BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is the default position

I accept the definition for atheist being "a lack of belief in god or gods" LACK can be defined as a state of being without. [1] BELIEF is defined as acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. [2] GOD is defined as (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [3] Clearly you if there is a state of lacking then there is also a state that is NOT lacking. you have burden of proof that the default position is the former (condition = lacking, without) and not the latter (condition = NOT lacking, or being with). [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The Smoking ban.

Arguments: Smoking is addicting. Everything I've mentioned before is happening plus the smokers can't stop even know it means death. Sources: http://m.cancer.org...... http://www.heart.org...... http://www.drugabuse.gov...... Also look at this http://whyquit.com... Rebuttals: 1. Tax. Yes, I know how much the government earns but I ask you is that enough to make victims of secondhand smoke alive again is it really worth it? From someone who just came from my friend's funeral I say no. 2. Smoking is a right that should be taken away. 3. Cold turkey. The affects of going cold turkey is milder then smoking and it does not affect the entertainment or bystanders so I'm okay with it and if it is not banned more people will start smoking.
The Smoking ban.

I think that the smoking ban is good. Three important things to know 1.We'll mainly be debating tobacco. 2.I suck at grammar and spelling. 3. I don't like arguments like they should choose there shouldn't be a ban. First off I'd like to thank con for giving me the honors of his first debate here and I hope it will be fun for the both of us, now let me begin. 1. Second hand smoke. People who do not smoke still feel the pain. Things secondhand smoke couses Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) "More respiratory infections (such as bronchitis and pneumonia) "More severe and frequent asthma attacks "Ear infections "Chronic cough " Lung cancer " Heart diseases http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.m.webmd.com... http://www.livescience.com... 2. Harm to the environment. " Cigarette filters are NOT biodegradable "According to Action on Smoking and Health, the tobacco plant is prone to lots of diseases and insects " Cigarette smoke contains up to 4,000 chemicals. In 2004, a small Italian study lead by Giovanni Invernizzi from the Tobacco Control Unit of Italy's National Cancer Institute in Milan found that air pollution that comes from cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. http://www.keenforgreen.com... http://smoking.ygoy.com... http://www.tobaccofreeca.com... 3. Deaths. Smoking caused and is causing many deaths and the deaths may grow in a few years. http://www.howmanyarethere.net... http://m.mic.com... http://www.healthproblems101.com... 4. Pregnancies. "Lower the amount of oxygen available to you and your growing baby. "Increase your baby's heart rate. "Increase the chances of miscarriage and stillbirth. "Increase the risk that your baby is born prematurely and/or born with low birth weight. "Increase your baby's risk of developing respiratory (lung) problems. "Increases risks of birth defects. "Increases risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. http://www.m.webmd.com... http://www.babycenter.com... http://www.mayoclinic.org... Like I always say it's better to drink cause the drunk will die but if you smoke it will be you and I.
The Smoking ban.

I think that the smoking ban is good. Three important things to know 1.We'll mainly be debating tobacco. 2.I suck at grammar and spelling. 3. I don't like arguments like they should choose there shouldn't be a ban. Rules: 1. No arguments without source. 2. No biases 3. No foul words R1 Acceptance and definitions R2 Arguments R2 More arguments and rebuttals R3 More rebuttals R4 Constructive criticism rebuttals and closing statements. Keep your arguments simple and organized. Example: 1. Smoking is good. Blah blah blah www.smokingisfakesite.com that's only an example.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

I admit I forgot to address your argument "The united states has a contractual obligation" From what? Where did we sign up to be world police? Oh, the UN! You later discuss. Since when is the UN a moral authority in the world? As I already mentioned there are hundreds of wars all over the world that not even the UN is touching. Despite being the creators of this contract! All of these countries that are in conflict are due to economic reasons. We have a pseudo responsibility to mitigate in a diplomatic sense, that is fine. But our contract with the UN implies that any and all actions must be approved by the UN. Otherwise every country in the UN would have a blank check to invade a country to "aid" them. The united states has no moral authority to be the world police and the world agrees. Europe hates us for being the way we are at the moment. However any time we have had a UN sanctioned event everything in fine. It is not the will of the founders for us to be the world police, but we continue to become more and more so. My argument of when the united states enters conflict was refuted with the idea of the Bosnian-Serbian conflict, but I would like to point out in relation to my earlier discussion that that conflict WAS APPROVED by the UN and therefore we had the contractual obligation to help. My main point is that moral is so subjective. I cannot in good conscience recommend the spending of our tax dollars (that we don't even have, we have to borrow them!) to save a 3rd world country from going from unstable to unstabler rather than educate, clothe, feed, and provide healthcare for our own citizens (which would be easier and cheaper given the infrastructure already in place) Contractual agreements do imply a moral obligation, but only if following with the terms and conditions of the contract. Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan are all NOT UN sanctioned conflicts and therefore not a moral obligation.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

