BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

While this has been a good little debate, and your last post seemed to have been the strongest you've made thus far in the debate to end what you had to say... I'm going to rebuttal some things you said, and retract a little on some things I said, and clarity before posting some information and ending. Yes, we are talking about the money reaching the same places. It's not surprising to anyone, sometimes that check you send out gets in the wrong hands, but for the most part, my posts have been strictly concerning the donations when reaching their intended places. You have just mentioned that again. I meant to say the mix ups that don't reach their intended places is irrelevant for this debate rather as you have not brought that up at all. I spoke about how more charity and more funds helped my town, like the highschool football team winning their first district title, and could speak more about the effect on more funds being sent just from that personal experience in this small town, but to continue on and move away from this topic and get right back on track here, it's important to note that the underlying problem here isn't necessarily the money being sent. It's the fact that children are unwilling to learn, and right down anything just to be done with it. (I don't think at one point in any of you posts, you acknowledged this, but merely said many factors impacting educational outcomes). Here's the thing, education is the grey area. You agreed that more funds would help most youtuber's with ideas, provide them with better equipment and maybe launch their success more (with the exception of some people like i already said which was theamazingatheist and a few others) but more importantly, you realized that giving more money more than enough helps the youtubers. Take James Rolfe for example, he's the guy who plays the Angry Video Game Nerd. He had a kick starter project to donate to in the cause of making an AVGN movie, and people donated, and he was able to make a full feature film (the film wasn't that good, but hey, some loved it, and it's an opinion, and this just some examples). Also, there have been countless numbers of streamers able to now do this as a full time job like they couldn't do before. So, education isn't the only charitable organization. Donating to the red cross and doubling that? Awesome. You can't deny that. Charity doesn't have to be strictly spending money, again like the red cross, it's still an charity organization. Just cause educational is a grey area in donations, doesn't mean that it's fail, but more so it remains to be a grey area. As I have already said more than once, now beating that dead horse over the head, I have said that the education is there for those who are serious, it's the problem of getting kids to learn. Also, it's worth noting, middle class families now struggle to send kids to college, and most go into debt, so middle class at this age is anything but a good entry. That is all.
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

Thanks for the comeback. I would respectfully disagree that where the money goes is irrelevant to the debate. The original debate proposition was not against charity itself but if the money continues to be allocated to the same places will more make that much of a difference. Something I did not have an answer to and so thanks for taking up the challenge and making the time to debate. Let's look at education. The US government spends over 500 billion a year on pre-university education. That is significantly more than the 40 or so billion a year in donations to education. What has the government done with that 500 billion. Americans are still ranked closer to the bottom of the list than the top when it comes to international league tables in some categories. No city in America {according to the head of the New York school system some years ago} has managed to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. Yes more students are going to university but many of them are from middle-income and high income families. Most of them would be going to university even without charity support. Most of those going to university are not students from low-income families Given that most of the money donated to education is not going to scholarships for the poor or the poorest schools or the small town schools like the one you talked about, I would argue that an increase in donations is not likely to change much. That is not to say donations don't do any good but is it a good return on investment. Given the return on 500 billion plus, I would argue that it is not a good return on investment. I would imagine that 40 billion or so might be getting an even lower return. {Unless of course they are spending it more effectively}. No doubt, those making films would benefit from more funds. In fact, a bit of good might come from all that. Film projects, job creation and the like. That said, most donations are not currently going there and if charity donations doubled {and continued to go where they currently go} most would not be going to those making films. Thanks for debating.
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

