BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Shared BoP Is Elitist

"explained in R1, pro in this debate is supposed to argue that shared BoP is elitist" Okay, I think I'm starting to see what Con is trying to argue about. My confusion was understandable given that my opponent has been known to take Con on an issue he plans on arguing pro for [1]. I figured this was another one of those debates given what he said in the comments section "It's about getting people to admit that burden of proof is on the affirmative, not shared. When burden of proof is shared, it forces weak people to assume the risk of getting hurt.", which sounds a lot like he plans on arguing that shared BoP is elitist. I still don't understand what social program we're talking about. Con says the first round clearly shows we're talking about "social programs and debate where they are not mutually exclusive", firstly that sentence doesn't even make sense to me and secondly nothing in the first round is clear... Con has set up an unclear resolution and an even less-clear scenario for this debate to operate in. If I'm meant to argue pro, then I'll give a general argument for how sharing BoP can be elitist. Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. [2] Given this, we can imagine a situation where, in a debate, voters will grant points to the person who rightfully deserved to lose the debate because they view that person as superior. When questioned on their voting, they can defend their vote by claiming BoP was shared and therefore the less-popular user deserved to lose for not fulfilling their half of the BoP, even if BoP was rightfully exclusive to the Pro of this hypothetical debate. Vote Pro. 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Shared BoP Is Elitist

If Pro sees no reason for BoP to be elitist, then Pro has conceded the debate. As explained in R1, pro in this debate is supposed to argue that shared BoP is elitist: "Pro must prove that our society is elitist. After all, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured. " Furthermore, Pro is stating a false dichotomy. Round 1 explicitly describes the situation at hand being about social programs and debate where they are not mutually exclusive. Lastly, Pro states there's nothing to counter. Pro isn't supposed to counter. Pro is supposed to assert.
Shared BoP Is Elitist

Once again my opponent is very unclear about what he's talking about. Are we talking about social programs or debating? And what sort of social program are we talking about? He also states that sharing BoP is elitist, but I see no actual argument for why this is the case. Is he saying that because someone might be weak, they might not be able to handle having a BoP as well as the "elites" can? And what does this have to do with social programs? I can't really debate Con because he hasn't put forth an argument, so there's nothing to counter. When it comes to "weakness", there isn't much physical strain involved in debating. I can easily gather all the information I need without even leaving my bed. If anything, debating is one of the few competitive things a person can do without having to exert physical effort.
Shared BoP Is Elitist

Pro doesn't understand the nature of the argument. Social programs are situations where you are forced to take a debate. A weak person (who is injured) does not have a choice. As setup before, Pro was skeptical of the social program necessarily being safe and respectful. Pro did not have evidence in advance of experience which proved the social program's unreliability, so was forced to "go with the program". In sharing the BoP, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured. Pro wasn't born with video cameras out of one's eyes, or microphones out of one's ears. Furthermore, Pro wasn't born with a network of surveillance equipment or personal contacts that would be able to prove or testify what happened. Pro guessed "that there are valid cases where BoP ought to be shared". Perhaps that's the case, but this argument is about how shared BoP is elitist. If Pro wishes to explain how elitism is valid, that's up to Pro to decide. However, I'm not sure how Pro, as a weak (and now injured) person in society, would remain respected among elitism. The injury Pro endured before would not be compensated, so Pro would still be expected to take personal responsibility.
Shared BoP Is Elitist

I'm not really following what Con is saying in round 1, but he said this in the comments, "It's about getting people to admit that burden of proof is on the affirmative, not shared. When burden of proof is shared, it forces weak people to assume the risk of getting hurt." So I guess this means I need to argue that there are valid cases where BoP ought to be shared. If there's only one factor to the debate, like "Capitalism is good", then BoP is on the affirmative, but if the debate is "Capitalism v Communism", then BoP is obviously shared because there's two things that need to be argued for. In other words, BoP should always be shared when the negation of one thesis does not assume the other thesis. I'm a progressive, and I think capitalism has a number of failings, but that doesn't mean I think communism is good! So if I took a "capitalism v communism" debate, I'd have to both point out capitalism's failings AND argue for communism. On to Con's second statement about getting hurt. You aren't forced to take a debate, so if you're a weak person who "get's hurt" by having to share the BoP, then you shouldn't take the debate. If you take it, it's all on you. I'm not really sure how sharing the BoP hurts people to begin with, so I think Con needs to clear this up next round. Anyway, to conclude there are legitimate reasons to share BoP and since you aren't forced to take debates there's no reasons for this to hurt anybody (assuming it could hurt anybody anyway).
Shared BoP Is Elitist

