will result in a forfeit. 6. Finally, first round is for ACCEPTANCE ONLY! Please do not respond swinging, because not only will I argue back, I'll point out to the judge's that you broke a rule.Good luck to whoever accepts the debate, and I hope it's a good one.
the Seattle Seahawks are better than the New Orleans Saints

Thank you, Michaelphelps for your arguments. Record: After week 6, the Saints and Sehawks both sit at identical records of 5-1 through Week 6. However, the Saint's loss was to the Patriots, who are 5-1, and lost to the 4-2 Cincinati Bengals. The Seattle Seahawks loss was to the 4-2 colts, who have losses to the 3-2 Dolphins and 3-3 Chargers. The Seattle Seahawks best win was a 29-3 win over a 4-2 49ers team that was missing it's 3 best recivers. The New Orleans Saints have a victory at the 4-2 Chicago Bears 26-18 (which the Saints were leading, andading 26-10 with 2:00 left), and a 38-17 win over the Miami Dolphins, the same team that the Indianapolis Colts, who beat the Seahawks, lost to. Therefore, the Seahawks have had the tougher schedule, and more quality wins. Defense: After weeks 6, the Saints are only giving up an average of 338 yards per game, and have a 7-8 touchdown to interception ratio. Coaching: Sean Payton the Coach of the New Orleans Saints, has gone 13-3 and 11-5 in regulars seasons, and has a Super Bowl on his resume. Pete Carroll's best record in the regular season is 11-5, and has not gotten past the divisional round, therefore, he has yet to win the Super Bowl.
the Seattle Seahawks are better than the New Orleans Saints

Thanks to Con for his response; I will now present my remarksContention 1: Record:As of week 6 the Seahawks and Saints have identical records of 5-1. The saints are currently 2-1 in road games. Yet those wins came at the hands of mediocre opponents such are the Buccaneers currently sitting at 0-6. It is unfair to judge a team and how well they play on the road after just over a quarter of the season. As of week 6 the seahawks are winning games by an average 10.5 point differential which is third in the league vs the saints whose differential is 9.6 [1].Contention 2: Defense: "The New Orleans Saints are giving up only 14.6 points per game"Here you cited outdated statistics. As of week 6 the Seahawks stingy D only allows on average 15.7 points per game to opponents [1] vs the New Orleans Saints who average 17.2 points per game vs opponents. The seahawks defense has also forced 17 takeaways of opponents vs the Saints 12 [2].Contention 3: Coaching: Sean Payton does have quite the resume true but over his head coaching tenure in New Orleans he had a .663 Win record [3]. But in Pete Carroll's last two years with the Seahawks he has an almost .700 win record. I would like to thank my opponent, the audience and the voters. See you next round.[1]http://www.sportingcharts.com...[2]http://espn.go.com...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
the Seattle Seahawks are better than the New Orleans Saints

There are numerous reasons why the New Orelans Saints are better than the Seattle Sehawks Record: The New Orleans Saints right now, have a 5-0 record, have won 2 road games, and have won their games by an average of 12.2 points per game. The Seattle Seahawks are 4-1, but have played much weaker competition, including game against the 0-5 Jacksonville Jaguars, and the 1-3 Carolina Panthers. The Seahawks have only played 2 games against teams with a winning record, going 1-1. Defense: The New Orleans Saints are giving up only 14.6 points per game, including only 17.5 points per game against teams with a winning record. The seattle Sehawks are giving up an average of 16.2 points per game, including an average of 18.5 points per game against teams with a winning record. Coaching: Sean Peyton, the coach of the New Orleans Saints, has gone an impressive 33-8 the past three sasons as head coach, and has won a Super Bowl. Pete Carroll, Coach of the Seattle Sehawks, has not advanced further than the divisional round, and has not won a Super Bowl.
Fire is better than water

Fires are hot, therefore waters not hot, which leads me to believe that- WAIT. *reads notes* oops. well anyway, fire is better than water because fire requires oxidation in order to be made and water is always there which is not that very good because bad not fat but big boned. Hello, this is Pizza Hut, may I take your order. Umm, I would like two large pepperoni pizzas and a 1.5 litre pepsi max plz. Im sorry, but we are all out of mountain dew. Oh- wait what? I ordered a pepsi max, not a mounta- I'm sorry but unfortunately we are closed, have a nice day! *throws phone at ground* *hits foot with said phone* *cri*
Fire is better than water

