BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The tooth fairy exists

Refuting my opponent's arguments"When I was young and my baby teeth fell out, I put them under my pillow, and by the time the morning came by, they had mysteriously vanished and been replaced with money. How does such a phenomenon come about? Clearly, this indicates the existence of a tooth fairy"Having evidence of a theft and replacement does nothing to indicate who did the stealing and replacing, so this argument was a non sequitur. "Aside from this, the concept of the "tooth fairy" surely exists. It is a established idea that has impacted our culture (and other cultures) for generations."So have vapires, aliens, warewolves, interdimentional beings, ghosts, Gods and literally any type of being your mind can imagine. The mind can imagine something, and a huge handful of people believe the same thing, that doesn't make it true in reality though. An idea established in culture does nothing to indicate how valid the claim is."The fact that we are debating this already assumes that the idea has been established, so this claim is virtually undeniable."Actually, the fact that we are debating this assumes that the claim is not undeniable.Case against The Tooth FairySemantic argumentThe tooth fairy is defined as fantasy."The tooth fairy is a fantasy figure of early childhood."[1]Fantasy is defined as fiction."Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting."[2]Fiction is defined as not factual."Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual"[3] If something is not based on fact but fiction, it is most likely not true until we get some extra-ordinary evidence for the extra-ordinary claim.The absense of evidence and the evidence of absense Sometimes the absense of evidence is evidence of absense. If someone said they had a fire breathing dragon in their garage and when you went in there was a complete lack of evidence of the dragon in the garage, then it's logical to make a statement claiming that there is no dragon in the garage. The tooth fairy would be the dragon in the analogy, and the child's bedroom would be the garage.Fighting fire with fireIf my opponent can say that it's undeniable that the tooth fairy is fact because it's established, then I can say it's undeniable that the tooth fairy is fantasy because it's established. It's an ad populum either way though.Conclusion My opponent failed at meeting his burden of proof by presenting arguments that were weak and unsupported that went easliy refuted. I replaced his weak arguments for the tooth fairy, with stronger arguments against the tooth fairy.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The tooth fairy exists

When I was young and my baby teeth fell out, I put them under my pillow, and by the time the morning came by, they had mysteriously vanished and been replaced with money. How does such a phenomenon come about? Clearly, this indicates the existence of a "tooth fairy," whether or not he/she is literally a fairy. For further evidence, see [1]. Aside from this, the concept of the "tooth fairy" surely exists. It is a established idea that has impacted our culture (and other cultures) for generations. The fact that we are debating this already assumes that the idea has been established, so this claim is virtually undeniable. Thank you. [1] http://www.therealtoothfairies.com...
Knowledge, ideas and concepts are learned from experience. Nobody is born with an innate knowledge.

Let's talk Primitive Reflexes! Let's start with the rooting reflex. A simple google search provides us with the definition of rooting reflex - A reflex that is seen in normal newborn babies, who automatically turn the face toward the stimulus and make sucking (rooting) motions with the mouth when the cheek or lip is touched. The rooting reflex helps to ensure successful breastfeeding. They are born with this "knowledge" so I have proven EVERYONE is born with some sort of innate knowledge. I have fulfilled my BoP and claim victory. [1] https://www.google.com...
Knowledge, ideas and concepts are learned from experience. Nobody is born with an innate knowledge.

I accept Definitions: Knowledge - awareness of something : the state of being aware of something Idea - something that you imagine or picture in your mind Concept - an idea of what something is or how it works Innate - existing from the time a person or animal is born OR existing as part of the basic nature of something For our uses however we will be using definition number 2: existing as part of the basic nature of something All definitions defined in the first round are universally accepted and may not be argued. I shall be arguing that "somebody is born with an 'innate knowledge' of something." Here it is important to note I need only prove that SOMEBODY knows AT LEAST ONE thing at birth and I win. I ask my opponent to refrain from using rebuttals until R3 (Round 3) and post their arguments in R2 (Round 2) and I shall do the same. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gog and Magog were released when Islam was completed in the 7th Century.