This debate is about the characteristic of burden of proof in public policy debates. To demonstrate, Con and Pro will pretend to be two people actually participating in a social program. Con will be a "strong" person. Pro will be a "weak" person. Before participation, Pro was skeptical of the social program necessarily being safe and respectful. Pro did not have evidence in advance of experience which proved the social program's unreliability, so was forced to "go with the program". In the course of this social program, Pro becomes injured but lacks the evidence required to prove one's injury. Unfortunately, Pro wasn't born with video cameras out of one's eyes, or microphones out of one's ears. Furthermore, Pro wasn't born with a network of surveillance equipment or personal contacts that would be able to prove or testify what happened. Also, at the time of injury, Pro was duressed. Therefore, Pro couldn't appeal to authorities at the moment of injury to get help. Pro never consented to participate, so Pro is a negative party. However, in our society, BoP is shared. Whoever makes a claim is obligated to prove one's point. Pro must prove that our society is elitist. After all, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured. Con will take the position of personal responsibility in that Pro's problem of being weak is one's own and nobody else's.
A creator of the universe exists

Accepted. Note: Burden of Proof lies on Pro. Definitions: 1. Creator: a prime mover, an uncaused cause, etc. I will ask Pro to confirm that this is a debate on a simple "creator," in the same sense as:Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.If Pro wishes to expand the subject material covered in this debate (by say going into the Christian "creator" (identical to the "creator" of Islam & Judsiam) or Hindu "creator," etc., I ask him or her to clarify. Just trying to get a good idea of the scope of the debate.Thanks for initiating!
Israeli human rights record

Every other state in the area including at the Palestinian Authority has officially established religion Islam and discriminates both in law and in fact against non-muslims especially Jews. Israel is in practice a secular state that is religiously and racially pluralistic with freedom of religion for all. Everyone is treated the same way. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that operates under the rule of law. Israel has among the best rates in the world for women, gays, mentally and physically challenged, and so on. It has freedom of speech press descent Association and religion. The Palestinian Authority on the other hand tortures and kills alleged collaborators without even due process, and has almost no respect for human Rights. Feast with comprable internal and external threats no nation in history has ever tried so hard to require it to military to operate within the rule of law. The Israeli Supreme Court plays a huge role in the conduct of military affairs, more than any country in the history of the world. For example 6 hours before bombing a terrorist stronghold they release millions of leaflets and call all the phone numbers in the area. Even the director of the Palestinian Center for human rights in Gaza said that he was constantly Amazed by the highest standards of the legal system. Their standards for torture are higher than the US not even allowing physical torture. The Supreme Court of Israel prohibits the military from using prisoners as bargaining chips for prisoners being held illegally. If you were going to boycott Israel, make a list of the human rights violators in the world by order and take it from the top. You will never get to Israel.
free will is memory=knowledge=truth

You're points really are not justifiable. R1: An idea is in effect a story but that is irrelevant. R2: If you have a belief, you can always change it. Being mentally enslaved is an extreme. A simple belief (e.g. I will win this this debate) is in no way mental slavery. If I believed that I would simply win regardless then I would forfeit every round, but although I do believe I am likely (vote-bomb alert) to win I am easily aware enough to know I have to try harder than that.
free will is memory=knowledge=truth

Sorry for the forfeit, I will have to improve my arguments a bit now. R1: A theory is not a story, but instead an idea that is close to being proven. R2: Of course there is, but it does not relate to the debate. R3: If you have no beliefs, you have no free will as you are stuck in a mind paradox in which you have the burden of proof that effectively means you are completely obsolete. That argument is a paradox in itself as it is contradictory to the title.
free will is memory=knowledge=truth

R1: I'm going to give an example of a very popular misconception - all Muslims are terrorists (it is very important to note that I think none of that is true). If the only Muslims I have met are terrorists then I could be forgiven for thinking the theory "all Muslims are terrorists". In a thesaurus though, the word theory is paired with words like suspicion - not fact, so a theory is what you THINK, something you are able to do with you're FREE WILL, not what is true. R2: I could stop believing neofuturistic architecture is the best and say mock-Tudor is better, but I have decided, using the power of my FREE WILL, that Neofuturistic is better as a Mock-Tudor skyscraper, well, I think we know what is coming. The same process applies to believing in unicorns.
Schools give out free birth control pills