We have NEVER in the last 70 years of our policy entered a conflict for "peace" reasons or to mitigate conflict. Every single invasion we do is for the benefit of the foreign policy of the current president. Korea-Prevent spread of Communism Vietnam-Prevent spread of communism Gulf war- oil Iraq -oil The last time we have ever been in a war was WWII. Congress has not declared war since that war. There are wars and conflicts in over 100 countries around the world and the United States is not involved. But you ARE arguing a "moral" obligation... How is it our responsibility? Our sending troops over only wastes American lives, the problems in the countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Darfur are deeply rooted in economic issues. Killing some of the rebels (which has proven ineffective in Vietnam and Iraq) would be a waste. Our primary moral obligation is to restore the rights of the people in our country, and establish our own economic prosperity and security before we even CONSIDER helping other countries. I am fine with sending diplomats thats totally within our grasp, but expending troops on a situation with no REAL enemey and no REAL goal is pointless as history has shown us.
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

You have good reason for stating that. I've decided to focus my arguments away from the Comparison away from Chicago and Switzerland. However, America is the 1rst wealthiest, or oppulent country (Src: International Monetary Fund statistics at October-2013 ). Whereas that is above Switzerland. Making more feasable to compare to a country rather than a country with a city. I have also gotten a src: . http://news.bbc.co.uk... my ratio. It seems that I've had a misinterpertation or I'm too presumptious. When you agreed to the challenge I thought you were one of those people who believed that ONLY the government and law enforcements should aquire guns. I disagree with your statement, "The only guns people would maybe not be allowed to have is semiautomatic and automatic weapons, which have absolutely no function other than being fun to shoot,". I happen to disagree with that statement. Where you said, that people could still get guns for self defense. I believe that SEMI-Automatic guns are indeed adequate for self defense. Most home invasions involve more than one Invader and use semi-automatics. Do you think that a little glock 19 could stand against an AK-47 Assault Rifle? No! It's fighting fire with fire! I don't believe in fully-auto just semi-auto. For one they're highly regulated! Hard to get your hands on and jamm; End of point. Here's a little video: () involving children using assault rifle against home invasion (With Younger Siblings). Would you rather be surrounded in in your house with a glock 35 or an AK-47? The reason I brought up reduced ammo was just in case; that way I don't have to explain it if you ever did bring that up. .. I believe that your refutations we're acting out of mis-understanding. ..
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

I believe that you have a good point, stating that poverty is a main reason at theft and crime. However, not all burlaries and crimes are armed robberies and those that are aren't always with firearms. That doesn't justify the fact for taking guns. My ratio of 1 and 2 citizens of Switzerland Owning firearms also in and of itself would probably scare anybody or pprobably a lot of citizens even thinking let alone attempting to murder, purloin, or anyother crime. If there were a law saying everyone must own a gun then in the store everyone would have guns. So, if the robber were to come in the store there would be at least 6 guns also pointed him. In all that would solve the problem, because criminals wouldn't even dare to enter the store to steal! Now that I have rebuked or otherwise gave an argument against your statement, I'll give my next supporting argument.By taking firearms you may think the government is taking away it away from the criminals, but how do criminals still get drugs and narcotics? Well, it's the same with guns! Do you honestly think that criminals will follow rules? You may think that guns kill people. Honestly I've never seen a gun self shoot except for drones, but that's not the point. Guns do not kill people; people kill people. It's like saying forks make people fat. Gun control also stimulates the idea of just taking amunition. Well basically the same thng. It would also be like taking food from someone. Ofcourse that would prevent someone from getting fat. However inevevatibly they would die. I'm not exactly saying you would die without amunition, but you would no longer be able to protect property, family, your house, animals, etc. I believe my last staements were in fact valid and indeed viable!
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