Dhul Qarnain in the Quran said after building the wall of Gog and Magog: " This wall is a mercy from ALLAH unto you and on that day when the promise of ALLAH comes true He will lay down this barrier and the promise of ALLAH is ever true" Which Promise of ALLAH is Dhul Qarnain (a.s) is talking about?? Its that Promise which ALLAH has told all the Prophets in their even Adam (a.s) was told about that promise. The promise of ALLAH which all Prophets were told was that Muhammad (s.a.w.w) will come and ALLAH will complete the religion of Islam Through him. So what does Dhul Qarnain (a.s) mean when He says ALLAH will lay down this barrier when promise of ALLAH will come true? It simple and Logical as well that when Islam will be completed and Muhammad (s.a.w.w) will live on earth that is the time when Gog and Magog will be released and the barrier will be broken. Read the history of the Khazar empire and you will find out that they are the ones who are those people and they are the ones who are controlling the world now. Baha i Faith might have played a part in the return of Jews to the land but the Ban was that Jews cannot reclaim that land again it wasn't that they cant come there. Jews lived in Jerusalem under Muslim Rule through out History. So the ban of ALLAH on the jews was violated when the state of Israel was officially made in 1948. The nations which helped the Jews to return to the holy land were England, France, US and all other European Nations. Read the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Why were Europeans so obssessed with the Holy Land through out the History. Is there any history of Europe before Islam?? Who were the people who led the first crusade against the Muslims??? England!! why didnt the eastern christians never tried to fight Muslims to capture Jerusalem?? why were the european Christians and Jews so obssessed??? European Jews are not semitic jews their genetics have proved it. The europeans or you can say the white people are children of Japeth the third son of Noah. Gog and Magog in the bible are described as the children of the third son of Noah as well Japheth. Even the Quran says the Gog and Magog are from the progeny of Adam and Noah. In the Ancient times (in the time of Dhul Qarnain) these people were called the germanic people out of which came the Khazar tribes of northern Caucasus. The vikings who spread all across Europe originated from Germanic tribes. Read history of Germanic People and KHazars.
Gog and Magog were released when Islam was completed in the 7th Century.

The ideas of Gog and Magog were fulfilled through the Baha'i Faith. Notice that in the same year the Baha'i Faith started in 1844, the Edict of Toleration was signed, allowed the Jews back in Palestine. Also, the details of Gog and Magog in the hadith were predictive of the events in Baha'u'llah's life and exile. I can pull them up if you need them.
Gog and Magog were released when Islam was completed in the 7th Century.

Well I said I would agree that Gog and Magog were historical reference to peoples or situations during the time of Muhammad, and that they also refer in a symbolic or metaphorical sense to other eschatological events promised in the Quran. I just said that the reference to hidden groups of people ruling the earth with power and money (you listed a group of people throughout history) was like a conspiracy theory that needs a lot of evidence to prove that you have not shown here.
Gog and Magog were released when Islam was completed in the 7th Century.

A typical reply by a typical sheep of today without even researching the topics and concluding that it can be a mere coincidence!! Listen I am a Muslim I dont know about you but if you are a muslim then you should know that ALLAH (GOD) doesnt lie in his verses and he has clearly told us in Chapter of Surah Anbiya of the Quran (Holy Book) that : Verse#95 (Surah Anbiya) وَحَرَامٌ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ "But there is a ban on any population which We have destroyed: that they shall not return," Verse#96 (Surah Anbiya) حَتَّىٰ إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُمْ مِنْ كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنْسِلُونَ Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill. The above two verses are co-related to each other, so if we translate them together it is as: " But there is a ban on any population which We have destroyed: that they shall not return, Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill". ALLAH says in the above verses that He has placed a permanent ban on the people who have been destroyed or in other words we can also say whom ALLAH has expelled from their lands so that they can never return and reclaim them again but then in the next verse (96th) ALLAH puts a condition which is that only when GOG and MAGOG will be released into this world only then those banned people be allowed to return back to their land and reclaim it as their own again. Now the question is who are those people who have been expelled from their land? Its obvious that ALLAH here is pointing towards the Jews who were expelled from their Holy land (Jerusalem) 2000 years ago and they were broken into 12 different tribes who were scattered around the world. So ALLAH placed a ban on them that they will not return to their Holy land to reclaim it as their own. Obviously they can come as tourists but they were banned from reclaiming that land again. So this means with reference to the two verses mentioned above they can only return and reclaim their land again when GOG and MAGOG have been released into this world. If you believe that Gog and Magog are not released then Please put forward an explanation as to how have the jews returned their promised holy land before their Release whereas ALLAH says that they cant return before them. Please put forward a valid explanation for this. If you are a non-Muslim then answer me this : Why were European Christians so obsessed for getting the Jews back to their holy land in 1948?? I thought the Jews and Christians were bitter enemies through out history. Why this mysterious obsession?
God is Irrelevant in Today's Life

