BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God Exist? (Part 2)

Hello! This is a continuation of a debate Con and I had last week. I would like this to be more of a discussion than a debate. So, vote if you'd like, but I'm not trying to "win" this one. Our last debate focused a lot on your questions about Christianity. I would like to now ask you questions about Atheism. These are the main problems I have with atheism: 1) Everything is an accident. Atheism says that all life is essentially an accident of numerous helpful mutations. Jellyfish just happened to sprout legs who happened to develop lungs who happened to grow brains who happened to walk upright. Atheism says that all life is the result of a string of accidents, and I cannot accept that is all life is. How do random amino acids and proteins spring to life by accident? 2) If there is no supernatural, then we are all just lumps of carbon and water waiting to die. I cannot accept that we are just masses of raw organic matter. If this is true, then all human consciousness, emotion, love, art, and creativity is nothing more than electric synapses and chemical hormones pumping through our brains. All of our deepest feelings and desires are nothing more than chemical reactions. This is very hard to believe. 3) Atheism does not provide a satisfying meaning for life. It is very hard to draw meaning from the thought that when we die, we simply become food for worms and the world keeps moving on without us and that's it. That means we are nothing more than wild animals in fancy clothes - our only job is to reproduce to keep the species going and then we can die an evolutionary success. That is very hard to accept. 4) Morality. If there is no supernatural, then our only job on Earth is to reproduce and to keep our species surviving. Therefore, morality is simply behavior that help humans survive. This kind of makes sense, because things like telling the truth and sharing can be things that help people survive. The problem is, different people have different opinions about what helps humanity. Hitler thought he was helping the human race survive by killing Jews. Osama bin Laden thought he was doing humanity a favor by killing infidels. Who is to say they are wrong and we are right? On what authority can we judge our morals as better than someone else's if there is no higher authority? I would like you to explain how your worldview answers these four points. If you'd like, feel free to ask me questions about Christianity and I will answer you in the next round.
School uniforms should be banned

A sense of discipline given by a school uniform isn't necessary, as children should be disciplined at home by their parents. When a group wears a uniform e. g. at work, or in the army, it reinforces the idea that the group is part of a team. However at school, a child's primary goal is not to work well as a team but to become a competant individual, able to complete coursework and exams on their own, and think entirely on their own. Schools do set team excersises e. g. quizes, challenges, and have sport acticities. But again there is no need for students to wear the same uniform, even when playing footabll it is not necessary to be given bibs because there are no spectators! It is not difficult to remember who is on your team when a captain from each side picks his players, and when you're familiar with fellow students. The sole purpose of uniforms is to diminish competition by allowing teams to be created randomly (i. e. unfairly), which is a bad thing. Children should not be forced to have pride in their school. Not every school is great. They should be able to buy clothing with a logo just like any other club to freely express their pride. Also why should students waer a tie, do up the top button on their shirt, or even wear a shirt? if it makes them feel uncomfortable and inhibits their learning? Students should be given reasons to enjoy going to school, not reasons to hate it. They are happier on non-uniform days, why take that away? It seems to me that students must a wear a uniform so they feel like cattle, or something inferior. Is this how students should respect other people, by feeling inferior? I think I've made enough points, I eagerly await your argument, many thanks
School uniforms should be banned

Hello Fellow debater and viewers. This argument, as stated above, is about whether school uniforms should or shouldn't be banned. I, visheshk, will be against this. Let us begin. School uniforms give a sense of discipline. Non-school uniforms are more free, which is not always a good thing. Schools uniforms provide a sense of pride and respect, whereas non-school uniforms are less so. If you attended a 'mufti' school, if would be hard to choose what exactly to wear. In normal schools, student have a certain code which is mandatory to wear everyday, making life easier.
If the B-Theory of time is true, then Christianity is implausible

This debate will not be a debate on whether B-Theory is true or not. This debate will be about whether or not Christianity would still be plausible if B-Theory is true. Basically, we essentially assume B-Theory is true, and argue based on that axiom whether or not Christianity would still have a reasonable chance of surviving based on this notion. I will also be taking on the burden of proof, meaning all Con has to do is sufficiently undermine my claims better than I substantiate them.
Sedan chairs could provide the financially elite with the ideal urban travel solution

