BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

Pro has offered no evidence or arguments. Also pro has not even defined what "god" is.I can not offer any arguments considering, I don't know what were even talking about, however I will address pro's points. Pro says:"And God created people's minds to be extremely limited."P1) If god exists, he is perfectP2) God created usP3) If god created us, he would have created us perfectlyP4) We are not created perfectlyC1) God is not perfect, thus does not exist.I'm sure Pro agrees with P1.P2 is asserted by proP3 follows from P1, because a perfect being only has the capacity to do things perfectly.P4 is a fact that negates P1,P2.C1 naturally follows.I'm not sure P4 even really needs to be defended, just look back at human history, all the war and hate. You don't even need to do that, just closely observe your actions everyday and the irrationality will be apparent.Pro also says: "he has no beginning or end."Now this is incoherent.If there was no time or space before the universe , how would a god exist. So god would have to exist in no time and no space. That's the same as not existing. He could not have existed forever.For god to have no beggining, he would have had to experienced an infinite number of events already. However that's not possible because you can only approach infinity. Now would you please clarify what god you're talking about?
The movies better than the books. (Harry Potter)

I hereby put forward some more points which tells movies are better than books, The Social Aspect: We can go to the movies with our friends. More importantly,we can watch a movie at home with everyone gathered in the room chatting and eating and it is a very social experience. I don"t know about you, but when I read, I have had people steal the book out of my hands, throw water at me and clap their hands over my eyes to get my attention while I'm reading. It is not a social event. Action sequences :yes we can read action sequences but I find them quite dull. Particularly sword fights. Please do not describe everything single thrust and parry to me if you expect me to still be reading by the time the battle is over. However, in movies" they define the show don"t tell theory. It is a lot more exciting to watch a sword fight than to read a blow by blow commentary on a sword fight. And how can we forget about time. If I spend the entire weekend watching movies, I can probably knock over about twelve movies. Movies skip out a lot of detail that appears in books, plus they don"t need to describe scenes to you, they just flash a picture and move on. They are quicker in conveying the story.
The movies better than the books. (Harry Potter)

The reason why books are better is because of the time.. While reading, you learn the personal thoughts of each character. You learn and experience every detail the authors mind has. During the Harry Potter movies, you hardly ever know what Harry is actually thinking. The books are better than the movies because 1) The adventure is more in detail and the reader learns about each character from a persons view, while in a movie, you watch Harry instead of "be Harry.." 2) The movies do miss important details that the book had and gets the looks of the characters wrong. 3)Reading the books, you become emotional towards the characters because you get to look deep into their own thoughts. The adventure is greater and more personal in the books than the movies.
Food and Drink

Eats shoots and leaves as they say and someone certainly shot and left. Joe was left holding the baby as it were. You know what they say though, problem families, problem kids. Started off ok, learnt a trade but fell in with a dodgy bunch, antisocial behaviour and always on the cheap vino. Mum always thought he was a saint, but the cops weren't buying it. All meat is pink on the inside and always be careful when picking mushrooms, especially those purple stinkhorns. Glistening and sticky, protruding from the undergrowth, hard to resist on a sultry Mediterranean afternoon.
Food and Drink

Did Mary get taken by surprise whilst bending down to pick mushrooms? Joe liked to toss into the pot, mushrooms and other ingredients. Does that mean that he was a tosspot? Chicken or Lamb, herbs and spices, tasty tasty, not to spicy, In the kitchen in the stable, careful you don't set fire to the hay. Virgin, extra virgin, Olive likes an oiling and so did Mary, rub a dub dub. In a cream sauce too with pasta, carbonara delight, cream delight, cream pie yum yum, stable door back door, come in the front door don't be shy.
All schools should have uniforms

Before I begin I would like to clarify your position. When you assert that schools shouldn't have official uniforms with labels are you suggesting that they instead have guidelines that allow students to wear non branded uniforms with no logos or have students wearing casual personal attire? With the latter cost can still be significant as students are generally vying for attention or social standing. Therefore they would desire well known labels to conform to their defined social groups or convey a specific aspect of their identity. If certain students couldn't fulfill the expectations of their peers or are only able to afford undefined, nondescript brands there would be an increase in disparity which can be a platform for ridicule. Currently school uniforms can be altered, recycled or purchased second hand which can limit costs. Regardless of where the branded uniform is purchased (either first or second hand) there is often little difference indicating its origin and a student's financial status isn't revealed. In addition logos and specific colors can identify a school. When worn correctly school uniforms can present to wider society an image for the school which can encourage enrollment while increasing the institution's reputation. This uniformity can be useful on excursions as students are easily identifiable, this can be specifically useful with primary school children as they may become lost. Uniforms can also provide increased safety in school zones by serving as a reminder to drivers and crossing guards while increasing visibility. It is often cited that schools stifle creativity and while I must concede to this aspect of the argument. Self expression on the basis of clothes can be shallow and establishing general school guidelines while cheaper won't remedy the loss of creativity. Self-expression and creativity can be expressed through a variety of activities or outlets and ultimately the conformity encouraged in school is simple preparation for professional environments.
All schools should have uniforms

