BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Arguing over things you can not prove or disprove is useless.

This debate is really problematic for pro to win. The resolution is an absolute, meaning that there is no use (a.k.a. useless) for arguing over things that can't be disproven or proven. This means that all I have to do is show that there is a use to arguing over things that can't be proven or disproven, and I win the debate. This also means that my opponent must counter every possible use I can come up with, otherwise I'm showing that there is a use, which means you negate. I'll first provide my list of uses, then respond to pro's last round.Use One: Arguing for Probability:There are certain things that are impossible to prove or disprove, but we argue whether they probably happened or not to give us insight into how we believe the world around us probably works. There's two good examples of this.The first being the God debate. Obviously it's not physically possible to completely and entirely prove or disprove the existence of God. But the God debate is entirely relevant to our everyday lives in how we act and what we do, so discussion of such is entirely relevant. If we decide that God probably exists, our actions are more likely to align in accordance to a life where God did exist, rather than if God didn't exist. So even if we can't prove definitively that God exists, we can prove something probably exists or probably doesn't exist, and go from there.Use Two: Arguing for Skill:This is probably the strongest reason, at least in my eyes, as to why arguing for things that can't be proven or disproven is still useful: it's a display of skill. In a matchup between two debaters on a topic where there is no definitive right or wrong, who wins and loses the debate turns into who can craft the better arguemnts and rebuttals and who has a better ability to research topic literature. That's why real-life debate tournaments aim to have topics that aren't slanted in any way toward one side or the other: remove the provability or disprovability of a topic, and the winner becomes who does the better job debating, not who is ultimately right.I'll pass it over to my opponent from here.
Arguing over things you can not prove or disprove is useless.

Well, thank you for the speedy acceptance I will try to make this worth your time. (I am better at defending instead of being the instigator). OK, first of all I will start off by restating my argument that arguing over anything we can't prove or disprove is useless. The only thing I can see someone gaining by arguing over things that have no actual presentable evidence is the feeling that you get when you lets say "convert" someone to your way of thinking, to change their ideas through the manipulation of words and made up facts and through no evidence from any actual reliable source people are not a reliable source. People lie and cheat you can't always trust people so anything that other people say or write down may or may not be true or even real at all it is a chance we all have to take. I will use a very common argument as an example, people arguing over creationism vs the big bang theory. We cannot really prove either of them, but yet people argue over them to change the other person's mind or to prove a point when in fact you have not proven anything. An argument that a creationist could say is it says in the bible or evolution is flawed. An evolutionist would say there is more fact of evolution or it is more logical , but in both cases the facts are nearly nonexistent . Lets then lets then consider that both cases were real or both were false or they both were equally false and equally true. Maybe a god did make the universe/earth, but billions of years ago and we evolved to what we are today who knows. There are so many options its like asking why a million times, then being unable to answer the question eventually. All we can do is speculate, but the main point of this argument how can we prove that any of this is real.Why do we argue why things exist is it because humans are always looking for more than just because, I know humans are curious, but there has to be a point where we stop asking questions that cannot be answered, we end up with more than we wanted more than we can comprehend at some points. why argue if a god exists when we don't really know, why argue against a god existing when we don't really know.If one does exist then why can't others. So why argue about things that may not even matter in the long run why try to prove or disprove things that we can't or may not exist to begin with. Why argue over things we don't know about at all. Win or lose good luck. (I know it isn't the neatest or better put together argument, but thank you for accepting).
Capitalism vs. Socialism

Hello con! thank you for debating with me today! This is my first debate on debate.org so lets hope it goes pleasantly! I would like to first address the misconception in your definition of a capitalist market economy. Wage labor is not defined by an individual producer, but by the aggregate markets of the economy, so the wage is considered by the collective "value" of the labor by the economy, not by the individual producer. This is a common anti market biased emphasized in the book "the Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan. I will take your definition of socialism as a theory of socialism, because I have not heard or studied an economy that implements it the way you describe. Instead of naming the number of benefits from a capitalist society which is demonstrated with the over all prosperity of many western countries. I will present fundamental flaws in the described socialist theory. 1, in a market economy, the consumer is the one that dictates economic policy, they essentially vote with their wallets. The producers then must compete with each other to gain the consumers business which then create a market demand, and a market supply. If the producers were to democratically decide the economic system, they would have no concept of the market demand, since the producer can not get into the minds of the consumers there is no conceivable way to anticipate the demand for a product. So it is best left to the consumer to "vote with their money" and create the economic system. (I could have misunderstood you about what you meant by the producers democratically decide the economic system, but thats what i took it as) 2,The second problem I had with your theory of socialism, is the "profit motive", This is another common anti market biased, a good quote from the book I previously mentioned, "They [the ones suffering from anti market biased] focus on the motives of business, and neglect the discipline imposed by competition". While yes looking at the profits of a company could be astonishing while comparing it to the wage of their workers. We must look at the reason behind those profits. profits are a means to growth, without profits business can not grow. If workers were to be paid not by the market value of their labor, but by the percent share of their contribution from the profit. There would be no room for business to grow, and that would make a stagnant economy. Thank you! looking forward to your reply!.. ps. the information I gave about economies comes from a deep background of economic study, and policy study as a graduate student in economics.
Capitalism vs. Socialism