Although water can be hard to create, it is all around us. Water can be harvested from rivers, creeks, lakes, lagoons, seas, and even the sky above. Water doesn't need to be "created" as such, rather gathered. Fire must be created by people with the knowledge to do so, but anyone can find water, and is therefore more apparent in the world in which we inhabit. Another point I would like to bring up is how water is essential for survival in humans. Since humans bodies are made up of approximately 80% water, water must be drunken to maintain the water to salt ratio in our blood. Humans can hardly last a few days without water. On the other hand fire is almost entirely useless in a survival context, and because of this I believe that fire is NOT better than water.
Taxpayers have a moral obligation to financially support vulnerable members of the community.

The question to ask ourselves is whether my opponent has proven his broad resolution that taxpayers have a moral obligation to support vulnerable members of the community. My opponent has agreed with me that the government's moral duty per se is limited to legitimate claimants. However, he went on to say that it would be immoral to cut EVERYONE'S benefits simply because some claimants are not legitimate. I do not dispute the above. However, I dispute any conclusion that the government therefore has a duty to support all claimants, including all illegitimate ones. The moral duty to support legitimate claimants can be discharged by implementing (so far as possible) a screening process to ensure that illigitemate claims are rejected. In cases where this is impossible or highly impracticable, the claimant can be given the benefit of the doubt. I would therefore agree with a resolution that "governments have a moral duty to support those vulnerable members of the community whose claims are (as best can be determined) legitimate". However, that is not a resolution my opponent has put. Given my argument and my opponent's concession, it is my contention that he has failed to prove his broad resolution. In relation to the "taxpayer" issue, I continue to maintain that the obligation lies with the government. Taxpayers have a moral and legal obligation to pay tax to the government. The responsiblity for promoting social progress and social cohesion lies with the government and not taxpayers. Otherwise, the contention would be that the community has that obligation, as opposed to taxpayers. The two terms are not synonymous. I maintain that taxpayers, not having control of the government's expenditure, cannot have any obligation as to how it is conducted. Imposing any such obligation would be unfair and impractical. A contention that taxpayers have a collective though not individual duty cannot hold water either. The entire collective body of taxpayers does not have control of how the government spends its money. Neither do voters (until the next election). If the government's duty is to be said to extend to anyone, it can only extend to the community it represents, irrespective of who within that community pays tax and who does not. In conclusion I contend that my opponent, notwithstanding his good intentions, has not proven his resolution as his broadly articulated proposition can not be supported by his argument. In the first issue he has sought to extend the government's moral duty without giving any consideration to the possibility of screening out a large number of illegitimate claims. In the second issue, he has formulated his proposition in such a way as to open it to a semantic attack; an attack which, in my submission, has succeeded.
Taxpayers have a moral obligation to financially support vulnerable members of the community.

Nevertheless, such abuses do occur and they cannot be completely eliminated. Therefore, the cost of supporting people who abuse the system must be built into the budget in the same way as well-run companies make a provision for bad debt. Certainly, the majority of claimants are in genuine need and it would be extremely immoral to punish them for the actions of the minority by withholding or reducing benefits for all claiments. That said, I do accept my opponent's second point that taxpayers and the electorate (and their representatives in government) are not necessarily the same people. For example, a sixteen year-old flipping burgers in a fast food restaurant may pay tax but not be entitled to vote, or a citizen living overseas will be entitled to vote yet pay no tax. Furthermore, as my opponent stated, the taxpayer does not directly control how the government spends his taxes and so, it must follow that, if a government that a taxpayer didn't vote for, spends tax revenue on buying toxic debts at face value from greedy and irresponsible investment bankers rather than ensuring that handicapped orphans are not forced to rely on charity handouts to fund their meagre existence, they cannot be held to account as individuals, either morally or legally. However, even though I accept this, the taxpayers as a whole, being the main source of income do have a moral responsibility to financially support those people less fortunate than themselves, even though, in practice, they are not in direct control of the process of distributing the necessary funds.
Taxpayers have a moral obligation to financially support vulnerable members of the community.

