BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

St. Anselm and his ontological argument is based on the rational (reasoning alone) epistemology (theory of how we know things, not empirical evidence (sensory data.) The two schools of thought in philosophy of how to gain knowledge (epistemology) is through either thought alone (rationalism) and empiricism (facts given by the senses.) No, no argument can EMPIRICALLY know that God exists. Science in our realm of existence cannot determine if God exists, because our science is based on the natural world, not the supernatural or spiritual. Even if you are basing your beliefs on empirical evidence in nature about the design argument for God, what comes after the facts is just reasoning. It doesn't mean that you can't prove that God exists in some way empirically, but not currently in this body. St. Anselm states that he is not powerful enough to understand God, because he is a mere mortal. Can we know everything about God through this argument? Nope, but we can, through the "greatest idea ever thought" know that there is a being that is sentient, timeless, eternal, capable of doing anything, omni-benevolent, unique and unequal to anything else, indestructible and the self existence of such a being is necessary in and of itself. For instance, we can think of a friend that helps us out and we think is cool. That maybe a great thought, but not the greatest idea ever thought that needs to exist, according to Anselm. Anything less than the "that which no greater thing can be thought" is not God. Even our own concept of God is not God, He or She is beyond all of us. I would say that my opponent is arguing from ignorance, he is saying that you can't prove something right because it is not based on information coming from the senses based on the fact that there is no factual evidence for the existence of God. [1] In addition, I would say that changing the subject is a red herring, or changing the subject to win the argument. [2] [1]https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2]http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Peyton manning is the greatest qb of all time

Accepted. I feel as if Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana are superior quarterbacks. Even Eli. If I can set the rules, I would say more super bowl wins = greater, so I win by default. Thank you for the round. In this round, I only have to prove one quarterback is greater than manning, as pro must defend that he is THE greatest, meaning there is none better. Since Eli, Brady, and Montana have more wins in the most important goal of the NFL, the Super Bowl, Peyton is thus not the greatest. I will make more arguments next round
Novice Tournament R1: The United States should implement a system of Single Payer health care.

Hello all! This is Round 1 of TUF's Novice Tournament, Abunai vs jopo. A special thanks to TUF for making this possible.The Resolution is as follows:The United States should implement a system of Universal, Single Payer health care. I will be arguing the pro side, and the burden of proof will fall on myself to show that the net benefits of Universal, Single Payer health care outweigh the potential negative consequences. Jopo will be arguing the con side, and must show that the net benefits of Universal, Single Payer health care do not outweigh the potential negative consequences. If con is able to successfully negate the resolve, she wins the debate.For the purposes of this debate, the following definitions will be used:Universal, Single Payer health care - A system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs through a single insurance pool. The system is funded through an increase in payroll taxes and all citizens are guaranteed access to care. In this debate, the model will be Canada's Medicare.should - ought to; indicative of an obligation or necessity.The debate format will carry out as follows:R1: Acceptance and definitionsR2: Constructives R3: Constructives/RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals/ClosingsThank you, and I look forward to a fun and educational debate!
Abortion

Psychopathy is a mental illness and an aberration of human behavior unlike sex, Which is a necessity for life. And psychopaths do often get reduced sentences and are spared of the death penalty. I understand where you are coming from when you say that parents should be responsible, But that's just not the society we live in, And I see abortion as a way to alleviate at least some of the suffering that exist. Is it reasonable to expect a child every time you have sex?
Abortion

If a psychopath had the natural instinct to kill or rape someone, Would that make it okay? Because it's natural? It is the parents fault if they are not mentally, Financially, Prepared etc. If you don't want a kid and are not ready for the responsibility then that is simple enough to not engage in sexual activity. Be a responsible and mature adult. Resist the temptation to do things that you know will ruin your future expectations and/or conflict with it. I am saying that adults should take full ownership of the choices that they freely make. This is the last round. We can have another debate if you would like (if you want, Free will). I do appreciate you engaging in this debate with me. Thank you for your time.
Abortion

I am basing that statement, "the vast majority of mothers do not have good justifiable reasons" on the research data from 2008 through 2010). Yes I agree being financially prepared is important. Which is why the mother AND father of the child should be financially and mentally/emotionally prepared for the responsibility. Everyone that gets involved in sexual activity knows and is aware of the possible outcomes of the situation. If you had voluntarily sex with someone you know what the possible consequences are. If you try to avoid taking responsibility of the unborn human and don't hold yourself accountable for one's actions then you are irresponsible, Insubordinate, And childish. I do not think that abortion is moral because of the known possibilities that mother and father are aware of when engaged in sexual activity.
Abortion