For this argument I will be taking the "con" position, which is to be the "socialism" position for the purpose of this debate. This first round is for acceptance, and to clarify the following: Capitalism: Economic system characterized by wage-labor and individual or state ownership of the means of production. Wage labor is to be defined not simply as labor done for an incentive, but rather labor paid for based on capital an employer feels to pay an employee rather than the social value of a product. Capitalism does not just mean free-market capitalism, but also state capitalism (capitalism based on government nationalization of the economy) and mixed capitalism (capitalism based on government nationalization of key industries). Therefore, China, the USSR, Cuba and the like are not socialist, but rather STATE CAPITALIST. Socialism: Economic system characterized by the collective ownership of the means of production, with economic decisions made democratically through "free associations" of producers. Socialism is to be DISTINCT from SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, a form of capitalism practiced predominately in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, to a lesser extent in Canada, and is emerging in Latin America. Market socialism is to be clarified as an economic system characterized by the profit motive, but not by wage labor in the capitalistic sense, as profit from the sale of goods is distributed according to the contribution of individual workers to production. I would also like to add that citing sources is completely optional, but recommended in order to make one's argument more convincing. May the best debater win!
Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Although my opponent and I have already had this debate before, I believe that this second debate would run much smoother, as I am now no longer burdened by the unfair connotation of being anti-gay, which caused many to vote against me, while my position suggests nothing of the sort, and we'll be able to concentrate on the actual problem at hand - that is, the legalization of marriage. Marriage - an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways . http://en.wikipedia.org... Legal - having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact . http://www.merriam-webster.com... United States - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Contention 1-: The legalization of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. "No state shall . .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " [1] By recognizing marriage legally, government is distinguishing and discriminating between the married and the non-married, and protecting them unequally. This is an obvious violation. The only real way to negate this contention would be to justify the discrimination between those whose marriages are deemed worthy of recogniztion, those whose marriages are deemed unworthy of recogniztion, and those who don't even consider themselves married. That will be all for now, although I reserve the right to create new contentions in future rounds. Good luck. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Reparations are owed to the African American Community

I need some clarification on "extra privillages", because I have seen none, oh if you mean affirmative action, it actualy has been most beneficial to White Women, not black people as you might have thought and it will be even more benefical to hispanic people as we proress as nation. Oh or are you talking about welfare? Well I will have you know their are twice as many White families on Welfare than there are blacks. Just incase you didnt know black people pay taxes too, my tax dollars go to the welfare system, just as muh as yours do. Personally I dont count racial profilling as an "extra privillage" you might but I dont know... If I have missed something in regards to all of these wonderful Extra-Privallegs please enlighten me. In regards to reparations, "To charge the taxpayers in the year 2008 for past oppression of blacks, is completely unjust. The current taxpayers did not participate in this oppression and had no control over whether their ancestors or government did long ago." This argument makes no sense. Its like saying I'm not going to put money into the U.S. prison system because I didnt commit any crimes, so I shouldnt have to pay. (Just incase you didnt know, your tax dollars go into the U.S. prison systems).When it comes to reparations, I understand that some forms of reparations are just unacceptable, Like 40 acres and a mule, or the govt. cutting each black person a check no, thats not how I want or see reparations. I want reparations for the African American community, by building up the inner cities, putting money into the school systems, building up the black business, strengthening the black identity, giving credit to blacks where credit is due. Getting rid of "black history month" and actuallly start incorporating our history into the education system, if you have ever taken world history, you will relise that its not really "World history" its more like Europes run in with the rest of the world. It is time for a change. another question i'm sure you are wondering, who is going to pay for all of this?? One, by all of the tax payers in the united states, white, black,Indian, hispanic, Asian, all U.S. citizens. not just white people, I'm tired of hearing that white people arent the only ones that pay taxes we all do as U.S. citizens, and I think its vastly unfair to ask just those who are of european decent to pay for reparations. Wher will this money come from?? Instead of investing our money into this idiotic patriot act it could be going to the reparations promised to blacks. Or instead of funding the stupid no child left behind, a total waste of U.S. tax dollars, it could go to reparations, instead of tax dollars going into slot machines that do nothing but cause more crime, it could be going to something of much more importance reparations to the people whos backs on which this Country is built. Thanks to slavery the U.S. is (or was before George bush got in office) one of the worlds richest largest super powers. If not for slavery America would not be as successful as it is today
Reparations are owed to the African American Community