I have read so many debates on this site recently that have implied that most government benefit handouts are, in effect, subsidies paid to people who are too bone-idle to work, and I felt it was time to put the record straight. If possible, though, I would like to address this issue in the broader context of moral rights and wrongs, rather concentrate on any specific government's or political party's policies, although it might be useful to quote various examples to illustrate particular points. So, to begin: contrary to popular belief, people who claim state benefits are not all shiftless, work-shy spongers who are too indolent to get up off the couch and go out and work for a living. In most countries, this type of individual would not be entitled to benefits, or would have their benefits reduced or withdrawn. That said, there are undoubtedly people who do exploit state handouts, notably young women who deliberately get pregnant, or able-bodied people who feign clinical depression, in order to receive cash benefits and free public housing, but the remainder of claimants are in genuine financial need through no fault of their own and deserve support courtesy of the public purse. A modern civilised country cannot allow disabled citizens, war veterans, the elderly, the mentally infirm, orphaned children and other vulnerable members of society to rely solely on charity, when charitable donations cannot be guaranteed and may not be forthcoming. I therefore affirm that taxpayers have a moral obligation to financially support vulnerable members of the community. Thank you.
Tiger vs. Lion

An African lion is larger cat than a Bengal tiger,with average length of 3.5m with the tail and 227-270kg (500-600Ib) while tigers 3.1m, and 227-300kg(500-660Ib) Finally a lion is a better fighter. The world isn't all perfect. A male spends 4 years learning to fight. Then, it fight for food with females. and last, but not so important, a fight for a pride. Tigers only complete for territory and for a female. A lion will be the victorious about nine out of ten times because is is more aggressive, more swift, more intelligent, and dodges his opponent without a problem. There he uses his agility, balance, eye-coordination & condition which are higher developed than tigers. And there is a myth, that tigers limbs are noticeably larger. Yes you can see it harder on stripes but if a mane covers 60-80% of them, what are the chances that they will appear larger. A lion's job is to be a good fighter and the mane offers protection when a big chunch goes too far in the throat. They have much stronger paw swipe and slightly stronger bite force & ferocity. Lion claws are actually larger and used for pulling the prey to itself while eating prey. Their canines were compared on pictures : the skulls and the fangs are the same size. But that isn't the only reason why will the lion win. In Rome and Greece you can find statues of a lion on gates. They just knew that lions wins over tigers. A tiger was known to be the largest cat, but it's a myth. They do say that a tiger is larger, but their information says different. A tiger is just slightly more cunning and if not heavier. It does seem to have at least some chances to a lion but the decision fight is very often won by a lion e.g. animal face off. That was one example. Within those cats, their list of attributes is endless, but ,most of them are higher developed in a lion. The two cats are very powerful, fierce and dangerous cats. But the advantages of a lion throws the tiger's to the shade. There is a little chance that a tiger will win, unlike the victorious lion.
Tiger vs. Lion

That question was a problem since Romans. However archaeologists never find out who won. The most common thing is that people think tiger is the winner but somehow lion got this crown. There are some crazy people saying lion is king tiger god.That's funny , no one in the world know that title so how is this a title? It is just a imagination in someone's head who thought tiger is the god.Lions not for nothing got a huge status in human imagination. Lions always fight to end and to make some films people need as much as 3-5 tigers vs 1 lion.To make the film called Big Cage they needed 4 Male Bengal tigers and they were beaten one after another. they were definitely males because all of them have balls.Tigers in that film were all beaten and director of Big Cage still didn't see tiger winning. He decided to cut out lion killing , defeating and dominating tigers and not only HE chased that lion into cage but said that it was A tigress who chased lion. This was the biggest lie in history. Lions have almost no chance to loose with a tiger .A famous tiger EXPERT Kailash Sankhala Story of the indian tiger 1977 page 119 says a lion would beat a tiger. The tiger MIGHT have a chance to get out of this flair.Tigers because they live in deep jungles they are more flair and can swift out somehow and escape.lion wouldn't chase it, after 300 yards it will asume dominant posture.As tigers are hevier they are slower. In some fights tiger has only 2-4 hits or bites and they already get beaten. It'll took about 3-5 tigers to defeat a male lion.It IS not true that it is myth that lions are better fighters.Lions fight almost everyday for food.Territory fights are rare because tigers and lions territory can cover almost 130 kilometers squared. Now of cat experts and reporters will always appear lion as a king and champion fighter. Lions have 75-95% chance to dominate Bengal tiger.