An unborn human does not have to voluntarily commit immoral behavior for the termination to be justified. Again, As long as being alive involves more suffering than not being alive it is morally acceptable to perform the abortion. You say that the vast majority of mothers do not have good justifiable reasons but how do you know this? This is something that only the mothers themselves are equipped to answer. Being not financially prepared is important, There is a correlation between money and suffering. Same for children of bad relationships and parents who are not emotionally prepared. Again, As long as being alive causes more suffering, The abortion is moral.
Abortion

It is not morally just to kill an unborn human because the unborn human has not attempted to voluntarily commit immoral behavior or actions to anyone. Death penalty, Euthanasia, Self-defense are irrelevant and do not apply or make it justifiable to kill an unborn human. The vast majority of mothers do not have good justifiable reasons to kill an unborn human so therefore it is immoral. According to research collected from 2008 to 2010, Reasons women choose to abort their child; not financially prepared (40%), Not ready/not planned (36%), Partner-related issues like bad relationships (31%), Needs to focus on other children (29%), Not emotionally/mentally prepared (19%), Interferes with educational/vocational plans (20%), Health-related reasons (12%), Not mature enough for baby (7%), Influenced from family or friends (5%), And doesn't want the baby or place it for adoption (4%). This survey has women use open-ended questions instead of a checklist. Willfully killing someone with full awareness of the purity with the unborn human is immoral. There is not justification for killing an unborn child due to the reasons women gave above (research collected from 2008 through 2010).
Abortion

At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human egg, Generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, A new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, The earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, Followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. The zygote consist of human DNA and other human molecules, It's nature is undeniably human not some other species. This DNA has a complete design. Guiding early development and even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood. Hair, Eye color, And even personality traits. It is clear that the earliest embryo is biologically alive meeting the following criteria; metabolism, Growth, Reaction to stimuli, And reproduction. The human zygote is a human organism. Scientists define a organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry out the activities of life by separately functioning but mutually dependent organs. The human zygote obviously fits this definition. "Zygote. This cell, Formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. Zyg tos, Yoked together), Represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote. " [Moore, Keith L. And Persaud, T. V. N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1993, P. 1] "Although life is a continuous process, Fertilization is a critical landmark because, Under ordinary circumstances, A new, Genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. . . . The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity. " [O'Rahilly, Ronan and MA533;ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, Pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, Describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]. At conception a baby's sex is decided boy or girl. 18-21 days after conception the baby's heart is beating.
Abortion

I am pro-life. Abortion is murder because life begins at conception, Unborn babies are humans that have the right to life. Pro-life with some exceptions which are; rape (unless mother wants to keep child), Mother's life, Mother's health, Incest, Fetal life, Fetal health. I am open to a discussion to an opposing side. I will give evidential arguments on rounds 2, 3, 4, And 5.
Gay Marriage

"You are comparing sexuality to race and food." I never compared sexuality to food I compared the fact that you don't follow the rules in that book of the bible about food and clothing to the fact that you do take the rule in that book about gays seriously. "In Deuteronomy it states that you can eat everything." This is actually correct in Deuteronomy it does say that you can eat anything but it also says in Leviticus that you can't eat many types of things from cats to camels to shell fish. This just shows a contradiction in the bible and is no surprise to me but contradictions in the bible is for another debate.Cherry picking.To clarify what I mean by cherry picking I am talking about when you take one rule in the bible seriously but not the rule written right next to it. You ignore the rules about shell fish and such because it isn't a relevant rule anymore so people don't talk about it or follow it. I doesn't mean that it isn't ok for you to reference the bible as it is totally relevant to your argument.The meaning of marriage and how people dressYour meaning of marriage doesn't matter because your definition of marriage is not a legal one it is a biblical which has no relevance to the law of the United States of America because of separation of church and state. The legal definition of eligible to vote used to not include women or blacks but that doesn't mean that the old definition was correct just because it was the old definition. How people dress shouldn't matter it is a free country and everyone can dress however they want to. Would you want the government telling you that you can't get married because they don't like the way you dress? The slippery slopeThis debate is not about incest or polygamy. They are completely different topics and could be debated another time. The slippery slop argument is also a logical fallacy.http://www.logicalfallacies.info...Also, I am trying to help peopleYof don't help people by taking away their right to marry. Also not as many as you think are against gay marriage as even the pope has said "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?". http://www.npr.org...I urge you as a catholic to listen to your infallible pope in this situation.Thanks again for not taking the time to read my argument. "sorry I didn't respond right away. I didn't want to read all of what you said." "Okay, so I am pretty sure you said something about love is love"
Gay Marriage