Where the money is going, and if it's getting to the correct source is a little irrelevant to this debate, I will not be arguing against this but if that's the issue for you, then I'm not sure what to say cause I'm talking strictly if the money reaches the intended organization. None the less, I will continue arguing my points about educational donations, as well as some workplace donations. As for educational outcomes, you asked how specifically would doubling, or even more would change them? Well, let me tell you firstly that the EDUCATION IS THERE. The money has been well spent on getting student's the education that they need provided they are willing to learn. If you back track within the last 50 years or so, you will see more and more are going to college since then. This is a fact. You can't just expect every student to learn, but the main thing is, all the tools they need are there, and getting more and more textbooks, having more money to give out scholarships is better, I mean, there is no way you can't say it's not better. I came from a very small school in a small town, where they could only afford to give one child a scholarship based on football. You can safely bet if they had more money, they would have given out more, again another fact. With that more money, the weight room would have been upgraded, the performance would have a increase and again this yet another fact that should be clear to see. Actually this year, that football team sadly won it's first district title, the school had spent more money on the weight room actually, and that helped those players greatly. (This is not made up, this is an actual story from where I live). So I'm able to see the change in what a little more money could achieve. Lets go to workplace donations for a moment, I might continue back with educational donations, but first, lets talk about all those youtuber's, or twitch streamers, and their kickstart or go funding pages. It's proven, the more money they got, the better it was used like camera's, and sound. Also, it provided most a source of income so they could be there to make more video's, and not have to be restricted due to some Mcdonald's job they were working before. The quality had gotten better for most, able to buy the props, the sets to help with green screening. Most now probably use Adobe After Effects or better, no having to be restricted to windows movie maker. Some went on for real TV shows (like the annoying orange I believe, but there are quite a few). Only a few cases such donations didn't help the youtubers like (theamazingatheist) who spent his money wrongly and ripped off fans, but just because ONE BAD APPLE is odd from the others, doesn't intrinsically make all the other apples bad, they're still delicious. I don't even have to comment on actual workplaces cause it's proven that more donations = better. Look at the world trade center now that's been rebuilt.... Way stronger than before, built more safely.
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

Thanks for accepting. I agree that donating to charity is good. Although where it is going and likely to keep going, I have an issue with that. I would argue that it is not so much about baby steps {at least not in all cases}. I would argue that the money is not likely to change much for society by as much as we might think, even if the money was increased. The biggest chunk of money goes to places of worship for example. Would a doubling or even a tripling of that money really make that much of a difference to America? As the purpose of the donation may be more about funding the overhead of places of worship and the like. {At least some or most of the time} Not ending poverty. As you pointed out, there are many factors impacting educational outcomes. So, how would a doubling or even quadrupling change that? The government spends much more on education than is donated to education and even they have not been able to end the achievement gap between white and minority students, etc. A fair amount of educational donations go to universities and a relatively small number of rich universities get quite a bit. Would more money to them really make much of difference to education in general. {Depending on what they did with it of course}. Human Services gets the third most money which includes poverty relief. Given that getting a job can help, how are poverty relief charities going to address that? Considering that many of them don't focus on job creation and might not even with more because their focus may lie elsewhere. Improving the pay and conditions of poor workers, how much power would a charity have to do that, even with more money? Unions, with more money and politicians have struggled to get that done.
Impossibility exists

This debate has been initiated multiple times on DDO, with the win going to both pro and con.[1][2] I hope this debate will be fun for all parties involved and am open to suggestions regarding the rules (and definitions) of this debate. But please do not dispute them in-round.Debate Rules:· Each debater will have 72 hours to post an argument· Each argument will have a maximum of 8,000 characters· The voting period will be one week· A dropped point is a concession· Even if a point is easily refuted, if the debater does not refute it, it stands as truthAll other rules should be covered in their respective sections.Definitions:Impossibility* - Incapable of existing or occurring, an alternative that is not available[3]Exist - To have real being whether material or spiritual[4]Paradox - A situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities[5]Definitions are not to be disputed within the debate, as these seem fair to both sides while still respecting the intent of this debate (at least to me). I would hope no arguments will hinge upon the definitions provided above, as I chose these with respect to common usage and context. If you wish to challenge any definitions provided or suggest new ones (for words previously defined or undefined here), please send me a private message.*I do not wish to have a definitional debate. Although this definition explicitly states that impossibility is "[i]ncapable of existing...", I'd assume both debaters know what this debate is intended to entailFormat:Round 1: Acceptance and questions of clarificationRound 2: Opening arguments and rebuttalRound 3: Rebuttal and closing statementsCon shall not make new arguments in round three for two reasons:A. Pro will be unable to respondB. Pro and con have each had one refutation at this point (Pro could not refute Con's points in round two). It is only fair to give an equal number of chances to refute points to Pro and Con.Burden of Proof:Pro will endeavor to show that impossibility exists. Con will endeavor to show that impossibility does not exist. If Pro provides one example of impossibility purportedly existing that is not adequately refuted, he has shown that impossibility exists in at least that one instance.Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Impossibility exists