Rules:=========No, AttackingNo, RacismNo, FlamingNo, InValid Info<<< Civilized Debate >>>========= My House Believes that crimes aren't prevented, but increased by gun control. Someone Please accept my challenge! <<< Starting Argument >>> First off proven statistics stating that Chicago has the toughest gun control laws state that it has one of the highest crime rates!Homicide: 15.2Forcible rape: N/ARobbery: 501.6Aggravated assault:485.5Total Violent crime:N/ABurglary: 924.7Larceny-theft: 2,638.4Motor vehicle theft:673.3Whereas in Switzerland the ration 1 in every 2 citizens own firearms. Making Switzerland the beholder of the lowest crime rate in the world!
Should parents hit their children

Many cultures and people believe that hitting their children as a form of punishment is beneficial for the child. I'm not saying beat children I'm talking about how corporal punishment should be promoted in moderation. Corporal punishment sets boundaries for children and motivates them to do better, as stated by Okey Chigbo in a 2004 article. Harold Bennet, PhD, President and Dean of the Charles H. Manson Theological Seminary, stated, "children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments... in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate."
Religious traditions and rituals should not be passed on to future generations.

Happy that so many people are engaged in this debate. Zantorion, I hardly think it would be necessary to discuss whether religion is reality; as it is accepted and recognised throughout the world, I believe in science. This includes me believing that the earth is more than 2016 years old and that humans are an adapted version of the apes - both things, by the way, proven by modern science. Going back to the actual debate, I see different rituals such as going to church or praying as time waste. Take extreme muslims as an example; some of these people pray up to 5 times a day - acts of addiction that take up up to 2 hours of their day. I see this as time that could just as well have been spend on valuable activities like contributing to society. As previously described, I respect religious people and look at everybody with even eyes - I just do not think these old fashion rituals glueing people to the past should be passed on to future generations.
Religious traditions and rituals should not be passed on to future generations.

In my opinion, religious beliefs from the past have way too much influence on today's society. Regardless of which religion we"re talking about, each and every one of them require the people believing in them to mark and show their religion in some way - either by praying every day, dressing in a special way or other things. Many of the religious people practising these actions find them necessary and they find comfort in them - which I completely respect. You should of course be allowed to do what you like to - but I don"t think these rituals should be passed on to future generations. Babies and young children who haven"t gotten an impression of the world yet should not be born into a certain religion with specific rules of how they should act. I believe religion was originally created so people could have something to believe in; something that answered all life"s questions. Today, now that we have science, we know the answer to many of these questions, (e.g. that the earth was not created by a god and that there can be no such thing as a healing prophet or a woman getting pregnant without being sexually active), and that"s what causes me to think religion is not necessary anymore.
Resolved: Legalizing gay marriage would be better than legalizing Civil Unions.

Although my opponent did not make any arguments, some comments would still be appreciated (about the subject)... White man came across the sea He brought us pain and misery He killed our tribes, he killed our creed He took our game for his own need We fought him hard we fought him well Out on the plains we gave him hell But many came too much for cree Oh will we ever be set free? Riding through dustclouds and barren wastes Galloping hard on the plains Chasing the redskins back to their holes Fighting them at their own game Murder for freedom a stab in the back Women and children and cowards attack Run to the hills run for your lives Run to the hills run for your lives Soldier blue on the barren wastes Hunting and killing their game Raping the women and wasting the men The only good indians are tame Selling them whisky and taking their gold Enslaving the young and destroying the old Run to the hills run for your lives
Resolved: Legalizing gay marriage would be better than legalizing Civil Unions.

hmm well you know what, i believe that it dosent even matter about gay marriage or anything, because marriage just screws people over, they get married then the mans wife leaves him and takes every thing hes got, in a gays perspective, they beat eachother, and BOOM HeADsHoT vote for me and yes i will send you emails full of goodies, like chocolate bars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just comment your email!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Resolved: Legalizing gay marriage would be better than legalizing Civil Unions.

First I would like the person that accepts this debate be on the side of (or at least pretending for educational purposes) supporting Civil Unions. Please do not simply say neither should be implemented. First I would like to define some terms. Gay Marriage is letting homosexuals to have the exact same certificates and rights as a regular heterosexual marriage. Civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. However, Civil Unions do not have the exact same rights, which I will explain later. Finally, better, specifically in this round, means either A. are more morally justified, or B. will help socicety better. The differences between GM and CU: When a civil union divorce occurs, one of them must live in the state they were civil union'd in for one year, before the divorce can occur. CU couples are not able to file taxes together, and do not get tax returns for families. They do not get all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples, such as the 25 here: http://lesbianlife.about.com... 1. Not letting gays to be married, but have some kind of recognition, would re-enforce the 'seperate but equal' policy we have escaped from from the civil rights movement. The fact is, they are not equal, and they deserve the same rights. 2. Seeing as how homosexuality is natural, gays have every right to be married like everyone else. Just because they may be different, doesn't mean they can be segregated into their own class of formal recognition. 3. It's not HURTING anyone if gays can marry. Regardless of whether you think it's right or not, they're not affecting you. So, Civil Unions would certainly not be 'more justified', or something like that. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response.
gay marriage