Okay, sorry I didn't respond right away. I didn't want to read all of what you said. You are comparing sexuality to race and food. In the Bible, in Deuteronomy it states that you can eat everything. It also says that in Genesis. Also, I am cherry picking from the Bible because that is one of the most relevant things right now. This affects me because, "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." is the meaning of marriage. And marriage has been around for a long time, but I doubt gay marriage was ever a thing. Also, if I ever had kids I would never want them around gay people. Not saying this is for all gays, but they dress improper. The fact that they are, "embracing their sexuality" in that way is odd. Okay, so I am pretty sure you said something about love is love and if you love someone you should get married to them. I don't know. But it was something along those lines. Anyway, if you believe that then you must also believe, polygamy, and a dad marrying a daughter or a daughter marrying her mother (both over 18), or a brother marrying his sister. And don't bring up the deformed babies and blah blah blah. They can adopt and so on. Just knowing a man and a man could marry each other is just as difficult as knowing a relative could marry a relative. Also, I am trying to help people. Being homosexual is just wrong. So, if I inform homos of Christianity and Catholicism, well then it's not shoving it down their throats. A lot of Christians and Catholics don't agree with being gay. Take the Christians who were putting up their signs that. "Homo Sex Is A Sin" or "God Hates F*gs". A lot of gays don't believe in God or Jesus Christ. So I don't see how Jesus accepting everyone is even relevant. They don't believe in him so, I find that an invalid argument. Sorry if I spelled anything wrong.
Gay Marriage

Both I suppose, they are both relevant to one another. First of all, being gay is wrong to start off. It goes against a lot of religions. I for one do not believe being gay is at all okay. In the Bible it clearly states that being gay is a sin and so on. It also states a woman and a man should get married. How does this affect you though? Homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down societies throats. The gay pride parade for one, the way they dress (feminine and masculine), and the most important reason, the meaning of marriage. Now that gay marriage has been legalized, the meaning has changed to include, "people of the same sex" getting married as well. It's offensive and shouldn't be taken lightly. Gay marriage is a sin and the only reason it was legalized was because of the lawyers. They argued mainly about feelings. And yes I do understand getting married means you have some exclusive rights, etc. But I do not thing homosexuals should have the right to those.
Gay Marriage

I believe that gay marriage is justified and should be allowed. I would like to argue that this issue is not a matter of whether you think gay marriage is wrong but rather a legal issue over whether your belief should affect the right that gay people should have to get married. I look forward to hearing your argument first and I will let you decide whether you want to debate the legalization of gay marriage or simply the idea of a gay couple getting married. I believe that I have convincing arguments for both topics and I will let you make your choice on what you want to debate. Good luck and I look forward to reading your argument.
The Belief in "white supremacy" is a religion

No my friend, That's not how this works. You accepted the challenge, The burden is on you to prove the context of what I presented exists. First you stated you were going to prove it in round 2. You didn't as it had nothing to do with the context. You presented irrelevant talking points. Now in the third round, You say don't have to prove anything. Your inconsistency is questionable. This debate is about at least one person demonstrating evidence. It doesn't work by just saying it's "self evident". That's abandoning your onus of the argument and it's circular. No you don't win as lynchings, Shootings and terrorism wasn't mentioned in the context. This is why I took the effort in explaining what I meant by so called white supremacy. You have not dealt with it at all in the context I laid out. So called whites get shot, Robbed, Killed, Raped and molested. But I'm obtuse. Corrupt things happen to them as well. Does that prove some type of worldwide dominated system that they're subjected to under mistreatment so that they're always disfavored? Not necessarily. What you bring up are heinous deeds committed by people to others and I can do the same thing by broaching what people do to others. But is there a conspiracy to mistreat and to always disadvantage a group of people daily, All day, Without exception, So that this group that's ever involved in anything always or mostly fails? Is there a system such as that in place? You have one more chance to deal with the actual context in this debate. It seems as though your neglecting or failing to comprehend the opening statement. The context of "WHITE SUPREMACY" for this discussion is supposedly a global prison system designed to tyrannize and to mostly serve in-justice to ALL people of "color/non-whites". What's going on in the news media is not indicative of this so called system. It is an indication of current events of everyday crime. So it's pointless in mentioning that as it won't help to prove it. You know this "system" is not designed to be proven superficially. It's supposed to be a very covert operation. So with all intents and purposes, It leaves a very thin almost non-existent trail to be verified. So many presuppose or only can presuppose it's existence.
The Belief in "white supremacy" is a religion