I am on the con side because in my my opinion schools should not have uniforms. First of all not all families can afford uniforms because they're way over priced like $70 for a single t-shirt when you can get the same shirt without the logo on it for $15 and then get the logo printed on it for only $5. Then you just need to get the pants which could be $25 or less and there you've saved about $25. Plus otherwise families spend and average of about $350 a year (I think) on uniforms and then once they leave that school they can't sell the uniforms so they just basically throw away money. Especially when some families pay extra for a Catholic school and now getting charged a ton more money for something thats requiring but they don't want. It's no different than someone coming up to you and forcing you to pay them money or you not allowed back at school. Other than money the school has to be careful about customizing the uniforms because if they accidentally use a uniform that another school is already using the other school could get a right to sue them and then they won't have enough money to take on the school. Alot of people probably already know this one but using hot lunches could help. I mean spending $1200 on hot lunches per year and then making $2000 your school just found a way to make a simple $800. I could go on with about 100 more reasons why but one of the most important ways is it takes the kids creativity and i thought schools were supposed to tell kids they always be themselves. Again I'm only 10 years old so what do i know
Women rights

1. My points and the last few roundsMy opponent has yet again hasn't touched anything so, extend all points. In debate arguements are like egg shells, once you drop them you can't pick them back up. So with that being said you can see that I've won all arguements through the first 2 rounds and now I'll continue through the rest.2. His last roundHe states that he isn't taking this seriously so you can see that I'm winning and extend all my points.
Women rights

Extend all points. In debate arguements are like egg shells, once you drop them you can't pick them back up. So with that being said you can see that I've won all arguements through the first 2 rounds and now I'll continue through the rest.1. His last roundMy opponent stated in his last round that he isn't taking this debate seriously because it won't change anything. But that like everything he has said so far is also incorrect. The Lincoln-Douglas debate changed the face of American history. http://www.nps.gov... Lincoln would have lost the debate and Douglas would have won the face of American History would have been different and slavery might have been around up to World War 1 and the events there would have been different and ultamately the entire history of the world would have been different.
Women rights

My pointsHe doesn't even touch my points so you can extend all my arguements and thus seeing that I'm right and that Con can't say anything bad about women's rights. And you can see that it's obvious that I am morrally correct.His pointsWhat my opponent says is flase because he states that Uncle Sam hates women, but that's false because Uncle Sam is married to Lady Liberty.http://lorisweddingpalace.com...;
Women rights

Though I'm Conservative I believe women should be entitled to some Civil Rights. VotingThis issue is key in a step towards equallity beacuse we need women to be able to vote so that our society is an equal and a happy one. AbortionNow like I said earlier I'm a hard core Republican, but women do actually sometimes need the right to abort when their life is in danger that way it saves their life. As a matter of fact 529 000 women die every year due to child birth and abortions can actually help save these women's lives. . http://www.who.int...;
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

Pro complains that I didn't respond to his argument properly, so I'll go through it in more detail.He argues firstly about Greg Caton, a counterfeiter who served 33 months in jail for owning a weapon as a felon and for defrauding customers and other charges. Then, this guy broke parole and moved to Ecuador and claimed to cure cancer and was arrested for breaking parole. This does not prove that a cure for cancer exists. It just proves that a criminal tried to make money by claiming to cure cancer in Ecuador.Second, Pro refers to the evil Martin Shkreli who raised the price of AIDS medicine from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. This is not supressing a cure. This is making money from medicine, which is nothing new. If a cure existed for cancer, there would be people making money from it rather than suppressing itThird, Pro argues that a cure for cancer must exist because he can imagine it. We all know there's a difference between imagination and reality.
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

It is clear that my opponent failed to read my argument. A legit cure for cancer was discovered years ago, and the reason the guy that discovered it was jailed is because big pharma can't slap a TM sign on it. Chemo, while less effective, earns them way more money than a vitamin anyone would be free to sell.There's not much else to say, so here are more of my reactions to Con's "argument":
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