I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. "Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you." Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that.
The Problem of Evil is invalid

Pro's Case: 1. Heaven exists, therefore the problem of evil on Earth is "effectively" solved. R1: Everybody does not end up in Heaven. I'm not sure where Pro is getting this view. From a Christian view, it is necessary to accept Jesus to gain entrance to Heaven. For centuries the Catholic Church held that unbaptized babies that died were sent to limbo, although now the matter has been deemed more ambiguous [1]. Moreover, given the disparities between Christian, Jewish and Muslim interpretations all have quite different views on who ends up in God's holy sanctuary. The Hadith states that belief in Allah is necessary for ascension to Heaven [2]. Jewish views on Heaven are a little more ambiguous from what I understand, but even inside each of these faiths there are many interpretations and views on who makes it to Heaven. Nonetheless, the view that everybody ends up in Heaven is not a common one, to say the least. R2: A perfectly good God would have zero tolerance for unnecessary evil. While Pro's first claim that everyone goes to heaven is very suspect, his second claim that heaven "effectively" removes the issue of Earthly suffering fails to grasp the concept "all good" and "all powerful." An all-good or all-powerful being does not settle for "a little" unnecessary suffering or simply abandon the Earth to chaos and then sort out the good from the bad. Anyone with this amount of power has a strong moral duty to remove that unnecessary evil, and granted God is also claimed to be all powerful this should be one of his main responsibilities. Secondly, a dismissal of all Earthly suffering comes across as naive at best, and probably psychopathic at worst. Any attempt to label the genocides, wars, and starvations in the history of mankind as "effectively" irrelevant - even if there is a Heaven - does not excuse the massive amount of evil that has taken place. R3: Pro's point says nothing about non-human animal suffering. Do animals go to heaven? I don't know. Nonetheless, the suffering of animals needs to be seen in conjunction with human suffering. When I refer to suffering, I can easily go beyond the natural processes of the food chain and include painful diseases and natural disasters. Animals are not even subject to original sin, unlike humans, so the unnecessary suffering of animals is unexcusable for an all-loving, all-good God. Anyway, since I am nearing my character limit here I await Pro's response. Remember, "all good" is not "mostly good." "All good" and "all powerful" do not compromise with evil, or allow Earthly evil (small, really?) to exists because at a later time everything will be okay. Back to you, Pro. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://muttaqun.com...
The Problem of Evil is invalid

My initial argument will be a very short one (I dislike long and complicated debates). Definitions God: An all-powerful, all benevolent being who created everything that exists. The problem of evil states that God cannot exist because evil exists. If there was an all-powerful, all benevolent God, he could eradicate all evil instantly. We still see evil, therefore God does not exist. Whoever accepts this debate also accepts this as the definition. As I have stated in the definitions, the PoE claims that if God exists he would have destroyed evil. However, this is flawed logic. Assuming that God is real, he has already created heaven, a utopia where no evil exists and everybody alive eventually ends up in. This effectively solves the problem of evil. I invite my opponent to show otherwise.
Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

Well I'm glad my opponent actually got to debating something. I'll copy and past his argument here, because it could get lost in the other stuff he was writing, that had nothing to do with affirming his resolution. "If we spend our whole lives making Pascal's Wager, the best we can do is to fool ourselves into thinking we will win the wager" My opponent hasn't proved that, this is the best we can do. This is just a bare assertion. I've given alternatives, that weren't refuted. The actual wager gives wording that considers options that would make the bet a win. Where does pro get the ideal that the best we can do is fool ourselves? "and God will have to pay out to us and give us eternal life in heaven.............and our whole life is then wasted, and all the things we gained and the things we did failed to amount to anything more than total loss." One option is we will lose the bet, and have gained nothing. My opponent has failed to show how choosing to believe in God will always be a losing bet. I've shown a scenario where it would win and the scenario has completely been ignored. " Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we lost before the Wager was made and we have no right to reinstate the Wager.." We lose under some scenarios before the bet is made, but I've shown scenarios we win by making the bet. My opponent makes a bare assertion once again that we lose before the bet is made. Pro needs to provide some premises for his contentions. " If we had not already lost the Wager, we would have eternal life now. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. God won't pay out on a bet that we have already lost." He'll pay out in the one winning scenario I gave which went totally unrefuted. My opponent has failed to uphold his BOP and has basically spit on me when I've tried to be fair and helpful to him.
Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