I would offer Con another chance to rebut my points because I doubt he intentionally forfeited, but his next round is the final round of the debate. He would be giving one rebuttal more than Pro and Pro would not have any chance to attempt to refute his claims. Voting Issues· Con forfeited his only speech I would get a chance to respond to. · All we have to grade Con's spelling and grammar on is "I accept. Let's see those big, pretty arguments. Lay 'em on me, big boy. "; I would put S/G as equal with such a small sample size for Con. · Con agreed in accepting that "[a] dropped point is a concession". He also agreed that "if the debater does not refute [a point], it stands as truth". All my arguments should be viewed as complete truth and conceded. Also, he made no arguments. · Con used no sources. Pro did.
Waffles are totally amazing?!?!?!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo waffles!
atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

This debate is over Christianity vs Atheism. There is a debate over what Genesis means from pre-Darwinian Church fathers to today. He ignores this saying that he wants to interpret it all in a literal sense. I believe he picks and chooses to show the Bible in the worst light possible. I take the Bible as a whole in context (literary -what does the Greek and Hebrew say?- and historical) It is because of this, many debates have taken place in Christianity for about 2000 years. He did answer my questions. Here is my point, to explain to something to someone who does not have knowledge of the subject requires the use of analogies. These analogies have limits in their explanatory power. I believe he answers my questions with circular reasoning with no foundation to base logic, uniformity of nature, senses, reasoning or morality on. When I quoted the scientist in the article Truth in Science was from his own article that he shared which means that the authors of his own sources article show uncertainty about the origin of life. In conclusion, if you would like know know the hope that is only found in Christ, please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want to talk to me please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com... If you want to debate me, please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want me to be a guest speaker,please go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com... Thank you for your participation, God bless!
atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

If you are going to analyze Christianity honestly (which I don't know that you willing to do), you have into account Christian scholarship on these issues. Your refusal to do so would show me and the audience that you are dishonest. Look at what the church fathers said on these issues. You still have not answered my rebuttal on the flat earth. I have asked you a simple question and I will ask it again. Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today? Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand? Scientists do this all the time when they write books. They try to explain their research to lay people who have not done the research that they have did. For this cause the reader may not fully understand their research. Your answers to the questions are circular. You answer is that the laws of logic are necessary. This tells me nothing. How did they originate? You answer the question of the uniformity of nature with the laws of physics. Again, this tells me that the laws of physics exists because the laws of physics exist. You answer your senses and reasoning with chemical reactions. How do you know these chemical reactions are reliable? If morality is not objective and absolute, then you have no objection to the Biblical verses you mentioned or child marriage or polygamy. It is different strokes for different folks. I will answer these Bible verses in the comments if my opponent wishes. If you want to learn about the fatal flaws of the Miller Urey experiment I recommend Icons of Evolution or In the Beginning by: Dr. Walt Brown. In the article he cited called Truth in Science, if you read the article shows that there are more problems with this experiment. The article concludes, "Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote, You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present" Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, " it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public." I will now allow my opponent to respond.
atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