I do respect your beliefs, but this is the ultimate non sequitur. Saying it's "God's plan" or "God's timeline" is a cop out. And time is a scientific metric measured by the number of times our Earth orbits the sun. Geologists use radiometric dating which has identified the oldest rocks at 4.5 billion years old. Or 4.5 billion orbits around the sun. Furthermore, based on meteorites and moon rocks, scientists have dated the universe at approx 13.8 billion years. They even have more evidence about what came before that. So again, God is irrelevant. We don't need Him to understand our existence. And we don't need Him to understand morality. Anyone who 'acts' moral only to get into heaven is scum. A person who is really moral, like both of us, does so without any expectation of reward.
God is Irrelevant in Today's Life

Ok, thank you for correcting me, first off. You are right, I also didn't use any evidence. I can say that time is something that we made, we could really be millions of years old, but God made something simple for our minds. Also, God's time could be different from ours. His seven days could have been millions of years for us. I can say that we all have an opinion, and we have to acknowledge it.
God is Irrelevant in Today's Life

First off, the burden of proof that God exists is on your side. If I were to say "unicorns exist, prove me wrong", that would be ridiculous. Second, humans evolved from primates- not monkeys. Monkeys and humans branched off separately from them over millions of years and evolved to the creatures of today. And to ask "why haven't today's monkeys evolved into humans," is like asking "how can we have been babies if there are still babies around today". Finally, yes, the universe is expanding outward, called 'spatial inflation', which is just more evidence for the Big Bang. My question to you: given the insurmountable evidence that earth is over 4 billion years old, and humans have only been around for a fraction of the time, what did God do in the interim? Wait 3+ billion years for humans to finally show up?
Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

I will keep my definition of reason. There is more than one definiton and the one I used is the one which I believe most clearly represents what I am arguing in favor of. Also, I do not accept your definition of faith. Faith as opposed to reason is belief in something for reasons other than proof or evidence. Faith in this debate is supposed to be the antithesis of reason. To believe in something because of reason is to believe it based on proof or evidence. To believe something on faith is to not take evidence or proof into account. On to your contention that humans must believe in something I agree. However believing in something because of reason or faith are two different things. Advocates of reason favor evidence based thinking or a critical examination of proof before one believes it. Faith on the other hand is belief without proof. One may be right in what they believe in but they do not believe it because the evidence available warrants it. "not having a religion or considering yourself to be an Atheist also takes faith" This contention is also false. Just because one believes something(has a belief system) does not mean one has faith. As I mentioned earlier it is the reason one believes something that is to be taken into account. Believing that man evolved or that we live in a godless world does not require faith, although one may believe those things on faith. When one uses reason to find their way around the world they are trying their best to see the world for what it truly is and not what they would rather want it to be. "Finally, much reason relies on faith." This contention is also false and comes from a lack of understanding of what faith and reason are. They are simply two different reasons for believing something. You can believe that the garbage men came to take your garbage on faith, or without taking into account all the necessary evidence available. Or you can believe the garbage men came to take your garbage because they have come to take it every week before and you know the city schedule. You can believe the same thing but it is the reason that matters. Reason has given the world so many great things. It has given us cures and treatments for diseases. Doctors did not have faith that disease would heal by themselves, instead they used critical examination of the information available, combined with evidence based thinking and saved lives. If they were to have lived by faith, they could believe anything they wanted to about the nature of diseases and the human body and whether they were right or wrong, they would never know because they would not take evidence into account. One does not need faith to be an atheist as you stated earlier. One may not believe in god because one has looked at all the evidence available or that the theist has given and using reason, comes to the conclusion that there is not god. It's actually exactly the opposite of faith.
Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