Sedan chairs have been used in Europe and Asia from times of antiquity to convey people around narrow and crowded city streets. Traditionally, the passengers in these human-powered vehicles occupied elevated positions in society and this was reflected in their ornate decoration. Chinese Sedan Chair http://www.chinainfoonline.com... Ottoman (Turkish) Sedan Chair http://upload.wikimedia.org... Georgian (English) Sedan Chair http://1.bp.blogspot.com... Sadly, though, these beautiful sedan chairs became a vanishingly rare sight as the thoroughfares in cities became wider and thus more able to accommodate horse-drawn carriages and, later, chauffeur-driven limousines. Now those same city streets have become seriously congested and this means that aristocrats, oil barons, film stars, tycoons, Russian oligarchs, hedge-fund managers, Arab playboys and other VIPs are obliged to sit in traffic-jams alongside ordinary members of the public. On many occasions these days, investment bankers with multi-million dollar bonuses burning holes in their pockets have to waste their valuable time queuing in traffic on their way to World of Beluga Caviar or Diamond-Encrusted Fabergï¿½ Eggs ‘R' Us and the landed gentry are delayed on their way to Stately Home Depot or Dï¿½butante's Ball Mart (or whatever stores the mega-rich shop in). From a legal perspective, posh personages in their Rolls-Royce Phantoms and Bugatti Veyrons do not have any more right of way on public highways than the hoi polloi in their Hyundai Accents and Ford Fiestas. So, in order to make quicker progress in cities such as New York, Tokyo and London where the traffic often moves slower than walking pace, the only solution is to take to the pavements (sidewalks). Naturally, the upper classes would not be expected to walk amongst the proletariat and, in any case, would wish to travel in a vehicle – and one befitting their superior status. Now, since no motor or horse-drawn vehicles are permitted on the pavements the only conveyance that could legally be used to transport these prosperous people would be a sedan chair. These sedan chairs could whisk VIPs swiftly and stylishly through the crowds to chosen destination, totally bypassing the traffic jams and thus providing a contemporary and environmentally friendly inner-city transport solution for the socially elite. Fortunately, one visionary London-based firm, Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises, which has a reputation for providing innovate products to discerning travellers (1) is about to launch a sedan chair service in the Capital. The firm aims to ferry their esteemed clientele of financiers, celebrities, politicians, tax exiles and ennobled landowners around the city in traditional sedan chairs carried by fully liveried footmen (2) and I believe that this Company should be applauded for their efforts and be rewarded with the success they so richly deserve. Thank you. (1) Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises Pak-a-Spak™ Rucksack http://www.debate.org... (2) Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises Sedan Chair http://gallery.nen.gov.uk...
The Separation of Church and State.

Once again I am in favor of separation of Church and State but for argumentative sake I will take a stand for it. I am a Christian man and I do understand the importance of the separation between the two. It is challenging to assess how we should separate the two because, for starters, the definitions for both are vague when seen only as text. However when we begin to assess their contexts, the subject becomes very heated. There are advocates for both side who have very compelling arguments for an assortment of reasons. It is challenging to understand the reasoning behind these peoples' arguments because we first have to understand their background and why they feel obligated to support either side. The argument that I hear most often is that the Church has no business involving itself with the government. Many people believe that the Church, which does a have a long track record of becoming overly powerful in governmental agendas, will become all-powerful once more if it is allowed to do so. I find this argument fairly one-sided and if I may say so, blind-sided. The Church is an entity in and of itself. A large percent of the population of the United States would consider themselves members of the Church, whichever denomination. It is for this reason that I believe that we cannot simply push the Church away from political activity. Labor unions and corporations hold a large percentage of the population as members as well and due to such a membership, the U.S. government has ruled that they should have a contingency in the running of the State. To ostracize such a large body is the first step in banning religion. First the governing body is removed of power then the members are systematically removed from societal relations as well. This may seem like a stretch but it is fairly reasonable fear for many Americans who consider themselves a part of the organized Church. We should not begin to cut ties with the Church because the nation as political body is moving in a purely secular motion away from religion. While it is important that we remain separated in structure of government I do not believe that America should completely cut ties with the Church and outlaw its involvement in the policy making of the United States. I am interested to hear your rebuttal.
The Separation of Church and State.