My opponent starts off by claiming that the Christians claim that the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days. Obviously this is proven to be false by the next statement he makes about the big bang. Let me give you give you a little history lesson on the big bang theory. The big bang was first theorized by Georges Lamaitre who was ironically a Catholic preist around 1927 proposed what became known as the Big Bang Theory. The predominate theory at the time was what was called the steady state universe theory which means that the universe eternally existed with no beginning and no end. Even Einstein fudged his equations to allow for an eternal universe. Genesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth." thousands of years before the big bang theory was first theorized. Second the ministry Reasons to Believe and BioLogos believe that we can reconcile the modern scientific theories with Christian faith. I am currently siding with the yon This debate is not about Young Earth Creation vs Evolution, so I won't respond to his proofs for evolution but if he wants to debate YEC vs evolution I will be able to provide my answer to most of them. I will spend most of my time responding to his accusations against Christianity itself. He claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth. I assert the Bible is not making a scientific statement that the earth is flat, but the Bible is speaking from the observer's point of view. He quoted all kinds of verses saying that there is a contradiction in the Bible where it talks about nobody can see God and people actually saw God. First scholars like Allen Segal and Wesley Muhammad interestingly show from Jewish and Christian tradition and scripture that there seems to be a binatarian or trinitarian nature to God. In the coming responses I can talk more about this if my opponent wishes. My oppenent brings up an interesting verse 2 Peter 3:8 which says that to God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. Isaiah 55:8-9 sums this up beautifully which means that we cannot understand a triomni God fully. But lets do something crazy lets apply this type of argumentation to my opponent's worldview. When I ask questions about the origin of the universe or life itself. Most atheists would tell me that science would figure it out one day. This is puts some optimism in the atheists mind. When atheists ask trivial questions about the nature of God and we respond with the same type of answer, Christianity become subject to ridicule. Lets apply even scales to our argumentation.
atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

I would like to start off by responding to my opponent's assertion that Christianity's claims contradict truth and reasoning. First there has not been a definition of truth given yet in this opening statement which would determine how I would handle the rest of this debate. Second I would claim that the Christian worldview would give a foundation for truth facts and reasoning where atheism doesn't. I will expand on this throughout the rest of this debate. My opponent has yet to demonstrate his claim or give examples but merely gives an assertion. I will end this opening statement in hopes that this will be a debate of substance instead of the debates that I am used to on social media with atheists
Gay Marriage

I am obviously heterosexual, and was pro-gay marriage for the past few years, but I've come to realize that gay marriage is not wholly beneficial to society at large. Before I begin my debate, I would also like to clarify not all arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, as I am agnostic and still oppose it. I assume BoP is shared. Since there are no rules on when we can begin contentions, I will begin them upon my own initiative:1. Marriage is, naturally, the union of man and womanMy opponent believes that the "it isn't natural" argument is a fallacy, but I find that it is not. Marriage as an institution was created many millennia ago, and has been the almost universal tradition until recent decades. Marriage was created to reflect our biological imperatives that best resulted in the survival of our species. Marriage was created to be for heterosexual couples, as they can procreate children and raise them to be productive members of society. Thus, the matrimony of man and woman is best suited for humanity, and should be protected.2. Animals may exhibit homosexual behavior, but this does not mean it's due to orientationMy opponent has stated that "homosexuality is found in hundreds upon hundreds of species on earth", but they never asked why. Animals perform sexual acts for more than sexual attraction. Simon LaVey, a homosexual scientist, also stated that "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world [. .. ] homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. "[1] Animals perform homosexual acts as a result of other instincts than love, such as dominance. These findings show that homosexuality among animals (i. e. , the attraction to the same-sex) is rare, and is not as natural as my opponent suggests. [1] Levay, Simon. Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, p. 207
Gay Marriage

I am heterosexual and am pro Gay marriage. The argument "it isn't natural" is a fallacy. Not only is homosexuality found in hundreds upon hundreds of species on earth, but how many times have you seen two dogs get married? The entire concept of marriage is that two (or more) people who love each other very much can be together 'till death do they part'. Marriage should know no boundaries, social or otherwise, and not allowing gays to be wed is discrimination and a violation of there human rights to get married. Religion being used as an excuse is also a demonstrably shallow and incorrect argument, as all religious books are outdated and religion itself is becoming all but an anachronism. The bible, for example, may be anti-gay, but also forbids: Shaving, cutting of the hair; eating shellfish; and getting tattoos. I find it hilarious how Christians choose what parts of the bible to listen too (and only acknowledge the parts which benefit their views). In conclusion, allowing non-heterosexual human beings to get married is a human right, and not allowing them to get married is a violation of them