How does this relate to the definition I presented? The context didn't mention anything about terrorism or any political madness. Left wing/right wing whatever. The categories are "white, Non-white and white supremacists". No political parties, No U. S. Government but a world wide domination of non-whites. Prove that a prison system, A global government, White supremacy so called is dominating, Subjecting mistreatment to all those that are "non-white" day to day all day.
The Belief in "white supremacy" is a religion

White Supremacy exists you want proof fine A new terrorism database analysis shows almost two-thirds of the terror attacks in the United States last year were carried out by right-wing extremists. Researchers and journalists for the news site Quartz said they used data compiled by the Global Terrorism Database that has tabulated terrorist events around the world since 1970. The database is supported by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Affiliated with the University of Maryland. You want proof? You want me to have you count the corpses?
The Belief in "white supremacy" is a religion

So in this context, The definition of "white supremacy" is the world, The earth in a prison, Ran and dominated by the prison masters, The so called white supremacists. The world meaning the so called non-whites that are under complete domination by the so called white supremacists only. Now the opposing side that BELIEVES this to be true will actually have to prove that this is the case. See it plays as a religion because like many other religions, A lot is presupposed without actual evidence. I'll use factors to counter what most likely will be presuppositions. So not only we'll conclude that this is religious but by the end, It may be demonstrated that those that have this religion are in denial. Many that believe or hold this worldview practice this religion by acting and behaving in a bias fashion towards those that are "white". They believe there is an automatic, Instant power dynamic and that one person is automatically dominated by the other. That is a "non-white" anywhere in everything is subjected to a "white". Also the idea is to always suspect that most likely every "white" that is able to practice so called white supremacy is practicing it. At least there's a 99 % chance that they are. Again nothing but a religious ideology. Really a religion in denial. That is the context of this topic. (Please be sure to understand the essence of the debate prior to accepting. Make a comment, Send a message, Etc. This shouldn't have to be noted but individuals will put the cart before the horse).
bullying should be stopped

I mean, come on? Bullying is a huge problem all over the world. It needs to be taken care of. I'm going to use some quotes from what SerPete said in the "NO" column. "Chances are, the victim is not innocent himself"? What statistic did you get that from? And with all do respect (because I do not know you), who are you to judge whether or not bullying is deserved? Bullying shouldn't happen. That is it right there. If a school were to have a bullying situation in which they just said, "well, the victim deserved it", that would be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Schools have no right to judge that. Bullying should not happen. Innocence is not a question. It isn't to be judged. It is the ultimate truth. Bullying should not happen. If the victim was discovered to be bullying someone else, or breaking other rules in some way, then yes, they should be punished accordingly. But the bullies should not remain unpunished. They also need to be punished accordingly. "Teen suicide happens because of more than just bullying"? While that statement is true, not acknowledging and taking care of the huge part of teen suicide that is bullying is just being plain ignorant. It really is. "Well, I guess since bullying isn't the only cause of teen suicide, we don't really need to take care of it." That shouldn't be how it works. Bullying is killing people. It needs to be taken care of. There are so many schools that have bullying issues that the school administrations simply do not care to deal with. They don't want to "waste their time", so they continue to let it happen. I know someone who went to my high school who felt the need to leave in the middle of the year to take online school because they didn't feel safe from their bullies at the school. They were not only expecting the oral part of the bullying, you know, the calling names and the shouting at them, but they were also worried about the threats they were receiving. They had received threats involving weapons like bats and tasers. Since the school administration would not do much of anything to take care of the issue, they felt the need to leave the school and take school online instead. It was their senior year. Situations like this shouldn't happen. Every student should feel safe at their school. I don't even know why this would even be put in question. Bullying needs to be taken care of, for the safety and state of mind of the victims involved. This issue cannot be ignored. Please support anti-bullying. You can actually save lives