It is a vague but important term that has been around since the founding of the United States. Some argue it is just that: a term and nothing more. Others argue it is essential to run a democractic government (which is what I believe). So, who wants to take the con and say that we should not have the Separation of Church and State? Fair Warning: You are in for a Steadfast Brawl, with words of course.
Is capital punishment ethically wrong

Due to the nature of Bundy's crimes he would never be given parole as you clearly stated that he escaped from police custody which is in itself a federal crime and will only further his prison sentence. As an 18 year-old going into law, I have read tirelessly about the cases of numerous serial killers to benefit my understanding of the justice system and never had I read about a serial killer being released on parole. Furthermore, if a serial killer was to escape from a maximum security prison and possibly in solitary confinement he/she would be tracked down by the special forces, especially nowadays with technology advancements where an ip trace can easily catch a criminal or even with the use of drones. Additionally, my previous insinuation on the statistical fact that every 10 in 1000 people executed are innocent, what happens if someone is framed for a crime, in that incidence there is one mantra that I have heard from numerous individuals "you only get as much justice as you can afford" which in the incidence of being framed for a crime, this mantra does acquire some truth. The saying that you cited "locks only keep honest people honest" does have some truth to it but as I previously stated, the judiciary and executive branch of government would have no ambitions of releasing a convicted serial killer back into society. Your insinuation on Barack Obama's drone program has a committee of words stating "Obama is condemning some people to death without any due process", are you stating that with this new program, America will see a proliferation in unjust death sentences? As for the cited sentence from my previous post, I was stating that stricter penalties for terrorists is not a bad idea but I still do not believe it is permissible to sentence them to death.
Is capital punishment ethically wrong

Thank you for your condolences, I am happy that my experiences from such a young age are not typical for American children. And that is part of my point. Polite societies work very hard to develop systems to protect us from these kinds of events but unfortunately they do not always work for prevention. Yes, in some cases a lifetime in prison does provide a good measure of relief for society, but as we also have seen is convicted murders who get paroled and murder again, or who escape (Ted Bundy escaped police custody to go and kill the girl I knew) prison and kill again as long as they live. Capital punishment is the only grantee that a killer can't kill again. I would argue also that being put to death is a greater deterrent to other members of society. There is an old saying that locks only keep honest people honest, criminals will always get in. Well our locks on certain behaviors are our laws and the penalties that help to keep honest people honest because they do not want to face those penalties. I do not think you understood my point about Obama's drone program. Obama is condemning some people to death without any due process. Based on many more non-terrorists are being killed than actual terrorists. but you do prove one of my points, you say yourself that the capital punishment imposed on those you perceive to be, using your own words, "which in my mind isn't a bad thing" as good use of capital punishment. So you agree that in some cases capital punishment is moral, and ethical, are you admitting your own position in this debate is wrong?
Is capital punishment ethically wrong

Before I begin, I must let you know that I am most deeply sorry for the loss of someone you were close to who was taken by Ted Bundy - someone who was pure evil in human form. You have my utmost sympathy and condolences, I would never truly understand the pain and anguish you must have endured. Since this has turned into a very delicate matter, I will state that my following committee of words is not intended to come as being incendiary, defamatory, opinionated or prejudiced in any way, shape or form. There is one inevitable truth that some people in this world are nefarious and sick such as Ted Bundy, who's execution can actually be justified. However, as you stated capital punishment was what needed to be done to remove Bundy from society, but does permanent incarceration not already do that? For instance, another infamous and subhuman serial killer known as Jeffrey Dahmer, with as little detail as I can include, he raped, murdered, raped again and consumed his victims - one including a fourteen year-old boy. These crimes were sickening and undoubtedly shocked the nation, although, Dahmer dud not face capital punishment but instead a life sentence where he remained imprisoned and did not kill again. Another infamous killer, Charles Manson, has remained in prison for well over 40 years and has not killed anyone since. The third and final killer I will include, Martin Bryant, an Australian rampage shooter who was responsible for the deaths of 35 innocent people - one including a three year-old girl. Bryant was sentenced to 35 life sentences plus an additional 1,035 years in prison, he has remained in prison for 19 years and since then he has not killed once. As for the stigma of people dying from vaccines, is this permissible? I personally rebuke vaccines as I do not see how antibodies can be created in the human body so quickly. As for Obama's stricter penalties for terrorists, which in my mind isn't a bad thing since terrorists are despicable, sordid and a travesty of the human race, but doesn't America already have sufficient retribution for terrorists (I don't know if retribution is the correct word there but it conveys an idea of my thesis). To further explain, after 9/11, which was caused by Al Queada, America went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan because attacking another country's infrastructure and killing close to a million of its civilians is an act or war. Ever since 9/11, turmoil has been constantly erupting in the two middle-eastern countries. Isn't this already sound penalties? As for the American government allegedly spending more money on polls and surveys than capital punishment, isn't the heightening of terrorism penalties and the manufacturing to create more drones a far more sumptuous option? Once again I most state that this is merely my opinion and due to to the delicacy of this debate I will once again state that I have no intentions of being incendiary, defamatory or prejudiced.
Is capital punishment ethically wrong