Over 8 million people a year die of cancer worldwide (1). Millions more are suffering from pain and disability as a result of the disease.If a cure existed, the potential to relieve human suffering would be immense. Anyone with a cure would release it to the world for moral reasons.Morality aside, anyone who possessed the cure to cancer could get pretty much anything they wanted in exchange for it, money or opportunities. There's almost nothing they couldn't ask for. So the reasons for suppressing the cure would have to be even more compelling. Pro has BoP to show that various cures are being suppressed. So far, Pro has not presented convincing arguments for suppression. (1) http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...;
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

The Argument From Multiverse It is near universally agreed that the universe is infinite [1] and/or there are several universes [2]. The implications of such are obvious. Should the universe be infinite time-wise, there must be some sort of being that is capable of purposely or accidentally unleashing a cure onto not only Earth, but the entire universe. Statistically, it is unlikely that such a being would not use this ability. From the point of an infinitely spaced universe or multiverse, the argument is essentially the same. Long distance travel must exist in some form with an infinite amount of possibilities, and therefore an infinite amount of cures must be headed straight to-- and connecting with --earth at any given time. There is simply no other logical position. What must be happening to our cures, is a powerful force is stopping them. But, who gains from preventing the ensured health of billions of people? I wonder... Big Pharma Does This Openly and Regularly Despite a cure for certain cancers being long well known, any who promote them are jailed, and put on international watch lists with terrorists and murderers [3]. Why? Because it’s not copyright-able, and it’s not profitable. If the medical giants could slap a patent on it and monopolize on its effectiveness, any other “treatments” would be irrelevant by now. This is all but proven by the recent Martin Shkreli case [4], in which a drug that IS copyrighted had its prices inflated by over 50x nearly overnight. The Ontological Argument A cure for all diseases (including cancer), would be the greatest imaginable cure A cure that exists and is known is greater than one that is purely theoretical If we can imagine this cure as a hypothetical but doesn’t necessarily exist, we can imagine a greater cure If we can imagine the cure, the cure exists We can imagine the cure The cure exists 1. http://www.cellularuniverse.org... 2. https://www.technologyreview.com... 3. http://www.naturalnews.com...# 4. http://money.cnn.com...
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

Thank you to SeventhProfessor for this debate. There was a lot of information about Greg Caton in the comments to the article that Pro referenced himself in Round 2. There, details of his criminal history can be found. Also, links to medical research articles that show that the substance he was trying to sell is actually dangerous to patients and has no demonstrable curative properties. Pro has dropped all my arguments from round 2, and so we can assume he accepts that if a cure existed, people would be morally and/or financially compelled to share it with the world.
Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

Firstly, there isn't much I can say in regards to Greg Caton. Con makes several incredibly bold claims about his character and history without providing a single source. I will say that, should Con back his claims in the next round (after it is too late for me to rebut), it's not unreasonable to suggest big pharma trumped up some insane charges against Caton and then sent the FDA/FBI/whatever after him. This is even IF what Con claimed about him is true, which we have no reason to believe. I apologize for not making my comments about Shkreli clear. What I had intended to get across was that the simple herb Caton discovered to cure cancer cannot be patented, so competitors would drive the price down, making it a poor investment for the medical industry. However, chemo, as a long term not very good pseudo cure, is sure to pay the big bucks. And that's all there is to it. It's plainly obvious that, while I rely on logic and facts, Con has merely relied on slander and hope.
Godel cant tells us what makes a maths statement true-thus his theorem is meaningless.

In the previous round I argued that Gödel proves there are true statements which cannot be proven by showing that neither a statement nor its negation is true. Since one or the other must be true, he proved that all mathematics using a small bit of number theory is incomplete. I argued that this result has had important impacts on philosophy in general, the philosophy of mathematics, and mathematics itself - having been called one of the most important results proved in the 20th century. My opponent has dropped all arguments. Definition of "True"My opponent now argues that truth as used by Gödel is ambiguous or undefined, and so his theorem is meaningless. But Gödel doesn't use truth differently than any other philosopher or mathematician. Fundamental laws of truth state that either a statement or its negation must be true and Gödel proved that for some mathematical statements neither the statement nor its negation can be proved. Thus he proved that there are some true mathematical statements which cannot be proven to be true. An example of such a statement is the continuum hypothesis, which can neither be proven nor disproven with the axioms of set theory. [4]I have shown that Gödel's theorem is accurate and there exists examples of its truth, and that it has meaningful applications to philosphy and mathematics; Gödel's theorem is meaningful - the reslution is negated. References:[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Godel cant tells us what makes a maths statement true-thus his theorem is meaningless.