Now the first thing I plan to do before laying out my constructive, is to challenge my opponent's definitions based on the sources he provides. It is my belief that his definitions severely limit the Pro's ground and thus I will counter-define them based on his sources. First "Reason" [1] following the link my opponent provides there are multiple definitions for this term, to which my opponent claims the definition (2 a. ) I however make the counter claim for definition (1 a. ) the first listed definition on this list, that being "a statement offered in explanation or justification " I claim that this is the better definition because it is listed first now second on his definition of "Faith" [2] again following this link my opponent offers you the second definition in the list. however challenge this as well and say we must look to the first definition, that faith is; "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. " again this definition is more reliable as it is at the top of the list. Now with this in mind, I will now set in with several reasons warranting why faith is more valuable than Contention 1: Humans must believe in something- It is with in our nature to believe, to have faith in something. Whether we believe in a system, a religion[3], a person, and idea, or even ourselves we must have faith in ourselves to do anything First, in order for a person to have religion they believe in their belief ultimately comes down to faith. For example I am a Christian; not because I have any kind of solid proof, or reason to be one. But because when I read the bible it fills me with hope and love. Therefore although I have no proof nor reasonable logic I have faith. Second, not having a religion or considering yourself to be an Atheist also takes faith. Atheism for the most part is a belief based on the fact that since there is no proof for a God there is no reason to believe in a God. However while there is no way to know that there is a God, there is no way to know there isn't one; therefore saying there is no God is a belief based on faith. Finally, much reason relies on faith. For instance if Monday is trash day, and you cart your garbage out the curb before going to work then reason stand to argue that then you got back home that night the garbage is gone because the trash man came and took it. However who is to say the garbage was not stolen by some-one who planned to dig through it and try and steal your identity. Or maybe the trash was taken by some-one who wanted to decompose it and use the nutrients to feed their plants. The point is that at the end, of all reason it is ultimately backed by faith since nothing can be known beyond the shadow of a doubt. Whether a person believes in themselves or others they still have the need to believe. This is the only contention I will provide for now, I now hand the debate back over to my opponent! Sources- [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://www.adherents.com...
Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

The topic of this Debate will be which is more desirable, Faith or Reason. Rules- There is no power of fiat. If you feel there is not a clear winner the debate end in a tie Both sides have the burden of proof to prove their side over the other. Round one is for acceptance, definitions, and clarifications Rounds two through four are for debate, clash, and voters. Con may make any rules they feel are necessary in the next round so long as they are not abusive (i.e. a rule saying they win just by accepting) I look forward to my opponent's response!
Your choice on the topic 2

I believe that in the universe where humans are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, all people are equally meaningless. I know that sounds dark but it's true. So, yes, I believe that all humans are equal. Obviously, men and women have different physical and genetic features but we are the same mentally. I looked at Pink Tax and I personally think that it's not a good idea. Products for women take more resources to make so they are more expensive. I don't think companies are sexist in a way where they make women pay more intentionally. I also don't think women are payed less then men intentionally because some women still are used to the stearotype of a housewife. Which there is nothing wrong with that but it's true. They average the income for men and women, and they compare the results. It just so happens that men get paid more then women. Honestly, I don't care what men or women do with money. As long as it doesn't effect me in the grand-scheme of things.
Your choice on the topic 2

I checked your previous debate and I actually agree with you. I go to public school but the education in the U.S isn't the best. Public school causes stress and anxiety which can lead to bad grades. The only flaw with homeschool is that it's not good for public speaking or realistic situations for the future. But, besides that, I agree that homeschool is the best option for children in the U.S. For the uniforms argument, I completely agree and the arguments to wear a uniform are terrible and full of flaws. Please choose a different topic if possible. I can just end the debate right here if you want but please choose the next topic.
What political party has anarchists, Communists, rioters, as backers of its political agenda

What political party has anarchists, Communists, rioters, as backers of its political agenda anarchist ," a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom. " The democrat party has become a party who's members have defined what the party stands for and its not a party that believes in law and order nor in a a civil society. No, the democrat party members believe that the ballots of the voters shouldn't be the final determiner of who our representatives are or which political party should be in the oval Office but that choice should be made by rioters and Anarchists in the streets of our cities. These anarchists would decide, by their tactics of looting and burning of property, the rightness of the election results and whether these election results are to be accepted as legitimate or not. This last election in which The democrat party canidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to the republican candidate, Ronald Trump, has proven just how much respect the democrat party members have for the results of an election and the voters choice. Now the democrat party and its infamous anarchist members have enlisted the rioters to disrupt and stop the inauguration of Donald Trump in any way that they can. This inauguration will be a test to see if the voters and the ballot box still determines the peoples selection for president or will the anarchists rioting in the streets overrule the rest of America's voters.
What political party has anarchists, Communists, rioters, as backers of its political agenda

First, anti-war protesting isn't radical just because Wall Street Journal commentators declare it to be. What is radical is claiming that the USA has been in a state of moral decline for decades. (All republicans) Inviting foreign adversaries to cyber-attack US politicians (Trump) Claiming the ISIS is a United States project (Trump) Declaring that NATO is irrelevant (Trump) Claiming that the CIA doesn't know anything (Trump) Making here today, gone tomorrow promises, which guarantee that any deal with the US means nothing and that our allies shouldn't trust us (Trump) Taking congressional action that lowers the US credit rating an therefore raises our debt (Republicans) How many other ways will Republicans continue to weaken the United States in front of the rest of the world?