I personally believe it is morally and ethically wrong. Capital punishment dates all the way back to the age of tyranny when king Henry the eighth and Vladimir the impaler were in power. Additionally, every 10 in 1000 people executed are innocent and even with such "stern" punishment, it is a statistic fact that capital punishment does not deter criminal from committing illegalities. Furthermore, capital punishment is theoretical a form of torture which incidentally is a crime against humanity. However, US president Barack Obama did once state "capital punishment is only for the most egregious of crimes", but what are the most egregious of crimes - in China, watching a banned tv soap opera is considered an egregious crime and capital offense. Not only is capital punishment barbaric but it is incoherent too, it costs more - prisoners are either always buried or cremated and there is usually an autopsy conducted with a coroner's inquest. Also, it is difficult to sentence - there needs to be a total of three trials and a death warrant issued by the judiciary branch of government. In addition, it is a statistic fact that the majority of the world's population are against capital punishment. In conclusion, my opinion strictly directs toward the stigma that capital punishment is incoherent, barbaric, subhuman, and ultimately evil.
Feminism is useless in the west now.

My opponent is claiming that being part of a group is a singular reason why feminism is a good thing in the west. I will overlook the fact that they deliberately ignored the fact that i mentioned this was in exception to 3rd world countries and unrelated however. I would like to pose to my opponent the idea that is feminism in this country really a role model now? Do you think other countries will really want to follow our example when they look at what feminism has become now and what it is fighting for? Would you not agree that to an outsider looking at what feminism has been reduced too (namely trying to be the biggest victim and wandering around making issues out of thin air so that they have a reason to keep screaming at the top of their lungs) would actually want it? If my opponents argument focuses on this then i will have to oblige and ask that does he really think feminism is setting a good example in its current iteration?
Feminism is useless in the west now.

"I firmly believe feminism has outlived it's usefulness in society and no longer has any use in the western world. " While this statement is not completely false it does have an issue with it, while i do believe that men are women are already equal in western societies in every way possible (if anything its arguable women have more rights nowadays) but it is not useless because when other women from countries like Saudi Arabia or somewhere in the middle east where women are not equal to men look for western countries and see how women are proud to be themselves voice their opinions strongly under a banner (feminism) they can put themselves under that same banner and rise above. while i understand that you "third world countries have nothing to do with this debate" written but it is a only valid reason that feminism in the west is still useful because they can look up to it. So my argument is, Feminism is useful because other people can look up to it, unite under a banner and feel powerful. By feel powerful what i mean is when any kind of person is in a group of people who you know are in the group because they share the same ideas (even though almost everyone agrees that both genders are equal) they feel empowered to share them and to be in that group.
Feminism is useless in the west now.

I firmly believe feminism has outlived it's usefulness in society and no longer has any use in the western world. Con will outline his beliefs in the first round and from there the debate will progress through 2 more rounds with the second and third rounds revolving around our reasons and any factual evidence we may have. To clarify this arguement concerns feminism in its current 3rd wave form in the western world so third world countries have nothing to do with this debate and neither does the past waves of feminism giving women the right to vote and etc. I already accept that those were necessary and thus they have nothing to do with this debate.
i dont know god, and only know is true

Well that's fallacy as we can see if it's Neccesarially Possible then is Neccessarially. Meaning that if it's possible it can happen in this case meaning that by this logic God has no choice, but to exist.Lies do exist, but this is irrelevant to the topic.Reality is happening and as reality is happening so is God.Only wise men know what they do not know.
Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

In promoting the general welfare the framers of the Constitution did not intend to create positive rights. The did intend to promote the general welfare by creating an environment where people are free from interference to pursue happiness. If a positive right to provide any service was intended by the founders it would have been provided by the state from the very beginning of our history. Pro asks questions such as, how do we define healthcare? This is why the marketplace should be left to it. Individuals should have ownership over their own care and people should come together voluntarily to help those in need not by force or compulsion. We either respect individual liberty or we don't. We say that free choice exists or it doesn't. With respect for free markets and individual liberty we can have great choice and innovation as I have demonstrated above. We can have government run systems and they can work, but they inherently violate basic human freedoms. In the end like I said it comes down to if we respect liberty or if we want blanket one size fits all solutions. The choice is ours to make.