I'd like to applaud Wylted for apparently recanting his assertion that in Round 1 I did not make my position clear. It seems now that he recognizes 1 ) My position was clear in Round !, and 2 ) The position I am taking is an absolute. Wylted's pretense of saying I was not clear in my position and his offer for me to change the title of the debate by allowing me the option to behave like a weasel in saying "If you want to weasel out of that position, we could argue whether Pascal's wager is a good bet without the term "always" "* seemed to indicate that con wanted to avoid engaging in the debate, and I am not interested in conversation in the debate which is not focused on the topic of the debate. I'm glad Wylted has posted an argument as to why he thinks Pascal's Wager is NOT always a losing bet along with his clear acceptance of my challenge for him to do so. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we have already lost. We have already lost eternal life; we have forfeited heaven. We have no right to reinstate the Wager. We can offer that God take us up on the wager, but we have already lost. If we spend our whole lives making Pascal's Wager, the best we can do is to fool ourselves into thinking we will win the wager and God will have to pay out to us and give us eternal life in heaven.............and our whole life is then wasted, and all the things we gained and the things we did failed to amount to anything more than total loss. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we lost before the Wager was made and we have no right to reinstate the Wager.. If we had not already lost the Wager, we would have eternal life now. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. God won't pay out on a bet that we have already lost. * Qouted from Wyletd in Round 1, punctuation, grammar, and spelliing edited.
Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

Introduction Oddly enough my opponent has passed on arguing anything in his round 2 statement. I will take this opportunity to teach my opponent how to debate better and at the end of that I will post my first argument. For those of you not interested in reading anything other than the arguments please scroll down to the section entitled Arguments. Resolution It's important to make the position you're debating for crystal clear. This is so the debate doesn't go off course as this one has. It's also a good ideal to make sure you don't have an unfair advantage or disadvantage. Round 1 It's a good ideal to make the first round for acceptance only and most of your opponents won't bring an argument in round 1 anyways. Just out of respect. The reason you'd want to make the first round for acceptance only is to avoid your opponent having the advantage of an extra round of arguments. Absolutes As a general rule of thumb, you want to avoid debating absolutes. Typically something is always one way or always another. There is usually a way to find a situation that is an exception to the rule. Arguments Pascal's Wager Here is what Pascal's wager looks like as copied and pasted from Wikipedia and originally from Pascal himself. 1. "God is, or He is not" 2. A Game is being played. .. where heads or tails will turn up. 3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager (it is not optional). 4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. 5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (. .. ) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager The Odds So there are multiple possibilities. Let's examine each. 1. God isn't real- In this scenario you lose. You wasted your life worshipping something that doesn't exist. The re is only one god isn't real scenario that is even worth mentioning. Let's move onto the God is real scenarios. 2. God is real but could care less about your worship- You lose. There was absolutely no gain from worshipping this diety. 3. God is real. He desires worship, and he will award you with everlasting life. If you worship him. You win. Under scenario 3 you win. So there is in fact a scenario where Pascal's wager actually pays off. So in conclusion the wager isn't always a losing bet. My opponent could have argued it was a bad bet, but he opted not to.
Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

This is a philosophy debate, not a science debate. Pascal's Wager from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623"1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Biblical philosophy as well as non-biblical philosophy is acceptable for this debate, but no sources outside of the wickepedia article are to be referenced. If you are getting input from another source, you must put it in your own words without plagiarizing. This includes direct quotes from the Bible........no direct quotes or sources outside of the wickepedia article about Pascal's Wager are acceptable for this debate. I will argue as Con that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. Pro must argue why Pascal's Wager can be a winning bet whether one wagers for or against the existence of God. I will argue that's Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet if you bet God is there or you bet God is not there. If you assert God is not there, then you are betting He is not there. If you insist you are not betting and you insist that you know for sure God is not there, you are disqualified from accepting this debate. For this debate, you must at least say "if" God is there. God is not there is not acceptable for this debate. Repeat: For this debate, you must argue from "if" God is there or "if" God is not there. I will argue that "if" he is there or "if" he is not there, either side is a losing bet. Please post your argument for the first round. Thank you for honoring the guidelines for this debate.