It is absolutely true that the U.S. government and its' citizens have vastly oppressed black people in the past. But the idea of the government giving reparations now is unjust. In policy, the government has allowed blacks all the same rights that white people have, and even some extra privileges. To charge the taxpayers in the year 2008 for past oppression of blacks, is completely unjust. The current taxpayers did not participate in this oppression and had no control over whether their ancestors or government did long ago.
Reparations are owed to the African American Community

I'm not going to put it all out there just yet, but I'll state my position and elaborate on why I feel the way I do. I Belive that Reparations are owed to the African American Community, as a whole for their 200 + years of slavery. America was built off of the backs of black people, and thanks to slavery america has become (or was before Bush came to office) one of the Worlds richest super powers. Ok theres my position If you think you can handle it let the debate begin!
College Should be free

Your perfect world is more or less like communism. Yeah, Lets take from the rich, And give it to the broke college students. Most billionaires or millionaires work harder than Kylie Jenner, They get degrees and other things. It's really unfair. Half of a million dollars is $500, 000, Which means that because a person worked hard to get a million dollars, They now have to pay half their money to the government. Which means they have an annual salary, Of $500, 000 which is still a lot, But not what they deserve. People who just strive for $500, 000 will just get the same as a guy who strived for a million. You say that billionaires do less work than other people, But no, Just look at the amount of work a homeless person did in school.
College Should be free

OK, Let's keep with the taxation of the top 1% narrative. If we have, Like, A millionaire and we tax him 50%, He still has more than enough money to live comfortably. Also think about the richest people in America. 50% of their income would be billions of dollars, Which would be more than enough to pay for everyone's college and have plenty left over for the government to used for things like school funding, Social services, And infrastructure. The billionaires will be fine. But no, That takes from "people who do hard work". Yeah, Just look at all the work Kylie Jenner is doing. For you other point, I was suggesting if the free college option does not work, Then we can at least try to make it more affordable. Many times, Financial aid is not enough for lower income students.
College Should be free

That would be unfair, Let's say that most of the top 1% of people are millionaires. Their regular tax is 33%, Add 20%, That would be over half their income being taken away. If that 20% is part of the 33%, Than that would be only 13% for the government to use. Why only the top 1%? You are virtually taking the money away from people who work hard to get it. Plus, You just contradicted to your argument, You said that colleges should be free, Not less expensive. Those who are academically qualified can already go through financial aid, And scholarships, There is plenty of options out there.
Individuals owe a debt of gratitude to their parents

Do we have a moral debt towards our parent? Given that none of us asked to be born in the is world.... That we are birthed and protected during our early years mainly due to a genetic regulation emphasizing propagation and protection of genetic patrimony... That we are the result of two consenting adults desire.... On the other hand, the causes of our birth do not change the fact that we have been taken care of, provided for, loved and guided (for some), and put in the best conditions available to succeed (for some)... Do we have a moral debt towards our parent? I think not.
Military Conscription is Unjust.

Hi, I'm questionmark, and I disagree. I see no unjust-ness in conscription, whatever the name. As an American citizen, you have certain rights that no other country in the world has. However, you also have responsibilities. You cannot be conscripted until you are 18, at which age you are also free to leave to another country where they don't have a draft. So if you don't like it, you don't have to stay, making it your choice. I fail to see how it is unfair.
Military Conscription is Unjust.