haha it so happens that I am in a debate team. UMMM in the context that I used it in was the " are you really so incompetent that I have to list them all out for you way" how much more obvious can it get? 1. Lets say a gay couple has been together for 20 years. One gets sick. The other may not visit him/her, know about their conditions or make decisions for them. For the simple fact that they are not married 2. Many states do not allow gay couples to adopt children 3. Lets say one works and the other doesn't. The benefits of working such as insurance does not cover the stay at home since they are not spouses 4. And maybe for the simple fact that you cant say to your friends or society that I am married to this man or woman, how you cannot declare your love to another person because it is against the law.
To exists in Australia is far better then to exists in the United States of America.

The trumpets are beating an old dead horse of a president that your country justly deserves. Yes we had our turn with Abbot and Costello and Abbot is still out there pissing in the wind just like Hillary's hillbillies. Yes America has all of the yesterdays rear vision mirror of the promised land of plenty. So if your happy with your tree of monkeys that make good little slaves out of the orphans of wealth from the great American pie then you are a true patriot of the liberties that freedom to live in a dog eat dog eye for an eye backwards into the future of inhumane segregation that humanities humane would like to put an end too. Caring is sharing and sharing is caring we here in Australia pay a high price in taxes but if that's the price we pay to live yes live not survive in this blessed land of the southern cross then we don't quibble over split milk. We just cut down the tall poppies and don't prop up the so called successful as you Americans seem to do to watch them fall for your own amusement. Rest in peace all fallen Americans that are killed from the corporate media hypes fortune and fame is a curious game. Good activist musicians shame your leaders don't or won't lesson to them more so. How about the loudest of them all back in the 1900's Malvina Reynolds Sings the Truth, Bob Dylan, Donovan, Don McClain, James Taylor, Little Richie and so, so so many voices of wisdom from the negro and the indigenous down trodden but do the elite leaders ever listen. NO. FeCKING NO. F#ck off America with your juvenile liberties. Please don't take this as a personal attack upon yourself as you of all have been brave enough to stand up and be counted. It is a credit to you for standing up for what you believe in I could say mislead to believe in, but hey where all in this leaky boat together. Peace be with you brother from another mother and dad.
To exists in Australia is far better then to exists in the United States of America.

I think it is not far better to live in Australia than to live in the United States of America. (note, I'm from the USA and biased because of it) The most important thing I can stress in this debate is the definition of the term "better". I believe better to be best defined for the purposes of this debate as of a higher quality. Now, determining which country has a higher quality existence is not an easy thing as their are many contributing factors in the quality of existence. First, I want to be abundantly clear on the subjectiveness of the topic of existence. To be more specific, the subjectiveness of what a "high quality existence" is. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter (I fully realize that I could be incorrect, and am eager to learn and advise my thoughts): 1. It's difficult to have a meaningful existence if you don't interact with anyone. Because of this, I feel that an advantage must be given simply based on the popularity of the USA (specifically culturally). The majority of successful movies and music globally are originated, or at the very least are produced in the US. As a result of this, media is also more focused on the US (internationally speaking) than Australia. 2. It's difficult to have a meaningful existence if you can't express yourself freely. although Australia is a wonderful and powerful democracy, from what I understand the right to freedom of speech is not a constitutional right like in the USA. (see this article on the matter: http://www.findlaw.com.au...). because of that, the potential of an existence to be better is greater in the US. 3. Finally, opportunity is helpful to have a meaningful existence, and the US has more opportunity (in my flawed and biased view) than Australia, or at least equal opportunity. I think that mainly because the highest technological advancements, powerful ideas, medical methods, and university research is more powerful in the US than in Australia (When comparing the two.) I want to point out that the Pro side has to prove that Australia is a FAR BETTER place to exist, not just a better place to exist than the US. so even if the results of this debate show that Australia could be a marginally better place to exist than the US, the Con still would win. It needs to be shown to be FAR better. thank you! For those reasons, I think To exists in Australia is NOT far better then to exists in the United States of America.