Australia's leading erotic poet colin leslie dean points out Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true-thus his theorem is meaningless http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... Godel says there are true statements which can be proven http://en.wikipedia.org... "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic *truths*, there is an arithmetical statementthat is *true*,[1] but not provable in the theory." note Godel says .".. there is an arithmetical statement that is *true.." but Godel cant tell us what makes a maths statement true Peter Smith the Cambridge expert on Godel says http://groups.google.com... . quote "G"del didn't rely on the notion of truth" thus godels incompleteness theorem is meaningless as Godel cant tell us what true statements are thus his theorem is meaningless
Godel cant tells us what makes a maths statement true-thus his theorem is meaningless.

Gödel's theorem should not be expected to define mathematical truth because he treats it no differently than any other mathematician. The idea that there are mathematical systems which are incomplete is hardly surprising; for example, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate cannot prove the vast majority of interesting geometric proofs true or false. What Gödel showed was that the incompleteness of mathematics extends far further than most mathematicians had thought, encompassing all systems which contain a bit of number theory. Alone, this is an interesting conclusion with implications for mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. My opponent has forgone every opportunity to argue why a mathematical theorem must explain what makes mathematical statements true in order to be meaningful, thus he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. As I explained in the first round, his assumption that a meaningful theorem must explain what makes a mathematical statement true is equivalent to assuming that all of mathematics is meaningless, and hence his argument begs the question. Mathematics is meaningful and is arguably the foundation of the modern world, so my opponent’s argument fails. The law of noncontradiction states that both a statement and its negation cannot be true and the law of excluded middle states that either a statement or its negation must be true. Using these features of true statements, Gödel proves that there are true statements that cannot be proven. Further, I provided an example of such a mathematical statement. In set theory, either the continuum hypothesis is true or its negation is true, but neither can be proven (and we can prove that neither can be proven) with the axioms of the theory. In some cases it can be useful to treat the continuum hypothesis as true, while in others it can be useful to treat it as false, but it cannot be proven true or false. Thus the theorem proves meaningful results despite not defining mathematical truth. My opponent has dropped this argument. Gödel's theorem should not be expected to define mathematical truth because he treats it no differently than any other mathematician. The idea that there are mathematical systems which are incomplete is hardly surprising; for example, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate cannot prove the vast majority of interesting geometric proofs true or false. What Gödel showed was that the incompleteness of mathematics extends far further than most mathematicians had thought, encompassing all systems which contain a bit of number theory. Alone, this is an interesting conclusion with implications for mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. But, as I have argued, Gödel's theorem also has meaningful applications to general philosophy, discussions of artificial intelligence, and one’s ability to know truth, and it is referenced by various philosophers and writers as I cited earlier. My opponent has dropped this argument.
Godel cant tells us what makes a maths statement true-thus his theorem is meaningless.

I must win this debate for 1 reason I maintain that Godels theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true all con has to do to refute my claim and win is tell us what Godel says makes a maths statement true which he has not done thus thus my claim stands and I must win this debate my question to con was "just tell us what Godel says makes a maths statement true if you cant then the term "true " in this statement is meaningless "...there is an arithmetical statement that is *true*..." thus his theorem is meaningless" con has not said what Godels says makes a maths statement true thus my claim stands and I must win this debate
Abortion

A fetus is not a human. A fetus has the POTENTIAL to become a human, but it is not a human. A sperm is not human either. A sperm has the POTENTIAL to become a human, but it is not a human. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A caterpillar can BECOME a butterfly, but it is not a butterfly. A baby girl is not a teenage girl. A baby girl can BECOME a teenage girl, but it is not a teenage girl. A fetus is not human. Murder only applies to humans. Killing a fetus is not murder because murder only applies to humans. If a man needs a part of my body to survive and I don't give it to him, I am not murdering it. Not letting a fetus use someone else's body against her will is not murder. If a mother kills her BABY, it's murder, because the baby doesn't need the mother's body to survive. Not letting a fetus use a mother's body against her will is not murder. It's simply respecting a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. if a woman doesn't want a fetus to use her body to survive, it's her right to do so.
Abortion

Even assuming what Con says is true (which I disagree with), the argument is very simple. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to.