I. INTRODUCTION Greetings, DDO. I noticed that debate challenges have been pretty scarce lately, so I decided to post one of my own. This will be a three-round debate, during which I will spend the first round making any necessary clarifications, and using Rounds 2 and 3 to make and conclude my arguments. I acknowledge that as Pro (and more importantly, as the instigator) I have the burden of proof. Thus I ask that my future opponent utilize R1 to either accept or refute my clarifications; I will make my opening arguments in R1. Thank you to whomever accepts this debate, and good luck! II. CLARIFICATIONS Military Conscription: A general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority. It is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just males) to serve in the armed forces. It is known by various names — for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as 'the draft' [Wikipedia]. Unjust: Lacking in justice or fairness [Dictionary] I also encourage that this debate focus primarily on the United States; that is to say that the resolution actually reads: (Legalized) Military conscription is/would be unjust in the United States. If my opponent disagrees with these parameters, I ask that it be addressed along with reasoning detailing the opposition.
Catholicism has Mistakes

Catholics pray to Mary, and don't end their prayers with 'In Jesus' Name' which God clearly wants us to do. I know there is the Trinity, and God means 3 persons in one. So saying God does not just refer to the Father.Catholics end all prayers with, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt. Amen. Pro here makes an incorrect statement and since Catholics end all prayers with that phrase what he said is null and void. Babtism and Penance and Eucharist and all that junk is not needed, and clearly not needed. Baptism is the public declaration of faith. Therefore, you do not need to be babtised to go to Heaven. It's like saying you need a badge to play basketball.In the Bible it states that one must be Baptised to go to Heaven and have Original Sin washed away. Peanance is key to forgive terrible sins which you can't go to heaven if you die with those and the Eucharist is nessisary, because that is when Jesus made the New Covenant and it is also in the Bible. Saying that these things are not important are utterly rediculas and prove that a Protestant like you don' fallow the Bible well. http://ncronline.org... God's kingdom should reflect off him, and be like what he is. Why does it not say follow God? Because, God doesn't want us to say, "I love Jesus, and I follow him," he wants us to seek his kingdom and righteousness, which means following his commandments and being like him. That is what I mean.But Jesus is God, you see what you are saying is contradictary and I will discard this arguement as such. God says everyone is equal, so the way they are making popes more holy than every other Christian, is unacceptable. God has his own message for the each of us, so we don't need to go visit a old guy in red, living in Vatican City, to tell us what God wants. The Pope is God's interment, his messenger, like a phrophet. Stating this is dissing on all of those in the Bible who worked so hard to get us her today. I don't have a thing against Catholics, but I think Catholicsm has strayed from the teachings of God and Jesus, so that is why Martin Luther, had to post his 95 theses. The church has actually changed since then. http://www.prca.org...; And, the bible says to not murder, but thanks to Bloody Mary, and some Catholics, we see that law being kept. I can say the same thing about the 30 Years of War in Germany. Con will have to give flaws of Protestantism and correct what he thinks is wrong in what I'm saying.I can't give flaws since that will move us into a spot where my opponent can't deffend them and that would be bad manners, so I'll defend what I have said and go from there.Also my opponent has not touched on my arguements against Protestants so extend those across the board.Vote Con. Thank You.
Catholicism has Mistakes

Catholics pray to Mary, and don't end their prayers with 'In Jesus' Name' which God clearly wants us to do. I know there is the Trinity, and God means 3 persons in one. So saying God does not just refer to the Father. Babtism and Penance and Eucharist and all that junk is not needed, and clearly not needed. Baptism is the public declaration of faith. Therefore, you do not need to be babtised to go to Heaven. It's like saying you need a badge to play basketball. I did not mean just follow his commandments. Here is an example. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33 NIV) God's kingdom should reflect off him, and be like what he is. Why does it not say follow God? Because, God doesn't want us to say, "I love Jesus, and I follow him," he wants us to seek his kingdom and righteousness, which means following his commandments and being like him. That is what I mean. God says everyone is equal, so the way they are making popes more holy than every other Christian, is unacceptable. God has his own message for the each of us, so we don't need to go visit a old guy in red, living in Vatican City, to tell us what God wants. I don't have a thing against Catholics, but I think Catholicsm has strayed from the teachings of God and Jesus, so that is why Martin Luther, had to post his 95 theses. And, the bible says to not murder, but thanks to Bloody Mary, and some Catholics, we see that law being kept. Con will have to give flaws of Protestantism and correct what he thinks is wrong in what I'm saying. Thank you.